The blood thirsty leftists

Ted Hamilton

The other day I heard something striking from a socialist – she considers the Democrats to be allies of the anti-war movement. Normally I find most socialist rhetoric to be, at the least, absurd – if not completely insane – but that they consider Democrats to be a friend on this issue?

I see no reason why the term “Democratic Party” should be associated with the term “blood orgy.”

Since 2001, the left has tried to come off as the anti-war wing, the party that people should vote for if they are against the United States’ military excursions. Sadly, this is not the case and rarely ever has been.

Almost every time our country has been involved in a war during the 20th century, it was during the reign of a person from the Democratic Party. World War I, World War II, the Korean War and a lot of the skirmishes in between all saw United States involvement during a Democratic administration.

Even Vietnam – which many Democrats use to draw comparisons to the Iraq War – was helped along by their adored John F. Kennedy.

No one should forget that George W. Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, also had his share of interventions. During Operation Desert Fox – Slick Willy’s foray into Iraq – somewhere between 600 and 1,200 Iraqis were murdered by the bombardment. Likewise during Clinton’s administration, NATO conducted Operation Allied Force during the Kosovo War in which almost 500 civilians met an untimely end.

This is not to say that the Republican Party are an anti-war bunch – I think the last eight years taught us they are anything but anti-war.

Bush came into office, however, promising a non-interventionist approach – just like Barack Obama. During the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush criticized Gore by calling his administration too interventionist and that the U.S. needed to “stop extending our troops all around the world.”

In the years that followed, it would seem that Dubya changed is mind quite a bit.

Likewise, it is becoming more and more blatantly obvious that Obama is not the anti-war candidate some thought he was. The left’s solution to the war seems to be an increase in defense spending coupled with adding 65,000 troops to the Army and trying to recruit 27,000 more marines.

Add those small facts with the Obama administration ordering drone attacks and bombings in Pakistan, and the pieces of the puzzle begin to come together: The Democratic Party, along with their candidate, is the wrong political group to support if you are against the war.

Both of the mainstream parties in the United States use the subject of war as a talking point, nothing more. Throughout the country’s history, we have seen countless candidates proclaim to be against nation building and then turn around and do just that. From Woodrow Wilson to Franklin D. Roosevelt to George W. Bush to Barack Obama, politicians from the two major parties have all done a 180 when it comes to their support of interventionist policies.

Maybe Obama has gotten most of his jollies out by bombing Pakistan and escalating the war in Afghanistan while doing virtually nothing to end the Iraq War.

But I doubt it.

Ted Hamilton is a senior magazine journalism major and columnist for the Daily Kent Stater. Contact him at [email protected].