If Obama thinks that Afganistan is 'winnable' then he's seriously misinformed. That quote about ending empires isn't smoke. That area has kicked the ass of many 'empires' who attempted to. IMO it wasn't Reagan that ended the USSR it was Afganistan. And I fear it will do the same to the US (if Iraq hasn't done this already) if we go go in full bore. No amount of troops will do so UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO KILL EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY (and I do mean everyone). No sir, better to just get out and isolate the place.

I not only heard Bhutto say that Laden was dead I have the video of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ

The Democrat's "antiwar" candidate Obama thinks he knows how to win:

Obama: "We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."

Obama vowed to beef up the US military for a war that threatens to prove far more intense than the one in Iraq. He called for an overall increase of American ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, and "investing in the capabilities we need to defeat conventional foes and meet the unconventional challenges of our time."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j16.shtml

I forgot: I have not yet seen Obama walk on waster either.

I come from a tradition that is still waiting for the Messiah. I assure you that Barack Obama is not Him.

Poor Afghanistan forgotten in real life as well as on this thread :(.

"Ralph Nader has significant investments in Fidelity; They in turn have money in Raytheon, General Dynamics, Monsanto, and Dow Chemicals to name a few.

I could never vote for someone with investments like those."

Gotta love CD posters. Even Ralphie "bad hair" Nader is too impure for some of you leftists here.

This is great stuff!

Hank Fur; thanks for the Juan Cole info.

Ralph Nader has significant investments in Fidelity; They in turn have money in Raytheon, General Dynamics, Monsanto, and Dow Chemicals to name a few.

I could never vote for someone with investments like those.

Petro-China as well until public embarressment finally caused divestiture. That is Ralph Nader's portfolio, only made public because of his run for president. Before that it was a BIG SECRET!

Usama bin Laden, as the FBI spells it, isn't even accused of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the FBI's official web page. See http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm So why are we still bombing and killing the poor people of Afghanistan, who have known only war for the last 30 years, much of it supplied via U.S. proxies and weapons, and now via U.S & NATO troops?

Support Nader so he gets in the debates. What you do after that depends on whether you want to live or die.

Lisa3210piece
"Informed Comment by Juan Cole. For Cool Reality Checks."

Juan Cole was originally in favor of the invasion of Iraq and supported it for some time. When I brought this up to him a couple of years later, he wrote to me in response that he'd changed his mind and his being in favor of the invasion was "oh so 2003."

Someone who would approve of illegally invading a sovereign nation, one who did nothing at all to deserve it, is not someone I'd go to for advise. I'm sure he's an Obama supporter, no doubt about it. He has that kind of mind. I would also imagine he's in favor of moving the war from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

By the way: Support Nader. He has been polling at 6%. If we can get him up to 10%, Google and YouTube will include him in the presidential debates! That in itself is worth supporting!

This is a way to get the progressive agenda out there for America. Nader has a grandfatherly manner, he is a straight talker and has the brains and knowhow to blow McCain and Obama out of the water.

We need to stay focussed. The two=parties will be able to use the media to malign Nader, McKinney, anyone trying to make inroads. We need to stay strong. It's coming. Voting independently is only the start. We have a lot of work to do. If we all gave just a couple of hours a week to the progressive agenda we could make a huge difference.

Let's stay angry but positively intentional!

It's a Political LAW: No pol becomes electable on a national level without proven fealty to AIPAC and the MULTINATIONALS>

Imperialism reigns on high, duck brown skinned man we're coming for your oil, your cobalt, your land, your life.

CD'rs, you make your point eloquently.

Prostitutes; Front-Men on Point in America's War On The World.

I'm still gonna vote for the bastard,

even after his voting for the FEDERAL IMMUNITY for SPYING on AMERICANS ACT.

I think he'll kill fewer people with the USAF; I'll vote for less dead and that turns my stomach brothers and sisters.

Informed Comment by Juan Cole. For Cool Reality Checks.

All of the above simply verifies that the majority of politicians are simply whores who will assume any position for the military industrial Johns with the $$$$$.

Therefore we had better pay attention to our own families and communities with what we need to survive when the big "bang" comes and the country finally goes down. We've allowed them to break the systems so badly that no matter how hard they try, unless they go into an F.D.R. mode (which they won't do because it will interfere with corporate profits), they can't fix it.

"Bye Bye American Pie"!

lisa3210peace (11:17 am) writes, "...I have casrefully never voted in my life because I despise them all...Not voting got me and George Carlin right here. It did not work...."

- This is faulty logic. What got us here has nothing to do with "not voting." The problem, rather, is that only 2 parties are allowed, & both are designed to offer only corporatist candidates. It's set up that way. It doesn't matter if you vote or you don't vote, and it doesn't matter if D's or R's win. The outcome would be essentially the same even if 100% of the population voted, as long as they are only allowed to vote for one of the 2 corporate parties.

Jozef; I humbly submit that my defeatism is not a function of internal despair or lack of vision.

I have casrefully never voted in my life because I despise them all.

But bush/Cheney, torture, 9-11, gutting the constitiution, foreign occupations have me at my wits end.

Not voting got me and George Carlin right here. It did not work. Common Dreams is not the only Body of Thought in America. I do volunteer work with a bunch of nice Christian types-sounds strange, huh? and they believe; these sweet middle asged peole are not as politically sophisticated as us but they have corazon de alma and from their hearts they have hope.

CD does not have a patent on the truth. And I hope with all my heart that Obama is elected (Not Satan) and turns out to be a better man than we expect.

Washington Politics is a Sewer ruined by AIPAC , Lobbyists and multi-nationals.

Sadly, from that morasss our next president comes. McKinney would never be allowed to reach a position of electability becasue she would threaten the system.

But I'd sure like to cook dinner for her and talk with her about things.

tetti tatty sez:

"HOW DARE YOU lecture us with this 'third party candidates can't win' horseshit?"

HOW DARE YOU lecture us with this 'third party candidates CAN win' horseshit?

Gyptian agreed. It was the Afghans that sacrificed enormously in brining down the evil empire that was the Soviet Union. We owe them a debt of gratitude but how quickly we are forgetting a second time. Having seen a former Soviet Prison in Romania and hearing stories from people who lived through all that during a recent visit it sucked to live under communism. Shortly after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan Soviet rule in Eastern Europe crumbled. The Europeans also owe the Afghans much. They never acknowledge them either.

lisa3210peace July 16th, 2008 2:50 am
Hi Lisa, yes we do want the same things: peace and happiness. I respect those that feel Obama is the only option. I repsectfully disagree. Let's debate. We will meet on other threads. Peace sister.

Obama needs to be vary wary of any increased involvement in Afghanistan, and needs to understand the tribal politics of the country. So far, the Taliban and their ilk are mostly made of Pashtuns. As long as the other peoples: Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hazaras, & Kirgiz, are against the Taliban and their implicit agenda of Pashtun dominance of Afghanistan, the West has allies who can be of some value. If the West makes the same mistake the Soviets did and turn all the peoples of Afghanistan against them, then it is merely a matter of time before an embarrassing retreat occurs. It should also be mentioned that reining in the Taliban amongst the tribal chaos that is the Pashtun heartland will be daunting enough as is already.

Obama must think we're all idiots by taking our troops out of one country and putting them in another. Dude we don't want to be at war AT ALL.

Even if you do accept the official 911 commission report then that means it was perpetrated by 19 men, not the government or the people of afghanistan.

This also gives Obama and McCain both the chance to play the 911 card which has worked so well for Bush since then.

What exactly is Naders position on Afghanistan and Pakistan ... specifics not the usual boilerplate. Im curious ... i actually voted for him in the past but I cant seem to find any details currently. Having lived in SF i do know that Matt Gonzalez is a great running mate with fire in his belly !!

Rich Griffin says:

"The only way we get a more progressive country is to STOP supporting politicians like Obama and McCain!"

Yes! You are so right!

How many remember that we had a Socialist Party in the United States at one time (from WW I until the Cold War), and that FDR's New Deal was nothing more than an adoption of most the progressive concepts of the Socialist Party. The Socialist (and Communist) parties became a real threat to the mainstream parties in the Depression, and FDR was smart enough to see the need to finally listen to the Socialist leader, Norman Thomas, who had been losing presidential bids for years.

My mother had voted Socialist in every election from WW I, unphased by all those who told her that she was simply "wasting her vote". Her vote for FDR's first re-election was the only time she ever voted for the winner.

A "third party" does not need to win to be effective. It needs only a high enough percentage of the vote to be the "swing vote" in an election.

Instead of blaming Nader for the lost Florida vote, the Dems should realize that they lost Florida because they lost the progressive voters of Florida - not because Nader "took votes away" from Kerry. The votes were not Kerry's votes. They were votes to be earned by any candidate. Nader "earned" the votes whereas Kerry "lost" the votes.

That's what democracy is about! It is not about trying to vote for the winner.

Of course, when politicians lie (as most do) all bets are off.

What a crock it is hear that politicians are described as "moving to the right or left or center. There is the clear implication that they are lying all the time.

Maybe politicians, who don't do what they promised, should wind up in jail.

dcbeltway ... nice seeing you too. Just another hijacked thread but hey ... what do you do. It seems as though more and more American 'liberals' (whatever) are subscribing to the age old 'deadbeat dad' syndrome. You screw-up badly, destroy peoples lives and walk away pretending to reform yourself but what about child-support ??!!

"To anyone on this thread, no equivocating!"
What? Progressives are not equivocating. They are finally figuring it out. Obama = McCain and vice versa.

"If this fall either Obama or McCain would become POTUS.
And No other possibilities existed in this evil picture."
Your mindset gets you your reality. If you say so. Fatalism at its worst.

"Who would you vote for? And we could be real and know that a huge block of pogressives 'boycotting' an election would be to Limbaugh's delight…." You are influenced by what Mike Malloy calls "the pig man" a bit too much. Voting for "none of the above" by not voting is as valid as voting yet again for S.O.S., and it it is much more honest.

To Lisa: please please please reconsider your vote - look at the positions of McKinney and Nader - i'm guessing you will agree with them on issue after issue. Why settle for mediocrity? Democrats kill people just as much as Republicans do. McKinney or Nader is a great vote, not a wasted vote!! We need to get the percentages up & to persuade people that "winning" isn't everything. The only way we get a more progressive country is to STOP supporting politicians like Obama and McCain! (:

I listened to Barack Obama's foreign policy speech. I'm amazed. After listening to one deluded vision of Bush on the economy, we got the appeal of the next delusional Obama, appearing the moderate but firm Emperor in waiting, fully embracing the folly of the War on Terror and selling to the gullible the Al Qaeda label to play on the present administrations indoctrinated fear and invented terrorism.

Why do so many stupid Americans not understand that they don't want Americans or NATO or anyone deciding their lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, or anywhere else? Or maybe they do. All these people in the far reaches of the earth want you to get your aggression, your soldiers, your drones, your bombers, your security contractors and the whole of your killing machine and GO HOME.

Imagine for a moment someone in China or England deciding your life. As long as you mess with other people, kill their families, destroy their country and steal their resources, they are going to attempt to mess with you. You can call your motive "your interests" or "securing safe havens" if you like, or call what they do in return "terrorism", but it seems pretty clear to me that if I went to Idaho and did what America is doing to Iraq or Afghanistan, I may well get control of a whole lot of potatoes at the end of the day but I would have a lot of Idahoans looking just like terrorists after my blood and the blood of anybody in Idaho who helped me. Or do they build them different over there. Maybe they don't use violence in Idaho?

It is sad to see Obama is just another one using the myth of terrorism to hold together all the other myths of the empire required to maintain the power behind the thrown to which he aspires. All hail Barrack the Chameleon, "we can" be all colours to all people.

Doesn't any of the a'holes in Washington know a bit of history? Or is support for the armament industry at the expense of people more important? The then USSR went home with their tails between the legs. Now let's see how long it is going to take to see the US go home with its tail also between its legs. If stupidity were painful, a lot of people would be screaming all day long!

Wow both FUBAR Obama and McCLusterfuck want play hardass on Afghanistan; both talk out of their asses with not a one whit of brains between them.

Both McKinney and Nader offer sane alternatives to those nobrainers above.

kalia; 9-11 was an inside job.

in the most protected airspace on the planet.

If Osama initiated it, this was then discovered and greatly, greatly faciitated.

The physics of the building's collapse. illogical.

The israeli's filming the impact from New Jersey, set up with cameras ahead of time.

WTC7 was hit by nothing more than smoke and went down like a controlled demolition. That amazing anomaly was not addressed in the 9-11 commission report.
That omission says everyting.
\

Nine Eleven was an Inside Job.

So far nobody, absolutely nobody has presented any credible evidence that Osama was behind the 9/11 attack. Taliban demanded that from Bushco and he did not have anything to show the world. Whatever testimony they have has been waterboarded out of the hapless detainees and has no credibility what so ever.

hi tailcap.

realtors, politicians, lawyers, accountants, paper shuffling traders, brokers, lobbyists///

where are farmers, gardenrs, doctors and people who make clothes and build houses?

talicap, always a pleasure in this dillema of a world, this quandary, this bloody enigma;
we all, I feel want the same things here on CD, just in the storm, we see different paths, that does not really mean our principles are so different.

I just want all people to have food to eat,
shelter,
maybe a little love before they die.

Say you want to buy a nice house. A nice man shows you two, but doesn't tell you he has both listings. One is a complete piece of crap. It has a hole in the roof, broken windows, leaking faucets, a clogged toilet, plus water damage in the kitchen and bathroom. The place smells like a sewer and has weeds growing everywhere. The house is on R St.

Then he takes you to D St. where he shows you another really crappy house with a clogged toilet, worn out carpet, rats in the attic and a slightly better roof. You ask to see more houses but the nice man tells you there are no more houses available and that you must choose between the two.

Which one would you buy? Well if you were an idiot you would buy the less worse one on D St. But if you were smart you would tell the nice man to go fuck himself, find another Realtor and look at more houses until you found a good one that met your needs, not the needs of the Realtor, which of course, is to make money.

To anyone on this thread, no equivocating!

If this fall either Obama or McCain would become POTUS.

And No other possibilities existed in this evil picture.

Who would you vote for? And we could be real and know that a huge block of pogressives 'boycotting' an election would be to Limbaugh's delight....

Kem, Obama did speak out against the iraq war initially, though he later voted to fund it. McCain has promised to stay there for a hundred years, Obama has said he'd pullus out-mostly-I heard that too, and he plans to deploy heavily into Afghanistan.

Because Afghanistan has a large NATO committment, I'm hoping saner EU heads will factor into decision making processes.

But we have no goddamn business in any part of the ME. Or SE Asia. Obama mentioned a need for more helicopters...was he joking?

They'll go down like hummingbirds in a sandstorm.

McCain however,will 1.escalate the war in Iraq, 2.attack Iran and 3. increase troop levels in Afghanistan/pakistan. while 4., further gutting the constitution here at home.

Obama, shoot me for saying it, will not be as bad in my opinion.

Who benefits?

Obama wants to bomb the most bombed nation on earth. Brilliant! He's pursuing Bush's current policy, by the way.

Why waste tax monies bombing people halfway around the world who haven't attacked the the United States, and couldn't attack it if they tried?

Incidentally, Al Qaeda is a Saudi Arabian transplant in Afghanistan. They only grow in numbers where U.S. forces are blowing up family homes, creating fresh recruits.

It looks like Obama's advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski is itching to bloody his hands in the region once again. Plus, this policy signals another front for the military industrial establishment to reap ill-gotten profits.

~LISA~ 12:00 AM. ___ You think Obama is less a warmonger than McCain. What makes you think so?

I'd say they are pretty much alike in that respect, __ (based upon their Senate voting records)__ and what they both say about war in the Mid-East region.

Neither one will pull our troops out of Iraq, especially the Blackwater fellas. And as ~SAMPSON~ noted here, Obama states he will also go into Pakistan. ___ Whoopie.

Now that the primary is over, Obama is singing "new" tunes, ___ lots of new tunes.

ezeflyer the only people working for Republicans are Democrats who have funded Bush's wars at every opportunity, covered for his illegal wiretapping crimes and approved his insane supreme court nominees, among many other transgressions. HOW DARE YOU lecture us with this 'third party candidates can't win' horseshit?

Ignorant voters like you are the reason they can't win.

Keep voting for the lesser of the two evils and what you'll get is the GREATER evil.

This is like walking into rifle fire, God help me, but I believe Obama is our best hope. I will vote for him.

We are beyond logic and it is a matter of the heart. Democrats and Obama are vilified hard on CD and not unjustly.

I think a couple have been outright blackmailed, Wellstone's murder scared others, anthrax scared others, I don't know what else; that's pretty heavy right there.

But in this time of national crisis I have faith that Obama is the best hope we have.

I read the threads. I understand FISA. I also understand he's said he'd get out of Iraq.

I know this post is laughed at here. I would have just felt like a coward or hypocrite not to voice this sentiment.

Obama is less a warmonger than insane-mccain.
Obama would end eight years of republican strangling of america, god help us, let's try someting new, different, McKinney, bless her, is not in a position to do it.

Peace In Persia.

I WAS an obama supporter, but he is breaking my heart already.

ezeflyer July 15th, 2008 10:25 pm

You actually made me laugh out loud...if I am working for the Republicans then so are most of the bloggers on this web site who've also seen through Obama as being a Republican-lite. It's Obama who is working for the Republicans baby, not me!

That's why Obama votes to fund their war, votes to protect Telecoms, makes right wing speeches to AIPAC, is pro-death penalty, says nothing about Cheny defying subpoenas, wants to send more troops to Afghanistan to die for Big Profits Inc. and hasn't said a word about impeaching the criminal Bush that you think I am working for.

You are confused ezeflyer, that's Obama, I am against all those things. Now who is the Republican?

Thanks Gyptian for pointing out Pakistan's support of the Taliban and role in this mess. Always good to see you on CD my friend.

For more info CDers

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB227/index.htm

tailcap sez:

"ezeflyer July 15th, 2008 8:37 pm

Are you feeling like you're all alone and crying out in the wilderness with your steadfast support for the Democrats and Obama?"

It feels like it since Republican shills started bombing the CD site.

BTW, I only support progressives, whether Dem, Green or Indy. I campaigned for Nader last time, but this time I'm voting for Obama because Nader/McKinney have no chance of winning.

I don't think Obama will blow up the planet like McCain would if he were to get in because we all voted for our perfect, but losing candidate.

I've got news for you, you're still working for Republicans.

Speaking of Rudyard Kipling, here's a passage from something George Orwell wrote about the unreconstructed imperialist:

All left-wing parties in the highly industrialized countries are at bottom a sham, because they make it their business to fight against something which they do not really wish to destroy. They have internationalist aims, and at the same time they struggle to keep up a standard of life with which those aims are incompatible. We all live by robbing Asiatic coolies, and those of us who are 'enlightened' all maintain that those coolies ought to be set free; but our standard of living, and hence our 'enlightenment', demands that the robbery shall continue. A humanitarian is always a hypocrite, and Kipling's understanding of this is perhaps the central secret of his power to create telling phrases. It would be difficult to hit off the one-eyed pacifism of the English in fewer words than in the phrase, 'making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep'.

ezeflyer July 15th, 2008 8:37 pm

Are you feeling like you're all alone and crying out in the wilderness with your steadfast support for the Democrats and Obama?

After being ridiculed and ostracized for years when I worked with Republicans, it feels good to me to finally find a place, a progressive place where most us see the Democrats and the Republicans for what and who they really are: TRAITORS!

Vote for Cynthia McKinney, Nader or 3rd party!

I feel for you.

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains

And the women come out to cut up what remains,

Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains

And go to your God like a soldier ...

~ Kipling

Hvae the courage of your convictions. Do not base your vote on President or on your Congressional representative thta a vote for an Independent or Green Party candidate is a wasted vote.

Your vote is wasted if you vote Democrat. The vote for Grren or a third party , even if it does not sent a single person to Congress, sends a far more powerful message to Obama and to the Democratic party then does a vote for them.

If it means the Republicans in power again, then so be it. Vote green or a third party party the next time and the time after that. When those parties get 10 then 12, then 15 percent of the vote they WILL take notice.

When it becomes apparent to the republican voter that the mess created is not because of the liberals, the illegal immigrants or the socialists THEY will take notice.

Sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better.

The reason so many democrats thumb their nose at the voter and that they do so openly is that they get away with it.

You let them out of fear.

PK

Once I heard Obama say he planned on increasing military spending (i.e., adding 100K more soldiers in the coming years), I knew he was as asleep as any other candidate. Ego is always more interested in its own self-glory than helping others. Obama is more in love with the idea of being president than he is running with integrity, meaning he'll spin on a dime if he thinks it will get him elected. However, if Obama gets elected, we can at least expect a kinder/gentler rhetoric, but not meaningful change.

It's getting increasingly difficult to find arguments that allow one to vote for Obama. Is it enough that his opponent is McCain? It's getting more difficult to say "yes" to this question.

ezeflyer July 15th, 2008 8:37 pm
From today's Huffpost:

yea,yea, lesser-evilism....what's new?

sorry I couldn't resist but to post this, it's from another thread(Obama, Iraq and Afghan...) but speaks to your post

Arry July 15th, 2008 9:20 pm
wsws.org — Terrific series of postings. Now, what's to blame for the corporate stranglehold, the murder, the genocide, constitutional crimes, the smothering of culture and the environment?

Surely, not my vote for Cynthia McKinney?

Could it be the votes for those who promote the corporate stranglehold, the murder, the genocide, constitutional crimes, the smothering of culture and the environment? Those who live in fear that an idea outside the corporate nursery story will show its face somewhere? Nah, that would be too easy.

Had we begun earlier, I'm quite certain that the 12% figure would be low.

From today's Huffpost:

"Oh, Sweet Cynthia, Silence Thy Siren Song!

Posted July 15, 2008 | 06:41 PM (EST)

When Barack Obama opted out of public campaign financing, it was tough to condemn him. Only a fool would shut down the money-making machine his campaign had become. It was also understandable when he backed the death penalty for child rapists. In no way, shape, or form was he about to make the same mistake as Michael Dukakis, who refused to call for the death penalty for his wife's hypothetical rapist and killer. Even the faith-based initiatives, which Obama recently called for, are not necessarily objectionable, if kept free of proselytizing.

But Obama's vote to expand government's surveillance powers and extend immunity to the telecoms was in a category of its own. Especially since the issue flies under the radar of the public, which could give two hoots if he had voted nay. Perhaps, it could be argued, his vote was a strategem to create markers to call in Republicans at a future date. But it sure threw a wet blanket over a campaign on fire. Personally, though, I finally began to come to terms with it.

But, however late, I just came across the roll call for the FISA vote. Among the senators voting nay were those few, those principled: Thomas Dodd, Brian Dorgan, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Amy Klobuchar, and Pat Leahy. It also included centrist Democrats like Hillary Clinton (though if she were the nominee she may have voted yea like Obama) and. . . Chuck Schumer.

Barack Obama voted to the right of Chuck Schumer? Like Clinton, my home state's other senator voted to authorize an invasion of Iraq. Also, his newfound reputation as a "bank killer" (for speaking ill of IndyMac) with conservatives aside, he recently proposed a federal government bailout of subprime borrowers supposedly intended to help strapped homeowners. In fact, it was designed to benefit at least as much, if not more, lenders and Wall Street bankers. (Financial institutions have contributed over $2.5 million to his campaigns.)

In another example of Schumer in action, he was the first lawmaker to call for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. On the other hand, he not only voted to confirm Michael Mukasey to replace Gonzalez, but, along with Joe Lieberman, introduced him to the Senate Judiciary Committee in the first place.

Contemporaneous with my exposure to the FISA roll call, I heard the United States Green Party had, as expected, nominated Cynthia McKinney for president. Though she was a six-time member of the House of Representatives, her career was reduced by many to speaking out in support of the 9/11 Truth Movement and an altercation with a Capitol police officer.

But she was a vocal opponent of the Iraq War, as well as a harsh critic of the government's response to Hurricane Katrina and an advocate for its victims. Ms. McKinney once introduced a bill calling a ban on the use of depleted uranium in munitions. She even proposed her own articles of impeachment against Bush.

Fueling the temptation to vote for her is another -- the temptation to believe that the nation would never elect a stumblebum like John McCain. In other words, a vote for Ms. McKinney wouldn't hurt Obama, would it?

As one who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, I've never let anyone guilt-trip me into thinking I was complicit in Gore's loss. He had no trouble losing the campaign all by his then-lackluster self.

But the United States is chock full of voters who want no part of the hope Obama offers (delivery is, of course, another matter). Nor the responsibility it implies for improving their own lots as well as that of the nation. If I declined to vote for Obama and he lost, no matter how far right of center he hues in the coming weeks, there's no way I could shake off the blame this time."

pontificatinpapa July 15th, 2008 6:29 pm
"While Sen. Obama's idea/pledge or whatever you want to call it of moving 10,000 from Iraq to Afghanistan might have some merit, if we've been suffering more casualities there in the past 2 1/2 months than Iraq,..."

-what merit? Send the tired imperialist occupiers from Iraq to help them subjugate Afghanistan? What right do we have to be in either? No more imperialism. No more wars! If we didn't go around meddling in everyones business trying to steal their resources we wouldn't need to worry about terrorists! The US is the greatest creator of terrorism bar none.

If he does it bigger, better, harder and more expensive next time he will get a different result than the last several hundred occupations in history.

With what investor's money, Barack?

The U.S. doesn't have any money of its own, not anymore.

Amen to Little Brother: "As surely as what remains of the swallows return to Capistrano, Democratic presidential candidates will pop and swing that War Boner." Well said.

Obama spokesdummy says that decreasing troop strength in Iraq "will allow the US to properly address the growing threat from a resurgent al-Qaida in Afghanistan". I say prove that bland face faux professional sounding bullshit. "PROPERLY ADDRESS" - how authoratative, how calm, how effin presidential. The forked tongue is now officially equal opportunity.

Questions about the myths and lies propagated with such yuppie phraseology: Is there really a growing threat of Al-Qaida in Afghanistan? Is there a growing threat of warlords and opium growing? Is there a threat of a ruined economy and civilian death? Is there a threat that our US oil pipeline might not get built? Is Al-Qaida actually feasting in luxury in Saudi Arabia? Who is Bin Laden and where the hell is he? Are we creating even more hatred against ourselves by swinging that War Boner?

How are these things known? How are they documented? To whom is each of these things a threat? If any of them is a threat to the average US citizen, is the answer then more US troops in the mountains of Afghanistan? What makes anyone think we could accomplish anything useful that way? Or might the answer be something more intelligent and less arrogant and violent?

Obama is escalating the level of my contempt for him.

McCain: 100 years in Iraq!

Obama: 100 years in Afghanistan!!

True, Afghanistan: "Graveyard of Empires!"

We have learned nothing and we will elect another president who "knows nothing"!

Some good posts and interesting ideas.
I'm off fishing now, see you all later!
; )

Well done you guys,
There were some really great posts up at the top half of this thread, --you're a credit to C-D!

As to the be-suited warlords: --Osama Obarack and John MCaveman-- are we sure either of 'em will be allowed into office? Which of them has yet been through the obligatory ceremony at Yale with the 'Skull & Bones' satanic rights, ~ or which has cavorted 'in naked gay abandon' in the rich kid's paddling pool at Bohemian Grove?

Everyone knows you can't be a modern-day *Bogus-POTUS* without first undergoing a bit of that 'old black magic' stuff!
xx

leftk Nader made 'no difference' in electoral politics?

you remember 2000 when Nader supposedly 'cost' Joe Lieberman the chance to be the Dems' version of Dick Cheney in the White House, right?

Please don't vote unenthusiastically for Obama. Vote McKinney. She and Nader are the only true alternatives to fascism. Dumb Dem apologists will never accept that.

Correct me if I'm not exact with the troop figures but I'm hearing something like 36,000 of ours in Afghanistaan and somewhere between 144,000 and 156,000 in Irag.

While Sen. Obama's idea/pledge or whatever you want to call it of moving 10,000 from Iraq to Afghanistan might have some merit, if we've been suffering more casualities there in the past 2 1/2 months than Iraq, than the Moron of Pennsylvania Avenue ought to be sending them now and not waiting for the inauguration of a new president, whoever that might be.

As to Obama's plan to remove all but residual forces from Iraq by summer of 2010; there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the U. S. got there; why should there be after we make it clear that we are leaving? Train Iraqi forces? If these clowns aren't trained by now, they are untrainable.

I haven't been paying as much attention to cable news in the last two days as I usually do; has anyone heard any comments from either Rev. Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson on the New Yorker cover?

People who badmouth the candidacy of Ralph Nader or Cynthia Mckinney or any other left-wing presidential candidate invariably get hung up on the idea that "they can't win."

But that's not the point; at least not in terms of the near future.

The point is to *build* a genuinely progressive third party movement in the United States -- and that takes time.

That time-line could have started in 1968. Or perhaps 1972. Or perhaps 1976. Or perhaps 1980. ... Get the picture?

Let's say that instead of receiving 2.7% of the vote in 2000, Ralph Nader instead received 5% of the vote. (Certainly not an impossible number to imagine.)

Then, let's say, he tallied 7% to 8% in 2004.

And then let's say that this year Nader, McKinney and all other saimilar-minded left-wing candidates, combined, got 10-12% of the presidential vote.

Do you think 10% of the electorate voting for genuinely leftist presidential candidates wouldn't be a political force to be reckoned with NO MATTER WHO'S IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

You better believe that 10-12% would be a political force to be recokoned with!

QUESTION: What's pulling Obama to the left? ANSWER: At this point, very little. Why do you think he has so cynically and so calculatingly moved to the right in recent days? An Obama victory would be a triumph of form over substance, hype over action, corporate influence over democratic values.

In short, if Obama wins, democracy loses.

As far as Corporate America and the economic elite are concerned, an Obama victory would represent a triumph for business as usual. ... Do you know how happy they would be, how *delighted* they would be with Obama's "happy face" out there shucking and jiving while exploitation, domestic as well as international, continues unabated?

Or, put another way -- democracy doesn't thrive when evil prevails, lesser or greater.
Because clearly, *that* is what you're voting for if you pull the lever for Obama -- a lesser evil.

Instead, your vote can go towards building a real alternative in American politics.

Let me make my point another way, by posing the following question to commondreams.org posters. ... Would you rather have a *right-leaning* Barack Obama in the White House or, by contrast, John McCain in the White House BUT with Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader and all other truly left-wing candidates garnering 10% to 12% of the November vote?

If leftists candidates this November -- McKinney and Nader chief among them -- were to garner 10-12% of the vote, McCain or Obama or any other corporate-controlled candidate would *HAVE* to pay attention to their progressive agenda.

Of course that 10-12% tally is made difficult by the fact that the building of a progressive alternative to corporate-controlled politics is way overdue. It should have started *years* ago.

As it is now, Corporate America and their dutiful politcal mouthpieces (a.k.a. the Republican and Democratic Party) smugly turn their back on the (complicit) DPAers --the "Democratic Party Apologists."

At some point the DRAers will wake up to their complicit. Hopefully, sooner rather than later.

The U.S. created the Taliban with the help of the Pakistani Military and ISI (Pakistani Intelligence Agency). Its their responsibility to kill this monster. Every innocent Afghan death lies at the feet of the Americans, Pakistanis and their monster (Taliban). I dont care how many fu__ing Marines die, we need to clean up this mess we created.

We need to do this by not bombing wedding parties to begin with. We need to cut off ALL funding to the hated ISI and Pakistans military. We need to enforce the Pakistanis to take action by making them forcibly destroy the ISI. We also need to ensure we have the complete co-operation of ALL regional countries (Russia, Iran, Pakistan, India, China) in solving this issue.

Simply walking away from this mess may be a convenient 'liberal' talking point, but its immoral to do so. We cannot treat people with such complete disdain and shirk our responsibility.

A true Progressive response to Afghanistan would be to genuinely involve the regional and World powers to deal with this situation and also put our lives on the line to solve this problem we helped create.

Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, April, 2006:

"We invaded Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, the ring leader behind 9/11. This effort has been virtually abandoned. Even though the Taliban was removed from power in Afghanistan, most of the country is now occupied and controlled by warlords who manage a drug trade bigger than ever before. Removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan actually served the interests of Iran, the Taliban's arch enemy, more than our own."

Ralph Nader on Iran, paraphrased: get the f**k out ASAP.

Vote BO or JM and the only "change" will be for the way, way worse...

Yep - just another posturing war monger. Sorta against a war the US is losing, but never against war.

leftk:

"copenhagen sounds a little right wing when he talks about State's rights."

Not sure what you meant.

I don't really care to identify with a left or a right wing. I am a very huge fan of the Bill of Rights, and I believe less government is better government- at every level, starting at Federal, before, Heaven forbid, we have to start at a Global level.

Let's be hard on the Democratic and Republican politicians, but nicer to each other. Name calling, crying "I told you so" and the like does not persuade people to open up to a new idea. Voters disillusioned with Obama need to feel welcome. Invite folks to visit:

http://www.votenader.org

Jeanne Lafferty

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Tuesday preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon was in America's vital interests and vowed to use all tools to pressure Tehran."

All tools? Like removing Israel's nukes?

Now will people realize that Obama is just another CFR/PNAC/Bilderberg/Carlysle tool?

Various reports about Osama bin Laden indicate that he is dead ... and quite a few years ago.

Also various experts have clearly stated that various videos and audios alleged to be of and by Osama bin Laden and used when various headlines were causing discomfort for the Bush Administration, putting the Nation on orange alert or red alert for imminent terrorist dangers, were FAKE. The facial measurements didn't match early videos or photos of Osama or the voice was somebody else's.

Supposedly Osama bin Ladin required regular dialysis for his diseased, dysfunctioning kidneys. Hard to hook up a dialysis machine in a cave, let alone carry it on a donkey or on one's back through mountain passes, etc.

This government of ours has scammed us. 9-11 was an inside job, and everything disastrous has flowed from it. How come a Pentagon memo that briefly surfaced and disappeared with attack or invasion plans for Afghanistan was dated September 8, 2001? I saw it and read it with my own eyes. Oops! where did it go? Must
be that there are fortunetellers and prophets in the Pentagon.

TREASONOUS acts have been committed and blinked at by hundreds who represent us.

Evidently that includes Barack Obama because I assume he reads. Books, web-sites and articles all over the place are easily accessed, and unless he limits himself to non-controversial offerings, he knows.

Bending with the wind and finding ways to compromise is a good thing, but if one has to sell one's soul in order to be President, the job isn't worth it. Faustian bargains have a way of backfiring.

We are all currently in the midst of explosive backfiring. And it seems, for all the world, we're just going to get more of the same.

TRUTH, ... the kind that would set us and a lot of others free ... would be so refreshing.

So long Barack, whose name means The Lightning---that flash in the pan was about the duration of my belief that you were anything smarter or different. Sent my best $50 to Nader the other day. We're going to learn the end of empire in a way much harder than the USSR did.

poopdeck July 15th, 2008 3:30 pm
"It is striking and encouraging how the support for Senator Obama on so-called "progressive" websites is dwindling..."

-it was a lot more interesting in the good old days when the DPAs (Democratic Party apologists) were hailing Obama as the Messiah. Any bad-mouthing of Obama in those days would lead to a lengthy lecture on how progressive he was and how many hours of community service he had served, along with his antiwar speech of 2001.

Now, you blast the hell out of the Obama and the Democrats and at best you get half a yawn of agreement, and then they join in.

The DPAs are drying up and withering like weeds in the scorching hot desert sun during the summer. No rain is on the horizon either. For DPAs it's going to be a long, dry, and hot summer.

Washington is attempting to deal with accelerating 21st Century problems with 18th Century governmental structures. Even if saints were elected in November they could not succeed in making the Federal Government work. It is structurally doomed to failure. It cannot act rapidly or coherently and problems stack up one on top of the other. It simply has to fail and be reborn.

In a previous post in this thread, "poopdeck" wrote:

"It is striking and encouraging how the support for Senator Obama on so-called 'progressive' websites is dwindling compared to say six months ago when everything about him was 'hanna'and blind genuflection."

Yeah, how 'bout that?

Where did they all go I wonder, those Obama-loving liberals?

No doubt the movers & shakers behind Commondreams.org will dutifully and blindly endorse Obama for president. Heavens forbid that a supposedly "progressive" website (NOT!) should support a progressive candidate, e.g., Nader or McKinney.

The only "progress" the liberals are making is their ongoing complicity in the destruction of America. As far as Corporate America is concerned, it's right on schedule.
In fact, if you were to ask Corporate America 30 years ago how great their power would be today, what's come to past would no doubt have surpassed their wildest dreams!

Meanwhile, stay tuned for just how far Obama moves to the right before the Democrats blow yet another election.

Vote your conscience. McKinney, Nader, or any socialist in sight. They're the ones who remain loyal to their principles. ... A revolutionary idea, I know, but there you have it.

Obama is not a progressive nor is he a peace person. He is an insider in the club of Empire and he will wield that club. He will be a more competent imperialist, not a peacemaker. He also knows that the US is increasingly irrelevant and that all we have left is the largest military on the planet. He plans to use that to maintain the illusion global dominance. The growing crisis of ecological collapse will provide plenty of opportunities for repression and military intervention.

YES !!!

VOTE NADER !!!
VOTE NADER !!!
VOTE NADER !!!
VOTE NADER !!!

Maybe he should swing by Russia. Perhaps someone there can remember how to succeed in afghanistan.

The real Obama is now emerging, and it is not what people have been hoping for.

His whole pitch has been that he will use "better judgment" before he commits any more troops. It was the only attribute he had going for him - and he has just lost it (with me)

He needs to be required to answer the simple question - what is our present mission in Afghanistan? All he has ever said is that it is to "get OBL".

That's about the dumbest "mission" imaginable. Unless you are Caligula re-incarnate, you don't wage war (and kill thousands of people) to "get" one man.

Besides, OBL is long gone from Afghanistan, and al Qaeda now operates out of Pakistan (and around the world), not Afghanistan. Also, the al Qaeda fighters in Afghniatan and the Taliban are no threat to the United States. they are only a threat to our military in Afghanistan - and Obama wants to send more to be shot at.

Obama's new pitch to move our Iraq forces to Afghanistan sounds a lot like the cowboy decision maker we look forward to replacing.

Ugh !!!!!

Why more troops?

Maybe because if you want to get elected today in the good ol' USA, you have to wave the flag most belligerently and pander to Xtians, Zionists, oilmen and war-profiteers.

But that's one contest Democrats can't win. Republicans are way ahead of them in that respect.

If you don't like it, vote for Nader, McKinney, Paul, etc.

But why beat around the Bush and take that circular route? Why not vote directly for McCain/Bush.

Things may have to get worse before they get better...if we survive the Republican's WWIII.

who are these people?

I've always liked the Jeffersonian idea of keeping power as local as possible. It should also be limited to what's only really neccessary of course. But if you got to have some governmental power, keep it as local as possible.

I can at least talk to a city council-person. If neccessary, I can help organize a campaign to defeat one and feel it has some chance of succeeding. But you can't even talk to a Senator, and it takes about $15,000,000.00 to defeat one.

I don't need to be convinced that voting for anymoe will lead to something positive. They do not count the votes anymore, since at least as far back as JFK in the 60's. I do not know how to break this hold the elites have on our and all the other countries. We are legion and they are few, the problem is we don't know who "they" are. It sure isn't cheney or bush that's in charge for sure, but who? Wish we could figure that out and bomb the hell out of them.

leftk ... remember the idea of this country to begin with was to have no standing army at all. The founding fathers believed that a standing army was a threat to liberty. And they felt war was the time when the government attacked liberty in the name of national security.

The original idea was to have volunteer militias that could respond defensively when needed. But the rulers would never have had an army to go around the world creating mischief with.

BTW, there were a lot of Obamabots out here for awhile. I know, I used to argue with them. But now that we are seeing Barack "Ronald Reagan" Obama, they seem to have gone away or gotten very quiet.

Help build the Green Party. That's the value of working for, supporting and voting for Ms. McKinney.

Admittedly, I like her. I used to live in GA, volunteered on her campaigns, and I've heard her speak many times. Cynthia McKinney has always impressed me. For that reason alone I'd recommend voting for her.

But more important is that we start to build a new political party and a movement that represents us. Its clear that the Democrats lie to us to get our support, the follow policies much closer to the Republicans than to where we are. So to me its clear that we must begin to build something new.

That's the advantage of supporting Ms. McKinney and the Greens. Help build a new party. Votes for the Greens might get ballot access for another party in some states. Enough votes nationwide get the Greens federal matching funds.

I also like Mr. Nader. I've also volunteered for his campaign in the past. And I've heard him speak and been impressed. But supporting an independent candidate is a one-shot deal, while supporting the Greens builds for the future.

It is striking and encouraging how the support for Senator Obama on so-called "progressive" websites is dwindling compared to say six months ago when everything about him was "hosanna" and blind genuflection. For more than one year I have warned the "hosannites" that Senator Obama has always talked about "redeployment" of our troops in Iraq. In one interview with the Chicago Tribune he suggested that they might be "redeployed" to the Kurdish area of Iraq.
When a military commander uses the term "redeployment" he means "take the troops out of front A or combat area B and send them to fight at front C or combat area D. He does not intend to end war. Hence why are so many of you surprised or angry that Obama wants to transfer the "big killing fields" from Iraq to Afghanistan/Pakistan? That is totally consistent with what he has always stood for, namely neo-colonialism and imperialism. He meant "redeployment" all along and not "bring them home."
Just for fun, ask your friends: "what is the name of the main shipping port of Afghanistan on the Indian Ocean" and be stunned by the answers. Well, Afghanistan does not have a border with that ocean and the nearest big port is Karachi in Pakistan. Grasp what a logistic nightmare Afghanistan could become for the US military planners. If you want to go via land you have the wonderful choice between: Iran, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, or Pakistan! Good luck. In the end you will be forced to provide by air which is extremely costly.
Sure, Afghanistan has fewer inhabitants than Iran but its area is larger and much more mountainous. 40,000 US soldiers of which perhaps only 50% is "combat" may not be enough, especially if some of our allies, such as the English and Dutch decide that they have had enough and leave us holding the bag.
Whereas Iraq has a budding national army and police force, no such forces exist in Afghanistan and none will appear soon because the warlords and the Talibans will not allow that. The consequence is that Obama is talking about an "Obama-surge" which will hit a vacuum and will have to last for many years, perhaps 100. Afghanistan will become his war and it will be much worse for him than Iraq is for Bush because the sign in Kabul reads "no exit."
It can only end if Obama's paymasters (AIPAC obviously is not even interested now and considers going to Afghanistan instead of Iran a big mistake) get tired of the war in Afghanistan or, less likely, we get kicked out by the Afghanis.

Note carefully that while the headline refers to Afghanistan, the quote from Obama refers to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Ah, the Democrats idea of a peace candidate.

Is this the best America can do -- elect a slick hustler, Barack Obama -- a dyed in the wool corporatist -- a mouthpiece for the economic elite -- a hack politician whose only asset is that he's "somewhat better" than the Republican nominee?

How many times is this going to happen?!!! How far does America have to move to the right before the liberal establishment admits that it is their "VOTE FOR THE LESSER OF THE TWO EVILS" philosophy that has caused the political system in the United States over the past 30 years to dramatically lurch to the right?

I've yet to see one liberal mainstream media commentator take responsibility for the consequences of their "vote for the lesser of the two evils" prescription. ... It's been an unmitigated disaster.

Ever since he captured the nomination, Obama has, cynically and calculatingly, moved to the right. But why should he worry? Either he'll win -- on his own rightward-leaning terms -- or else if he doesn't, big deal, the Democratic Party doesn't seem to mind if they lose an election, so long as Corporate America keeps backing them financially.

The inescapable truth -- that the liberal establishment keeps trying to escape -- is that *both* parties feed from the same corporate trough -- the Democrats as greedily as the Republicans.

It's a corrupt system! And as long as people keep voting for one of the two corporatist parties, things will only get worse, AS THEY HAVE BEEN GETTING WORSE OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS! When are the liberal going to wake up to that fact?

If a rightward-leaning Obama takes office in January, the general population will continue to suffer but, hey, that's just what Corporate America wants:

... a kinder, gentler face at the helm while the same old mass-murdering imperialism continues nonstop;

... a kinder, gentler face at the helm while the looting of the national treasury continues unabated;

... a kinder, gentler face at the helm while the gulf between the rich and the poor and the rich and the middle class grows and grows and grows.

See the following for more on our great liberal leaders -- you know, the ones securely lodged in Corporate America's deep pocket -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/jack-j12.shtml

Afghanistan YES
Iraq NO

Anyone who votes for a known liar does not deserve that vote, but deserves to be a slave of liars. If the voter does not have principles, don't expect the politicians to have any. Vote anyone, do anything, but vote for a known liar.

Hey Lorax,

Chill out on the "I told you so" rant!

I don't know if too many folks on this website thought that Obama was a progressive super-hero. I certainly didn't.

But there was something at some point that seemed to motivate young people in something like a progressive direction. I don't think it was terribly wrong to harbor some excitment about the fact that young people were getting involved.

I may (very unenthusiastically) vote for Obama, I may vote for McKinney and I may stay home, but seriously I don't see how Nader's candidacy is relevant. He has run for pres. 12 or 16 years in a row and has not made a lick of difference in electoral politics. He didn't even manage to lose the election for Gore (Gore did that himself). I need to be convinced that voting for McKinney will lead to something positive. Anyone?

WOW!
Ok all of you that jumped the gun supporting Obama can take your foot out of your mouth now and wipe the egg off your face. Now you know better.
Nader is still in it and there's a chance to vote for something other than endless war and death.
There is NO DIFFERENCE between Republican and Democrat anymore. They are all just self-serving panderers.
Get educated before you toot the horn on a candidate next time.

copenhagen July 15th, 2008 2:06 pm
"If we'd start taking care of our own instead of worrying about the neighbors, I firmly believe we could turn these United States country into OUR FREE United States once again.

I believe this is one of the harms of a large centralized Federal Government. If we had a bit more State's Rights and a little less Federal infringement, there would be no call, much less resources to force the world to submit."

*****
I'm no fan of the Federal gov't and don't think any true progressive should be. But copenhagen sounds a little right wing when he talks about State's rights. Localized power is still power and I don't trust right wingers at any level (federal, state, local, interpersonal).

Anybody remember Bhutto referring to someone- as the man who murdered Osama Bin Laden- in her David Frost interview shortly before she was assassinated?

rtdrury July 15th, 2008 1:05 pm
All progressives need is 10% of the vote to catalyze the revolution.

10 percent doesn't sound like a revolution. If anything it might make the dems fight a little harder against the "wacko, fringe left"

Electoral politics cannot be and has never been the basis of revolution. You need to get a hell of a lot more than 10% mobilized before you can call it a revolution. Only after people are mobilized will a progressive candidate be viable. vote for Nader or McKinney or McCain or Obama I don't care. Just take to the streets!

I for one prefer a non-interventionalist foriegn policy. I am sick and tired of propping up Israel, thereby pissing off the rest of the Arab world, and then trying to subdue the Arabs in the process.

Let them fight it out.

If we'd start taking care of our own instead of worrying about the neighbors, I firmly believe we could turn these United States country into OUR FREE United States once again.

I believe this is one of the harms of a large centralized Federal Government. If we had a bit more State's Rights and a little less Federal infringement, there would be no call, much less resources to force the world to submit.

Would we be able to hold our own in case of attack? Damn Skippy we would. You come into a Country where every able bodied man and woman keeps or has access to firearms, and you try to take it over. Tell me how that works out for ya.

Rtdrury mentioned above that the progressive platform is well-developed. (rtdrury July 15th, 2008 1:05 pm)

I agree. Between the platform of the Green Party (being rewritten this summer), and the platforms of Nader, Kucinich, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and the platforms of the state progressive caucuses in state Democratic parties, there IS a well-developed progressive platform.

That is the standard for judging the extent to which Obama's policies are actually progressive. His approach to Afghanistan in particular, and to foreign policy in general, is devoid of principled adherence to international laws. Yet the Constitution says that "treaties made" are the "supreme law of the land) in Article 6 (2). Obama taught constitutional law and knows this. So he is violating the Constitution when he threatens to attack Iran, Pakistan, and when he escalates illegal occupations.

The US could have tried to extradite Bin Laden from Afghanistan, but refused, even as their government offered, not once but twice.

The occupations of Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq are illegal and immoral. True progressives oppose them on principled legal grounds.

I suspect the challenge of winning where others have failed has fired his imagination (just like Lyndon Johnson thought French efforts to hold on to Vietnam were of no relevance to a "guns and butter" superpower i.e. USA). In which case, the following history lessons will be wasted on him, but are listed here for academic reasons anyway:

First Anglo-Afghan War
Second Anglo-Afghan War
Third Anglo-Afghan War
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

First FISA, now this. George Carlin's decision, made long before his death, to simply stop participating completely in so-called elections, looks now like the only sane alternative.

And someone go tell that fool Obama what happened to the British in Afghanistan in the 19th century and the Soviet Union in the 20th (plus a host of others). Or does he think so much of himself that he feels he can make the United States the exception?

Democratic voters always choose oblivion, they'll still line up behind the obamination even with incredibly superior candidates like McKinney and Nader on the ballot.

Even after Bush cocksucker Pelosi stabbed them in the back in 2006, with help from Reid, Conyers and the rest of DLC/DNC mobsters, and ESCALATED the war in Iraq instead of ending it, as they had promised to voters, the retards are still ready to be fooled again.

Even after FISA, they're still ready to be fooled again.

What kind of mental disease are these people afflicted with?

The DPAs (Democratic Party apologists) are out in force disparately trying to spin this election as a choice between polar opposites. One supposedly progressive antiwar candidate against a conservative right wing prowar candidate, which of course, is preposterous.

The reality is that both are front men representing the exact same big-moneyed interests. Hence all the backpedaling and lurching to the right by Obama. The primaries are clearly over.

The Democratic strategy is now to cry wolf and present lesser-evilist arguments when all else fails. The DPAs have their work cut out for them.

The Afghan people have endured decades of war. Just build the oil pipeline through it already, get the hell out, and leave people alone to live in peace, for Christ sakes. The war-loving U.S. can leave a lower number of special op troops to police the northern Afghan/Pakistan border where bin Laden is suspected of hiding out, if he is still alive, that is, and if the U.S. wants to capture him. I doubt if the Bush Family Evil Empire really wants to capture bin Laden, however, since that would take the excuse away from the war profiteers for the very profitable "war on terror."

Speaking of Empires, the Roman Empire fell after discovering it could not maintain military expansion on the bank roll of its own citizens. The American empire is gasping its final breath.

Hand the country back to the Taliban...

Barak Obama is not an antiwar candidate. That is a lie designed for saps to swallow. If he were genuinely opposed to war he wouldn't religiously vote to fund it.

"will focus on the global strategic interests of the United States,..."
read; the interests of US Big Money Inc. not ours

"As president, I would pursue a new strategy and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan."
-this the Democratic Party antiwar candidate the DPAs (Democratic Party apologists) claim will save us

"...growing threat from a resurgent al-Qaida in Afghanistan".
-From Obama's website:

"He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

That is the fine print weasel to keep us killing and dying for the profits of US Big Money Inc.

..."essential to meeting our broader strategic goals,..."
-world domination by threat of annihilation

"His Republican rival, John McCain,..."
-rival or twin

...clearest points of division between Obama and McCain,..."
-bullshit, differences are in tactics not goals

"...residual" force left in place to fight al-Qaida and train Iraqi forces."
-fine print weasel, troops stay!

A vote for Obama is a vote for war! Vote for Cynthia McKinney of the Greens!

VOTE FOR NADER!
Spread the word: we have hope in NADER!
There are enough disgruntled citizens for this word-of-mouth campaign.
Bush once had overwhelming support of the masses- that didn't change just because of his policies, because the media has supported him and kept most from even knowing the depths of his depravity.
How did support for Bush decline? Not by what most people heard about in the news.
People having conversations, sharing thoughts and feelings, is what has proven most effective in destroying the false perceptions about what's really going on in this country. People you wouldn't expect to have a clue become intrigued when they hear all is not as it appears. And these same people, thanks to the internet, when told there are alternative news sources, are checking things out for themselves- and then, the conversations just keep flowing.
Spread the word: if we want to see positive change- and soon- we need a true hero, Ralph Nader, at the helm of this sinking ship we still call, "America".
Obama talks a sweet pile of sh!t, but he's bought and paid for like the rest of those politicians within the two major has-beens political parties (time for some new ones- and how about a LABOR PARTY, in this country of ravaged, disenfranchised workers).

Obama is just a figurehead. We have, in reality, a government by the rich and for the rich--Afganistan, Iran, Iraq, etc. offer a tasty and rich meal of gas, oil and the routes they travel.

Obama and his masters are simply following the money...

fanny666: "As far as I can tell, Nader doesn't even mention Afghanistan policy on his current website."

The progressive approach for dealing with bin Laden is straightforward: First implementing a paradigm shift in US policiy away from the capitalist, imperialist, militarist, zionist agenda that cultivates terrorism, then building a multinational SWAT type police unit to pursue, capture and prosecute bin Laden as a criminal.

The progressive platform is well developed, mature, and solid as a rock. More solid than any other politicial platform. All progressives need is 10% of the vote to catalyze the revolution.

The next imperial chimp, O'Bama, is already attempting to undermine the public will in France and Germany. This chimp is a neocon's dream. Ready, eager and able to promote the neocon agenda, while at the same time hypnotising the sheeple with charisma. No surprise - he was expensive - they played the race card they've held up their sleeve for some time. God Bless the United States of America! We have the talent in political strategy don't we? Never mind that the result is oppression and enslavement, murder and plunder on a global scale.

Little crosses
Row on row
In the fields
Where poppies grow.

The only way to 'win'
is not to play.

I hate Obama.

I feel so badly for the people of Afghanistan. Recently, I saw a great documentary, "Beyond The 11th", where two 9/11 widows go to Afghanistan and create a non-profit to help women (specifically) "war" (occupation) widows. 10,000 more "troops" (soldiers) means more death and destruction to Afghanis. WHY are people still supporting Obama? It's time to WAKE UP and vote outside the two (sic) party system - in all elections, not just for President. McKinney or Nader in 2008.

I'd rather have our troops in Afghanistan than in Iraq. Even Nader said he'd have sent troops to Afghanistan after 9/11/2001. As far as I can tell, Nader doesn't even mention Afghanistan policy on his current website. Just the cost, not what he'd do there.

As surely as what remains of the swallows return to Capistrano, Democratic presidential candidates will pop and swing that War Boner.

Believe it or not, a few clueless corporate media infotainwhores still characterize Obama as "anti-war". But of course, wiser observers understand that the transplendent Obama isn't about to kow-tow to the Anti-War Left.

Obama is a futuristic post-partisan leader who won't be trapped or bound by progressive and populist blocs and interest groups. He's very much his own man, which is to say a neo-liberal, warmongering conservative Democrat.

In a way, Obama's warmongery parallels his Cosby-riffic preaching against black daddies sticking their things into anything that stands still for a minute. He knows better than to stick his War Boner into Iraq: sloppy seconds.

But he's more than willing to make a go of it in Afghanistan, even if it means resuscitating all of the lame and dubious rationalizations for unilaterally invading it in the first place.

Remember? Osama, hyped by President Unitard as an evil super-villain-- an amalgamation of Jesse James, Lex Luthor, and all of the James Bond flick super-villains put together-- escaped with his gang to Hole-in-the-Wall, Afghanistan. So naturally we had to send a posse after him!

And now, after the usual run of tragic, pointless deaths, including blowing a few weddings and other family gatherings into bloody smithereens, Obama wants to get SERIOUS about "winning" that "war".

If I didn't know that the brilliant, erudite, intellectual Obama was taking this position, why, I'd assume it was merely the deranged spewing of a contemptible warmongering ass.

If Obama wants a job with the iron triangle he's going to have to get on board and support the "good war" effort. He's been warned from the get go about this, and he is struggling to get out of his media inspired salwar and swear his allegiance to the burning of Bin Ladenstan with the weapons of God.

Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires