When did Democrats become the warhawks? Despite Trump’s careless choice of words, he’s far less of a threat to world peace that current mainstream Democrats who are “with her”, according to Richard Wagner
Donald Trump’s nomination shows us that Republicans have finally, finally learned that the Iraq War was a mistake! But here’s the ironic part. It seems the Democrats have forgotten! Eight years ago, the Democrats nominated and elected Barack Obama largely on an anti-war platform. It appeared that this was the alignment – the Democrats are the peace party, the Republicans are the war party. But now, the Democrats have chosen the most hawkish candidate they had – Hillary Clinton – and it seems much of the party base is making an about-face when it comes to foreign policy.
Who can remember late in the Bush years when it was common to hear Democrats discuss how even though Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, he at least kept the region stable? Who remembers the Dixie Chicks speaking out against the Iraq War, and being called “Saddam’s sluts”?
While you’re at it, google “realism”.
As I started reading this rather article, titled “Trump Plummets further off the deep end”, I wasn’t sure if it was written by a neoconservative Republican, or a Clintonite Democrat. When I noticed the author used a pen name “winningdemocrats”, it became clear.
“Hey Donald… you seem to be missing a few facts there. Just itty bitty minor facts about all the innocent people Hussein killed. All the terrible things he did. The fact that he was a terrorist sponsor. The fact that he was a mass murderer. That sure sounds like a leader that did “so good.” But it all so sounds so good to Trump, the guy who wants to blow Muslims to hell as a pre-emptive strike to prevent things like the Orlando Pulse nightclub shootings. Why talk it out, when you can just drop bombs?”
Hey “winningdemocrats”! The WTC was attacked by Al Qaeda, not Saddam Hussein. The Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting was carried out by a man claiming loyalty to ISIS, not Muammar Gaddafi. As you say, “Let that sink in for a moment. Utilize that Google machine if you must.” While you’re at it, google “realism”.
This article grossly exaggerated Trump’s position, making it seem like Trump is praising Saddam Hussein by saying that he was “very good” at fighting terrorists. Trump doesn’t deny that Hussein was a tyrant. Who does? But that doesn’t make this statement any less true. When Hussein was in power, Al Qaeda was not to be found in Iraq, and there was certainly no ISIS.
It’s not about whether the regimes of Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad are what should be. African children shouldn’t be starving to death. Chinese children shouldn’t be in sweat shops. And we should have a elections with candidates worth voting for! But the world is what it is. Trump is not exactly a “realist”, but he’s certainly closer to the mark than Clinton. And recognizing the truth, that things were better in Iraq with Hussein than without him, is not the same as praising him.
Neither I, nor Trump, nor Rand Paul, nor Ben Carson, nor the Democrats in the Bush era; oppose the 2003 invasion of Iraq because we think Hussein is so wonderful. We just know that the alternative is worse. It’s bad enough, before the fact, to support toppling a secular dictator without having a realistic plan to implement something better. But now, after the fact, we know what happens when we topple secular dictators in the Middle East or Islamic North Africa. Can anyone actually look at Iraq, or Libya, and say they are better off now? Aside from that…Hello? ISIS?
Warmongers and PC Police make strange bedfellows
I know that the mainstream “liberals” (please notice the quotations marks around the word “liberals”) hate to identify ISIS, much less “radical Islam”. Our Sayeh Yousefi rightly noted the danger of allowing political correctness to stop us from identifying our enemies. I’d add that it’s not only “being ignorant”, but promoting ignorance to blame everything except ISIS. I’ve long criticized neocon Republicans for promoting this same kind of ignorance of the Islamic world, in order to justify the invasion Iraq because of 9/11, or their efforts to topple the Assad regime because of ISIS. This very article I’m refuting now promotes the very same kind of ignorance. The most amusing part I find is that “winningdemocrats” actually criticises Trump for being reckless and wanting to “bomb Muslims to hell”.
Despite Trump’s ineloquent word choices, his actual proposals are very clear and very precise. He wants to target ISIS. Trump has made it clear that toppling Hussein was a mistake. He’s also said the same of Libya, and clearly opposes intervention in Syria against the Assad regime.
So, while PCing Trump for his careless words, “winningdemocrats” is oddly defending the very kind of reckless “shoot first, aim later” foreign policy that he/she accuses Trump of. Yes, Trump chooses his words very pooly. Yes, Trump speaks before he thinks. Yet none of Trump’s proposed military actions in the Middle East come anywhere close to being as dangerous, reckless, and ignorant of recent history as those supported by Clinton. Is it any surprise that many of the neocons are right there with the PC police in race bating Trump, much to the benefit of the would be “First Woman President”? I wonder how many loyal Democrats, who eight years ago ridiculed Bush for his Iraq decision, will now read articles like these from “winningdemocrats” and clap their fins like barking seals. I wonder how many of them will also realize they are now on the same side as the people they hated just eight years ago.