Now circulating: Drafts of the 2008 Democratic National Committee platform
posted at 8:42 pm on August 7, 2008 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Marc Ambinder has a copy. 54 pages in all, much of it Obama stump speech boilerplate stripped of the incandescent oratorical genius of “Yes we can.” Foreign policy begins on page 23; the section on Iraq is 22 lines long, just nine more than the section on tribal sovereignty on page 50 and 14 more than the section on “don’t ask, don’t tell” on page 30. The Iran section follows below. Is “high-level diplomacy” a euphemism for “presidential diplomacy” or is the climbdown on Obama’s promise at last year’s YouTube debate now complete?
Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons
The world must prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. That starts with tougher sanctions and aggressive, principled and direct high-level diplomacy, without preconditions. We will pursue this strengthened diplomacy alongside our European allies, and with no illusions about the Iranian regime. We will present Iran with a clear choice: if you abandon your nuclear weapons program, support for terror, and threats to Israel you will receive meaningful incentives; so long as you refuse, the United States and the international community will further ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions inside and outside the U.N. Security Council, and sustained action to isolate the Iranian regime. The Iranian people and the international community must know that it is Iran, not the United States, choosing isolation over cooperation. By going the extra diplomatic mile, while keeping all options on the table, we make it more likely the rest of the world will stand with us to increase pressure on Iran, if diplomacy is failing.
That’s written carefully and vaguely enough that you can extract whatever you want from it, which of course is the point. Worried that Obama won’t attack if negotiations fail? Don’t be — “all options” are on the table, which isn’t quite the same thing as saying all options will be used but is probably close enough, especially vis-a-vis the opening line, to calm hawks. Worried that Obama will attack if negotiations fail? Don’t be — none of the penalties listed involve anything more draconian than “isolation” and the opening line implies that this isn’t ultimately our problem, which should be enough to calm doves. It reminds me of that NYT piece from earlier this week about Obama the law professor, always delicate in choosing his words, always capable of a thoughtful argument for either side, always maddeningly ambiguous as to his actual position. Barry O keeps his options open, even when it comes to terrorist states with nuclear weapons.
On the upside, the platform does commit to victory in Afghanistan, in part by rebuilding our relationship with Pakistan by ramping up non-military aid and “invest[ing] in the long-term development of the Pashtun border region, so that the extremists’ program of hate is met with an agenda of hope.” Lay aside the foolishness of trying to combat Islamist ideology with anti-poverty measures. Isn’t this just a variation on the Awakening strategy in Iraq that the left is forever deriding? The surge is a hollow victory, the theory goes, because all we’ve done is temporarily bought off the same people who were killing us. Once they’ve decided we’ve done everything for them that we can, they’ll be back to killing us or the Shiites or each other. Now here they are offering essentially the same plan for Talibanistan, except on a grander scale and with the all-important “long-term” qualifier applied to hint that the progress, unlike with the Awakening, will be self-sustaining. Exit question: Is this one of those important lessons Harry Reid’s suddenly learned from Iraq?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Well good luck on getting “the world” to participate. But he is The One, so we will hope/change for the best.
Cindy Munford on August 7, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Hey Hugo Chavez wrote the preface! bonus!
elduende on August 7, 2008 at 8:47 PM
All options on the table? And what if the rest of the world, save for Israel, decides that going along with us is a no go? Seems most of the rest of the world has their own national security agenda at any given moment in time.
Not the most succinct and clearly written Party Platform I’ve ever seen.
coldwarrior on August 7, 2008 at 8:48 PM
coldwarrior on August 7, 2008 at 8:48 PM
Add to “their own national security agenda” that the U.S. will save them so there is no need to spend any money on it and you have a win/win situation.
Cindy Munford on August 7, 2008 at 8:51 PM
Yes we can, if only we could. Change you can believe in — Throw America as we know it out and replace with your favorite socialist flavor of the day. America it’s not what Obambi thinks it should be, his wife will onl;y be satisfied with what Obambi wants for America … the moo-saih speaks. Anyone else think this clap trap deserves the slow boat to Kenya?
What happened to America, land of freedom and liberty?
tarpon on August 7, 2008 at 8:52 PM
It took 54 pages to write down “Hope” and “Change”?
I can see it now: “All Hope and no Change make Obama a dull lefty. All Hope and no Change make Obama a dull lefty. All Hope and no Change make Obama a dull lefty. All Hope and no Change make Obama a dull lefty. All Hope and no Change make Obama a dull lefty…”
On and on for 54 pages…
catmman on August 7, 2008 at 8:54 PM
… the platform does commit to victory in Afghanistan …
Yeah, that is, as long as the Obammunist wins. If Mac wins, it’ll be back to Cut n’ Run! Quagmire! We can’t win! Redeploy! We’ve already lost!
Tony737 on August 7, 2008 at 8:55 PM
“…reaching out today to Republicans and Independents who hunger for a new direction and a reason to hope..”
Uh huh…yep. But that new direction has nothing at all in common withthe Dem Party Platform.
coldwarrior on August 7, 2008 at 8:56 PM
Question:
What will the left do if the situation becomes so ridonkulous in Iran that even Obama realizes military action is necessary? What if the situation in Iran calls for the same kind of commitment to long term military presence in order for stabilization we had/have in Iraq (which, it probably won’t…Iran is much less demographically diverse with 90% Shi’ite)? Will they still defend Obama without dissent? Will the fact that military action is necessary in some situations to defend America go down a bit easier with them if it’s fed to them by a liberal, young, charismatic purveyor of hopenchange? Hmmm. I’m playing the “What If…?” game in my head. That would really be a game changer though, wouldn’t it? But I’m guessing that if the situation gets all the way to the point where even Barack “Without Preconditions” Obama realizes the need for military action, the war would be pretty popular here at home.
malan89 on August 7, 2008 at 8:57 PM
That platform plank on illegals isn’t going to fly with a major constituency of the dem Left.
And this:
“We will lift the veil of secret deals in Washington by publishing searchable, online information about federal grants, contracts, earmarks, loans, and lobbyist contacts with government officials.” Senator Reid ain’t gonna like this not one bit…don’t think Pelosi is about to lend a lot of honest effort in this regard, either.
coldwarrior on August 7, 2008 at 9:00 PM
“Going the extra diplomatic mile”? Just what does Obama think the “Iran Six” Europeans have been doing with Iran for the past five years?
Cicero43 on August 7, 2008 at 9:01 PM
malan89 on August 7, 2008 at 8:57 PM –
The Dems have a history of getting us into wars. I recall Vietnam quite vividly. Have our troops been removed from Kosovo yet?
coldwarrior on August 7, 2008 at 9:02 PM
So they complain that Bush has sent so much money overseas and say he needs to stop and invest it here. Their solution? Increase the amount of money we send overseas and invest in Pakistan’s future. Gotcha.
amerpundit on August 7, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Sounds like Four More Years of President Bush to me……., except that President Bush made it clear the difference between the Iranian People and the Iranian Government……..
Seven Percent Solution on August 7, 2008 at 9:17 PM
malan89 on August 7, 2008 at 8:57 PM
One of two outcomes:
A Dem has to start a war - which of course would be supported completely by the MSM, the Left, the Democrat party, etc.
Or, Obama just doesn’t use force when the time comes. Either way, it a win for Obama.
catmman on August 7, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Right from the Nancy Pelosi Progressive Manifesto. This isn’t the Democrat party I used to know!
byteshredder on August 7, 2008 at 9:21 PM
YES EXACTLY: “CAREFUL AND VAGUE” THAT’S THE DEM FOREIGN POLICY APPROACH, BETTER KNOWN AS TIMID AND CONFUSED.
NO WONDER THE EUROWEENIES LOVE’EM!
reliapundit on August 7, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Subtitled:
Say anything to get power.
profitsbeard on August 7, 2008 at 9:35 PM
Anything in there about stopping the oceans from rising?
Buy Danish on August 7, 2008 at 9:46 PM
America is broke.
All we can offer the world is empty promises anymore.
The world knows it.
The neocons pretend not to.
alphie on August 7, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Do you just talk out your ass? What empty promises are we offering and “neocons” ignoring?
amerpundit on August 7, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Haha, Amer,
Even Bush is on board to pull our troops outta Iraq.
$200,000,000,000 is just a little too rich for us crackers these days.
alphie on August 7, 2008 at 9:51 PM
America is broken and is the cause of misery for our betters around the world…
that’s why we need to elect little Mugabe lite!
elduende on August 7, 2008 at 9:52 PM
McCain = Mugabe, eid?
alphie on August 7, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Bush is withdrawing troops, as he’s wanted to do, based on conditions and after we’ve ensured the country is stabilized. Democrats were pushing for withdrawal while the country was in chaos and terrorists were gaining ground.
As Ed once said, it’s the difference between withdrawing troops from Europe in 1944 and 1946. The people pushing for withdrawal in 1944 are now attempting to claim that those wanting withdrawal in 1946 are on board with them and have come to their side.
amerpundit on August 7, 2008 at 9:56 PM
I think alphie just called Obamaa neocon.
Dusty on August 7, 2008 at 9:57 PM
Didn’t Obama’s Senate Transparency Committee already pass his bill on most of this?
Dusty on August 7, 2008 at 10:00 PM
The neocons pretend not to.
alphie on August 7, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Shouldn’t you be over at the Bio-Truther post?
catmman on August 7, 2008 at 10:00 PM
alphie you’re so easy to bait, what are you doing on this website brother?
I mean don’t get me wrong i think its important to see what compels the leftists… but I wonder why waste your time here? surely there must be some important discussion on Birkenstock retreading going on over at Kos or something.
cmon man get serious!
elduende on August 7, 2008 at 10:02 PM
amer,
The “conditions on the ground” are that Iraq is still suffering daily terrorist attacks bad enough they make 9/11 pale in comparison.
The cut and run crowd know that both America and its Army are broke…better to pull out with a little dignity remaining (see: Vietnam).
As for bombing Iran…only if we want the Mullahs in charge for 1000 years.
alphie on August 7, 2008 at 10:03 PM
The “conditions on the ground” are that Iraq is still suffering daily terrorist attacks bad enough they make 9/11 pale in comparison.
Really? July saw a total of 321 civilian Iraqi deaths. Total. And the daily terror attacks make 9/11 pale in comparison?
This is dignity? Leaving Iraqis to what even the New York Times admitted would’ve been genocide would’ve been dignity?
amerpundit on August 7, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Dusty on August 7, 2008 at 10:00 PM –
Or was it Obama’s Senate Select Committee on Invisibility?
I have a hard time keeping up with which Committee’s Obama has served on, and from what I’ve heard apparently so does Obama.
Yes, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act (2006) is an Obama creation, passed by the Senate. Has it passed the House and become law? This sort of thing being in the 2008 Party Platform would indicate that this Act is hung up somewhere along the line. If it is already law, is this just a softball in the platform so the Dems can say “yes, we did it?” Personally, I have advocated an online digest of all contributions to all candidates to be publicly available for quite some time. As for earmarks…if the member of Congress cannot stand in the well of the House or Senate and defend his/her desire to spend public funds for a particular program, subject to examination by the House or Senate as a whole, then it sure as hell shouldn’t be stuck into a bill just before it goes to press. Any member of Congress, such as Hastert or Murtha, or Reid or any of them, who use earmarks as a piggy bank, should be publicly pilloried and legally nailed to the inside of the slammer door.
coldwarrior on August 7, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Iraq has less than 1/10th of America’s population.
321 dead Iraqis (for the week?) x 10 = 3210.
alphie on August 7, 2008 at 10:14 PM
I predict multiple MSM orgasms over the Obamessiah’s acceptance speech. Or is that just a no-brainer at this point?
Tom Blogical on August 7, 2008 at 10:14 PM
Week?
Any word on the supposed dignity of leaving Iraqis to genocide?
amerpundit on August 7, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Yeah… lot-a-luck on that position there BO….
Let me know how that works for you….
CynicalOptimist on August 7, 2008 at 10:16 PM
It’s okay if Americans aren’t there, totally cool if they aren’t.
malan89 on August 7, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I predict avenues of searchlights pointed skyward, with the Young Democrats filing into the stadium with blazing torches…
[There had to be a reason for that Berlin trip...]
coldwarrior on August 7, 2008 at 10:18 PM
I bet you were one of the people who said Hezbollah would never abide by the terms of the ceasefire agreement, eh, Amer?
Maybe, just maybe, the Iraqis will work out their problems without violence once we scurry out of there?
alphie on August 7, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Aggressive diplomacy with Iran and amnesty for illegal aliens. Oh my…
GogglesPisano on August 7, 2008 at 10:25 PM
By 2010? Possibly. When Democrats wanted to withdraw? Not a shot in hell. As I said, even the Times acknowledged there would likely be genocide and Iraq would become a terrorist safe-haven.
Again, anything on the whole “dignity” thing?
amerpundit on August 7, 2008 at 10:25 PM
I’m Hezbollah….and I approved this message…
CynicalOptimist on August 7, 2008 at 10:27 PM
That one is sooo much better than mine.
Dusty on August 7, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Oof.
malan89 on August 7, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Alphie,
Brazil’s rainforests are disappearing.
Zimbabwe is broke and can’t help the polar bears.
3 x 6 = 18
Do you really think Obama is a neocon?
Dusty on August 7, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Please resist feeding the troll…….. I know it will be hard, and tempting, but if you leave “IT” alone for a while, and “IT” only talks to “ITSELF”, before you know it, “IT” will be invisible………………
Seven Percent Solution on August 7, 2008 at 10:40 PM
The nonsense reply, Dusty?
I would have gone with the hating America one…or the anti-Semitic response.
alphie on August 7, 2008 at 11:11 PM
PELOSISM = ONE BIG SUCKING SOUND!
byteshredder on August 7, 2008 at 11:37 PM
jaime on August 8, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Hmmm… I don’t see in the Dem platform where the federal government will be providing tire gauges to the poor and disadvantaged- those Democrats sure are a cruel, uncaring lot.
electric-rascal on August 8, 2008 at 3:38 AM
Why bother with 54 pages of vague gobbledeygook? Boil it down to its essence: Lie, lie, lie; steal from those who have to give to the undeserving who will vote for us; legally kill unborn babies; kow-tow to our enemies; Stalin and Mao were our friends. That about sums it up!
GeneSmith on August 8, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Ronald Reagan
Neocon Peg on August 8, 2008 at 8:57 AM
Second look at Medusa? ……………….. anyone?
OldEnglish on August 8, 2008 at 8:59 AM