• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

The Intercept: As Democratic Elites Reunite With Neocons, the Party’s Voters Are Becoming Far More Militaristic and Pro-War Than Republicans

Oct 25, 2017
2,185
#51
Being opposed to pulling out of destabilized regions (that we caused) and allowing people to be slaughtered as a result is not the same as being pro-war.
 
Nov 1, 2017
8,806
#52
Trump isn’t even an isolationist when it comes to the military - he just wants to use it in different places like Iran and the US border.
There are no true isolationists in America. Everyone knows that here in this country, we make and market war first and foremost.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,705
Ann Arbor, MI
#53
I wonder if this is peak "Trump does it, therefore it's bad".

Trump's odd embrace of withdrawing troops and less intervention in foreign policy is one of the only good things about his platform.

If the Democrats aren't the party of anti-intervention/anti-war, then fuck em. That's a staple of liberalism in my book. Thankfully I'm sure there are many Democrats who agree with me, and this article is not the be-all end-all on this topic.
Trumps method though is a fucking disaster.

Wanting to leave Syria is one thing, the way trump wanted to do it was irresponsible and foolish.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,632
#54
That's a lie. I want the receipts.
From his book:

I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president's performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.
He tries to weasel around this and say it doesn’t count as support because he wasn’t a journalist and didn’t write an article at the time.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,705
Ann Arbor, MI
#55
Btw how the FUCK is Intercept an allowed source here?

Greenwald is a loser Russia shill who eagerly embraces racist figures like Ron Paul and happily appears on Tucker Carleson
 

SG-17

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,210
#56
Why is it troubling?

We damn well have a responsibility to maintain global stability by any and all means. Whether that's overthrowing a government that threatens to irrevocably and seriously damage the global environment, invading a country to stop a genocide, using sanctions and threats to keep the peace, using force projection to keep the seas safe, deploying massive foreign aid and nation building programs, etc.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,624
#57
Btw how the FUCK is Intercept an allowed source here?

Greenwald is a loser Russia shill who eagerly embraces racist figures like Ron Paul and happily appears on Tucker Carleson
There's actually a real difference between the non-Greenwald parts of The Intercept and his parts ideologically. The EIC literally isn't allowed to edit him because he's their headline star.
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,885
Arkansas, USA
#59
Translation

Thinking Putin shouldn’t just be able to annex whatever parts of Europe he wants makes you a neocon.
My brother and I were discussing the other day how much longer it will be until Russia makes a move against one of the Baltic states. With Brexit and the Mueller report likely coming to a head around the same time, the spring of this year would be the opportune moment.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,504
#60
The irony is that, while they are our allies, so are the people who aim to eliminate them. We certainly haven't done anything in their best interests, from my perspective.
So your idea is just to leave them to their deaths.

Patting yourself on the back for a job well left.
 

Cocaloch

Banned
Member
Nov 6, 2017
4,562
Where the Fenians Sleep
#61
You're not going to get people actually against war in general elected to high government in the US. That's not how a state like the US works.

People acting like the Dems aren't the lesser of two evils on their approach to foreign policy is puzzling.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,105
#63
Trumps method though is a fucking disaster.

Wanting to leave Syria is one thing, the way trump wanted to do it was irresponsible and foolish.
Trump's everything is a disaster, so yeah. And he isn't even consistent with his withdrawal platform, sending a MOAB into Afghanistan as a political move to also curry favour with the other half of the Republican base who still get hard over stuff like that.

But let's remember that people would have said the same thing ("irresponsible and foolish") about Obama pulling troops out of Iraq or closing Guantanamo Bay, etc. Truth is, there's never really a good way to withdraw the tendrils of the American war machine from the world without damage, and there's always a valid criticism of the way you go about it. But for me, I think the alternative to difficult withdrawals is the status quo of never ever leaving anywhere you've deployed, and that's not good either..
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,635
#64
I'm not just talking about clean up duty. We involved ourselves in the Syrian conflict further, and ended up arming the bad guys. That falls on Obama, regardless of the origins of the conflicts in the region.
Guess what conflict wouldnt happen if HW didnt do what we did?

We arent stuck in a war with Japan and Germany for a reason. We are still dealing with this bullshit for a reason.

Hell the fact that Democrats havent fixed anything in regards to Republicans bulkshit is why we have an increasingly criminal party
 
Nov 1, 2017
8,806
#65
So your idea is just to leave them to their deaths.

Patting yourself on the back for a job well left.
We should have been preparing a way to save them. We should have done something for them. We did nothing. Why? Because we have been gradually readying ourselves to accept the Middle East as a hive of perpetual war for us to engage in and profit from. Let's not pretend that we are staying there trying to figure out a solution for them. We're not. We weren't under Bush, we weren't under Obama, and we certainly aren't under Trump.
 

Cocaloch

Banned
Member
Nov 6, 2017
4,562
Where the Fenians Sleep
#66
Why is it troubling?

We damn well have a responsibility to maintain global stability by any and all means. Whether that's overthrowing a government that threatens to irrevocably and seriously damage the global environment, invading a country to stop a genocide, using sanctions and threats to keep the peace, using force projection to keep the seas safe, deploying massive foreign aid and nation building programs, etc.
Aren't you the guy that wants the US to annex Canada and embraces being called Whiggish?
 
Oct 31, 2017
1,781
#68
Why is it troubling?

We damn well have a responsibility to maintain global stability by any and all means. Whether that's overthrowing a government that threatens to irrevocably and seriously damage the global environment, invading a country to stop a genocide, using sanctions and threats to keep the peace, using force projection to keep the seas safe, deploying massive foreign aid and nation building programs, etc.
You must be unaware of the fact that the US has been fucking up the world for its own interest since the end of the second world war. Most of central america is a shithole because the US has repeatedly installed fascists and supported fascist revolutionary groups. Iran is like it is today at least in part because the US overthrew a nascent democracy to reinstall the Shah. Seriously, you need to read some history rather than parrot patently untrue nationalist talking points.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,504
#69
We should have been preparing a way to save them. We should have done something for them. We did nothing. Why? Because we have been gradually readying ourselves to accept the Middle East as a hive of perpetual war for us to engage in and profit from. Let's not pretend that we are staying there trying to figure out a solution for them. We're not. We weren't under Bush, we weren't under Obama, and we certainly aren't under Trump.
all I’m hearing is excuses over dead bodies
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,105
#70
You're not going to get people actually against war in general elected to high government in the US. That's not how a state like the US works.

People acting like the Dems aren't the lesser of two evils on their approach to foreign policy is puzzling.
It seems to me that the last two elected presidents did campaign on troop withdrawal, and fatigue over the War on Terror era interventions.

Of course once they get into office, there's usually a little (a lot) of warmongering that happens anyway...
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,190
#74
They seemed pretty gung-ho about Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
The only thing you can really pin squarely on Democrats in recent years is Libya. Iraq was squarely on the shoulders of Bush and his administration, Afghanistan was inevitable because of 9/11 (and where we should have struck first anyway), and Syria was literally out of control and has been from the start, also ironically made worse by us pulling out of Afghanistan (though I don't believe anyone could have seen that coming). ISIS and co were very real threats that had to be dealt with. It's like a game of dominoes that doesn't just end because we try to ignore it.

Literally Democrats trying to clean up the shitshow started decades ago by Republicans and may very well be kicked back into high gear again by president fuckface.
 
Last edited:

Kirblar

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,624
#77
You're not going to get people actually against war in general elected to high government in the US. That's not how a state like the US works.

People acting like the Dems aren't the lesser of two evils on their approach to foreign policy is puzzling.
It's less puzzling when you considering that Greenwald's got a history of carrying water for white supremacist types.
 

Brazil

Host at The Mansion
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
6,961
São Paulo, Brazil
#78
https://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm/book_number/1812/page_number/2/how-would-a-patriot-act

In his own words, re: Iraq.

He very much tries to pretend he didn't write this. Unfortunately you can buy the book on Amazon.
From his book:

He tries to weasel around this and say it doesn’t count as support because he wasn’t a journalist and didn’t write an article at the time.
He wasn't a journalist at the time. He literally could not have displayed support for the Iraq war even if he wanted to.

The book that includes the preface you're quoting from, which is one of his first pieces of actual political writing, literally denounces the Bush/Cheney administration and its actions in Iraq, and that paragraph is clearly written in the past tense in an attempt to explain how he felt back then, and how his thoughts regarding that administration evolved.

To quote from Greenwald himself:

The purpose of the Preface was to publicly explain that evolution. Indeed, the first sentence of this Preface was this quote from Abraham Lincoln: "I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday." When I still trusted and relied upon the claims of the political and media class - when I was basically apolitical and passive - I tacitly accepted all sorts of views which I've come to see are warped and misleading. I've talked often about this process and am proud of this evolution. I have zero interest in hiding it or concealing it. Quite the contrary: I want readers to know about it. That's why I wrote the Preface.

But anyone using this Preface to claim I was a "supporter" of the Iraq War is simply fabricating. At worst, I was guilty of apathy and passivity. I did nothing for or against it because I assumed that those in positions to exercise adversarial scrutiny - in journalism and politics - were doing that. It's precisely my realization of how profoundly deceitful and failed are American political and media institutions that motivated me to begin working on politics, and it's those realizations which continue to motivate me now.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...read-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

Just another liberal fabrication used to discredit leftists who dare criticize the Democratic party. Once again, it's always the messenger, never the message.
 

Orb

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,824
USA
#80
Most Americans are pro-military, pro-police, and pro-patriotism no matter what side of the aisle they fall on, and that's a huge problem. All the indoctrination and propaganda we receive as kids works.
 
Oct 25, 2017
6,435
Boise, Idaho
#81
Why is it troubling?

We damn well have a responsibility to maintain global stability by any and all means. Whether that's overthrowing a government that threatens to irrevocably and seriously damage the global environment, invading a country to stop a genocide, using sanctions and threats to keep the peace, using force projection to keep the seas safe, deploying massive foreign aid and nation building programs, etc.
good lord
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,632
#82
He wasn't a journalist at the time. He literally could not have displayed support for the Iraq war even if he wanted to.

The book that includes the preface you're quoting from, which is one of his first pieces of actual political writing, literally denounces the Bush/Cheney administration and its actions in Iraq, and that paragraph is clearly written in the past tense in an attempt to explain how he felt back then, and how his thoughts regarding that administration evolved.

To quote from Greenwald himself:


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...read-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

Just another liberal fabrication used to discredit leftists who dare criticize the Democratic party. Once again, it's always the messenger, never the message.
The claim was he supported the Iraq war. He says he supported the Iraq war.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,504
#83
He wasn't a journalist at the time. He literally could not have displayed support for the Iraq war even if he wanted to.

The book that includes the preface you're quoting from, which is one of his first pieces of actual political writing, literally denounces the Bush/Cheney administration and its actions in Iraq, and that paragraph is clearly written in the past tense in an attempt to explain how he felt back then, and how his thoughts regarding that administration evolved.

To quote from Greenwald himself:


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...read-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

Just another liberal fabrication used to discredit leftists who dare criticize the Democratic party. Once again, it's always the messenger, never the message.
So because he wasn’t a journalist.

His writing support for a war doesn’t count?

Amazing
 

Kirblar

Banned
Member
Oct 25, 2017
20,624
#86
He wasn't a journalist at the time. He literally could not have displayed support for the Iraq war even if he wanted to.

The book that includes the preface you're quoting from, which is one of his first pieces of actual political writing, literally denounces the Bush/Cheney administration and its actions in Iraq, and that paragraph is clearly written in the past tense in an attempt to explain how he felt back then, and how his thoughts regarding that administration evolved.

To quote from Greenwald himself:

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...read-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

Just another fabrication used to discredit leftists who dare criticize the Democratic party. Once again, it's always the messenger, never the message.
He literally said he supported it at the time in his own book! Why would he lie?
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,238
#88
He wasn't a journalist at the time. He literally could not have displayed support for the Iraq war even if he wanted to.

The book that includes the preface you're quoting from, which is one of his first pieces of actual political writing, literally denounces the Bush/Cheney administration and its actions in Iraq, and that paragraph is clearly written in the past tense in an attempt to explain how he felt back then, and how his thoughts regarding that administration evolved.

To quote from Greenwald himself:


https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...read-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more

Just another fabrication used to discredit leftists who dare criticize the Democratic party. Once again, it's always the messenger, never the message.
Glenn: "I agreed with the Iraq war"
Y'all, and Glenn himself, for some reason: "That doesn't count but some reason was included to show how I've changed "
 
OP
OP
Sokrates
Oct 27, 2017
347
#89
‘Liberal’ MSNBC Runs All-Star Lineup of Awful Right-Wing Guests

Nor was there time to mention the heinous and illegal acts the CIA committed specifically under Brennan’s leadership. Perhaps the most egregious of these is the CIA’s drone assassination program, codified and coordinated by Brennan, which now allows the US to use “surgical” drone strikes to kill people listed on a CIA-approved “Disposition Matrix” (kill list) in countries outside of combat zones like Iraq and Afghanistan. According to the New America Foundation, about 20 percent of drone strikes kill civilians not on the CIA’s list. Strikes under the Obama administration are estimated to have killed between 384 and 807 civilians in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia (countries that the US is not currently at war with).


In the Maddow interview, Brennan described Trump as “abusing the powers of his office.” Thanks to the norms established by Brennan as CIA director, the “powers of his office” now include the ability to place anyone, even an US citizen, on an unaccountable hit list without due process, so long as they’re given the incredibly slippery and imprecise designation of “terrorist.”


But just because the CIA expanded its wheelhouse to include flying killer robots under Brennan doesn’t mean that its traditional tactics of illegal spying should be ignored. In 2014, after accusations from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the CIA was found to have hacked the computers of Senate Intelligence Committee staffers who were charged with Agency oversight, specifically in regards to the Committee’s review of the CIA’s detention and torture programs. (Brennan initially denied the hacks.) Following the release of the Intelligence Committee’s torture report, Brennan publicly defended the CIA’s use of torture techniques such as “rectal feeding,” mock executions, beatings and waterboarding as useful and successful, although he agreed they were, at times, “harsh.” Brennan has flip-flopped a few times between supporting and decrying the CIA’s use of waterboarding under his watch, but only denounced it on the grounds of its helping jihadi extremist recruitment, rather than opposing it on legal or moral grounds.


Maddow did skewer Brennan’s history on torture on her show in 2013, in the midst of his confirmation hearings, and has covered CIA atrocities with combative rhetoric in the past, particularly during the confirmation hearings of current Trump CIA Director Gina Haspel, who in 2005 ordered the destruction of tapes and documentation of the CIA torture programs. But since Brennan has been added to the MSNBC regular correspondent lineup, he seems to have been given a pass from Maddow and her colleagues.
 

SG-17

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,210
#91
Aren't you the guy that wants the US to annex Canada and embraces being called Whiggish?
Damn right. A technoutopian United Earth is the only viable future for humanity. The less individual sovereign nations the better.

You must be unaware of the fact that the US has been fucking up the world for its own interest since the end of the second world war. Most of central america is a shithole because the US has repeatedly installed fascists and supported fascist revolutionary groups. Iran is like it is today at least in part because the US overthrew a nascent democracy to reinstall the Shah. Seriously, you need to read some history rather than parrot patently untrue nationalist talking points.
Just because intervention was handled (mostly) horribly in the past doesn't mean it has to always be such. There are many more benevolent ways to handle intervention. The "Superman" style of intervening to save lives and improve bad situations is the way to go. Being isolationist or refusing to act beyond condemnations and sanctions is immoral when we have the power and money to make things better.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,504
#92
He never wrote support for a war. He wrote about how he used to support the war before he was a writer, but then changed his mind and started writing.
So he supported a war.

He just changed his mind.

Like the rest of the country.

And yet other keep that blame
And individuals like you make excuses for him.

Also the act of CHANGING YOUR MINd requires you to have a different position then before.

That position was supporting the war.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,632
#93
He never wrote support for a war. He wrote about how he used to support the war before he was a writer, but then changed his mind and started writing.
He changed his mind from supporting the war to not supporting it. Which means “he supported the war” is a true statement.
 
Oct 25, 2017
654
#97
This article is maximum c'mon son. I guess the idea is that if any military activity of any kind happens ever/for any reason, a "real" person on the left would be against it with no nuance?

Nah, fuck that. Why are we actively seeking minute ideological differences?
 
Oct 31, 2017
1,781
#98
Damn right. A technoutopian United Earth is the only viable future for humanity. The less individual sovereign nations the better.


Just because intervention was handled (mostly) horribly in the past doesn't mean it has to always be such. There are many more benevolent ways to handle intervention. The "Superman" style of intervening to save lives and improve bad situations is the way to go. Being isolationist or refusing to act beyond condemnations and sanctions is immoral when we have the power and money to make things better.
"it's shit but we should do it anyway" Right. Also, many of those bad situations ARE A DIRECT RESULT of US action. The US has been the greatest exporter of violence in the world for the past 70 years, and your domestic politics are completely warped by the presence and worship of the most obscene military machine the world has ever seen.