Democratic Platform Attacks Trump for Not Going to War
The Democratic Party wants to outhawk Republicans, denouncing Trump for deescalating with North Korea and Iran.

Donald Trump oversaw some scary moments in international politics. The former president seriously escalated tensions with North Korea and Iran, leading to several war scares. But he pulled back from the brink, sometimes against the wishes of his more hawkish advisers. He avoided a direct U.S.-Iranian war and opened a direct line of communication with North Korea.
Democrats seem to wish he'd gone to war instead. The Democratic National Committee's 2024 platform, approved in a symbolic vote on Monday night, tries to outhawk Trump, denouncing his "fecklessness" on Iran and his "love letters" to North Korea. Although the platform condemns Trump for pulling out of diplomacy with Iran, it also attacks his decisions not to bomb Iran at several crucial points.
Ironically, the Democratic platform is not much different from Republicans' own attacks on the Biden administration. Each side accuses the other of weakness, and neither wants to take credit for diplomacy or own the compromises necessary to avoid war.
It's easy to forget now, but in 2017 the Korean peninsula had become a remarkably tense place. North Korea was testing nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of hitting U.S. soil. The U.S. military was massing forces in the region, and Trump was issuing threats.
While officials debated whether to give North Korea what news outlets referred to as a "bloody nose," National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster was reportedly an advocate for more aggressive military action.* McMaster and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) publicly warned that war might be inevitable.
And then, in January 2018, a false alarm drove home the lesson that nuclear war is nothing to play around with. During a disaster preparedness drill, authorities in Hawaii accidentally sent an alert about an incoming ballistic missile. For more than half an hour, Hawaiians and tourists were convinced that they were going to die in a nuclear war.
A few months later, McMaster was out of the White House. Trump accepted an invitation to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in June 2018. Trump met Kim again in February 2019. Stepping over the North Korean–South Korean border in June 2019, Trump became the first U.S. president to visit North Korea.
The meetings failed to secure a permanent agreement—it didn't help that McMaster's replacement, John Bolton, publicly hinted that denuclearization would end in Kim's violent death—but they bought some crucial breathing room.
The Democrats' 2024 platform attacks the very idea of talks with North Korea. Trump's approach, the platform says, was "embarrassing the United States on the world stage including by flattering and legitimizing Kim Jong Un, exchanging 'love letters' with the North Korean dictator."
This isn't a break with past Democratic rhetoric. During the presidential debates in 2019, then-candidate Joe Biden said that Trump gave "North Korea everything they wanted, creating the legitimacy by having a meeting with Kim Jong Un." Another candidate, Kamala Harris, said that there are "no concessions to be made. He has traded a photo op for nothing."
If even talking to North Korea is a "concession," then it's hard to see what alternative Harris would accept, other than continuing to barrel towards nuclear war.
Iran, unlike North Korea, does not have nuclear weapons. In 2017, Trump tore up an international agreement that regulated Iranian nuclear activities, instead betting on a "maximum pressure" campaign designed to overthrow the Iranian government by cutting off its oil exports. Bolton later said in his memoir that "only regime change would ultimately prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons," and then–Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was obsessed with killing the Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.
The Iranian government did not react warmly to the maximum pressure campaign. Iranian forces encouraged rocket attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq, and Iran is believed to be behind sabotage attacks on the international oil industry, including a September 2019 drone strike on Saudi oil infrastructure.
The U.S. military massed forces off the coast of Iran during this time. On June 19, 2019, Iran shot down an American surveillance drone. (The two countries disagree on whether the drone was in Iranian airspace.) Trump ordered a bombing raid on Iranian air defense batteries, then pulled back at the last minute, because killing Iranian troops was "not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone."
Although the Democratic platform calls maximum pressure a "reckless and short-sighted decision," it also attacks Trump for failing to hit Iran back at each of these points. "Trump's only response" to an Iraqi militia attack on the U.S. consulate in Basra "was to close our diplomatic facility," the Democrats complain, and "Trump failed to respond against Iran or its proxies" for the attack on Saudi oil facilities.
The platform is somewhat ambiguous on whether Trump should have bombed Iran in June 2019. "Trump responded by tweet and then abruptly called off any actual retaliation, causing confusion and concern among his own national security team," it says. Perhaps putting American lives at risk to avenge the honor of a robot would be too far even for the Biden team.
Maximum pressure reached its climax in January 2020, when Trump followed Pompeo's advice and ordered the military to assassinate Soleimani. Iran responded by launching 12 ballistic missiles at a U.S. base in Iraq, which injured Americans but did not kill anyone. Trump called it even, claiming that "Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned."
At the time, Democrats were highly critical of the decision to risk war by killing an Iranian officer. "Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox," Biden wrote right after Soleimani was assassinated. After the Iranian retaliation, Democrats immediately put forward a war powers resolution making it clear that the president does not have the authority to start a war with Iran.
The current Democratic platform takes a different tone. When "Iran, for the first and only time in its history, directly launched ballistic missiles against U.S. troops," the document declares disapprovingly, Trump "again took no action." The platform criticizes Trump for making light of U.S. troops' brain injuries without mentioning the assassination that prompted the Iranian attacks in the first place.
After all, it would be hard for Biden to criticize Trump for bringing America to the brink of war in the Middle East when he has done the same.
After four short years of a Democratic administration, the mood among Democratic leaders has gotten more hawkish, especially as the defense of Ukraine gives them a "good war" to rally behind. But that's not necessarily how the American people, including Democratic voters, feel. Direct talks with North Korea are still popular, and direct war with Iran is still unpopular. Republicans and independents are less likely to call themselves hawks than in 2014, and even Democratic voters are only one percentage point more likely to consider themselves hawkish than before.
There is a public appetite for diplomacy and deescalation. But party leaders don't seem to want to take the opportunity. They would prefer to fight over who can outhawk whom.
*CLARIFICATION: This article has been updated to clarify the origin of the term "bloody nose."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Donks seem fixated on bathing in the blood of more brown people.
Nothing is more evil and racist than a democrat.
WMD
Politics is obsolete.
Left and right are artificial constructs designed to occupy and weaken the will of the people in perpetual conflict.
Nothing in nature exists as equal and opposite or is as divisive as politics.
Politics is controlled and manipulated by corrupt elites who win regardless who is elected. They are the secret society puppeteers who absolutely recognize the people as left vs right puppets.
When you’re a hammer, everything is a nail.
They only exist in an environment of lies and secrecy. Only criminalizing lying will expose and demonstrate their counterproductive effect on society.
Recognize the unpleasant truth of politics and act on it, or ignore it like a puppet in the bliss of ignorance.
The red pill or the blue pill.
John "The Walrus Queen" Bolton never met a war he wasn't interested in sending real men to die in.
To the surprise of absolutely nobody, Bolton was a supporter of the Vietnam War, but avoided combat through a student deferment followed by enlistment in the Maryland Air National Guard.
John Bolton needs to be kicked in the balls.
A real POS.
Remember all those times Trump started
WWIII WWIV WWVWW eleventy. Good times.Combined with the trillions of COVID deaths, imagine what the next 4 would have looked like. Thank God for the Big Guy reluctantly waltzing in and making everything better.
"The contrast on display tonight was so stark. I mean, those lights that are just shooting out from the Lincoln Memorial along the Reflecting Pool, it is like almost extensions of Joe Biden’s arms embracing America."
CNN's David Chalian on the eve of the Big Guy's Inauguration. Those were such carefree and innocent times.
The former president seriously escalated tensions with North Korea and Iran, leading to several war scares.
Wait, you’re fucking kidding me, right?
Appeasement is the only way. Diplomatic solutions are bad. Or something.
To be fair, diplomacy always brings rage, hatred, violence, and the worst kind of division.
Granted, that's from the Democrats, but it was what happened every time Trump tried to do it.
Remember when he went to the far east and gave a beautiful speech at the DMZ in Korea contrasting the quality of life of a free, capitalist society with that of a repressive dictatorship in the north? No? Well, that's because all the press reported on was a heavily redacted video of him pouring fish food in a koi pond and pretending it was him being boorish.
Remember when he tried to spread oil on troubled waters domestically by accepting that there were several arguments made in good faith on the notion of monuments and statues, and that we should be kind to each other and understanding? No? Well, that's because the D's spun the "both sides" statement so hard that shitposters here and everywhere the 50 cent armies operate still spin it as his promoting racists.
Diplomacy only works when you do it with reasonable people. Like Arabs and Israelis, not people too full of hate to understand the concept. Like Democrats.
"...Granted, that’s from the Democrats,..."
That's spelled "TDS-addled piles of shit".
To prove your point, Biden brought up the "fine people" hoax during his rambling speech at the DNC last night. Where's Chemjeff to fact check the myriad of lies Brandon told last night? I guess they aren't lies when Biden does it.
Be careful what you wish for. If Chemjeff did a chemjeff-style fact check on Biden's lies, we'd probably all be convinced Biden was a sterling truth-teller by the time he was done.
"Trump ordered a bombing raid on Iranian air defense batteries, then pulled back at the last minute, because killing Iranian troops was "not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone."
No wonder Romney, Liz Cheney, Bolton and Mattis lost their shit then. How dare he.
America can do without those four evil creatures.
I know a number of Quakers who consider themselves anti-war. Every single one of them is voting Harris/Walz.
Maybe they think an *checks Reason writers' voting patterns* 'enfeebled presidency' won't get us into a war.
There’s quite a few wine moms who are the same, until they realize it’s Chelsea and Jaxton that are going to be fighting the fucking Uniparty’s wars.
If you’re anti-war, it’s a no-brainer to vote for Trump.
I shut a friend up real quick a couple of years ago when he was bitching about Trump planning to leave Afghanistan, and how we owed it to them to finish what we started, and we should even go so far as to implement WWII style economic controls.
"Well, that's a good point, Kurt. Of course, in order to pull that off, we'll need to fire up the draft again. Say, how old are your boys now, anyway?"
"Oh, uh, uh, uh!"
Just ask them where they would like to be sent: the Middle East or Korea?
BTW I have a cousin I never met as he was killed the year I was born and whose grave is a U.S. military cemetery in Korea.
So they're retards.
As we've been saying - 'projection' - the Progressive tactic of choice is to say your opponent is doing the thing you've been doing, supports the thing you support.
The Democrats' 2024 platform attacks the very idea of talks with North Korea. Trump's approach, the platform says, was "embarrassing the United States on the world stage including by flattering and legitimizing Kim Jong Un…
I don’t think Li’l Mofo and his nukes need our legitimizing. Interesting attitude the Democrats seem to have about that.
Trump constantly called him Lil rocket man. Apparently just being willing to talk is flattering.
Didn't matter whether it was flattering; Trump never offered any sort of appeasement. He met with KJU under terms which were not insulting and attempted to find some ground for NK nuclear disarmament.
The legacy media was up in arms! For no reason whatsoever.
Other than TDS, that is.
The legacy media was up in arms! For no reason whatsoever.
Other than TDS, that is.
Well, TDS and the fact that one (more) of their hobgoblins had been slain.
Funny enough, they somehow don't see it the same way when it comes to loosening restrictions on Cuba or dropping pallets of cash on Iran.
Just for the record:
Democrats lie.
We can no longer tolerate their existence. They need to stand down and go wherever we exile them, or be dealt with.
So did some of your colleagues. Open borders Uber Ales.
Man, I just don’t know who would be better for the country out of the 2 people who actually have a chance at winning. Just a complete mystery.
Don't even think chase would be better if he had a chance to win. Empty suit whose longest policy statements is identity politics. The rest is just bumper sticker platitudes.
Chase, like Harris, has offered few specific policies. Unlike either Trump or Harris, he has no history to recommend (or otherwise) him. And further, has no possible chance of being elected, and even if, by some magic, managed to do so, has zero support in any branch of government.
The L party is a waste of time, effort and money; they stopped getting any $ from me years ago for good reason; why should I pay for their cocktail parties?
Yes, Brandyshit, that's you and as much as I enjoy Starchild, I'm not willing to support a costume party.
Trump’s campaign website “Platform” section has only one statement relevant to foreign policy:
Prevent World War Three, restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East, and build a Great Iron Dome missile defense shield over our entire country — all made in America
Actually not bad sentiments, however, totally lacking in detail, and the second promise is unrealistic. He failed to bring peace to the Middle East during his first four years, and his belief that he can do it through pure force of personality is delusional.
—–
Kamala Harris has no “policy”, “issues”, or “platform” section on her campaign website.
—-
Chase Oliver’s campaign website “Platform” section:
– Close all overseas bases and immediately return active-duty personnel to domestic bases. The cost savings of doing so will be used as a one-time contribution to discharge the interest on currently outstanding Federally guaranteed student loans.
– End aid being directed to nation-states currently at war. This includes Israel and Ukraine. While we offer moral support to our friends currently engaged with the enemy, we should not be contributing to extending the fight.
– With this said, I recognize that there are aggressors and victims in war. I would allow private parties, including defense contractors, to voluntarily contribute funds and sell weapons to our friends without fear of violating any Federal laws.
– If asked to act as a mediator, I would more than happily allow America to act as a mediator in negotiating a peace that ends the conflict without rewarding aggressing parties for bad behavior.
– Utilize trade as a bargaining chip to foment peace with our neighbors.
This is not all good. I disagree with the idea of using cost savings to cover any part of student loans, and it’s kind of childish to mix up these unrelated issues. The last statement could be interpreted as being open to tariff wars rather than firmly committed to free markets and lower taxes. However, most of it is stuff that could in principle be done by the US government. (Unlike Trump, who believes he could simply order the Israelis and Palestinians or Russians and Ukrainians to kiss and make up.) It’s far more detailed than anything the major candidates have proposed.
God you and Chase are morons. The highlighted policy of isolationism gives away much of the bargaining power we have for trade. The military savings as vote buying is straight out of the proggy leftist handbook and somehow this dipshit thinks anyone would come to him for mediation of international problems? Pure delusion and that's assuming he's actually allowed to do anything listed.
Who knows what they were thinking. Maybe someone with no real background I guess.
Here in Michigan Justin Amash lost his bid for the Republican ticket during the primary.
At least they're libertarian bumper sticker platitudes. Harris is offering socialist bumper sticker platitudes on one hand, and Trump is offering jackassery bumper sticker promises he failed to deliver on last time he was elected.
Failed to deliver? Or constantly opposed by leftist Democrat and RINO filth?
Seems to me that getting rid of the left is the real key to American prosperity.
Except there is no history to show chase believing his bumper stickers. Obama voter and campaigner, identitarian.
Oh and his entire covid grandstanding with follow the state.
But you do you.
If I remember you're one of those Obama favoring libertarians too. So makes sense you'd simp for empty suit chase
You don’t remember any Obama favoring because there wasn’t any.
By the way, I do have to apologize for mischaracterizing your beliefs. I thought you supported Trump because you were rabidly anti-immigrant. But then this week he started going soft on some classes of immigrant, and suddenly you’ve found other issues to talk about.
So it turns out you were only anti-immigrant because you’re rabidly pro-Trump. I’m sorry for the mistake, and will try to do better.
Stop lying. You and your fellow open borders kooks keep lumping in illegals with immigrants. Knock it off. We all support LEGAL immigration. We’re against illegals.
It doesn’t say much for your position if you have to constantly lie like this.
Shit for brains, maybe you missed the impeachments for exercising core Presidential powers his first term or the ME peace accords or finalizing the withdrawl from Afghanistan that Biden botched for a headline. You pretend there was no positive movement under Trump and ignore all the actual backsliding under Biden/Harris or that Chase is anything but a deluded proggy leftist.
Brandyshit: 'He isn't an L, so there's no way I'll vote for him. But I'm not a tribalist. Nope, no way'
"Donald Trump oversaw some scary moments in international politics. The former president seriously escalated tensions with North Korea and Iran, leading to several war scares."
Cites missing; gonna assume TDS-addled pile of shit exaggerated some issues to justify his TDS.
Every leftist journo was completely freaked out about any normalization with NK let alone their hysterical freak out over killing the "Austere Muslim scholar" or the head of Iranian terror programs. Those were scary moments for the neocons and DoD contractors as well as the soulless journos and Dems that want America and the West to be destroyed.
Iran is basically already at war with the West, and for that matter, its own people. Miss the story about them shooting a woman for not covering herself properly?
The question is if we are going to let Iran continue to destabilize the Middle East and Europe.
How many people are dead in the most recent conflict in Israel? 1200 Israelis plus probably 20,000 Palestinians. All dead because of Iran.
How many dead in Yemen? All due to Iran arming the Houthis.
Oh sure, we would not arm Israel and Saudi Arabia and let Hamas and the Houthis kill every Israeli and Saudi Arabian.
North Korea, no one is talking about attacking them. Even if they didn't have nukes, they have enough artillery to level Seoul. But that doesn't mean they should be appeased, either.
North Korea, no one is talking about attacking them. Even if they didn’t have nukes, they have enough artillery to level Seoul. But that doesn’t mean they should be appeased, either.
The appeasement thing is actually kinda funny. Remember when Trump declared the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Hamas threatened an intifada? It wasn’t until a Biden regime seemed soft on The Religion of Peace and refugees that an intifada took place. Similar with Putin. Similar with the Taliban.
It almost seems like an inversion of the term appeasement. Where if you exchange rewards for desired behaviors in an exacting, controlled, well defined, and firm but forceful manner, that’s appeasement. But if you smack them in the face and then turn and run away, crying when they chase you down and bite you or toss them a pallet full of cash in order to get them to stop menacing you or attacking the people around them, that’s not antagonizing and/or wrongly appeasing them. It’s just how foreign affairs is supposed to work.
The appeasement thing is actually kinda funny. Remember when Trump declared the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Hamas threatened an intifada? It wasn’t until a Biden regime seemed soft on The Religion of Peace and refugees that an intifada took place. Similar with Putin. Similar with the Taliban.
It is incredibly unrealistic to think that the U.S. is so important that what the American President does will matter more to Hamas, the Taliban, or Putin than what their direct adversaries that they are in conflict with do. Did moving the embassy to Jerusalem matter more to Hamas than Israel's constantly building settlements in the West Bank while denying Palestinians living there the ability to build new homes and businesses? Was the U.S. the primary enemy of the Taliban, or was it the Afghan government? Did Putin look to take over Ukraine because of the U.S. or because Ukraine's population was electing leaders that wanted close relations with a free and prosperous West rather than to be under the thumb of an autocrat in Moscow?
How the U.S. reacts in all of these conflicts matters a great deal, but it never matters more than the fundamental reasons that those conflicts exist in the first place. The problem with Trump's foreign policy is that he doesn't seek to understand those fundamentals. He only views them in terms of what the U.S. can get out of them (or what political benefit he gets for himself).
What an idiotic take. The facts are that Trump’s foreign policy was largely successful. But you can’t stand that. So you have to lie and distort, especially because the people running the Biden administration have utterly failed and the world is now burning.
I suspect you would rather have nuclear armageddon under a democrat president than see Trump return to the presidency and bring peace back.
“The question is if we are going to let Iran continue to destabilize the Middle East and Europe.”
As an European I would like to know how exactly does Iran destabilize Europe? If you are talking about islamism then in Europe it is almost exclusively sunni (Iran do support some sunni terrorist group in the Middle East like Hamas, but not in Europe were terrorism is mostly done by group very hostile to shia Muslims).
Iran is a Muslim Shia Theocracy. They support Hamas because they hate Jews and Americans even more than they hate Sunni Muslims. But, I see no reason why they wouldn't also be tossing some money in the direction of the Shia Muslim terrorists in Europe.
Iran might have been a much different country if the CIA hadn’t overthrown Mossaddeq after being elected in a democratic election in 1953, then installed the vicious, murdering Shah.
I remember in 2017 how quickly the narrative went from Trump being an insane warmonger risking a nuclear exchange with North Korea to dangerously sucking up to an evil dictator. It was one of the clearest indicators I ever had that the mainstream media conventional wisdom was party propaganda for the Democrats.
Why take anything the legacy media says at all as being true and factual?
It's all strained through the CIA. The overpaid pencil necked talking heads are nothing more than media hacks.
Kowtow and embolden a petty dictator and destabilize an international agreement with IRan
Yeah traitortrump the peacemaker
Not to mention recognizing Golan Heights
Yeah, he is a peacemaker. You’re just too stupid to understand that.
"...as the defense of Ukraine gives them a 'good war' to rally behind.
What is it with Democrats and other people's wars? It seems to be a pathological need to interfere, with everything and everyone.
[Ok I answered my own question]
People voted for and elected LBJ and in return he sent their young men to Viet Nam for the purpose of enriching his MIC buddies in Texas. Two million Vietnamese killed, 56,000+ young American boys needlessly killed and hundreds of thousands wounded in mind and body, many of whom never recovered.
The legacy of that war is beyond miserable, it was downright evil and criminal. The use of Agent Orange destroyed the country and left its people with decades of birth defects and cancer. Even Americans serving there suffered from cancers as their children have.
Even worse was McNamar's Folley, sending low IQ boys who couldn't tie their own shoes into that quagmire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J2VwFDV4-g
Anyone who calls for war must be forced to send their own children first.
Doesn’t matter what, they’ll just say do the opposite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su_fep2iARQ
"A pox on all the media and everything you read. They'll tell you your opinions and they're very good indeed."
Funny. At the time, I recall them decrying that Trump was about to start World War 3.
There is no Boaf sides argument. Trump made a huge mistake by hiring warmongers like Bolton and failing to gain control of the deep state neocons. But the history of his presidency is de escalation in the middle East, Korea, and Europe. The Biden regime has done precisely the opposite and with chucklehead Harris in office things are guaranteed to get worse. This very dangerous shit. We're talking about WW3 on multiple fronts with conscription and millions of dead including Americans. Some of us warned Reason in 2020 that the adults in the room that Biden would install would be neocons determined to wage war. That is exactly what happened. Anyone who actually wants peace on the planet has only one choice. Trump.
Very true. It’s likely Trump or nuclear armageddon under Kamala.