6 Comments so far

1. rkymtnwest99 February 24th, 2007 4:16 pm

   I don’t know if democrats are soft on terror, but I do know that they’re everybit as murderous as republicans — as its now been proved beyond a doubt. Don’t vote for them.

2. namvet67 February 24th, 2007 6:19 pm

   Instead of talking about who is soft on terror we should be talking the causes of terror. The problem is that the source of the terror is the White House. There is only one party in D.C. and that’s the Corporation Party.
   Hoa Binh

3. RichM February 24th, 2007 7:45 pm

   This article is a wonderful example of the well-meaning liberal Democrat who thinks she understands — but really doesn’t.

   She makes much of the fact that Dems like Wes Clark & Kerry served in the military, while draft-dodgers like Bush & Cheney didn’t. She also writes “It’s not the war on terror we oppose; it’s the stupids who are running the war.”

   To try to sketch out what’s wrong with these ideas: if one really studies the history, almost every single war the US has ever fought fails to meet the criteria for “just war.” Our wars are almost always to grab land or resources, or to install corrupt puppet regimes, so that our big companies can exploit lucrative opportunities overseas. All these actions have grievously harmed the populations concerned. Most of the operations were huge & murderous crimes, & our military is generally used, not to “defend the American people,” but to bully other peoples so that our corporations can more easily exploit them.

   Most US soldiers who go overseas start out believing what our government claims is the mission. They try to do the best they can, & it’s not their fault that the government, which serves big business, has lied to them about the real nature of their mission. But figures like Clark & Kerry are not ordinary soldiers. They are guys who cause these soldiers to be sent out on what Smedley Butler, a Marine hero of 75 years ago, learned was just a “big racket.” General Butler said, “I was a gangster for capitalism. I did stuff that would make Al Capone blush.” (Look him up on Wikipedia.)

   Kerry is one of the worst hypocrites in modern times. He made his name by loudly opposing the Vietnam War in 1971. But by the time he got to the Senate, he stopped opposing unjust wars (like the ’80’s Contra war). By the time he was the Dem nominee, he apologized on national TV for his youthful antiwar stance (which had been correct) & supported the Iraq war (which is much like Vietnam: an immense crime). // In 2004, Kerry pranced around claiming to be a “military hero” — because he’d served in an unjust war, which he knew was unjust at the time. But he barely mentioned, in 2004, that he’d opposed Vietnam in 1971. And he somehow “failed to notice” that Iraq was a lot like the Vietnam war he’d originally opposed. // To put it mildly, Kerry is no hero.

   About the “War on Terror” — As Gen. Butler would immediately see, this is a fraud, a racket, and a gangster lie for capitalism. It’s just a phony “justification” for sending US troops all over the world to seize control of the oil, and to kill anyone who gets in the way. So no, “we” oppose the g*dd*mn war on terror, too — because it’s a lie. It’s a lie that Democrats — including the naive Ms Lenfestey — support.

4. Jaded Prole February 25th, 2007 11:01 am

   What democrats are soft on is principle. History shows that they are as much a part of the problem as repugs when it comes to rotten US foreign policy.

5. Earthian February 25th, 2007 9:40 pm

   RichM, Jaded Prole, rkymtnwest99 and namvet67 (comments above) are true progressives. They reject that which violates international law and inflames the hatred of others towards us. They reject those who ignore the constitutional requirement of Article 6 (2) which declares “treaties made” as the “supreme law of the land”–an idea confirmed as recently as last year in Hamden v. Rumsfeld when Justice Kennedy stated (with the majority) that ratified treaties such as the Geneva Conventions are “binding federal law.”

   In contrast, Susan Lenfestey says:

   >>It’s not the war on terror we oppose;>>

   She fails to get what RichM states so clearly–that he opposes the war on terror “because it is a lie.”

   I’m afraid that Lenfestey’s support for the lie of the “war on terror” is adherance to the Bush worldview, not the progressive repudiation of it.

   She revels in metaphors of war by advocating the use of “diplomatic, political and economic firepower.”

   Corporate, militarist Democrats oppose the Iraq war and occupation on pragmatic and tactical grounds. Lenfestey does this throughout her article. Torture “allowed” by Bush and Cheney “stripped us of moral authority to lead by example.” Yes, but she misses the progressive point: torture is a crime worthy of prison–for life. Nowhere in her article does she say the war was a “crime” and “immoral”–views all true progressives share. Nowhere does she suggest war crimes trials for Bush and those in Congress who supported him in his illegal and immoral attack on Iraq with deaths exceeding 800,000; support for torture; illegal spying; and illegal kidnapping.

   The so-called “war on terror” is a lie that covers for preventative wars of conquest abroad and the installation of a police state at home. And it creates more of the enemies from which its originators–Bush and Cheney–promise to defend us.

   Adherance to international law is the opposite of the “war on terror.”

   In Kansas, the Preamble to the Bylaws of our Progressive Caucus in the Democratic Party says:

   ” . . . we reject the so-called “war on terrorism” and instead, we are committed to the vigorous implementation of the global rule of law as a means to achieve collective security for all people everywhere.”

   The Green Party USA statement on terrorism of 12-21-2001 says:

   “The solution to ending terrorism is not a “war on terrorism,” but rather a clear, consistent, and step-wise adherence to the rule of law which is inextricably linked to a profound shift in our foreign policy away from one of militarism and unchecked self-interest and toward one of humanitarian aid and social justice that supports the observance of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law.”

   These are progressive approaches to collective security.

   Terrorism has causes. Progressives seek to prevent and heal these causes–not exacerbate them with a “war on terror” but to prevent them with adherance to international law and healing and reconciliation with the victims of US war crimes. And with military readyness suited to defense, not empire.

6. bnvynunoxaxe December 11th, 2007 9:56 pm

   titsuvisenexa…

   exhyseryryke…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)