To all who oppose the war. To all who really call themselves 'progressives'. This is the time to act.
We can see the course of this election. Obama and the Democrats win this in a landslide. That's the big course of things and its set and its already in motion.
We are going to see an Obama administration with the Democrats in control of Congress. We also know that the Democrats won't want to listen to us. That they'll still want to continue the wars. That they won't want to prosecute the Bush criminals. That they'll want to give our money to their rich friends on Wall Street. That they'll want to call us 'idiot liberals' and ban us from the room. We know this from the Democrats. We have seen this from them over the last few years.
How do we make an Obama administration respect us and listen to what we want? We keep hearing that we have to be the ones to 'pressure' an Obama administration. How do we do that?
The only language they understand is political power. We need to show it. We need to have every Democratic Representative or Senator looking at the combined Nader\McKinney vote in their district or state and saying 'holy cow!'. The more votes we put on the board right now, the more we get their attention and the more respect we get. By putting votes on the board right now, we show real political power.
Its a safe vote. Obama wins this in a landslide. The Democrats win this in a landslide. The states 'in play' are traditional Republicans ones like Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina. To even think about winning, McCain has to sweep every state where he's even within shouting distance of Obama, and then maybe even one or two more. Obama and the Democrats have this one in a lock.
Spread the word. Now is the time. If there was ever a moment to vote your conscious and vote for an alternative to the corporate parties, it is this election. Its a safe vote. Obama wins big regardless. The key point for right now is that actually, the closer we make this, the better it is for us. If the Democrats are holding their breath on election night saying 'oh my gawd!' while they watch the numbers roll in with state after state they thought was solidly in their win column instead becoming razor thin with big vote totals for Nader and McKinney, then that's great for us. We want to give them a heart attack. That's the only way they'll take us seriously.
Do you want to really stop these wars? Then vote your conscience. Register a political earthquake the Democrats can't help but feel.
Do you really want to protect the environment? Do you really want to turn the tide seriously back against global warming? Then vote your conscience. Register a political earthquake the Democrats can't help but feel.
We want every congressional Democrat looking ahead to the 2010 elections while seeing a strong Nader\McKinney vote in their districts. We want each of them shuddering at what the prospects of an angry, progressive, antiwar, third party campaign in 2010 in their districts would do to their congressional careers. Do you want to really change things? That's how to do it.
Now is the time. This is the election. This is the moment to act.
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War. Show all posts
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Obama issues threats, just like Bush
Obama early in the primaries ...
The Old Obama in the primaries, after Hillary (the other allowable 'liberal' choice) had just threatened to obliterate Iran with nuclear strikes ...
Now we get Cowboy Obama for the general election ...
I've always been struck by the way Bush 'negotiated'. He basically just issued ultimatums. Then, if the other side didn't fold, he went straight to military action.
What Obama just said is that he plans to continue exactly the same technique. In other words, he just promised that the next four years under President Obama would be a lot like the last eight years under President Bush. I guess the only place to the right of that for McCain to go would be to say he'd just skip the ultimatum step and go straight to military action. But, its not like that's a huge difference because Obama's ultimatum or else policy eventually leads to the same actions.
He also just promised the Israelis that if Bush doesn't start a war between now and leaving office, Obama will pick up that ball and run with the same policy next year.
I just hope all the progressives who think Obama is 'anti-war' are paying attention.
"We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith," he said. "I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior."
The Old Obama in the primaries, after Hillary (the other allowable 'liberal' choice) had just threatened to obliterate Iran with nuclear strikes ...
Obama, appearing yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press, struck back with calm outrage. "It's not the language we need right now, and I think it's language reflective of George Bush," he said.
"We have had a policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk," the Illinois senator added, "and in the meantime have made a series of strategic decisions that have actually strengthened Iran."
Now we get Cowboy Obama for the general election ...
Obama reportedly told Olmert that he is interested in meeting the Iranians in order to issue clear ultimatums. "If after that, they still show no willingness to change their nuclear policy, then any action against them would be legitimate," an Israeli source quoted him as saying.
I've always been struck by the way Bush 'negotiated'. He basically just issued ultimatums. Then, if the other side didn't fold, he went straight to military action.
What Obama just said is that he plans to continue exactly the same technique. In other words, he just promised that the next four years under President Obama would be a lot like the last eight years under President Bush. I guess the only place to the right of that for McCain to go would be to say he'd just skip the ultimatum step and go straight to military action. But, its not like that's a huge difference because Obama's ultimatum or else policy eventually leads to the same actions.
He also just promised the Israelis that if Bush doesn't start a war between now and leaving office, Obama will pick up that ball and run with the same policy next year.
I just hope all the progressives who think Obama is 'anti-war' are paying attention.
Does a war have a single cause?
How is something the result of more than one reason?
Lets say a politician wants to fight a war for the very selfish purpose that it will make him more powerful while in office and more likely for him and his party to win an election.
He talks to the bankers, and the bankers love the idea. Bankers always love wars because bankers always get rich over wars. Banking fortunes have been made by loaning lots of money to governments fighting wars. So the bankers think a war is a great idea and agree to use their influence on Congress, the media and society in general to make it happen.
Do you think the politician is going to argue with the bankers about what’s the most important reason for the war and whether its about his career or their profits? No, he’s going to say great to have you on the team and move on.
Then the politician goes to the arms makers. They think a war is a great idea. They get to sell lots of weapons and ammo to the military. And through some back channels they might even sell more to the enemy. So the arms makers agree to the war, and agree to use their influence over Congress, the media and society in general to make it happen.
Do you think the politician is going to argue with the arms makers about the reason for the war? About whether its more important to his career or their profits? No, he’s going to say welcome to the team and move on.
Then the politician talks to the lobby groups that support Israel. They think the war is a great idea. It means one of the regional powers they have to worry about is about to be destroyed by the world superpower. So they agree to the war and agree to use their influence on Congress, the media and society at large to make it happen.
Do you think that the politician is going to argue with them? Argue that the war is more important to my career? No, he is going to say welcome to the team and move on.
The politician then goes to those who want more of a police state. They think the war is a great idea. It means they can crack down on unruly elements who threaten their profits and power. So, they agree to the war and to help use their influence to make it happen.
Do you think the politician is going to argue with them and tell them they support the war for the wrong reason?
The politician then moves on to religious elements. They call Israel the holy land and think a war is the start of Armageddon and their rise to heaven. So they agree to the war and to use their influence to make it happen.
Lets say all of that creates enough influence in the society for the war to occur. Now tell me the single cause of the war.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Rockets Red Glare
“If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything in my power to stop that, and would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”
That is Sen. Obama speaking from Israel, according to this article on Dissident Voice.
The rather obvious question is, if Sen. Obama were living in Gaza and it was the Israeli military sending rockets and bombs into his house, what would he do?
=====================
And in general, it seems to be the typical response that when one group of people fires bombs and missiles at another, then they fire more bombs and missiles back to 'do everything in their power to stop that'.
Of course, realizing this means realizing that the way to stop bombs and missiles from raining down on your and your children is not to fire more bombs and missiles back at others. Instead, the way to 'do everything in your power to stop that' is to find a way to have peace.
Pretty sure that's not what Obama was intending to say. Which means that he just isn't willing to do anything about the fatal flaw of both American and Israeli policy.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Self Evident Truths
Just because these words should always be said on this day. And the corporate media will stop at just acknowledging the right of the pursuit of happiness.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident,
that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights,
governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends,
it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,
and to institute new government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,
as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed,
will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes;
and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,
it is their right,
it is their duty,
to throw off such government,
and to provide new guards for their future security."
-- The Declaration of Independence
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Gotta love those Democrats
Where do we begin?
Well, first there's the Dems getting ready to both rubber-stamp Bush's illegal, unconstitutional spying on Americans, but making sure that the telecoms get immunity for the crimes they committed by aiding this illegal spying.
Democrats Ready to Gut the Constitution to Protect Their “Constituents” — The Telecoms by tom Burghardt and found over at www.dissidentvoice.org
Then there's the Dems acting to fully fund more of the war and occupation in Iraq.
Democrats to back down on Iraq war conditions found through a link on www.antiwar.org
" Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last for about a year and well beyond when Bush leaves office on January 20.
"It'll be the lump sum of money, veterans (funding) and that's it," said one House aide familiar with the negotiations on the legislation."
The article on the Dems allowing immunity for illegal wiretapping has this quote from the ACLU.
"Allowing phone companies to avoid litigation by simply presenting a “permission slip” from the president is not court review. This is immunity pure and simple because the companies are NOT being judged on whether they followed the law. A document stating that the president asked them to conduct warrantless wiretapping is not enough justification for violating the basic privacy rights of Americans. (”Facts on Senator Kit Bond’s (R-MO) FISA Proposal,” American Civil Liberties Union, June 13, 2008)"
When you read this, what you realize is that what is at stake is clearly and simply whether or not we still operate under the Constitution, or whether we live in a country ruled by an all-powerful executive that can do whatever he chooses. The Founding Fathers based their system of Checks and Balances on the belief that the Congress would work to protect its prerogatives from encroachment by an aggressive President. Instead we see a Congress that is willing to completely abandon its role in the law-making process and just give the President the authority to do whatever he wants.
Anyone who stayed awake in high school civics learned what the proper law making procedure is under the Constitution. A bill is proposed in either House of the Congress. It then has to be passed by both Houses, when it then goes to the President for his signature or veto. Afterwards, its the Presidents role to enforce that law.
The 'law' that is on the books from that process is very clear. Its starts with a Constitution that says we are protected from unwarranted searches. There was a big loophole carved into that law in the name of 'security' by the creation of the FISA act. But even that protected the need for a judge to review evidence to give a warrant, albeit by a secret court.
The President's role is to obey and execute that law. Its not the President's role to independently make a new law when he wants. If the President wants changes, then he needs to go to Congress and ask for them. And its deliberately not automatic and a protection of our liberties that the Congress might choose not to make changes just because the President asks for them.
What we've seen instead is the President just making up the law on his own. He wanted to have the capability to spy on Americans without getting a warrant. So, he just told himself that this was ok. Then, he went to the phone companies and told them he said it was ok. According to this Congress, led by the Democratic majority that pretends to be an opposition party, this is just fine and dandy.
The more I think about this, the more it strikes me that this is just shredding the Constitution. Its removing any protections Americans have against unwarranted searches. And it removes the basic checks and balances that allow all the voices of a democracy to participate in the law making process and instead just tells the President to do whatever he wants to do.
When the talk is of street criminals, we are told we need tough laws and enforcement as a 'deterrent'. What do we see in this case if we look at it this way? If the President decides he wants to in some other way to spy upon Americans or to take away other rights under the Constituion, if he looks at this he has to thing just 'sure, go ahead.' That's the precedent that's being set. Or, if the President is asking some other corporation to break the law, this now establishes the precedent that the President can do that.
And anyone who thought that electing Democrats would either slow this down or stop the war was just delusional. And its the same for this election. Voting Dem is voting for more of the same. If you want something different, its time to elect some different people.
Well, first there's the Dems getting ready to both rubber-stamp Bush's illegal, unconstitutional spying on Americans, but making sure that the telecoms get immunity for the crimes they committed by aiding this illegal spying.
Democrats Ready to Gut the Constitution to Protect Their “Constituents” — The Telecoms by tom Burghardt and found over at www.dissidentvoice.org
Then there's the Dems acting to fully fund more of the war and occupation in Iraq.
Democrats to back down on Iraq war conditions found through a link on www.antiwar.org
" Lawmakers are arranging to send Bush $165 billion in new money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, enough to last for about a year and well beyond when Bush leaves office on January 20.
"It'll be the lump sum of money, veterans (funding) and that's it," said one House aide familiar with the negotiations on the legislation."
The article on the Dems allowing immunity for illegal wiretapping has this quote from the ACLU.
"Allowing phone companies to avoid litigation by simply presenting a “permission slip” from the president is not court review. This is immunity pure and simple because the companies are NOT being judged on whether they followed the law. A document stating that the president asked them to conduct warrantless wiretapping is not enough justification for violating the basic privacy rights of Americans. (”Facts on Senator Kit Bond’s (R-MO) FISA Proposal,” American Civil Liberties Union, June 13, 2008)"
When you read this, what you realize is that what is at stake is clearly and simply whether or not we still operate under the Constitution, or whether we live in a country ruled by an all-powerful executive that can do whatever he chooses. The Founding Fathers based their system of Checks and Balances on the belief that the Congress would work to protect its prerogatives from encroachment by an aggressive President. Instead we see a Congress that is willing to completely abandon its role in the law-making process and just give the President the authority to do whatever he wants.
Anyone who stayed awake in high school civics learned what the proper law making procedure is under the Constitution. A bill is proposed in either House of the Congress. It then has to be passed by both Houses, when it then goes to the President for his signature or veto. Afterwards, its the Presidents role to enforce that law.
The 'law' that is on the books from that process is very clear. Its starts with a Constitution that says we are protected from unwarranted searches. There was a big loophole carved into that law in the name of 'security' by the creation of the FISA act. But even that protected the need for a judge to review evidence to give a warrant, albeit by a secret court.
The President's role is to obey and execute that law. Its not the President's role to independently make a new law when he wants. If the President wants changes, then he needs to go to Congress and ask for them. And its deliberately not automatic and a protection of our liberties that the Congress might choose not to make changes just because the President asks for them.
What we've seen instead is the President just making up the law on his own. He wanted to have the capability to spy on Americans without getting a warrant. So, he just told himself that this was ok. Then, he went to the phone companies and told them he said it was ok. According to this Congress, led by the Democratic majority that pretends to be an opposition party, this is just fine and dandy.
The more I think about this, the more it strikes me that this is just shredding the Constitution. Its removing any protections Americans have against unwarranted searches. And it removes the basic checks and balances that allow all the voices of a democracy to participate in the law making process and instead just tells the President to do whatever he wants to do.
When the talk is of street criminals, we are told we need tough laws and enforcement as a 'deterrent'. What do we see in this case if we look at it this way? If the President decides he wants to in some other way to spy upon Americans or to take away other rights under the Constituion, if he looks at this he has to thing just 'sure, go ahead.' That's the precedent that's being set. Or, if the President is asking some other corporation to break the law, this now establishes the precedent that the President can do that.
And anyone who thought that electing Democrats would either slow this down or stop the war was just delusional. And its the same for this election. Voting Dem is voting for more of the same. If you want something different, its time to elect some different people.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Pressuring President Obama
One of the myths going around right now is that an Obama presidency would be a good thing because the more left minded of us could 'pressure' an Obama presidency better than we could a McCain Presidency.
Well, lets think about that for a moment. And to look at that premise, lets ask if after the Democratic victory in gaining control of Congress in 2006 led to the left being able to pressure the Democrats into gaining what they wanted from Congress.
This is a video you might remember. Its from the day a military mom tried to talk to Democratic committee chair Obey about ending the war. She is shouted down by Rep Obey who rants on about 'idiot liberals'.
Marine Mom and Rep. Obey. We Share your frustration
So, ask yourself this, given the fact that an overwhelming number of Democratic voters wants to see the Iraq war and occupation ended, how effective have they been at 'pressuring' the Democratic leadership in Congress to obtain real action in this area? Has the war and occupation been ended? Has the Bush policy been in any way restrained or stopped?
Nope. What you've seen instead is a Democratic leadership that promised immediately after the last election that war funding would not be cut. They've held to that promise even though large majorities of Americans now think the war was a mistake and that in one way or another we should withdraw from Iraq.
Ie, the course of the war in Iraq has been largely the same over the last two years as if the Republicans had retained the leadership of the Congress. There is little reason to think that the situation has been at all improved by having Democratic leadership in Congress. And this video shows the complete disrespect that the Democratic leadership in Congress has for the antiwar activists who dared to try to talk to them about this.
Note also that this conversation has to happen in a hallway. Presumably because that's the only way this lady could even talk to Rep. Obey. I'm sure she'd have accepted an appointment to come sit and talk in his office if Rep. Obey had offered one. Instead the only means of talking to the Representative was to try to intercept him in the hallway between meetings.
Can it be said that this military mom had any more access to Congress or ability pressure Congress because the Democrats hold the Speaker's office and the committee chairs? The answer to that would appear to be no.
Or, think a bit about the issue of impeachment. Has the large number of people who support at least an investigation into impeachment of George W. Bush been able to 'pressure' the Democratic leadership into doing this? Is there any difference in the outcome of this debate in a Democratically led Congress versus a Republican led Congress.
Now, the main difference with an Obama Presidency is that you'd never be able to intercept the President in a hallway like and talk to him. And its doubtful that any activist would get a meeting with the President to talk. If a member of the House of Representatives won't take a meeting like this, you know the President won't.
So, how is it possible to believe that if Obama is elected President that it would be any more possible to 'pressure' him than to 'pressure' a President McCain?
All of this is given as a secondary reason why people should vote for Obama. Its used in the times when the Democratic supporters have already lost the argument that Obama is actually proposing better policies than McCain. After they've lost that argument, through facts like Obama's recent AIPAC speech, they fall back on this argument that we'll be better able to 'pressure' a President Obama.
Yeah, right.
Well, lets think about that for a moment. And to look at that premise, lets ask if after the Democratic victory in gaining control of Congress in 2006 led to the left being able to pressure the Democrats into gaining what they wanted from Congress.
This is a video you might remember. Its from the day a military mom tried to talk to Democratic committee chair Obey about ending the war. She is shouted down by Rep Obey who rants on about 'idiot liberals'.
Marine Mom and Rep. Obey. We Share your frustration
So, ask yourself this, given the fact that an overwhelming number of Democratic voters wants to see the Iraq war and occupation ended, how effective have they been at 'pressuring' the Democratic leadership in Congress to obtain real action in this area? Has the war and occupation been ended? Has the Bush policy been in any way restrained or stopped?
Nope. What you've seen instead is a Democratic leadership that promised immediately after the last election that war funding would not be cut. They've held to that promise even though large majorities of Americans now think the war was a mistake and that in one way or another we should withdraw from Iraq.
Ie, the course of the war in Iraq has been largely the same over the last two years as if the Republicans had retained the leadership of the Congress. There is little reason to think that the situation has been at all improved by having Democratic leadership in Congress. And this video shows the complete disrespect that the Democratic leadership in Congress has for the antiwar activists who dared to try to talk to them about this.
Note also that this conversation has to happen in a hallway. Presumably because that's the only way this lady could even talk to Rep. Obey. I'm sure she'd have accepted an appointment to come sit and talk in his office if Rep. Obey had offered one. Instead the only means of talking to the Representative was to try to intercept him in the hallway between meetings.
Can it be said that this military mom had any more access to Congress or ability pressure Congress because the Democrats hold the Speaker's office and the committee chairs? The answer to that would appear to be no.
Or, think a bit about the issue of impeachment. Has the large number of people who support at least an investigation into impeachment of George W. Bush been able to 'pressure' the Democratic leadership into doing this? Is there any difference in the outcome of this debate in a Democratically led Congress versus a Republican led Congress.
Now, the main difference with an Obama Presidency is that you'd never be able to intercept the President in a hallway like and talk to him. And its doubtful that any activist would get a meeting with the President to talk. If a member of the House of Representatives won't take a meeting like this, you know the President won't.
So, how is it possible to believe that if Obama is elected President that it would be any more possible to 'pressure' him than to 'pressure' a President McCain?
All of this is given as a secondary reason why people should vote for Obama. Its used in the times when the Democratic supporters have already lost the argument that Obama is actually proposing better policies than McCain. After they've lost that argument, through facts like Obama's recent AIPAC speech, they fall back on this argument that we'll be better able to 'pressure' a President Obama.
Yeah, right.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The real Obama is standing up
From www.commondreams.org
Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama’s Economic Policy
"Just days after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Obama is naming as his economic policy director an economist who has clashed with critics of Wal-Mart by defending the company as a boon to poor Americans."
------------
I can't say I'm surprised by this. We've known that Obama was being heavily funded by Wall Street and corporate America (see the Pam Martens articles
And we've known that the pattern of Democratic Party politics for the last twenty years is for the nominee to lie to the party voters during the primary season. Then they always swerve hard to the right as soon as they get the nomination never to return to the pseudo-progressive lines they used in the primaries.
And, what does it say for Obama's character that he only does this after he has the nomination sewn up? When he needs to talk to Democrats about the President he'll be he tries to sound progressive and chants 'change' like a mantra. Then as soon as he's got the nomination he reveals that his campaign's economic adviser is someone who's been promoting and defending Wal-Mart? Any Democrat should be insulted by this.
There's also been this strange meme where we were supposed to believe that Obama wasn't really the candidate he pretended to be when he makes awful anti-progressive speeches like the ones to the Cuban lobby in Miami or the AIPAC lobby in DC. There's been this bizarre notion that he's really a secret revolutionary whom we have to support on faith.
Well, I guess half of that was true. He wasn't the candidate he was pretending to be in the primaries. Instead he's much worse. The guy who's been defending Wal-mart now has charge of Obama's economic policies. That's Wal-mart, the company that hate unions and doesn't allow any employee organizing, the company that destroys locallly owned small businesses, the company that has helped destroy American manufacturing and good jobs by importing all the made-in-China crap.
Now Obama wants to tell us that what's good for Wal-mart is the 'change' we can expect?
BTW, does anyone notice that the Democrats just gave everyone a stirring choice between a former Wal-mart board member and someone who picks a Wal-mart ally as economic advisor? That's the Democrats idea of a debate. And they worked hard to kick everyone else off the stage.
Green Party of the USA
---------------------
Another article on Obama from today's news. This one about his recent speech to AIPAC. From www.counterpunch.org
Deadly Fallout From Obama's Groveling Before Israel Lobby, By JAMES G. ABOUREZK
"It was left to Barack Obama, a candidate who at one time brought a great deal of hope to many Americans, including this writer, to complete the round robin of pandering to AIPAC, first by wearing not only an American flag pin, but one conjoined with an Israeli flag pin as well. Obama’s nomination has improved America’s image around the world, with the realization that, “everyone has a chance in America,” as the saying used to go. But that is what makes his pandering so painful.
Obama declared Jerusalem indivisible, presumably for the Israelis only, in contrast to the United Nations’ holding that Jerusalem was, and is, an international city, belonging to neither side."
Wal-Mart Defender To Direct Obama’s Economic Policy
"Just days after clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Obama is naming as his economic policy director an economist who has clashed with critics of Wal-Mart by defending the company as a boon to poor Americans."
------------
I can't say I'm surprised by this. We've known that Obama was being heavily funded by Wall Street and corporate America (see the Pam Martens articles
And we've known that the pattern of Democratic Party politics for the last twenty years is for the nominee to lie to the party voters during the primary season. Then they always swerve hard to the right as soon as they get the nomination never to return to the pseudo-progressive lines they used in the primaries.
And, what does it say for Obama's character that he only does this after he has the nomination sewn up? When he needs to talk to Democrats about the President he'll be he tries to sound progressive and chants 'change' like a mantra. Then as soon as he's got the nomination he reveals that his campaign's economic adviser is someone who's been promoting and defending Wal-Mart? Any Democrat should be insulted by this.
There's also been this strange meme where we were supposed to believe that Obama wasn't really the candidate he pretended to be when he makes awful anti-progressive speeches like the ones to the Cuban lobby in Miami or the AIPAC lobby in DC. There's been this bizarre notion that he's really a secret revolutionary whom we have to support on faith.
Well, I guess half of that was true. He wasn't the candidate he was pretending to be in the primaries. Instead he's much worse. The guy who's been defending Wal-mart now has charge of Obama's economic policies. That's Wal-mart, the company that hate unions and doesn't allow any employee organizing, the company that destroys locallly owned small businesses, the company that has helped destroy American manufacturing and good jobs by importing all the made-in-China crap.
Now Obama wants to tell us that what's good for Wal-mart is the 'change' we can expect?
BTW, does anyone notice that the Democrats just gave everyone a stirring choice between a former Wal-mart board member and someone who picks a Wal-mart ally as economic advisor? That's the Democrats idea of a debate. And they worked hard to kick everyone else off the stage.
Green Party of the USA
---------------------
Another article on Obama from today's news. This one about his recent speech to AIPAC. From www.counterpunch.org
Deadly Fallout From Obama's Groveling Before Israel Lobby, By JAMES G. ABOUREZK
"It was left to Barack Obama, a candidate who at one time brought a great deal of hope to many Americans, including this writer, to complete the round robin of pandering to AIPAC, first by wearing not only an American flag pin, but one conjoined with an Israeli flag pin as well. Obama’s nomination has improved America’s image around the world, with the realization that, “everyone has a chance in America,” as the saying used to go. But that is what makes his pandering so painful.
Obama declared Jerusalem indivisible, presumably for the Israelis only, in contrast to the United Nations’ holding that Jerusalem was, and is, an international city, belonging to neither side."
Thursday, May 29, 2008
The Day Diplomacy Died
This is a great read!
The Day Diplomacy Died on the Foriegn Policy in Focus website.
-----------------
Of course, being a cynic, I'd suggest that it may have been Barack Obama's retreat from the notion of talking to our enemies that might have been the real death blow. In the last week or so, Mr. Obama has retreated from the idea of talking to either Mr. Castro or Mr. Ahmadinejad. In the case of Mr. Castro, by using the old trick of placing unacceptable pre-conditions on the conversation. This has of course been a favorite tactic of those who want to publicly proclaim a willingness to talk but who actually have no intention of ever talking.
Thus, it was at this point that poor old Diplomacy realized it was doomed no matter whether it was killed publicly by Sen. McCain or quietly behind the scenes by Sen. Obama. Diplomacy then lost its last will to live and slipped quietly into the great beyond.
The Day Diplomacy Died on the Foriegn Policy in Focus website.
"In our special Memorial Day edition, World Beat is publishing an obituary for Diplomacy, which died prematurely last week after an extended illness.
The last seven years or so were difficult ones for Diplomacy. According to press reports, the mainstay of foreign policy began complaining of chest pains and nausea in 2001. In the lead-up to the Iraq War, Diplomacy sustained several shocks to the system, went into intensive care, and very nearly succumbed. But it was last week that its heart and soul finally gave up after a double-barreled assault by President George W. Bush and his presumptive successor John McCain."
...
"The killing blow, however, came from John McCain. The Republican presidential candidate assailed Diplomacy in an effort to get at Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. According to McCain, Obama doesn’t understand the “basic realities of international relations” because he favors sitting down and talking to people like Raul Castro in Cuba and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran. McCain’s words, and the possibility that he might bring such an attitude into the White House in 2009, were simply too much for Diplomacy"
-----------------
Of course, being a cynic, I'd suggest that it may have been Barack Obama's retreat from the notion of talking to our enemies that might have been the real death blow. In the last week or so, Mr. Obama has retreated from the idea of talking to either Mr. Castro or Mr. Ahmadinejad. In the case of Mr. Castro, by using the old trick of placing unacceptable pre-conditions on the conversation. This has of course been a favorite tactic of those who want to publicly proclaim a willingness to talk but who actually have no intention of ever talking.
Thus, it was at this point that poor old Diplomacy realized it was doomed no matter whether it was killed publicly by Sen. McCain or quietly behind the scenes by Sen. Obama. Diplomacy then lost its last will to live and slipped quietly into the great beyond.
Said it right .... again
There's an author out there named William Lind. I like reading his views on military policy, even if I don't always agree with his politics. But, I've got to give him kudos because for the second time in the short span for which I've been trying this, I've seen a quote from one of his pieces that says something so well that I've got to pull it out and put it here.
"The “Washington Game” is to create an image with the public that is a direct opposite to what the Senator or Congressman actually does behind closed doors"
and later in the same article ...
"Why do defense companies buy full-page ads in major newspapers? Not because anyone buys a fighter plane based on a newspaper ad, but because the six-figure price for a full page buys the newspaper."
From ... The Ancient History of Military Reform The article is a review of a book by Winslow Wheeler and Lawerence Korb titled "Military Reform: A Reference Handbook" that I suspect I'll have to go read.
Usually, I find Mr. Lind's writings at Defense and the National Interest
You can find Mr. Wheeler's writings at www.counterpunch.org You can search the site for his writings, including an excellent series on the true amounts we are spending on 'defense'. Search
"The “Washington Game” is to create an image with the public that is a direct opposite to what the Senator or Congressman actually does behind closed doors"
and later in the same article ...
"Why do defense companies buy full-page ads in major newspapers? Not because anyone buys a fighter plane based on a newspaper ad, but because the six-figure price for a full page buys the newspaper."
From ... The Ancient History of Military Reform The article is a review of a book by Winslow Wheeler and Lawerence Korb titled "Military Reform: A Reference Handbook" that I suspect I'll have to go read.
Usually, I find Mr. Lind's writings at Defense and the National Interest
You can find Mr. Wheeler's writings at www.counterpunch.org You can search the site for his writings, including an excellent series on the true amounts we are spending on 'defense'. Search
Monday, May 26, 2008
Memorial Day
The holiday we celebrate as Memorial Day originated in the years immediately following the American Civil War. The American Civil War was a long, bloody and destructive affair. Like most wars it began with dreams of it being a quick and victorious war. Like with most wars, both sides thought they'd quickly vanquish their enemies. But it turned into a long four year struggle, ending with battles in Virginia that approached World War II trench warfare. It ended with waves of soldiers dying attempt to assault entrenchments at Cold Harbor, and with a long siege of the trenches at Petersberg.
After the war, people tried to make sense of the slaughter. In the north, people had to believe it was all worth it. That the ideals for which the north fought the war had been worth all the sons and brothers and fathers who were now missing or crippled. In the south, the myth of the 'Lost Cause' quickly sprang up to give meaning to their own deaths and injuries.
But, another deep feeling in the country in those early Memorial Days had to be a questioning of whether it had all been worth it. A looking at the horrendous cost of war, and questioning as to whether or not there had been another way to resolve the issues without so much death and destruction.
Today, Memorial Day has become simply a second Veterans Day. We are all told to stand and salute the soldiers and sailors and airmen who are in lands far, far away performing the Orwellian phrase of 'defending America'. What we aren't supposed to do at all is to question whether or not it is worth it? Nor even to question whether America is being defended by invading countries on the far side of the world. And certainly not ever to look at the caskets with the flags, which we no longer see, and ask whether or not this was all necessary. Nor to think about how violence always seems to beget more violence, and usually makes the original problems worse.
I can't help but to think that some of the survivors of the American Civil War must have been asking some of the same questions as they decorated the fresh graves on the first 'Decoration Days'.
-------------------
From the Libertarian Right, Sheldon Richman seems to think the holiday needs a different name.
Happy Revisionist History Day
After the war, people tried to make sense of the slaughter. In the north, people had to believe it was all worth it. That the ideals for which the north fought the war had been worth all the sons and brothers and fathers who were now missing or crippled. In the south, the myth of the 'Lost Cause' quickly sprang up to give meaning to their own deaths and injuries.
But, another deep feeling in the country in those early Memorial Days had to be a questioning of whether it had all been worth it. A looking at the horrendous cost of war, and questioning as to whether or not there had been another way to resolve the issues without so much death and destruction.
Today, Memorial Day has become simply a second Veterans Day. We are all told to stand and salute the soldiers and sailors and airmen who are in lands far, far away performing the Orwellian phrase of 'defending America'. What we aren't supposed to do at all is to question whether or not it is worth it? Nor even to question whether America is being defended by invading countries on the far side of the world. And certainly not ever to look at the caskets with the flags, which we no longer see, and ask whether or not this was all necessary. Nor to think about how violence always seems to beget more violence, and usually makes the original problems worse.
I can't help but to think that some of the survivors of the American Civil War must have been asking some of the same questions as they decorated the fresh graves on the first 'Decoration Days'.
-------------------
From the Libertarian Right, Sheldon Richman seems to think the holiday needs a different name.
Happy Revisionist History Day
Friday, May 23, 2008
The Next War President
Obama promises 'unshakable commitment' to Israel if elected
If you are looking for a change in policies, Obama might not be the answer.
If you are looking for a change in policies, Obama might not be the answer.
Monday, May 19, 2008
War with Iran
Well, for those who think we are heading towards an attack on Iran, here's another milestone. We have now had the obligatory comparision between Iran and Nazi Germany.
Bush's Nazi-Iran analogy
Since WWII was the last 'good war'. Thus, one of the milestones we always pass is that every future war must be equated to the war against the Nazis. Every foreign leader must be demonized as the 'next Hitler'.
Bush's Nazi-Iran analogy
Since WWII was the last 'good war'. Thus, one of the milestones we always pass is that every future war must be equated to the war against the Nazis. Every foreign leader must be demonized as the 'next Hitler'.
US and S.Korea killed a 100,000 people
There is a myth that America is always on the side of the good. That some how America is special. This is often used to justify America taking horrific actions. Since the myth says America is always on the side of the good, then this is used to then try to say that people should not be critical of what America does.
Because of this, it is useful to know the true history. It is useful to know what America has actually been doing. As such, the following is offered.
"Thousands killed by US' Korean Ally"
Actually, the headline from the AP is very misleading. Pretty typical for the AP. When you read the article, you realize we are not talking about a few 'thousands'. The article estimates that we are talking about maybe the murder of a 100,000 people.
"With U.S. military officers sometimes present ... the southern army and police emptied South Korean prisons, lined up detainees and shot them in the head, dumping the bodies into hastily dug trenches. Others were thrown into abandoned mines or into the sea. Women and children were among those killed. Many victims never faced charges or trial."
We are constantly told of the horror of our enemies. We are constantly told that America is the force of good. That the actions we take are to prevent the horror of our enemies. But, stop and think about what we've done along the way ourselves. Its worth remembering the next time you hear our leaders telling us that we have to accept more horror because we are the good guys.
As I type this, the Democracy Now! newswire to the right has a headline about how the US is holding an estimated 27,000 people in overseas secret prisons. And moving them in and out of Iraqi prisons to hide them.
Because of this, it is useful to know the true history. It is useful to know what America has actually been doing. As such, the following is offered.
"Thousands killed by US' Korean Ally"
Actually, the headline from the AP is very misleading. Pretty typical for the AP. When you read the article, you realize we are not talking about a few 'thousands'. The article estimates that we are talking about maybe the murder of a 100,000 people.
"With U.S. military officers sometimes present ... the southern army and police emptied South Korean prisons, lined up detainees and shot them in the head, dumping the bodies into hastily dug trenches. Others were thrown into abandoned mines or into the sea. Women and children were among those killed. Many victims never faced charges or trial."
We are constantly told of the horror of our enemies. We are constantly told that America is the force of good. That the actions we take are to prevent the horror of our enemies. But, stop and think about what we've done along the way ourselves. Its worth remembering the next time you hear our leaders telling us that we have to accept more horror because we are the good guys.
As I type this, the Democracy Now! newswire to the right has a headline about how the US is holding an estimated 27,000 people in overseas secret prisons. And moving them in and out of Iraqi prisons to hide them.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Said it right
"The wanted posters for Osama bin Laden, it seems, are being pasted over with ones for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Always better to go after someone you can bomb than someone you can’t find."
--William Lind, American Conservative mag http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_05_05/cover.html
--William Lind, American Conservative mag http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_05_05/cover.html
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Reading between the lines
You've always got to read between the lines. You've always got to think while you read and ask questions.
Lets take a look at an article in the Washington Post.
U.S. Role Deepens in Sadr City
It starts with
"A four-hour battle Tuesday between U.S. soldiers and Shiite militiamen left at least 28 Iraqis dead in the capital's Sadr City neighborhood, making it one of the bloodiest days in a month of sustained street fighting."
Then, after some other thoughts that the authors and editors felt needed to be emphasized, the standard scene setting stuff that announces Sadr as the other and dismisses any who might take his side, we get our next piece of information about the fighting.
"The battle Tuesday erupted as U.S. forces tried to evacuate a soldier injured by small-arms fire about 9:30 a.m., according to the U.S. military. During the evacuation, the troops were attacked with roadside bombs, as well as rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire from houses, storefronts, alleyways and rooftops, said Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a U.S. military spokesman."
Note, that when the US military says the battle began, there's already a wounded soldier needing evacuation, injured by small arms fire. What happened to lead to the soldier being wounded in the first place, and why isn't that a part of 'the battle'?
I don't know if they just do it to make the story hard to read, but the author and editors then jump to a non-related paragraph about overall casualties before continuing with. And even in the paragraph that contains this next bit, they again jump to non related information other bombings in Baghdad.
"In the Sadr City clash, the U.S. soldiers responded by firing rockets armed with high-explosive, 200-pound warheads, killing 28 fighters, Stover said."
In this piece, that's it. That's what the US military briefers wanted American citizens to know about this. In other words, not much. They can't hide the fact that a major four hour long firefight erupted in Baghdad. Four hours of weapons fire and 200 lb warheads of high explosive going off can't be hidden in the middle of a city of 5,000,000 people. But, they don't want to tell you much about it. They don't want to tell you what the soldiers were doing in Sadr City, about what the effects of exploding 200 lbs of high explosive in an area usually described as a densely populated slum. Air strikes aren't mentioned at all, even though the US military relies on them and I'd be very doubtful that they fought a serious four hour long firefight without them. And, everyone killed was a 'fighter', even though its doubtful you could set off 200 lbs of high explosive in a dense urban area and kill only 'fighters'.
In this case, the reporter didn't just echo the military briefing, although you'll probably find other news sources that just do that. This time you hear a little from the people who live there.
"But Sadr City residents gave a very different accounting of the fighting. They said at least 50 people were killed and 130 injured, many of them women and children.
Falah Hassan Shanshal, a Sadrist member of parliament, said at least five houses were demolished in the airstrike, killing 29 people and pinning entire families beneath piles of rubble. When a bulldozer came to clear the rubble, the driver was shot by a sniper, Shanshal said.
An Associated Press photograph showed a boy being pulled from the rubble. The AP reported that Ali Hussein, 2, died at the hospital."
I guess that Ali Hussein, age 2, is a 'fighter' by US military standards. Is it just because of his last name?
But the last sentence of that is what really struck me. As Americans, we know what those images look like. At the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, at the World Trade Center in New York, we know what the aftermath of that explosion looked like. We know about people trying to dig into the rubble to see if they can find survivors. We honor those people, usually firefighters in the US, who head quickly to the scene and try to save a few lives of people trapped, still alive, under tons of rubble.
What we haven't seen in the US is terrorists placing snipers around the site and shooting at the rescuers. But, read that last sentence closely, because that's what our military has done in Baghdad. The report states that a bulldozer driver, trying to dig out survivors from collapsed houses, was shot and killed by a sniper.
That's the thought the US military spokesman didn't want you to have with his sanitized information about how long the fight lasted and the weight of the explosives in the warhead. They don't want you to think of that image of horrified civilians trying to dig through rubble with their bare hands to try to rescue loved ones trapped beneath. They don't want you to think of the heroism of someone who gets a bulldozer to the scene to try aid those rescues, nor of the relief the paniced survivors must feel when the bulldozer arrived to move the rubble they had been desperately trying to move with their bare hands. They don't want you to think of the horror of when the snipers bullet hits and kills the person who's there to try to save lives, nor of the horror of the desperate people trying to save loved ones when they find that hope was just snatched away.
Sniper fire at people trying to rescue people who've been buried alive.
Lets take a look at an article in the Washington Post.
U.S. Role Deepens in Sadr City
It starts with
"A four-hour battle Tuesday between U.S. soldiers and Shiite militiamen left at least 28 Iraqis dead in the capital's Sadr City neighborhood, making it one of the bloodiest days in a month of sustained street fighting."
Then, after some other thoughts that the authors and editors felt needed to be emphasized, the standard scene setting stuff that announces Sadr as the other and dismisses any who might take his side, we get our next piece of information about the fighting.
"The battle Tuesday erupted as U.S. forces tried to evacuate a soldier injured by small-arms fire about 9:30 a.m., according to the U.S. military. During the evacuation, the troops were attacked with roadside bombs, as well as rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire from houses, storefronts, alleyways and rooftops, said Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a U.S. military spokesman."
Note, that when the US military says the battle began, there's already a wounded soldier needing evacuation, injured by small arms fire. What happened to lead to the soldier being wounded in the first place, and why isn't that a part of 'the battle'?
I don't know if they just do it to make the story hard to read, but the author and editors then jump to a non-related paragraph about overall casualties before continuing with. And even in the paragraph that contains this next bit, they again jump to non related information other bombings in Baghdad.
"In the Sadr City clash, the U.S. soldiers responded by firing rockets armed with high-explosive, 200-pound warheads, killing 28 fighters, Stover said."
In this piece, that's it. That's what the US military briefers wanted American citizens to know about this. In other words, not much. They can't hide the fact that a major four hour long firefight erupted in Baghdad. Four hours of weapons fire and 200 lb warheads of high explosive going off can't be hidden in the middle of a city of 5,000,000 people. But, they don't want to tell you much about it. They don't want to tell you what the soldiers were doing in Sadr City, about what the effects of exploding 200 lbs of high explosive in an area usually described as a densely populated slum. Air strikes aren't mentioned at all, even though the US military relies on them and I'd be very doubtful that they fought a serious four hour long firefight without them. And, everyone killed was a 'fighter', even though its doubtful you could set off 200 lbs of high explosive in a dense urban area and kill only 'fighters'.
In this case, the reporter didn't just echo the military briefing, although you'll probably find other news sources that just do that. This time you hear a little from the people who live there.
"But Sadr City residents gave a very different accounting of the fighting. They said at least 50 people were killed and 130 injured, many of them women and children.
Falah Hassan Shanshal, a Sadrist member of parliament, said at least five houses were demolished in the airstrike, killing 29 people and pinning entire families beneath piles of rubble. When a bulldozer came to clear the rubble, the driver was shot by a sniper, Shanshal said.
An Associated Press photograph showed a boy being pulled from the rubble. The AP reported that Ali Hussein, 2, died at the hospital."
I guess that Ali Hussein, age 2, is a 'fighter' by US military standards. Is it just because of his last name?
But the last sentence of that is what really struck me. As Americans, we know what those images look like. At the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, at the World Trade Center in New York, we know what the aftermath of that explosion looked like. We know about people trying to dig into the rubble to see if they can find survivors. We honor those people, usually firefighters in the US, who head quickly to the scene and try to save a few lives of people trapped, still alive, under tons of rubble.
What we haven't seen in the US is terrorists placing snipers around the site and shooting at the rescuers. But, read that last sentence closely, because that's what our military has done in Baghdad. The report states that a bulldozer driver, trying to dig out survivors from collapsed houses, was shot and killed by a sniper.
That's the thought the US military spokesman didn't want you to have with his sanitized information about how long the fight lasted and the weight of the explosives in the warhead. They don't want you to think of that image of horrified civilians trying to dig through rubble with their bare hands to try to rescue loved ones trapped beneath. They don't want you to think of the heroism of someone who gets a bulldozer to the scene to try aid those rescues, nor of the relief the paniced survivors must feel when the bulldozer arrived to move the rubble they had been desperately trying to move with their bare hands. They don't want you to think of the horror of when the snipers bullet hits and kills the person who's there to try to save lives, nor of the horror of the desperate people trying to save loved ones when they find that hope was just snatched away.
Sniper fire at people trying to rescue people who've been buried alive.