The State of Affairs in Russia

[crazy canuck]

Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.

... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?

THe idea of expanding NATO eastward was

A) Part of the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, and
B) Arguably a "progressive" idea, in that it is an attempt to extend greater human rights/protections/western liberalism globally.

As I thought I tried to make very clear, it isn't mean "progressive" from the standpoint of modern day progressives vs. conservatives political teams.

I guess you did not read the article I posted from the period of time we are discussing, which states exactly the opposite.  Yeah, you have made your view clear, but using the word progressive in any sense to describe the neo con foreign policies of the Bush administration is just bizarre.

[Berkut]

Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.

... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?

THe idea of expanding NATO eastward was

A) Part of the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, and
B) Arguably a "progressive" idea, in that it is an attempt to extend greater human rights/protections/western liberalism globally.

As I thought I tried to make very clear, it isn't mean "progressive" from the standpoint of modern day progressives vs. conservatives political teams.

I guess you did not read the article I posted from the period of time we are discussing, which states exactly the opposite.  Yeah, you have made your view clear, but using the word progressive in any sense to describe the neo con foreign policies of the Bush administration is just bizarre.

I think we all knew that it was possible to find an article "from the time we were discussing" making any kind of political claim one would like to find. So no, I don't think the fact that you can find an article saying expanding NATO was a neocon policy actually makes it true that only neocons ever thought expanding NATO was a good idea, or that anything neocons were in favor of, by definition, could not also be considered a good idea by others, including progressives.

No everything MUST be seen in light of purple and green Drazi.

[crazy canuck]

Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.

... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?

THe idea of expanding NATO eastward was

A) Part of the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, and
B) Arguably a "progressive" idea, in that it is an attempt to extend greater human rights/protections/western liberalism globally.

As I thought I tried to make very clear, it isn't mean "progressive" from the standpoint of modern day progressives vs. conservatives political teams.

I guess you did not read the article I posted from the period of time we are discussing, which states exactly the opposite.  Yeah, you have made your view clear, but using the word progressive in any sense to describe the neo con foreign policies of the Bush administration is just bizarre.

I think we all knew that it was possible to find an article "from the time we were discussing" making any kind of political claim one would like to find. So no, I don't think the fact that you can find an article saying expanding NATO was a neocon policy actually makes it true that only neocons ever thought expanding NATO was a good idea, or that anything neocons were in favor of, by definition, could not also be considered a good idea by others, including progressives.

No everything MUST be seen in light of purple and green Drazi.

Once you latch onto an idea, no matter how much it gets contradicted with facts, you dig in harder and harder.  Hopefully this is just a character you play on Languish.

[Berkut]

Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.

... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?

THe idea of expanding NATO eastward was

A) Part of the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, and
B) Arguably a "progressive" idea, in that it is an attempt to extend greater human rights/protections/western liberalism globally.

As I thought I tried to make very clear, it isn't mean "progressive" from the standpoint of modern day progressives vs. conservatives political teams.

I guess you did not read the article I posted from the period of time we are discussing, which states exactly the opposite.  Yeah, you have made your view clear, but using the word progressive in any sense to describe the neo con foreign policies of the Bush administration is just bizarre.

I think we all knew that it was possible to find an article "from the time we were discussing" making any kind of political claim one would like to find. So no, I don't think the fact that you can find an article saying expanding NATO was a neocon policy actually makes it true that only neocons ever thought expanding NATO was a good idea, or that anything neocons were in favor of, by definition, could not also be considered a good idea by others, including progressives.

No everything MUST be seen in light of purple and green Drazi.

Once you latch onto an idea, no matter how much it gets contradicted with facts, you dig in harder and harder.  Hopefully this is just a character you play on Languish.

Bizarre. It is a total irrelevant nit. It matters not one bit to the discussion whether or not NATO expansion was championed only by neocons or more generally. This idea that the entire world was aghast at the idea of NATO expanding except those damned neocons is obviously somehow super important to you, ok...

But sure - if this is something you want to crow about how your Drazi never supported such a thing, go right ahead. Whatever.

[The Minsky Moment]

In the US, the legislative authorization to pursue NATO membership for Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine was provided through the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007.  In the Senate, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd co-sponsored.  The bill passed both houses by unanimous consent.  This was pretty typical of the series of NATO enlargement bills going back to the early 90s all of which passed by very wide margins or without a formal roll call.   It simply is not correct to say that NATO enlargement in US politics was a neo-con project.  It was widely supported across much of the political spectrum.  The Nation is good opinion mag, but what it expresses are editors' opinion, nothing more.

[Valmy]

In the US, the legislative authorization to pursue NATO membership for Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine was provided through the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007.  In the Senate, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd co-sponsored.  The bill passed both houses by unanimous consent.  This was pretty typical of the series of NATO enlargement bills going back to the early 90s all of which passed by very wide margins or without a formal roll call.   It simply is not correct to say that NATO enlargement in US politics was a neo-con project.  It was widely supported across much of the political spectrum.  The Nation is good opinion mag, but what it expresses are editors' opinion, nothing more.

Yeah expanding both the EU and NATO to include all of Europe was something both parties agreed on completely until the past decade or so.

But the idea was basically to ensure peace in a form basically good for American security and economic interests, I don't think anybody in the US thought that membership in NATO and the EU would make all those countries do our bidding as is clear by virtually the entire history of NATO and the EU

[Jacob]

In the US, the legislative authorization to pursue NATO membership for Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine was provided through the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007.  In the Senate, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd co-sponsored.  The bill passed both houses by unanimous consent.  This was pretty typical of the series of NATO enlargement bills going back to the early 90s all of which passed by very wide margins or without a formal roll call.   It simply is not correct to say that NATO enlargement in US politics was a neo-con project.  It was widely supported across much of the political spectrum.  The Nation is good opinion mag, but what it expresses are editors' opinion, nothing more.

Normally there's a bit of a step between "cross-partisan" and "progressive", I thought?

[Berkut]

I formally retract any comment I made connecting the expansion of NATO to the word progress, progressive, or any other derivative of the term.

I apologize for triggering you all.

[Zoupa]

Can't help being an asshole can you.

[The Minsky Moment]

In the US, the legislative authorization to pursue NATO membership for Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine was provided through the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007.  In the Senate, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd co-sponsored.  The bill passed both houses by unanimous consent.  This was pretty typical of the series of NATO enlargement bills going back to the early 90s all of which passed by very wide margins or without a formal roll call.   It simply is not correct to say that NATO enlargement in US politics was a neo-con project.  It was widely supported across much of the political spectrum.  The Nation is good opinion mag, but what it expresses are editors' opinion, nothing more.

Normally there's a bit of a step between "cross-partisan" and "progressive", I thought?

Sure but if the definition of neo-con is drawn widely enough to include Teddy Kennedy, etc, then it becomes meaningless.

Just because the unchecked neo-cons in the Bush Jr administration made terrible mistakes doesn't mean that any idea supported by a neo-conservative at any time must necessarily be wrong or must be shunned by everyone else completely for all time, at risk of catching neo-con cooties.

[The Minsky Moment]

BTW the same general idea goes for "socialism"

[Jacob]

Sure but if the definition of neo-con is drawn widely enough to include Teddy Kennedy, etc, then it becomes meaningless.

Just because the unchecked neo-cons in the Bush Jr administration made terrible mistakes doesn't mean that any idea supported by a neo-conservative at any time must necessarily be wrong or must be shunned by everyone else completely for all time, at risk of catching neo-con cooties.

That's fair. I assumed it was a neocon policy because of the neocon nature of Bush's administration, but am happy to stand corrected on that.

... and I don't hold that all things neocon are anathema. I'm sure history will vindicate any number of neocon policies (whether enacted or merely argued for); so I agree with you there as well.

[grumbler]

In the US, the legislative authorization to pursue NATO membership for Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Macedonia, and Ukraine was provided through the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007.  In the Senate, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd co-sponsored.  The bill passed both houses by unanimous consent.  This was pretty typical of the series of NATO enlargement bills going back to the early 90s all of which passed by very wide margins or without a formal roll call.   It simply is not correct to say that NATO enlargement in US politics was a neo-con project.  It was widely supported across much of the political spectrum.  The Nation is good opinion mag, but what it expresses are editors' opinion, nothing more.

Normally I'd take your word for this, but CC has linked to an article where one guy says that this was a neocon-only policy, and facts cannot be allowed to override that guy's opinion.

[grumbler]

Can't help being an asshole can you.

  Irony isn't just the opposite of wrinkly.

[Berkut]

Can't help being an asshole can you.

<boggle>