Democrats Are Now the Aggressive War Party ~ Consortiumnews.com

[John Poet]

Exclusive: For nearly a half century – since late in the Vietnam War – the Democrats have been the less warlike of the two parties, but that has flipped with the choice of war hawk Hillary Clinton, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The Democratic Party has moved from being what you might call a reluctant war party to an aggressive war party with its selection of Hillary Clinton as its presumptive presidential nominee. With minimal debate, this historic change brings full circle the arc of the party’s anti-war attitudes that began in 1968 and have now ended in 2016.

Since the Vietnam War, the Democrats have been viewed as the more peaceful of the two major parties, with the Republicans often attacking Democratic candidates as “soft” regarding use of military force.

But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military force to achieve “regime change” in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.

Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party’s presumptive nominee, Democrats appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing as the party more skeptical about the use of military force. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.


Read more:
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/06/08/democrats-are-now-the-aggressive-war-party/


Note to Jurors:
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s which came close to toppling the Reagan administration. He was an aggressive critic of George W. Bush's neoconservative war policies in Iraq, as well as a critic of President Obama-- where Obama's policies have mimicked the hawkish stance laid down by George W. Bush. Robert Parry is in no way, shape or form a "right-wing source", and anyone who makes such a claim clearly does not know what the hell they are talking about, or they are just flat-out lying because they don't like the content.

[Vattel]

1. sad but true

[Live and Learn]

2. And there it is. We had a chance to turn it around but.... nt

[John Poet]

3. I guess I am resigned to it....

If she's elected, we'll have to
"watch her like a hawk" !

[Live and Learn]

4. Me too. Very sad. nt

[slipslidingaway]

5. That is what happens, whether it be Repub or Dem, people believe that "MY Party Won'

so they do not need to pay attention.

But we need to play even closer attention to those of our party who gain recognition, that is when the collusion can take place without notice and we should be even more vigilant.

[ucrdem]

6. "Obama's policies have mimicked the hawkish stance laid down by George W. Bush"?!?

On what planet? Other than Prison Planet of course . . .

[John Poet]

9. You're good with the mis-quoting stawman thing, eh?

It read:
"...as well as a critic of President Obama-- where Obama's policies have mimicked the hawkish stance laid down by George W. Bush".

You want an example?

DRONE WARFARE which has resulted in a lot of innocent "collateral damage" casualties.

'Nuff said.

[ucrdem]

10. You wrote it. Own it. How and where exactly do you see this occurring, pray tell?

[John Poet]

11. I just told you.

Was my reply too long for you to understand?

[ucrdem]

14. You didn't tell me anything. You tossed out a word. What of it?

[HumanityExperiment]

34. intellectual dishonesty

get used to this type of response when it comes to constructive criticism of the presumptive nominee

DEMs resorting to intellectual dishonesty is stunning to see here on DU, the movement right on the ideological spectrum will not be contained here in DU...

expect the 'insulating' of HRC to be in full force here in DU, if you have issue with her policies as it pertains to liberal/progressive ideology and what DEM party should be standing for... well... we'll see if principle or person wins out...

[Hortensis]

18. John Poet and others, has the point of many posts,

like this one, become merely the expression of hostility rather than the issue used as a vehicle? This outrageously ridiculous thread made me think of that once again.

America does have a major war industry, so large that feeding it encourages us to engage in some wars we would not. We can agree on that to begin, surely?

The Republicans are the main party who created this situation and absolutely the ONLY party passionately committed to continuing and growing it. Some are for war because they own or work in war industries, but far more are for war because they are sure our enemies will destroy us if we don't destroy them first, bolstered for many by a religious belief that it is god's work. The more conservative, the more sure, to the point of paranoia in many very strong conservatives.

Conservatives have a darker view of human nature than liberals and they have higher anxiety levels and fear more; this is a huge part of what makes them conservative. Strong conservatives fear all the bad people who aren't like them out there so much that it drives their decision-making.

Did you know that millions of strong conservatives/Republicans have opposed every nuclear step-down and test-ban treaty America became part of, usually under Democratic leadership?

[bvar22]

36. Do you know that Hillary OPPOSED the ban on Cluster BOmbs and Land Mines?

As Secretary of State, she joined Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea in refusing to ban these munitions that have been banned by over 119 nations.

You know, Cluster Bomblets...the little bombs that keep on giving long after hostilities end in a region? As many as 15% of cluster bombs do not explode on impact, but lie in wait for years, waiting for a child to pick one up out of curiosity....and BANG. If they are lucky, they only lose their arms.

[Hortensis]

39. Yup. Obama chose not to participate, but to instead

shift to a safer cluster bomb that almost always exploded on impact, unlike those used before.

But, why the hast backtracking to one lone decision to get do away with cluster bombs that don't explode on impact? Can't you support the "Democrats as the Aggressive War Party" theme better than that?

[bvar22]

40. Easy!

After the Congressional Elections of 2006 during which The Democrats promised to End the Wars,
we took Majorities in both the House and Senate, and guess what happened?

[Eko]

7. Nope, total bull.

I mean you have such tasty morsels such as this "But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton’s invasion of Syria would stop at a “safe zone.” As with Libya, once the camel’s nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent."
Yeah, Clinton did not invade Syria.

or this
"Indeed, during the 2016 campaign – in those few moments that have touched on foreign policy – Clinton declared that as President she would order the U.S. military to invade Syria. “Yes, I do still support a no-fly zone,” she said during the April 14 debate. She also wants a “safe zone” that would require seizing territory inside Syria."
Supporting a no fly zone is invading a country?

Bull.

[bvar22]

41. Seizing territory inside Syria to impose a "safe zone" IS an invasion,

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2016, 06:10 PM - Edit history (1)

a move that could and would quickly spin out of control.

[Eko]

43. I want a safe zone in Syria.

Am I calling for us to invade them when I say that or am I just saying I want a safe zone in Syria?

[bvar22]

44. You want a safe zone in Syria? GOOD!

YOU go do it, and take your children with you to help in the fight, because there WILL be one. Good Luck.

In my opinion, we have shed way too much blood in that region, and EVERYTHING we touch turns to blood....ours and theirs.
ENOUGH!

Have YOU lost any friends or had any return maimed or with brain damage from our wars in the Middle East?

[Eko]

45. Try to read just what I wrote

and not imply anything else from it please, I said I want a safe zone in syria and only that. I did not say I wanted to send troops in to achieve that, nor nuke an area to clear it beforehand so we could have plenty of space for parks, nor send in ninja's to clear it. You will notice I did not say any thing whatsoever except "I want a safe zone in syria" and you implied that I wanted to invade it to make it happen. I never said any such thing and neither did Clinton, you did.

[Eko]

46. I want N Koreans to be free.

Does that mean I am calling for or want us to invade N Korea? Or just that I want them to be free?

[Eko]

47. Why dont you want a safe zone in Syria?

Someplace where the civilians don't have to worry about getting shot or bombed? See I think that sounds great as I don't like civilians getting killed or anyone for that matter. Now how that becomes possible is a different conversation.

[smith_70]

57. safe zone?

why do you want a safe zone in Syria?

[Eko]

58. See post 47.

[msongs]

8. arent you glad bernie is such a reliable vote to fund the war and killing machine?

[slipslidingaway]

12. So you agreed with the invasion of Iraq? The displacement and kiling of millions, why? nt

[840high]

54. I've had it with your

stupidity on this topic.

[demwing]

13. we have met the enemy

[baldguy]

15. 2 days

[Fumesucker]

16. Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional

[B Calm]

17. +1 LOL

[geek tragedy]

25. Two more days of people trying to get away with Trump Humping

at a Democratic website.

From the OP article:

But the larger picture for the Democrats is that they have just adopted an extraordinary historical reversal whether they understand it or not. They have replaced the Republicans as the party of aggressive war, though clearly many Republicans still dance to the neocon drummer just as Clinton and “liberal interventionists” do. Still, Donald Trump, for all his faults, has adopted a relatively peaceful point of view, especially in the Mideast and with Russia.

The Putin fan club, of which Robert Parry is a charter member, will have to pimp their boy Donald somewhere else.

Two days.

But no one is forcing you to stay that long.

[tallahasseedem]

50. +1

[SidDithers]

19. Robert Parry. LOL...nt

Sid

[Scuba]

20. K&R for this sad, sad truth.

[JoePhilly]

21. more nonesense.

[BobbyDrake]

22. Neo-hippie nonsense. You sound like those Republicans who SWEAR that they know how

Obama is going defy the Constitution to make himself "dictator-for-life and rule America forever," while people in reality are calmly watching Obama prepare to leave office like every President did before him. Rational thought doesn't appear to be a friend of yours any more, sadly.

If your crystal ball about the future wars Clinton will start is so accurate, how about some lottery numbers? Surely such an amazing tool of prescience shouldn't be wasted on the losing side of a presidential primary?

[John Poet]

51. I only give winning lottery numbers to confirmed Sanders supporters.

Sorry !

[brooklynite]

23. Two days to go

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:38 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm guessing we'll go right down to the wire...

[NurseJackie]

31. 2, two, dos, zwei

[geek tragedy]

24. Parry is a Putin sycophant so makes sense he's rooting for Trump

Two more days until his fellow travelers improve this place by leaving it.


"Puritanical emoprogs for Trump!"

But the larger picture for the Democrats is that they have just adopted an extraordinary historical reversal whether they understand it or not. They have replaced the Republicans as the party of aggressive war, though clearly many Republicans still dance to the neocon drummer just as Clinton and “liberal interventionists” do. Still, Donald Trump, for all his faults, has adopted a relatively peaceful point of view, especially in the Mideast and with Russia.

Fuck Robert Parry and his fellow travelers.

[My Good Babushka]

26. It is undeniable

that both major parties have now used the massacre in Orlando to call for expanding aggression, sanctions and violence against their eternal boogeyman of "radical Islamism". They are standing on the still warm bodies to call for furthering war, picking targets to attack with, undoubtedly, more collateral damage. More people slaughtered. People will die who have nothing whatsofuckingever to do with this twisted, trite, self-loathing, American shitbag that shot up Orlando. Everyday is 9-11 to our politicians. A new opportunity to use and abuse the military. This is the opposite of a reasoned response, and they didn't even wait for the facts to come in to push this agenda. They know nothing and are tripping over each other to promise a renewed war. I am beyond disgusted with American politics.

[Lars39]

27. Righteous rant, My Good Babushka!

[bvar22]

42. Well, their kids, and none of their large donor's kids...

...will be put in harms way. It is only the children of the Working Class and Poor that get sent to WAR now,
and it has been obvious for 30 years that neither Party gives a shit about the Working Class and Poor unless they get to make a bunch of money from it.

[840high]

56. Truth.

[840high]

55. Well put. Thank you.

[cpwm17]

28. We apparently have a lot of closeted Dick Cheney fans in the Democratic Party.

Many in the party do like war. That is a sad thing to see, and does not bode well for the future of the US and this world.

Polls do show that Americans, more than people from any other nation, support bombing of civilians. We like war, and are indifferent to the suffering that those wars cause. With our callus indifference to the suffering of others, we have little right to tell any other nation how they should live their lives.

Our corrupt politicians, sold to the highest bidder and voted in by a callus public, have no right to force any other nation to do anything.

[Tarc]

29. This article is a love letter to Trump and Putin

Sad that it passed a jury.

1 day...

[MineralMan]

30. Robert Parry jumped the Putin shark some time ago.

He is no longer a reliable source of political commentary, I'm afraid. Too bad.

[Blue_Tires]

32. Robert Parry, cashing his Kremlin check as usual

He needs to be fucking banned until he retracts his bullshit "story" about the MH17 shootdown...

[Adrahil]

33. one more day.... NT

[Kurovski]

35. The New Republican Party.

I remember the influx of Pubbies coming to DU years ago, feeding on their new host body!

[bvar22]

37. DURec.

Really sad that you had to add the disclaimer at the end, and explain who Robert Parry is.
Not too long ago, everybody here already knew who he was and what he stood for.
Now?.....not so much.

[Duppers]

48. Exactly.

[pampango]

38. No one listens to Trump's claims that he will build our military and 'obliterate' ISIS.

I haven't heard Trump say he will NEGOTIATE a solution to any international problem. That only leaves two options: IGNORE it or INVADE it.

[ChiciB1]

49. Tis VERY TRUE! n/t

[JEB]

52. K&R

[840high]

53. k&r