The Democratic Party is now the War Party

One of the most dangerous periods of the 20th century was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Thanks to the leadership of President John F. Kennedy, nuclear war was averted and millions of lives saved.

Today, the United States' relationship with Russia is at one of its lowest points since that time over fifty years ago. Unfortunately, most Americans have no idea how close we are to military conflict with Russia. The leadership of the Democratic party (unlike the Republican nominee) appear willing to push confrontation over diplomacy. Adam Walinsky is a former speechwriter for Senator Robert F. Kennedy. He has endorsed Donald Trump, the Republican nominee. A long-time Democrat, he eloquently writes about his issues with his party's leadership.

I Was RFK’s Speechwriter. Now I’m Voting for Trump. Here’s Why - The Democratic Party has become something both JFK and RFK would deplore—the party of war. - Politico, September 21, 2016

Here it is. John and Robert Kennedy devoted their greatest commitments and energies to the prevention of war and the preservation of peace. To them that was not an abstract formula but the necessary foundation of human life. But today’s Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments. We have American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel on the ground in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized countries. Generals and admirals announce our national policies. Theater commanders are our principal ambassadors. Our first answer to trouble or opposition of any kind seems always to be a military movement or action.

Nor has the Democratic Party candidate for president this year, Hillary Clinton, sought peace. Instead she has pushed America into successive invasions, successive efforts at “regime change.” She has sought to prevent Americans from seeking friendship or cooperation with President Vladimir Putin of Russia by characterizing him as “another Hitler.” She proclaims herself ready to invade Syria immediately after taking the oath of office. Her shadow War Cabinet brims with the architects of war and disaster for the past decades, the neocons who led us to our present pass, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, in Ukraine, unrepentant of all past errors, ready to resume it all with fresh trillions and fresh blood. And the Democrats she leads seem intent on worsening relations with Russia, for example by sending American warships into the Black Sea, or by introducing nuclear weapons ever closer to Russia itself.

In fact, in all the years of the so-called War on Terror, only one potential American president has had the intelligence, the vision, the sheer sanity to see that America cannot fight the entire world at once; who sees that America’s natural and necessary allies in this fight must include the advanced and civilized nations that are most exposed and experienced in their own terror wars, and have the requisite military power and willingness to use it. Only one American candidate has pointed out how senseless it is to seek confrontation with Russia and China, at the same time that we are trying to suppress the very jihadist movements that they also are attacking.

That candidate is Donald Trump. Throughout this campaign, he has said that as president, he would quickly sit down with President Putin and seek relaxation of tensions between our nations, and possible collaboration in the fight against terrorists. On this ground alone, he marks himself as greatly superior to all his competitors, earlier in the primaries and now in the general election.

He then touches on the Cuban Missile Crisis...

....he and his brother had to overcome great opposition from their own military commanders, government officials and other public leaders, to prevent a war with the Soviet Union: there were 13 men in the ExComm room, and Robert Kennedy said that had any 1 of 8 of them been president, the crisis would have exploded in nuclear war.

But within a year thereafter, deeply affected by the barely-averted catastrophe, President Kennedy had forged a close working relationship with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, spoke all over the country to promote peace policies, and delivered his historic American University speech of 1963. Our “strategy of peace,” he said, was “not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.” Rather it must be founded on negotiation, cooperation in areas of mutual interest, and recognition that “our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.” As to our great adversary the Soviet Union, he said, “we must reexamine our own attitude—as individuals and as a nation—for our attitude is as essential as theirs.”

Six months later he was dead; and it was Robert Kennedy who must resume the effort.

Other Democrats simply put party loyalty ahead of reality. Peter Edelman is a former legislative assistant to Senator Robert F. Kennedy. He wrote a poor rebuttal to Mr. Walinsky's article:

Robert Kennedy Would Have Hated Donald Trump - Politico, September 22, 2016


First, commendations for mentioning the military-industrial complex:

The question is not whether there is a military-industrial complex in our country. President Eisenhower called us out on that and there is enough responsibility to go around among both parties for it. 

Then, he turns partisan by blaming Republicans:

The 21st century version begins with the Iraq War, which was originated by a Republican President. 

Then, he makes a ridiculous statement:

I am not interested in adjudicating the issue of which party is the war party except to say that Presidents Obama, Clinton and Carter have stood for peace in important and tangible ways.

Shouldn't that be the purpose of your rebuttal - to adjudicate which party is the war party??? President Obama has stood for peace - what planet do you live on???

Whether you prefer a different name to the military-industrial complex (i.e. Deep State, Elites, Illuminati,etc.) or not, it does exist and it does not have humanity's best interest.

So, what side is Hillary Clinton on?

General Wesley Clark alluded to future wars in a Democracy Now interview back in 2007  - 'We’re going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran'. When confronted by We Are Change he said virtually nothing and would not comment about how Obama was handling Syria. He looked like he was under some kind of gag order.

General Wesley Clark Asked About 7 Country War Plan

Maybe the invasions of Syria and Libya are just part of the plan that the military-industrial complex has set up. But, didn't Libya give up their nuclear weapon materials?? So, did Mrs. Clinton try to stop this plan??

Clinton on Qaddafi: We came, we saw, he died

Sadly, a significant degree of the American populace think it would be OK to nuke Russia if President Obama thinks so:


Liberals Sign Petition to NUKE RUSSIA so America will Stay World's Superpower

Where are all of those Democrat peace activists?? Shouldn't prevention of a potential nuclear war with Russia that would kill millions (if not billions) of lives be more important than climate change or social justice issues??

And why are members of the Kennedy family hanging around George HW Bush? I thought they were against war. Aren't they aware of Mr. Bush's history'?? They surely haven't read my prior post or even done a basic google search of JFK Bush. I guess they'll have to answer for themselves.

To better understand Russia's motivation for their involvement in Syria:

Putin's Gas Attack - Foreign Affairs, October 14, 2015