The US is currently only 40% into the "subprime mortgage crisis" (according to reliable right wing sources).
As the "crisis" progresses, by November 4, 2008 the US economy will be hurting. By then, the Iraq occupation will be the US economy's only bright spot. It may be running up the deficit, but it is keeping the miltary industrial media machine humming and the stock market from crashing. No candidate from either party is going to want to get blamed for the economic collapse that ending the occupation will cause, so don't expect much talk about ending the occupation soon.

Israel wants a 'qualitative edge' over the Palestinians? WHAT?!!! A nation that has nuclear weapons and every piece of high tech gadgetry available to its forces, with Uncle Sam's embrace to boot, wants an edge over a desperate people armed with inaccurate fireworks and sling? If McCain has bought this tripe he's well and truly cooked. But don't expect the Dems to be much better. Lurking behind Obama is Senator Ugh! Lieberman (Likud -Tel Aviv) and peering from around Billary is the old AIPAC gang.

andersdl,

You are so correct!

The U.S. economy, now, after Bush, absolutely depends on military spending to keep it functioning. And a perpetual war is perfect for this spending.

This is a vacuous, immoral policy. Helen hints at this but where is the outrage of so called "god-fearing" Americans. How can Americans continue to kill innocent people and for what? Oil, hegemony, Israel, CEO bonuses...? There is no grand threat to America.

"He parts company with Bush on torture, having suffered for five and a half years as a prisoner of war in Hanoi during the Vietnam War."

Guess again, Ms. Thomas:

"Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war who suffered torture at the hands of his North Vietnamese captors, said today that President Bush should veto a bill that would prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrorgation techniques on prisoners."

But, he added: "If elected, I promise to ensure our Homeland Protection Forces, both volunteer and privately contracted, can utilize every tool in their box, including surfboarding, boggieboarding, wakeboarding, bodyboarding, skateboarding, sailboarding, skyboarding, and dog boarding."

The Repukes seem to be saying that surrender is possible in this war against terrorism. Interesting idea, one that's been mentioned before, but few ask the question; to whom are they surrendering? Moreover, if the terrorists can indeed be defeated, who - on the side of the terrorist - will sign the article of surrender?

I mentioned this concept in a long post about standing against torture

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/19/7138/

when I refered to King Ethelred and his struggle against Viking raiders at the end of the dark ages. The Vikings fought quite a long war of terrorism, lasted quite some time. The Vikings never surrendered to anyone, they became civilized over time. The point is, who is capable of forcing loosely linked groups of thieves and killers to stop stealing and killing? If they're on boats, the navy can sink them, the army can disperse their armed camps and kill a few of them off when they find them. But that's an expensive way of doing things these days.

A ship costs quite a bit of coin to build, run and for the most part few terrorists these days are using boats. The army can destroy towns and villages from which the terrorists spring, but doing so causes resentment amongst the survivors and creates more terrorists. Attacking the states which support or have supported terrorist groups would mean attacking _every_ country on the fricking planet. Each of our nations has used, supported or has allowed the formation of terrorist groups against its real or perceived enemies.

Surrender is an interesting concept. It's the formal ending of hostilities between states - the definition used in this article anyhow - so unless I've missed something, and I'm only asking... Has Iraq formally surrendered to the USA? Did Afghanistan? Has bush ever asked those two states to formally surrender after they'd been occupied?

" the Iraq occupation will be the US economy's only bright spot."

Sounds like military industrial Big Oil spin being planted on a progressive website.

The illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq is one of the primary reasons the American economy is in collapse. A reduction in Iraq's oil production has raised oil prices thus weakening every sector of the economy saddled with artificially high energy prices. And deficit war (crime) spending has contributed to the devaluation of the dollar thus adding to inflation. The occupation continues to be funded with borrowed money creating even more debt and destroying global confidence in the American government and economy as well as America's moral and political legitimacy.

The long we stay in Iraq the faster the American empire will decline.

Only big oil, realizing record profits with inflated energy prices, and the military industrial complex feeding on non-existent public funds, are making gains.

The overall effect on the real economy is a disaster.

This is public debt for private profit while engaging in what international law defines as war crimes.

The Iraq and Afghanistan neocon plans for hegemony over Middle Eastern and Central Asian energy resources over the next century will be paid for by the many with artificial profits being reaped by the few via corporate international crime. The public debt from Iraq and Afghanistan is already in the trillions with no end in sight or easy way to pay down the expanding debt.

And if American ever has to pay criminal reparations for the death and destruction in Iraq, the costs will be even higher.

It is a myth that the military industrial spending is good for the economy. Only a small percentage of the money expended on weapons and war is actually re-circulated within the American economy. Chalmers Johnson explains his views of military industrial criminal welfare programs in the following.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/23/6553/

" Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our manufacturing base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures — so-called "military Keynesianism," which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. By military Keynesianism, I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.

Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of our country. These are what economists call "opportunity costs," things not done because we spent our money on something else. Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly. We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens and neglected our responsibilities as the world's number one polluter. Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs — an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing. Let me discuss each of these. "

see complete article:

And Walden Bellow present another variation on military dead-end spending:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/21/7192/

" An more important limit to military Keynesianism and disaster capitalism is that the military engagements to which they are bound to lead are likely to create quagmires such as Iraq and Afghanistan. And these disasters could trigger a backlash both abroad and at home. Such a backlash would eventually erode the legitimacy of these enterprises, reduce their access to tax dollars, and erode their viability as sources of economic expansion in a contracting economy."

If the same money wasted subsidizing the war and oil industries were distributed into the real domestic economy the nation would prosper rather than flounder. It would be simply a matter of will for Congress and the Whitehouse to create a "new new deal" that would put the economy back on a sustainable track by cutting back on military industrial dead-end pork and start putting money into productive programs like health care, education, public utilities, affordable housing, public infrastructure and many other enterprises. Beneficial domestic spending would re-circulate capital within the economy rather than burning up money on a fatally flawed "100 year" corporate scheme that will only lower the average American's standard of living while creating endless suffering our international victims. ETC.

Shall we move John McCain to the Cryoeugenics Lab at Walter Reed so he can see how the Bush/McCain war turns out in 2108?

"Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has indicated that if she is elected she would seek a much quicker withdrawal"

yeah...only 99 years.

Someone should remind the born again Senator McCarnage of Mark 8:36

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

The USA will "surrender" Iraq to the Iraqis. Kind of an ambiguous concept for an occupier to surrender what it doesn't possess to the lawful inhabiants of the country.

John McCain is the man who sang, "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran . . ." to the tune of the Beach Boy's "Barbara Ann" for a Vet and an ex-POW he's one bloodthirsty soul-less exxon puppet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAzBxFaio1I

"Remember, when you drive a car, you are voting Bush!"

1. There really was a peace dividend in the 90's.

2. Another difference between Sen. Obama and his rival senators: he voted to ban cluster bombs; both Sen. McCain and Sen. Clinton did not. (Though Cindy McCain has been active in the cause of removing landmines.)

3. I did not see any network or cable news coverage of the fact that when Bush 41 endorsed Sen. McCain he quoted from the diaries of President Ronald Reagan, complaining more than once about conservative critics wo did not find him (Reagan) conservative enough.
I just happened to catch C-SPAN's complete coverage of the endorsement statement, and I find it very strange that these quotes were not deemed newsworthy.

"If the same money wasted subsidizing the war and oil industries were distributed into the real domestic economy the nation would prosper rather than flounder."
--JConrad February 21st, 2008 3:27 pm

That is certainly true, but there's a problem with the kinds of social and infrastructure projects that you suggest: they distribute money and opportunity throughout the economy, to rich and poor alike. The U.S. government is dedicated to spending that funnels profits to a very few people, namely those who already have money enough to select and control the politicians.

typing too fast typo:

" The longer we stay in Iraq the faster the American empire will decline. "

Ghawar:

Thanks and I think we are on the same page but it is hard to put all the details into generalized statements.

The fact that "they" are planning to give consumers spending money with a rebate demonstrates that far too much money is at the top and the average American can now barely make ends meet making it difficult for them to participate in the consumer eonomy which is 70% of the economy and also provides jobs and commerce all over the world. Rich people tend to be very tight and spend only a small amount of their income on consumption with the real emphasis being on making their money grow one way or another.

But don't get me wrong as a much of the consumer culture is pointless.

Just for starters, higher education for all and universal health care would bring all sorts of future benefits. Presently militarization/imperialism is bringing no lasting benefits and lots of debt and inflation.

Example: We now build $Million dollar hummers on steroids (that get stuck in the sand) for the occupation troops and all it takes is a $100 IED to destroy the vehicle and the super-IED's will still kill the people inside. And for what...so American corporations can steal Iraq's oil. ETC.

We won't be there 100 years, not even 50. The oil won't last that long. Bush and Cheney are wrong about a great many things, but they know that Texas, Alaska and North Sea oil are rapidly declining. It was easier to take Iraq before Russia, Iran or Turkey got it or carved it up. Formal Production Sharing Agreements or not, its our oil now.

I bet, if elected, Clinton or Obama will be strongly lobbied to maintain a strong military presence in Iraq. Once the pieces fall in place, the US will have almost exclusive rights to Iraq's oil at a price we set, and it should take 25-30 years to pump it dry. Its brazen imperialism, but we all like to drive 25 miles each way to work and park the SUV in front of the McMansion we heat to 75 degrees. People say we are "good Germans", but its more like being "good Nazis or fascists" or proud citizens of the Roman or British empires. We rationalize that something makes us superior to the people we bully and exploit.

Nightwatch is on point,We can't keep sending the same bunch of sell-out cocksuckers to Washington.
The Democrat and Republican partys are nothing but a fat two headed pig. Change starts at home.
Cindy Sheehan for Corgress
cindtforcongress.org

After "Mission Accomplished", we ran into the resistance fighters; and Bush said this may take 40 years.

I remember him saying that on TV but you won't find it on a Google search.

Then, Cheney said it.

Now we are hearing 100 years.

The neo-con vision just keeps getting brighter!

John McKlown the war zero.