Bipartisan think tank formed

[righthand]

The HILL ...August 3, 2005 ...By Jonathan E. Kaplan
http://www.thehill.com/thehill/expor...ipartisan.html

A new, bipartisan think tank aims to develop national-security policies by hearkening back to an era when there was broad consensus on U.S. foreign policy. A group of 23 foreign-policy luminaries representing both sides of the aisle will launch the Partnership for a Secure America (PSA), dedicated to bridging the deep ideological divide that dominates current foreign-policy making. Jamie Metzl, one of the group’s chairmen, will announce the new think tank today at the National Press Club. The PSA aims to “reestablish the bipartisan center in American foreign policy and national security,” according to a statement on the group’s website. “There had been a consensus on national-security issues after World War II that has broken down in recent years,” Metzl said. “We need to work to rebuild by having debates to find the best answers to the problems we face.”

Do they know something we don't. Is the writing on the wall. Was this a well kept secret? I didn't think there were secrets in Washington. It's an impressive list from both sides. No wonder comical george needs an extended holiday.

“Our organization is not created to criticize anyone but to develop a better process to get the right answers,” Metzl said. The 12 Republican board members are former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger; ex-Sens. Warren Rudman (N.H.), Howard Baker (Tenn.), Nancy Kassebaum Baker (Kan.) and Jack Danforth (Mo.), who served as Bush’s U.N. ambassador and envoy to Sudan; former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean; former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld; former U.S. Trade Representative Carla Hills; former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane; Rita Hauser, chairwoman of the International Peace Academy; and John Whitehead, a former deputy secretary of state. The 11 Democratic board members are former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher; former Defense Secretary William Perry; former National Security Advisers Samuel Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Tony Lake; former Ambassador Richard Holbrook; former Sen. Gary Hart (Colo.); former Rep. Lee Hamilton (Ind.); former U.N. Ambassador Donald McHenry; and lawyer Ted Sorenson.

Or is a case of "the cats away, the mice will play."

[Jack]

“... but to develop a better process to get the right answers,” Metzl said.

Develop a process to get... That's political talk for, "We aren't really going to do anything worthwhile, but we'll issue a couple of reports and get on the news now and then and talk about what we plan to consider thinking about. Plus we've got a really cool acronym to add to our resumes." Another committee. Just what we need.

[righthand]

Quote by: Isherwood Develop a process to get... That's political talk for, "We aren't really going to do anything worthwhile, but we'll issue a couple of reports and get on the news now and then and talk about what we plan to consider thinking about. Plus we've got a really cool acronym to add to our resumes." Another committee. Just what we need.

You're awfully, but I like you. Your dead right of course. Is it accidental what it coincided with big cat george going on holidays. Is he golfing, then I'd stay out of tall buildings. Was this kept secret or is a case of the media singing dumb to 'protect' all?

.

[PatrickHenry]

What a motley crew. It's the same foreign policy elite that was in charge before the Bushista neocons. They have their own record of realpolitik and savagery. Buncha goons...

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: PatrickHenry What a motley crew. It's the same foreign policy elite that was in charge before the Bushista neocons. They have their own record of realpolitik and savagery. Buncha goons...

That is exactly right. Most of those names are familiar to me as well.


Yet another "bipartisan' (leaving out all other voices altogether) attempt to rectify the bipartisan problems of the past.


These are the same people who lead us down this road to begin with.

[PatrickHenry]

At least their rhetoric is toned down from Bush's neocon frenzy and they seem to have a more comprehensive agenda than purely military and diplomatic domination.
http://www.psaonline.org/petition.html

America must be strong to be secure. Our government must work tirelessly to bring terrorists to justice and break up and destroy terrorist networks. But while our strength and security are measured partly by our military might and the courage of our men and women in uniform, they are also enhanced by our unfailing commitment to democracy, justice, and civil liberties both at home and abroad. • America must always be ready to act alone when its security interests are threatened. But building strong alliances based on mutual respect and shared challenges, including working to renew and reform the United Nations, will make us more able to protect America’s interests. • America is not adequately protected from the spread and use of deadly nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. We must expand efforts to secure existing stockpiles of weapons materials in Russia and elsewhere, take all necessary steps to make sure that such weapons do not fall into the wrong hands, and use all effective means to discourage and deter countries from acquiring or using these weapons. • Our local emergency responders, public health officials, border patrol, and coast guard must be given the resources they need to prevent and respond effectively to terrorist attacks on US soil. • America’s growing federal debt directly threatens our national security and must be controlled by urgent bipartisan action. • America must invest far more in energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies to help improve our security, create new jobs, and clean up our environment. • America and our allies must address global poverty, disease, and under-development in a far more aggressive and comprehensive manner to build a safer and more secure future for all Americans and all people.

[Osborn F Enready]

Milton Bradley said:
Yet another "bipartisan' (leaving out all other voices altogether) attempt to rectify the bipartisan problems of the past.
These are the same people who lead us down this road to begin with.

I say:
ROFLMAO! So true Milton.

In other words, a bi-partisan commission has been created to further the BI-partisan agenda, while further squelching of all intelligent debate is handled by the press.

So, what does Ron Paul do during these types of events? Stand in the corner feeling like the kid who never gets picked for Dodgeball? :rolleyes:

[Athena]

Our local emergency responders, public health officials, border patrol, and coast guard must be given the resources they need to prevent and respond effectively to terrorist attacks on US soil.

A while back someone objected to me saying FEMA is military bureaucracy applied to citizens. I don't think there is a good understanding of bureaucratic order. There is a family or traditional model of regular human beings just doing they best they can do, with each individual holding authority and directly accountable for every decision s/he makes, and there is the military order where everything is planned by a committee that holds all authority, and the hierarchy of power means everyone is following orders, and is not independentally making decisions. I don't know if many can comprehend the shift in power and potential threat, and because most can not, the threat is huge.

I e-mailed Ron Paul and asked him we he thinks of the Partnership for a Secure America. I will post his reply when I get it.

[bishop]

i think this group's formation is a good thing..

the divisive atmosphere bush has bestowed upon the country has made real debate extremely difficult (and politically risky). the media can't be counted on to ask the right questions, the public just seems to not know what it wants and our "leaders" offer no ideas/solutions whatsoever. hopefully these people can raise up some good points, and hopefully those points will gain some traction.

the goal of this group is undoubtedly to raise public awareness.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop i think this group's formation is a good thing.. the divisive atmosphere bush has bestowed upon the country has made real debate extremely difficult (and politically risky). the media can't be counted on to ask the right questions, the public just seems to not know what it wants and our "leaders" offer no ideas/solutions whatsoever. hopefully these people can raise up some good points, and hopefully those points will gain some traction. the goal of this group is undoubtedly to raise public awareness.

In other words, people who have no need of re-elecion should be the ones advocating the same unproven, faulty foreign policy that helped us arrive where we are now, without considering true alternatives.


Foreign Policy Light, with 1/3 killing than our regular Foreign Policy.

[bishop]

thanks for your unintelligent knee-jerk response. this group is hardly advocating the "same unproven, faulty foreign policy".. these are the points the group has made. i'll repost what PH already posted, since it doesn't look like you actually read any of it:

America must be strong to be secure. Our government must work tirelessly to bring terrorists to justice and break up and destroy terrorist networks. But while our strength and security are measured partly by our military might and the courage of our men and women in uniform, they are also enhanced by our unfailing commitment to democracy, justice, and civil liberties both at home and abroad.

a foreign policy that favors democracy, justice and civil liberties.. and a foreign policy that focuses on going after terrorists. i don't see anything wrong with that proposal. next:

America must always be ready to act alone when its security interests are threatened. But building strong alliances based on mutual respect and shared challenges, including working to renew and reform the United Nations, will make us more able to protect America’s interests.

being able to come to a concensus with strong alliances increases our safety and decreases the potential for war. in times of war, it's always better to have friends on your side. i don't see anything wrong with that proposal either. we were better off when we acted with our allies. next:

America is not adequately protected from the spread and use of deadly nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. We must expand efforts to secure existing stockpiles of weapons materials in Russia and elsewhere, take all necessary steps to make sure that such weapons do not fall into the wrong hands, and use all effective means to discourage and deter countries from acquiring or using these weapons.

the proliferation of these weapons is a huge problem. many nukes in our country and russia are unaccounted for and who the hell knows who might have them. plus, the technology needed to develop nukes has proliferated to the point where any country with the will to do it can develop nukes. i don't think more nukes = safer world, maybe you do? we've done little to address this problem, so this would be a new foreign policy. next:

Our local emergency responders, public health officials, border patrol, and coast guard must be given the resources they need to prevent and respond effectively to terrorist attacks on US soil.

wouldn't it be amazing if the national guard was actually based here instead of iraq? wouldn't it be amazing if we didn't need a random band of civilians to try to secure our borders? another good point by the PSA. we have ignored these problems for decades, now we see a reputable bipartisan group promoting the issue. next:

America’s growing federal debt directly threatens our national security and must be controlled by urgent bipartisan action.

i guess having a balanced budget's a bad thing, eh milton? next:

America must invest far more in energy efficiency and alternative energy technologies to help improve our security, create new jobs, and clean up our environment.

a clean environment where we are no longer dependent on foreign oil, or oil in general.. another bad idea, eh milton? next:

America and our allies must address global poverty, disease, and under-development in a far more aggressive and comprehensive manner to build a safer and more secure future for all Americans and all people.

despair is one of the elements that fuels the hatred that terrorist masterminds capitalize on.. seeking to correct this despair will most certainly be beneficial to ourselves and the people in the affected countries. doesn't sound like a bad idea either.

[PatrickHenry]

bishop, worthy policies and I would like to see them carried out in a fairminded manner. My problem with this group is the personnel. Same old shmoes who gave us the present, minus the neocons...

[Milton Bradley]

Thanks Patrick.My point exactly.


To think that these people have changed their position of foreign affiar is laughable.


Like all politicians these days, what they say they stand for, and what they actually do stand for is often very different.


What we have here is a group of appointees with no risk of removal from office, appointees who will never really be accountable for anything.


Just like the 9/11 Commision, these are the former elitist pricks that wouldn't want any of their potege's to be accountable for any of the inherited problems, or the illegal solutions to said problems. They are just here to make an appearance, and help divert attention from the real issues. (which, just happens to be authority to act in the manner which they act, and have acted in the past, where coincidently, they held positions similar to the ones to the people they are covering for now)


What a sad, pathetic joke.

[bishop]

Quote by: PatrickHenry bishop, worthy policies and I would like to see them carried out in a fairminded manner. My problem with this group is the personnel. Same old shmoes who gave us the present, minus the neocons...

i don't see this as an issue since these people won't be the ones making the decisions. i like some in that group less than others - and i generally dislike most politicians to begin with.

what they will be doing, though, is using their clout to initiate debate on our foreign/domestic policies. that is their stated purpose - to begin to communicate with each other again, rather than follow bush's divisive attitude. the country desperately needs to pull together and find workable solutions to those issues. compromise is always better than the "follow the leader" approach, don't you think?

as this group initiates the debate, it will evolve as the public catches wind of their ideas and begins to debate them amongst themselves.

[Milton Bradley]

There could be some merit to that post bishop, but you are still asking the other side to negotiate with criminals.


How are they to ever take these people seriously?


These are the former aggressors against their way of life, and self determination.

[bishop]

as i said, these people won't be making the decisions - they'll be initiating the discussion.

and, not all of these individuals are connected to unethical foreign policy decisions. i'm personally more interested in the message than quibbles over the messenger.

[Milton Bradley]

While holding the view that we should not negotiate with "terrorists".


I was just attempting to point out the absurdity of that line of reasoning, and yet another attempt by those in power to advocate hypocricy.

[bishop]

heh.. because these people are the equivalents of bin laden, eh? what a nut.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop heh.. because these people are the equivalents of bin laden, eh? what a nut.

Yeah, we would hate to appoint anybody that could be seen as ethical, or at least not guilty of supporting the same philosophy of oppression that has been imposed on them by past, and current administrations.


I'm sure in the tiny 290,000,000 people residing in the US, that we could never hope to find anybody capable of garnering the respect of that willing group of acomplices.


You have to remember who you are attempting to negotiate with. We must send representatives that they can respect.


You want to send the fox into the chicken coop.

[bishop]

nevertheless, these people will only be facilitating discussion.. you want people who will make different policies - elect them. the points that pat and i cited are very good ideas, regardless of who they come from. you seem to be unreasonable just for the sake of being unreasonable.