Hey Enojada,

You are dead wrong and you probably know it.
If Barack Obama is not worthy of your trust, no one is.

rasmus: News flash! Obama is not even remotely worthy of my trust. He's a liar to the bone.

If Barack Obama is not worthy of your trust, no one is.

I think I would try and defend Obama as to some of the claims made here, but in a lot of ways it's not worth it.

While I'm not sure that he's a Chicago school Freedmanist, he is a neo-liberal. We don't need to split hairs, because his economic policies will be awful.

I don't think Obama is a con-man. Still he is a politician. Maybe Obama was giving some of the same policy descriptions in February that he is giving now, but in February his rhetoric and attitude seemed more progressive he was emphasizing change that mattered, change that we can believe in-- his policies which are now becoming clearer don't offer change that anyone should want to believe in. I think he is responsible for cloaking something very much the same in a different rhetorical package-- that's nearly a lie. So whether he's a liar or not, I don't trust him.

Obama is a proven liar. Do we really want another four years of lying "leadership"?

He is not worthy of the position. Do not vote for a Republican posing as a Democrat.

Come on, folks, please: Democratic supporters claim Obama votes to fund the war in order to protect the troops! How can you possibly be serious?

That's like keeping a fireman in a fire to avoid the possibility of him getting killed in an accident on the way home! This crap is laughable. Get a grip!

zzz asks, " Why do those who support Obama choose not to care about about his actions in the Senate?" That's not the only thing his supporters choose not to care about. They don't care that he's a hypocrite, a liar, a corporate shill, and anti-constitutional constitutional scholar, a warhawk prying the vote from gullible doves, a media fabrication, a President Kerry move-to-the-right-to-get-elected Democrat... Apparently the fact that he is not literally McCain (despite the fact that he's trying to be more and more like McCain every day) is sufficient reason to vote for him. I don't feel like prostituting myself again to Republican-lite.

dougnwagner I have yet to have a Democratic Party apologist explain the following. Actually, one tried, RSJ but did a miserable job. Perhaps you can be the first.
Why do Democrats lead by Obama, their candidate for president:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war
2) Refuse to impeach Bush
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirm right-wingers into the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war and get away with it
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10) Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here:______________________

I won't be holding my breath.

ps Ramus11 also tried (9) by incorrectly claiming, as you have that the Fisa capitulation was a "compromise" Since when does a compromise involve giving the other side more than they asked for? Bush aides bragged that they got more than they bargained for. Ramus11 also claims (1) Obama votes to fund the war in order to protect the troops which is ludicrous.

I wasn't in the Senate either. Either were millions of other Americans. Are you going to question our loyalty? Obama's oppostion was well known and public. It was not a popular position at the time, it was not an obviously good career move. It was principled and I give him that respect and you should too.

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

- President Barack Obama, Chicago 2002

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/28/7343/

dougnwagner July 23rd, 2008 2:34 pm

I was under the impression the Senator Obama wasn't a member of the Senate when the vote was taken to give the little snot power to premptively attack another country?

How can anyone be sure how he would have voted if he had been?

Lasciateognisperanza,

I believe that Stupidass Chief Chickenhawk War Criminal George Walker Bush would leave the U.S. military personnel in Iraq there even if the funding were successfully cut off. He would then blame the Democrats in congress for the ensuing bloodbath until he died.

Bush impeachment proceedings should have begun long ago. The congress should be ashamed that they have let him go unimpeached for so long.

Rich and Tailcap,

i am not soliciting a position in any township administration much less a presidential one. The truth is, you are both stooges for the Socialist Equality Party whose top-down leninist organizing model are proven failures in the post-Seattle world. Do yourself a favor and vote for Obama. Or are you to busy violently overthrowing Wal-Mart?

The first time I criticized you Rich was over you denial of the well-known genocide that occurred in Bosnia and Kosovo.

And by the way Tailcap, I know you're not stupid enough to believe the bullcrap you write.

Of course Obama opposed the war. And we should continue to focus on that. It speaks to judgment. Something your propaganda lacks. And BTW as far as I know I was never featured on the Obama site. I just happen to care about this country. And self-indulged egos like you reaffirm why I am voting for Obama.

"There are those who offer up easy answers. They will assert that Iraq is George Bush's war, it's all his fault. Or that Iraq was botched by the arrogance and incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Or that we would have gotten Iraq right if we went in with more troops, or if we had a different proconsul instead of Paul Bremer, or if only there were a stronger Iraqi Prime Minister.

These are the easy answers. And like most easy answers, they are partially true. But they don't tell the whole truth, because they overlook a harder and more fundamental truth. The hard truth is that the war in Iraq is not about a catalog of many mistakes - it is about one big mistake. The war in Iraq should never have been fought…

Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…

We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.

That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, the next President of the United States

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php

Lasciateognisperanza, seeing as you are a law professor can you please clarify how the Democrats could end the war is if they chose to?

Rasmus11 wrote:
"They [the troops] are there because Stupidass Chief Chickenhawk War Criminal George Walker Bush is an evil, psychopathic, power freak with no regard for human life who had his heart set on invading Iraq and used the events of 9-11-2001 as a pretense to do so. He has set the USA on the road to ruin."

Well, there are a number of means to stop that situation, such as cutting the funds for the continuation of the war, and funding only the troops' safe "redeployment" back home, or impeaching the President (whom you yourself consider a criminal), as provided for by the Constitution… Can you agree that those who have the means to stop a criminal enterprise yet fail to do so, or choose not to do so, are perhaps also to be blamed a bit? You are very good at answering Tailcap's questions; I hope you will answer mine, too, when you have a moment!

Cheers!

Ramus11, thanks again for the response. You write: Unfortunately, they ARE there now, and they are woefully ill-treated by the current administration. Cutting their funding would not instantly transport them home safely. It would just make the time they remain there even less bearable.

Ramus11 do you think it would be possible for the Democrats to put Bush on notice that his war was started on false premises and was not sanctioned by the UN making it an illegal preemptive attack on a sovereign nation not sanctioned by international law.

Your argument that they ARE there now was also used during Vietnam. We all know how that ended and how bankrupt that argument turned out to be.

Would it be possible for Democrats to say to Bush, (who has extremely low approval ratings and almost no public support) that the majority of the people demand an end to the war and that he is to commence a withdrawal and the funding is to used only for airline tickets home. And that if he refuses he no longer will get money to kill people. What could Bush possibly do? If he has no money to kill people he would HAVE to bring them home. Wouldn't he?

Specifically do you think the Democrats have the power to do that? Could if they so chose? What is in the Constitution that would prevent them from doing it?

Tailcap,
You asked several questions.

Tailcap: "But Rasmus if you are concerned with the troops being in harms way wouldn't it be better for them if instead of keeping them there you only fund an airline ticket home?"

Rasmus11 REPONSE:
YES, it would be better for them if instead of keeping them there you only fund an airline ticket home.

Tailcap: "The Democrats control the Congress and they do not have to fund the continuation of the war. Aren't they safer at home?"

Rasmus11 REPONSE:
YES, they would be safer at home.

Tailcap: "Why are they there Rasmus?"

Rasmus11 REPONSE:
They are there because Stupidass Chief Chickenhawk War Criminal George Walker Bush is an evil, psychopathic, power freak with no regard for human life who had his heart set on invading Iraq and used the events of 9-11-2001 as a pretense to do so. He has set the USA on the road to ruin.

Tailcap: "Rasmus wouldn't it be better for them to come home to their families and love ones who are probably worried sick about them getting killed in a war started on false pretenses? Please think about this. Thanks for your time Ramus."

Rasmus11 REPONSE:
YES, it would be better for them to come home to their families and love ones who are probably worried sick about them getting killed in a war started on false pretenses.

Unfortunately, they ARE there now, and they are woefully ill-treated by the current administration. Cutting their funding would not instantly transport them home safely. It would just make the time they remain there even less bearable.

dougnwagner is not stupid enough to believe the crap he writes. He is engaging in deception. He is a law student in Florida and was featured on the cover of Sen. Obama's website a few months ago. My guess is that once he graduates with a law degree he will be offered a position or he will solicit a position in Obama's administration.

dougnwagner is no fool, he's looking out for number one, himself.

dougnwagner writes (4:29 am), "...We should focus on who voted for this war, and who opposed it. Obama opposed it people. Get your head out of your ass."

- This is vintage doug wagner, well-known to longtime CD posters as a pompous gasbag, a liar, & an Obama apologist. Here dougie is calling what Obama did "opposition." What that actually means is that once, while still a state senator in Illinois 6 years ago, Obama gave one speech where he expressed the view that the invasion of Iraq was ill-advised.

That's not "opposing the war." Obama never spoke out against US militarism, nor against the fundamental immorality of the invasion. He has never said that the Bush admin lied our country into war, never called the war "criminal," nor called for accountability for the Bush criminals whose brainchild the war was. He has NEVER said that the war was basically for oil. Much to the contrary, he has voted to support every single refunding of the ongoing violence. He has been virtually silent on the issue of torture, and actually claimed that the "War on Terror" -- a thoroughly bogus construct -- justifies government spying on citizens, and retroactive granting of immunity to the telecoms who helped Bush do the spying.

The first time I ever so dougie wagner post on CD, he accused me of smearing and maligning the troops. The truth is that I've never said a single word against the US troops, whom I view mostly as victims of the Bush admin's depredations. But dougie simply made up the idea that I'd "smeared the troops," so he could have something to say.

This is the guy that's telling us to "get our heads out of our asses."

rasmus11 July 22nd, 2008 8:29 pm
rasmus11 July 22nd, 2008 3:40 pm writes "He is personally, the closest thing you will ever see to an absolutely exemplary individual human being."
Tailcap asked: 'Why did Obama vote to make it legal for the government to spy on us in violation of the 4th Amendment and grant Telecoms immunity for breaking the law?'
Rasmus11 answers:
"This is what Barack Obama said about that:
'Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program'"
----------------------------------------------

Yes, Rasmus. Hard to believe, but he really said that. Again, as a person who used to teach law, he must have known only too well that the original FISA law allowed to begin wiretapping of a suspected terrorist's communications without any delay, though it required that a warrant be sought from the FISA court within a reasonable time (I believe within 72 hours). No valuable intelligence could have been lost by complying with the requirement for a warrant at least after the wiretapping. I have not come across any explanation—and maybe you, Rasmus, can explain this to me—why this requirement would have hindered effective intelligence collection, or why it would have constituted an undue burden on the government. If it was neither an obstacle, nor an undue burden, then why was it necessary to break the law? There was a balance between the protection of our safety and the protection of the privacy of innocent people. It needed only a minor fix. There was no need to give the President everything he wanted—as the new law does. So why do you think voting for it (thus for immunity for the lawbreaker companies) was a good thing?

Tailcap, I like your postings!

Cheers!

rasmus11 July 22nd, 2008 8:29 pm writes:
Why did Obama:
1) vote to fund the illegal occupation/rape and plunder of Iraq?

Rasmus11 answers:
He voted to fund the troops while they are in harms way.

Thank you Ramus11 for your honest answer. But Ramus if you are concerned with the troops being in harms way wouldn't it be better for them if instead of keeping them there you only fund an airline ticket home? The Democrats control the Congress and they do not have to fund the continuation of the war. Aren't they safer at home? Why are they there Ramus?

Ramus wouldn't it be better for them to come home to their families and love ones who are probably worried sick about them getting killed in a war started on false pretenses? Please think about this. Thanks for your time Ramus.

AndyUK July 23rd, 2008 12:08 pm wrote:

"Oh dear, I have just read Rasmus's comment about lawyers being exemplary people!!!!!"

rasmus11 responds:

Are you really that stupid?
Barack Obama is not "Lawyers".
He is an individual human being like the rest of us.
Try reading the comment again.
It was a response to a comment from another Rush Limbaugh dittomelon (screen name Wobblie) who stated:

"he belongs to the milton friedman chicago school of neo-liberal economy.
It's just so obvious at this point what a phony obama is."

Rasmus11 responded:

"Wobblie, I'm from Illinois. You could not be more wrong. Barack Obama is a professor of constitutional law and grassroots community organizer. He is personally, the closest thing you will ever see to an absolutely exemplary individual human being."

At best, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

"Cute terms like "get your head out of your ass" don't change this fact."

I don't find this "cute" at all.

I see the racist and racism victimology, excuse, explanation is already rearing its ugly head. What a shame.

Oh dear, I have just read Rasmus's comment about lawyers being exemplary people!!!!!

sg (10:43 am) also writes, "...It would be more interesting to have a STRATEGIC conversation about how progressives can bring pressure to bear on Obama...."

- This whole idea is wishful thinking & hot air. There is no such thing as "bringing pressure to bear on Obama," unless you're a lobbyist for a big money group. Democrats are no more interested in responding to the needs of ordinary citizens than Republicans are. The only difference is that Republicans don't even pretend to be interested, while Democrats do feign some interest -- but only to snatch your votes before they turn around & betray you.

Covering up this ugly reality with dishonest high-fallutin' phrases like "STRATEGIC conversation about how progressives can bring pressure to bear on Obama" typifies the gasbag impotence of liberals. It illustrates the worthlessness & putrefaction of American liberalism.

Ahuramazda July 22nd, 2008 6:38 pm

"Regarding Iran, one needs to consider the setting of where Obama states, according to this piece, that "I'll do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything." Obama will not do such action - I hope he understands this also. Obama is simply appeasing to AIPAC in this instance. Obviously he is going to say what he is going to say to AIPAC whether or not his statements correspond with any future events."

Ahuramazda, you believe that Obama made such promises just to "appease AIPAC." Do you also believe he spoke of a 16-months timetable in Iraq because that is what the Iraqis themselves want, so he just told them what they wanted to hear? Do you think AIPAC believed he meant what he said? Or do you think they recognized it as an attempt at appeasement, as you take it (and took it as an insult to their intellect)? Finally, how do you know that he is appeasing AIPAC and the corporate interests, hawks, etc. when he says things they like, but not the progressive community when he says [or rather used to say, before he became the candidate…] things the progressives like?

Cheers!

The DPAs (Democratic Party apologists) lacking strong arguments in support of their pro-corporate and pro-war candidate Obama, are now claiming that in order for Obama to be the champion of progressives he must become a Republican. After he is elected as a conservative he will turn around and betray the very people that believed in him and then turn around or flip-flop and follow a progressive agenda.

After that, DPAs would have you believe that Obama would not be concerned with his re-election and would continue on his progressive agenda until six months before the next election (2012) at which point he would become a Republican again just long enough to dupe conservatives and win re-election. After that he will get back to busily working on the progressive agenda again.

In order to be a principled progressive he must become a corrupt Republican. He has to. Sounds good doesn't it?

Then there's the DPAs with no argument at all. Disliking any criticism of Democrats however valid, and lacking the intellectual ability to refute anything you say, they simply attack you as a "Republican shill" fascist etc. These are the lowest DPAs.

"Is there a pragmatic progressive in the house or do you have to be a purist to post?

Yes sg. Quite a few of us in fact. Don't let the negative posts deceive you. The fascists are always up to their tricks and are bombing this site. Mention Obama and they come strutting out like whores on a Friday.

Great post BTW.

sg (10:43 am) writes, "...Given that there's never been a black progressive leader who has NOT been assassinated the minute they seem to have a significant following, all of you so-called progressive posters are asking him to commit suicide by declaring an openly radical political program BEFORE he even gets elected. I guess, white skin privilege knows no bounds..."

- What utter bullsh*t. To ask the guy to stand against the militarization of society, to defend the Constitution, & to hold the gangsters of the Bush administration accountable for massive crimes is not "an openly radical program". It's a bare minimum. If he won't do that, he's not only NOT "openly radical," he's not the slightest bit progressive in any way, shape or form.

In the way Obama justified his cowardly FISA vote, & in the way he's now arguing to escalate the war in Afghanistan, and in his suck-ups last month to AIPAC & the Miami Cuban fanatics, he is working entirely within the Bush framework of empire. He accepts the concept of the "War on Terror." He thinks it justifies government spying on citizens. He's not saying a word about the Bush crimes. There's nothing "progressive" here at all -- it's just a slightly more pleasant-sounding version of Bushism.

Obama is about as "progressive" as Colin Powell. He's in no danger of being assassinated, because he's on the side of the people who do the assassinating: the corporatists & militarists. He's no challenge to their interests -- he's their guy, no less than McCain is. Anyone who looks at the campaign money flows coming from Wall St can see this.

rasmus11 July 22nd, 2008 3:40 pm
"Barack Obama is a professor of constitutional law and grassroots community organizer. He is personally, the closest thing you will ever see to an absolutely exemplary individual human being."

Rasmus, you seem to disagree, but to me being a professor of constitutional law makes a vote for the last "amended" FISA law—a severe blow to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution—much worse than voting in favor of it out of mere ignorance (though it is perhaps not too much to ask that the legislators possess a working understanding of the Constitution). Such a behavior is far from exemplary.

----------------------------------------------

curmudgeon99 July 22nd, 2008 4:59 pm
"The Hobson's Choice of Obama/McCain is only to decide what face will be used to enforce the wishes of our corporate fascist control mechanism - the U.S. Gov't.
Obama has great words, but his actions to date are MUCH louder - and scarier."

Curmudgeon, I agree with your last sentence, but I believe you posit a false choice here. There are other candidates for whom to vote. Nader has proven many times that he is no puppet of the corporations! If everybody disappointed in Obama would vote for Nader (instead of parroting that we all must "hold our noses and vote for the lesser of two evils", because Nader is unelectable), Nader could be elected.

----------------------------------------------

TonyR July 23rd, 2008 11:08 am
"Vote 3rd party or NOTHING will change. Obama will not make ANY difference. Do not waste your vote - while you still got one."

I could not agree more. However, it's not enough to vote just for a third-party candidate, pretty much in the vein of the last election's "anybody but Bush." People fed up with the status quo should all vote for ONE suitable candidate--though there are others who would certainly make good presidents, perhaps we all should agree on voting for Nader.

Cheers!

sg July 23rd, 2008 10:43 am This Democratic Party apologist writes: "...not a single poster has even addressed the suicide of a black politician telling The Man how it really is, says a lot. The silence is deafening."
Go back and read again:

tailcap July 22nd, 2008 3:32 pm
boy howdy July 22nd, 2008 3:23 pm writes "You can go and protest, or vote for Nader or McKinney, but it will have no effect on the outcome. Were Nader or McKinney elected (har har) they would swiftly be assassinated."
-so what do we do boy howdy- vote for Obama?

What a thoroughly defeatist attitude. How weak.

Better to go out fighting for your principles and dying with your boots on than to lamely go along with the sold out democrats like Obama, bending over and cementing the status quo.

Regarding Obama's statements in Iraq:
Obama's statements demonstrate that he holds no principled opposition to the Iraq war. Rather, his presidential candidacy is the vehicle for sections of the financial and corporate elite who consider the 2003 invasion to have been a strategically reckless use of American military power that has only aggravated the decline of US global influence. The reorientation to Afghanistan is primarily aimed at asserting US interests in Central Asia and disrupting the economic, political and military alignments emerging between powers such as China, Russia, Iran, India and western European states.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j23.shtml

"change doesn't come from voting the right person in office. Change comes when huge numbers of people organize and act in concert to force the "leaders" to change."

Absolutely right.

Vote 3rd party or NOTHING will change.

Obama will not make ANY difference. Do not waste your vote - while you still got one.

Given that there's never been a black progressive leader who has NOT been assassinated the minute they seem to have a significant following, all of you so-called progressive posters are asking him to commit suicide by declaring an openly radical political program BEFORE he even gets elected. I guess, white skin privilege knows no bounds. That may seem counterintuitive to suggest many "progressives" are blind to white skin privilege but the fact that not a single poster has even addressed the suicide of a black politician telling The Man how it really is, says a lot. The silence is deafening.

I get the feeling that if Jesus, Gandhi, Mark Twain or even the Dalai Lama were running for prez, there would be posters on here accusing them of being evil "manchurian candidates." Actually, there hasn't been a single president in U.S. history who would past the sniff test of most posters on here, which points to something every true progressive knows: change doesn't come from voting the right person in office. Change comes when huge numbers of people organize and act in concert to force the "leaders" to change. Obama has said as much in a number of campaign speeches, which tells me, he gets it, on some level.

It would be more interesting to have a STRATEGIC conversation about how progressives can bring pressure to bear on Obama. Instead, we get the here's-the-real-Obama "analysis," which clearly generates more heat than light. It's a dead horse that died a thousand deaths. Can we move on?

Is there a pragmatic progressive in the house or do you have to be a purist to post?

S-U-R-G-E! The Surge! Rah-rah The Surge!

So, John McCain, when you win in Iraq, what will the final score be? 86-14? 13-10? 34-9? 14-7?

And how will you employ the new culture of sequin-wearing hookers that you've created-- the cheerleading corps-- in greater American society?

No offense intended! Nothing gender-specific implied! We know that all neo-cons are hookers whether female or male. That don't matter!

Here's another great new article, by Justin Raimondo (of Antiwar.com) further explaining why Obama is as much a militarist imperialist as McCain --- albeit with an ersatz 'change' rhetorical patina:

"Is Obama the 'Antiwar Candidate'?
Two words of advice for the antiwar voter: Caveat emptor

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13183

waterboard dumpsterdive u.s olympics knew this guy is no good no strait talk from start not asked more on all troup withdrawll all bases closed impeachment war crimes carlyle group pentagon papers redcross hearings need ralph nader dennis k. gravel ron paul

The slight and only tactical differences between Obama and McCain/Bush do not seriously address the fundamental difference between Empire and democracy --- they both fully support Empire.

I have long argued that, "The most important question that the American people should be asking any candidate for president in '08 is not, "Where do you stand on the war?", but, "Where do you stand on the EMPIRE that has taken over our country --- an Empire of which the war in Iraq is only the biggest and most visible crime?"

The revolutionary issue for OUR 2008 election needs to be a clear choice of, by, and for the people for democracy instead of this 'corporatist Empire' which is hiding behind the facade of a two-party 'Vichy' government --- of, by, and for the corporate Empire.

The following article (by Corey Walker in counterpunch) is the best articulation of that need for revolutionary democracy in the US today that I have ever read:

"Getting Beyond the Either / Or Choice

A Kinder, Gentler Imperialism?"

http://www.counterpunch.org/walker07182008.html

Dogenwagner:

"We should focus on who voted for this war, and who opposed it. Obama opposed it people. Get your head out of your ass."

Sure, he "opposed" the war (sort of). But during his most recent opportunity to do so (the supplemental appropriations bill) unlike his then-opponent Hillary Clinton, who voted against it, he took a pass on voting because he had to hurry off to Boca Raton to a synagogue to pander to some more Jewish voters. Cute terms like "get your head out of your ass" don't change this fact.

President Barack Obama is a drastic improvement over "100 years in Iraq" Bush/McCain 2012.

For Example:

McCain: "Reform of the Palestinian Authority — finally underway — can only be strengthened by the demise of the suicide bombers' paymaster in Baghdad. Change in Iraq and elsewhere will increase Israel's security, indispensable to achieving an enduring peace with the Palestinians."

John McCain, 'A Fight for Freedom', March 23, 2003

Reality: Removing Saddam Hussein did not bring Israel or Palestine closer to peace

"Mr. Abbas has been ruling by decree since the Hamas takeover of Gaza. The Hamas-dominated Palestinian parliament has been paralyzed for months, with about half the Hamas legislators detained in Israeli jails. Palestinian officials in the West Bank said over the weekend that they had received a new list of 110 fugitives to be offered amnesty by Israel. A month ago, Israel and the Palestinians agreed on the names of 178 militants to be taken off Israel's wanted list, all members of the Fatah-affiliated Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades militia.
"

Isabel Kershner, 'Palestinian Leader Fires Dozens of Hamas Civil Servants', The New York Times, 8/19/07

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/world/middleeast/19mideast. html

or how about this one?

McCain: "The force our military uses will be less than proportional to the threat of injury we can expect to face should Saddam Hussein continue to build an arsenal of the world's most destructive weapons."

John McCain, 'The Right War for the Right Reasons', March 12, 2003

Reality: "The Bush administration said the war would cost $50 billion. The U.S. now spends that amount in Iraq every three months....

But statistical studies of death rates before and after the invasion tell some of the grim reality. They suggest additional deaths from a low of around 450,000 in the first 40 months of the war (150,000 of them violent deaths) to 600,000."

Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics, former Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisors (1995 – 1997). , The Toronto Star, March 12, 2008

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/339461

----------------------

Calling a withdrawal without (1) provisions for residual military training of Iraqis, (2) a focus on political decentralization (we ourselves were a political confederation before we were an economic constitution), and (3) support for democratically engaged Iraqi political parties against nondemocratically engaged political parties (Al Qaeda) as somehow "making sure that [Obama] will not stray from protecting US imperialist interests" strikes me as extremely manipulative seemingly suggesting that somehow Obama's commitment to withdraw from Iraq is hamstrung by some innate desire commitment to "launching new wars and bolstering puppet regimes and corrupt dictatorships throughout the "greater Middle East"."

The reality is that what's happening in Iraq today happened in the wake of many political revolutions where hierarchical power (for example like Iraq, where the power structure is centralized in Baghdad) was redistributed on a sectarian basis- as is the case in Iraq. (Consider for example, the violent political revolution premised on sectarian reapportionment of hierarchical power that established the United States: "The exodus of roughly one hundred thousand loyalists from what became the United States between 1775 and 1784, often after the expropriation of their property, eliminated perhaps one-third of the thousand largest prerevolutionary wealthholders." (Kevin Phillips, 'Wealth and Democracy: A Political History of the American Rich', (New York: Broadway, 2002), 12.)

Obama has said he will be as careful getting out as Bush and other Democrats were careless getting in. What part of that policy suggests he envisions new wars in Iraq or permanent bases like in Germany and Japan? Al Qaeda is a legitimate threat. Saudi-Iran war is a legitimate possibility. Turkish invasion of Kurdistan already happened. It is naive to think a newly forming government can face every challenge facing it without some outside help.

It is simply false to state that removing every single American troop (even those providing humanitarian aid and guarding the US embassy?) will solve the Iraqi political crisis in and of itself. As Obama has said "We have to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in." There are no easy solutions, and it's simply dishonest for anyone to imply there are. It is not in the interest of Iraqis that Americans simply withdraw without enabling them to envision their own future as we do so. What does anyone think will happen if we simply weren't there? You know what, they don't know. And it is in the interest of Iraqis that there are timelines so that they can as people in small and large groupings and solidarities properly evaluate what the withdrawal of Americans will mean to the future of their state/lives.

We should focus on who voted for this war, and who opposed it. Obama opposed it people. Get your head out of your ass.

I agree with the author of this article that Obama did not do a foreign policy u-turn. Much of Obama's positions on Iraq are carefully hedged. He will leave a force there to deal with the "security situation" in perpetuity. He will be ruled by General Petraeus' (i.e., Bush's) assessments on the ground.

Obama wants to bomb Pakistan and divert the troops to Afghanistan.

His Iran stance is unclear, if I recall right.

He backs Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, without criticism.

He "doesn't oppose all wars" - the author here correctly quotes Obama from his so-called antiwar speech. (Obama said that phrase three times in the speech, if you didn't get it the first time.)

For folks having a discussion above about Obama's embrace of the vile Chicago School of Economics and its murderous adherents, take a listen to Democracy Now's recording of a debate between Glenn Greenwald and Cass Sunstein.

Sunstein is one of those "reformed" Chicago Boys and an Obama advisor. In the debate, Sunstein defends Obama's FISA vote that violates the Fourth Amendment. It is really disgusting to hear his poor reasoning (he should have been flunked out of law school). I recommend all Obamamaniacs to listen in and hear the Constitution burning, as well as the smugness and classism of Sunstein. If Obama keeps creeps like Sunstein around, how can you vote for Obama or even think he represents your views?

Sunstein's "Nudge" book concept is just Milton Friedman's unrestrained "free market," in which even murder is OK, as long as investors make a profit. (See Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" for the ugly details.)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j23.shtml
The presidential campaign has evolved into a foreign policy conflict between sections of the American ruling elite, with the Republicans and Democrats debating the best means for maintaining the US military presence in Iraq while dealing with an escalating war in Afghanistan. The desire of millions of Americans for an end to the Bush administration's neo-colonial wars will be given no expression within the two-party system.

To describe Obama as "antiwar," in any sense, is an exercise in either deception or self-delusion. His visit to Iraq makes clear that he speaks for those who believe that a tactical reorientation of US strategy is required to re-direct American military forces to deal with challenges to US strategic and corporate interests elsewhere.

Rasmus11, I think tailcap and others here who are pushing for support to waste votes on Nader and other unelectable candidates are working with Rush Limbaugh in his "Operation Chaos" program to split the vote and get McSame elected. Hell, they may be getting some of that $400 MILLION contract Rush just closed with ClearChannel Radio to continue spreading right-wing propaganda for the next eight years. If you want to see a partial list of the other ditto-heads, check out the comments on this article here at CD-
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/19/10478/

No matter how careful and smart one may be..when you get that close to the pigs feeding at the trough, you get pretty dirty yourself.

Some people are born fools but can learn and do. Others remain fools by choice.

Sami Ramadani:
Tactical differences and issues of style aside, Obama's message on occupied Iraq is deeply troubling - not because it has U-turned but because it has been consistent. His 300 foreign policy advisers are making sure that he will not stray from protecting US imperialist interests, even if it does mean launching new wars and bolstering puppet regimes and corrupt dictatorships throughout the "greater Middle East".

Sami Ramadani:
To distinguish his policy from that of his rival for the White House, Obama declared: "Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea." But it doesn't require rocket science to know that keeping "residual" forces requires heavily fortified areas, installations and a state of readiness to go to war. Unless Obama has discovered something new, such areas are known as military bases. So it is the word "permanent" that separates the two, as McCain may want to stay "100 years" in Iraq. The comparison with South Korea is not heartening, considering massive US bases have been in that country for over half a century.

You are right rasmus 11, but it won't do you any good to argue with tailcap or his ilk, as nothing short of a third Bush term in John McSame will satisfy them.

of course Obama would be one more puppet....what's new folks? wake up and smell more than your armpits people......this is 2008. 24 years After 1984....how long can we continue having this conversation until word gets out?

The forces of misinformation have controlled almost all media almost all the time since the invention of...media! There never has been a "solution" for "imperialism", except drastic population reduction....not a happy thought I know. Mostly we bloggers are doing this as a form of art and political engagement allowing us to sleep better at night....those who protest publicly sleep even more soundly, I guess. And believe it or not one day the truth will come out on the insanity of these recent years.....and a few students might even read about it.....sort of a history thing.

Or maybe I'm wrong and tomorrow the inevitable reaction will begin: the people will awake from their slumber and demand an end to the abuses, detentions, wars, missiles, the whole 9 yards....just remember that these things TAKE TIME.

testing 1,2,3
-sorry about the double post folks, the first one disappeared.

"That was then and this is now. Let's not give to much importance to 23 years ago."

I don't really, I was just curious. I'm compling my list of questions/changes for myself to see why I have this uneasy feeling.

But a person is the sum of his experiences and his associations from then form his pedigree and resume.

From the article above: "Obama's message on occupied Iraq is deeply troubling - not because it has U-turned but because it has been consistent."

You leftists just eat this crap up without even blinking don't you?? For months now it has been the left wing saying O was flip flopping in Iraq.. now he is "consistent" wtf?

Make up your friggin minds will ya. Kind of sounds like the left is now flip floppin' their views on Obama.

Flipppp Flopppers , Flippppp Flopperrrrsss

No matter how you vote later, tell pollsters right now you plan to vote for Cynthia McKinney and do it in big enough numbers, and Barak Obama fearing defeat will do the right thing whether for the right or wrong reasons.

Fear of defeat concentrates a politician's mind!

Rasmus 11:

Forgive my sarcasm, but "Polly want some crack?!"

You can't just parrot Obama's illusory craft in fashioning comments for the media. You may have a conscience, but don't be so naive about Obama. Even if Obama has a shred of conscience remaining, it won't be of any use to him, since he has already chosen his master--and the master will decide what is useful in herding the believers. If you do want to develop your conscience, you'll take a closer look and analyze why many of us are so irate about Obama's murky deceptiveness. We've been shepherded over decades to want to be "smart", to run with the "smart" crowd, to vote for the "smart" guys and gals. Try digging into Obama's history. This has been the most disgusting campaign in my memory. Obama wants this job; he chose to serve a system drenched in blood and hell-bent on an agenda of global control. In the past few years, Obama has actively worked with the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Emanuel,etc. to thwart the campaigns of truly progressive candidates, especially anti-war candidates, in favor of BUSINESS interests, most of the same business interests so dear to Bush and Cheney. So, voting for a third-party candidate, irregardless of whether you think it meaningful or effective, is still one way of saying "NO" to our abusers in the WAR PARTY.

Two questions: 1) can anyone name a single, black progressive leader with a significant following who was not assassinated and/or politically castrated?

2) Seeing has how even America's Gandhi -- Dr. King -- took a bullet in the neck, why would Obama base his campaign on an openly radical political program, as demanded by more than a few CD posters?

McCain Camp "Frustrated" With Obama's Trip: Reports

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/mccain-camp-jealous-of-ob_n_114251.html

Tailcap wrote:rasmus11 July 22nd, 2008 3:40 pm writes "He is personally, the closest thing you will ever see to an absolutely exemplary individual human being."
-Really? -what a complete crock of shit! Please don't run away rasmus11, first I have a question.

Why did Obama:
1) vote to fund the illegal occupation/rape and plunder of Iraq?

Rasmus11 answers:
He voted to fund the troops while they are in harms way.

2) vote to make it legal for the government to spy on us in violation of the 4th Amendment and grant Telecoms immunity for breaking the law?

Rasmus11 answers:
This is what Barack Obama said about that:
"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program,"

Calling all people of conscience. Get Barack Obama into the White house or spend the rest of your life wishing you had.

As a constitutional lawyer, if Obama was indeed a moral, ethical politicians who believed in the letter of the law and really intended to provide a Change that we can believe in he would notd now be shifting the war to Afghanistan.

He would instead call the world's attention to the fact that Bush Jr. illegally and underhandedly set up Saddam Hussein for a betrayal and blindsided attack when he originally gave Hussein permission to attack Kuwait for reasons we all understand today.

He would call to the world's attention how Bush Jr. did the same to the Taliban when he boxed them into a corner they couldn't get out of no matter how much they tried to accomodate or placate the U.S. to try to avoid being attacked but still stick to their principles.

Obama would further call the world's attention to the fact that the unprovoked attack against the sovereign government of Afghanistan was a violation of international law that has yet to be addressed or rectified.

He would, if he were a moral, ethical man and visionary of a new direction, proclaim to the world that the U.S. henceforth would: abide by international law by removing his armies from the Middle East and instead replace them with a Marshall type Plan, humanitarian aid that emphasized peaceful diplomacy and respect; proclaim a unilateral decision to begin to undertake a nuclear/biological warfare disarmament policy and advocate that Isreal do the same so as to set an example for all other current nuclear powers and would-be nuclear powers.

But it would only happen in your dreams, mate, because Obama is light-years away from that kind of enlightened policy.

I think this article is a little too critical of Obama. Personally, I would rather ALL USA forces in Iraq return to the USA. However, it seems that both Iraqi and Afghans in their respective countries do not seem to get along amongst themselves generally speaking. Now, what does this have to do with the USA directly? Nothing. But, I do not trust the Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan to get their heads together in their respective sectarian conflicts. After all, they have been fighting in these two countries amongst themselves for centuries. So, as the ultra left radical that I am, I must concede that both Iraq and Afghanistan are unable to get along amongst themselves as there is too much History and tradition to claim otherwise.

Regarding Iran, one needs to consider the setting of where Obama states, according to this piece, that "I'll do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything." Obama will not do such action - I hope he understands this also. Obama is simply appeasing to AIPAC in this instance. Obviously he is going to say what he is going to say to AIPAC whether or not his statements correspond with any future events. If Iran truly want a nuclear weapon someday, they will have one, regardless of USA opinion on the matter - whether the Iranians manufacture it themselves, buy one on the Black Market, or steal one from unsecured areas worldwide, such as in Russia - where there are stockpiles of nukes unprotected by the current Russia Government. So the aforementioned quote made by Obama should not be taken as seriously as Ramadani seems to be doing.

With "residual" USA troops in Iraq after majority of USA brigades going home (where they truly belong) - this I kind of have a problem with becasue let the Iraqi Government handle their own affairs...COMPLETELY. Iraq belongs to Iraqi people. That is just all there is too it. Do I trust the Iraqi Government to create and maintain security, stability and dare I say a civilized nation? Both ironically and tragically, my answer is a resounding no. Irregardless of whether Iraq can function with or without USA support TRULY is of no concern to the USA. Any American today who claim that Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan will go all the way across the world to invade the USA simply needs to be locked up in an asylum because this scenario simply will not happen. If in the remote chance this scenario could happen, it would take many years. So my hope is that the USA nationalists stop being paranoid becasue I am tired of hearing it as it is becoming old.

Oh and ummmm... should, in the remote chance, Iraq becomes a nation in which all of its citizens get along with one another and not resort to horrific and unspeakable violence (characteristic of this part of the world for Millennia) - I see nothing wrong with USA making treaties with Iraq. Not really. Ummmmm...again I seriously doubt that there can be true and lasting peace in Iraq, unless it is strictly enforced.

rasmus11 at 3:40:
Succinct and well-said statement on Obama!
That's how I view him too!

wobblie wrote, July 22nd, 2008 2:40 pm

"told you so liberals!!! but would you listen?

VOTE NADER 08"

Exactly wobblie!!

Obama seems to be reprising the role of 'Rebel' Al Gore in the summer of the 2000 campaign.

Through the spring and early summer of 2000 Gore had come down from the mountains in fatigues and a Castro beard and pledged revolutionary attack on "those corporate powers" aligned against the American people.

But by August, Gore was mugged by the DNC/DLC thugs fronting for the ruling-elite 'corporatist Empire' that runs this "Vichy" facade of a democracy, and quickly abandoned all his populist/progressive pledges.

Now, in 2008, Obama did not even make it to August before collapsing like a cheap suitcase!!!

What was Obama doing in Illinois? He was building his resume, just as Bill Clinton spent some time building his resume to gain the coveted position serving the global elites. If I remember correctly, Obama caught the eye of David Rockefeller along the way. Wow, just like Bill Clinton caught the eye of David Rockefeller, who was quite the mentor for Bill. One area we don't know too much about was Obama's stint at Columbia, to which Obama seems to omit most references. Was he really absorbed in being an overly studious nerd? Or was there some mentoring going on there? Rockefeller? Brzienzki? Columbia, like many prestigious universities is such a pit of vipers for slithering neocon/neoliberal globalists. Just curious.

I'm anxious to read a recent book by Webster Tarpley entitled, "Obama-The Postmodern Coup: The Making of a Manchurian Candidate". A candidate can say anything into a microphone or build any kind of veneer on an official website. It's time to just say, "NO!" to the abusers and would-be abusers who have incrementally led us every four years to the abyss we face at this moment. Why waste the time and self-humiliation of voting one more time for a republican or democrat who are already committed to an agenda not at all in the interests of honest people?

* such as is possible for lawyers*

There was no plan for Iraq because the plan has always been Iran. Now when the Iraqis signal that we must leave and America demands it, the sudden shift to Afghanistan. No we don't actually have to attack Iran but of course their are extremist forces that insist on that very thing at any cost to others.

Nevertheless, Obama who may very well be a decent human being such is possible for lawyers, but he will not be Bush the unilateral inept cowboy. Obama (who is not an outsider) will be a saner and much more intelligent president but not an outsider. He'll do a lot of good ...we hope! Since Bush did so much harm.

Nevertheless the endgame is a continuing USA presence in force in the middle east. If we could leave the middle east, we'd have more influence.

Extremists insist America must take down Iran. Their manipulative spin took us into Iraq to free them by taking down the country and setting it back twenty five years or more. But Iraq was already beaten and no threat to anyone.

Great location and it came with a chance to restore the ancien regime of imperial oil for the original players... but Iraq's failure may have been the plan ala lebanon (being set back by infrastructure damage)...the bases were for what level of troops? A lot more than any small remaining force would need.

Will extremists like Cheney... chance WW3? Especially with Putin to resupply Iran like China did Vietnam?

The no plan for Iraq was the plan for Iran. One can assume that the plan for Iran is no plan at all ...once again. Will a new war elect Mccain?

No. A return to Plan A (a for afghanistan) and bases for a war with Iran and if the WW3 scenario holds, the potential for a conflict with a militant Pakistan.

Obama not standing by us and our constitution on telecom immunity was him crossing his Rubicon ... as I'm sure he was advised by the status quo to do so.

The shift is to Afghanistan ... bigger bases ...with a few legions posted in castrum in what will remain hostile territory in Iraq.

Obama might even be wise enough to do the job Bush should have done and help the Afgahnis modernize their economy etc. instead of remaining focused on Iran.

Yes I said Obama crossed his Rubicon on our constitution and us...of, for and by us. Bush won't declare martial law nor will Obama. At least Obama is smarter.

Bush and Cheney were cynical extremist neo-fascists but what was scariest was that were inept and incometent as well, inviting disaster when ruin would have been enough.

Obama hopefully will be smarter which is the only change left that he seems able to make. Obama sounds over advised. Gee I wonder by whom? Yeah...change is hard to come by when you are advised by those whom America expected you to change.

We wanted new ideas... not just a new face.

and oh yeah... perhaps as an afterthought?

We wanted our constitution. Your Rubicon was a change in the wrong direction... back to the same old same old?

Just hopefully a little smarter ... than the 'no plan' for Iraq plan becoming the 'no plan' for Iran plan?

Obama stopped looking to the people as his advisors and ... well... the Rubicon he crossed was the constitution.

Sir Thomas More,
I Googled Obama's community organizing and concluded it's difficult to determine whether he was genuine or just building up a resume he could later use for political gain.

To me it doesn't really matter that much what Obama did in 1985. This is now and now he is a warmonger, a hawk, and a Republican-lite. Caterpillars should be morphing into butterlies not butterflies morphing into slugs.

That was then and this is now. Let's not give to much importance to 23 years ago.

The Hobson's Choice of Obama/McCain is only to decide what face will be used to enforce the wishes of our corporate fascist control mechanism - the U.S. Gov't.

Obama has great words, but his actions to date are MUCH louder - and scarier.

Why do those who support Obama choose not to care about about his actions in the Senate?

tailcap July 22nd, 2008 3:24 pm

I'm beginning to agree.

By the way, what exactly does a grass roots organizer organize and who pay's him to organize it?

Who did Obama work for?

rasmus11 July 22nd, 2008 3:40 pm writes "He is personally, the closest thing you will ever see to an absolutely exemplary individual human being."
-Really? -what a complete crock of shit! Please don't run away rasmus11, first I have a question.

Why did Obama:
1) vote to fund the illegal occupation/rape and plunder of Iraq?

2) vote to make it legal for the government to spy on us in violation of the 4th Amendment and grant Telecoms immunity for breaking the law?

I have yet to get an answer from a Democratic Party apologist that didn't involve the side-step-weasel. Will you be their champion rasmus11?

Wobblie, I'm from Illinois. You could not be more wrong. Barack Obama is a professor of constitutional law and grassroots community organizer. He is personally, the closest thing you will ever see to an absolutely exemplary individual human being.

boy howdy July 22nd, 2008 3:23 pm writes "You can go and protest, or vote for Nader or McKinney, but it will have no effect on the outcome. Were Nader or McKinney elected (har har) they would swiftly be assassinated."
-so what do we do boy howdy- vote for Obama?

What a thoroughly defeatist attitude. How weak.

Better to go out fighting for your principles and dying with your boots on than to lamely go along with the sold out democrats like Obama, bending over and cementing the status quo.

The difference between Saddam and the US government is not who is more interested in stopping the injustice thrust upon the Iraqi people, but who was going to be in charge of the injustices. Now the US is in charge.

As an Iraqi stated shortly after the US invaded Iraq, "Different jockey, same camel."

Vote third party, don't support corporate sponsored oppression and their candidates.

How we treat other countries is how we will treat the powerless within our own country whenever the corporate elite find it necessary. And most of us are the powerless.

Impeach.

I was listening to Pacifica radio station KPFK the other day when I heard Mumia Abu Jamal comparing Napoleon to Obama on the grounds that both were ridiculed in school while growing up (Napoleon was ridiculed because he wasn't French and Obama because he looked "Black").

He talked about how Napoleon later became more French than the French and hints that Obama is becoming more American than Americans in his possible new role as the latest emperor.

That Obama is turning out to be a staunch supporter of US "interests" (profits for US corporations and the MIC) is not debatable.

What seems clear to me is that no one who is a true dove can be president. The government/media/corporate establishment will produce a president that will go along with the imperialist program. You can go and protest, or vote for Nader or McKinney, but it will have no effect on the outcome. Were Nader or McKinney elected (har har) they would swiftly be assassinated. Americans are, by and large, complicit in the imperialist program insofar as they depend on oil for gasoline and plastics and fertilizer, etc. There are too many of us to be able to effect an organized resistance.

It is no surprise that an Iraqi exile is bashing the presumptive Democratic Presidential candidate. Iraqi exile BS was instrumental in starting the unnecessary war/occupation in Iraq.

Here's another thoroughly "consistent" point of view, expressed by the Green Party's nominee for President: Cynthia McKinney:

"The United States should and must engage the world, but not in empire, not in military."

We do have a choice in this election but it's not between Consistent Empire Builder I (McCain) and Consistent Empire Builder II (Obama.)

rasmus,

where is your self-respect?

from the beginning Obama was and is a fraud.

he belongs to the milton friedman chicago school of neo-liberal economy.

It's just so obvious at this point what a phony obama is. Jeezz!

told you so liberals!!! but would you listen?

VOTE NADER 08

Obama said to the NYT: "On my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war."

Ooops. But its not a war; its an occupation.

With Obama parroting misinformation like this, who knows what other BS will escape his lips.

Obama, continuing the Bush/McCain occupations? Gee, what to do, what to do… Well, in democracies, what we do is vote for parties that are against foreign conquest. That usually solves that problem. That's why we have so much money left over for universal healthcare and affordable education. But you guys? I'm stumped. I can't fathom the solution. Maybe you should try voting Republican or Democrat one more time?

Boy do we need to keep up the Bring our Troops Home Now demonstrations.

As we keep the protests visible, it heartens rank and file soldiers who are turning against the war. Remember, a persistent Out Now movement eventually succeeded in forcing even conservative Republican President Nixon to withdraw all the troops from Vietnam. We can do it again.

There will be Out Now demonstrations at both national political conventions.
After the elections Dec. 9-14 has been set for coordinated protests in cities across the country. And then next spring a massive demonstration is being organized for Washington DC and a west coast city. For more information:
natassembly.org

Gee, now I am so shocked. I don't know if I'll ever recover. America definitely won't recover anytime soon....stay tuned. If you thought white water rafting down the Colorado was a bumpy ride, well,...that was the Disney version. These bumps will kill you....

True believers in the JFK Camelot myth still find it hard to believe that Kennedy had no "Exit Strategy" from Vietnam other than "victory". Obama seems to be enjoying a similar aura of Teflon myth-making and wilful Pollyannish misinterpretation even before he's elected and shows his true colors. When will Obama supporters learn to "take their candidate at his word"?