I am the antiwar candidate running in North Carolina District 9. https://richmondobserver.co...

There are neocons Rep and Dem who are warmongers. Hilary Clinton is one of them. She said that Kissinger, a hard core war criminal, is her consiglieri

This article was devoted to the foreign policy views of the military-intelligence candidates seeking Republican-held seats, or seats vacated by retiring Democrats, not those Democrats like Gabbard running for reelection. There are a handful, like Gabbard, who posture as antiwar, but most of the incumbent Democrats are just as openly militaristic as the CIA Democrats.

The one major flaw in this otherwise very good article, is that it fails to point out that Tulsi Gabbard is a Combat Veteran running for Congress as a Democrat who is very much against Regime Change and Forever Wars. She is not like the others that are mentioned in this article. I know that WSWS has their differences with Tulsi Gabbard, but they should be careful not to lump her in with the pro-War Democrats.
https://medium.com/@caityjo...

People came out in droves in 2006 because the democrats were running on rolling back the Bush abuses and promised us that if we gave Pelosi the gavel she would do just that.

I'm sure that I don't have to remind people of her saying that impeachment is off the table and the democrats were going to keep their powder dry.

Next up was Obama who pretty much campaigned on not being George Bush. Except for once he got into office he became Bush on steroids. Now as the article states there isn't an anti war movement because people went silent after Obama did that.

Look at how many people were willing to overlook the heinous war crimes that Hillary committed during her tenure as SOS. Libya was her decision and Obama went along with her. Now Libya is over run by terrorists and they are selling people as slaves there. Telling people that was happening and Hillary and Obama were responsible for it was met with blank stares and disbelief. Saying that she is a warmonger was also met with hostility.

Obama is not only the first black president in American history, he's the black president that brought slavery back into Libya. And the anti war demise rests solely on his shoulders. This is his legacy as is the fact that Donald Trump's presidency followed his.

*half black president, thank you.

@Patrick Martin: Per usual WSWS standards an excellent article. Just one point: Russia Insider "reprinted" your article in full on its website. RI publishes some informative articles about Russian military technology and provides objective journalism about the Syrian Civil War. However the site has published several articles which veer very closely to anti-semitism or actually fall into that category. Understand any website can quote or publish WSWS articles with proper attribution (which was done in this case) but could be dangerous by drawing WSWS into the "red-brown" controversy. A place this website does NOT want to be.

I used to shrug my shoulders and vote for Democrats in the Congressional elections thinking, "well, they are slightly less evil than Republicans." Can't even do that anymore.

How incredibly stagnant has been anti-war sentiment and protest in the United States . Not a single LEADER capable of reaching the masses has emerged or found his or her voice.
Hardly a single fresh insight on WAR and PEACE in the mainstream news media. Any deep criticism of the capitalist " way of life " has retreated almost to the Freudian realm of the Unconscious in the middle class.
The American" free press " all but obliterates historical memory . Long recognized FACTS are bludgeoned out of the heads of the more literate public.

Reading the last few chapters of H. G. Wells " The Outline of History " I was impressed ( for all his " philistine " flaws ) by his internationalism, his sense that the worshipped NATION STATE was now an anachronism, that global socialism was a real possibility, that ALL plutocracies and monarchies were doomed.
Also not surprising Wells' gloomy " Mind at the end of its tether ". How long can humanity LIVE with THE BOMB ?

I noticed with some interest the remarks about HG Wells in Their Morals and Ours:
"The inimitable H.G. Wells, whose high fancy is surpassed only by his Homeric self-satisfaction was not slow in solidarizing himself with the reactionary snobs of Common Sense."
Its unclear to me if Trotsky is saying that HG Wells participated publicly in a questionnaire conflating Stalinism and Trotskyism. At any rate that appears to be Trotsky's point. Are those the "philistine flaws" you're talking about? I would love to hear more about what Trotsky has to say about Wells. Does Trotsky write about Wells in other books? Wells' loss of faith in utopianism over the years gives me some cause to believe he himself understood that his naive socialism and art of speculative science needed more work. Any thoughts?

Voronsky does on Wells in 1921..Lenin was an admirer of his imagination with obvious reservations about Wells politically.Lenin made a strong,favourable impression on Wells.

“Art as the Cognition of Life” - Aleksandr Voronsky
Available at Mehring Books.Alternatively make contact with the party and someone may be able to arrange something to avoid postage and to discuss Voronsky.

I was unaware of Trotsky's diatribe against Wells.
I know that in "My Life" Trotsky wrote scathingly about the Western Social Democratic leaders who had supported the funding of WW1 by their governments and had refused to demand "butt out" in 1917 in consonance with the Russian Revolution. He was especially contemptuous of a former Belgian prime minister.

I only remember a rather humorous sketch by Trotsky of his impression of Fabian socialist, H.G. Wells', published interview with Lenin. Trotsky did contemptuously dismiss Wells' ambitious -or over-ambitious - " Outline of History " . But reading many chapters of the book I see merit in it given todays extremely reactionary intellectual atmosphere. It is so hard for even for the best and brightest bourgeois intellectuals to make a complete break from the ruling capitalist class. But honest socialists can help them " defect " .

Oh right he was a Fabian, I totally forgot that. I was trying to remember what his angle was, thanks for pointing it out. I'm interested in the topic of whether or not science fiction has any liberating value or if it is just a hopeless mass commodity. I don't know if revolution can be part of the genre since it evolved out of Victorian pop culture but I wonder if its ability to change consciousness may be lightning in a bottle.

I think Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov had some very keen insights into the social significance of science fiction. I read where one of Asimov's science fiction stories in the 1950s could be interpreted as an attack on the foolishness of McCarthyism. I must do some homework here.
Also, unlike the New Atheists, Asimov and Sagan had more sensitivity on matters important to religious people - the MILLIONS of them - mostly working class !

"Russia’s aggression in Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, and Syria has been alarming." This is according to Amy McGrath. It is also a total lie. The aggression has always been on the part of the United States.

"Since the mid-twentieth century, the United States has been a principal world leader—a standard that should never be changed.”

This is jaw-dropping stupidity. Anyone who continues to vote for the duopoly is complicit in US war crimes.

That why I stopped voting for them after 1992.