Democratic party loyalists are okay with the amount of people killed in drone attack thus far. Over one million dead in Iraq in a war Obama regularly voted to fund is still blamed on his predecessor, because Bush’s support of the war was thought to be based on intent whereas Obama’s support was political expediency. From the perspective of partisan Democrats the latter is somehow less obscene.
Afghan, Pakistani and Palestinian deaths remain at tolerable levels.
I included a photo of a little girl in Gaza in this post. Would her death be one too many for partisan Democrats to accept? Would it at last cause them to oppose the Democratic party’s obeisance to Israel and the war machine? Would one more death make them oppose war the way they opposed it under the Bush regime?
Should white phosphorus burn this beautiful child to death, would her pain and terror, would the suffering and anger of her parents be any less because we have a Democrat in the Oval Office? Why is the war opposition so lauded under Bush seen as divisive when the president is a Democrat? Why do some even intimate working for peace is now motivated by racism?
Partisan Democrats now oppose any mention of peace or social justice for fear those core liberal values they once believed in may alienate independent voters. In order to defeat Republicans they are willing to become Republicans. It’s a slippery slope, the selling of one’s soul.
How many must die before the topic of war rejoins the dialog? How many more jobs must be lost, how many more tortured, how many more die due to lack of affordable health care?
where does one draw the line?