General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOrganising against war within a war party
September 06, 2012
DAVID SWANSON
Last week in Tampa, Clint Eastwood proposed immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the Republican crowd applauded. This week here in Charlotte, I wouldn’t hold my breath for any speaker at the convention to dare to suggest such a thing. But they would be applauded if they did.
President Obama will pretend to be ending the war, albeit through a process that will take much longer than the entire length of most wars the world has seen, and he’ll be applauded for that. And if the convention resembles the Obama campaign event I attended last week in Charlottesville (a completely different town from this one, by the way, but like this one named for the wife of a king whom these colonies fought a war against because he abused powers in no way approaching the powers now bestowed on our presidents) - if, I say, the convention resembles that event, then at least one speaker will glorify the murder of Osama bin Laden and win applause for that, while at least one speaker will praise the continuation of the war on Afghanistan and encourage military recruitment for that purpose and win applause for that. To get people at a convention of their party to reject something, to boo something, or even to stop and consider something would be the rarest of phenomena.
- snip -
Imagine if the record of the past four years were the record of a Republican president. We’d know a lot more about it. We’d be a lot more outraged by it. And we’d be opposing it without a hint of self-censorship. Imagine if the record and platform of the Democratic nominee were noticeably less warlike.
Now imagine if the record of the past four years were the record of a Democratic president, but imagine it a far better record, a record of legitimate work for peace. Imagine that bases had been closed rather than opened, wars ended rather than escalated (and not ended by a predecessor’s treaty against which the president fought tooth and nail, but ended by choice), the military shrunken instead of enlarged, etc. Not only would we applaud that record, but we might go so far as to identify ourselves with that president’s political party.
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/06-Sep-2012/organising-against-war-within-a-war-party
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)gets back into the WH and the GOP starts new wars. What will the peace movement say then? They will have no credibility.
rug
(82,333 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)as EM Forster said "Only hypocrites cannot forgive hypocrisy".
rug
(82,333 posts)The only vice that cannot be forgiven is hypocrisy. The repentance of a hypocrite is itself hypocrisy.
- William Hazlitt
cali
(114,904 posts)You should read Forster's "Two Cheers For Democracy".
And I side with Forster. "Only Hypocrites cannot forgive hypocrisy"
rug
(82,333 posts)The war must stop, now.
cali
(114,904 posts)first of all, as I'm sure swanson knows, rMoney and the repukes want an open ended conflict in Afghanistan and have been all over the president for having a pull out date. but that's just one thing.
I have never seen a candidate more openly warlike than rMoney and his party supports it: War with Iran? Check. Hyper-Agressive stances re China and Russia? Check. War with Syria? Check.
Fucking bullshit from Swanson who dishes it out on a regular basis.
rug
(82,333 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)gee, like he pretended to end the war in Iraq? Secondly, the ridiculous implication that the repubs are against the war in Afghanistan when in truth, something david knows jackshit about as he's amply demonstrated here, the repubs want to extend the war in Afganistan. Not to mention rMoney seems more than trigger happy as regards Iran and Syria and is hyper-aggressive re China and Russia.
He makes bullshit predictions such as this one:
To get people at a convention of their party to reject something, to boo something, or even to stop and consider something would be the rarest of phenomena.
There is no one, and boy do I mean no one, on the left that I have more contempt for than Swanson. And no one is worse of a writer.
fuck him.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts) 
xchrom
(108,903 posts)
redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)What Swanson does is apply that same paradigm to anti-war opposition. Hence the exaggerations and the like.
bigtree
(85,992 posts). . . much less, during his re-election campaign.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)The Obama Admin carried out those terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement
bigtree
(85,992 posts)Obama brilliantly adopted the already negotiated severance and withdrew without regard to ANY of the justifications Bush would have used to remain. If you think Bush would have let go of his Iraq prize, you weren't paying attention. Remember, very few republicans wanted to exit when Obama did. Giving Bush credit for the ultimate withdraw by Obama is revisionist history.
xchrom
(108,903 posts)WASHINGTON — The United States military will maintain control over dozens of foreign detainees in Afghanistan for the indefinite future, even as the two countries prepare to ceremonially mark the hand-over of detention operations to the Afghan government, officials from both countries say.
Further, although thousands of Afghan detainees have already been turned over, the United States will continue to hold and screen newly captured Afghans for a time, ensuring continued American involvement in detention and interrogation activities.
The hand-over deal, signed on March 9 at President Hamid Karzai’s demand, set a six-month transfer schedule and was a reflection of rising Afghan assertions of sovereignty at a time of extreme tensions over American troops’ burning of Korans.
The persistence of American-operated prison buildings, in a section of the main Parwan complex at Bagram Air Base, underscores the complexity of relinquishing control over detainee operations while American troops are still in the field conducting raids and making arrests — including the risk that detainees could be freed only to come back and stage attacks.
bhikkhu
(10,715 posts)Obama said he'd end the war, and he did. No lingering on in the billion dollar bases Bush built - just out, over and done. You can give Bush the credit for the plan if you want, I don't even care, but there's no denying it was Obama that actually saw it through and accomplished it.
Now Obama is drawing down forces and closing bases in Afghanistan for a 2014 exit. What exactly is Romeny's plan there? Do you trust him?
I think the best way to move toward peace is to support the president who is moving us toward peace.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Oh, and DUer's should note this "article" isn't being posted from the respected The Nation, edited by Katrina vanden Heuvel, but by The Nation, an English-language paper based out of Lahore, Pakistan.
The Nation, Pakistan may indeed be very good paper, but it shouldn't be confused with the The Nation that we all think about when we hear that name.
Edit: I have to admit I can't wait for Swanson's annual Pearl Harbor nuttery. Lots of good laughs in that one.
Sid
rug
(82,333 posts)I don't thinki anyone is confused. The "s" is a giveaway.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)always bringing the comedy gold. Don't ever stop.
Sid
rug
(82,333 posts)Here's some more comedy.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/12813081-dod-us-military-casualties-in-afghanistan-as-of-aug-17th-2012
Don't forget to read the names.
http://icasualties.org/OEF/Fatalities.aspx
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)But, we're still there and the people and troops are still dying for PR.
