Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditDon't look for surprises from President Obama on Afghanistan. During the two year campaign, and since taking office, he's been consistent. For Obama, Afghanistan is the right war, and he's staked his presidency on winning it. In order to placate the liberal-left and its allies in Congress, Obama is putting out the word (from the National Security Council) that he's willing to listen to all points of view, including those who believe that it's time to cut and run. Listen, he will. Cut and run, he won't.
The big papers today are full of showdown talk. "US Buildup: A Necessity?" headlines the New York Times, citing George Will-style alternatives such as fighting Al Qaeda long distance, via intelligence, Predator drones, and US special forces. The Times likens the conflict to a "quagmire with a muddled mission," but it then cites a litany of experts from the terrorism-industrial complex explaining why the US can't scale back its commitment. The Washington Post headlines Afghanistan as a "pivotal moment" for Obama. But after raising questions about US strategy, the Post answers them, too, suggesting that the US can't back down because of "the stakes involved and the investment already made." Also in the Post, columnist Anne Applebaum stresses the importance of the war, adding: "Obama needs to cajole and convince [and] campaign, in other words, and campaign hard."
A passel of neoconservatives, under the leadership of the Foreign Policy Initiative -- a group founded earlier this year as a reconstituted version of the Committee on the Present Danger and the Project for a New American Century -- has written to Obama urging him to stand fast. It's ironic, since unlike 2001-2004, when they had plenty of co-thinkers inside government, this time the neocons are on the outside looking in, with few if any friends inside the White House. But that doesn't stop them from providing free advice, calling on the president to "fully resource" the war, i.e., to escalate it. In its letter, the FPI crowd, including Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, warns:
Since the announcement of your administration's new strategy, we have been troubled by calls for a drawdown of American forces in Afghanistan and a growing sense of defeatism about the war.
And they add:
There is no middle course. Incrementally committing fewer troops than required would be a grave mistake and may well lead to American defeat. We will not support half-measures that repeat the errors of the past.
There is, of course, a middle course, and that's the path that Obama (unfortunately) is likely to take. According to media accounts, General McChrystal is recommending a low-end boost of troops (circa 10,000 - 15,000) and a high-end increase of 45,000, while putting a Goldilocks middle course of an additional 25,000 US forces smack dab in the center. I'd consider it a foregone conclusion that Obama will select the middle course, leading the liberal-left to despair and angering the far right. (Put me in the despair category.)
It's health care week, so don't expect the White House to tip its hand just yet on the war. But they've asked for $68 billion for 2010 for the Afghanistan conflict (compared to $61 billion for the winding-down war in Iraq), and in his recent speeches Obama has described Afghanistan as a necessary war in defense of core US national security interests.
As an example of how absurdly apocalyptic the pro-war voices are, consider Bret Stephens in today's Wall Street Journal, who describes the war in Afghanistan as a civilizational turning point akin to the fall of the Roman Empire:
So George Will has noticed that Afghanistan is a backward place ill-suited to nation-building, and Nicholas Kristof thinks that war is a tricky, dirty business, and Tom Friedman is hedging his bets on yet another conflict he once supported but which now disturbs his moral equilibrium. Thus do three paladins of the right, left and center combine to erode support for a war that, if lost, would be to the United States roughly what the battle of Adrianople in 378 A.D. --you can look it up--was to the Roman Empire. Things did not go well for Western civilization for 1,100 or so years thereafter.Overstated? I don't think so.
Hear that? Pull out of Afghanistan and face a thousand years of darkness.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
I had a wise person tell me once that if you wanted to size up a potential mate, look at their mother, first. Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, seems like where Obama gets his aggression, instincts, jive and based on what little I can find, Ann Dunham seems like a rather self-serving and arrogant person. I'm white, BTW. I don't think we've even seen an iota of what this jive ass sombitch is capable of. I'm rather ashamed I didn't investigate his old lady before the election, personally.
Posted by DejaVu at 09/08/2009 @ 10:38am
Posted by DejaVu at 09/08/2009 @ 10:38am
Isn't this the point where Harry Potter causes DejaVu to inflate and float out the Dursley's garden door?
Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 10:58am
Endless war for no purpose at all. What a concept! Like you're going to "defeat" the Taliban by killing hundreds of civilians.
Notice how the FCM states, as fact, that the "foreign policy consequences" of a pullout would be "disastrous," without ever stating what they are. Disastrous for whom? As if the consequences of the occupation haven't already been disastrous.
What can we do to stop this horror?
Posted by DavidSpero at 09/08/2009 @ 10:59am
Besides the various profit motives some have for escalating and continuing the Central Asia wars (it is not just Afghanistan but Pakistan and the surrounding countries also), there is also the geopolitical reasons such as the Great Game of keeping the region from developing economically. The person who convinced Obama, BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED, that Afghanistan was the "good war" was Britain's Tony Blair, an original instigator of the neocon & neolib movements, leader of the Queens Privy Council, and director of JP Morgan Chase investment bank, who has made a career of trying to get the United States bogged down in wars we cannot win. He is the modern day Mephistopheles to Obama's Dr. Faustus. His central philosophy since at least the early 1980's is to resurrect a "New British Empire" (Blair's term) not a free world led by the United States. Obama has been wooed and won by this devil and now we will pay with ever more blood and treasure, sinking our future while the "sceptered tyrants" (as Thomas Paine famously called the European Oligarchs) further their goals for "global governance" i.e., the new British empire. I would call Obama a traitor but he is only a fool. I would say it is time to consider impeachment except that he will only be replaced by someone else from the Faustus family in the Democratic Party.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 11:00am
Escalate things in Afghanistan? By all means. Instead of all of these trumped up wars, why don't we just have a mandatory defense contractor tax that is pulled from our checks every month. No need to go into other countries and blow crap up to make the contractors rich, they just collect their 2 billion every time they pass go with nothing said.
Perhaps we should take what is left in social security and give it Blackwater Inc for the fine job they did. Evidently they are just superb at their jobs because they continue to get contracts doled out to them. They may need some extra cash to defend themselves from frivolous wrongful death lawsuits on the tax payers dime.
People in the U.S. can't afford health care costs, but we sure as hell can afford warfare in multiple countries. Even you non-thinking folks on the right have to question how we are going to pay for these wars while we are outsourcing jobs and our unemployment rate continues to climb while retail sales are plummeting.
So far, it appears that W' s policies have been carried out by Obama and those policies are to bankrupt this country. It won't be the public insurance option, it will be Iraq, Afghanistan, and the wallstreet/bank bailouts that do the trick.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/08/2009 @ 11:05am
Past time to look for someone ELSE in 2012.
Between Obama's position on the military in general, Afghanistan in particular, the trillions he keeps lavishing on Wall Street criminals and his continued attack on human rights at home and abroad there is no room left for support from the left ...
mmckinl
Posted by mmckinl at 09/08/2009 @ 11:37am
I would call Obama a traitor but he is only a fool.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 11:00am | ignore this person | warn this person
More a Trojan Horse than a fool.
Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 11:41am
posted by ROBERT DREYFUSS on 09/08/2009 @ 10:17am
Certainly its bizarre that Bret Stephens or anyone who claims that Western civilization is going to collapse if the US pulls out of Afghanistan would get taken seriously. Why it is that major newspapers publish such ravings is beyond my understanding.
Posted by syfriendly at 09/08/2009 @ 12:01pm
i proudly marched against the afghan war, and barbara lee was the *only* congressional figure to vote against it. and we were both right.
all of san francisco was right. we marched. the media laughed at us, called us commie wackos.
and we were right.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:14pm
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/08/2009 @ 11:05am | ignore this person | warn this person
Primary Dealers A primary dealer is a bank or securities broker-dealer that may trade directly with the Federal Reserve System of the United States.[71] They are required to make bids or offers when the Fed conducts open market operations, provide information to the Fed's open market trading desk, and to participate actively in U.S. Treasury securities auctions.[72] They consult with both the U.S. Treasury and the Fed about funding the budget deficit and implementing monetary policy. Many former employees of primary dealers work at the Treasury, because of their expertise in the government debt markets, though the Fed avoids a similar revolving door policy.[73][74]
Between them, these dealers purchase the vast majority of the U.S. Treasury securities (T-bills, T-notes, and T-bonds) sold at auction, and resell them to the public. Their activities extend well beyond the Treasury market, for example, according to the Wall Street Journal Europe (2/9/06 p. 20), all of the top ten dealers in the foreign exchange market are also primary dealers, and between them account for almost 73% of forex trading volume. Arguably, this group's members are the most influential and powerful non-governmental institutions in world financial markets.
The primary dealers form a worldwide network that distributes new U.S. government debt. For example, Daiwa Securities and Mizuho Securities distribute the debt to Japanese buyers. BNP Paribas, Barclays, Deutsche Bank, and RBS Greenwich Capital (a division of the Royal Bank of Scotland) distribute the debt to European buyers. Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup account for many American buyers. Nevertheless, most of these firms compete internationally...
Wiki
Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 12:23pm
Going to again be funny to see our die-hard neo-cons say that GEORGE WILL is a "cut & run surrender monkey"
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 12:23pm
Current list of primary dealers As of February 11, 2009 according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York the list includes:
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. Bank of America Securities LLC Barclays Capital Inc. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC Daiwa Securities America Inc. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. Dresdner Kleinwort Securities LLC. Goldman, Sachs & Co. Greenwich Capital Markets Inc. HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. J. P. Morgan Securities Inc. Mizuho Securities USA Inc. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated Nomura Securities International, Inc. UBS Securities LLC.
Wiki
Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 12:27pm
OneVote,
Please study and give us your opinion on what Bernake, supported by Obama, is doing since August 6th having the Fed buy back U.S. debt in a process called debt monetization. Please note what this policy did to the Weimar Republic and most recently Zimbabwe. Do you agree that hyperinflation is most likely on the horizon. Are we screwed?
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 12:41pm
#
i proudly marched against the afghan war, and barbara lee was the *only* congressional figure to vote against it. and we were both right.
all of san francisco was right. we marched. the media laughed at us, called us commie wackos.
and we were right.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Hope you are still willing to march against the wars in Central Asia. Keep it up. Obama, hey, hey. How many kids have you killed today?
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 12:46pm
Are we screwed?
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I believe we are. "Full Faith and Credit" is what the Financial Crisis is all about - though "they" won't tell such. The real estate downturn my ass.
Those in the know, including the Fed, are warning that higher interest rates (necessary to fund Federal Deficit) can come at any time. The monetization of debt is criminal, and it will lead to hyperinflation through devaluation of the US dollar, not through "over-heating" of the economy. Monetization of debt is "sham transaction" that robs all of us while we are not looking.
Lack of interest (literally) is causing foreign lenders to balk on Treasury debt, and foreign purchase is now pretty much short term maturity which is death to domestic currency stablization. Note international discussion of dumping the dollar.
Heard on the news yesterday that the national high school drop out rate was 32%. Now, if you were a foreign lender, whether sovereign or private, what would your rating on US debt be going forward, and understanding US demographics which are moving inevitably toward an inverted pyramid of demand over supply as to means of support. Junk bond. And, inevitably, the inverse relationship between interest (yield) and risk rating will cause risk premiums to escalate even further.
The unfunded debt and future obligations of the US government per household under the Bush administration near the end was estimated to be over $450,000 per household. BO has added greatly to this. There is NO WAY this is going to work out. We should be facing our future years with surplus (such as Social Security trust fund...lol), and even then, the task would be exceedingly difficult to pull off.
Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 1:14pm
Somebody needs to tell the Obamanation that the Demoncrat war strategy is always defund, cut and run from any declared enemies seeking to destroy the U.S.A. and murder its citizens since we are to blame for all violence worldwide!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 1:28pm
#
Somebody needs to tell the Obamanation that the Demoncrat war strategy is always defund, cut and run from any declared enemies seeking to destroy the U.S.A. and murder its citizens since we are to blame for all violence worldwide!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 1:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
No BigPasture, we are not to blame for all violence worldwide -- unless we follow those foreign oligarchs who lead us foolishly into the valley of the shadow of death. See my posting above re Tony Blair.
Anti-Americanism has ALWAYS had its roots in British deceit.
And it was a Democrat (under British control) H.S. Truman who got us into the loosing war in Korea. And it was Democrats (influenced by Skull and Bonesmen) who got us into the loosing wars in South East Asia. And now it is a Democrat who is escalating our involvement in the Central Asian Wars. Democrats can be just as foolishly war mongers as any Republican.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 1:34pm
bigpasture-I guess you never heard of WW2.It was a small war so it is understandable that you never heard of it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2009 @ 1:34pm
lol Dreyfuss sounds so tough. But Obama?
Posted by ChrisP at 09/08/2009 @ 1:38pm
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 1:34pm
Listen to Lyndon...he knows all, tells all.
Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 1:59pm
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 1:34pm
Listen to Lyndon...he knows all, tells all.
Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 1:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You really need a spanking. I am now and I encourage all to ignore you on these blogs. You add nothing to the dialog. Also see my remarks on "Obama's Opportunity" and Van Jones Exit Isn't Right-Wing Win, It's an Obama Surrender. Good by idiot child.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 2:13pm
shadowknows-if you are going to refer to someone else as a child then you should not call that person names because that blows your attempt at sounding mature and just showed that you are the child.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2009 @ 2:22pm
i'm nobody,
shadowknows is a conspiracy-obsessed troll who just recently showed up.
he doesn't really want to engage ideas, he wants to blather about meta-historical themes, none of which have anything specific to do with the topic at hand.
i ignored him within 20 minutes of his arrival....
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 2:32pm
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 2:13pm
So pretty much admitting you are a LaRoucher?
Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 2:43pm
darla-Another conspiracy obsessed person?They are an interesting bunch.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2009 @ 2:45pm
'Leap in U.S. debt hits taxpayers with 12% more red ink
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Updated 5/29/2009
Taxpayers are on the hook for an extra $55,000 a household to cover rising federal commitments made just in the past year for retirement benefits, the national debt and other government promises, a USA TODAY analysis shows. The 12% rise in red ink in 2008 stems from an explosion of federal borrowing during the recession, plus an aging population driving up the costs of Medicare and Social Security.
That's the biggest leap in the long-term burden on taxpayers since a Medicare prescription drug benefit was added in 2003.
The latest increase raises federal obligations to a record $546,668 per household in 2008, according to the USA TODAY analysis. That's quadruple what the average U.S. household owes for all mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other debt combined.
"We have a huge implicit mortgage on every household in America -- except, unlike a real mortgage, it's not backed up by a house," says David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general, the government's top auditor.
USA TODAY used federal data to compute all government liabilities, from Treasury bonds to Medicare to military pensions.
Bottom line: The government took on $6.8 trillion in new obligations in 2008, pushing the total owed to a record $63.8 trillion.'
Excerpt - Correction to prior post - make that $550,000 per household in 2008.
In terms of a 30 year mortgage at 4.27% (current yield LT Treasury Constant Maturity 30 years), the annual amortization including interest would be approximately $32,500 per household. Median household income US 2009 was approximately $46,500.
Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the writing on the wall.
Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 2:58pm
bigpasture-I guess you never heard of WW2.It was a small war so it is understandable that you never heard of it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2009 @ 1:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Think Vietnam to date! Real Democrats are all dead now all we have left is Demoncrats!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 2:58pm
bigpasture-Viet Nam,Iraq,and Afghanistan did not have the military capability to be a threat to us so I mentioned the war where countries did have the ability to be a threat.WW2.Terrorists can plan and do their thing from anywhere as McVeigh,the 9/11, and the anti abortion terrorists proved.The 9/11 terrorists made their plans and got trained in America and not Afghanistan.Democrats are everything from very liberal to rather conservative making your generalization inaccurate.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2009 @ 3:08pm
i proudly marched against the afghan war, and barbara lee was the *only* congressional figure to vote against it. and we were both right.
all of san francisco was right. we marched. the media laughed at us, called us commie wackos.
and we were right.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 12:14pm
No, you were wrong then and you remain wrong now.
And yes, you are still a wacko.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 3:56pm
"i proudly marched against the afghan war,"
You should be ashamed of yourself. The Taliban caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children and left millions at risk of death by starvation and disease.
You "were right"? No, you were dead wrong. 40,000 Afghan babies are being saved EACH YEAR from improved healthcare. About 30,000 people have been killed by all sides throughout the entire conflict. What would you say to all those children if you had to look into their faces? "I wish you had all died in order to stop the cycle of violence"?
"and barbara lee was the *only* congressional figure to vote against it. and we were both right."
It is nothing short of incredible that a single woman anywhere in the world opposed the overthrow of the Taliban.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/08/2009 @ 4:01pm
Darla, just out of curiosity...
what would have been your move against al Qaeda? A police force dispatched into the middle of Afghanistan?
Posted by Thrawn at 09/08/2009 @ 4:15pm
The Zionist Lobby is more than equal now in influence to the British/Anglophile conspirators as compared to the date when Lucky Lindy doled out proportional blame to those manipulating the US into an earlier ill-advised war. One reason for that is, the Brits lost their Empire, even as the Anglophile forces vowed to save it by pushing their former colony into the war. This is why Blair was Bush's poodle, not his mastiff.
Posted by zionopp at 09/08/2009 @ 4:27pm
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 1:34pm
Listen to Lyndon...he knows all, tells all.
Posted by Mask at 09/08/2009 @ 1:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
At this point, I'm concerned with what this President may learn from the other Lyndon's experiences!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/08/2009 @ 4:39pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2009 @ 2:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I take your point. I called Mask a child because he adds nothing to any discussion, he just provokes.
But to clear up any misunderstanding of where I come from I will say this (and you can attack me any way you want).
I just went to Larouche's website and I see that he has now correctly identified the British rulers as enemies of the United States. I see he is no longer beating up on commies. Even a blind hog will occassionally find an acorn.
I have been an anti-British, anti-oligarchy activist since the 1960s when my reading of history showed the sceptered tyrants for what they are. I was deported twice in the early 1970s from England by MI6 and Crown Agents (not MI5 the British version of the FBI but by the Queens men) because I helped expose the British role in the Vietnam War. (In Vietnam, I had worked beside the British and knew what their role was in that war.)
As to my anti-war activism, among my mentors were my late friends, the great fighters for peace and justice David Dellinger and William Kunstler. From Dave I learned that, indeed, coalitions were needed to oppose war and injustice but never at the expense of principle. That is why I oppose the phony leftists of Obama's netroots organization. From Bill I learned of the beauty of the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law in the struggle for peace and justice. That is how we stop evil wars like Vietnam and Afghanistan. They were stalwart not opportunistic like Van Jones. They were seekers of truth not purveyors of ideology like Larouche. They were MEN, they were brave and they were great. Would that such men were alive today, and perhaps the anti-war movement would not be in the mess it is in today.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 4:49pm
"Darla, just out of curiosity...
what would have been your move against al Qaeda?"
no move. the perpetrators behind 9.11 are dead. their supporters (saudi financiers) are unassailable.
the most intelligent move bush could have made was no move. just rebuild the towers, heal the injured, and comfort the victims' families.
bush overreacted. he invaded a country that cannot be defeated. and then invaded another country that cannot be defeated.
the taliban did not cause 9.11. those who caused 9.11 are dead. and like i said, their supporters (saudi financiers) are unassailable.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 4:54pm
shadowknows-Mask adds as much to the discussion as anyone else.I have no desire to attack you.I was just pointing out that your name calling blew it for you.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2009 @ 4:56pm
i reluctantly might have been open to the idea of sending in a small amount of special-ops ground forces to the border w/ pakistan, to take out only senior al qaeda leaders, but not open to the idea of drone or air attacks on tribal villages.
but that's all.
and in fact, even george will is now open to part of this idea......8 years later.....
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 5:00pm
the taliban did not cause 9.11. those who caused 9.11 are dead. and like i said, their supporters (saudi financiers) are unassailable.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The Saudi's only seem "unassailable" because on June 29, the Obama administration ended the efforts of families of victims of the September 11th attacks to bring lawsuits against members of the Saudi Royal family for financial links to the conspiracy.
But the legal struggle against the Saudi Royal family is not over yet, I can assure you of that.
Obama, continuing the Bush policy, may continue to protect the Saudi's (and those behind them) but this eventually only come to further taint Obama. Obama is protecting the Saudi's because to not do so would only further show his effort in Afghanistan to be based on lies.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 5:01pm
shadowknows-Mask adds as much to the discussion as anyone else.I have no desire to attack you.I was just pointing out that your name calling blew it for you.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2009 @ 4:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Mask, I apologize. I'm_nobody says you add as much to the discussion of opposing Obama's policies and war in Afghanistan as anyone else. If so, I welcome that. It was beneath me and this important discussion to call you names. But please don't compare me or my viewpoints to anyone else. I belong to no organizations. I push no ideology. I ask only that you study history. I am just a little guy, trying to pay my bills, feed my family and, yes, oppose tyranny, oppression and war as best I can in my community and where I can on the internet. I have no power other than my voice and my feet. I will continue to blog here and on other anti-war blogs. And I will march when marching is called for. I hope you, Mask and I'm_nobody, will join me when we rise up (and it won't be too much longer) and say it loud and say it proud, OBAMA, HEY, HEY! HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU KILLED TODAY?
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 5:14pm
shadowknows-I quit marching,rising up, and shouting years ago.Smashing my head into a brick wall just gave me a headache.
Posted by i'm nobody at 09/08/2009 @ 5:21pm
Posted by shadowknows at 09/08/2009 @ 5:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Shadow - Mask supports troop escalation in Afghanistan. He thinks this is the "good war." His mantra is negotiate from a position of military strength. He thinks Taliban will magically moderate and become model nationalists if we hold a gun to their heads long enough. Anyone who disagrees with him is a conspiracy theorist or lunatic fringe. His views are highly predictable mainstream media regurgitation. He bought into Bush and the nonsense that because Taliban had been expelled from Kabul early on, we had defeated them - Mission Accomplished. He has been trying to save face ever since.
Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 5:50pm
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Don't forget, Darla, many of our neocon posters here are big military wannabe types, like neocon icons Wolfowitz, Cheney, Krostol et al, sporting ALL the tactical knowledge that their intense experiences in the field could provide.
LOL.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/08/2009 @ 5:54pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/08/2009 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Chickenhawks in other words.
Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 5:57pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/08/2009 @ 5:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Chickenhawks in other words.
Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 5:57pm
Why don't you both share with us what branch you served in and when?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 5:59pm
Do read Tom Englehardt's "Afghanistan by the Numbers" in The Nation. Mind-blowing, and excellent.
Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 6:11pm
Why don't you both share with us what branch you served in and when?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
1.) None of your business.
2.) I thought you weren't a neocon, so why are you strapping that shoe on?
3.) Wolfowitz, Cheney, Kristol--you bet they are.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/08/2009 @ 6:44pm
1.) None of your business.
2.) I thought you weren't a neocon, so why are you strapping that shoe on?
3.) Wolfowitz, Cheney, Kristol--you bet they are.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/08/2009 @ 6:44pm
I thought so.
Do mean to suggest that all military members and veterans are neocons?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 6:59pm
Why don't you both share with us what branch you served in and when?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 5:59pm
You dishonor our veterans and our country by wearing your badge of "claimed" military service like some circus clown. Try to have some dignity sir.
Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 7:02pm
Posted by antisocialist at 09/02/2009 @ 6:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Your response (per usual) is idiotic. The Bush officials were, by and large, Machiavellian plutocratic parasites happy to send other people to their deaths in foreign wars that benefit few, while never putting their own necks on the line. Bush and Cheney both were infamous draft dodgers. Anyone in the world can point this out and it is no more or less true because of whether or not the person in question was in the military. Truth doesn't care who the truth-teller is.
Furthermore, you are extra-stupid (per usual) in that you've claimed on one page that you think every man should serve in the armed forces ... only you seem to have exempted Bush and Cheney and their coterie of wartime draft evaders from this requirement. Yet you worship those clowns ...
... how can anyone be so bent and silly as you are? And when are you going to get a job? You seem to have a LOT of time on your hands ...
Posted by syfriendly at 09/08/2009 @ 7:04pm
Is there a requirement somewhere in an indoctrination manual that declares that one has to be particularly stupid in order to join the ranks of loony-right maniacs?
Posted by syfriendly at 09/08/2009 @ 7:05pm
Furthermore, you are extra-stupid (per usual) in that you've claimed on one page that you think every man should serve in the armed forces ... only you seem to have exempted Bush and Cheney and their coterie of wartime draft evaders from this requirement. Yet you worship those clowns ...
... how can anyone be so bent and silly as you are? And when are you going to get a job? You seem to have a LOT of time on your hands ...
Posted by syfriendly at 09/08/2009 @ 7:04pm
And I said that I have less respect for Cheney because he didn't serve. I am on record for that statement here.
Secondly, Bush did serve and was a certified pilot.
I have also stated that I hold all National Guardsmen as rightful veterans since many did die in combat and there is no indication that Bush tried to escape combat duty or that his unit was somehow exempted.
Bush's service is far above that of Clinton who wrote that he loathed the military.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 7:13pm
And when are you going to get a job? You seem to have a LOT of time on your hands ...
Posted by syfriendly at 09/08/2009 @ 7:04pm
I am 60 year old who is self employed, and partially disabled.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 7:17pm
I am 60 year old who is self employed, and partially disabled.
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 7:17pm
Who makes less than $25,000 a year with a wife to support, and plays Palm Springs golf courses. FOUR!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 7:21pm
If only our president would talk to LBJ. He would explain to the young fella how to get things done domestically (i.e. push things through an obstinate Congress) and advise him to avoid escalating an unwinnable war.
I thought we elected a guy who reads history.
Posted by Citizen54 at 09/08/2009 @ 7:29pm
I thought so.
Do mean to suggest that all military members and veterans are neocons?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 6:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You thought so WHAT?
Where did I imply all vets/servicemembers are neocons? Are YOU implying that all servicemembers/vets emulate Wolfowitz/Cheney/Kristol types?
You wanna personalize/internalize all comments herein made, go right ahead.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 09/08/2009 @ 7:50pm
Why do liberals always try to belittle the military service of George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush? Oh, right, because if they admitted they were veterans, their lunatic conspiracy theories about "blood for oil" would be even more ridiculous.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/08/2009 @ 7:51pm
Let's get this straight; just look at the newspapers of 2002/2003. Afghanistan is the war the Left wanted, the Left demanded, for which the Left agitated. It did so in an attempt to avert the pending invasion of Iraq, in an attempt to save Saddam's skin, and in an attempt not to seem soft in the face of terror. Its pose was, that it was not opposed to fighting America's enemies, but opposed to the wrong war, Iraq, and for the right war, Afghanistan. Obama was at the center of that position.
In the presidential campaign, when his prognoses, that Iraq was unwinnable and the Surge would only make matters worse, proved to be nonsense, he began demanding victory in Afghanistan and criticizing Bush for neglecting that theater.
His promise to build up our forces in Afghanistan thus had the political purpose of wiping the egg off his face, and was directly related to the earlier political attempt to divert America to Afghanistan and save Saddam.
In short, this is now a political war from a to z. The only ones who are supporting it honestly are the hawks on the right and the generals, whose metier, after all is fighting.
I am on the right, but I was opposed to a major deployment in Afghanistan in 2002, when the Left was hot for it, and I remain opposed now, for the same reason. We have no vital interests in Afghanistan.
Obama is quite right in implying that the only legitimate reason for Americans to fight any war is to serve American interests. There are no significant American interests in Afghanistan, only Obama's political interests, and those are not worth our blood and money.
The Nation, Dreyfuss, the Left are all opposed to this war, but unwilling to speak the truth about their bellicose Obama.
Posted by Pirovano at 09/08/2009 @ 8:03pm
Who makes less than $25,000 a year with a wife to support, and plays Palm Springs golf courses. FOUR!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by OneVote at 09/08/2009 @ 7:21pm
I haven't played a Palms Springs Golf course since 1965
Posted by antisocialist at 09/08/2009 @ 8:07pm
to the posters using Afghani women and children as examples of why our military has to stay in Afghanistan: why just there? there are lots of other places in the world where women are treated terribly...why does Afghanistan get our military help and not them?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 8:55pm
"there are lots of other places in the world where women are treated terribly"
Not as badly as in the Taliban's Afganistan.
As far as other bad regimes, war with Iran is an absolutely terrible idea, and North Korea could kill millions of South Koreans in retalliation if we attacked them. War with Sudan would be certainly justified, however.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/08/2009 @ 9:23pm
Posted by DejaVu at 09/08/2009 @ 10:38am | ignore this person | warn this person
you're attacking his MOTHER? why you creep. Pfui.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 9:31pm
Not as badly as in the Taliban's Afganistan. As far as other bad regimes, war with Iran is an absolutely terrible idea, and North Korea could kill millions of South Koreans in retalliation if we attacked them. War with Sudan would be certainly justified, however.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/08/2009 @ 9:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--so the poor Iranian women and North Korean women are just plum outta luck huh?
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 9:35pm
liverty worships but one god. and that god wears the american uniform. always the same garbage.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/08/2009 @ 9:38pm
"--so the poor Iranian women and North Korean women are just plum outta luck huh?"
Not in the case of Iran. Iran will be a stable democracy in, say, about 15 years or so. Women in Iran, mistreated though they certainly are, also tend to be better off then women in much of the Arab world (see Saudi Arabia).
Women aren't singled out for persecution in North Korea. The entire population is. Over 1.8 million people have been starved to death by the brutal North Korean regime which also has 200,000 people performing slave labor in concentration camps where rape, torture, and forced medical experimentation are common. There is no country in the world more repressive than North Korea is. It is more Stalinist and totalitarian than even Saddam Hussein's Iraq and its state is in stronger control than Mullah Omar's Afghanistan. The number of people killed by Kim Jong-Il's father may well run into the millions as well. The regime tortures people to death every day. Famine conditions are at risk of returning to North Korea and numerous hundreds of thousands of lives may be at stake. The population has little to no access to safe drinking water.
There is no country that I would more love to see liberated by the US military than North Korea. I just don't think the US really CAN liberate North Korea, given what it could do to South Korea in retalliation. I'd love to be convinced otherwise.
Iran's human rights record is bad, but not really all that bad, and further the regional chaos that could result from war with Iran makes the very idea seem highly unwise to me.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 09/08/2009 @ 10:06pm
bush overreacted. he invaded a country that cannot be defeated. and then invaded another country that cannot be defeated.
Posted by darladoon at 09/08/2009 @ 4:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
If any of that was just "facietiousness" it might be funny! However, knowing Darlaloon it is just what it is, incredibly Van Jones wackolandish!
Posted by BigPasture at 09/08/2009 @ 10:11pm
i'm not convinced either---especially of the efficacy of having our military in iraq and afghanistan
Posted by urmygyro at 09/08/2009 @ 10:13pm
You know... The only thing I really care about is that those chicks can go to school without getting acid thrown in their faces. Woldn't it be a heck of a lot cheaper just to offer them free tuition, room and board in one of the good old NATO countries instead of incinerating them?
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 09/08/2009 @ 10:16pm
instead of incinerating them? Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 09/08/2009 @ 10:16pm
Instead of visiting war on them. Peace, Pax. Go to bed.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 09/08/2009 @ 10:45pm
bigpasture,
what/who was there to defeat in iraq? sadaam's regime? you mean the regime that dissappeared?
and in afghanistan? how do you defeat a largely invisible "enemy," in terrain so ridiculously impenetrable, and without killing innocent civilians?
we've already killed tens of thousands of innocent people, and in iraq, we've killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
we are the enemy. and we should leave afghanistan immediately. yes, we should 'cut and run.'
Posted by darladoon at 09/09/2009 @ 12:46am
Just more proof that when Obama visited the White House before the inauguration Bush had his mind transferred into Obama's.
Cheney now has the real Obama's mind in a undisclosed man-sized vault. Or maybe Liz Cheney has it.
Either way, its clearly Bush's third term.
Posted by masher at 09/09/2009 @ 01:25am
Posted by masher at 09/09/2009 @ 01:25am
Obama must be doing SOMETHING right, if he's got the Nutty Left saying he's "George W. Bush"...
and the Nutty Right saying he's "Fidel Castro"!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 07:33am
For everyone who is willing to start organizing for a national march against Obama's wars in Central Asia in the Spring or early Summer, you can contact me at marchagainstobamaswar@gmail.com. If we are able to organize this march, it will not be run by the phony anti-war organizations in Obama's netroots cabal but by grass roots organizations and individuals. NOTE: I will share all the information you provide with everyone else who is willing to work on this and we will see if we can start to build a real anti-war movement. There is no guarantee we can do this, but we have to start somewhere. If I get enough good and decent response (I know you righties and netroots phonies will also contact me but it should not be hard to figure out who is legit and who is not), I will try to organize a web page so we can coordinate the new movement. Again, please note, I WILL SHARE all information you provide with others who truly wish to stop the wars in Central Asia. ORGANIZE YOUR COMMUNITY. So keep in mind even the enemy will know we are doing this. We have to operate in the light but we should always beware the pro-war forces are watching.
OBAMA, HEY, HEY! HOW MANY KIDS HAVE YOU KILLED TODAY?
For Peace & Justice marchagainstobamaswar@gmail.com
Shadowknows
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 08:17am
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 08:17am
Will there be any copies of "Now, Are You Ready to Learn About Economics?" or "The Economics of the Nöosphere" available???
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 09:04am
Mask, you really are the biggest idiot on this blog. And this time I will not apologize for calling you a name. You have been answered on this nonsense you post and still you continue. Are you Katrina van den Heuvel or her surrogate trying to disparage those who oppose your viewpoints & confuse readers, or do you work for the FBI? Do you realize that there are ways and means of finding out who you are and where you are?
For everyone else, the email address I have set up is just for early communications purposes. After that it will be up grass roots organizations, individuals and those national peace organizations that wish to join to form a coordinating committee for peace & justice to protest Obama's wars. I am not setting up myself as THE leader of such a protest nor am I fronting for any organization. If anyone out there can figure out a better way to get a movement against Obama's wars going, all power to you. I have only done this because I do not trust netroots nor ANSWER (they support Obama)
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 09:33am
P.S. I will contact the old traditional anti-war groups from the Vietnam era who are not compromised by support for netroots or ANSWER to see if they will coordinate such a movement and protest. These are the churches, community & student groups not any ideological faction. I do not trust the Trotskyites, the Larouchers, what is left of the CP and certainly not the Maoists nor any group that takes foundation money. You shouldn't either.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 09:38am
Either way, its clearly Bush's third term. Posted by masher at 09/09/2009 @ 01:25am | ignore this person | warn this person
with the exception the long vacation that Bush took, while forewarned of an impending attack.
Posted by emile duBois at 09/09/2009 @ 09:57am
"Mask, you really are the biggest idiot on this blog. And this time I will not apologize for calling you a name. "----Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 09:33am
And you sir...are being dishonest. Something I will not apologize for.
Unless of course you'd like to directly and fully tell us your feelings on the politics, philosophy, and personality of one....Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr.
Which I have a strong suspicion you will not.
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 11:07am
Mask, you idiot. I have already answered your questions above.
But to be specific, again,
I dislike any personality who creates a cult of personality around themselves such as Larouche has done.
I have to agree with him or anyone else who understands the role of the British in screwing with America.
I disagree with his approach to economics as it is unscientific. His conclusions that our economy is messed up by Bernake is easy for anyone to conclude who knows what the Fed is. The same conclusion has also been reached by a wide sprectrum from the left and the right.
And Larouche's scientific perceptions are really out there except for Global Warming. But again anyone who actually understands the climate will come to the same conclusions, its a hoax. No professional climatologist agrees with Al Gore.
In short, most of Larouche's positions are positions anyone could come to who actually looks at the facts. There is nothing special in Larouche also coming to these conclusions. What Larouche does is insert himself into every situation and claim that he is responsible for the situtation when in fact he is only on the sidelines like most of us. Larouche is not a central figure in any current event that I know of.
Again do you work for The Nation or the FBI?
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 11:20am
Do you realize that there are ways and means of finding out who you are and where you are?
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 09:33am
Dude, everybody's got a right to express an opinion. If you don't like it, do what lots of others have done here, just put the posters that don't make a contribution on "ignore."
Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 11:20am
Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 11:20am | ignore this person | warn this person
Point taken, except that I don't like to wear blinders.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 11:23am
Point taken, except that I don't like to wear blinders.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 11:23am
Well I can understand that, but you don't have to get all worked up about everything. Just remind them that they're not cross-examining anybody. Think of it this way: if a dog bites you in the butt, you don't have to do the same to the dog, and you don't lose any face by refraining doing so.
Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 11:32am
Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 11:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
Point taken. Thanks. I will try to no longer be annoyed by the likes of Mask. I guess I am getting old.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 11:34am
Again do you work for The Nation or the FBI?
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 11:20am | ignore this person | warn this person
--that's actually a fair question...I've developed a suspicion that Mask is actually Chris Hayes
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:36am
Defining the Third Way
PPI's mission arises from the belief that America is ill-served by an obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with the powerful forces re-shaping our society and economy. The Institute advocates a philosophy that adapts the progressive tradition in American politics to the realities of the Information Age and points to a "third way" beyond the liberal impulse to defend the bureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to simply dismantle government. The Institute envisions government as society's servant, not its master -- as a catalyst for a broader civic enterprise controlled by and responsive to the needs of citizens and the communities where they live and work.
http://www.ppionline.org
This is a former front organization of the DLC, still masquerading as a "progressive" organization. It is a centrist think tank that is remarkably similar to PNAC on foreign policy aspirations, of course economic liberalism which has wrought havoc with our economy. Still pushing the "Third Way," which is better labeled as "One-Way."
Head honcho is Will Marshall - whose bio from the PPI website is below.
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 11:37am
PPI | Bio | August 14, 2009 Will Marshall President, PPI
(Click for hi-res photo)
'Will Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), established in 1989 as a center for political innovation in Washington, D.C. In this capacity, he has been one of the chief intellectual architects of the movement to modernize progressive politics for the global age.
Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," PPI's policy analysis and proposals were the source for many of the "New Democrat" innovations that figured prominently in national politics over the past two decades. The Institute also has been integral to the spread of "Third Way" thinking to center-left parties in Europe and elsewhere. Marshall is an honorary Vice-President of Policy Network, an international think tank launched by Tony Blair to promote progressive policy ideas throughout the democratic world.'
Oh my gosh - what was Shadow telling us about Tony Blair??????????????????
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 11:38am
Ludicrous policy analysis such as the tripe below may be found on PPI's website. They are calling this 'Progressive Internationalism.'
Note the reasoned analysis. We are there to protect America from attack. As if we need a escalated troop presence there to protect us from attack. Even George Will disputes this. Small special forces units and intelligence will protect us from attack. Boots on the ground will not.
'New from PPI | September 3, 2009 Why we're in Afghanistan We're in Afghanistan to secure America, not to needlessly occupy a country. Sen. Feingold needs to remember that. By Jim Arkedis
When did we lose sight of why we're there?
Sen. Feingold, the floor is yours:
I and the American people cannot tolerate more troops [to Afghanistan] without some commitment about when this perceived occupation will end," Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said Wednesday in an interview. Framing our commitment to a secure America as an occupation of Afghanistan is inherently unhealthy. The Obama adminstration may consider more troops, but it is doing so because it wants to keep the United States safe, not because it needlessly wants to occupy Afghanistan.
Let's remember what's at stake: If we leave before there is a stable Afghan government and security force that has control over the vast majority of the country, then we potentially leave the United States vulnerable to a terrorist attack. The next attack may occur years in the future; indeed, we may get lucky and it may not ever occur. But we can't take that chance: if we don't have enough soldiers in Afghanistan, when control over the country's ruling institutions hangs in the balance, then the situation is too dangerous for American security.'
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 11:44am
The "third way" is actually a political philosophy that can be traced back to Hegal. And besides the new democrats being interested in a version of the Third Way, please not that Newt Gengrich is also an advocate of Third Way approaches as per the writings of futurist Alvin Toffler who has also been praised by Al Gore. It is just a convenient cover for old fashion fascism, in my opinion.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 11:58am
It is just a convenient cover for old fashion fascism, in my opinion.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 11:58am | ignore this person | warn this person
That is precisely my impression. And it is strange that Mask's pragmatism seems to fall neatly within the parameters of The Third Way. He is a lover of Bill Clinton BTW.
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 12:00pm
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 11:20am
Okay, fair enough.
Cornerstone to LaRouche is the "The British control everything and always have" conspiracy insanity...and so naturally, since you are a proponent of that. Seemed logical to conclude.
But I apologize. I didn't mean to unfairly link your brand of nutty politics to someone else's.
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 12:22pm
"I've developed a suspicion that Mask is actually Chris Hayes"----Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:36am
So you think this from Ms vanden Heuvel is a "false flag" to throw smart guys like you off the scent???
"There's a reason Nation bloggers moan when they see Mask has posted. The guy is almost invariably meanspirited, bleak and eager to knock down anything good that stands in his way. "---Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL 11/13/2007 @ 11:32am
BLOG | Posted 11/12/2007 @ 11:53pm Jonathan Demme on The Other Politician He'd Like to Film by Katrina vanden Heuvel
((BTW, feel free to safe this and use it often...LOL))
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 12:24pm
Well, the "meanspirited, bleak and eager to knock down anything good that stands in his way" part is sure right.
So if you are not of The Nation, are you FBI, MI6 or from one of the neolib foundations, or a Republican neocon or are you just plain evil?
My guess at this point is the latter.
I hope you have lots of different PCs in different locations to post from.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 12:48pm
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 12:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, comprises a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology[1][2][3][4] and a corporatist economic ideology. [5] Fascists believe that nations and/or races are in perpetual conflict whereby only the strong can survive by being healthy, vital, and by asserting themselves in conflict against the weak.[6]
Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[7] Fascist governments forbid and suppress criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[8] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.[9]
In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism.[10][11] This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state").[12][13]
Source: Wikipedia
Do note reference to The "Third Way" above. Oh my........
And Mask is opposed to any political third party in this Country.
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 1:49pm
Interesting.
And, Mask, you should know that I have spent over 35 years in IT security and hold many computer security certificates. I won't waste my time trace routing you, but I sure could. Besides, I would have to hack The Nation's servers and I won't do that as it is not kosher to do so. You are lucky I am a professional. So, keep on trying to annoy me if you want to waste your time. Won't work now that I know many blogers here have your number.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 2:03pm
So if you are not of The Nation, are you FBI, MI6 or from one of the neolib foundations, or a Republican neocon or are you just plain evil?
My guess at this point is the latter.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 12:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"Please allow me to introduce myself I'm a man of wealth and taste I've been around for a long, long year Stole many a man's soul and faith...."
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 2:07pm
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 2:03pm
I see so, if somebody on a blog "irks" you...you first
1. Declare them a plant or "evil".
2. Threaten them.
Clearly yours is the superior intellect and moral position, shadow.
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 2:10pm
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 1:49pm
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 2:07pm
OV, if you want to leap to be shadow's bestest buddy, don't just "hint around" that I'm a "fascist" or "Satan"....jump right in and join him.
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 2:13pm
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 2:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person
what's puzzling me is the nature of your game...........
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 2:17pm
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 2:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Could be Mask has no real life and is just "spamming" to get any kind of feedback so he can convince himself that he is intelligent and superior to everyone else. Interesting pathology, if so. Reminds me of that cartoon show a few years ago. But I don't know if he is Bevis or Butthead. But I still think he works for The Nation.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 2:28pm
Could be Mask has no real life and is just "spamming" to get any kind of feedback
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 2:28pm
But if that's true, then you are simply feeding the beast by replying. If it's obvious that somebody is contributing nothing to the discussion then they won't get any replies (or maybe some gentle mocking). If nobody replies, then it can be assumed, in the philosophical sense, that particular tree really didn't fall in the forest.
Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 2:38pm
Another good point taken. I just had a lot of time on my hands this afternoon. Enough of Mask and this nonsense.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 2:43pm
But I still think he works for The Nation.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 2:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
He does seem to have a special "rapport" with the Nation's blog writers on staff. My guess is he was jilted by The Nation...maybe Katrina....and haunts these blogs in bitterness.
If he had bothered to check out sources such as The House of Representatives report on banking relationships and our Federal Reserve system, he would clearly have to acknowledge that there is a VERY reasonable basis to what you assert.
Instead, what you get from him are childish taunts - "nutty" "lunatic" "fringe," but no reasoned and articulated refutation.
To each his own. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 2:48pm
Errrrr....
It's been my personal experience that Mask consistently backs up anyhing he has to say with actual sources, which is more than I can say for about 95% of the regular posters here (myself included).
And shadow, everyone is a tough guy when it comes to posting anonymously on Internet blogs. To tell the truth you sound a wee bit crazy (that's ok, it happens from time to time, just ask antisocialist).
Feel free to trace me any time you wish though. I haven't had the opportunity to beat someone to death in quite some time and you seem like the perfect candidate.
P.s. Did you know Queen Elizabeth herself piloted the planes into the WTC, and the REAL reason we went into iraq was because she won an arm-wrestling match against the entire Bush cabinet?
I suggest you read your history.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 2:55pm
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 2:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Okay Tex - on the issue of British Royalty, show us Mask's proof.
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 3:04pm
Just to let you know, I tend not to really agree with a lot of what mask says, I just think it's a false claim.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 3:04pm
I suggest you read your history.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 2:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person
What history would you like me to read? That's my favorite hobby? And I don't blame everything that has ever happened on Brit oligarchs, only the things they have done. And again, I quite like most of the British people. I have many friends in the U.K. Lived there for several years. And there are plenty of other evil forces in this world including the Saudi's who attacked us on 9/11. And I assure you, I only sound like a tough guy when I am annoyed & tired, I am actually quite meek. I am sure you could beat me to death with no problem.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 3:10pm
None that I can really see, but then again I haven't really seen any proof from Mr. Shadow either.
Not saying there's no legitimacy to Mr. Shadows opinions and thoughts. I have zero problem believing all the powers that be are 100% in bed with each other.
I shall read the posts more thoroughly though I'm more than a little guilty of doing my fair share of scanning.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 3:10pm
the REAL reason we went into iraq was because she won an arm-wrestling match against the entire Bush cabinet?
I suggest you read your history.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 2:55pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Here is some history for ya'all.
BP: Iraq Oil Deal is Start of Something Big
Iraq is counting on BP's modernization of the Rumaila oil field to nearly double its production and restore its power in OPEC
By Stanley Reed - Business Week 07/24/09
BP = British Pertroleum. Fricking nitwit.
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 3:11pm
Uhhh...
I'm certain you realize that I don't actually believe the queen of england submitted american politicians into starting a war with Iraq so I won't really go there.
I'm an absurdly vocal opponent of any and all wars for profit. You don't need to tell me that there was money involved. Just pretty sure English interests weren't the only ones at stake.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 3:16pm
Just pretty sure English interests weren't the only ones at stake.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 3:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Now you are recharacterizing your statement. Get back to us when you have done your homework Lord TexasFlood.
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 3:23pm
And shadow I'm just teasing a little. I wouldn't actually beat you to death, maybe more of a...roughing up.
Although I'm not exactly a secret agent so I don't know why you'd come looking.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 3:25pm
Hmm, I don't know what you mean, but thanks bundles for the consideration.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 3:28pm
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 2:28pm
Interesting...so first is declaring them false or evil...
then threatening them...
then declaring them "crazy"...
then saying "Enough of him, I'm leaving!"?
Interesting.
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 3:33pm
I haven't had the opportunity to beat someone to death in quite some time and you seem like the perfect candidate.
Posted by TexasFlood at 09/09/2009 @ 2:55pm
Remember the problems that people like Galtieri, Nasser and Mussolini got into when they started talking like that?
Posted by Mistral at 09/09/2009 @ 3:36pm
Er, OV....are you reading what your new "friend" is saying?
"Instead, what you get from him are childish taunts - "nutty" "lunatic" "fringe," but no reasoned and articulated refutation."---Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 2:48pm
"Interesting pathology, if so. Reminds me of that cartoon show a few years ago. But I don't know if he is Bevis or Butthead. But I still think he works for The Nation."----Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 2:28pm
Again, your choice of course....but you sure you want to ally yourself with this guy???
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 3:36pm
And as to reading,
there has always been a stronger tradition in the U.K. of the media actually exposing their leaders' malversations & tyrannies (something we could use more of in the U.S.) If you want to keep up with what the Brit oligarchs (not just the Royals but those who actually run things there) then you should read all the Brit media, learn the divisions & alliances there, and learn what the factions actually think about the U.S. -- and whom they influence here in our country. It may surprise you.
http://www.wrx.zen.co.uk/britnews.htm
Most Americans are far too provincial in our reading & news consumption.
And again, as to reading, my favorite authors are Marlowe, Shakespeare and Swift. Brits all.
But as for Brit machinations against the U.S. I suggest you study the Room, a nondescript apartment at 34 East 62nd Street here in New York City where Brit agents and their aristocratic American anglophile partners started their current fiddling with our politics beginning in 1921. The Room included the grand work of Sir William Samuel Stephenson in the 30's and later in the 40's -- including his attempted influence over FDR (who never trusted the Brits nor the American anglophile aristocrats he grew up with) as well as the real influence Stephenson had over the OSS's (precursor to the CIA) Will Bill Donovan (who would a few years later be the mentor of Katrina van den Heuvel's father) . And you might want to trace the aristocratic members of the Room's later involvement with the CIA's Operation Paperclip which brought former Nazi agents directly into the U.S. intelligence community.
Oh, there is so much you could learn about real history by reading something rather than watching TV.
Could it be that the Room still exists, somewhere?
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 3:56pm
Again, your choice of course....but you sure you want to ally yourself with this guy???
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 3:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Mask - this isn't a matter of choosing sides...are you really this lame?
If you were right (not righteous), I would agree with you as I have done in the past.
I (we) await your argument.
BTW - Shadow's assertion of British involvement in Vietnam is supported by development of oil field development in Southeast Asia. British Petroleum is taking part in that development.
'Vietnam is building a nascent oil and gas industry, spurred by foreign investment. Due to this investment, Vietnam with virtually no hydrocarbon production a few years ago--produced 171,000 barrels per day of oil in 1995 {see Endnote 180}. The country is already on its way to becoming a major source of petroleum in the Asian-Pacific energy market. Vietnam opened its economy to foreign investment in 1988. However, U.S. companies did not begin investing until 1994, when the twenty-year U.S. trade embargo was lifted. Vietnam has tried to make the country more attractive to foreign investors by various reforms in its petroleum law. The country's first petroleum law was ratified in July 1993. This law assigns upstream and downstream petroleum operations to the state-owned enterprise, Petrovietnam, founded in 1977. It also gives the company the power to parcel acreage to select contractors based on competitive investment auctions or other government-announced programs. Most foreign investments are in the form of production-sharing agreements or joint ventures. Vietnam also is directing foreign investor activity toward the building of infrastructure to include refineries, gas pipelines, and hydrocarbon-fueled power plants.'
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 4:06pm
'British Petroleum (BP) was founded as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in 1909. In its early years, BP's primary producing properties were located in Iraq, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar. Between 1914 and 1995, the British government maintained an interest in British Petroleum, and at times the government's holdings exceeded fifty percent. The privatization of BP began about 10 years ago when the British government sold about 32 percent of the company to the public. In 1995, the final 1.8 percent government share in BP was sold to the public, making BP a fully-privatized company. British Petroleum is the twelfth largest producer of crude oil in the world. BP is also Britain's largest industrial company. BP's downstream operations are also sizable. BP is the world's fifth largest refiner, with BP's downstream operations largely based in Europe and the United States'
70% of shares of BP are owned by Brits.
Now we have all seen BP's ads on television urging us to exploit all "our" energy resources here at home, including off our coasts. BP just announced discovery of a large oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. There is something a little unsettling about a company whose majority shares are held in Great Britain telling us that we need to exploit "our" environmentally sensitive areas for energy independence -and their benefit (including British Royalty shareholders). This is the most egregious astroturf/commercial effrontery by a foreign corporation.
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 4:28pm
Most Americans are far too provincial in our reading & news consumption.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 3:56pm
With attention spans under 5 minutes - just about the same as the timing of our commercials on our television. Hysterical. We've got military contractors bringing us the NEWS. Our government (FCC)has virtually abdicated all regulation of the broadcast media.
Check this out:
Court skeptical of limits on businesses, unions
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer 31 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may let businesses and unions spend freely to help their favored candidates in time for next year's elections. Such a step could roll back a century of attempts to restrain the power of corporate treasuries in American politics.
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 4:46pm
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court signaled Wednesday it may let businesses and unions spend freely to help their favored candidates in time for next year's elections. Such a step could roll back a century of attempts to restrain the power of corporate treasuries in American politics.
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 4:46pm
But I thought liberals and progressives were advocates of unlimited free speech? Were we wrong in that assumption?
Or is it just free speech that agrees with you?
Posted by antisocialist at 09/09/2009 @ 5:51pm
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 2:03pm
I see so, if somebody on a blog "irks" you...you first 1. Declare them a plant or "evil". 2. Threaten them. Clearly yours is the superior intellect and moral position, shadow.
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 2:10pm | ignore this person |
--and when someone on a blog "irks" you...you besmirch them by calling them a stalker; and further state that you fear for your child's pets, which you think will be boiled alive...
clearly yours is the superior intellect and moral position, mask.
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 6:00pm
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 2:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person Could be Mask has no real life and is just "spamming" to get any kind of feedback so he can convince himself that he is intelligent and superior to everyone else. Interesting pathology, if so. Reminds me of that cartoon show a few years ago. But I don't know if he is Bevis or Butthead. But I still think he works for The Nation.
Posted by shadowknows at 09/09/2009 @ 2:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--no, no! that's only what everyone BUT mask does...except if you agree with mask, then you're cool!...heheh
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 6:02pm
"I've developed a suspicion that Mask is actually Chris Hayes"----Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 11:36am
So you think this from Ms vanden Heuvel is a "false flag" to throw smart guys like you off the scent??? "There's a reason Nation bloggers moan when they see Mask has posted. The guy is almost invariably meanspirited, bleak and eager to knock down anything good that stands in his way. "---Posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL 11/13/2007 @ 11:32am BLOG | Posted 11/12/2007 @ 11:53pm Jonathan Demme on The Other Politician He'd Like to Film by Katrina vanden Heuvel
((BTW, feel free to safe this and use it often...LOL)) Posted by Mask at 09/09/2009 @ 12:24pm | ignore this person |
--hadn't seen that before (not surprised you have a nearly 2 year old post at the ready...w0w!)...Chris Hayes wouldn't be the first guy to talk behind his boss's back; what's a better cover than using a pseudonym on the internet?--then you can talk bad right in front of your boss!
--but, I admit, that post by KVH makes it seem unlikely Mask is Chris Hayes...but; I'm glad to see Mask scrambling...his precious fake life on the interweb is being disturbed!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 6:06pm
Mask - this isn't a matter of choosing sides...are you really this lame?
Posted by OneVote at 09/09/2009 @ 4:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--rhetorical question of the year goes to...OneVote!
Posted by urmygyro at 09/09/2009 @ 6:10pm
Compañeros,
Overall this has been fun. I have shared some of what I know and much of what I suspect. I hope you know a little more about the evil lurking in some folk's minds.
It is time for me to more on. Places to go, people to meet, things to do.
As you know, I don't trust the neolibs anymore than I trust the neocons, but I have to salute Barack Obama for his speech last night. It was an able and spirited performance. If the final bill he signs into law resembles the good he proffered last night, America will have a major change for the good in health care.
But the devil is in the details. We will see.
In the meantime, the wars in Central Asia creep on.
And the economy is still collapsing (not recovering as the neolib economic choir warbles of late) and what happens with jobs will effect everything else.
The focal point of the world's contradictions are in Central Asia, but the focal point of America's contradictions is the struggle for jobs and ones that are meaningful.
Thus far Obama and the neolibs are on the wrong side. It looks like they will have to be dragged (no doubt kicking & screaming) by an independent grass-roots movement to withdraw from our land wars in Central Asia -and to supporting tax & incentive programs that help small business owners (the people who actually create jobs) and not bailing out Wall St. & the transnational corporations
What ties the world's contradictions and our national contradictions together as we enter the second decade of Century 21 is the global economy.
Carville's phrase is even more appropriate today than when he said it in 1992, "It's the economy, stupid"
For those of you want to follow the real numbers and not those fed to you by the political factions go to:
www.ShadowStats.com
Vaya con Dios
Posted by shadowknows at 09/10/2009 @ 08:43am