Home | About | Donate

The 'Liberal' Foreign Policy Establishment's Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds


The 'Liberal' Foreign Policy Establishment's Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

Danny Sjursen

If anyone else were president, the “liberals” would be celebrating. After all, pulling American soldiers out of a couple of failing, endless wars seems like a “win” for progressives. Heck, if Obama did it there might be a ticker-tape parade down Broadway. And there should be. The intervention in Syria is increasingly aimless, dangerous and lacks an end state. Afghanistan is an unwinnable war – America’s longest – and about to end in outright military defeat.


Not only have the Dim lib/prog party base been moving hard to the right on permanent imperial war against humanity and the biosphere; but lib/prog voters have jumped on the wagon and are pushing the Permanent War Party to even more murderous and disastrous depths:


The fact of Pwesident Twump has clearly strewn chaos into the path of US policy, both domestic and foreign. For just one example, presumed liberals (whatever that might mean these days) are hoping that former director of the FBI (yes, the FBI of COINTELPRO fame) and liar in service to US imperialism, Robert Mueller, will save the republic with a handful of magic beans.

But this kind of tectonic shift isn’t new—consider how, not so long ago, the US antiwar movement took an 8-year sabbatical rather than call out the first not-entirely-white, Nobel-Peace-laureate president over his campaign of drone warfare. We shouldn’t be surprised, then, that having only two recognized political parties creates tribalism which transcends policy.


This is why I have come to fear ‘Liberals’ more than ‘Conservatives.’

Conservatives have always been lunatics, but I used to think that Liberals might help protect against their lunacy.

But now, the Liberals are even more crazy, at least in matters of war & peace.

We’re all doomed.


This is the direct result of having an either/or political choice.

Suddenly John McCain is a hero of the supposed opposition.

You ready for an actually liberal third party yet?


Correction: first line “base” should read “leaders”.


Not just drone warfare, but also deporter-in-chief, hiring of fascist HRC to run state dept (think Libya, Hondorous, et. al.), putting Africom on steroids, etc. But hey, he jammed through Romney/OB Care. All good.

Tweet Out


Its really heartening to see a truth-digger coming out of formal military framing. Insights can be quite valuable. One critique I have, though, is loose terminology failing to sharpen the distinction between liberal and ‘neo-liberal’. Example could be, say, the majority of incumbent congress critters being the latter and AO-C the former.
GOP had Reagan, DEMs had Clinton soaked with neo-liberal wet dreams transferred to his wife. I doubt she will ever see another office - having become thoroughly distrusted for good reason.

Hate to distract from the topic, but the spoiler is the underlying reality that we are now in a scenario where we MUST face that its Mother Nature who will be batting last. Ever notice how few homers anyone is hitting these days? The bench has been systematically undermined by making $$$ the criteria. It is truly a lose-lose situation. Only redeeming feature being that nature presents a reality ‘baseline’ that tends to foil anthropomorphism for profit and advantage.

PUBLIC FINANCING … End Citizens United…support candidates who refuse corporate $




Good piece! Nitpick from a professional editor (me): The word should be “burnishing,” not “burgeoning,” in the subtitle. One burnishes (polishes) one’s credentials. One cannot burgeon something – it is never a transitive verb.


I think it is bullshit to assume liberals would rather see a continuation of a middle-east occupation of war rather that giving Trump a win for exiting. They would no longer belong to the liberal movement if they embraced any kind of war of choice.