Afghanistan: Graveyard of Empires

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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...

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).

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!

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.

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."

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.

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?

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?

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

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 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 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!

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

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).

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.

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?

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.

Afghanistan YES
Iraq NO

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

who are these people?

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.

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 !!!!!

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

YES !!!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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?

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

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.

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

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...