The DNC Platform: Belief You Can Change In

"Iraq was a diversion from the fight against terrorists who struck us on 9-ll." No, it was not. It was a diversion from a criminal war of aggression against the people of Afghanistan that has done nothing to advance the arrest and prosecution of the key individuals behind those crimes, but has created a great deal of hostility toward the United States. You want to "redeploy" from Iraq to Afghanistan and leave behind a non-combat force in Iraq. But how will you persuade the Iraqis not to combat your non-combat force? Attempts over the past 7.5 years to create reality by announcing it haven't worked out so well.

Your proposals to assist Iraqi refugees and to shut down U.S. bases in Iraq are much more useful, courageous, and just. But if the bases are not to be permanent, WHEN will you close them?

You propose to "win" in Afghanistan by sending more soldiers there, having learned nothing from Iraq except that voters oppose continuing its occupation. You propose to illegally and -- if recent history is any guide -- disastrously attack people in Pakistan with "satellites and predator drones." That such acts of aggression are illegal apparently phases you not at all, which fits with your failure to mention anywhere any of the crimes of Bush-Cheney.

But you're not done there. You rant on and on about "global terrorists" and protecting the "Homeland."

Then you inject a sudden and weighty note of sanity by expressing the goal of moving in the direction of a world free of nuclear weapons, and even indicating some general steps in that direction. Thank you for that. And thank you for the semi-sane words of caution regarding Iran, although horribly marred by your usual refrain: "keeping all options on the table," which can mean only a willingness to launch an aggressive nuclear war.

In order to be prepared for new wars of aggression (since nobody has even fantasized about a need for wars of defense), you propose adding 92,000 new troops to the world's largest military. And you propose to use "parents, teachers, coaches, and community and religious leaders" to recruit these troops? And this is the party in opposition to the Republican Party? I'm beginning to understand that line up top about how there are no Democratic ideas and no Republican ideas. I'm glad you intend to care for veterans, but why are you so intent on producing more of them?

You discuss foreign relations at length but give only passing mention to supporting the United Nations, which -- after all -- was right about the "mistake" of attacking Iraq. You avoid answering the questions I would have wanted answered, such as:

Do you oppose wars of aggression?

Do you support the power of Congress to declare wars?

Do you support the power of Congress to end wars?

Should a president ever attempt to launch a war without a Congressional declaration of war?

Should a president ever launch a war that is neither in strict self-defense nor authorized by the United Nations Security Council?

If Congress chooses to end a war, is it appropriate for Congress to enforce such a decision by ceasing to fund a war?

Should a president ever intentionally mislead the Congress or the public about grounds for a war?

In what ways should a president who misleads Congress and the public about the grounds for war be held accountable?

How many U.S. military bases are currently maintained in foreign countries? How many should be?

 1  |  2  |  3