The old antiwar horse is still kicking. In 1972, South Dakota Sen. George McGovern (once a World War II bomber pilot) won the Democratic presidential nomination on an antiwar platform. In 2007, he’s still got game. In March 2007, McGovern called on Vice President Dick Cheney to resign. A month later, opining in the Los Angeles Times, he revisited the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (3)Page 1 of 1 pagesI have always respected McGovern for expressing his beliefs clearly and sticking to them.
Occasionally I get a bit nostalgic for the good old days of the Soviet Union and the Cold War when the “good and bad guys” were more easily defined. With McGovern we’d probably still be in the same situation, so maybe I should have voted for him.
I believe he is absolutely correct in the lack of historical perspective to the point of nearly total ignorance by our politicians. Truman was possibly the last President to have a truly comprehensive view.
The trouble we are now in is at least partly due to defining the present conflict in the historical way — as between nations — when it is far broader and more dangerous.
Being opposed to war solves nothing. Granted it was wrong to invade Iraq (the reasons are apparent to most of us), but leaving Iraq now will end nothing. Afghanistan is even sadder due to the fact that had we limited our actions to there we may have actually gained stature with Muslims and increased global cooperation against the radicals in there midst.
-------------------Note: Isn’t ironic that we attribute the fall of the Soviets to economically outdoing them? With our economy struggling will we do any better and if so, for how long?
Posted by whattheheck on Dec 27, 2007 at 10:30 AM Do you think it strange that people who actually took part in war are against war, while those who dodged war are quick to start wars? I don’t find it strange at all.
George Santayana said, in 1905, in “The Life of Reason,”
“Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Posted by frank67 on Jan 3, 2008 at 6:01 PM frank67,
To be fair we would have to say “some who have actually taken part in war are against war.”
“Once a cat jumps on a hot stove, he will not do it again. He will not jump on a cold one either.”
The wisdom is in knowing the difference.
The real war here is not with Iraqis, not with Iraq and the invasion was not really due to the attack on 9/11. IMHO it was “an opportunity” to establish a major military base in the midst of the oil rich Middle East.
This action will not prevent another attack here and the lack of action to protect our borders, our food supply, and innumerable other points vulnerable to terrible mischief confirms this.
By successive U.S. administrations ignoring thirty years in which to have built alternative energy sourses, mass public transportation and promoted energy efficiency in housing — we are still stategically dependent on oil.
I occasionally wonder what would have changed with the $0.50 per gallon tax (to be used for such development) candidate John B. Anderson proposed in 1980.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 8, 2008 at 8:36 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Laura S. Washington
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
