"It just so happens that the Democratic Party is Antiwar Enough!" -- Chris Sinnard

I am not persuaded that moving tens of thousands of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan is "anti-war" enough for me. I do not think the Afghans think so either, oddly enough.

I also do not think promising Israel to bomb Iran back to the 12th century just so the Israelis could control the middle east even more than they do now is "anti-war enough" for me.

Am I missing something here? Did Obama make an anti-war speech that I missed? I saw he bowed down to the Lobby and made promises -- but not any anti-war ones that I have read about.

Perhaps you mean the party itself as a whole? Congress could de-fund this abortion; but I seem to recall they gave Bush the butcher all the money he could spend on death and destruction.

bamage, my good fellow, I understood his post and the satire. I played along and vented a little. I suppose it would be better for Glenn's work if we all refain from venting, but that is hard for me. I will try to tone it down though, sorry if I was over the top.

All groups have crazies, hot heads, infiltrators, ignorant rabble, self-serving bastards, and so forth. Most political discussions I have heard or read normally revolve around what the person perceives as best for themselves rather than what is morally right.

I'll never forget (until dementia sets in) the words of a reporter who wrote about what a Salvadoran friend of his said during their guerrilla war. "We can't afford to kill the guerrillas," he said. "There are only 7,000 of them, and your government is paying my government a million dollars a day to fight them." And yet crazies in all parties (and other groups) have hollered for decades that "we" need to support this side or that side in various disputes around the globe.

The first job of those humans among us (not everyone obtains that status) is to fight the USA military and foreign policy. The civil rights concerns that Glenn G. and others here express almost daily are directly connected to the growing militarism and continual warfare.

The problem is multifold, but one of the top problems is that we dream of our government as it exists today becoming "great again as it was in the golden past" if only we elect the correct people. What if it is the nature of the government itself that is our problem? What if there never was a "golden era" when the American government was not as war-mongering as it is today.

Would the native Americans agree that the USA government used to be peaceful? The fellows in the Caribbean? South America? Did you know we invaded Canada twice? And they won both times! A Canadian friend loves to tell the story to all that will sit still and listen to it again.

What to do? Whom to trust? Who is running that promises an era of peace? Who is running that will not bomb a country that has not used force on us first?

Certainly Obama, McCrazier, and Barr all fail the test.

"Whatever else is true, there are people on the Right who believe in the same things people on the Left when it comes to war and civil liberties. Anyone can go read the Cato Institute's writing about these issues over the last seven years and let me know which group has done more to oppose extremist Bush policies than they have." -- Glenn Greenwald

I submit that there are anti-war groups and other anti-government groups that have opposed Bush at least as much as Cato, and I think the evidence shows that a few have opposed his policies even more reliably. I have not read a single thing even close to supporting anything this administration has done at antiwar.com.

Cato does get noticed by the press in the beltway and is very well funded, and that is for certain. So, any anti-war sentiment from them is always appreciated in this commenter's book, and they have a good track record on the anti-war issue.

In fact, we should all appreciate any anti-war, non-interventionist positions from those on the right, left, middle, socialist, communist, libertarian, or anyplace else. It is going to take a broad range of Americans to overcome the bipartisan foreign policy of war and intimidation that we have practiced for a century or more.

If we can obtain peace and a non-interventionist policy, then civil rights become so much easier to defend.

Maybe some umbrella group called "strange bedfellows" or something like that. You can use that suggestion if you want. :-)

"I'll take a true libertarian over a fascist, lord help me, if I'm ever in that desperate situation." -- h_lance

Since the fascist and the libertarian are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, I am wondering what it is about "libertarianism" that has you so riled up.

What policy positions do you think "libertarians" hold that you find so repellent as to be barely better than those held by fascists?