Do Progressive Democrats Want War Forever?
by lizard
I can’t imagine what the families of Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff have had to endure, knowing their loved ones were being held by the brutal extremists US foreign policy has enabled. That knowledge was surely bad enough, but now family members are talking publicly about the added horror of being threatened with prosecution by the Obama regime for trying to raise money to pay the ransoms:
The families of murdered American journalists Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff are speaking out against the US government for making their efforts to free their loved ones a “helpless” endeavor.
The parents of Steven Sotloff, a freelance journalist who was kidnapped by militants in Syria, told Yahoo News on Friday that a member of the president’s National Security Council threatened them with criminal prosecution if they attempted to pay a ransom to get their son freed.
“The family felt completely and utterly helpless when they heard this,” Barak Barfi, a friend of Sotloff who is serving as a spokesman for his family, told Yahoo News. “The Sotloffs felt there was nothing they could do to get Steve out.”
It gets worse. Those alleged Syrian moderates who Obama is hoping will fight both Assad and ISIS were apparently responsible for selling Sotloff to ISIS, a claim the duplicitous Obama regime is disputing.
So now that the pretext is set, the Obama regime is doubling down on those “moderate” Syrian rebels, and progressive Democrats are going along, hook, line and sinker:
There is a remarkable bait and switch happening in U.S. politics: Assad is the big fish that Obama wants hooked and he’s using ISIS to bait the American public. The U.S. president has superbly exploited American’s disgust of ISIS to deepen a war against the Syrian government, the scope and implications of which are completely unspoken.
Bush used a similar logic in Iraq when he “fought terrorism” by instead toppling the secular Iraqi government. And the deceit goes unchallenged in Syria because all of Congress is on board, dragging behind them the boot-licking media.
The “quiet support” of war by the progressive Democrats is especially noteworthy. The progressive superstar, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, has been especially vocal in her support of Obama’s war plans, saying that ISIS should be the nation’s “number 1 priority.” But Warren always conditions her war support with populist catchphrases such as “we can’t be dragged into another Middle East War,” as if investing in the Syrian rebels wasn’t doing exactly that.
The other progressive figurehead, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, also hides his war support under a populist glaze. Sanders shamefully agrees that Obama should ramp up support to the Syrian rebels, while giving the same hollow warning about avoiding another prolonged military adventure. Either the Democrats don’t understand the basic arithmetic of war or they assume the American public is stupid.
So I guess war forever is now simply America’s default position. Thanks for nothing, progressive Democrats.
Recent Comments
Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A… Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att… JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
4&20 blackbirds 
September 15, 2014 at 8:38 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
Perpetual (military and financial) war is our plan, policy and practice. When were Democrats, when “in power” not in on it with both feet, following orders from a higher authority? Have you followed the DOD budget votes lately? Or the supplemental funds for Israel to slaughter humans taking refuge in Gaza’s schools and hospitals?
There are 435 congressional districts that all have the power to select representatives that could end it. We have one, and no choice for peace on the ballot. Not one word against perpetual war from any candidate?
September 15, 2014 at 9:50 am
OK, Liz. Given the present reality in Syria/Iraq, what position do you think progressive Democrats ought to take?
If you were magically made Obama for a day, OK a week, what would you do about this whole mess? Remember, you’re not running for office again, so your hands aren’t tied.
September 15, 2014 at 10:19 am
I would come clean about the true nature of US foreign policy on prime time television.
September 15, 2014 at 11:45 am
How far back would you go? Would you deliver a lengthy Howard Zinn-type critique? You know, things like how much better our country would’ve been if the Democrats had nominated Henry Wallace instead of Truman in 1948?
There are a number of shameful events in every country’s history. Would you hold up another country’s history as morally superior to ours? I mean a large country, not some place like Iceland.
And if you delivered an in-their-face critique, how would the powerful in our country and internationally respond to it? Would they change their behavior?
You know they wouldn’t. So Liz-as-Obama would deliver a very shocking speech and things would continue on as they were.
Obama (as himself only) can do more good things working as a gradualist within the system we have (e.g., making ugly compromises that water down programs, postponing unpopular measures until they’re politically acceptable, launching acts of war in a measured way instead of lighting the whole middle- east afire as someone like McCain would do) than Liz-as-Obama could through a speech that would mobilize “patriotic” reactionaries and accomplish nothing otherwise.
September 15, 2014 at 12:34 pm
what I hear you saying is that the answer to the question posed in the title of this post is yes. fantastic, Turner. enjoy your warmongering Democrats.
September 15, 2014 at 1:09 pm
What you hear me saying isn’t coming from me.
September 15, 2014 at 9:55 am
This notion that “moderate Syrians” are going to help the U.S. fight ISIS is delusional. There were news reports everywhere that these “moderate” elements had just reached a cease fire agreement with ISIS:
Of course, getting the average numbed-down, propagandized american to read and understand any of this is impossible, so we will continue to fund, support and arm those that have agreed to work together to bring down Assad: ISIS and these so-called”moderate” Syrians.
Just practicing for the big one:
September 15, 2014 at 10:28 am
Turner,
Democrats are Democrats.
Cognitive dissidence is when one reality collides with another reality and you don’t have the ability to pick one over the other — so you coexist with the current reality, which produces dysfunction.
Cognitive dissonance, on the other hand, creates discomfort experienced by someone who holds two or more contradictory values. If “progressive Democrats” hold any discomfort it is well hidden from public view, so as to not cause any controversy.
“Progressive Democrats” is an oxymoron, unless your intent is satyre.
September 15, 2014 at 12:12 pm
So you’re not impressed with Amanda Curtis? You prefer Steve Daines, who believes men lived alongside dinosaurs and that benefits for poor people are too generous?
These are the alternatives, whether or not you like the two-party system.
And by the way, dysfunction in our governments, at all levels, hasn’t been caused by “cognitive dissidence.” It’s been caused by saboteurs of the governmental process, mainly Republicans but some Democrats too, who work as hard as they can to create dysfunction. Political dysfunction may bother some, but the powerful few these politicians are working for really like it. It gives them cover.
Your effort to obscure the role of Republicans in creating political dysfunction is once again noted.
September 15, 2014 at 2:17 pm
I did not say I was not impressed with Amanda Curtis.
I did not say I prefer Steve Daines.
There are, contrary to your opinion, alternatives other than Curtis or Daines.
I was addressing perpetual war and genocide, not “dysfunction in our governments,” or “political dysfunction” in general.
And I make no effort to “obscure the role of Republicans,” who were not the topic of the post.
Do you want to try that again? Please, at least read the post, and my comment, before typing.
September 15, 2014 at 4:29 pm
steve is giving you some good advice. how about read the actual post. what do you think about the Obama regime threatening the journalist’s families? just imagine, Turner, if Bush had done that.
Democrats would be losing their shit right now.
September 15, 2014 at 1:05 pm
Whether Curtis or Daines is elected matters is one of those myths that keeps this country churning and cannot be dispelled, that electoral politics in any way influences foreign policy. I see it work so often that I am resigned, the party that wins the presidency changes the name of the policy of the party that lost, and moves forward with that policy. There has been no change in US foreign policy since 9/11, only adoption of situational tactics as one-the-ground situations dictate. Syria was to be bombed last year after the false flag chemical attack, but the US was thwarted by the Russians. Now they are using ISIS to … bomb Syria.
More importantly, evidence abounds that ISIS, while certainly comprised in part of of angry victims of US foreign policy (along with a massive group of prisoners that somehow escaped Iraqi jails earlier this year), is led by agents of the US, and is actively provoking terror in the region to provoke a US response. How else can anyone (who is paying attention) explain how this ‘ragtag’ group came across billions in cash and weapons and charismatic and fully trained leadership with and full access to the US media?
It’s as old as war itself – to make the problem so that we can “solve” the problem, the solution all along to bomb and decapitate the democratically elected government of Syria and again undermine Iraqi democracy. It is so hard to watch as Democrats, who opposed the policy under Bush, now support it under Obama.
It is mindless.
September 15, 2014 at 6:08 pm
This is all terribly sad. On “Moon of Alabama” somebody quoted Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi writer. I had the privilege of interviewing him once. Before we invaded that country it had the highest # of PHds per capita. 40% of marriages were mixed ones between Sunni and Shia. There was no big divide. Same for Yugoslavia. Sarajevo was a wonderful cosmopolitan city where different religions and ethnic people got along just fine.
Everywhere we go, we purposely cause chaos and destruction in order for the war profiteers to line their pockets. On Sundays we dressed in painted faces and pretend to be “Vikings” and watch as soldiers parachute into gladiator arenas. We drink beer and have a good time.
Well everybody else in the world, at least the 99%, also want to have fun on Sundays with their families and watch a little sports or fish or make love. BUT NOOOOO! We make sure that they are all running for cover from bombs and drones or starving or in richer countries are worried about their jobs.
It is too sad for me to really put into words.
September 16, 2014 at 6:45 am
Psycopaths bomb. Not much has changed since Guernica in 1937.
It’s the dress rehersal for war.
”As German air chief Hermann Goering testified at his trial after World War II: “The Spanish Civil War gave me an opportunity to put my young air force to the test, and a means for my men to gain experience.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39674.htm
September 16, 2014 at 6:48 am
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/guernica.htm