Redstate

The real question now Congressman, is can we capture enough of these moments on tape to communicate what the Dems are really saying vis-a-vis what the MSM will report.

That was when a few of the nations's most powerful special interest groups replaced state and local leaders of the Party in using primary elections to select its candidates for President and other federal offices. Instead of political bosses selecting the candidates in smoke-filled back offices, the members of the boards of directors of corporations like the teachers' unions had both the primary election day workers and funds to choose the Party's candidates. Delegates to the Party's presidential nominating convention represent their special interest groups and no one else. The purpose of these groups is to advance the causes of their dues-paying members and not the nation.  The organized power of these groups gives them 100% control over all Democratic Party primary elctions.  To  win in November, the groups then allow the winners to campaign as if they they cared about non-members of the groups that own them.

have gotten to that level and not be able to differentiate between terrorism and terrorizing?

Congressman Kingston,

While I am very troubled by what Howard Dean has recently said, I am not sure why you refer their statements as being "liberal".

Spreading democracy through nation building, what we are trying to do and God-willing suceed in Iraq, is traditionally a "liberal" cause.

While I am in favor of you denouncing the statement of Howard Dean, I think that the use of the word "liberal" is quite inappropriate in this instance.

He's really a Congressman. And he's our guest. Snark him again and you're gone.

Could you stop calling American left-wing Democrats liberals?

Terrorists terrorize.

Do you really think the incredibly nuanced and French looking Senator from MA would be so careless in is word choice?

Maybe. His point was certainly idiotic, but he's got a long history of smearing the troops...Jenghis Khan and all that.

And articulate your point.

Don't just throw your stone. Explain why we shouldn't call the American left "liberals"

Because lefties have got nothing to do with liberalism (small government, capitalism, individual freedoms, individuality and so on).

How many lefty politicians would publicly identify as liberal...not many.

Sure the term once meant something noble, but not today.

The Congressman uses the term correctly.

are you one of those who are wanting to split hairs when it comes to the definitions of 'liberal', 'leftist', and 'Democrat'?  What purpose does that serve other than to just be tedious?  Generally here and elsewhere, including the lefty sites, these terms are used interchangeably, and nobody gripes about it.  

The word 'liberal', when used to describe 'liberal democracies', takes on a different, and less often used, definition.  The things you described as 'liberal' might apply to that definition.  They most certainly do not apply to American leftism.  So get off the Congressman's back.

I think you may be missing the point.

I don't know what Howard Dean or John Kerry meant by their statements. They're Democrats, and I long ago gave up trying to understand them.

However, the point is that no one with any intelligence questions the ability of United States military to perform the task for which it was designed. The U.S. military can seek out, close with, and destroy the enemy as well as or better than any other fighting force in the history of the world.

But can the U.S. military build a nation? That is what 'winning' this war means at this point. We have to take a multi-ethnic cauldron of sectarian violence and turn it into a showcase for Democracy.

Our success greatly depends on the Iraqis themselves, and that is something over which we simply don't have a lot of control. Witness the comments by the Iraqi Vice President, "But al-Yawer said recent allegations that Interior Ministry security forces - dominated by Shiites - have tortured Sunni detainees were evidence that many forces are increasingly politicized and sectarian. Some of the recently trained Iraqi forces focus on settling scores and other political goals rather than maintaining security, he said. In addition, some Iraqi military commanders have been dismissed for political reasons, rather than judged on merit, he said.

He said the army - also dominated by Shiites - is conducting raids against villages and towns in Sunni and mixed areas of Iraq, rather than targeting specific insurgents - a tactic he said reminded many Sunnis of Saddam Hussein-era raids."

al-Yawer is a secular Sunni running on a combined slate with Iyad Allawi, a secular Shiite who has also made comments about the negative situation of human rights inside Iraq at the present time.

Is this exaggeration?

It very likely could be, since a campaign is on. But the way many Americans and citizens of the world see it, the current VP of Iraq and our former hand-picked PM are both saying that the situation is far from rosy and that major problems exist on the ground. That carries a lot of weight.

Sure, Dean and Kerry are nitwits. But that doesn't mean that there aren't issues to be dealt with. It also doesn't mean that the American people will continue indefinitely to carry out an occupation if we are not getting the required amount of legitimate cooperation from our allies.

to E Pluribus Unum's response above

The word 'liberal', when used to describe 'liberal democracies', takes on a different, and less often used, definition.  The things you described as 'liberal' might apply to that definition.  They most certainly do not apply to American leftism.

Label their policy positions instead.  I certainly DO NOT believe that just because a person has an R next to him that he or she is a "conservative" (as seen by our spending bills).

I believe that our policy in the Middle East is quite liberal.  It's the same policy that Clinton took in Kosovo.  It's nation building.  There's nothing wrong with that.  It is desparately needed, and we desparately need to succeed in the long run.  But, it's certainly not conservative.  

Dean and Kerry are pushing (for political reasons of course)a more paleo-conservative policy.

So, I would prefer if the Congressman said that the Democratic Party is being led by Pessimists.

taken the time, let me say:

Thanks.

Thanks for going to Iraq with an open mind.

Thanks for bringing back the message.

Thanks for sharing it here with us on RedState.

nuanced.....like using the word "Hijacked"?

I don't doubt your point though.  Sen. Kerry was making a point by using that word.  So was the Congressman.

The REAL question regarding Sen. Kerry's statement is:  what type of personal liberty are the Iraqi's going to have?  Are they going to have protected liberty interests like we do with our 4th Amendment?  

and has been since his testimony before congress in 1971. According to my dictionary, one of the definitions for treason:

A violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state.

TREASON, SEDITION mean disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government. TREASON is any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance. According to the U.S. Constitution, it is the crime of levying war against the U.S. or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. SEDITION is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or the constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense.

Someone please explain to me how Kerry's comments on Face the Nation do not meet the definitions above.

The Iraqi people will have all the liberty that they are willing to fight and die for.

How many lefty politicians would publicly identify as liberal...not many.

Sure the term once meant something noble, but not today.

Both the term and its definition should have remained the same and they have - at least everywhere except in America where socialists stole the term to avoid being labelled as commies.

And this is not meant to be a sign of disrespect toward the congressman. He's right in what he's saying about the war and the left but it's just the misuse of the term that I don't like.

But can the U.S. military build a nation?

Frankly I think the would have done a better job at it than the State Department and the Coalition Provisional Authority did.

...to Mirandize Al-Zarqawi when they catch him.

Baghdad ain't Kansas, Toto.

To win this debate, we're gonna need ten Kingstons to every Murtha.  I hope you can get more colleagues to publicly join you in traveling to Iraq and collecting firsthand accounts.

Let's forget liberal and conservative, by now they're just epithets anyway. We might as well forget about "Wilsonian" while we're at it.

Our policy in Iraq is NOT AT ALL like Clinton's in Kosovo. He was engaging in low-risk military activity because he needed to create the perception that he had ideas and was doing something worthwhile with his Presidency. Nation-building had nothing whatsoever to do with it, since the commitment level was completely negligible. Clinton was engaged in showing good intentions, and he was richly rewarded for it.

Our mission in Iraq is totally different. We are engaged in a high-stakes, high-risk venture of creating freedom and democracy (which are not the same thing) in a part of the world which has never had either. And we're doing it because it advances our most critical national interests. And we're getting no respect for any of it among the idiots who rewarded Clinton's good intentions.

Dean and Kerry are pushing personal political agendas. Nothing more, nothing less. I won't have any kind of debate on what they're thinking in terms of national, foreign and military policy. That's because they're not either.

I would prefer the Hon. Congressman keep talking in any way we pleases, so long as he keeps on talking. I'm delighted to have him as an honored guest here.

The absurd consequences of their theory makes them a permanent source of public entertainment. What will now make "Progressives" the butt of jokes is their effort to establish a "Detainee Bill of Rights" for suspected homicide bombers captured in the U.S.A. No longer deterred by fear of the consequences of being captured in the U.S.A., sleeper homicide bombers will be tempted to come out of their American closets and kill a few dozen civilians across the U.S.A.. Public outrage will the compel them to adopt a new benign sounding alias.

When a person is consistently leftist, it is pointless to scrupulously avoid calling that person leftist.  And it's needlessly argumentative to insist that others do so.  Here at RS most of us conservatives are well aware that "R"  does not make one conservative, and we have the millions of blog-words to prove it.  You did not unearth a brand new astounding truth.

I believe that our policy in the Middle East is quite liberal.  That's your opinion, but might I note that pretty much the entire Democrat party disagrees with you.  As does most of the GOP.  Whatever Clinton did is irrelevant.  He did what the polls told him to.  

So I say again, get off the Congressman's back.  The leftist/liberal position, as is daily preached by the press and by  prominent Democrats including the DNC chair, is well-known, and it is NOT in favor of nation-building in the Middle-East.

"what type of personal liberty are the Iraqi's going to have?"

Let's see the complete sentence of that quote of Kerry's on Bob Schieffer's show:

   "there is no reason, Bob, that young  

    American soldiers need to be going into

    the homes of Iraqis in the dead of the

    night, terrorizing kids and children, you

    know, women, breaking sort of the customs

    of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical

    customs, religious customs, whether you

    like it or not.  Iraqis should be doing

    that."

If we were not there to guide the Iraqis to some form of democracy, Kerry would get his wish and the Iraqis would really be breaking into homes and terrorizing their own people just as they did before we came. What kind of personal liberties do you think they had then?  

There are all forms and styles of democracy.  They don't have to have 4th Amendment rights like ours to escape from the clutches of tyranny.

TXPop, I'm not trying to be really hateful and argumentative.  I just think you are way  off-base.  If I come across hateful, then I apologize for being so acerbic.  I still mean what I say in terms of the substance though.  But for a fellow Texican, well, surely a round of beers or DP would always be welcome.

First, I'm no Kerry apologist. I think he's a pompous windbag with an over-developed sense of entitlement and I wish he'd stop sending me spam.

But to get to your question, let's break it down.

"disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government." - Well, I think he was asked to testify before Congress (if not, I apologize), so you can't really say that's treacherous.

"any attempt to overthrow the government or impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance." - I really don't think anyone believes John Kerry was trying to overthrow the government but you might have something here if you can convince anyone that he was trying to impair the well-being of the state by testifying.

"it is the crime of levying war against the U.S. or giving aid and comfort to its enemies." - Again, was John Kerry levying war against the U.S.? By testifying in front of Congress? I think not. What about giving aid and comfort to the enemy? Well, if making statements that the enemy can use as propoganda is giving aid, then yes he did. As did several of our elected officials currently in office including the President and Secretary of State.

Now let's look at Sedition:

any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or the constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility or disaffection - Again, Kerry testified before Congress so you can hardly say he said what  he did unlawfully.

So in the end, did John Kerry try to overthrow the government or did he just say some things that people didn't want to hear?

Or are you suggesting that unpopular speech should be illegal?

I know, I know, if it helps the enemy it should be illegal but then I would point you to Condi and Texas Governor Bush's comments on Kosovo.

And give kudos to the congressman.

And I have a couple of questions.

How many other congressman are on the junket, and are they also posting on the internet?

Is the congressman hooking up to the net through a U.S. forces line, or does Iraq have access to the net? This is important, because the free spread of ideas is important to the country's continuation to democracy.

Thanks and keep up the good work, and stay safe.    

progressive = liberal.  Your definition is closer to libertarian than liberal.

it is the crime of levying war against the U.S. OR giving aid and comfort to its enemies

The key part was or. Kerry certainly has given aid and comfort to our enemies, including the shrine the communists built for him in Saigon.

So to continue, how was his comment on FTN not giving aid and comfort to our enemies, namely the terrorist and insurgents?

I'm a liberal, I don't run from the word despite the best efforts to tar the term, and like conservative, it embraces a wealth of different positions, some noble, some despicable.  I had a poster in college that had Kennedy giving a speech below a gigantic banner that said "vote liberal!"  Alas....

Kerry used an active verb, saying it was the U.S. troops doing the terrorizing.  The grammar flunkies on the left are trying to say that Kerry used the word as in "the children were terrified" (as if from a nightmare), completely ignoring the distinction between active and passive voice, and between verbs and adjectives.

Now Kerry can say he made a verbal blunder and meant to say something different, more nuanced, (we all make mistakes), and I'd forgive him for this. But the fact remains that his statement, as it now stands, actually accuses U.S. troops of terrorizing children.

Because American soldiers shouldn't be doing that.  Right?  Or should they?  What are we actually arguing about here?  Anybody lay their hands on a full text - I'm curious about context.

Go back and read my rant (It's wordy, sorry).

If making statements that the enemy can use as propaganda is giving aid then yes, Kerry is a traitor.

And as I said that lumps a whole lot of current administration officials into that same group.

And how is Kerry giving comfort to the enemy when Vietnam builds a shrine to him? Did he commission it?

Again, I'm not trying to make excuses for a man that I don't even like but the hypocrisy on both sides of the isle is deafening.

you are not suggesting that anything which causes terror is terrorism in the Osama bin Ladin sense of the word.

I won't pretend to know the workings of the heart of John Kerry but I read that as a synomym for "frightening" and nothing more. I imagine that if he'd wanted to compare the troops to terrorists he could have been a lot more explicit. What purpose is served by being elliptical about it?

There are many points on which one could object to that statement but "calling the troops terrorists" doesn't strike me as one of them. I think a far more useful complaint is that breaking into homes in the middle of the night is not an accurate way to describe our mission over there.

The verb terrorize can be used in the active voice to mean inspiring fear.  The opposing defense terrorized the quarterback all day long.  My dog terrorizes the local cats when he barks at them through the fence.  The Feds terrorized the Gonzales family when they raided the house to take Elian back to Cuba.  Two definitions, both verbs.  Don't take my word for it, try Google out.  Obviously, it can be used as an adjective, (gotta love the English language) but both forms are valid.

I'm sure US troops do terrorize people when they conduct raids.  I would be scared crapless if a bunch of armed guys burst through the door.  It doesn't mean that's their intent, but it is undoubtedly a side effect.  Artillery should terrorize every mere mortal on the planet (Steel Rain, baybeeee!)

Just as we provided the sole means for existence of Kuwait from the period 1992-2003; our Armed Forces will provide the sole means for the existence of Iraq as a sovereign state instead of territories seized by Turkey, Syria, Jordan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

This gives us enormous leverage. It is not complete and decisive control but it's not trivial.

The same applies without saying for Bosnia, Kosovo as well. As the risks externally and internally lessen, we will be less needed and pressure will build to leave on all sides. See: South Korea, Germany, Japan.

I remember some kind of fight over delegate selection and numbers of delegates allowed at one of the closer conventions-- 76? 80?, but I agree, the Democrat leadership stopped representing the people when they replaced their good ol' fashioned demogogues with apparatchiks-- not surprising given that modern Democrats are Leninist refugees.

Identity politics is not only bad for the nation, but in the end it is bad for its increasingly specialized partisans.

I certainly haven't seen any Republicans calling American soldiers terrorists. This isn't the only time Kerry has made his anti-American comments.

Thank God we don't have him as our president.

the democrat party of President John Kennedy's era, which embraced much of 'classic' liberalism's core philosophy, failed to survive the 60's anti-war movement.  

You think American soldiers are terrorizing Iraqis? Of course we should believe everything Kerry says.

As far as context, I don't know how a statement such as this:

"There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children..."

could be taken out of context.

If you go back and read his 1971 testimony and his appearance on the Dick Cavett show at the same time you will realize this is a page from his 34 year old playbook.

Dick Cavett transcript

Congressional testimony transcript

You're sitting on a plane bound for Fargo where your in-laws are waiting to entertain you with two weeks of Bingo and bad breath.  The pilot suddenly decides he'd rather take you to Fiji for two weeks of sunshine and backrubs from island girls.  Is that really a hijacking?

The Democratic party, with very few exceptions, is heading exactly where they want to go.

over 100 years ago.

As far as "liberal" is concearned, there are "classical liberals" and "modern liberals". The former favor free markets and individual rights, the latter are just leftists.

The bottom line: you can call it toilet, restroom, bathroom, whatever . . . the meaning catches up. Leftists can call themselves progressives, liberals, whatever . . . the meaning will catch up.

I do believe Iraqi citizens are undoubtedly terrorized by military action.  What civilian population wouldn't be scared to death of an ongoing military operation in their neighborhood.  I do not think this is the intent of the US military, but rather incidental to their appropriate attempt to end the resistance.  

I agree with Kerry's point that the US shouldn't be intentionally terrorizing the general citizenry as its primary goal, and I do not think they are, at least under normal circumstances.  If, as some of you are saying, Kerry is saying this is a stated policy or goal, or is what is usually happening, then I disagree with him to that extent.  Not sure if this clarifies or confuses what I was trying to say above, but there's my whack at it.

"American radicals and socialists began calling themselves `liberals'."  F.A. Hayek, 1960.

Not to be confused with the liberal values that attended the founding of this nation.

Liberal has become an antonym of itself.  This was a delberate step by the radicals and socialists to confuse the issue.  If Democrats changed the name of their party to "Socialists", or if they called themselves "elite socialists" instead of "elite Liberals", they would enjoy much less support than they do now.  This was and is simple dishonest propaganda.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea is NOT a democracy.

Kennedy embraced the New Deal, which ain't "classic" liberalism by any stretch of the imagination.  I'm not a "classic" liberal either, a term which most appropriately describes modern free-market conservatism, sans social issues.

the 'democrat party' of President Kennedy's era, not President Kennedy.  

But the Democratic party was also the party of the New Deal, not just Jack.  I just don't think you're right on this account.  But hey, that's what make the internet fun....

Kerry would sensitively allow terrorists safe haven if they hide behind women and children as they kill our's in NYC.

We terrorize the enemy, some of whom are Iraqi citizens. Sometimes, God forbid, we even kill the enemy.

WE ARE AT WAR. As you appear to realize. But surely you realize that Kerry had no evidence that we intentionally terrorize women and chilren that are not being used as sheilds for terrorists?

He was intentionally impugning the administration by suggesting they would do that, which he knows is not true. You do realize that right?

But Kerry has said he thinks we should treat this mainly as an intel law enforcement matter. Of course, police raid homes all the time in America to get fugitives and bust crimnals.

Kerry would say that the police are terrorizing American women and children.

Would kerry have not bombed Saddam, Hitler if women and children were around. You realize that we are dealing with a man and a party that is only concerned with re-gaining their power no matter the consequences to the nation partly because the underestimate the threat.

At base, kerry is re-living his 1971 testimony which essentially is that we should not fight a war or should refrain from fighting in it in such a way as to ever risk the killing or even scaring innocent people.

That, of course, is to guarantee that we would be taken over by a foreign power in fairly short order or at least that we would never take action against a gathering threat, or even one that attacked us on our soil until they had grown large enough to launch an invasion, and even then we could only fight if he is willing that american innocents die collateraly at our hands.

basically, its pacifism

or hatred of america

of a bi-partisan group in Congress that included Nixon, that favored rolling back much of the New Deal.

Not tonight. Too tired. But I would like to discuss classic liberalism vs the modern day version as well as  the incorporation of much of classic liberalism into what we call conservatism today, which is partially due to the neo-conservatives.

You might find Borks discussion of radical egalitarianism and radical individualism in "Slouching..." in this regard. I had a conservative epiphany in 6/2001 partially due to reading Bork and other conserrvative writers spurred by years of growing disgust in the dem party that I was a leader in for 20 yrs and even a county party chair.

I realize now that I was never the liberal I claimed to be mainly due to race issues and the desire to be seen as caring about the poor, no matter the results of lib policies.

Would love your thoughts on this and then can reply tomorrow.

read what you're writing for petes sake!!!!!  Look at the tortured logic,look how one of you had to break it down sentence by sentence and say, well, it could have meant this or it could be read this way.

Lets call a spade a spade:  this  man made his name slandering the US military and giving aid, comfort AND most importantly, ENCOURAGEMENT to the enemy.  34 years later he is doing it again.  He used the word terrorized; not frightened, or scared or discomforted, terrorized.  He said what he meant and he meant waht he said.

The people of Massachussetts should be ashamed of themselves.

embraced much of 'classic' liberalism's core philosophy, because I understand the party was changing prior to the 1960's.  (Class of '72 for referencing my personal experiences.)

The point I was trying to make is: The substantial, but not entirely, classical liberal philosophy, to the extent that philosophy applied to the democrat party which preceeded President John Kennedy, did not survive the anti-war movement of the late 1960's.  ;>)  

we mean that it is as serious as we suggest until they are shamed and shunned for saying what they do by us and their colleagues.

This will require great courage for the gop senate club because if one truly believes that they are unpatriotically, even bordering on treasonous (albeit not technically treason as defined under the Constitution so long as the speech is non-conspiratorially adhering speech), that aids and abets the enemy and likely to embolden them to fight longer and therefore cost american lives, THEN

one does not not mince words and maintain cordial relations with such a person.

The GOP appears to be moving slowly in that direction but if we want top wrench this nation out of its naivete born of ignorance born of 60 years since a war we won and how one wins, as well as the false history producing the vietnam weenies,

then we have to act like its WWII.

I am willing.

Isn't it clear that the Democratic Party IS exclusively the club of liberal extremists and, forgive the euphemisim, assorted lost people?

John Kerry does not feel the urge to attack our troops?  Imagine that someone who says these types of things sought the presidency.  How do you think morale in the armed forces would be if they were under his command.

So pretty much everyone here seems to be of the opinion that if you call for withdrawl of US troops, you are a traitor and are helping embolden the enemy, correct?

So what would you call a person running for President that says if elected he would quickly withdraw troops from the Balkans? You think the enemy doesn't have access to CNN?

So what is that person? Are they an enemy of the US? Are they a traitor? Somehow I don't think I'm going to get an answer because we all know who I'm talking about and the shoe is on the other foot.

The difference between "There is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children..." and "if elected, I would quickly withdraw troops from teh Balkans."

FTR, I opposed the comments of many Republicans in the late 90s on the Balkan issue.

I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the differences between Iraq and Kosovo.

My point is, these politicians (on both sides) are doing what politicians have always done and will always do. They'll take statements, soundbites, etc and twist them to fit their message.

When the Dems are in power all the statements they're making now while be dug back up and people will say "But back in 05 you said...." Same thing on the other side of the aisle. Suddenly "stay the course" won't be so fashionable when a Democratic President gets us into something.

What amazes me is how we manage to act shocked when politicians do what politicians do.

Not the difference between the conflicts, the difference between the statements. Seriously, it's like I'm not even speaking English.

And yes, I'm a cynic, too. Huzzah for us. I'll still take my crooks over your crooks.

In the instant case Kerry did not call for the withdrawl of troops. He called American soldiers terrorists. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Kerry is a disgrace to the United States Senate and a disgrace to the United States of America. I find it incredible that anyone would have the guts to defend the blatant anti-American comments he has made lately. He is no patriot.

The Dems keep patting themselve on the back for deftly brushing aside any controversy over the lurid quotes springing forth daily from the lips of their leaders:

Technically, "terrorize" is different from "terrorism".

Technically, our troops "terrorize" innocents.

Technically, "hereby terminated" is not the same as "immediately withdraw".

Technically, we cannot win in Iraq, because we cannot capture and kill every insurgent and terrorist.

The Dems have racked up an impressive string of "wins" on technicalities, but the average voter disdains their brand of nuance and knows what "is" means. All of the dismissals and explanations by the "Technicality-based community"  won't amount to a handful of chads in November 2006.

John, Howard, Nancy and Barbara:  Keep filming those Republican campaign commercials for us, and if we hear any good explanations of what you were really saying we may include those as well.

You are only fooling yourselves, Dems.

everyone seems to be talking as if there is some guy with a gun to the head of the Democrats demanding they go hard left. I've looked and can't find the gun.

Great job going on the offensive Congressman Kingston. The obvious message the dem's are sending out right now is anti-war just like their far fringe groups like Sheehan want them to do.

It's great to see Congressmen like yourself take the time to come here and post.

It seems like Dean, Kerry and a lot of Democrats have forgotten that they are Americans first and Democrats second.

If Dean's statements didn't give the enemy propaganda and recruiting material, I'd say make him DNC Chairman for life! He is great for conservatives. But his statements hurt our country and he should go.

On Point.

Benjamin Hackett's Blog

The neoconservative philosophy started with the "Rollback" policy advocated during the Cold War and anti-communism policies in general.  The Reagan Doctrine is a great example of a neoconservative position on foriegn policy.

Considering how neoconservatism has spread so well in the Republican Party and how the "social democracy" positions on foriegn policy has spread throughout the Democratic Party I would say it's fair to say that Howard Dean's comments were "liberal" in modern terms of the word.

While it isn't quite as accurate as calling the position "socialist" it's fair enough.

-------

Calling Dean's positions paleo-conservative would be a far greater mistake, for they are not isolationalist.  Dean's position is more reminiscent of Carter's policy of Containment, which is one closer to that of the modern social democracy position.

Paleocons consider America too good to dirty its hands in foreign wars unless we are first attacked or, at least in what seems to  be the inexplicably  unique case of the USSR.

Modern liberals consider America to be the CAUSE of most conflicts in the world due to our past alliances during the cold war or our failure to prevent conflicts by giving away our wealth. They deem us unworthy of being defended. They do occasionally favor deploying the military as a poorly armed meals on wheels so long as our actions are not to defend America from danger.

WE are no better than any other nation to the libs.