Phil > "The Republican Party is now increasingly referred to as the Republikud Party."
True but the Democrats are no better. At least with the Republicans one knows what one is dealing with. With the Democrats, they pretend to be liberals but are also fascists and so, in fact, are more dangerous.
thenation.com
>> "If we were to artificially set a deadline of some sort, that would be like a green light to the terrorists, and we can't afford to do that," Clinton told CBS in February. Instead, she recently proposed enlarging the Army by 80,000 troops "to respond to threats wherever danger lies." Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, appears more comfortable accommodating the President's Iraq policy than opposing it, and her early and sustained support for the war (and frequent photo-ops with the troops) supposedly reinforces her national security credentials.
The prominence of party leaders like Biden and Clinton, and of a slew of other potential prowar candidates who support the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, presents the Democrats with an odd dilemma: At a time when the American people are turning against the Iraq War and favor a withdrawal of US troops, and British and American leaders are publicly discussing a partial pullback, the leading Democratic presidential candidates for '08 are unapologetic war hawks. Nearly 60 percent of Americans now oppose the war, according to recent polling. Sixty-three percent want US troops brought home within the next year. Yet a recent National Journal "insiders poll" found that a similar margin of Democratic members of Congress reject setting any timetable. The possibility that America's military presence in Iraq may be doing more harm than good is considered beyond the pale of "sophisticated" debate.
The continued high standing of the hawks has been made possible by their enablers in the strategic class--the foreign policy advisers, think-tank specialists and pundits. Their presumed expertise gives the strategic class a unique license to speak for the party on national security issues. This group has always been quietly influential, but since 9/11 it has risen in prominence, egging on and underpinning elected officials, crowding out dissenters within its own ranks and becoming increasingly ideologically monolithic. So far its members remain unchallenged. It's more than a little ironic that the people who got Iraq so wrong continue to tell the Democrats how to get it right.<<
As the article says, both parties are the products of, and are influenced by, the same right-wing, pro-Zionist "think tanks".
> Israel had never signed the nuclear proliferation treaty
With the US looking after them, why should they?
> I guess Israel is too small a country to enable testing of the bomb.
Some years ago they did joint tests with SA in the South Atlantic.
> The double standard about nuclear weapons and who may own them is obvious
That's what the scientists felt when they developed the atom bomb and why they didn't want the US to be the only country which had one.
> many people are arguing that America's democracy is being continually eroded away which is the scariest development of all
What has happened is obvious, it's not even a subject for debate. Of course, many refuse to accept that it is so but that's their choice.
|
