Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiPresidential Race Ignores Arms Race
As the U.S. presidential race continues, so does the arms race worldwide. People -- civilians, children -- are being killed and maimed, on a daily basis, by unexploded cluster bombs and land mines. Thousands of nuclear missiles remain at hair-trigger alert. The U.S. government rattles its saber at Iran, alleging a nuclear-weapons program, while at the same time offering uranium to Saudi Arabia. And with the war in Iraq well into its sixth year, one of its architects, Douglas J. Feith, the former undersecretary of defense for policy under Donald Rumsfeld, has predictably penned a revisionist history of the war and the decisions behind it.
Feith said this week: "So while it was a terrible mistake for the administration to rely on the erroneous intelligence about WMD -- and, I mean, it was catastrophic to our credibility -- first of all, it was an honest error and not a lie. But even if you correct it for that error, what we found in Iraq was a serious WMD threat. Even though Saddam Hussein had chosen to not maintain the stockpiles, he had put himself in a position where he could have regenerated those stockpiles in three to five weeks."
In an interview I asked Hans Blix about Feith's comments. He was the United Nations' chief weapons inspector, in charge of the WMD search. Reflecting back five years, he said: "To prove that there is nothing is almost impossible. I think that if we had been in Iraq for a couple of months more, it would have been enough to make it extremely clear to everybody that the chances were real that there were no weapons of mass destruction." Instead of waiting for the inspections, the Pentagon was busy trying to discredit Blix. I asked him about the allegations that the U.S. was bugging his office and home. He said, "I wish to heaven that they had listened a little better to what I had to say, if they did listen."
Blix describes the current state of the world as a "Cold Peace": "It is hard to avoid the impression that -- almost 20 years after the end of the Cold War -- military calculations still dominate the long-term thinking about major global relations. Terrorism is formally made the chief enemy, but precautions are taken against the growing power of China and Russia." President Bush's nuclear-cooperation pact with India, Barack Obama's stated willingness to unilaterally strike nuclear-armed U.S. ally Pakistan, Hillary Clinton's promise to Iran to "totally obliterate" the nation of 70 million (should it attack Israel), and John McCain's hard-line position on Russia, including the deployment of a missile defense in eastern Europe, all point to a reliance on military solutions that Blix sees as a path to conflict and war.
In a remarkable demonstration of hypocrisy, the Bush administration has pledged to deliver enriched uranium to Saudi Arabia. Anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman said: "The idea of giving enriched uranium to the Saudis while threatening war with the Iranians for enriching uranium is astonishing. The idea that the Saudis are going to somehow lower the price of oil on the basis of possibly getting nuclear reactors in the future is just almost staggering to think about."
I asked Blix what is the single most important thing the U.S. could do to support world peace. Sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, he said: "Then I think it's very likely that the Chinese, who have not ratified, will follow. If China does it, maybe India does. If India does, Pakistan does, etc. And the treaty would enter into force. It would be a great thing if we outlawed any nuclear-weapons tests in the future."
Nuclear weapons are not the only weapons of mass destruction. As I spoke to Blix, hundreds of people were meeting in Dublin, Ireland, to craft an anti-cluster-bomb treaty, the cause Princess Diana championed in the last years of her life. The Dublin Diplomatic Conference on Cluster Munitions is dedicated "to negotiate a new instrument of international humanitarian law banning cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians."
The conference in Dublin has 128 participating nations. Absent is the leading producer of cluster munitions, the United States. Russia and China are also not there.
From nuclear proliferation to the use of cluster bombs -- coverage of the presidential campaign should focus more on the arms race, less on the horse race.
Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 650 stations in North America. Her third book, "Standing Up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times," was published in April.
© 2008 Amy Goodman
56 Comments so far
Show AllThere is no truth, there are only some triths, on this blog site there are man misinformed opinions that will require endless revision. But, yes,yes, do vote for Nader and McCain at the very same time. Such is American politics. This so-called Democracy is RUBBISH! This is a plutocracy . . .look it up! Nader will be a problem in this election and look for a Republican continuation of this American disaster. Those here, some of whom I like some of the time, have the idea that the good Ralph is good all the time. Ralph is an egomaniac but a good egomaniac.
Ralph is running to show us what true democracy is in a country that does not have a democracy. He knows that but casts this rubbish on the airwaves and blogs and has people believing this nonsense he espouses, why does he not stick to public advocate but out of politics? This is at minimum an oligarchy. The corporate control of media determines what the person in the street will believe. The average American intelligence is grade eight level at best, is there any wonder that we have people believing in any of the three running for the top spot as the answer? Or this Democratic idealist, Nader, who thinks if he were elected would be able to affect change. I support Obama becasue that is the only choice to stop this present madness, not because he is the answer.
If Nader were elected, he would ot be able to enact anything that came close to law. This is so because legislation requires majority votes. Nothing he put forward would become law because he would not have a congress that would give him the right time. It would be a fair day in hell to get anything done. it would be worse than Nancy Pelosi's leadership. Moreover, however bad Obama may be, there are no illusions that he is not and must be, in the hands of the Democratic machine, but at least the platform will offer some relief for the masses and some help for the world.
Should Obama lose you have eight more years of the Bush/Cheney nightmare, that is just the facts folks, so lets stop the idealistic nonsense on the star-struck silver screen and get real, this is the USA its "American Idol" fantasy. There are too many important issues that require change to take chances. But some of you here have so much grand illusion that you feel that these past seven years, thanks to Nader in part and Gore's ineptitude, and the lying Republican machine, were worth the experiment?
"Many people here in the USA think to give their vote in the upcoming election to someone who they think represents the absolute truth, maybe Nader? To do that would at the same time elect by default the very same regime that has brought America to this present."
Nonsense. The system is rigged to "elect by default the very same regime that has brought America to this present" by having us vote more of the same yet once again. When the electorate is programmed into believing that only Dems and Repubs can win a presidential election, then what kind of democracy is that? When the voters internatlize that voting for someone you want is synonomous with voting for someone you don't want (i.e., a vote for Nader is a vote for McCain), then the charade we call elections are both obviousl and worthless. But Democrats prefer that to breaking away from this disease. They prefer the victory of their mascot, that my team should win, over the possibility of breaking the deadlock that is the duopoly. Run! Ralph Run. By the way, that "regime" that got us to this terrible place is the Republican administration with the complicity and sanction of the Democratic Party, i.e., the one Corporate Party with two heads. Four years from now the arguments will be the same. Four years from now, the same mess will be worse and the people who voted for the mess makers will be telling us that we should vote for the same people again. No can do. No now, not in 4 years.
Ditto
Yawn.
I just checked the Archives again and I erred. This time the ~OPELBUOY~ name came up and he's there and had posted here often previously. I don't konw why he went off on me, but that shit happens often with some of the strong Obama supporters, they don't want to hear anything negative. I don't want to see Obama lose either, but he will.
Don't think the big mouth jerk-off is a troll now either after reading some of his prior posts. He's just an angry, self centered insecure person with a rather serious mental problem who talks tough when hiding safely behind his compter screen. He's also a damn liar.
If you check OPELUBOY'S~ first post here, May 22, 6:45 pm, he began by saying I piss in everyone's wheaties. So who is the liar? He was annoyed that I posted my opinons. All l wrote was, the states Hillary won and those Obama won and I fear Obama will lose the general. That's was my opinion. Still is.
Then his next post, he continues the attack with more rudenes. I never start shit fights here and I didn't reply to his telling me to go fuck myself with vulgar language. I almost always reply to personal attacks however. I pissed him Off? ____ Poor baby, go tell your mommy. ___You didn't piss me off Troll. I don't allow myself to become angered by a computer screen and shitty comments by invisible people.
In addition. if you go to the Archives screen and type his name in, this is his ___FIRST TIME ___ posting here at Common Dreams ___using that name anyway, trolls use many different names. ____ I have posted over 2,000 posts here in less than a year and if any wish to see if I'm a troll, go to the archives and check it out, __ they are all there.
I wrote the names in CAPs, they didn't. I often use caps with names. I used them with my name, When I first signed up the cap lock was on and I found it's easier to find when scrolling through a long thread, nothing more sinsiter than that. Now this is what trolls do, get a pissing contest going and the issue is lost. Bye troll.
BTW, if you check out ~CONTINUALLY AMUSED~ in the Archives, he's been pissing off a lot of bloggers here and he just left another coded message there for his big mouth buddy. ___LOL, ___ LOL, it's funny.
Interesting that three of the "trolls" KEM PATRICK mention all sign their names in the same retarded fashion - all caps.
Interesting that the same constantly writes how the Dems are going to lose. Hmmm.
Interesting that the same uses Republican talking points and Clinton's lies to discourage support for Obama.
Yep, there be trolls here.
Jeevee, if you check my previous posts, and you can go back for weeks, my comments are never of a personal nature. But when some pompous asshole calls me a "big-mouth jerkoff" it tends to piss me off.
To anyone concerned, before I am banned from this site, I have no idea who "continually amused" is. I am not a troll. I had no idea what his cryptic message referred to. You can see my posts on The Nation, Dissident Voice, In These Times and other sites. I have been using this handle for over 6 years. I also contribute under my real name to several progressive sites, as a writer, not a blowhard.
KEM PATRICK is a liar and of course an asshole.
What we are dealing with here is a group of several detracting trolls who use a variety of code names, such as HUCK, Ascott, AAFKE, MOOKIE, etc. They have a bank of computers and one of their offices is in New York City. Their phone number last year was (845)626-2815. Call it and ask for the Common Dreams rep. It won't be anyone from Common Dreams, just a troll on duty who moniters and blogs on this site.
I have a strong suspicion ~Continually Amused~ here wrote to ~Opeluboy~ May 22, at 8:48 and 9:16pm and gave him a list of numbers and asked him, "where is everybody?" Then said, "the pizza will he here at ten." He/she screwed up, not realizing the two messages to ~Opeluboy~ were posted on this thread. Now Opeluboy tried to cover the goof-up by saying he didn't know what the guy was talking about. Uh-huh. Better change your names again trolls. ___ Phone number too. They often work here as a team and play good cop, bad cop.
What has become of human dignity and true Self respect in these comments, rather than roiling in the cesspools of ego?
Thank you for the "final" response. I know exactly what I am dealing with and you have explained it fully to everyone here. ___ And you think you know me.
Pray we never do meet.
Anyway, as I intended when I first posted here before it got nasty, I fear Obama can't beat McCain and Hillary can, that opinion based upon what has transpired during the primary elections. If anyone has an opposite opinon that's fine with me and I have no anger or anamostity towards them for saying so.
KEM PATRICK
Here's my last response to you. You're an ignorant, know-it-all dickhead. And I would say that to your face. You have no fucking clue who you're dealing with, you fucking pussy. Go fuck yourself.
Well ~JOZEF~ If Nader is the issue, what issue is it? It don't matter if he's talking about the issues, almost everone is talking about the issues, you__ me__ everyone is. You running for the presidencey? Me neither. Does Nader have a chance of being elected? ___ None.
Nader can talk issues till his brains run out of his ears, he ain't gonna win a single state and you know it. I like Nader and I like his stands and opinions on most of the issues. ___ So what?
And yes if we want a viable third party we need to elect good people at the local and state level offices and work up, not start at the top. Nader has well proven more than once that don't work.
Why should Amy Goodman include Nader in this article? He's not a viable candidate this year and he's not who she is talking about here. Why would she sound foolish and bring his name into it, he's not an issue. He may be with you and a few others, __ so what?
You wrote your opinion about Nader and I wrote mine.
If you don't like what I post ~OPELUBOY~ scroll on by. I do as every single other blogger does here, write comments and opinions. We all have opinions, you have yours and I have mine, we disagree. You rudely attacked me for expressing my opinions.
YOU STARTED off here May 22__6:45pm, by insulting me for no reason, you had a different opinion on the issue than I do. You wanted to show everyone you are a bullish type of person and you accuse me of being in love with myself and my opinions. ___ LOL, you're a big mouth jerk off. You wouldn't want to say those things to my face, I can assure you. And don't worry about that, I'm certain we'll never have the displeasure of meeting.
I have never said over and over I was not a Clinton supporter, you are lying there. I have said I was a Edwards supporter, I sent him a check and supported him 100%. I don't do that for Clinton, I prefer her over Obama and have often said so, because I believe she can beat McCain and Obama can't. I think the two together will win easily if She's the nominee and he's the VP choice.
And what's the bravo IF I vote for Obama all about big mouth? I've always posted that I'll vote for whomever the Demo choice is. It will likely be Obama and that's a shame cause he won't beat McCain. That's my opinion based upon how the Demo primary has gone. He has not won the Key states and over 40% of the Hillary voters say they won't vote for him if he's the Demo nominee and another 25% say they'll vote for McCain if he's the nominee. You ignore those very pertinent facts.
You don't have to write slowly for me dude, I can read quite well and understand what I read, obviously you have a problem in that regard. I said McCain was out spent in the Repug primaries by ten to one and he was. His primary ended, he's the Repug nominee now. Now is not what I was referring to or what I wrote. I also was not referring to what any Demo has spent in their primaries, you are a confused person.
My point there was you wrote that Obama will have lots of money and I replied that didn't bother McCain in the Republican primaries, He won in spite of being out spent ten to one. He'll have ample money for the General, the Republicans want another Republican. It's who is put on the Supreme Court they worry about and it's what we should be worried about.
KEM PATRICK
You are obviously in love with your own epic misunderstanding of just about everything you write. Good for you. Your utter ignorance is noted.
You say over and over you are not a Clinton supporter, but accuse those of us supporting Obama of being stupid, and in fact throwing the election to McCain. Gee, who else can we vote for? Oh, yeah! Clinton!
But you'll vote for the loser Obama if he's the nominee! Bravo! If?
Then you reveal your complete lack of reality with this nugget of stupidity:
"Hey BTW, McCain was outspent ten to one in the primaries and he's the Repugs nominee. You think that he won't have plenty of loot for the general election? HAAA Haaa HA. Are you stupid or just ignorant?"
Gee. Where to start. I'll type slowly for you.
McCain has been running unopposed for some time. He has not needed to spend a lot, once Romney punted. Thank you Hillary. And how much a Democrat spends in primaries has nothing to do with who wins the Republican primary.
As for the plenty of loot he'll have, it's a fact that the Republicans fundraising has been dismal. You can read about it everywhere. They're worried shitless about this. He's also violated rules and may have to pay some back.
Obama has raised more money than McCain will ever be able to raise, and it keeps coming in. Obama will not have money problems versus McCain. No one that knows anything about this campaign is claiming this. No one.
You have not factored in Bob Barr.
In short, you seem to feel this is your special perch to pontificate from. You should make a point of checking facts before doing so.
continually amused? Sorry, don't get the phone numbers bit. Get back on your meds.
Sure Nader is the issue, because Nader IS TALKING about the "arms race" and Barak, Hillary and McCain are not. I have no idea what a "VIALBLE" third party is? You don't make a "viable" 3rd party by voting the same insane party duopoly line every time. If you want a viable third party then VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY!
I don't see how you criticizing Amy Goodman has contributed to the issue. Sorry, that's the joke.
Maybe you are all grown up, we don't achieve that until we're 35 though. If you are grown up, act it.
Sure we need another VIALBLE party. For the present we don't have one. Amy Goodman is writing in the present tense with this article and Nader is not presnet or the issue.
Kem,
I don't see how calling me "a joke" and telling me to "grow up" contributes to this conversation.
Again, the idea is to get rid of the two party system-in our lifetime or not. Continuing to vote Republican/Democrat will ensure the current system continues.
How would that destroy her credibility? Sounds like Obama taking. Empty Suit.
Daily??? Why should Amy Goodman do that and destroy her credibility?
Of course not. Obama cannot "whisper an incantation and turn it into fairy dust". Obama is but one tiny grain in that ever-so-profitable military-industrial-prison-complex "monolith". The one that makes him "viable".
Amy Goodman knows full well that the presidential race is the political equivalent of the TV show, "American Idol", where aspiring candidates are prepped all their lives to fill the puppet position at the top of the empire's house of cards.
The mainstream corporate media brings us the daily nonsense whenever any of the Corporate Party (with two heads) candidate's sneezes or passes pastor gas. Amy, how about bringing daily some news about Nader's (and other) campaign(s) each and every day so people will get the message that there are more than just two (I mean one) political party.
As for "When Nader becomes a viable candidate he'll get press", what the eff? The air waves belong to the people. The media that use the people's airwaves have a responsibility to the people. That responsibility includes covering ALL the candidates that ARE RUNNING, not just the ones you or the corporate media crown as being "viable". Your Democratic Party is anything but democratic. And now Obama is back tracking on what he said about talking to Iran. The stink we smell is from the cesspool of the Democratic and Republican parties. Some see that as a fragrance worthy of pulling a lever for them. I and millions do not.
"It doesn't matter how decent Nader is and anyone with half a brain knows he isn't going to ever sit in the Oval Office, not in our lifetimes anyway." SO WHAT!!! Jesus Horatio Christ. Do you not understand how major party platforms are affected by third party runs, such as when Eugene Debs, Norman Thomas, etc. ran. It's not ONLY about the horse race. Sheesh.
~USRCJP~ You criticizing Amy Goodman here. What a joke you are. If you don't like her program or writing, go buy your own program and have your articles published.
When Nader becomes a viable candidate he'll get press.
Grow up, the only viable candidates we have are McCain, Obama and Hillary. It doesn't matter how decent Nader is and anyone with half a brain knows he isn't going to ever sit in the Oval Office, not in our lifetimes anyway.
"Presidential Race Ignores Arms Race".
Not exactly. Amy Goodman knows very well that Ralph Nader is running. She also knows that, in all liklihood, Cynthia McKinney will be running with the Green Party.
These two very decent and honest candidates do not ignore the arms race. There are also others. Ever hear of the Socialist Party?
Amy Goodman, isn't it better that you tell the truth and inform the American people of who isn't ignoring the arms race? I listen to your radio program and regularly hear mundane updates on the sham contest between Clinton and Obama. Why do you refuse to report regularly on the ongoing Nader campaign? Why do you not regularly report on what his campaign is doing?
Democracy Now also does not report on other struggling candidates who are trying to make there voices heard in the presiential election.
It seems that the primary goal should be to break open the 2-party system. This system is the largest part of what is preventing any progressive change in our country.
How about this, Amy Goodman? Ignore the Democrats and Republicans and only report on independent and third parties. After all, who needs more help in getting the word out?
~IKE KAY~ why do you insult me because I stated the facts? Speaking of questioning others intellect, on another thread here today about global warming, you stated we should ignore talking about burning coal and fossil fuels, ignore the dangers of global warming and then went on with one of your article length sermons about what a swell guy Obama is. ___ LOL___ That's showing intellect. You sounded exactly like a neo-con troll.
Maybe you better suck on an oxygen bottle, or at least your thumb and stop writing like a troll. I think you may be a closet McCain supporter. You have to realize Obama can't win the general election.
BTW, I'm used to high altitudes, I've got the lungs of a long distance runner and our air is a hell of a lot cleaner than any city and anyone can see what states Obama has won and those he lost big time. You don't have to be very smart to see that and I have never claimed to be very smart. __ Can't you see the actual electon results smarty?
Hi ~SAMPSON~ It's even worse than you stated. The 2002 NIE report was altered by George Tennent the then director of the CIA, by the orders of Bush and Cheney. The original report stated Saddam had NO WMDs and he had purchased NO uranium from Africa as Bush had publically told us all he had. That was changed in the report.
Bush knew the full truth and ordered Bliss out of Iraq anyway. He was hell bent on invading Iraq and no one was going to prevent it. It was God's will. He lied to us, to the UN, to the Congress and Senate and assured them he would never invade Iraq unless it was a last resort and he would allow Bliss to continue his inspectons. As soon as the senate voted to allow him to use military force, he pulled Bliss out of Iraq and the war began. The all important NIE intelligence report was altered and that was surely an impeachable offense.
No surprise, but Feith is demonstrably a liar.
After the fall of 2002, there were UN weapons inspectors in Iraq. They had full access to anywhere they wanted to go. Their reports to the UN Security Council state this. These reports are online at the UN's website.
This means if US intelligence had any information on Iraqi WMD's, they could give it to the UN inspectors (some of whom were certainly US intelligence agents themselves) and this way get proof of Iraq's WMD programs.
The fact that the UN weapons inspectors could not find such proof was itself clear proof that the US intelligence was if not wrong then at least highly questionable. There was a clear opportunity to confirm what US intelligence was saying, and the failure to find such confirmation was clear evidence that US intelligence was wrong. I even remember an article in a British paper where the inspectors were complaining about how useless US intelligence and called 'wild goose chases' or something similar to that.
Remember this any time any Democrat or Republican starts with this 'we were fooled by the bad intel' or this 'it was an honest mistake' crap. Anyone with a brain could clearly see that the US could not prove their claims even with clear opportunity to do so before the war. Anytime any of these Dims or Rethugs start this stuff it is a pure and blatant lie.
If Obama really were for real change, he'd be all over this issue.
C'mon Obamamaniacs, where's your boy?
As I re-read what I post, I realize something else. Number four is also a promise to continue to use the National Guard as a force for the American Empire abroad.
Traditionally, the National Guard was a force the governors could use for emergencies in their state. They did also serve as the first reserves that would join the standing army in the event of World War III breaking out. But they did not actively serve on foreign military deployments. I'm not even sure they did in Vietnam. Remember, rich white kids with connections like Dubya went into the Guard to avoid Vietnam.
So, here's Obama promising more deployments overseas. He's promising better equipment for overseas deployments. And the only way having the head of the Guard as a member of the JCS makes any sense at all is if the Guard is to essentially become another active branch of the military. If you think of the way Bush has used the Guard it makes sense to do this. If you think of returning to the traditional way the Guard has been used for local emergencies, it makes no sense. Here is yet more clear proof of Obama promising to continue and expand Bush's policies. Obama's campaign stance is that he can do better than Bush at managing and executing Bush's policies.
Actually, I disagree with the excellent Ms. Goodman on this one.
Obama has not 'ignored' the arms race. He has openly pledged to support it. He has continously voted to fund it since he's been in the Senate. To my knowledge he's never voted no on a Pentagon budget since his 2004 election.
These are direct quotes from Obama's website where he's promising to spend even more on the military. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#21st-century-military
"# Rebuild Trust: Obama will rebuild trust with those who serve by ensuring that soldiers and Marines have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle.
# Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
# New Capabilities: Obama will give our troops new equipment, armor, training, and skills like language training. He will also strengthen our civilian capacity, so that our civilian agencies have the critical skills and equipment they need to integrate their efforts with our military.
# Strengthen Guard and Reserve: Obama will restore the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves. He will permit them adequate time to train and rest between deployments, and provide the National Guard with the equipment they need for foreign and domestic emergencies. He will also give the Guard a seat at the table by making the Chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
-----------
Those are all pledges to increase spending on the military even further. This includes a direct pledge to accelerate the arms race. Both three and four are direct pledges to buy more arms.
Sorry, but I disagree with Amy on this one. Obama is not ignoring the arms race. He's promising to continue it and acclerate it.
The intellect of some people who live in rarified atmosphere must be questionable since some of their conclusions are based on lack of oxygen.
You McCain guys all working together in the same office?
Wow, why all the anger and anamosity towards me ~OPELUBOY~? You accuse me of shilling for Hillary and I never once had mentioned her name, but you don't criticize ~IKE KAY~ for writing an article here for Obama. I didn't say a bad word about Obama, if he's the nominee I intend to vote for him.
I just stated the facts of what states he won in the primaries and why he'll lose in the general election. There is nothing I can do about that. Where is the "bullshit" you state in the facts? Perhaps you support Obama because you actually want to see McCain win, ___ that it?
Hey BTW, McCain was outspent ten to one in the primaries and he's the Repugs nominee. You think that he won't have plenty of loot for the general election? HAAA Haaa HA. Are you stupid or just ignorant?
BTW, I'm still perched up here in our peaceful and quiet mountain top retreat. Well actually just at 6,000 feet, halfway up. I have a nice perch to piss from and never ever consider anyone on Earth below me. I don't like Wheaties either, I'm a Rice Crispy fan but won't spend good money for Kellog's or Post's overpriced shit.
KEM PATRICK - Bullshit. You are a Hillary shill, repeating all her continually disproven talking points verbatum. Give it up. You're not fooling me, at least.
But thanks for coming down off the mountain to sully yourself with us plebes down here.
The defense policy of the United States is not to allow any foreign power to rival its own.
That means the US must have greater military power than anyone anywhere in the world, greater than everyone everywhere. The US is going broke trying.
That means an enemy for everyone! Iran, Syria, Pakistan, China, Russia, Venezuela.
I'm thinking of running for President on a platform of demonizing St. Kitts and Nevis-they have the potential for nuclear weapons within the next 100 years!
The Presidential Race, the Arms Race and what about the Human Race? What about the survival of our mother, the Earth? What about over 50 million to date who lost their lives to a terrible earthquake in China, the many thousands to a cyclone in Mayanmar, and how many thousands more in Kattrina, hurrican Ivan, the Sunami and who know how many others? One wonders if the gods are not terribly angry with the Human Race.
At some point we need to sadly acknowledge that ultimately these elections are not about people. We need to recognize that the "democracy" which the powers that be want to establish around the world is not because we care about the multitudes of yellow, brown and black people. They are about money and power. That is why the system has not only locked out third parties like the Greens, libertarians etc., but have locked out candidates like Dennis Kucinich because he cares about something other than supporting corporate America, and even John Edwards, who really care about the working poor, and not only claims the title to win elections.
Call me a pessimist, but in the long run I don't see General Electric, General Dynamics, Rockwell International, Brown and Roote etc. losing either the Presidential race or the Arms race. They always win. Those who have the gold make the rules. Cynical? I wish with all my heart that my comments are just cynicism!
Amy Goodman is one of the very best real journalists left dedicated to the truth to which Americans have national access!
For over 4 plus years--I'm 76-- I have read CD articles closely and I particularly peruse fellow readers reactions to compare to my reactions. The level of thought and knowledge expressed usually appears cutting-edge incisive and on point, perhaps the best around...but I would say there is a core group of responders that OVERRESPOND and OVERPOST and OVERREACT in their frustration to evergrowing problems relating to the cultural aridity, deteriorating economic health and horrific political sanity of our country.
Would that this fantastic energy also be applied to actively finding common ground with people in our daily lives we know that hold differing points of view! This is not to say I believe most posters here limit their "political activism" exclusively to well-crafted sentences for this website. I see myself ultimately as a pragmatist and a strong believer in initially achieving the possible; the impossible takes quite a bit longer. If all the Barack Obama for President votes are allowed to be counted, and he is safely in place, we need an end to the two-headed, one party system, the end of the electorial College,and the initiation of proportional representation. We have to forge coalitions with folks we never believed we ever could work together with. A huge order? No question!
You eat Wheaties ~OPELUBOY~? Sniff em first. I'm not shilling for anyone, just stating the facts. Obama is going to get beat if he's the Demo nominee, that don't mean I want it to be that way, for I do not. I do believe it was ~IKE KAY~ who posted a book here about Obama, I replied to it. Is that Okay with you? Who's he/she shilling for? A loser in the general election that's who.
Obbama won all of the southern states, not Florida. He won the caucus states. He won Maine, one north eastern state. He primarily won the states that go Republican in every general election. He won close elections in a couple of Demo states and lost big time in the rest of them ___ Big deal.
If he loses three of the key Demo states, and he will, more than three for certain. McCain will be our next prez and the Bush regieme will continue unabated. Check out the record, he has not even won the popular vote. He's won the most delegate votes because of idiotic party rules.
He's a great orator, that won't give him the Republican votes or the Hillary votes, he's gonna lose. I see him losing Michigan and Florida too, because of his actions regarding having another election in those two states. Sorry, I didn't do it, just writing what is obvious.
Here is the great hoax, the grand larceny, the oxymoron to end all oxymorons (literally), and the ethos that MUST be transcended or at the least changed (as quoted from the article) "all point to a reliance on military solutions."
Ain't no such banana! Never was, never can or will be. The MILITARY is the antithesis of solution, unless the goal is annihilation of persons, ways of life, infrastructure and ecosystems.
KEM PATRICK-
Still shilling for Her Highness, I see, while pissing in everyone's Wheaties.
And now, before a single debate between McCain and Obama, before he has finally rid himself of the shreiking albatross around his neck, in spite of the polls that show Obama beating McCain, regardless of Obama's massive war chest and ignoring the record number of Democrats who turned out to vote and his growing support daily of union after union, you have pronounced Obama already defeated.
Gosh, clairvoyance must be such a burden.
Here's the bottom line, folks. "Democracy" or so-called... has nothing to do with what goes on here in Amerika. That word (which all "democracy" can ever be... a word, anyway) doesn't tell us anything about ... what(?) if supposedly some majority or another decides on something. And we will fight tooth and nail to foster this non-concept on the whole rest of the world.
Hasn't it become obvious that "democracy" (so-called) reflects our human tendencies toward mediocrity and mundane reality - and a serious lack of choosing about anything! Why do we suppose votes are always so close? Everything about our loveley "democracy" has become so un-magnificent that anything/everything gets thrown into the voting for some chirade about something or nothing. Or what?
No, What's on second. Who's on first.
Unfortunantly ~IKE KAY~, if Obama is the Demo nominee he will lose to McCain, so your long posts here and elsewhere on Common Dream's threads about Obama are a wasted effort.
Great article here ~Amy Goodman~, thank you again for your clear and honest reporting.
Unfortunately, to run for prez of this brain-dead electorate you must state that you are willing to drop bombs on your grandmother if she doesn't wave the red, white and blue. The war machine must be oiled so you better not be spouting words of peace.
This is a double post - but I thoght it probably fit here better than wher originally posted:
McKinney for president!!!!
See the short speech she gave at the ILWU May 1 demonstration against the war.
Here's a REAL candidate with REAL substance - unlike the other Candidate wannabes.
her speech starts at 7:27 of this clip on youtube;
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BspANxukBgg
One thing is abundantly clear and should be for Obama as well as a America, the politics of fear must end! The American military adventure in the world must come to an end and change. The money that has been spent on the Iraq war alone, never mind the defense budget drains billions for military supremacy that is an idea unbridled in this Congress. The USA is the reason for any arms race or self-protection that nations resort to from the USA preemptive war strategy. The new presidency should end the arms race and American hegemony concepts of world dominance.
Many people here in the USA think to give their vote in the upcoming election to someone who they think represents the absolute truth, maybe Nader? To do that would at the same time elect by default the very same regime that has brought America to this present. After all and under scrutiny this is not a democracy, and the "truth" as presented has more than a few deficiencies.
I have followed patiently the dreamers, the pseudo intellectuals, and the great scholars, on the pages of many blogs, periodicals, and media who think they have the sort of thinking able to help bring the USA back from the horrid mess it has become. There are those, like so many who write, who like me have seen through the sham and the shame of the present global dilemma. Many in these tomes offer their great thinking to help us to see more clearly, good Liberal egalitarian ideas, that might help our situation if adopted and I hope seen by others.
Few here have touched the central issues, this countries greed, the economy and your 401ks. You have been sold this scheme so you could be good Americans and invest in the scam of Wall Street. By so doing you all have become part of this bogus system of economics that continues a way of life that will undo the world civilization, built on the layers of blood of countless generations. This form of economics- which panders to the worst human values- It is equal to one investing in a gambling house, but you have been led to believe it is your way to survival rather than the world's doom. Greed is a very difficult motivation personified by the "killer capitalism" of the USA and fans the seeds of greed, an acquisitive human characteristic that holds nothing or no one sacred, as of course some of you know.
The essence of the fight for human retrieval of hope and security, and the reestablishment of ethics, morals and purpose - so many write about - and who are disgusted with the American system fast becoming the global system - who would like to see change regardless of how questionable or what the downside might be. It is the reason people spend their time on blogs reading petty responses to the huge problems we face. Responses grounded in the rubbish the leaders of this sorry mess of an empire have indoctrinated their people to believe. This empire fueled by an auto-centered culture supported by the advertising indoctrination machine that supports the bogus media.
Those who respond to the articles on blogs, written by people who are surely less than the quality of the true thinkers like, Nietzsche, Camus, Dostoevsky and so many others who have written about human fallibility, the human condition and the abuse of power in America and the West. One of the best amongst them in the modern era is Noam Chomsky, a great American scholar and a champion of truth, who articulated the USA and its power lust for empire in his book "Hegemony or Survival.
Those who write, are people generally frustrated, those who feel helpless in terms of where we see this entire human global adventure going and see clearly that the present American election possibly holds the seeds to genuine change in the USA if not the world should it really should occur? In view of rapid change and absolute necessity in the USA for global survival we have to look at the so-called democratic process. The comparison between the facile political landscape as presented in media and look at this abomination called reality. Power is a strange issue, it can be best represented by its two possibilities, Power to and power "over" as represented by the present US administration. The power to "create" as represented by Obama's rhetoric is the hope of half of the USA. Yes, there are many political power brokers that hold the keys to Obama's success and we must accept the compromise of the imperfect but it is the best there is at this critical time. At the very least he has invigorated Democracy and interest in this failed Democratic, extreme capitalist experiment.
However, many are not fooled by the array of candidates and their claims to complete truth and fairness, this is, as it should be. A healthy pessimism is necessary so long as it is not cynicism. Some of us understand that survival is surely not based in the petty politics practiced on the media, or on-line which is a mirror of the American people and clone of the US Congress. However, many truly care and see clearly why the USA has morphed into a right wing crazed oligarchy. Many people writing her genuinely care about this superpower gone amuck, called the USA. Most of the world's people polled think the USA should be feared as a rogue state. Moreover, there are people in government who are genuinely worried about the extreme of American plutocracy on the world stage.
Sadly, many of us know the slate of candidates running leaves a great deal to be desired. Yes, they have all dissembled, as politicians are wont to do, in the endless necessity for compromise, even to achieve small things for the people. One cannot come from the masses in the USA, be a politician who aspires to become president of this woebegone culture and not have to assume the sickening compromises that would attract support to continue on the quest to accomplish change. It is impossible to be pure but it is possible to hold new truths close to ones fundamental belief system until possible to employ those ideas and idealistic visions of a better world. When people rally behind the leader who becomes transparent in office it is possible for the people begin to believe the leadership of a visionary. America believed in the JFK speech that accomplished the moon landing!
I believe Obama's hope and vision is to restore the USA to its former respected place in the world in a new way. One can see how it is veiled in his rhetoric but it is there. We can only hope that he is not murdered using some obscure assassin. When I think of the charge against Obama that he supported that toad, Joe Lieberman or the many obfuscations, of Clinton and McCain to paint him "black" I have to laugh at the simplistic charges and the lack of understanding of what is necessary to be a politician in the USA.
But there are some who hold out the small hope that if Obama, the least of all the evils presented to the electorate, somehow becomes president he may become another great man in the office and in effect serve the people, the country and the globe. He is the only one, in my view, who holds that possibility, without question, if we join and accept some of the thinking written on the pages of common dreams and other liberal blogs, many agree with this idea. It is so because of his background, his actions in Chicago, despite his missteps, and the fact that this is the final chance at survival for the human family!
We must take this chance and hope that the creeping filth of corporate power in collusion with government and media that has brought humanity to this pass will not assassinate him; if he truly tries to affect the changes that must take place in America and the world, for make no mistake about it: survival is at stake.
Yes, many nations look to different nations and models other than the USA in this for leadership and assistance turning their back on the US and the rejection of the Bush regime. The USA can take on a new challenge, with a new leader, a new vision with a country and a congress that supports him! I believe Obama can assume a place in the world as one of the leaders of the world- rather than, the lone, dogmatic, power driven capitalistic - globalized monster eating everything in its path for it own advantage. I believe that Obama, in recognizing the state of this world, seen with the idealistic vision he espouses, is able to help the USA join with other nations in the world, not as the sole leaders but one as one of its important contributors. The USA is a technological giant it is time to use its strength to assist the world, as it once did, not only for its GDP but also the truth of its responsibility and concern for the problems humanity confronts.
Now, as never before, to the present degree, a great leader and vision is required to help draw the world back from the nightmare now taking place. The climate, energy, food, water, the oceans, forests, human health, world poverty and so many other issues will require a man that has the youth and the guts to try to bring about the change in the USA needed for the future generations who see his vision. Change is fundamental to his campaign alone, since he has captured the belief of so many whom once believed it to be impossible. However, in the end it all may be too late!
Amin - wsws.org website
You got it all right - thanks
Amy Goodman -- great! I love her, I love her, I love her!
Unfortunately, Amy, as you well know, the arms race is not the only thing that's being ignored. You know the litany -- torture, illegal wiretapping, the bloated Pentagon budget, the war against the middle class, the denuding of labor and environmental laws, impeachment, renditioning, corporate welfare, corporate criminality -- and on and on and on.
Tell me, "liberals," who is Barack Obama, except Al Gore and/or John Kerry with a better suit and a slicker hustle.
Oooooooh, how the Democrats and the ABBers went after Ralph Nader in 2004! Had they attacked Bush and the neocons and the Christian right as much as they attacked Nader in 2004, maybe people would have taken them seriously. Oh, and ps, they would have also won a couple of elections: 2000 and 2004.
So Ralph was the "spolier." And Hillary in 2008
-- she's not a spoiler?
Hillary is doing a wonderful job of not only ignoring the issues, she's also, egomaniac that she and her husband are, are doing a wonderful job of doing everything she can to destroy whatever's left of the pathetic Democratic Party. But do we hear a peep, a titter, a syllable about her selfish, destructive, "spoiler" ways?
Not really. Not resoundingly. Not appropriately.
Arms race?! Her stand on the arms race is: "obliterate- anybody-who-will-get-me-in-good-with-AIPAC-and-all-those-good-ole-Republican-war-lovers."
And what comes as a rejoinder to her obliterati from the Democratic PArty and/or the vast majority of liberals? ... Nada. Zilch. Butkus.
Oh, you know, she's just talking. She's just, she's just -- "being a politician."
"Besides, she's not a spoiler. She's just being, ahh ... machismo."
"Besides, ahhh, ahhhhh -- she has A RIGHT TO COMPETE!"
Go tell it to Ralph and Cynthia, Hillary et al.
But, no, it's not Hillary the Spoiler. It's Ralph the Spoiler. Just let the race get close. Out with come the same old attack dogs. The ones that lost the election for Gore, and then lost the election for John "The Ketchup Concubine" Kerry.
Of course, we should not, under any circumstances, besemerch either Al or John. Behold how *gallantly* they fought to see that their elections (each "the most important election in the history of the country" -- as this one is; as will be the next one) were on the up and up. How Gore wanted so much to win! ("Hey, Al, you got screwed. Whatcha gonna do?" ... "Ah, give up. Yeah, yeah, that's it, that's the ticket.") Atta boy, DLC-whipped boy.
And John Kerry's remark to Mark Crispin Miller, a couple of years after the 2004 election. Kerry: "I think maybe something might have been wrong there." ... HE'S ALIVE!
As for Citizen Gore -- counterpunch.org a few years ago did a comprehensive article (I wish I had bookmakrked it) on how the Clinton-Gore Administration was even *more* unfriendly to environmental interests than either the Reagan or the Bush I Administrations. And here's Al and reborning his own self as (wait now, get ready) an environmentalist! (Ta-da!)
Oh, why not? It was either that or sell land next to Al Pacino in "Glen Gary Glenross." A con is a con is a con.
Oh yeah, some feency-schmancy progressives they have in the Democratic Party. I should outlive the day decide to move to the left.
As for Obama -- for an idea of what the *real* Obama will do if elected, domestically and internationally -- all that corporate dough even his feeny-schmancy suits can't hide -- get to clickin' http://newsblaze.com/story/20080302075722tsop.nb/newsblaze/ELEC2008/2008-Elections.html
And, Amy ... stay on the case, k?
The US-India Nuclear Treaty is a non-starter as the opposition from the Indian Left parties has essentially stymied the treaty and it is unlikely to be signed now. Indians at large are not overtly crazy about this new found nuclear co-operation and opposition to the U.S. is steadily growing in India despite the recent lovefest between the two countries.
From the Global War Industry's point of view 'firing' a missile is 'selling' a missile, killing a soldier sells a new soldier somewhere else. What if it were illegal to profit from War?
Anyone here remember that the majority of the families who lost a child during the Columbine massacre were employed directly or indirectly in the manufacture of WMDs in Colorado?
And that the Columbine shooters had free access to automatic assault weapons?
I guess those kids were just collateral damage to the American Economy...
Re:Jaded Prole..."The Arms race is too important for our economy."
OUR economy? I think you mean the CORPORATE economy. The arms race actually hurts MY economy as I pay $4 a gallon to fill up my car, watch the erosion of urban cities before my very eyes, listen to the deafening silence about universal health coverage, ride out dated and limited public transportation on my way to a underpaid, non-union, insecure job.
Of course I would have a completely different point of view if I were a CEO of Northrop Grumman or Lockheed or Boeing or Exxon.
I went to my city council meeting last night. They did not bring to a vote a citizen sponsored resolution to end the occupation of Iraq. They passed a resolution on goals for the reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020 and 2050. We will not see 2020.
Consistently duplicitous military behavior on the United States's part is a good way to start a global thermonuclear war, which would kill most of us. That's the election issue.
Other nations learn by example from the U.S. that a "nothing left to lose" strategy, while abhorrent, is tolerated by the U.S. because we get away with it all the time, so how can we criticize the other practitioners? Maybe it only works if you can credibly threaten a thermonuclear exchange?
What will we do when we have nothing but leaves and grass to eat, but we have 30,000 nuclear weapons? Will we threaten other countries?
Hey, those weapons are paid for (mostly), wouldn't it be a shame if they were never used? (from a right wing warnut point of view, anyhow.)
The Arms race is too important for our economy. Weapons are our gross national product and one of the few industries that haven't bee sent to China (as far as I know).
Presidential candidates have a hard time saying they want us to have less arms capability. And they can also be criticized for saying we need more. So they don't focus on this any more than they have to.