Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditBarack Obama in February, 2008: "I don't want to just end the war; I want to end the mindset that got us into war."
Barack Obama in November, 2008: "Never mind."
All indications are that the man who has run George Bush's nightmarish occupation of Iraq -- along with the downward spiral that is Afghanistan -- will now manage Barack Obama's nightmarish occupation of Iraq and the new president's plans to turn Afghanistan into a full-blown quagmire.
What should be make of the talk of keeping Secretary of Defense Robert Gates -- despite his scorching case of mission creep -- at his desk in the Pentagon?
Kevin Martin, the executive director of Peace Action who maintains the very good Peace Blog responds with an appropriate expression of concern and an even more appropriate call to action:
What will change really look like?We'll know when we see those faces around the table at that first cabinet meeting.
I'm sure you've heard the rumor mills churning: There are exciting names being floated alongside some downright disturbing rumors. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates, an Iraq war loyalist and a hawk on nuclear weapons, is being talked about as a possible Obama Defense Secretary. In the last two weeks, this rumor has morphed from a trial balloon to something more likely.
The peace movement helped elect Obama president, and we need your help now to see this chance for change through. Tell Obama's transition team that it's too risky to put Obama's Iraq withdrawal plan in Gates's hands by clicking here and leaving your personal message for Obama on his Change.gov transition site. Then, tell 5 of your friends about this action.
During the campaign, Obama drove home that this era's signature test of foreign policy judgment was whether or not you supported the invasion of Iraq. Gates failed that test. Gates has also been vocally opposed to Obama's withdrawal plan. It takes a vivid imagination to picture Gates implementing and successfully defending a timeline for troop withdrawal.
I'm also very concerned about Gates' positions on arms control - especially nuclear weapons. At a time when people like Henry Kissinger and George Shultz are calling for steps towards a nuclear weapons free world, Gates been calling for a new generation of nuclear weapons.
As I told the LA Times, we can be sure that the Obama team is under pressure to dial back plans to withdraw from Iraq it is our job to hold him to his campaign promises to withdraw. That is why your voice, right now, is so important. The best time for you and I to impact the appointments process is now, not after the President-elect makes his nominations public, so please send the Obama team your message right now.
I am truly hopeful about the potential for change that a new president embodies. And at Peace Action we will do our part to make sure the momentum for a better, wiser and more just foreign policy keeps going. Please send a message today to the President-elect's transition team, and remind them that voters want fresh leadership at the Pentagon here
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
I just have to be one of the first to comment on this one.
And you thought you'd chucked your last liar when you elected Barak Obama, the man with the "For Sale" sign around his neck. Yet there will be masochists here that actually will attempt to paint this development as something positive. Barak Obama will have achieved Most Accomplished Liar status with this announcement and Very Most Accompished Lair status when he announces that Hitlery Clinton will be acting as your new Secretary of State. Take a look at what acting president, Rahm Emanuel has assembled for you. Now you know why Obama was regarded as an empty suit during the campaign. That's because he is one. Wait till Rahm starts to govern. You ain't seen nothin' yet.
Posted by john lowell at 11/26/2008 @ 10:22am
Whats a matter Nichols....Gates too WASPY for ya?
Posted by OneVote at 11/26/2008 @ 10:55am
Tail-Dog! I am all for Bob Gates staying on as Secretary of Defense.Why?-He fired the Head of the Air Force and its top Civilian Consultant for not keeping track of Nuclear tipped missiles and sending Nuclear materials to Taiwan! Don Rumsfeld on the other hand had his own personal lackey from the Pentagon following him around and complimenting him on his "Work ethic!" Under Rumsfeld, the Pentagon ran the Country-the tail ran the dog! Under Gates, the Dog ran the Tail...Gates has done a great job and nobody in Washington from either Party will deny that. He is a man that will take a President's policies and impliment them and . believe me, Obama is going to have some very interesting policies for the Pentagon to follow up on and none will be pleasing to a Government Agency that has literally had their own way since 9-11. My only comment to the writer of this article is this-Who would you recommend that could do a better job?
Posted by RITEON at 11/26/2008 @ 11:00am
'Gates has, it seems, returned to Washington with a quiet vengeance and evidently with all those skills acquired in his rough-and-tumble years in the intelligence bureaucracy still intact. In practically no time at all, he purged the Defense Department of its leftover neocon civilians, and at every crisis has inserted his own choices in positions of influence -- as secretary of the army, as Centcom commander, and most recently, in place of Rumsfeld's man, Marine General Peter Pace, as head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (His emphasis has been on Navy men to replace the discredited Army leadership of the Rumsfeld years.) It's quite a record so far for a man who represented -- until the neocons boarded the ship of state -- more than three decades of the imperial Washington Consensus.'
Source: TomDispatch.com 06/19/07
Posted by OneVote at 11/26/2008 @ 11:09am
Two points-
1. Despite the conflation from "Peace Action"....Robert Gates isn't Rumsfeld. If he was, I'd join the "outrage chorus".
2. SecDefenses don't last long anyway. Anybody remember Les Aspin?
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 11:49am
Good post from Tom Dispatch, OV.
In a simply scintillating 3 part series last year, Roger Morris dug up the dirt on Gates. I can hardly more highly recommend it to readers here.
Part One excerpt:
For all his relative virtues in 2007, however, Gates remains a genuine Jekyll-and-Hyde character, a best-yet-worst of America as it flung its vast power over the world. To appreciate who and what he was -- and so who and what he is likely to be now, at one of the most critical junctures ever to face a secretary of defense -- is to retrace much of the shrouded side of American foreign policy and intelligence for the last half-century or more. Most Americans hardly know that record, though its reckonings are with us today -- with a vengeance. At the unexpected climax of his long career, the 63 year-old Gates faces not only the toll of the disastrous regime he joins, but of his own legacy as well.
This is a vintage American chronicle with dramatic settings and dark secrets. The cast ranges from hearty boosters in Kansas to bitter exiles on the Baltic, from doomed agents dropped behind Russian lines across Eurasia to Islamic clerics car-bombed in the Middle East -- all in a family saga of long-hidden paternity. As with Donald Rumsfeld, such a sweeping history -- the history, in this case, of that blind deity of havoc, the CIA -- cannot come condensed or blog-sized. It is, necessarily, without apology, a long trail a-winding. Though in the end this will indeed be a profile of our new secretary of defense, much has to be understood before Gates even joins the story in a serious way as policy-accomplice and -maker. But the trip is full of color, and quicker than it seems. And as usual, the essential lessons, along with the devil, are in the details.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/26/2008 @ 11:54am
As with so many good stories, it begins on a train -- two trains, in fact, crossing landscapes worlds apart, a great separation Robert Gates was heir to, revealing much about the man -- and us.
End quote.
If you enjoy delving deep into the national security state as well as coruscating prose, you've found your zen. By all means, read on:
tinyurl.com/2jo32o
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/26/2008 @ 11:54am
Posted by Maskot @ 11:49 am
Off target again.
At least you're consistent.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/26/2008 @ 11:58am
If you enjoy delving deep into the national security state as well as coruscating prose, you've found your zen. By all means, read on:
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/26/2008 @ 11:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
"If the American people really knew what we had done, we would be chased down the street and lynched." -- President George H.W.Bush to White House correspondent Sara McClendon, 1992
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/ if-the-american-people-really-knew-what-we-had-done/
Posted by OneVote at 11/26/2008 @ 12:01pm
Thanks for the link, OV.
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/26/2008 @ 12:03pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/26/2008 @ 12:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You betcha!
Posted by OneVote at 11/26/2008 @ 12:08pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 10:34am
So how does that square with the "Obama is a Marxist" claims you made before the election?
Posted by crabwalk at 11/26/2008 @ 12:11pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/26/2008 @ 11:58am
How? Because Obama didn't name Dennis Kucinich?
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 12:15pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/26/2008 @ 12:01pm
What was the context of this GHWB quotation?
Posted by richcarl at 11/26/2008 @ 12:18pm
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 11:49am
I concur with those sentiments. Gates will not last very long, fine with me. The biggest problem with Gates is that he is part of the Bush administration. In the scheme of things I have no issue with Obama focusing first and foremost on righting the economic issues our county is facing. That will be the primary focus of the new administration as it should be. Gates for all his issues has helped the Bush administration achieve some sort of stability in Iraq. Removing him while needed if we want to see change and should be done as we start our withdrawal. That said, the last thing the current adminstration needs at this point in is the distraction of turmoil that will come with a change in leadership at the defense department. Changing leadership would lead to uneeded distractions that would impair Obama's focus on improving the economy. Obama is being practical, you cannot expect him to be superhuman and tackle every single issue discussed during the campaign at once. The mess he has inherited is overwhelming to say the least and in order to be productive he needs to focus on the most pressing issues first.
I don't expect Gates to last even a year, but let Obama at least get settled and tackle the most pressing issues first.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/26/2008 @ 1:03pm
The change that far left was hoping for is not going to be a shift to far left policies. Obama, stated in numerous speeches was something like 'we are not blue states, we are not red states, we are the United States' His choices for cabinet only further cement this goal of uniting the country. Obama's change is to have and adminstration that seeks consensus not further division. Many so called "progressives" are up in arms about the choices he has been making, without any indication of who they would prefer. There is nothing wrong with the fact that many republicans are pleased with his choices. My biggest concern was that with the large democratic majorities in the house and senate, Obama and the democrats were going to do just what the republicans and Bush did with their majority and completely ignore the democrats. In order for our country to heal ideological divide created by the partisanship and lying pundits, Obama needs to work toward bipartisan consensus on as many issues as possible. His choice of cabinet, demostrates that this is what he hopes to do. Obama appears to be working toward healing the country and moving forward in a constructive manner, I applaud him for this, and wish him success. These so called "Progressives" who are so upset about his choices need to realize that they and the neocons are part of the problem, and that consensus building and uniting the country is the "change" that Obama was promising.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/26/2008 @ 1:19pm
John Nichols writes:
<< the man who has run George Bush's nightmarish occupation of Iraq . . .>>
Nichols means, that man who has transformed the lefty dream of an American debacle in Iraq, to the nightmare of an American victory, will stay on.
And what this slimeball calls, the "occupation" of Afghanistan, as though it were the Nazi occupation of France, is 30,000 Americans trying to keep the 32 million people in a country larger than France, out of the maw of the Talilban.
We are doing this to satisfy that old US dream of "America ueber Afghanistan", eh? The fact is, there are no vital interests over there for us. Which is why a big US commitment there is a mistake, and why it is the Left, and people like Obama, who have, since 2002, been the chief advocates of a greater engagement in Afghanistan.
Furthermore, what is this nonsense that - << America did not vote to stay the course with Iraq-Afghanistan warrior Robert Gates.>>
Obama dropped Iraq as an issue even before he was nomination convention. As soon as the Surge proved successful the Iraq issue and "withdrawal" pledge and the entire "peace movement" became a liability for Obama. He got as far away from both as possible. To now claim the election was a mandate for withdrawal, is perverse and insolent.
But yes Obama pledged to pile it on in Afghanistan. There he was hewing to the folly the Left has been demanding for the last six years.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/26/2008 @ 1:38pm
Posted by Extraneous at 11/26/2008 @ 1:19pm
I just wish that progressives had ever been given the chance to be "part of the problem." But no, we're marginalized by Democrats and ignored or ridiculed by Republicans, even though on many issues the country eventually comes around to our point of view--often after some looming catastrophe we've been warning about comes to pass. And if you were really concerned that the Democrats were going to suddenly shut out the Republicans as badly as they were themselves shut out for about a decade, then you haven't been paying attention to how the Democratically controlled Congress has been operating for the past two years.
Posted by richcarl at 11/26/2008 @ 1:56pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/26/2008 @ 1:38pm
And McCain gradually backed off his "100 years in Iraq" idea....first downgrading it to "Most will be out by the end of my first terem"....then down to 2011, nearly the same time-line as Obama.
BTW, I thought it was Bush and Petraeus who gave us our "victory" in Iraq??!?!?!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 2:05pm
What was the context of this GHWB quotation?
Posted by richcarl at 11/26/2008 @ 12:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person
[The following interview with Lt. Commander Alexander Martin (retired) took place on Tom Valentine's Radio Free America program on July 10, 1995. Valentine's comments follow "Q" while Martin's follow "A".] ....
Q: Only 3 percent? That means 97 percent went somewhere else.
A: It went into people's pockets. General Secord certainly profited handsomely. General John Singlaub and a host of others did likewise. However, would it have been possible for these men to carry out such an enormous conspiracy, to traffic in such enormous quantities of illegal items, without the duplicity and complicity of the United States govern- ment?
Q: I don't see how it would have been possible.
A: It would not have been possible, and it was not possible at the time to do so. I think George Bush said it very well in an interview with Sarah McClendon, the grand dame of the Washington press corps. When Bush consented to an interview with Mrs. McClendon in June of 1992, he said on record, which she printed in her newsletter that month, when she asked him about Iran- contra and he said, (and I'm quoting from her newsletter): "If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched." This was a public comment by George Bush.
Q: George Bush actually admitted that?
A: He said it and it was printed in Mrs. McClendon's newsletter in June of 1992.
[ This URL: http://www.pdxnorml.org/MCCLENDN ]
Posted by OneVote at 11/26/2008 @ 2:24pm
Posted by richcarl at 11/26/2008 @ 1:56pm
I once thought I was a progressive, since it sounded better than liberal, but I guess I am just a democrat, cause I am not so far left that I can't see the center as many of the "progressives" up in arms about Obama's choices for cabinet seem to be. I have been paying attention to what has been going on for the last two years, and that is why I was concerned. At least in the last two years, the republicans while marginalized in congress had a safety net, that being president Bush. Now with the balance of power soley within democrat control, we need a president who does not marginalize and steam role the republican minority. I hope Obama can live to his pledge to unite the country, this cannot happen if we totally discount the opposing views.
Maybe someone can help me out, what exactly is a "progressive", it seems lately that progressives are the uber liberal sect of the democratic party.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/26/2008 @ 2:57pm
Mask at 2:05pm said:
<<And McCain gradually backed off his "100 years in Iraq" idea....first downgrading it to "Most will be out by the end of my first terem"....then down to 2011, nearly the same time-line as Obama. >>
You are not just unfair and dishonest, but that you know you are wrong.
To the question: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years…
McCain replied: "Make it 100. We've been in South Korea, we've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it's fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world "
Doesn't that make sense? Europe grew prosperous while half a million GIs protected it until the end of the Cold War. Fifty thousand Grunts held the crazies in Pyongyang at bay for sixty years allowing South Korea to become a stable democracy and the 11 biggest economy. Wasn't that worth while?
Why would doing the same for the strategic M/E and the Arab world's first democracy, not be worth while?
Nor did McCain back down. He said that we won't need to keep all the people we now have in Iraq, after 2011. But Iraq will require combat forces, on the Korean model, as guarantors of peace, for a long time yet. Even if Baghdad, for political reasons, won't host a US base, the Kurds in the North will.
<< BTW, I thought it was Bush and Petraeus who gave us our "victory" in Iraq??!?!?! heheh >>
They certainly did. Bush approved Petraeus' plan for a Surge, when Obama said it would hurt rather than help. And while Rumsfeld had been lukewarm about the idea Gates was for it. You know where you can shove your ?!?! marks.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/26/2008 @ 3:46pm
most political students. Posted by lvliberty1 at 11/26/2008 @ 10:34am
You sir are no political student. If you were you would be in the corner wearing the "Dunce" cap..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/26/2008 @ 3:51pm
Posted by RITEON at 11/26/2008 @ 11:00am
I would recommend Gen Wesley Clark.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/26/2008 @ 3:55pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/26/2008 @ 3:46pm
1. I said "100 years in Iraq"....McCain said "Make it 100"....where's the difference, Hugo? I didn't say "100 years of WAR in Iraq" (which is the retort you're trying to attack)...I noted what McCain said.
And my point was, that he backed away from that, after it blew up in his face and started talking about "getting out"...first "by the end of my first term" (Jan. 2013)...then later "I could see that" (in reference to a pull-out by 2011).
McCain didn't want us a continued massive deployment in Iraq anymore than Obama does...because he knows it's politically and fiscally untenable.
Ergo...he backed off from his "No big deal...Let's stay 100 if you like" attitude to try to salvage his candidacy. And in the end, ended up closer to the Obama time-line than his original "stay until 'victory'" (which he could never define more than generically).
In the end, Iraq will become what it will become if McCain had been elected...a Shiite "quasi-democracy" friendly to Iran.
Congrats.
2. YOU credited Gates and left out Bush and Petreaus....hence my joke.
Posted by Mask at 11/26/2008 @ 3:56pm
Posted by Extraneous at 11/26/2008 @ 1:19pm
You actually believe that idiotic media pap that our problem is just that we're awfully mean to one another? There are two wars in progress and an economic crisis the likes of which you wouldn't believe and our most abiding need is that we just get along? Let me suggest two things to you, young man: (1) Stay away from your television set, you're being effected by strange rays and (2) try a somewhat stronger purgative starting this evening. I think you - and I know we - will find the combination most salutary.
Posted by john lowell at 11/26/2008 @ 3:56pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/26/2008 @ 3:46pm
The HUGE difference between S.Korea and Europe and Iraq is that for the most part S.Korea and Europe wanted us there. Our original reason for being there was to protect those countries from the agression of other countries. We went and fought alongside Korean's and Europeans to help defend them. It would be as if
What is our reason for being in Iraq? WMDs? Who are we protecting them from? The threats to Iraq are internal, we brought Al Qaeda there. We destablized the country.
Yes, Iran is a threat, but they are not going to invade, they are going to infiltrate.
So again what are we protecting Iraq from? Itself? That is in no way comparable to S.Korea or Germany.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/26/2008 @ 4:11pm
Maybe someone can help me out, what exactly is a "progressive", it seems lately that progressives are the uber liberal sect of the democratic party.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/26/2008 @ 2:57pm
Yeah, thats what we are. The "Uber Liberal"? Progressive. Hmmm. I can only speak for myself. It seems to me that the label is confusing. Most I know who are of like mind have been entirely correct on the issues. But have no specific need to place themselves in a box with a label.
We are just Americans who see the Truth and the Path. And attempt to gain that goal. Obama is the President elect. I see my job as an effort to push the current politics towards the goal. Nothing more nothing less..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/26/2008 @ 4:17pm
Posted by john lowell at 11/26/2008 @ 3:56pm |
Wingnut.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/26/2008 @ 4:22pm
Posted by john lowell at 11/26/2008 @ 3:56pm
Thanks for the recomendations old man. May I suggest somthing for you? 1)Why don't you read my posts, as you are completely missing the point if you think my biggest concern is our ability to get along. And 2)Don't worry about my regularity, I am doing fine, I think you are transferring. Maybe your the one who should eat a few more prunes.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/26/2008 @ 4:27pm
Posted by chaoszen at 11/26/2008 @ 4:17pm
Thats what I had thought, but with the outrage some self proclaimed progressives are showing towards Obama's cabinent choices I have been starting to wonder, as their stance is further left then I would have thought. And I believe their stance is not right on the issues. As far as being right on the issues, lets see.
Iraq - Obama was right, one of the few who saw clearly through the lies.
Healthcare - Uhmm, Hilary and Obama. If the big 3 were not paying healthcare for every union member, retired union member and their families, how many billions would that save them a year.
Climate change - Lets see, Al Gore. But the progressives would not like him because he was part of the clinton administration. Or is he exempt? And if he is exempt why not others?
Economy - no one was right on that one.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/26/2008 @ 4:39pm
Posted by Extraneous at 11/26/2008 @ 2:57pm
I'm not sure why you were concerned about a Democrat-controlled Congress. One of the first things that the House did when the Dems took control in 2007 was to revise the numerous House rules that the Republicans had changed to shut out Democrats from the process (and strong-arm moderate Republicans, for that matter). The Republicans' "safety net" wasn't Bush, it was the fact that the Dems behaved decently towards them in a way that they never had towards the Dems.
And the funny thing about the "center" is, it keeps shifting. I've been around long enough to see the center (or even center-right) of 25-30 years ago recast as "the left," and mainstream liberals of the 1970s and early 1980s are probably what you would consider the "uber liberal sect of the democratic party." Oddly, despite this shift, Americans now express opinions on many issues that are as or more liberal than they were 30 years ago. This shows how successful the hard right has been in dominating the national debate during the past few decades.
Posted by richcarl at 11/26/2008 @ 4:53pm
Posted by richcarl at 11/26/2008 @ 4:53pm
Ok, all I am saying is that we need to work in a bipartisan manner to solve our current crises. That is really a minor point,my biggest concern and the focus of my posts the past few days has been regarding the overblown reponse from the left, the Nation(folks calling themselves progressives) against Obama's cabinet choices. I am not going to reiterate my points. But basically blasting Obama for his appointees not being "progressive" enough, while not taking the time to suggest alternatives, stating the anyone from the Clinton adminstration is not the promised "change" or attacking him as this post does on his choice to keep Gates, which IMO is the right thing to do so Obama can focus on economic policy and then after the transistion can look to replace Gates.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/26/2008 @ 5:30pm
Posted by Extraneous at 11/26/2008 @ 5:30pm
I'm not sure what you've been reading, but I've seen several Nation columns and blogs that have proposed candidates with progressive credentials for many of the positions Obama has now filled. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Obama should fill his cabinet with nothing but far leftists. But I can understand why people would be disappointed that he's filling it almost entirely with centrists who have been strong advocates of some of the policies that have gotten us into our current dire situation. His economic advisors claim to have revised their views somewhat from their earlier positions. Let's hope that's the case.
Posted by richcarl at 11/26/2008 @ 6:10pm
ok...gates is not all that bad, as several have pointed out. seems to understand his job and no reason to believe he will fail to follow orders.
nuclear free world? sure, i'll dream that dream too, but won't hold my breath. i don't advise anyone else to, either...
obama will give it one last try in afghanistan, and to get OBL. not sure i agree, in that the window of opportunity seems to have passed while we blew our wad in iraq...but...
settle down, hard lefty beavis...all will be revealed in the murky future...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/26/2008 @ 6:16pm
Extraneous at 4:11pm wrote:
<<< The HUGE difference between S.Korea and Europe and Iraq is that for the most part S.Korea and Europe wanted us there. Our original reason for being there was to protect those countries. >>>
Until 20 years ago no Korean, except the autocratic leadership in Seoul, had a say in what the country wanted. And if we defended them, it was on behalf of our interests, which were to block the communist North, bring the South into the West's orbit and undermine Red China and the USSR with the example of a superb capitalist economy. The average Korean was indifferent or opposed to the US until he saw the country blossom, and before long was saying, what have you done for us lately?
Europe too had to be forced to appreciate us. On June 6, 1944 a third of France was pro Vichy, another third was for de Gaulle, and a third was indifferent. In short, as Americans stormed the Normandy beaches two thirds of the French either sided with the Germans or did not care if the Nazis prevailed. More than half a million Europeans volunteered to fight for them in the Waffen SS. More Danes, Dutch and Belgians died fighting in Nazi uniforms than protecting their own countries against the Wehrmacht's invasion. The last defender of Hitler's bunker in Berlin was a battalion from the French Charlemagne division. Even the English complained that the Americans are oversexed, overpaid and over here.
During the Cold War Europe resounded with Yankee Go Home, and Better Red than Dead shouts. There were constant protests and denunciations of the war mongering US, and cheers for the peace loving USSR and the Democratic People's Republics. They only wanted us when they saw Russian tanks in the streets of East Berlin, Budapest and Prague.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/26/2008 @ 6:26pm
Extraneous at 4:11pm asked:
<< What is our reason for being in Iraq? WMDs? >>
Yes, part of the reason for breaking Saddam's neck was his penchant for WMDs.
<< Who are we protecting them from?>>
You haven't noticed an insurgency that declared, democracy, freedom of speech, gender equality, religious toleration, etc., hateful to God?
<< The threats to Iraq are internal>
You haven't noticed that every Muslim regime in that region is some form of police state. You think a democratic Iraq, challenging the dominant ethos of that neighborhood has nothing to worry about?
<<we brought Al Qaeda there>>
Al Qaed hurled itself at NY because it sees the West undermining and transforming traditional societies from Africa to China to India. Pious Muslims know that Islam cannot exist outside its traditional society. Thus their last ditch fight against that Western flood, while the Arab world is yet in tact and has political and financial muscle.
In response to 9/11 the US took the offensive. Instead of chasing bin Laden up and down Afghanistan's mountains, it entered the Arab world and implanted there a western democracy, precisely the kind of society jihadists see as their nemesis. Sure, al Qaeda came to uproot it, but the US and its Iraqi allies, beat them. That was the idea of Iraq, and it worked.
Sure, ousting Saddam destabilized his country, so did ousting Hitler. The most stable countries are totalitarian. Our goal is transforming a region that has for centuries been pickled in what al Qaeda stands for, religious bigotry, squalor, and fanaticism. Iraq is a beginning.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/26/2008 @ 6:44pm
by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/26/2008 @ 6:44pm...
-- Our goal is transforming a region that has for centuries been pickled in what al Qaeda stands for, religious bigotry, squalor, and fanaticism. Iraq is a beginning.--
Just who... may I ask... is this "Our" you speak so boldly of?
Also... citing 'religious bigotry' and 'fanaticism' while conducting a wholesale invasion of a sovereign nation... driving half of it's population beyond it's borders... and destroying a previously functioning society wide infrastructure in the process...
Seems a little hypocritical.
Though we agree on the 'ends' you have described here... we differ greatly on what are effective and morally sustainable 'means'.
Posted by ttr at 11/26/2008 @ 7:34pm
Hard to believe the day before Lehman Brothers collapsed we were talking about bring the troops home.
What happened?
Posted by bleedingheart at 11/26/2008 @ 9:09pm
ttr at 7:34pm said:
<< Just who... may I ask... is this "Our" you speak so boldly of?>>
You impudent lout of a godless gentile, dare to question me, Hugo Pirovano, spokesman for the Elders of Zion?
<< citing 'religious bigotry' and 'fanaticism' while conducting a wholesale invasion of a sovereign nation...>>>
Al Qaeda denounced religious toleration and free speech as odious to God. You think pursuing the mass murdering Saddam and the fascist Baath caused Islamists to stop being bigots and fanatics?
Moreover, what is this misty eyed reverence for "sovereignty"? Do words from above command us to reverence SOBs who have through the foulest means imaginable made themselves masters of Sudan, North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc? Does holding a nation by the neck make the perpetrator a sovereign and inviolable?
<< driving half of it's population beyond it's borders...>>
There used to be over 24 million Iraqis. Present your evidence that the country now only contains 12 million?
<<destroying a previously functioning society wide infrastructure in the process... >>
The infrastructure continued to function while the govt buried hundred of thousands of Shias in mass graves, while 100,000 Kurds were murdered, while a genocidal campaign was waged against the marsh Arabs, while the govt attacked each of the country's neighbors, not least Iran, which cost up to half a million Iraqi lives. Tackling that govt was sinful, according to you, since the infrastructure continued to function.
Incidentally, that infrastructure was not destroyed by the US but by the Iraqis. First by an enraged population, in the way the Germans dismantled the Berlin Wall, and secondly, by the insurgents who sought to discredit the Americans by making daily life impossible.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/26/2008 @ 9:46pm
hugo,
i suggest you never open your mouth while visiting a foreign country.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/26/2008 @ 10:26pm
Extraneous at 2:57pm asked:
<< help me out, what exactly is a "progressive" >>
Katrina offered you an answer on 11/23/2008 @ 9:52pm. She said: -
. . . "progressive means ensuring that the actual conditions of peoples lives improve through government acts". . .
At least it's clear and frank. She comits human beings to the mercy of their govts.
That is of course not a new position. Socialists through the 19th and much of the 20th century saw people's best chance in govt organizing them. And that was exactly how socialist govts, from the Bolsheviks to the National Socialists, proceeded. They assumed responsibility for improving the lives of their people. The individual's responsibility was to obey their well meaning govts, and they were well meaning because they were socialists. Since the govt wanted only the best for people, not cooperating, or deviating, or slacking was a deliberate undermining of the greater good and in effect, treason. Consequently enemies of the people quickly filled the gulags and Buchenwalds. The effort to make a heaven on earth created a hell.
Once progressives comprised many idealistic, principled and clever people. But that was before it became clear what relying on govt for human happiness turns into. Now we know. Now we have Orwell to remind us how the cows were milked and the manure pile managed. Now we have the people who lived under that system to warns us, now we know how it all turned out. Today, with the benefit of hindsight only the most perverse and foolish want to do it all over again.
But such jerks exists. They pullulate on neo Nazi sites, and on lefty sites too, like here at The Nation.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/27/2008 @ 12:30am
CHURCH AND GOLF
Here's a little cutie that'll tweek your bull-crap sensors: Our dear savior, unlike predecessors Bush and Clinton, has opted out of church attendance since winning the presidency, preferring instead on Sundays to work out at the gym. Why? Well, because he has such great respect for places of worship, he does not want to draw unwelcome or inappropriate attention to a church not used to the attention his attendance would draw. I see. And if bull-crap were green, this rather substantial sack of it would be an eighteen hole golf course.
Posted by john lowell at 11/27/2008 @ 07:14am
Posted by john lowell at 11/27/2008 @ 07:14am
Anyone who "worships" anything is in my opinion suspect of having a mental disorder.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/27/2008 @ 08:06am
This is so funny. For the smartest people alive y'all libs are so stupid. What did you think OHB was going to do once he got in office? He is the greatest "Politician" I've ever seen. He tells one group of people what they want to hear and then changes it when he;s in front of any group.
The difference during the election was that most Republicans saw that because we aren't Sheeple and follow without checking out where we're going. If Bush had been a Dem, his approval rate never would have gotten below 50% because you libs would have followed him just because of the "D" after his name. OHB lied to all the people so don't feel bad because you got caught following a "False Messiah". Thousands of Germans followed Hitler because he was a great speaker.
Posted by lil_txn at 11/27/2008 @ 08:52am
the "occupation" of Afghanistan, as though it were the Nazi occupation of France, is 30,000 Americans trying to keep the 32 million people in a country larger than France, out of the maw of the Talilban.
Hugo, you are as dumb as a box of rocks. Afghanistan is twice the size of Texas, about the size of Alaska. France? hahahahaha
Posted by emile duBois at 11/27/2008 @ 09:36am
During the Cold War Europe resounded with Yankee Go Home, and Better Red than Dead shouts. There were constant protests and denunciations of the war mongering US, and cheers for the peace loving USSR and the Democratic People's Republics. They only wanted us when they saw Russian tanks in the streets of East Berlin, Budapest and Prague. Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/26/2008 @ 6:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this is all bullsh*t. I grew up in postwar Germany AND I know my history.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/27/2008 @ 09:42am
Incidentally, that infrastructure was not destroyed by the US but by the Iraqis.
this is also a lie. remember shock and awe? the airwar preceded the invasion in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hugo? an out and out nutcase.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/27/2008 @ 09:48am
Posted by lil_txn at 11/27/2008 @ 08:52am | ignore this person | warn this person
your grasp of history is tenuous at best. germany experienced two complete currency devaluations, in which most people lost everything. twice in ten years. that is the reason for Hitler's political success. incidentally, Goebbels was an even better orator than Hitler.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/27/2008 @ 10:26am
while the govt attacked each of the country's neighbors, not least Iran, which cost up to half a million Iraqi lives.
that Iraqi gov't was fine and dandy with the US, which supplied Saddam with arms, intelligence and other support.
incidentally, hundreds of thousands in mass graves? there is no such proof.
what we do have proof of is the hundreds of thousand casualties resulting from the US invasion, and the millions of Iraqi refugees.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/27/2008 @ 10:41am
Posted by chaoszen at 11/27/2008 @ 08:06am
"Anyone who "worships" anything is in my opinion suspect of having a mental disorder."
I know, you must have thought this was the Gallup Poll.
Seeking to give your rather timorous little self some reassurance, son? Think that by repeating something frequently enough and loud enough it'll make it true? Here's my opinion: You're a fearful little worm who is grounded entirely in the views of others and who lacks the personal authenticity to even have an opinion.
Posted by john lowell at 11/27/2008 @ 11:40am
Al Qaed hurled itself at NY because it sees the West undermining and transforming traditional societies from Africa to China to India.
not so. NY was attacked because of the left over troops from Gulf 1 in Saudi.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/27/2008 @ 11:56am
Posted by john lowell at 11/27/2008 @ 11:40am
"Seeking to give your rather timorous little self some reassurance, son?"
Like by ritualized weekly gatherings with like minded individuals?
"Think that by repeating something frequently enough and loud enough it'll make it true?"
Amen! Say it again brother! Amen! (god willing, of course). (WMDs,WMDs
"Here's my opinion: You're a fearful little worm who is grounded entirely in the views of others and who lacks the personal authenticity to even have an opinion."
Like a submissive cult follower?
Like someone who, rather than have an opinion, follows an ancient text, along with his flock, fearful of otherworldly retribution?
Yea, those folks are kinda worm like, but I try to remember they're human too. Just cause you're batshit insane, doesn't mean you are a worm.
I dunno about his "personal authenticity", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, but he sure sounds opinionated to me.
I'm guessing you disagree with his opinions, eh?
Posted by Malcontent at 11/27/2008 @ 1:47pm
Posted by Malcontent at 11/27/2008 @ 1:47pm
Had no idea that my remarks might just lay siege to your personal "certainities" too, filth, but clearly they have. Shake you a good bit, did I? So it would seem. Here's a suggestion tailored just for you: Take your noxious religion hating and stick it where the moon don't shine. And while you're at it, try to insert as much of your head as you can as well. I mean everyone needs suitable accomodations, eh?
Posted by john lowell at 11/27/2008 @ 2:28pm
I think we should do a Recall on the last election, have another, and everybody vote for Ralph Nader. He called it right.
Posted by sidneyfalco at 11/27/2008 @ 4:13pm
Posted by john lowell at 11/27/2008 @ 2:28pm
I'm gonna take that as a 'yes'.
Hate is a strong word. Amused may be more appropriate.
Even your self-deriding projection of "filth" as an appropriate moniker, amuses me. (OK, fine. I'm easily amused).
As to your invitation to join you in your moonlight-less abode, thanks, but no thanks. Mighty x-tian of you, though. Are we feeling the spirit of the holidays?
Eric
Posted by Malcontent at 11/27/2008 @ 4:43pm
by Hugo @ 9:46pm...
While you are galavanting around on your high horse with principles far too lofty for the human equation... high-stepping as a self satisfying nihilist when considering christian morality as only fit for certain people... informing us hat you can decide who worthy people are, based on criteria poorly researched and arrogantly assumed...
...forgetting all the while, that most populations held hostage by fascist strong-arm scum like Saddam... are wholly innocent of the regime... and undeserving of the ravages of war.
Two million Iraqi refugees are increasingly desperate and few of them are willing to return home. Although the United Nations and donor governments have dramatically increased their response to Iraqi refugees' needs, these efforts must be expanded as refugees are increasingly vulnerable due to depleting assets and rising costs.
Guardian, October 31, 2008
Improved security has failed to prevent Iraq becoming the scene of one of the world's most critical humanitarian disasters with water supplies and sewage systems putting millions at risk of disease, the Red Cross said today. The statement from the International Committee of the Red Cross said the situation has not improved significantly since March this year when the organization published its report, Iraq: No Let-up in The Humanitarian Crisis. The report found that the humanitarian situation in Iraq following the US invasion was the worst in the world. Today's findings state that water supplies in the war-torn country have continued to deteriorate with even the most basic infrastructure not functioning. More than 40 percent of people are relying on poor quality and inadequate supplies and millions, especially children, are at serious risk of water-born disease, the Red Cross said.
Posted by ttr at 11/27/2008 @ 8:49pm
ttr at 11/27/2008 @ 8:49pm wrote:
<< . . . informing us hat you can decide who worthy people are, based on criteria poorly researched and arrogantly assumed... >>
Right you are. I don't think a poster who one moment, accuses the US of having << driving half of it's [Iraq's] population [12 million people] beyond it's borders...>> and when challenged, retreats to<< Two million Iraqi refugees . . .>> and simultaneously sneers at my research, is worth much.
You say, the Iraqis, being innocent, are "undeserving of the ravages of war." If that made sense there would be no way of overcoming any tyrant. According to you, the czar could not have been deposed by the Russian revolution, since that produced a bloody war. Nor could Hitler have been opposed, because that wrecked havoc on millions of innocent civilians. According to you, the Spanish Republic should not have opposed Franco, Lincoln should not have resisted secession, etc., etc. Incidentally, do you think the Palestinians should not fight Israel, because that brings misery to many Israelis "undeserving of the ravages of war"?
You say, the Red Cross has called Iraq "the greatest Humanitarian disaster." Do you know that the UN has called Darfur the greatest ongoing humanitarian disaster, the Arabs consider the plight of the Palestinians the greatest humanitarian disaster? For Human Rights Watch Zimbabwe is the greatest humanitarian disaster and for Amnesty Int'l it's the Congo. There is of course also Somalia, a failed state, and North Korea, a humanitarian disaster whose dimensions we are not allowed to see.
<< MORE >>
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/28/2008 @ 02:36am
<< CONCLUSION >>
RE: ttr at 8:49pm >>
Where were you and your fellow humanitarians when Saddam was putting hundreds of thousands of Shias into mass graves, and mass murdering Kurds, and causing a war which killed up to a million Iraqis and Iranians, and thousands of Kuwaitis, and all the time when he kept Iraq in terror; its football team, for example, trembled in fear of their lives when they lost an int'l match.
None of that concerned you when it happened, you paragon of virtue and research. But when the US ejects the fascist Saddam and fights fanatic insurgents, who drive exploding cars into crowds of civilians, and does so to install a democratic govt that respects human rights, you dissolve into rage at American wickedness.
And I am supposed to have respect for a twisted, screwed up creature like you?
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/28/2008 @ 02:39am
emile duBois at 09:36am wrote,
<< Hugo, you are as dumb as a box of rocks. Afghanistan is twice the size of Texas, about the size of Alaska. France? hahahahaha >>
According to Rand McNally:
Afghanistan = 250,000 sq mi.
France = 250,000 sq mi. (sans the oversees Dep'ts)
Texas = 267,00 sq mi.
Alaska = 591,000 sq mi. _________________________
That is why I have stopped responding to your prattle.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/28/2008 @ 02:45am
OK Hugo... you got me there. Two million is not twelve million, and I exaggerated of the top of my "twisted, screwed up" head in the heat of the moment... just like you do... but your mock aggression is rudely delivered and is obviously a desperate attempt to cover up your insecurities.
Two Million refugees, Hugo... and so... you feel just fine about them having to leave their country... in hope of surviving?
How many Iraqi citizens have died while simply trying to go about their daily lives, Hugo?
One and a half million are displaced in Iraq without adequate means...
Approximately 15% of the population is dead or relocated in various stages of destitution... and the rest live in constant fear for their lives... while you advocate competing with Saddam's horrifying legacy.
And... you have the gall to expect democracy to spontaneously 'erupt' from these conditions?
Won't happen. Not without a totally different approach concerning US involvement.
But you already know this... don't you...;^)
Posted by ttr at 11/28/2008 @ 04:43am
ttr at 04:43am said,
<< your mock aggression is rudely delivered and is obviously a desperate attempt to cover up your insecurities. >>
I tried to say, as clearly as I could, that your moralizing imbecilities are laughable. You are dedicated to confusion and lies. These boards teem with twisted jerks. I am not interested in ping ponging your stupidities. Play with yourself.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 11/28/2008 @ 12:47pm
Bite me, Hogu...
Yes... I'm celibate... and yes... I may come off as confusing to you... but you are a posing presumerator.
May you one day have the good sense to be yourself and not feel ashamed.
Posted by ttr at 11/28/2008 @ 5:41pm
Let me give a brief definition of progressive positions: reducing the obscenely bloated military budget, changing the imperial U.S. foreign policy, supporting democracy and human rights abroad (including Palestine), national universal heathcare, clean renewable energy, ending corporate control of government thru election finance reform. These are defining progressive issues. Obama is a slick politician who hinted at these to get progressive endorsements. But now he shows his real self: an unreformed establishment politician. No change here whatsoever. I am disappointed, but not surprised. That's why I voted for Nader.
Posted by philbq at 11/30/2008 @ 12:07am
Hugo, you sure got it right about Europeans and WWII, as well as the aftermath. Europeans have the same memory defects we do. When I was in Europe in the 60's first in the military and then as an exchange student, I met a number of French citizens who had been adults during WWII. Amazingly, every one of them been active in the resistance. Every one! The same was true in Holland. Many were obviously engaging in the normal human activity of rewriting history. It is also noted that the Italians sided with the Germans until the tide of war changed. Remember how Hitler and Mussolini were such great buddies?
Posted by jsens at 12/01/2008 @ 2:44pm