Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Tonight President Obama will announce his new Afghanistan policy. By all accounts it will be one of military escalation. This is a tragic moment--both for the nation and his presidency--and it is one I had hoped the President would avoid by courageously leading us in a wiser direction, one that views 21st century challenges anew, in fresh and necessary ways.
It is true that Obama would have needed real political courage to extricate himself from his predecessor's war. He would have faced toxic blowback from a military and media establishment poised to attack. But in a war-weary nation, amidst great economic trouble, he could have used his great oratorical and political skills to marshal people of all kinds to his side.
Instead, with this escalation, we see the continuing grip of the National Security State--whose premises have been shared by the conservative and liberal hawks for close to 60 years, and which essentially remain unchallenged among the establishment and the mainstream media. Obama will now be held hostage to this mindset as a war bequeathed to him by a reckless and destructive administration becomes his own war.
This retro thinking and failure to explore real alternatives to military escalation reveal a deeper structural problem--the fact that there are too few countervailing voices or centers of power and authority to challenge the liberal hawks and interventionists, and very few if any are allowed to enter the halls of power. The political establishment works from its narrow consensus; meanwhile, the media fails to offer a full range of views.
Our challenge now as progressives is to begin to lay the groundwork so that the failed National Security States premises are exposed as ones no longer suited to addressing central challenges and threats of our time--from global pandemics and economic inequality and instability, to nuclear proliferation and, yes, decentralized networks of terrorists. We need structural reform if we're to have a rich and deserved contest of ideas and views in our politics and society.
As James Carroll argues in a Boston Globe op-ed, "The time when ‘new thinking' is most needed is before war starts," and we must "put in place the structures of new thought that will prevent its repetition."
How do we build pressure for structural reforms and the changes we believe in? How do we change the paradigm so that we expose the retro National Security State as the failure it is? The structural problem demands action on several fronts. We need a serious think/do tank on national security issues which is capable of contesting the underlying premises for specific interventions, and also challenging the prevailing assumptions underlying the National Security state. It also needs to work closely with progressive organizations with ties to the grassroots in order to build a broad-based movement for change. (Raising the idea of a new think/do tank is not meant to diminish the valuable work already being done at a handful of existing places.)
If we don't look at the structural issues, we will always be fighting against the latest, newest, terrible, bad person/country that requires invading, occupying, or bombing with the latest weapon. We will also continue to lose reform-minded leaders to the powerful post-Cold War Military-Industrial-Terrorism complex. Its not hard to see how a Democratic candidate and now President like Obama--relatively unschooled in security issues--got caught up in establishment thinking. In choosing his foreign policy team, he looked to experienced advisors from the last Democratic presidency--a Clinton administration replete with establishment Democrats.
And then there's the example of Lyndon Johnson, a Southerner, a master of the Senate, who did not have political courage to face down his military and counterinsurgency best and the brightest. Listen to the tapes of his conversations with his friend and mentor, Senator Richard Russell, and you hear a man who would face down almost anyone but was terrified of his right-wing, terrified of being called "soft." So how do we change the meaning of "being tough" in the 21st century?
I believe we progressives/ethical realists/clear-minded people/citizens who believe in common sense--share some blame in not building a more powerful alternative foreign policy bench to compete with these counterinsurgency experts populating DC think tanks and Congress. Structural reform must now be the work for thinkers and activists working with elected officials who are open to understanding the world and its future in new and not-ready-for-primetime ways--even as a President we had high expectations for is escalating a war that may well deplete this country of the resources needed to rebuild its promise, while doing little to nothing to make us or the region more secure or stable.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Needed: Money
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2009 @ 12:37am
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2009 @ 12:37am |
Needed: sanity
Posted by snowball777 at 12/01/2009 @ 04:21am
It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.
It endures because young men love it and old men love it in them. Those that fought, those that did not.
War is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god.
Brown studied the judge. You're crazy, Holden. Crazy at last.
The judge smiled.
Posted by ficheye at 12/01/2009 @ 04:54am
"I believe we progressives/ethical realists/clear-minded people/citizens who believe in common sense-"
Katrina , Im sorry to burst your bubble dear, but you and your like minded associates are not and never have been any of the above .And as long as you continue to view yourselves as such,your leader and others whom you voted into power will never pay attention to, or value your advice .Until then just keep railing and wailing here where your ideals wont harm anyone .
Posted by limoman at 12/01/2009 @ 06:50am
I suppose the only humorous element will be our Right-wing friends attempts to attack Obama...
for doing exactly what they wanted him to do and said he should do.
I have no doubts they will attempt it, regardless of the irony or hypocrisy.
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2009 @ 07:16am
Needed: Money
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/01/2009 @ 12:37am
Needed: sanity
Posted by snowball777 at 12/01/2009 @ 04:21am
Needed:Peace
Posted by DrPiggy at 12/01/2009 @ 07:21am
No, Katrina, we need some very old time thinking:
Time to come home...and leave the ground war in the Middle East to the Middle Easterners. If some are friends, and need training, there is a nice desert just east of the U.S. Rocky Mountains. It has already been proven in Iraq that air superiority can confine 100% of the fighting to the ground level. It has already been proven that unmanned drones can eliminate threats on the ground.
Posted by denim at 12/01/2009 @ 08:00am
Katrina, Right on. An escalation in Afghanistan won't put people to work in the U.S. It won't help our faltering economy. All it does is reinforce the warhawk's militaristic stand on every issue. How did H.G. Wells put it? "The first man to raise a fist is the first man to run out of ideas."
War is stupid.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/01/2009 @ 08:28am
So ... whom do we vote for in '12?
Posted by sloper at 12/01/2009 @ 09:10am
So ... whom do we vote for in '12?
Posted by sloper at 12/01/2009 @ 09:10am
That's easy. The person who best represents the majority of working Americans. Not the person representing the richest Americans. So far, Obama has followed quite nicely in W's footprints so far. He hasn't shown himself to be much of a democrat.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/01/2009 @ 09:29am
The only new National Security idea The Nation has had in the last 50 years has consisted of, "Surrender now Great Satan"
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2009 @ 09:50am
well kennedy got assassinated after considering an EARLY pull-out from vietnam...about the only big conspiracy theory i do not dismiss...
so pulling out of hell hole quagmires that make the military industrial complex fat and rich is indeed easier said than done...including for the reasons outlined by KVH...
so...one last money and blood vomit in that hellhole, and then perhaps some sense?
here's hoping O knows what he's doing. much more important is at stake than what's happening in THAT sad country...
i don't really care what happens in that sad hell hole anymore. sorry, but what i care about is what is happening here...
diego garcia...nice base in the indian ocean...great base for a strike fleet, reapers and air power, even a quick strike, airborne elite army division (or at least a good staging point for one).
keep a deadly combined arms strike force there, let the taliban and al qaeda return...
fund resistance to them and every time we see a terrorist training camp, or find a gaggle of the bastards plotting...
send in some remote control insects with nano transmitters, check the situation out using micro cameras mounted on the neuro-controlled bugs, then...
SEND IN THE REAPERS AND CRUISE MISSILES!!!
if its big enough, sure, send in special forces and the 82nd airborne too, kill all the terrorists we can target...
then dump some money on the locals for the collateral damage and GET OUT before they really come to hate us...
this way the military is happy - it has a useful task to perform once in a while that's right up its ally (fighting) and does not have to get bogged down in something as absurd as "nation building" and cumbayah'ing...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 10:10am
What about a return to the Reagan-Clinton type of National Defense?
1. Avoid committing troops on the ground, especially n the Middle East (that Caribbean action does not really count).
2. Attack abroad only with surgical strikes and/or by establishing "no fly" zones.
What if Israel effectively attacks from the air, along with some commando squads, and takes out Iran's nuclear facilities, missile sites, and air force? Would that be a model the US can learn from?
Posted by CitizenWhy at 12/01/2009 @ 10:12am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2009 @ 09:50am | ignore this person | warn this person
one might make the point that we were goaded into this colossal waste by a few raggedy terrorists and ended up playing their game after all...
those folks take a long term view to their struggle against us. are you sure we're going about this the right way?
living well is the best vengeance, and if we don't shore up our infrastructure and cease wasting vast resources trying to freshen up every stinkhole from which issue violent barbarians...
we'll be the barbarians eventually...
i'm an incremental, pragmatic, isolationist. best way to change the world for the better, i think...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 10:15am
posted by KATRINA VANDEN HEUVEL on 11/30/2009 @ 11:21pm
It would seem clear that whatever the number and quality of ideas that emerge from the "progressive" sector on national security, that Mr. Obama is not paying any attention to them.
How much longer are we to persist in accepting the seeming myth that this man represents "progressive" voters? that he will pay any attention to us?
Posted by syfriendly at 12/01/2009 @ 10:16am
New President is in White House, but policies are same. The color of the President is changed.
Posted by Dastu11 at 12/01/2009 @ 10:26am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/01/2009 @ 09:50am
Ask Darin if he supports Obama's decision.....he'll dodge, bob, weave, obfuscate, and try a "I was for it, before I was against it" move....
but despite being EXACTLY what he (and the other neo-cons) want....he'd choke on his own bile before admitting he SUPPORTED Obama on this dumb move.
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2009 @ 10:34am
KvH: "Our challenge now as progressives.....
If we don't look at the structural issues....."
Ms. KvH, as the oldest and ?serious? `progressive' publication, I have yet to see one thread of analysis/commentary on WHY you are now facing such "challenge" and need to "look at the structural issues"!
On the other hand, I have already seen more than one commentary from the Right as to the root cause of your present conundrum in facing up to Magic's (somewhat) standing by one of his huge campaign promises.
Alright, what I mean is that the Obama Loyalists had always assumed that the tough-guy talks during the Magical campaign about this Bush-neglected but Good/Right War, was just bullshit and that you had assumed that he would high-tail it out of Afghanistan as a President.
One of our regulars here, Mett, was openly admitting that BHO was a fraud anytime he sounded like a hawk (or a moderate in domestic issues) and NOT to believe his rhetoric which was crucially necessary to fool the sheep among the voters. Maybe he can guest-write a column for TN and tell it like it is.
Until you face up to the fact that political expediency is the problem in solving "structural issues", you can't seriously expect sound solutions, no?
Posted by Happy at 12/01/2009 @ 10:44am
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2009 @ 10:34am | ignore this person | warn this person
i'm kinda worried about big D. seems his posts are increasingly half hearted and especially listless rehashing of the lamest, non sequitur con talking points, many based upon other lame non sequitur talking points and ideological assumptions...
but delivered in an especially listless, going-through-the-motions manner.
where's the fire DARRIN? you used to try harder, take more care in the structure of your arguments and the validity of the logic...
you ok guy?
your concerned and caring enemy,
ibbleblibble
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 10:44am
'I believe we progressives/ethical realists/clear-minded people/citizens who believe in common sense--share some blame in not building a more powerful alternative foreign policy bench to compete with these counterinsurgency experts populating DC think tanks and Congress'
Ah....participatory democracy.
This Afghan thing is like healthcare - doesn't matter what the people want....it matters what the special interest groups want.
How long are you going to persist in the notion - 'we didn't do enough' -?
Nobody who pulls the strings is listening.
This is bizarre.
Obama is claiming that his commitment is not open ended, but his current troop escalation apparently is not going to be fully implemented till 2011. That is at least two more years. Then, we will have to see what the impact of the surge will be - 'give it time.'
His speech is being given at West Point. George Bush liked the 'respectful' military venues too.
This is his war (not ours) - and our future is being mortgaged to pay for it.
This man is a grave disappointment. Naomi Klein - in retrospect - talks more directly to the truth that Obama's 'change you believe in' was a slick marketing campaign designed for subliminal appeal - but she does acknowledge that Obama is carrying forward on his campaign pledge to pander to MIC in Afghanistan - one of the few campaign pledges he apparently intended to make good on.
It will be interesting to see if Congress falls in line with future appropriations as they have done in the past.
Remember folks - this 'war' has been going on for years now. Obama's 'new strategy' is old strategy - try to buy love with US taxpayer money. Throw enough around, and you'll will eventually succeed - that is until money stops flowing.
Posted by OneVote at 12/01/2009 @ 11:16am
mask,
i think they'll wait for the escalation to fail, and only then will they blame obama.
but for now, they'll keep their mouths shut.
Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 11:26am
I have come across a couple of excellent articles today that provide a description of what the left is all about.....these are slightly off of the topic because they go beyond the question of Afghanistan to the issue of Iran....and also of the domestic behavior of the left.........
Jewish World Review Dec. 1, 2009 / 14 Kislev 5770
Why Won't We Face Iran's Evil?
By Mona Charen http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/ charen120109.php3
Jewish World Review Dec. 1, 2009 / 14 Kislev 5770
Left Destroys More than It Creates
By Dennis Prager http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ 1209/prager120109.php3
These articles are relevant because Katrina vandenHeuvel's discussion above goes into the same standard pie-in the sky lofty leftist thinking.....if we (America) just revise our approach to the world then by golly, all problems can be solved.
There is no recognition by the left that sometimes evil exists in the world, in recent world history in the form of communism, nazism, and radical Islam....and that these evils were not created by us or our approach to world affairs.....but these evils have in the past and in the case of radical Islam in the present do intend to do us harm.....and need to be stopped for our sake and others.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/01/2009 @ 11:39am
This man is a grave disappointment. Naomi Klein - in retrospect - talks more directly to the truth that Obama's 'change you believe in' was a slick marketing campaign designed for subliminal appeal - but she does acknowledge that Obama is carrying forward on his campaign pledge to pander to MIC in Afghanistan - one of the few campaign pledges he apparently intended to make good on.
Posted by OneVote at 12/01/2009 @ 11:16am
It's is rather sadly ironic, in that the easily fooled sheep who voted for the Messiah & believed in the Good War, are now in effect, driving GHO to fully assume this war. Such "sheep" included the Dem hawks and cross-over Repubs and the true sheep, sheep!
IF BHO backed out of Afghanistan, the Repubs would rake him over, but then, he didn't get the bulk of the GOP votes anyway.
As most know, I support BHO, as the CIC, on this decision. He just better deliver results comparable to what we have today, in Iraq! I would also support him if he chose to cut-and-run...but in this case, I'm fairly certain the results won't be pretty....post-Vietnam unfailingly comes to mind.
Bottom line now, is if he's definitively stepping up this Good War, he better give it all for the next 3 years until Nov., 2012.
Posted by Happy at 12/01/2009 @ 11:42am
"There is no recognition by the left that sometimes evil exists in the world, in recent world history in the form of communism, nazism, and radical Islam"
and then he links to an article by......dennis prager, another sociopathic chickenhawk.
"no recognition by the left that sometimes evil exists in the world"?
because they......opposed afghanistan and iraq? they were right about both of those wars. now, we have two standing armies in dangerious, unstable, foreign countries; we have spent more than 3 trillion; we have lost more than 7,000 troops, and many more injured; we have tortured, maimed, and imprisoned thousands of innocent muslims w/out trials; we have killed 1 million innocent muslim men, women and children; we have displaced over 5 million; and we have accomplished NOTHING.
so, what does dear dennis prager have to say?
Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 12:07pm
only in the mind of a sociopathic imbecile like sjchermak does INCREASING troops by 30,000 mean that obama doesn't "recognize the evil" in the world.
Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 12:08pm
i'm an incremental, pragmatic, isolationist. best way to change the world for the better, i think...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 10:15am | ignore this person | warn this person
beats the hell out of irresponsible, trouble making, meddling...
fix our own house, root out evil amongst us, and cease bloody, expensive, unnecessary MEDDLING...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 12:10pm
you know, sjchermak, your opinions are pretty much in-line with dick cheney.
Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 12:11pm
but for now, they'll keep their mouths shut.----Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 11:26am
THAT, my dear, is an impossibility.
Soon as Drudge, Rush, Sean, Glenn figure out SOME way of attacking Obama...for doing exactly what they said they wanted him to do.....our friends here will parrot it.
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2009 @ 12:11pm
Katrina- could you illustrate how exactly we are a national security state? aside from afghanistan and iraq. i for one, and i assume many others, haven't seen examples of this in our day-to-day lives. also, while i do agree a think tank exploring alterante methods to foreign policy as we know is a great idea, i have to wonder what the fundamental goals are? is it the nation's pov that we should act as a isolationist country? that is a country who sits by and watches tyrants, brutality and genocide sweep across the globe? what are your thoughts on Clinton and Kosovo? that was an "illegal" war as well. i think such sentiments are contrary to the core values of America. we are known for our charity and i'd imagine most americans agree, if there is good we can do, we should do it. preserving our economic (oil interests) in the middle east has led to innumerable instances of complete chaos and blood-shed. would you Katrina, as a voice for "progressive" thinking, be open to some more conversative methods of alternative energy (drilling in the usa, for example) as a method to withdraw our overseas operations? interesting article, wish you could elaborate more.
Posted by mtothew at 12/01/2009 @ 12:13pm
mask,
but if they DO parrot sean, rush, drudge......then they'll obviously be contradicting their position while bush was in power....
what you're saying is that they live in a world of contradictions. which i agree with...
Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 12:13pm
but i guess its just easier to create or over-demonize those who disagree...foreign enemies are a LOT easier to deal with than our own imperfections...
get folks all scared and angry, keep 'em terrified of falling through the many gaping cracks in our system, turn them on each other, then find some foreign bugaboo to unleash the marching moron's frustrations upon...
BRILLIANT and old as civilization.
verily there is nothing new under the sun!!!
how bout chavez in venezuela? he's a SOCIALIST and he's in OUR BACK YARD!!!
how dare that man insult us by running his own country! how dare he oppose AMERICAN business and his own vicious elites!
ITS OUR BACK YARD!!!!
sure we tried to engineer an illegal, undemocratic coup to have him removed violently from power...
DEMOCRACY IS FOR AMERICANS, SILLY SPICS AND TOWELHEADS!!!
OUR FREEDOM RESTS UPN YOUR TIMID SUFFERING!!!
LOL!!! anybody ever read a little on the history and demise of the roman republic?
this hypocrisy is as old as civilization and just as rank as it ever was...
but we are different...
really? the specifics have changed and the relative details too, but the essence of the thing is the same...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 12:22pm
i want badly to agree with KVH's premise on national security issues. i know she is right on theory. why can't dept of STATE and DEFENSE (better named war) be all the security infrastucture we need?
unfortunately i am certain there are many bad people out there in the world who envy our way of life. it is queerly comforting to know the baddest people are on your side.
that said, how do we make this land better and more desireable for all USA citizens? at the rate we're going, more and more of us are becoming the great unwashed masses in the cause of cheap, chinese style, labor and environmental protection.
Posted by mikeflynn at 12/01/2009 @ 12:25pm
darladoon,
You say:
"......you know, sjchermak, your opinions are pretty much in-line with dick cheney......"
Thank you for the compliment, Darladoon.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/01/2009 @ 12:29pm
"You say: "......you know, sjchermak, your opinions are pretty much in-line with dick cheney......"
Thank you for the compliment, Darladoon"
it's NOW OFFICIAL. sjchermak is HAPPY that i have compared him to dick cheney.
that's really all we need to know about him.
Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 12:32pm
"We need a serious think/do tank on national security issues which is capable of contesting the underlying premises for specific interventions, and also challenging the prevailing assumptions underlying the National Security state."
Translation: "We need to keep pushing on the AGW meme as the best tool available to scare everybody into surrendering to a socialist global government with a UN global police structure to enforce global wealth distribution, and make everyone sing the new global anthem 'Imagine'".
Posted by sntauri at 12/01/2009 @ 12:34pm
mask,
i think they'll wait for the escalation to fail, and only then will they blame obama.
but for now, they'll keep their mouths shut.
Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 11:26am
--actually, mask has already given them a reason to...you see, mask looks at it politically, and sees escalation as merely a means to mollify the undecided voters who might accuse him of being a cut and runner and to neutralize the republicans/conservatives. he sometimes throws in a "well, if it works, ok" at the end of some posts...but to mask (and many) it's ok for obama to send more troops in decidedly b/c they think if he stays status quo or doesn't pull troops out he'll lose the next election. mask et al want obama to look "tough."
when, in reality, he'd be making a very tough decision, but ultimately the right one, if he pulled the troops out of there.
Posted by urmygyro at 12/01/2009 @ 12:43pm
only in the mind of a sociopathic imbecile like sjchermak does INCREASING troops by 30,000 mean that obama doesn't "recognize the evil" in the world.
Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 12:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--yeah, send more troops in to seem "tough"
Posted by urmygyro at 12/01/2009 @ 12:44pm
The judge smiled.
Posted by ficheye at 12/01/2009 @ 1:19pm
Thank you for your insight. As the mother of 2 soldiers, one who has already been to Iraq, and as the mother of a son who has passed on from illness, I am panic stricken, yet again, and I never thought I would be in this position again. To wonder if either of my remaining children will be sent to this continuing neocon agenda is beyond my strength. I ensuffered the Bush years and fought hard against the neocon warmongering. Yet, here I am again, with a democrat in office, having naively , perhaps, assumed that maybe the neocons were not going to be in control. How silly of me to think that the military empire called the United States would not *own* a democratic president. How silly of me to have hope. I will not be voting for Obama again. I can see there is no difference between either party. Gore Vidal was right.
Posted by mrsbrown at 12/01/2009 @ 1:30pm
The protracted war in Afghanistan is unconstitutional.
But Obama can't withdrawal US forces on Constitutional law. Because it would shine a light on the unconstitutionality of virtually everything he stands for.
Obama is acutely aware that he needs war to legitimize the advance of federal powers, especially since "climate change" has been exposed for the fraud it it.
Let's see... The real difference between GW Bush and Obama... One of them will only serve one term. Oh, and one has a decent jump shot.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 1:37pm
what you're saying is that they live in a world of contradictions. which i agree with...----Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 12:13pm
Of course. Remember these are the same guys who used to rail against "criticizing a President in war-time, especially on foreign policy or war matters....it undermines the troops!"
Now?....not so much.
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2009 @ 1:47pm
Bottom line now, is if he's definitively stepping up this Good War, he better give it all for the next 3 years until Nov., 2012.
Posted by Happy at 12/01/2009 @ 11:42am | ignore this person | warn this person
Happy - I applaud your equanimity...lol.......in regard to the CIC role anyway.
Has he proposed a way to pay for the his "war"? Think he will explain that to us tonight? Or, more likely, he is going to add the war cost to our national debt and let future generations worry about it. We are sure to get some drivel about shared sacrifice, but when push comes to shove, raising taxes in a recession just isn't going to fly.
No one has yet articulated a plausible reason for being there, and I don't expect to hear one tonight.
I am with deficit hawks like Neal Ferguson - this is unsustainable.
When it comes down to it, his decision to escalate is going to drive independents away (many have already given up on him), and I think you are right that the military hawks aren't going to vote for him anyway - no matter what he does.
Obama is playing politics the same old way - what a shame and sham. This is political calculation (miscalculation) that has little to do with our national security, and is in fact weakening it. See Neal Ferguson.
His escalation plan guarantees that our cost in treasure will be excess of $1 trillion looking forward (likely more when all costs are tallied).
The political calculus that devines the war in Afghanistan as more urgent than shoring up entitlements like social security, medicare, and infrastructure investment is just grotesque. The dollar continues to weaken. It is pretty apparent that these characters never intend to pay it back - or will be long gone when our creditors come a callin.
Posted by OneVote at 12/01/2009 @ 1:57pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 1:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"The protracted war in Afghanistan is unconstitutional."
really? i mean i'm agin it, but how so?
"But Obama can't withdrawal US forces on Constitutional law. Because it would shine a light on the unconstitutionality of virtually everything he stands for. "
is THAT it? really? war unconstitutional...THEREFORE...no pull out...BECAUSE...virtually everything he stands for = unconstitutional...
hard to argue with THAT!
"Obama is acutely aware that he needs war to legitimize the advance of federal powers, especially since "climate change" has been exposed for the fraud it it. "
THATS IT! he's using the WAR to consolidate power...gee...sounds familiar...seems like...someone recently in our history...hmmm...
oh yes..."climategate"! if it ain't rooting around in the trailer parks of arkansas with a suitcase full f cashola looking for desperate people with "tales to tell", ist some other attempt to trump up a BIG HYPOCRITICAL SCANDAL...to "get back" for the biggest of all - the real watergate...
you crow too loudly and prematurely.
"Let's see... The real difference between GW Bush and Obama... One of them will only serve one term. Oh, and one has a decent jump shot."
well, rooster, crow all you wish - we'll see about these delphian prognostications eventually.
i'm assuming you are talking about election day in 1012, by the way, and not psalm 109...
and yeah - the mulatto plays some good hoops don't he? look at that monkey jump!!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/01/2009 @ 2:06pm
War is good. In fact it's great for the bankers who lend the money. Sometimes, through history, the bankers have financed both sides of wars. Case in point is the Napoleonic wars. The Rothschilds lent money, at interest of course, to both sides. It was just good business.
Katerina, you can't conquer or change the national security state until you've conquered the power behind it. The power is in the hands of the owners of the Federal Reserve. They are voracious in their desire for wars.
Just take a minute and think about all the money they've made from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. And now they've escalated the bombing in Pakistan, and they're about to escalate the occupation of Afghanistan.
These wars were not meant to be won; they are meant to be sustained. It's just good business. They're rubbing their hands together with glee at the thought of invading Iran. Dead American soldiers and indigenous civilians mean absolutely nothing to these greedy monsters.
Obama's not in charge; no president has been in charge of this country since 1910. They've all just followed orders from the rapacious bastards who really own this country.
Americans are heading into a dystopian version of The Wizard of Oz, and they don't even know how it's happening or why. Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain. They're here to bring in the New World Order, feudalism.
Posted by clingenf at 12/01/2009 @ 2:13pm
"Man can be the most affectionate and altruistic of creatures, yet he's potentially more vicious than any other. He is the only one who can be persuaded to hate millions of his own kind whom he has never seen and to kill as many as he can lay his hands on in the name of his tribe or his God".
-Benjamin Spock, pediatrician and author (1903-1998)
Posted by ficheye at 12/01/2009 @ 2:22pm
They're here to bring in the New World Order, feudalism.
Posted by clingenf at 12/01/2009 @ 2:13pm | ignore this person | warn this person
There can be no other interpretation.
Posted by OneVote at 12/01/2009 @ 2:23pm
ibble, pour yourself decaf for the rest of the day... Sheesh! And, um, reread what I wrote. I make the point that Obama and Bush are the same. And to illustrate the difference between us, I never for a moment even considered race in my jump shot comment.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 2:34pm
Now, here's a kindred spirit who knows his Jekyll.
Posted by clingenf at 12/01/2009 @ 2:13pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 2:36pm
"Obama is acutely aware that he needs war to legitimize the advance of federal powers, especially since "climate change" has been exposed for the fraud it it"
(most amusing comment of the day)
Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 2:43pm
frei,
please tell us when/how climate change was "exposed" as a "fraud"?
if you're talking about the e-mail exchanges, again, please tell us how it was "exposed"?
where's the smoking gun in those exchanges?
or did you read a drudge headline and assumed it must be true?
gee, i guess fox chyrons really do spread propaganda quite well.
Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 2:44pm
1. Avoid committing troops on the ground, especially n the Middle East (that Caribbean action does not really count). 2. Attack abroad only with surgical strikes and/or by establishing "no fly" zones. What if Israel effectively attacks from the air, along with some commando squads, and takes out Iran's nuclear facilities, missile sites, and air force? Would that be a model the US can learn from? Posted by CitizenWhy at 12/01/2009 @ 10:12am | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah, like Reagan in Lebanon, hundreds of American soldiers dead and nothing, nothing to show for it.
Posted by EmailduBois at 12/01/2009 @ 2:57pm
Well, Darla, I've understood for nearly a decade that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.
Truly, you have to admit, since you and I are old-timers here, that can't be news to you coming from me. We've sparred over this issue for years. Or do you really think Fox News and Drudge influenced me this week out of the blue to think global warming is a fraud?
Haha, in fact, I bet until I told you to look it up you'd never even heard of Maurice Strong.
Cap and trade policy is no more about the environment than our war in Afghnistan is about spreading democracy Darla. When you gonna wake up finally?
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 3:03pm
I will not be voting for Obama again. I can see there is no difference between either party. Gore Vidal was right.
Posted by mrsbrown at 12/01/2009 @ 1:30pm
mrsbrown, Sorry to hear about you having to watch your sons be sent off to these wars for profit. I notice that a good portion of the people driving around with those support our troops don't really support our troops. They support the neocon agenda and send our troops into harms way. So much for supporting our troops. Gore Vidal was correct indeed.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/01/2009 @ 3:09pm
Darla, your deep expertise on everything is most amazing! Perhaps you can clear up a small issue for us? Why is it the NO climate model used by the IPCC, when fed with past known data, can produce the climate we have today? But with unquestionable precision tells us exactly what the climate will be in 2100?
Posted by sntauri at 12/01/2009 @ 3:15pm
His escalation plan guarantees that our cost in treasure will be excess of $1 trillion looking forward (likely more when all costs are tallied).
The political calculus that devines the war in Afghanistan as more urgent than shoring up entitlements like social security, medicare, and infrastructure investment is just grotesque. The dollar continues to weaken. It is pretty apparent that these characters never intend to pay it back - or will be long gone when our creditors come a callin.
Posted by OneVote at 12/01/2009 @ 1:57pm
In Naomi Klein's book the Shock Doctrine, the book describes how the neo-liberals (neocons now) break up the wealth of a country and divide the booty up amongst themselves. This happened to the Soviet Union and it looks like it is happening to this country now. The government is being bankrupted and the tax payers of this country are going to be left paying off the debt. The God damned rich people pulling the strings on this fiasco have enriched themselves further in the meantime and will take everything worth having once the music stops.
If we continue on the path we're on, this country will implode just like the former Soviet Union. They couldn't afford the military ventures and neither can we....but the oligarchs of both countries are there like the vultures they are to feed off the remnants of what is left over. The book is a long read but the same technique has been applied successfully time and time again to many countries. It's our turn now folks.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/01/2009 @ 3:18pm
Jeebus Wolf, I believe you are right and it just tears me up to admit it. I keep hoping against hope that Obama would be different, like I hoped Clinton would be different, like I hoped..... aw s@#t, I feel like Happy on that hopey and changey thing, and I must say I don't like the feeling one bit.
Posted by Denise29 at 12/01/2009 @ 3:28pm
Oh, brother...I can hear it now...
And what rough Ralph, his hour come round at last...slouches towards a podium and microphone to start a new campaign!
Posted by Mask at 12/01/2009 @ 3:35pm
aw s@#t, I feel like Happy on that hopey and changey thing, and I must say I don't like the feeling one bit.
Posted by Denise29 at 12/01/2009 @ 3:28pm
Sorry Denise. I think it sucks too and if it will make you feel better I hoped against hope Obama would do the right thing too.
This country took a hard turn to the right when we elected Bill Clinton in 92. Sure, he ran as a democrat, but the fact is that he was really a republican. Tom Harkin ran against Clinton in the primary and I remember thinking, how can this guy from Arkansas win? He's a republican running as democrat. But, he did win and the democratic party made a drastic move to the right and the republican party went so far to the right that George Wallace would be embarrassed.
This leaves the majority of the country without representation. How does the saying go? A country divided against itself can't stand? Well, between the neocons trying to bankrupt the government and business tycoons looting what they can while they can, us working folks just get to sit there and watch them destroy everything.
To steal a line from the movie Inherit the Wind. "We are marching backward in time."
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/01/2009 @ 3:51pm
The blatant clue we missed?
In the middle of one of the most contentious Presidential elections in modern American history, the Republican and Democratic candidates took off the gloves to shake hands and sign over $1trillion to Wall Street to 'save the economy'...
We are duped into believeing this is a right versus left thing. This is a plutocracy/politician versus we the people and our freedom thing.
The last thing politicians want is a united electorate.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 3:52pm
Foreign Policy... Not something to be proud of if we follow the US history in this field of mislead attempts at accomplish anything successful. The War On Drugs, an absolute failure costing billions. Absurd, when all we need to do is put all the cartels out of business by legalizing the trade and having control over the distribution (which has never diminished and much less stopped... anywhere). The War In Afghanistan is just following the same, ignorant, bullish (like the embargo on Cuba which doesn't accomplish anything except be a constant embarrassment to the rest of the world). It promotes hatred towards Americans and helps the enemy to enlist great numbers of combatants and terrorists to their cause who would otherwise not bother, being too busy simply surviving the harsh conditions imposed by the same leaders they are now ready to follow. There are always under the radar, economic interests twisting the line of reason in all these bizarre decisions. The line of reason that serves the profiteering of corporate and private entities that manipulate our government's decisions... with great expenses in lobbying their causes that do not serve the nation. The same entities that have brought the country into bankruptcy and emptied the coffer. It's time to allow another party to bring a challenge to the two party buddy system that doesn't serve the best interests of americans at large. We may continue to divide our attention with the small details... but the only way out of the continuing disappointment is to build some leverage and show those who no longer find it necessary to represent us to start listening more... or loose their support in the next elections and their highly profitable, political careers.
Posted by Gustav at 12/01/2009 @ 4:05pm
The challenge is to cut the horsesh--t. This verbiage of about groundwork, the national security state and premises is dishonest and cowardly.
Bush's Afghan affair has been expanded from around 30,000 men to 68, 000, and now it will be going up over 100,000 men and will exceed $100 billion in costs. Together with an increased NATO deployment Bush's smoldering ember of a fight has been punched up 4 - 5 fold, into a blazing war.
The problem is not the national security state, or Blackwater, or the the hawkish generals, the problem is Obama.
He promised this fight during the campaign. He criticized the Republicans for neglecting Afghanistan. He said Bush had put that theater on idle. He had downscaled that war to a holding action, a training and infrastructure effort. But he, Obama, would make Afghanistan the central front in the war on terror. He would give it all the resources it needed, and fight that battle to victory.
His reason was the egg on his face for calling Iraq unwinnable and prophesying that the surge would harm our effort, not help it. To overshadow that, to gain the vote of the hawks, he flexed his muscles on Afghanistan. And now he is stuck with that commitment.
American soldiers will be dying, and American taxpayers will be paying through the nose, because of the self-serving political manipulations of our president.
If Obama's name were Bush, Cheney, or McCain the Nation would be shouting this from the roof-tops. It does not because it is racist, it is ideological and it is dishonest to the bone.
Posted by Pirovano at 12/01/2009 @ 4:07pm
"Well, Darla, I've understood for nearly a decade that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax"
(quote of the day)
Posted by darladoon at 12/01/2009 @ 4:15pm
I agree frei, they (politicians) Have us exactly where they want us, fighting amongst ourselves. How can we get it together to change the things we can, and leave the other stuff to fight over for later, I think alot of people from left and right agree that war is not the answer.
Posted by Denise29 at 12/01/2009 @ 4:29pm
Darla you remind me of the little girl who closes her eyes holds her breath stomps her feet and starts to turn red as she keeps saying to herself "I dont beleive it I dont beleive it I WONT beleive it" while the truth is staring her right in the face
Posted by limoman at 12/01/2009 @ 4:30pm
Yeah Fri, we also agree somewhat with what happened on wallstreet and we Americans in the process. Its worse than going backwards, its the end of the world I have known all my life. What I see happening today is way worse than the divide during Vietnam, between antiwar and prowar people, and it was not pretty then either. But it seems way out of control this time, way, way out of control.
Posted by Denise29 at 12/01/2009 @ 4:49pm
>>>Its not hard to see how a Democratic candidate and now President like Obama--relatively unschooled in security issues--got caught up in establishment thinking.<<<
Obama was an International Relations (IR) major at Columbia! Do you really think that makes him "unschooled in security issues", KVH?
Obama's training was nearly identical to my training at Berkeley or at most established universities (including yours at Princeton!) in which traditional balance of power theory prevails.
That said, I had always argued, even as a student many years ago, that OTHER international structures could be developed that would be more self-sustaining and less costly than the Cold War or sole fulcrum actor balance of power that is the "traditional" view taught in most IR classes.
We must move toward a truly international model in which terrorist threats, rogue nations, and genocide are dealt with by "international" forces that are either regional, cultural, or religious in character and/ or global. This force must be under "international" command, and super-majorities of all of the nations in the world - 66,77, and 88% depending on the action - must replace the UN Security Council as the authority authorizing such force.
This gets the US out of the world cop (fulcrum actor) role, and as a direct consequence, reduces animosity toward the US by would-be terrorists and rogue nations.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 5:02pm
Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 5:02pm
Wow.
And how would we be protected from inevitable tyranny under these "international" forces under "international command"?
Well, haha, at least you've convinced me you were "trained" at Berkeley!
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 5:20pm
News from the Weird:
It seems that the Harvard economic historian, Niall Ferguson, is proposing to instill the stark terror of the potential loss of US military dominance to stoke Washington into a more rational fiscal policy.
Yep, that's the way to get DC to listen --maybe, but probably not.
www.newsweek.com/id/224694
excerpt:
"This is how empires decline. It begins with a debt explosion. It ends with an inexorable reduction in the resources available for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Which is why voters are right to worry about America's debt crisis...."
I've enjoyed some of the popular writing and PBS shows by Niall on the Western economic and general history of recent centuries, but the idea that we need to be most concerned about declining military spending in America is as sensible as concern for the 800 pound intesive care patient who has been placed on calorie restriction.
I understand the tides of military history, and the US for its part is not exactly contributing to global stability with its military "prowess". Frankly, when I reached the above posted paragraph from Niall's cover story, I breathed a sigh of contentment.
It can hardly happen soon enough.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2009 @ 5:20pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 5:20pm
Do you mean tyranny by the SUPERmajority?
In the final analysis, it comes down to whether you really believe in world consensus and democratic values or not. If you are stuck in the Bush-Cowboy "go-it-alone-the-world-be-damned" mode, then there is nothing I can say here that will persuade you to get off your high horse. We have done it YOUR way for some time now, and it is just not sustainable.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 5:28pm
Metteyya:
"Obama's training was nearly identical to my training at Berkeley or at most established universities (including yours at Princeton!) in which traditional balance of power theory prevails."
A few points in response.....
First, it's the one thing that comes through consistently in your posts, Metteyya. You have a rather snobby, self-important view of yourself. I liked you when you first began posting at The Nation, and I still think you're an okay dude overall, but some of the over-the-top, spine twisting contortions you performed during the '08 presidential campaign on behalf of Obama were downright disturbing for their lack of integrity.
Second, to talk of "balance of power" theory in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union is to howl at the moon. It is precisely the lack of any balance of power that has (finally) fully unleashed the bats-in-our-belfrey of neo-con imperialism. Actually, you may agree with me on this point, but it's worth bringing up nonetheless.
Finally, I reiterate here my full throated endorsement of Chris Hedges', "Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy, and the Triumph of Spectacle". Should you choose to enlighten yourself with its profound contents, you may find yourself just a bit closer to Nirvana.
It includes a superb indictment of our "elite academia" complex.
Peace out, ~B
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2009 @ 5:41pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2009 @ 5:41pm
As a graduate of a PUBLIC university, I am hardly a snob. I lived in co-ops, not fraternity houses and have pretty much been anti-elitism my whole life.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 5:48pm
I'm just callin' 'em as I see 'em, Metteyya.
Like I indicated, I think you're heart is in the right place, but your integrity compass --as regards anything "Obama"-- tends to go whack-a-doodle all too often.
But please, read Hedges' book, by all means.
Best regards, ~B
;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2009 @ 6:00pm
Damn "you're" goblin bit me again. I don't know where that little bastard came from, but he's been nippin' me lately.
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2009 @ 6:03pm
Yes, I mean exactly tyranny by the supermajority.
While I certainly have democratic values, I am skeptical of "world consensus".
You should be too.
Start by considering how filtered your view of "world consensus" really is.
With most of the world's population living in abject poverty under oppressive regimes - and I don't just mean the city of Detroit - how do you consider you're getting a true democratic sampling of "world consensus".
Or by "world consensus" do you mean the opinion of left leaning dictatorships with whom we are forced to share a table with at the UN? Or is "world consensus" just beret-wearing, goatee sporting, cigarette-rolling intellectuals all over the western world who are as obviously clueless about the COTUS as you appear?
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 6:11pm
Fry (American variety) at 3:52pm:
"....We are duped into believeing this is a right versus left thing. This is a plutocracy/politician versus we the people and our freedom thing. The last thing politicians want is a united electorate."
And you were doing so good, Fry....
until this:
"Or by "world consensus" do you mean the opinion of left leaning dictatorships with whom we are forced to share a table with at the UN?...."
That's just plain incoherent, Fry. May I call you, French?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2009 @ 6:22pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2009 @ 6:22pm
Haha, yeah, try as I might, tyranny and left are like the words chocolate chip and cookie to me. Inseparable.
Here, let me fix the record:
"Or by "world consensus" do you mean the opinion of tyrannical dictatorships (some propped up by our government!) with whom we share a table with at the UN?...."
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 6:29pm
>>>With most of the world's population living in abject poverty under oppressive regimes - and I don't just mean the city of Detroit - how do you consider you're getting a true democratic sampling of "world consensus".<<<
That's the point - if you INCLUDE countries that are living in abject poverty in the world consensus, then the concerns of the greedy do not prevail!
Killing poor, dark-skinned people so some greedy capitalist in the defense industry can make a buck is Bush/Cheney's view of international engagement, not Obama's.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 6:30pm
"Killing poor, dark-skinned people so some greedy capitalist in the defense industry can make a buck is Bush/Cheney's view of international engagement, not Obama's."
~Budd Lite
Coulda fooled me. Not that any of us can actually read Obama's mind, but for the love of dogs, if the bastard would only exhibit some conviction already --on matters of grave importance like the Stupid Wars (yes, that includes the so-called "Afpak" front), our increasingly Great Depression level of unemployment, and building an environmentally (much) more sound energy infrastructure.
The "O" is a brand that is rapidly devolving into the hole it depicts.
At the current rate I predict The "O" goes down in history as Cheney/Dubya's third term. This whole nation of citizens could well be at each other's throats much faster than anyone is contemplating.
The multi-trillion dollar question is, of course, "Is anyone in power in Washington DC intelligently contemplating anything right now?"
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/01/2009 @ 6:46pm
Killing poor, dark-skinned people so some greedy capitalist in the defense industry can make a buck is Bush/Cheney's view of international engagement, not Obama's.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 6:30pm
Really? Wow, I was expecting Obama's speech on Afghanistan was to announce a US escalation. I hope you are right.
But, alas, I think the only difference between Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden is their spin.
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 6:55pm
Don't blame me, I voted Nader.
Posted by zionopp at 12/01/2009 @ 6:57pm
If we continue on the path we're on, this country will implode just like the former Soviet Union. They couldn't afford the military ventures and neither can we....but the oligarchs of both countries are there like the vultures they are to feed off the remnants of what is left over. The book is a long read but the same technique has been applied successfully time and time again to many countries. It's our turn now folks.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/01/2009 @ 3:18pm
Well said Wolf! Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by Perkins also very good. Just as soon as these characters established Global Finance and Multi-Nationals as safe havens for their fortunes and plunder (note that part of global trade and finance was establishing easy mobility and liquidity of assets just about anywhere in the world), they began to turn their eyes on the most lucrative prize of all - US!
These characters just hang their hats wherever convenient. Their MO is absolutely the same - spot on - and go figure that "we" would be their ultimate victim.
Kharma is blind.
Posted by OneVote at 12/01/2009 @ 7:12pm
the good general said mccrystal: we will drink more tea and eat goat meat. this in an effort to win...
30,000 heading over there. for tea and mutton!
forget about hearts and minds. every drone creates more and more hatred.
and more reasons for the industrial military machine to demand a bigger budget. for endless endless endless conflict.
i hope one day that jerry garcia rises from the dead and wins the 2012 election.
as an outsider i was told -- as a horrified outsider -- we are allowed weapons so we can overthrow a repressive government.
well how long has it been?
we were not listening post 9/11. the world media said:
ich bin ein new yorker.
wrong. i taevelled all over and all i heard was:
they had it coming.
who is they i asked? the people or the government
same difference they said.
always a huge fan of the usa though!
Posted by ranj at 12/01/2009 @ 7:26pm
the good general said mccrystal: we will drink more tea and eat goat meat. this in an effort to win... 30,000 heading over there. for tea and mutton!
mutton is lamb, not goat.
Posted by EmailduBois at 12/01/2009 @ 7:36pm
Well, haha, at least you've convinced me you were "trained" at Berkeley!
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 5:20pm
Thats about all one needs to know...the rest is predictable as breathing.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/01/2009 @ 7:46pm
"There is no recognition by the left that sometimes evil exists in the world, in recent world history in the form of communism, nazism, and radical Islam....and that these evils were not created by us or our approach to world affairs.....but these evils have in the past and in the case of radical Islam in the present do intend to do us harm.....and need to be stopped for our sake and others.
Posted by sjchermak"
No, sjchermak, we just realize that the REAL evil of our time is the neocon-zionist-government-banking-media complex, and some of us aren't afraid of you, or of your boy in the White House.
Posted by DejaVu at 12/01/2009 @ 7:51pm
With most of the world's population living in abject poverty under oppressive regimes - and I don't just mean the city of Detroit - how do you consider you're getting a true democratic sampling of "world consensus".
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 6:11pm
Whoa.
Dave Bing is Hizzoner the Mayor now in the City of Detroit, give him a chance. He's definitely not in it for the money and, er, fame.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 12/01/2009 @ 7:51pm
Bing back in the day...
http://www.coultersbasketball.com/mccarthybingdaveold.jpg
Posted by schnellerheinz at 12/01/2009 @ 8:01pm
The US has, through Obama, tonight committed itself to worsening greatly a historic disaster.
Posted by syfriendly at 12/01/2009 @ 8:17pm
Hello DejaVu the racist,
You are a combination wingnut and racist. What you say is the REAL evil of our time is a figment of your imagination.
But rather than self-recognition on your part that you need to commit yourself to the insane asylum, you declare you are not afraid of me or my "boy" in the White House.
I am a Conservative and my "boy", President Obama, is a liberal....
1. How is he MY "boy"?
2. Why do you declare he is a "boy"?
I think the answer to question number one is that you are so far out on some contorted place on the political spectrum that anybody not totally for complete anarchy is part of the same group, in your mind. Thus liberals and conservatives on opposite ends of the political spectrum are lumped together by you into one blob because they both still do believe in working within the framework of the United States of America.
I think the answer to question number two is that you are a racist.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/01/2009 @ 8:31pm
>>>Posted by YourJomamma at 12/01/2009 @ 7:46pm<<<
There is NOTHING predictable about Berkeley! In fact, my Polici 100 professor started his first class with "I love Ronald Reagan" to try to get all of the liberal students to drop his class. I stuck around, and I am glad I did because understanding what made Reagan a success also helps us dismantle and replace his legacy with a new era in progressive politics.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 8:32pm
well, perhaps I must allow the american empire to extinguish itself as all empires do. Perhaps I need to stop 'hoping' it will change, and let it run the course of all empires, until we are bereft, bankrupt, and utterly defeated. It may take decades, or even ceturies, but as long as the USA chooses to be a military empire, it will fail miserably in the end. Perhaps, after it has utterly been destroyed, it will rise up like the former empires of Europe have done, and stay away from empire, and choose to take care of it's people. We are an adolescent country, we have never learned our harsh lessons. Obama has made the gravest mistake of his presidency. Tonight. He will not be elected again.
Posted by mrsbrown at 12/01/2009 @ 8:33pm
Small talk... really. Right, Left. Big Business, Corporate Lobbying. Wall Street corruption. No insurance for the poor (except for the sad compromise... not to disrupt the profitable over pricing of all medical services and prescriptions, which simply put amounts to deception and thievery). The war business (Big Business). America is just a big market place where the working class is being taken for granted as the everlasting consumer class that just needs a bone here and there to be pacified... and be put back on shopping therapy for the good of the nation's economy. Please... How about some real talk. Enough of the blah, blah of little compromises and baby pacifiers. Katrina is truly trying to bring about some real issues and all the ensuing conversation circles around self gratifying, detail memorabilia, rather than the need for an obvious change that seems to escape us all. War has eternally been the escape route to turn the attention away from issues that threaten the status quo of governments. Fear has been the agenda to hold on to a tenuous power that white house has on the tight rope between maintaining a semblance of dignity within the imbalance of the influence that bends the "democratic theater" into a compromising that turns the notion of democracy into a soap opera for the uninformed. We are the most uninformed, most easily manipulated country (a formidable power in the eyes of most Americans) in the world. We have lost the ability to see outside the box. We are the box. Time to unwrap the colorful, thin paper wrapping. If we can still recall what a real democracy is supposed to be. Get leverage. Let government have an option. One we can provide. Stop the nagging. Consumers have ALL THE POWER. Voters have also. Bring a third option... NOW!
Posted by Gustav at 12/01/2009 @ 8:52pm
You know who I blame... the goddamn blacks, that's who.
His popularity hasn't dropped among those racist bastards a one iota and it's all on account of they hate the Pashtuns.
Not a day goes by that I don't overhear one of 'em talking about "Obama is gonna peel a cap back on some mf'in Toons."
Sick racist bastards.
Posted by gangpapist at 12/01/2009 @ 8:57pm
No, sjchermak, we just realize that the REAL evil of our time is the neocon-zionist-government-banking-media complex, and some of us aren't afraid of you, or of your boy in the White House.
Posted by DejaVu at 12/01/2009 @ 7:51pm
Whoa, whoa, DejaVu. You don't want to get CHERMAK too excited. See how he easily 'reinterprets' the word 'boy' to be a racist epithet when it's pretty clear that you weren't using the word that way? You were just railing against the establishment, an honorable pursuit the way things are and have been for a long, long time.
And inferring that CHERMAK might be a liberal, well that would really push his buttons, since he spends most of his time at rightwingnews.com. To him, everyone is a liberal and Sarah Connors (oops), I mean Palin, is gonna be our next president.
There's no 'us and them' to CHERMAK, only YOU and him. He has to win something, anything, even if it's just a new thesaurus. The operative word here (as he joyously points out to others) is the word THINK, which he has struggled with his entire life. I'm sure that he has one of those signs that says 'THIMK'. And calling you a racist when CHERMAK himself has some issues with that subject is fairly divisive on his part.
But what can you expect? This is a guy who flies to Cincinnati to pee in the public fountain. There's no stopping an intellectual juggernaut like that. Just stand back and watch him jump off the cliff. I just hope someone gets it on video.
He says "There is no recognition by the left that sometimes evil exists in the world, in recent world history in the form of communism, nazism, and radical Islam...." Well, he left out 'stupid' evil, the kind that resides somewhere in Ohio.
Can't we all just get along? Heheh..
Posted by ficheye at 12/01/2009 @ 9:06pm
Face it. There has been no option allowed other than that "permitted" by the owners of the country. The ones who placed our candidates on the agenda of the two parties that serve well the status quo. If you remember, the Green party was not allowed to be part of the debate between the candidates for the presidency. Or... have we forgotten that small detail of American Democracy's history? There was no outrage then. There is none now. What does it really take to brake through the barrier of delusion? Unrestrained robbery of the national assets? Wars created by business enterprises with no accountability for hundreds of millions spent? A Vice-president with strings attached to the most successful business enterprise in the war? A most successful presidential campaign with absolutely no intention to deliver on it's promises? Banks, the receiving end of billions in bail-outs meant to "stimulate the economy" spending millions on gifts to its executives while refusing to save the homes of over a million americans (who bailed them out)? I think it's time we really concentrate on the "enemy" in Afghanistan... it's truly inappropriate, considering the circumstances, to face what is happening outside our doors (if there is still a door between the outside and inside... that is). Really frightening stuff! We can face the enemy where it is... way out there. Let's bomb them to Kingdom Come! That will certainly teach them to stop thinking about any form of retaliation. Show them We are not afraid of them. It's a buddhist thing I leaned once: The enemy is always within...
Posted by Gustav at 12/01/2009 @ 9:56pm
>>>Obama has made the gravest mistake of his presidency. Tonight. He will not be elected again.
Posted by mrsbrown at 12/01/2009 @ 8:33pm <<<
It is EXACTLY the opposite!
OBAMA HAS SECURED HIS RELECTION TONIGHT IN THAT HE NOW ONLY HAS TO FOCUS ON ECONOMIC RECOVERY AND HE WINS!
Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 9:59pm
There is no economic recovery! I guess I should have used capitals... At best we will learn to pretend that the tremendous debt we have incurred doesn't exist. We will learn to accept that our children will have to suffer a lower standard of education (which considering the present one... will be a real tragedy... if we care). We will learn that no matter what, it is essential that we support the status quo of the economic structure that we have built our existence upon. We will learn to serve our nation by shopping whenever a crisis threatens our existence. If we are true patriots. Revolutionaries will be in jail accused of terrorist activities. There will be a one party system. A convenient way of economizing on campaign contributions... when the dialogue is wide open between two factions of government who really have managed to solve their differences. Lobbying will be replaced by initiatives and resolutions written by employees of governmental firms. War will be a permanent state of affairs. A need be policy to ensure collaboration on a world wide strategy that ensures foreign policy remains a profitable enterprise.
Posted by Gustav at 12/01/2009 @ 11:17pm
"Or is "world consensus" just beret-wearing, goatee sporting, cigarette-rolling intellectuals all over the western world who are as obviously clueless about the COTUS as you appear?"
you see, in frei's world, there is a single, all-encompassing explanation for all phenomena.
and if you don't believe that, then don't even bother having a conversation with him.
frei, you are soooo boorish. perhaps you should grow a goatee and start rolling tobacco.
Posted by darladoon at 12/02/2009 @ 12:57am
ficheye,
If any Conservative were to use the word "boy" in reference to President Obama they would be pilloried in the media and forced to clarify/apologize.
Somewhere on this site in the last few days comments from an older person were posted by a blogger. These comments (from the older person) contained advice from that person to President Obama, and that person referred to the President as "son". A blogger posted in and threw a penalty flag for racism.
But DejaVu uses the word "boy" in reference to the President and you proclaim it is clear the word was not being used in a racist manner. Deja Vu was just "railing against the establishment" which you view as an "honorable pursuit".
Seems things are not consistent here, but you don't see that at all. You are blind to the inconsistency and the hypocrisy that drives it, and proclaim that everything is a shade of gray with no right vs left divide in this country.
Your version of getting along is not the what Rodney King was referring to. Your version is just an attempt to get Conservatives to self-censor their commentary, because (and I have stated this many times, to no avail) you seem to offer no criticality about discourse from those on the left, only passing judgment about comments from those on the right.
By the way....you say (about racism) that I have "some issues with that subject".
Specifically, what are you referring to? Exactly when and where did I make a racist comment? Provide back up for your claim.
Since I haven't used up my word limit yet, you need to back up a claim you made on another thread.
You contended that President Bush ignored over 50 warnings about September 11. Identify each and every one of those warnings, and show how they provided information that could have been acted upon.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2009 @ 02:35am
"Or is "world consensus" just beret-wearing, goatee sporting, cigarette-rolling intellectuals all over the western world who are as obviously clueless about the COTUS as you appear?" you see, in frei's world, there is a single, all-encompassing explanation for all phenomena. and if you don't believe that, then don't even bother having a conversation with him. frei, you are soooo boorish. perhaps you should grow a goatee and start rolling tobacco. Posted by darladoon at 12/02/2009 @ 12:57am | ignore this person |
You should get out more... See the world. Outside your box. If nothing else, you'll get some exercise. I can tell you need it.
Posted by Gustav at 12/02/2009 @ 06:48am
This gets the US out of the world cop (fulcrum actor) role, and as a direct consequence, reduces animosity toward the US by would-be terrorists and rogue nations.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 5:02pm
Metteyya, Wasn't that supposed to be the purpose of the U.N.? I think the problem that ends up happening is that the U.N. ends up being dominated by the powerful nations since those nations contribute the most to the coffers.
It's a great idea, but an international body is run democratically, it's just another mouthpiece for the rich and powerful. Giving certain nations veto power over others stacks the deck.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 07:04am
Killing poor, dark-skinned people so some greedy capitalist in the defense industry can make a buck is Bush/Cheney's view of international engagement, not Obama's.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/01/2009 @ 6:30pm
That is where you are dead wrong. We've escalated in Afghanistan which is right in the Bush/Cheney playbook. Secondly, Obama may be darkskinned, but the appointing neocons such as Larry Summers, Timmy Geithner and reappointing Bernanke show Obama's true colors. He's part of the old by network I'm sorry to say.....I voted for him, and he's not as bad as McCain, but he's still pretty damned bad.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 07:12am
Correction:
It's a great idea, but it should be an international body that is run democratically. As is stands, it's just another mouthpiece for the rich and powerful giving certain nations veto power over others stacks the deck.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 07:15am
Katrina...using the word President and Courageous today is an oximoron...maybe more like moronic actually.
This president is nothing more than a fence straddling political hack. Sending troops and announcing a withdrawal in the same sentence???? He is a complete joke. No one should be placed under the command of this Commander and Thief, all troops should be sent home until we have an opportunity to impeach him and remove him from office for covering up the crimes of his front group...ACORN!
Posted by Obamunut at 12/02/2009 @ 07:44am
Posted by Obamunut at 12/02/2009 @ 07:44am
So...what strategy would "win in Afghanistan"?
and as a bonus....tell us why Dubya didn't do it???
Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 09:19am
That is where you are dead wrong. We've escalated in Afghanistan which is right in the Bush/Cheney playbook. Secondly, Obama may be darkskinned, but the appointing neocons such as Larry Summers, Timmy Geithner and reappointing Bernanke show Obama's true colors. He's part of the old by network I'm sorry to say.....I voted for him, and he's not as bad as McCain, but he's still pretty damned bad. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 07:12am | ignore this person | warn this person
--"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"...unless, of course, my enemy's enemy is really his buddy, and they look at the world essentially the same.
Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 10:10am
>>>It's a great idea, but an international body is run democratically, it's just another mouthpiece for the rich and powerful. Giving certain nations veto power over others stacks the deck.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 07:04am<<<
I DO think the single veto scheme is a problem, that is why I believe this should be replaced by super-majority votes - 66, 77, 88% respectively depending upon the type of action - of the ENTIRE UN Assembly. A super-majority will protect wealthy nations from being "unduly" undermined by poor nations, and resets global policy so that world consensus is the driving force behind global action.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/02/2009 @ 10:33am
A super-majority will protect wealthy nations from being "unduly" undermined by poor nations, and resets global policy so that world consensus is the driving force behind global action.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/02/2009 @ 10:33am
Good point.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 10:49am
-"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"...unless, of course, my enemy's enemy is really his buddy, and they look at the world essentially the same.
Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 10:10am
That seems to sum up the situation.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 12/02/2009 @ 11:09am
Whether to slap the War Baby's hand from sticking it into the fire again or letting it get burned?
Apparently we're tapping not slapping the hand a few times, then picking the baby up and putting it in another room away from harm for it's own good.
And apparently, too Zen-like for the more WestoChristiantypos.
Why the need for drama all the time?
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/02/2009 @ 11:35am
Er, sorry--
the Zen koan:
sound of one hand tapping...
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/02/2009 @ 11:35am
Whether to slap the War Baby's hand from sticking it into the fire again or letting it get burned? Apparently we're tapping not slapping the hand a few times, then picking the baby up and putting it in another room away from harm for it's own good. And apparently, too Zen-like for the more WestoChristiantypos. Why the need for drama all the time? Posted by hsuBfools at 12/02/2009 @ 11:35am | ignore this person | warn this person
--what the fuck are you talking about? analogies only work if they're self-explanatory.
Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 11:53am
WestoChristiantypos can sometimes be infected with new con wormy squishiness.
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/02/2009 @ 11:57am
Darla, I like it, but don't forget the beret. Viva la usa.
Posted by Denise29 at 12/02/2009 @ 12:25pm
LBJ didn't fall to the pressure of the National Security State, he was the guy they wanted. After the NSS assassinated the Kennedys, Johnson carried out their policy in 'Nam, Cuba and with Russia.
Like I've said before, if Obama 'does a Kennedy' he'll get a bullet.
Who rules America? Those with the biggest and most guns.
Posted by ElyDog at 12/02/2009 @ 12:42pm
Posted by freiheit1 at 12/01/2009 @ 2:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
lol - the race thing was a cheap shot - sorry...
goes back to a comment that got ol howard cosell in trouble years ago.
an african american receiver caught a pass in a football game and ran adroitly and an excited cosell exclaimed "look at that monkey run!!!"
oops...OOPS!
well he got into a lot of trouble for that, apologized, but later it was discovered that "monkey" in cosellese, simply referred to a fast person with crazy juke and jive moves - he had a couple years prior referred to a dextrous and fast white receiver as a "monkey" as well, but obviously not in a derogatory manner...
turns out ol howard was really one of the most open minded folks of his generation. perhaps decades before his time. nice guy all around...
so sorry for that, Frei..
but i still don't agree that there is no difference between B and O.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/02/2009 @ 12:46pm
Identify each and every one of those warnings, and show how they provided information that could have been acted upon.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2009 @ 02:35am
Google it, Barney. The administration had many warnings from many sources, including the most damning one which Bush denied receiving... a presidential brief about hijackers possibly flying aircraft into the world trade center.
You generally have said that you are not going to suggested websites, so posting something that you'll ignore is just a waste of time.
Speaking of which... how far along are you in reading 'Going Rogue'? I hear it's filled with some interesting 'facts'. In 'fact' it seems to have dropped off of everyones radar, possibly attributable to the 'fact' that it a complete piece of crap. I can't wait to read it myself. I'll get a used copy.
Posted by ficheye at 12/02/2009 @ 2:18pm
fisheye, I thought of going to the library to get "going rogue" but couldn't bring myself to take it up to the checkout. Guess I won't be reading it. Awww, Not.
Posted by Denise29 at 12/02/2009 @ 2:22pm
ficheye,
1. I have finished next-President Palin's book already.
2. YOU are making the claim about President Bush...you back it up....I am not asking you so I can get information and am going to you instead of Google...I am asking you back up what you claim...the Presidental Brief you refer to was the August 6, 2001 memo that did not tell anybody anything they did not already know...and did not discuss flying aircraft specifically into the World Trade Center.........it is the brief that despite not telling anybody anything they did not already know people on your end of the political spectrum claim it gave specific information.......
You are making the claim so you have to back it up....I am not asking for website links....I am asking for a list from YOU of the over 50 warnings that YOU CLAIM President Bush received...along with your discussion of what it is that was supposed to have been done in resonse to each and every one of them....
YOUR LIST, in YOUR OWN WORDS, with YOUR OWN analysis.
ALSO...you claim I have demonstrated racism....again I need to see a list from you of when I did that....the specific words I used from my postings with your discussion of why you believe those comments of mine are racist.
YOU make the claim...it is up to you to back it up.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2009 @ 2:40pm
1. I have finished next-President Palin's book already.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2009 @ 2:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
--no matter how much you anonymously kiss her ass on this blog she'll never let you do it in real life!
Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:46pm
I heard if you read 'Going Rougeworm', you get squishier.
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/02/2009 @ 2:53pm
"the Presidental Brief you refer to was the August 6, 2001 memo that did not tell anybody anything they did not already know...and did not discuss flying aircraft specifically into the World Trade Center"...."---Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2009 @ 2:40pm
You tell 'em, SJ.
I also understand that that brief did not give the exact flight number and seat assignment of the hijackers....ergo, Bush was completely innocent in his ignorance.
Posted by Mask at 12/02/2009 @ 3:28pm
I'm not sure exactly what KATRINA thinks is a "wiser way" to deal with suicidal fanatics, or which "fresh 21st century way" will work. As much as I consider myself a Christian, the "turn the other cheek" scenario just doesn't work in this world. Perhaps when everyone else feels that way it will, but for now, there is, unfortunately, always someone out there trying to hurt you or worse if you don't stand up for yourself.
Wake up Katrina.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/02/2009 @ 3:33pm
Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 2:46pm
Well some of us do have to work. But ok:
For better or worse the USA has birthed a War Baby. It wasn't created from the legitimate union formed during WWI, WWII, Korea or even the dysfunctional Vietnam-- none of them popped it out.
No, it was the illegitimate mating of the new con worm with that fertile MIC-ovum. Dad Ike tried to keep them apart and then even discussed using a condemn before he left the house, but it didn't seem to sink in. Worms! What can you do...
But here we are with this bastard War Baby. It requires lots of attention and just the right discipline. Te health bills are mounting and juggling employment is a major prob. Can't ignore it or it'll go rogueworm and turn on us!
So what do we do with it.
Whilst most thinking individuals proposed over the top methods of administering a judicial peace by either a quick decapitation, slow starvation or just a severe enough beating with a 2x4-- Obama currently wants the subtle soft tapping method to get its attention. He's espoused developing esoteric educational lesson plans. Perhaps hoping the War Baby will grow up to be a functioning member of society; much like a well adjusted sociopath. Every family has one. Well, for a while anyway, that is before it's locked up or killed. Always picking a fight. OCD.
The new con worms like them. Just directed one at you ever you don't like-- BAM! Then act all innocent like... Even better get two or three to go at each other-- what a show! Jeeses, WORMS!
Ok, lets pretend Obama is a master teacher and can educate the War Baby. Forget the new con worms for a while. What does the world do with a semi-educated War Adolescent when the hormones kick in?
Thought taking care of a War Baby was bad...
So some Zen anyone?
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/02/2009 @ 5:25pm
bushfools--you need to chillax!
Posted by urmygyro at 12/02/2009 @ 6:30pm
YOU make the claim...it is up to you to back it up.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2009 @ 2:40pm
Dickering with you on a point by point basis is a waste of time, SJ.
If I post something you have a problem with (?!?) then you'll demand proof via a website and then you'll declare the website a source of 'leftist' disinformation, etc, etc, after I've gone to great lengths to fill up 10 letter limit posts with factoids. And that's assuming that you'd even GO to the sites I would post.
I've seen you state on multiple occasions that you weren't going to bother going to a website mentioned by someone. There are books written on the administrations failings concerning intelligence data supplied by other governments and even our own.
Below is a taste of what you could sample on your own if you cared to, which you don't. You seek a bliss through ignorance. Not directly related to warnings, but still pointing out ignorant operations from the 'administration'.
.....................
A multitude of sources have reported the FBI agents requested a warrant to search Moussaoui's personal computer but were denied by Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice Department. After the 9-11 attacks the computer was seized and found to contain information directly related to the World Trade Center attacks.
This apparent lack of support from within the administration is consistent with reports released last fall by the BBC's Gregg Palast showing that in January 2001 the Bush Administration had issued direct orders to the FBI to curtail investigations of two of Osama bin Laden's relatives, Omar and Abdullah bin Laden. The two bin Ladens had been connected to possible terrorist activities and were living in Falls Church, Va., near CIA headquarters.
Interesting, if you care. Letter limit!!
Posted by ficheye at 12/02/2009 @ 7:04pm
ficheye,
You are joking, aren't you?
You idiot, the reason that the request was denied for searching the computer was because of the wall that was set up prohibiting the exchange of information between law enforcement and intelligence agencies by the CLINTON justice department!!
You know, the wall that someone on these blogs a while back, I believe it was Shingo, proclaimed did not exist.
Per the rules, the government could not allow the request.
This computer example is one of the prime examples often cited by those who cite the wall as having damaged 0ur national security and having contributed to 9/11 occurring, because dots that could have been connected did not surface to begin with.
You bloviate up above that I will refuse to go to sites you recommend or links you recommend, but it is obvious you pay no attention to what those who believe other than you say about things.......otherwise you would have known not to throw up an example of something that can be blamed on the Clinton Justice Department and try to blame it on the Bush administration instead!!!
I did not need the whole word limit, eh?
Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2009 @ 8:11pm
New con squishy.
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/02/2009 @ 11:18pm
I did not need the whole word limit, eh? Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2009 @ 8:11pm
CHERMAK, you hopeless moron,
I love messing with you. Yes, I was joking. It was the least that I could do. Now you'll rebut with a 'you always say that' line. In one of our earliest encounters I said that I wouldn't engage you seriously, at least until I felt that your 'us and them' mentality was mellowing a bit. It never has. The enemy, to you, lives next door, not in another country. And really, it lies within.
I cut and pasted that statement from a 'far left' website, one that would surely cause your wheels to fly off. It got the desired result, because, as I said, it's not worth trying to prove anything to you. You are a one man party of NO.
What the rest of the article GOES ON TO SAY... is that the Bush administration failed to act on even earlier intelligence concerning Moussaoui which could have resulted in providing the appropriate legal tools for action, but I want you to be able to blame it on Clinton because it'll make you feel good. Just remember, there are BOOKS (besides Sarah's) about the intelligence failings of the decider and his gang of nit wits. Refer to those books and you'll find all the sadness and disillusionment that you need. 'Angler' has some compelling stuff. Consortium news.com has some great articles, especially 'Ex-FBI Agent Rowley on 9/11 Mistakes'.
Feel better? Awaiting that book review! Run, Sarah, Run! (and pose for a 'gotcha' photo op).
Posted by ficheye at 12/03/2009 @ 03:46am
Er, should read:
The new con worms like them. Just directed one at 'who' ever you don't like-- BAM! Then act all innocent like... Even better get two or three to go at each other-- what a show! Jeeses, WORMS!
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/03/2009 @ 08:25am
ficheye,
Standard comeback of yours....that you are messing with me......same old same old from you.
As I have explained to you about a zillion times now, to no avail....this "US" vs "THEM" "Mentality" is not a figment of my imagination but totally present on this website each and every day.
On just about every issue there is a clear demarcation between the "Right" position and the "Left" position, and it is on display all over the political portion of cyberspace.
Those whose opinions are not clearly defined that way, and there are plenty of people like that, are also not very active politically, except in expressing opinions amongst their friends or in who they vote for on Election Day. Those people are not here on these blogs and those people are not very active in politics or in political office and responsible for determining or trying to implement policy.
I have explained this to you over and over again to no avail....and you certainly see that there are plenty of others as strident on these blogs as I am in my beliefs, both on the right and on the left. You decide to cite me uniquely for some discourse violation on the information superhighway that plenty of others are"guilty" of otherwise including YOU, for reasons only known to you.
You think you can successfully pull my chain - but you fail to do so because what I see is that you are someone who is trying to imitate what Mask does with everybody when you engage in discourse with me, and you are a complete failure at it.
Mask is amusing and funny with the devil's advocate nonsense put forth. Reading Masks posts and sometimes responding is not really political discussion but entertainment.
You fall way short....you need to take a "time out" and study Mask more if you want to be Mask.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/03/2009 @ 09:09am
New con worms are real squishy.
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/03/2009 @ 09:23am
You think you can successfully pull my chain - but you fail to do so...
Posted by sjchermak at 12/03/2009 @ 09:09am
Then why waste so much time explaining it to me? You spend a lot of effort trying to 'edjummicate' me, which is why I find it amusing to mess with you.
You are a classic neo-con with some fairly stringent ideas about reality. Your recent attempts at exercising a sense of humor were amusing in their churlishness. It was frustrating to you to have me not engage you; I just posted some 911 stuff because I knew, just knew that you were gonna try to corner me about it. I mean how many times has this happened? I didn't forget. Whatever you think... it's wrong, dude. "Look, look there... you weren't making the kind of sense that I was demanding of you! Oooh, look!"
I think that it's YOU who needs to take a time out. Stop eating so much pizza. Spend some time with that Palin book report (after the book came out there is almost dead silence about the content). Who'da thunk it?
So, if you've explained 'it' over and over to no avail, why not just stop responding? It's a no brainer. And for you, that should be easy. I'll bet that you still believe that Bush didn't take too many vacations.
Posted by ficheye at 12/03/2009 @ 4:33pm
ficheye,
This is like a game of chess...it is amusing to me to mess with you as well.
Above, you say:
".......It was frustrating to you to have me not engage you...."
But of course you did respond to my humor so that makes you a liar in your 4:33 pm post.
But then back to the chess match...you will say you were just baiting me with that remark!!
Posted by sjchermak at 12/03/2009 @ 5:21pm
YOU make the claim...it is up to you to back it up.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/02/2009 @ 2:40pm
Well I didn't make the claim but I googled it anyway. Looks like Clinton warned Bush about Osama Bin Laden and Bush WAS warned about Bin Laden's possible hijacking of a commercial airplane. Check out CNN,FOXnews,Metafilter,etc,etc,etc... Just google it,its all right there. It looks like both men dropped the ball. I guess those pedastals get alittle wobbly when they stand so high, there bound to fall on the American people. No point in playing the blame game just try to fiqure out how to prevent these acts of terror in the future.
Posted by DrPiggy at 12/03/2009 @ 7:56pm
DrPiggy,
You say:
"........No point in playing the blame game just try to fiqure out how to prevent these acts of terror in the future........"
Absolutely.....your point is true and in principle I would agree....
George W. Bush did that.....although many other people discussed what Clinton did or did not do, George W. Bush was not one of them....he never, ever, pointed any fingers of blame.
He worked to prevent acts of terror in the future. He stopped Saddam - who would have caused future acts of terror or would have given others the wherewithal to do so........and was crucified beyond belief for doing so.
George W. Bush instituted the Patriot Act......and was crucified beyond belief for doing so......
He figured out how to try and prevent acts of terror in the future....without in any way questioning what may or may not have been done in the past....
His reward? Crucifixion.. Daily ....by people who hated him.
We now have a President who does play the blame game....at least twice in his speech on Afghanistan President Obama made snide remarks about President Bush and his team.......
Obama said that the military requested more troops in Afghanistan but did not get them ........
Obama reminded everybody he opposed the war in Iraq......... (forgetting that earlier in his speech Iraq has a chance at a future now, obviously as a result of our intervention)..
I have never, ever seen a sitting President do that before.....never....in my lifetime has a President criticized previous Presidents in a nationwide speech.....
I can not account for every word that any President in my lifetime, Democrat or Republican, ever publicly said, but I do not remember any President ever doing that before....I do not think it ever happened until Obama.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/03/2009 @ 8:16pm
I can not account for every word that any President in my lifetime, Democrat or Republican, ever publicly said, but I do not remember any President ever doing that before....I do not think it ever happened until Obama.
Posted by sjchermak at 12/03/2009 @ 8:16pm
You know I can't remember everything either but it does seem that political parties do it with each other. The reality is that each party has its own political agenda. Do you think the Republican party was the only one who ever spyed on it's opponent(Watergate). I doubt it,but they got caught. A president has to make a decision with the information he is given. It may turn out to be the right one in the end or the wrong one. Either way he is accountable. Not everything Bush has done regarding 9-11 is bad,in fact I do believe that its because of his actions that we have not suffered another attack on American soil. I also don't know if Obama is going to be a good president or a bad one. Only time will tell. When Harry S. Truman left office he had some of the lowest approval ratings however the passing of time has remembered him in a much gentler way. Whether Obama plays the name game or not, his actions will always speak louder than his words. Thats what people will remember.
Posted by DrPiggy at 12/03/2009 @ 9:34pm
While everyone is confused about Obama's intentions, the facts on the ground are that heroin is flooding our cities and Pakistan is being destabilized by Blackwater/CIA/SoF ops and, for political reasons, Obama is not truly focusing on jobs (the summit is a joke - he did not invite anyone who actually creates jobs). The future is clear: our kids won't have jobs and will get strung out and AQ will soon capture some nukes and then every city in the world will be obsolete. The anti-civilization Hesiods will win and the progressive Homerians will loose. All the signs I see are that we are not in a Great Recession but a general collapse of the West. Permanent war in AfPak (or against Iran) and economic recession are only two aspects of the new status quo, i.e. permanent warfare & general economic collapse. And neither you conservatives nor you liberal ideologues seem to have any good ideas to stop this trend. I wish you did. God, I wish you did. The situation in the world now is as perilous as it was during the Cuban missile crisis, in my opinion. Obama's policies only continue Bush's policies of herding us towards the abyss. And not only are both the Reps and the Dems responsible for what is coming, but so is everyone who supports them. I wish I could see here in these blogs (as well as the real world) people behaving as independent, cognitive human beings and not just lemmings following Sarah or Obama. Where is the light to counter my doom and gloom? Please blog something to cheer me up.
Posted by dont_know at 12/04/2009 @ 4:10pm
Please blog something to cheer me up.
Posted by dont_know at 12/04/2009 @ 4:10pm
If you want to be cheered up then go see "Old Dogs". However if your looking for something cheery in the world well then all I can tell you is to change your perspective. No one ever said life was easy, they just say that it's worth it in the end. By the way I don't see a collapse when I look at the world. Everywhere I go it's busy. People eating out,going to the post office, shopping. I think the already rich that lost money in the stock market last year are trying to recoup there loses at the expense of the rest of us. My question would be is how much money is enough,and at what expense are you willing to go. Greed is a negative characteristic which will lead to a negative end. I believe in Karma!
Posted by DrPiggy at 12/04/2009 @ 6:09pm