Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiRunning for War President at Any Cost
Just great! Nuclear-armed Pakistan is falling apart, Iran's nuclear program is unchecked and congressional legislation on cooperation with the Russians on controlling nuclear proliferation is now dead in the water. Horrid news except for Sen. John McCain, who thrills to a repeat of the danger lines of the Cold War, and now stands a good chance of being our next president.
A very good chance, if the Russian recognition of the independence of two breakaway Georgia provinces can be elevated to the status of a major challenge to the security of the United States. It is an absurd claim: How can one justify uncritical support for the independence of Kosovo from Serbia earlier this year while denouncing a similar claim by a Georgian ethnic minority? It is also difficult to ignore that it was Georgia's president and close McCain friend, Mikheil Saakashvili, who upset the status quo by invading first.
Saakashvili's attempt to compare the Russian response with that of the "Stalinist Soviet Union" is a nutty reference to a Georgian-born tyrant who ruled Russia and who is still revered in much of his native Georgia. But when you need a new Stalin to get a Cold War going, President Dmitry Medvedev and the elected members of a unanimous Russian parliament will have to do. And McCain is very happy to have this card to play.
McCain can win only as a war president. He neither knows nor cares much about the economic meltdown, which is the consequence of the deregulation mania that he has supported at every turn during his career in the Senate. If McCain had to run on his economic policy record in the Senate, he might be a loser even in his home state of Arizona, whose residents are suffering mightily from economic disarray presided over by the Republicans. Better to dwell on the dubious success of the surge in Iraq than on the surge in home mortgage foreclosures and the price of gasoline that has crippled Arizona's and the nation's economy. Still better to change the subject to the Russians and Georgia rather than dwell overly long on the disaster of Iraq, which has cost our nation trillions of dollars and where the prime minister now is far more zealous than Barack Obama in calling for an early withdrawal of U.S. troops. But whatever McCain's problems from cheerleading for Bush's war, they pale in comparison to his vulnerability on the most pressing domestic issues.
Instead of learning the hard lessons of the need for stern government oversight of the financial sector from his own compromised involvement as a member of the Keating Five in the 1980s savings-and-loan scandal, he voted to have more of the same. McCain became a booster for all of the banking deregulation legislation advanced by the Senate Banking Committee's then-chairman, Phil Gramm, who, more than any other legislator in the past decade, should be held responsible for the current mess.
Instead of recognizing that Gramm had pursued a disastrous course as the subprime mortgage scandal was exposed, McCain appointed the former-senator-turned-banker to be his campaign chair. McCain fired Gramm over a verbal gaffe but has not retracted any of his key votes liberating the financial community to fleece those desperate to become homeowners, and, were that the subject of the presidential campaign, he would lag way behind in the polls. This is not the season for laissez-faire corporate capitalism.
That's why he needs a new Cold War, but it's a bad fit for the world we face. The danger from Russia is not that it has imperial ambitions driven by the remnants of an expansionist communist ideology. Even China, which is still a communist-run state, knows that old-fashioned imperialism doesn't pay. What drives nations to madness these days is not ideology - communist, Muslim or any other flavor of the month - but rather an assortment of nationalist and religion-fueled grievances. In the case of Russia, the evolution of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin from the man Bush so admired to the one McCain despises was driven by hostile U.S. policies-from NATO expansion to placing anti-missile rockets near Russia's borders.
The first step in adjusting U.S. foreign policy to a multipolar world is to recognize that other nations, as well as the United States, have causes and concerns that may be legitimate, even when they differ from our view. The hope of the Obama campaign was that a less U.S.-centric view might be in the offing, but that might be too great an expectation in the midst of a presidential campaign.
51 Comments so far
Show AllLooks like its Sarah Palin for McCains VP...
Hello President McCain.....
That sound you just heard was Terrorists Worldwide shitting their pants
Saila
“The first step in adjusting U.S. foreign policy to a multipolar world is to recognize that other nations, as well as the United States, have causes and concerns that may be legitimate, even when they differ from our view.”
Nope. The first step is to replace the war-based economy of the US, even though millions may end up jobless in all fifty states. So long as our economy is based on wars, we would need wars to survive. We feed upon the carcass of the dead, millions of them. You don’t have to take my words for it. Just look at the history of the US adventures (wars).
For entertainment I have watched snippets of the DNC. The other night some small-time Senator was giving a speech in favor of Obama. Oh my God, it sounded like he was delivering a speech before a military audience! He kept mentioning the military...how his dad had been in the Navy...how Obama would make a great Commander in Chief...national security...protecting Iraq...sending more troops to Afghanistan...al qaeda...the Taliban....the terrorists.....ad nauseam......ect.
-The way Democrats insulate themselves from Republicans attacks is by becoming more like them. I noticed that the McCain campaign could not offer much criticism of Obama other than to compare him to a rock star. Obama says McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time. The actual policy positions of the two major parties are now so closely alike that that's all they have on each other.
I'm not saying the two parties are exactly the same. For marketing purposes there has to differences, red states, blue states etc, but the owners are the same.
When you shop at a store you chose the products but the profits end up in the same pockets no matter what you buy. And that's the truth!
We need to expose John McCain's "foreign policy credibility" for the fraud that it is. There is an excellent post from yesterday at http://www.coupbymemo.com/mistake, that does a nice job of outlining why foreign policy is actually McCain's biggest weakness.
I think this is what the Democrats need to focus on in this campaign more than anything. There is simply too much to attack McCain on-- people will become overwhelmed. But, as the author at coup by memo points out, there are at least 13 specific foreign policy areas where McCain is clueless.
logansafi sez: "'Running for War President at Any Cost' I thought that this would be an article about Barack Obama's campaign. Foolish me."
***
Ayuh, I was similarly fooled. I doubt the phrase "commander in chief" was spoken as many times during Roosevelt's entire WWII tenure as it has been through the first three days of the DNC.
ANOTHER STOLEN ELECTION ON THE HORIZON
Evidence supporting the right wing’s theft of the 2004 election is even more convincing than for the 2000 election. For example: in 2004 there was no Ralph Nader factor ; almost none who voted against Bush in 2000 voted for him in 2004 while many who had voted for him in 2000 voted against him in 2004; and discrepancies between the exit polls and the recorded vote counts were unprecedented.
All indicators show that these same mechanisms for election fraud are still in place. Paper ballot backup must be mandatary. When fraudulent measures, such as phoning late election dates, falsely based voter disqualification notices, etc, are found, the affected precincts should be recounted and reevaluated despite the delays and costs, and those involved should be charged with voter fraud. and prosecuted. Legislation must be enacted to prevent this right wing Supreme Court from overturning state's right to review an obviously flawed election as they had in 2000.
Unless we detooth this voting fraud machine now, we can look forward to four more years of reminiscing how it could have been if only not for a third stolen election; and an administration that will not alter the disastrous policies of the last eight years.
There are 6 corporations that controll all the media outlets, newspapers,TV , and Radio in America.
Read the Pratriot Act one and two. You will quickly determine that the constitution is a worhtless document, Americans just don't know it yet, and it will be too late to do anything about it unless the Acts are overturned and thrown out.
The problem with that happening is that there is about 200 billion a year tied up to private company contracts to spy on Americans , law enforcement agencies around the country and world , and in national security. The legal systsems checks and balances are useless. Judges and police have all the power.
If you are not hooked up, you are unprotected.
Both Repbulicans and Democrats are in line at the feeding trough with there corporate buddys.
If you want a real new world order,and New world government, you need 4 things to happen.
1. You need a common new world threat . Terrorism!
2. You need a new world currency. Computer credits for all.
3. You need to destroy the need for Democracy. The USA.
4. You need to Destroy Organized religion. All of Them.
We have number one,the Bush Administration lied about 9/11 to help grow the world threat, by putting us to war in the middle east.
You can replace currancy with credits if you can bankrupt the world and make all currancy worhtless. How close are we to another depresion?
The Patriot Acts 1 and 2 has replaced the constitution for America, Just read them and you will understand how.Americans are spying on each other and reporting all to local law enforcement and governmeent agencies.
Organized Religion and the free press is no longer protected, the constitution has been replaced by the Patriot Act,which describes any organizations that speak out against the government as terrorist groups.
Americans , keep your guns in a safe hiding place, we may have to fight to save this country if we don't come to our senses.
BornFreeMen
One ( not so) small point. Mr. Scheer casually notes that Iran is engaged in the production of nuclear weaponry, a point straight from the Karl Rove playbook. Do we really and truly believe this? Does the evidence of a lack of high speed centrifuges necesary to the enrichment of weapons grade materials fall on deaf ears?
It seems to me that a consensus of intelligence has shown this premise to be suspect, yet here we find such a blithe inclusion in a work by someone supposedly on the left. I challenge Mr. Scheer to provide proof of his words, or apologise for doing the work of George Bush.
we see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
He said: "Iran's nuclear program is unchecked"
'Nuclear program' is the full uranium mining, enrichment, power plant operation, etc. He never said 'weaponry', but if you look carefully at the neocon/Likud position these days, they are backing off claiming Iran is trying to build nuclear *weapons*, and just saying we should not allow Iran the *knowledge* to build weapons, one day...
That is, enrich to a few percent for power plants = *knowledge* to one day make weapons.
THEN, they throw in how 'crazy' Iran is, wanting to 'wipe Israel off the map' (their favorite mistranslation), and how they are a 'terrorist state' (after the US declared Iran's Revolutionary Guards 'terrorists', the Iranian Parliament passed a resolution declaring the US CIA is terrorists...)
Irans 'nuclear program' is not in question. It exists, just as the NPT Treaty allows. What the rightwingnuts do is declare that this is unacceptable.
Mr. Scheer was just throwing that out as the 'the average American thinking the general state of the world is getting dangerous', I think.
--------------------
Knowledge may give weight, but accomplishments give lustre, and many more people see than weigh. - Herodotus
I do not wish to be argumentative here but I think this a very important point. The author's statement in question:
"Just great! Nuclear-armed Pakistan is falling apart, Iran's nuclear program is unchecked and congressional legislation on cooperation with the Russians on controlling nuclear proliferation is now dead in the water. Horrid news except for Sen. John McCain, who thrills to a repeat of the danger lines of the Cold War, and now stands a good chance of being our next president."
I would ask you to consider the juxtapositioning and the unspoken inference that this "program" is of a military nature. Why consider needing checks on a program to produce electricity? Iran claims to be building energy production facilities soas to maximize their revenues from oil, a perfectly logical premise. Yet Mr. Scheer , whether consciously or not, prattles the GOP line...Why? Is this what is needed if we seek to bring rationale and sanity to our foreign policy?
I would post the ending of that article:
"The first step in adjusting U.S. foreign policy to a multipolar world is to recognize that other nations, as well as the United States, have causes and concerns that may be legitimate, even when they differ from our view. The hope of the Obama campaign was that a less U.S.-centric view might be in the offing, but that might be too great an expectation in the midst of a presidential campaign."
...and suggest that Mr. Scheer follow his own advice. Nelson Mandela noted that our policies with regard to the nuclear issue was nothing less than "nuclear apartheid", hard to disagree...
we see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
ardee (8:47) I picked up on that too. This is not the first time I've noticed the cia mentality of Mr. Scheer. There is still no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
ardee (8:47) I picked up on that too. This is not the first time I've noticed the cia mentality of Mr. Scheer. There is still no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Vote independent if you can - Mass. - Vt. - N.Y. - ECT.
That's the problem - war doesn't cost these guys a damm thing. If there was even some accountability for taking us to an illegal war maybe it could prevent future wars. But for now, war to them is something that happens to others. The saddest part of it all is that it doesn't really matter who is elected president because our foreign policy is decided by corporate America, who control both political parties.
Hoa binh
Actually, not only does it not cost them a thing, but it makes them quite rich.
A few years of killing millions while in office qualifies them not only for the under the table payments that makes them rich before they leave office. But then after they leave they get lots of honorary seats on corporate boards (and the salary to match) and lots of million dollar 'speaking engagements'. All pay back for services rendered in killing so many while in office to help corporate profits.
The Clintons are rich these days. Ever ask how? They started in public office at a young age. That work pays well, but it doesn't make one a millionaire. So how'd they get to be worth millions?
Or, I saw the other day that Obama is now worth several million dollars. Ever ask how? He started as a community organizer. Pretty sure bet that didn't make him rich. He was a state senator for awhile. I don't know Illinois, but that usually pays about $70k a year. Nice job, but that doesn't make you worth millions. Now he's a US senator, and that pays somewhere around a $150k a year. Again, a nice paycheck to bring home. But that doesn't make you a millionaire. Especially not in just a couple of years.
Nope, I'd say war pays quite nicely for these folks.
----------------------------
"It is not if we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists will we be" -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Putting pressure on Obama not to walk into this trap, not to try to match McCain in playing tough guy, but to call him on his manufacturing of crises, is urgent! If the Republicans can start a new war, and Obama is going along, McCain wins.
Chris Horton
There's no such thing as "putting pressure on Obama," at least as far as the general public is concerned. It can't be done -- he isn't listening. He's already bought & paid for, & always has been. That's what enabled him to get this far with such a hot-air substance-free "program." You can influence him if you're part of the corporatist apparatus, but not otherwise.
His campaign has already been a fantastic sellout, & that's why he's dropping in the polls. He pretended to be a "stop-the-war" candidate, & now many of the young idealistic people who campaigned for him in the primaries are recognizing that he's betrayed them. His idea of "stopping the war" is transferring troops to Afghanistan. He's also shown himself to be just as supportive of the phony "War on Terror" as McCain or Bush.
Funny, when all I saw was the headline on the front page, I thought this article was going to be about Obama. "Running for War President at all costs" certainly fits Obama to a T.
You have noticed that when it comes to Russia and Georgia that Obama is saying pretty much exactly the same things as McCain and Bush. He certainly would never point out what most CD readers know was that it was the US puppet in Georgia that started the war.
And, just how exactly are you going to 'pressure' Obama? I live in Denver, and I've been out in the streets this week. I've been in the anti-war march. I've been around other marches that wanted to try to 'pressure' Obama.
The Democratic mayor of Denver sends out the riot police to crush any attempts to 'pressure' the Democrats. So, just how exactly to you intend to 'pressure' a President Obama.
The best time to 'pressure' him would have been in the primaries. Back when he was in that close battle with Hillary and he needed every vote he could get. Of course, Obama's answer at that time was to lie his rear off to Democratic voters and pretend to be much more progressive than he's ever been. Then, as soon as he got the nomination, he said screw-you to the Democratic left and now talks like a neocon.
When dealing with Democrats, watch actions, don't listen to words. That 'action' by Obama, the way he's stuck it to all the progressives who helped him beat Hillary, speaks volumes about what his presidency will look like.
The Democrat mayor of DC will send the riot police out to crush any attempt to 'pressure' Obama just like the Democratic mayor of Denver has done this week. And that ties in perfectly with Democratic policy for the last two decades which has been all about militarizing and expanding police forces, passing anti-terror laws (Bill Clinton signed the first), creating and expanding a federal death penalty, supporting the Patriot Act, supporting every police state measure that Bush wants, etc.
Isn't it obvious that the Democratic reply to any mere citizens who want to pressure them is riot police beating heads in the streets? Heck, there's a common theme here stretching from the Democratic mayor of Chicago in 68 to the Democratic mayor of Seattle in 99 to the Democratic mayor of Denver in 08.
If you don't want this policy, your one chance at 'pressure' is to vote in someone other than a Democrat or Republican. Otherwise, you'll just be next to me staring at the DC riot police when we all try to go 'pressure' Obama.
----------------------------
"It is not if we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists will we be" -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Samson,
I've been reading your postings on CD for awhile, but have visited your site just now.
I may become a regular reader.
Too much of the posting here is quick on the trigger, defensive, personality. I do come here to read the articles and links. Yet, I always get caught up reading every single poster's responses...
Thanks.
Beautifully said, Chris Horton
McCain is more trusted with security and fighting wars. Hear that? He is even in the polls. Americans are ready to vote in a guy who will lower taxes on the wealthiest, promote more war, and spend ever more money. This man jokes about bombing Iran and the American people think he would have better judgement in a crisis. There is something wrong with Americans but that is their right. McCain is obviously better matched with the population than Obama. Hitler and Stalin are better matched than Obama. Why deprive the people of their most representative candidate? These people swim in the ocean of the american mentality as fish in the sea. Americans are not brainwashed victims of a captured system, they are like McCain and that is why he is doing so well, they see him as one of them, and he is, while Obama is only seeming to be or almost but not quite one of them. Americans want a hit man for president as they want a hit man for a lawyer. When divorce time comes you hire a killer and step back while he tries to kill the one you used to love. Business is business. Americans are definitely not the only yucky people on earth, but we are yucky. McCain is the yuckiest of the two and thus more appropiate for the population. McCain will not destroy America, he will continue its traditions. Americans don't want change, they want large bills. We want more money, and we don't care where it comes from. Better yet, we don't want to know where it came from. That's the beauty of hiring a hit man, you don't have to know the details, just the result---lizard
I was reading comments to the speech given by Mrs. Clinton on Truthout and amazed at the naivete of those posting! They really fell for the "feel good/I care about you" points she raised, and like too many US citizens, those responding seemed completely oblivious to her voting to enable the Bush administration to do the very things she was insincerely ranting about.
Then I read a website that was recommended by a fellow esteemed CD poster, and I HIGHLY encourage others to read the economic analysis of Ms. Catherine Pitts at:
www.solari.com. She worked in the upper echelons of HUD and began to see what was going on. This reminds me of the fellow (can't recall his name, a Reagan appointee) who began to smell a rat when bad real estate deals were going down in remote parts of Texas, part of the savings and loan debacle just then getting underway. (He was shut up quickly. This is all deftly explained in "INSIDE JOB: The Looting of America's Savings & Loans" and possibly one of the early templates, along with the Enron-version of economics--that has fueled the subprime melt down.)
Because what is happening to our economy is so UNDER the radar and eviscerating value in the manner of a huge, invisible vacuum suction device, there MUST be a new media to alert the public to what is going on. About a week ago CD ran a piece about the bandwidth that will open when TV goes digital in 5 months, and that this, like frontier virtual real estate, technically open for "communications development" could well be the vast "lands" needed to fund new stations that are oriented towards permaculture, new economic models, developments in alternative technologies. Years ago I drew up my ideal network, with holistic healing shows, a massage hour, a yoga hour, a mystic's hour, spiritual events worldwide style news, holistic healing hosted by authorities in alternative medicine models, etc. THE alternative to everything else out there, in departments that are consistent with the varied aspects of our lives.
Anyone listening who could help make this dream possible? If thousands of people paid annual dues a network could perhaps be started, and then funded by those who advertise on it... want to touch the base of awakened souls with their products and services.
You are right. The book "Inside Job, the Looting of America's Savings and Loans" gives an explanation that stays with you and helps you to understand the housing bubble, the credit bubble and the inflation of gas prices It's the same general scenario of deliberate manipulation.
Joe
I read her stuff awhile back. Both her Solari project and her articles on money laundering. Brilliant stuff and everyone should go read it.
----------------------------
"It is not if we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists will we be" -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Chaos is and will be stirred up to instill fear so that McCain can run on a war paradigm. He can't win on domestic issues (as the article correctly points out).
Look for more insanity to come. Brinkmanship with Iran. with Russia. with illegal immigrants. with enemy-du-jour.
Fear fear fear. The Republican platform.
Think carefully. Fear? How about tapping into desire for revenge, punishment, kicking ass? It isn't fear they are tapping, its American's insatiable appetite for fighting. This is a violent culture. Look at TV. It takes 1 minute to realize this. Americans love wealth, look at TV. it takes 1 minute to realize this. Americans love punishment and revenge. Again, check the TV and you will see it. It isn't the fear of the injun that motivates us, it is the joy of the cavalry coming over the hill to kill them all.---Revenge, punishment, power, greed-- This is the history of America----Americans are not victims, they are victimizers
Indians
Slaves
Mexicans
Phillipinos
Japanese
Destitute immigrants
Latin american countries
Cuba
Iraqis
Iranians
Palestinians
lizard
You forgot Koreans and the CIA crapping all over Africa's head to keep them down while we, and our allies, loot trillions in nat resources.
To me, you are seeing a circle, but describing it as a straight line.
Or maybe this is a chicken and the egg sort of thing. Which came first, the propaganda that tells Americans to worship wealth and violence? Or the fact that Americans are convinced to worship wealth and violence?
One answer is to go back and look at TV in the 50's. It was much less violent. The occaisional western like the Rifleman, but even that was extrememly non-violent compared to modern TV. When TV started, there were a lot of very successful shows that were very thoughtful. Playwrights got on TV with their productions. Shows like The Twilight Zone were on, and that came from another show that was called something like Playhouse 50. Commedians with very non-violent comedy were the biggest hits. News departments ran thoughtful documentaries and debates on issues.
So, which came first? America's love of violence and its worshiping of wealth. Or was that the TV was changed to be propaganda channels to promote that, and these days most Americans aren't able to think beyond what the TV box tells them to think.
It is a circle. Its a cycle. One does support the other and help create itself again. But, I feel its wrong to say that America is inherently violent and TV shows reflect that. In many ways it goes the other direction, the TV shows help create the atmosphere of violence and fear.
Don't get me completely wrong. I know there was violence in this country before. Violent individuals and societal violence like the genocide of the Indians and lynchings of blacks. But, it seems to me as if TV has been making this far worse in the last couple of decades than it used to be.
----------------------------
"It is not if we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists will we be" -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
fear is central to the democrats platform also.
fear of republicans.
. . . and now stands a good chance of being our next president . . . a very good chance.
McCain WILL be the next president. Then it will be veddy, veddy interesting, to say the least, how The Great Unwashed and Uninformed who put him in power react when things continue to deteriorate badly. More war, more debt, more social and economic deterioration in any category you care to mention. McCain indeed may be dealing in "demented ravings", as one previous poster said, but those are the kind of ravings The G.U. and U. lap up with glee. McCain wants the return of conscription. Will the Democrats go along? Yes, because presently the overwhelming characteristic of that party is a bright yellow cowardice. If you're between the ages of 18 and 25, better start planning your escape now, or you, too, will be cannon fodder for the Madness of McCain and the utter stupidity of the majority of the 'Murkan people.
Well, I was convinced that Obama would be the next President. He's obviously got the corporate money behind him (maplight.org now says Obama has raised $400 million) and that's usually the indicator. And Obama has obviously also completely backed both the corporate economic agenda and the war policies of Bush and McCain.
I'd have said awhile back that the Iraq war was a boat anchor around McCain's neck. That he could never win while supporting the Iraq war. But that was before Obama threw away that advantage by trying to be a bigger warrior than McCain. Suddenly Obama is in Miami sucking up to the Cuban terrorists. And he's in Israel pledging fealty to them.
If Obama loses, that will be his biggest mistake. He could have won this election in a walk by being a peace candidate promising to end the wars. Instead he promises to stay in Iraq, attack Iran, rev up the war in Afghanistan, and expand the war to Pakistan.
Is it any wonder he's losing his lead in the polls?
Of course, that assumes the people pick the President. If you think that big contributors pick the President, then maybe Obama had to take these positions. But don't be fooled into thinking that he won't follow through on them. If for no other reason that its safer to cross the mafia that it is to cross the powerful people who've put a $400 million backing to his campaign. If Obama was to try to not follow through on his promises to be at least as much a war President as Bush has been, the we'd be talking about President Biden. And of course, thinking of it that way explains that weird pick. Its Obama's promise to big money that he'll keep his word to them, because Big Money already knows that the Senator from Delaware can be trusted to do their bidding. As VP, Biden is their insurance policy.
----------------------------
"It is not if we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists will we be" -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
i'm afraid you could be right mordechai.........but more importantly, does he have a middle name and does it begin with w?
Uh, both Obama and Mccain are running as war presidents. Nader and Mckinney aren't. Stupid author !
Neither Nader nor McKinney will be elected President, so what is your point? There is a real difference between McCain and Obama, just as there was a real difference between Gore and Bush in 2000. You and other Obama bashers promote the idea of voting for Nader like 90,000 Floridians and ended up with George W. Bush, who turned by in large responsible for the mess we are in now.
damnliberal uses the term 'Obama bashers'.
The more correct term is militarist-basher.
I oppose all militarists and political opportunists, including Obama, who use militarism as a policy to further their career and goals. It doesn't really make a difference why Obama is taking the militaristic stance, whether to get votes and show he is tough on national security; or because he really does believe that we should increase our military forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The result is the same, the spilling of innocent blood all to support a corporate elite agenda.
I work as hard to knock McCain down as Obama. The reality is that many McCain supporters don't call themselves anti-militarists or pro-peace. In fact, many McCain supporters unabashedly support the Iraq War so at least you can't accuse them of being double talkers and hypocrites. The Obama supporters on the other hand...
BTW, I keep pointing it out, but take note of the way the Democrats always assert there is a difference between Obama and McCain, but they never provide any real facts to document that. They just scream at the top of their lungs 'Obama is better', and they seem to think their constant screaming will convince people. But they never, ever provide any backing to that claim.
----------------------------
"It is not if we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists will we be" -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Isn't it incredibly obvious that Bush isn't the problem. Cindy Sheehan had a great line the other night. She called Bush the boil on the ass of American democracy. Because if you just lance the boil, it comes back in another form. The Bush boil is replaced by the McCain boil or the Obama boil on the ass of American democracy. You have to cure the disease that is causing the boils.
Who the heck cares if McCain gets elected? Obama has the same sort of 'chicago school of economics' advisers around him. All the pro-corporate Clintonistas have rallied to him. Obama has the same old foreign policy advisers. You remember, the ones who blew up half of Sudan's pharmaceutical capacity and then said it was worth it that they were killing 5000 children a month in Iraq.
The Clinton regime killed about a million Iraqis. The Bush regime killed about a million Iraqis. The only difference was in the choice of method.
When I came here yesterday, the headline at the top was that 60 children had been killed by an US airstrike. If you vote Obama, that continues. Here in the relative safety of the US maybe we can feel like we can vote for yet another pro-war killer like Obama and its not a big deal. Maybe here in the relative safety of the US we can pat ourselves on the back and say we are 'making progress' when we vote for someone who is already vowing to continue all the awful Bush policies.
But, US airstrikes killed 60 children. For other people, this is life and death. If we elect Obama or McCain, it means more airstrikes and more dead children.
The only hope is to do something different. Me, I support the Green Party and Cynthia McKinney. Mainly because I believe we need more than an independent one-off campaign from Ralph Nader. Of course, I'm about to leave to go hear Mr. Nader speak tonight, so I still kinda like the guy. He'd be a much better choice than Obama.
Remember, if you vote Obama, children keep dying in airstrikes. Maybe you should find pictures of each one and put them on your wall to remind yourself what your wasted vote for Obama is costing others in the world.
----------------------------
"It is not if we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists will we be" -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
The only thing wrong with the boil metaphor is that if a boil is lanced it doesn't "come back in another form." A boil doesn't indicate an underlying disease, it's just a boil, a bacterial infection that, when lanced or otherwise drained, is gone for good. (I know this from experience.)
Bush may be a boil on the ass of America, but America itself is the ass that's permitted the boil to remain, forever unlanced. Nancy Pelosi kisses that boiled ass every day.
(Formerly lobo72)
Cynthia McKinney is just plain wacko. Nader is well-meaning be he had his day with "Unsafe at Any Speed" nearly 50 years ago. Way too long in the tooth today. But go ahead, folks. Waste your votes and let us all get stuck with John McStiff.
The point is one doesn't vote FOR WAR when one is AGAINST WAR. And if you vote for FOR WAR candidates YOU are complicit in war, and like those responsible for the war, YOU are guilty of war crimes. I am sorry, but you are naive, uninformed or ignorant when you say "...promote the idea of voting for Nader like 90,000 Floridians and ended up with George W. Bush". The truth, which you do not like is 1) Gore won! and then he rolled over and played dead, and 2) 300,000 plus of your fellow war mongering Democrats voted FOR George W. Bush in Florida. It is B.S. like this poster, who coddle 1/2 of the Corporate Party to vote against the other 1/2 of the Corporate Party that makes change impossible. And because of that it is necessary to break the chains on our brains and vote for other choices, ANY OTHER CHOICE. Run Ralph. Run!
'Running for War President at Any Cost' I thought that this would be an article about Barack Obama's campaign. Foolish me.
My Internet service crapped out last night just as I was about to echo your observation.
I thought that at least the article would discuss the Achilles' Heel of US presidential candidates I'm always harping on: the settled belief that, first and foremost, a "serious" prospective Amerikan head of state must reassure the fearful sheeple that he or she is a fearsome warlord who will not hesitate to pop a War Boner and swing it at a perceived Foe like Thor swinging his mighty hammer.
As I'm also fond of saying-- at the risk of being purged for excessive "incivility"-- all of the so-called "electable" (duopolist) candidates twirl their War Boners like drum majorettes. And the corporate media infotainwhores sagely compliment the performances.
So did I.
Maybe this propaganda is to imply that we only consider McCain the war candidate, and not worry about all of Obama's militaristic statements.
What is the root of injustice is totalitarianism. It is justified under names like communism, capitalism, religion. It is what Hitler did, most communist countries did, and what the USA is doing. And all brought to you courtesy of your corporate controlled government. Sometimes via government policy, other times through the police.
There is no feedback loop for the general public to have input regarding law or policy. Our elected officials (paid corporate shills) carry out what they are paid to do, the hell with the general public.
Go to war? Sure. profits will increase.
Universal health care? Why is that needed, it just gets in the way of profits.
Errant bombs falling on innocent civilians? Collateral damage, the cost of doing business, but still justifiable.
I know, Obama is the lesser evil. I hope that gives you comfort as innocent children die in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iran.
Never forget: Its all about the money.
The nuclear game is BS. Both parties play it now just as they have since WWII. Obama and Biden will do the same.
When you wonder why, just remember; its The Money.
More nations are being driven "to madness these days" by increasing shortages of fuel, water, and food.
There is a tendency to see all of the conflicts in the Middle East as the result of religious and ethnic rivalries and, to some extent, they are. However, as many on this board have pointed out, if it weren't for oil then most of this region would be at peace.
Obama needs to frame the situation described by Scheer in terms of Bush and Cheney's abuse of our defense resources and keep McCain's support of the Bush/Cheney policies front and center in the debate. I really don't think that the matter of Georgia's breakaway provinces is going to help McCain as much as Scheer does.
q
Despite some reasonable points, this is not such a good article. It's got negligible value as a re-post at CD because everyone here already knows that McCain's demented ravings are unworthy of being taken seriously.
A peculiarly incomplete sentence is, "...What drives nations to madness these days is not ideology - communist, Muslim or any other flavor of the month - but rather an assortment of nationalist and religion-fueled grievances...."
- First of all, ideology DOES still drive nations to madness. The US is a good example of a nation driven mad by corporate capitalism. Recall that one of the official justifications for seizing Iraq was "spreading freedom & democracy." That qualifies as "ideology."
Secondly, Scheer should probably have specifically mentioned "resource grabs" as one of the things that drives nations to madness.
I basically agree, but I would quibble over one point. "Spreading freedom and democracy" is, as you wrote, one of the "official justifications," and is presented as the driving ideology to the hoi polloi, but I would clarify that such is not and never has been part of the ideology that has driven the decision-making. I would think the operative ideology is mostly Social Darwinism, with a fair amount of belief in the importance of a social hierarchy and a mostly static and stable social order, and a portion of self-deluding "greed is good" and "the infallibility of the market fairy" explanations thrown in to assuage the guilt.
I agree with every word of that -- my version was admittedly very rough. I was focused more on objecting to Scheer's contention (that "ideology no longer drives nations to madness"), than on defining the ideology driving today's USA to madness. But you certainly defined that ideology with great precision.
You are both spot on! Ideaologies are the bane of peaceful countries.
What's interesting is that in the mind of author's like Mr. Scheer, the US ideology is not an ideology. Instead, US ideology is treated as some sort of truth that's been handed down by god and that can't be questioned. So, ideology in this context always refers to the beliefs others hold in opposition to the US ideology. Thus, ideology is always bad.
Of course, if you take a step back, what you see is the US with a very strong ideology. And one that is eerily similar to the ideologies that caused the deaths of tens of millions of people during the 20th century.
----------------------------
"It is not if we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists will we be" -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
maybe the first step in adjusting us foreign policy should be to recognize corporate motives, of other nations and especially at home. at least include them when talking of "nationalist and religion-fueled grievances" as "legitimate" concerns.