Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiEven with Obama in Charge, Anti-War Democrats Powerless
WASHINGTON - The anti-war crowd had waited years for this moment, when it could finally use its political muscle to end or at least sharply curtail American involvement in a war that seems endless.
![[In 2002, protestors marched in Washington D.C. against an Iraq War. (Ken Cedeno/MCT)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/iraqprotest_1.jpg "iraqprotest.jpg")
Instead, Congress' most vocal anti-war activists were badly outnumbered
this week when they tried to define an exit strategy for U.S.
involvement in Afghanistan.
"We need a plan while we are there and a strategy for leaving," said Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., who last year defeated an eight-term incumbent Democrat who backed the Iraq war. "We don't have it."
They weren't even allowed a vote on a plan. It was a setback because for years, anti-war lawmakers lacked the votes they needed to impose restrictions on former President George W. Bush's war in Iraq. Now, the president is a Democrat, and the Democrats have a 79-seat majority in the House of Representatives and 59 Senate seats, including two independents, which gives them their biggest margins since the early 1990s.
Nevertheless, the anti-war crowd remains as impotent as it was during the Bush years amid widespread support for President Barack Obama and a public that's preoccupied with economic issues and largely unperturbed by the escalating war in Afghanistan.
"Afghanistan simply doesn't arouse the same kind of broad opposition that Iraq did," said John Pitney, a professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College in California.
While the reasons for invading Iraq proved to be questionable, there's far less controversy about Afghanistan, Pitney said, because, "That's where the bad guys are."
Obama has said that U.S. combat troops will leave Iraq by August 2010, so the congressional anti-war effort is now turning largely to Afghanistan.
House Democratic leaders urged members to trust Obama, and they quickly debated and passed the $96.7 billion emergency spending bill that will fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Senate will consider its version next week.
The experience of Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., was typical. The veteran lawmaker held a "telephone town hall" meeting earlier this week, and heard from thousands of people in his district, an economically and racially diverse area that includes the city of St. Louis and some of its suburbs.
"We have a lot of anti-war sentiment in the district, and I thought people would provide me cover to vote against the bill," Clay said.
Instead, he found, "It was just the opposite. Lots of callers told me they trust the president, and we should give him a chance." Clay voted for the bill.
Anti-war liberals are frustrated by the lack of a clear strategy to end the war in Afghanistan, by supporting a government there that's widely thought to be corrupt and allied with opium traffickers and by the reluctance of U.S. allies to lend any military help.
"I worry about mission creep," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon.
They tried to band together. About 30 met on the eve of the Thursday House vote, but they couldn't come up with a united strategy.
"We realized this came up so fast we didn't have the time," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., the co-chairwoman of the House Progressive Caucus.
Many members vow to keep pushing for a more clearly defined strategy.
"I'm not advocating for an immediate withdrawal of our military forces from Afghanistan. All I'm asking for is a plan," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass. "If there is no military solution for Afghanistan, then, please, just tell me how we will know when our military contribution to the political solution has concluded."
McGovern is leading a group of 73 members who are sponsoring legislation to require Defense Secretary Robert Gates to outline a military exit strategy from Afghanistan by the end of this year.
"My bill doesn't withdraw our forces. It doesn't set a definite timeline. It simply asks the Secretary of Defense to outline what our exit strategy is," he said.
Other members are urging the U.S. to put more emphasis on diplomacy and humanitarian aid.
The war funding the House passed would spend about nine times as much on military help for Afghanistan as it would on diplomatic and humanitarian aid.
"Winning requires a long term sustained commitment to turn 90 percent illiteracy to literacy and grow food products instead of producing heroin and opium, build a civil society and rule of law," Edwards said.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., was sympathetic to the anti-war crowd's concerns, and he likened the mood to the one in Congress when he arrived in 1969.
Richard Nixon had just been elected president, and people urged Obey to give Nixon a chance to end the Vietnam War. By the spring of 1970, however, the Nixon administration was expanding the war into Cambodia, and Obey began speaking out.
"I'm pretty much in the same situation today," Obey said.
He included in the House spending bill this week a requirement that Obama give Congress by early next year a detailed report on the status of the Afghanistan effort.
"So there are no deadlines, no conditions, no timelines," Obey said. "But there are clear measurements against which we should be able to judge the performance of the Afghanistan and Pakistani governments."
Even Obey was uneasy, however.
"It's clear to me that there is a consensus to try to do something to stabilize the situation," he said. "If we're going to go down that road, I want the president to get everything that he asked for and then some to maximize his chances for success, and that is what this bill does."
But, he added, "I frankly have very little faith that it will work."
40 Comments so far
Show All"WE" never had Obama with us! If you watched the endless Primary debates, the only one who was consistantly with "us", or at least ME, was Dennis Kucinich. There was Principal. On every issue, he had at least some sort of plan, and all led to a healing of sorts; a viable solution that was spelled out for anyone who would take him seriously enouth just to listen. He still stands for true morality, where everyone is not only equal on paper, but treated that way in deed. He stood against the most recent funding bill for the military, as he has all along. Obama NEVER said he'd bring all the troops home, never said he would try for UNIVERSAL healthcare, never said he'd not go into Afghanistan, never said he'd prosecute for torture, never said much. No one spoke as a true populist for America and the World as he did, and he wasn't taken anymore seriously than "we" are right now.
As long as the media whores keep selling us the corporatist bill of goods, the truly productive citzens of this world will eat the scraps that fall from those corporatist tables. I do understand that often, some will bite the hand that feeds them. What I cannot understand is that people will kiss the hand (or other lower extremity) of the one that whips them. We, the people, have been bought and sold and entirely owned by the corporatist masters. I believe there is a word for that phenomenon; it's called slavery. All these so-called rugged-individualist Americans who spout off the word freedom will never achieve the intellectual capacity to know that they are nothing but twenty-first century slaves. May feeble dogs forever piss on their head stones.
I was a democrat until I realized that a democrat was nothing but a republican without balls.
"Lots of callers told me they trust the president, and we should give him a chance."
It's called a "honeymoon," and this time it's likely to last a while - probably about a year. Campaigning for the Congressional midterms starts about then.
In the meantime, we are indeed powerless, and must focus on preparing for the door opening as people finally catch on.
This article documents the reason the Green Party exists. Our moment comes when the glow wears off. In this case, the postcoital depression is likely to be severe, and followed by rage. We need to be ready.
www.gp.org
Oregoncharles
I can only say: Wow! And thank you - I've been trying to raise this question for a long time, and it's really nice to have company.
And just think: the attitude you're responding to belongs to the REALISTS among the Democrats. But I've yet to see convincing proposals for pressuring Democratic incumbents, short of leaving the Democratic Party. We all know what happened when they tried to get rid of Lieberman.
Oregoncharles
OOps - mispost. This was meant for Obedient Servant's post, way up near the top. There are technical pitfalls in this system, and I fell into one!
Oregoncharles
Bill Clay and these other congress members seem to be saying, "We have to support our president." As Wayne Morse, a long time senator from Oregon who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and was a prominent law professor said, "You couldn't make a legally more unsound statement. We have to support our president Why do we have to support the president? We don't have to support the president. The American people can make foreign policy. But my charge to you is the American aren't getting the facts." "The president doesn't make foreign policy. He is merely the administrator of the people's foreign policy." Morse would also say, "Why you are are man of little faith in democracy." Let the American people get the facts on the dawg, you give turkeys at the MSM. Let democracy work.
AD
Patience... Ending the occupations/wars, getting affordable,universal, health care, campaign finance reform, all take time. It is analogous to ending slavery in the USA. Slavery was accepted for 160+ years before the Emancipation Proclamation, after which it took 100 years to end Jim Crow. Expand your time line to 150 years. Be content with the thought that 6 generations from now your decendants might have accessible health care and The US military might be smaller.
Patience is not a synonym for passivity.
Joe
Dumddown ... Six generations from now? ... We might not have a planet or short of
that various survival scenarios with pockets of human beings making do and fighting other "clans" for favorable territory where food, water and game are still available seems more like it if we do not change course.
Approaching 7 billion people on the planet is getting overmuch. A good percentage of our fellow-beings are holding on or still not questioning their notions of God and Saviors, their lifestyles, and their own selves, and are ready to kill others at the behest of governments and charismatic or relentlessly cruel dictators. These "leaders, cannot seem to buy, get, develop enough weapons to do The Other in to gain control of resources, strategic territories, and be all powerful. Evidently they are oblivious to the damage such things as Depleted Uranium micro-dust, radiation, nuclear winters and all that good stuff will do to a planet and all its people because the bottom-line is PROFIT and POWER and puffing-up one's NATIONAL IDENTITY.
Because I've been around for a while, I have to say that "leadership" seems to be getting more stupid, more dull of comprehension and lacking in abilities for big-picture connections of positive outcomes for all. "Leadership" in a "free" country such as the United States is a reflection of the populus. NO ACCIDENT we are where we are.
I don't sit around chewing my fingernails, Dumddown, but neither do I focus on whether we will have universal health care 150 years from now. Part of that is I personally believe that the emphasis on sickness is doing us in too so drug companies and health care insurers can make money. The focus on illness rather than health, lousy diets, a tremendous amount of brain washing, ... even about the dangers of yellow toenails cured by an appropriate drug that will do your liver in, ... and festering, unaddressed emotional stuckness, all contribute to make the medical profession with all its new machines and drugs a major Deity in one's life, with the bottom line corporate/personal profits.
So NO to laissez faire Patience. It is clear now that a very small percentage of the earthly population wants to control it/us all. And that's not paranoia. That's based on lots of reading, making connections, looking at historical and recent evidence and outcomes, etcetera.
Do you think that if the world had a preponderance of enlightened leaders truly wanting to help their own people and all people and have a peaceful, cooperative earthly society with enough for all, it couldn't be done?
We have all the tools right now, whether technological and psychological, to create a wonderful world.
Problem is that the true visionaries who have appeared throughout history are invariably done in by the POWER NUTZ who can't see past their own pocketbooks, their own prestige, their own self-serving well-being, their own acorn-size weltanschauung and their monumental EGOS. Their knee-jerk responses invariably are to attack, punish, and gain more POWER. It doesn't work; it hasn't worked. DUH! ...
My interest is not 150 years from now. What can be done in the next five years is crucial enough.
peace, cm
Dumbdown: We do not need patience, we need to be pushing as hard as we can push right now, even if we will not see the results ourselves. We may not be listened to, but we must demand results NOW. When Martin Luther King Jr. got tired of being asked for patience, he wrote 'A Letter from the Birmingham Jail'. It has much wisdom and is well worth the reading by anyone who wants to make a difference.
In Peace
All the King's horses and all the King's men are bloodlusting jingos. What do you expect?
Basic problem: The U.S. Media is controlled. Unpleasant pictures or news clips about what's happening in Afghanistan, Iraq, anywhere we are "liberating" people, killing off their "bad guys," and helping them achieve "democracy" and "freedom" is not discussed with truth in mind; nor are graphic scenes of the aftermath of drone-bombing or regular bombing shown. How many in-depth film clips have we seen on Gaza? How many in-depth stories have been reported truthfully and how many genuine discussions representing both sides of the situation have you seen or heard? The answer is ZERO.
What aroused the populus about Vietnam were the hour-long nightly news programs whose anchors and journalists in the field were given at least twenty minutes devoted to film, photos and coverage about what was happening on the ground and from the skies.
And then one day the beloved, trusted Walter Cronkite suddenly stood up and said he could no longer support this war because it was wrong. SURPRISE! Big lesson for the Network owners and bosses as the populus changed its collective minds and all hell broke loose.
As a result, TV NEWS does not provide the truth and the anchors, the "expert" pundits, and the journalists are flapping mouths, and budgets have been cut so that there are not reporters based in other countries in the "foreign bureaus" that feed up-to-the-minute news from on the ground to the Networks for the evening and late-night broadcasts.
Most people in this country do not read much. That is a given. But they do watch television, and often they tune in to television news at some time or other during the day or night. But the TRUTH is absent, glossed over and given short shrift. And the average half-hour news program, comes in at about thirteen minutes of news, after you count the commercial minutes.
How can people get antzy and enraged if they don't know what's really going on? They can't and they don't. That was learned in the Vietnam period, and it was intentional by the media corporations and cohorts that this would NEVER happen again.
When the first Iraq War was begun, it was given the romantic name of Desert Storm. By then everything was controlled. We saw and heard and read exactly what was designed for us to see, hear and read.
When 9-11 happened, the coverage was intense. Unfortunately, most of the dispatches out of high offices of the land were not truthful because 9-11 was an INSIDE JOB.
Do you think the Richard Cheney of today appearing on talk shows all over the place admitting to the orders for the non-torture TORTURE, is any different from the guy that early on cut his teeth on "dirty tricks" in the Nixon administration. Rumsfeld, Rove, and Cheney were the novitiates of that time when they learned that UNITARY EXECUTIVE POWER was the way to go. Nixon just happened to have a taping system that did him in. And GWH Bush was spirited out of the country during Watergate time and given a post in China as an assistant of some kind to Henry Kissinger where he could lay low from his own involvement in the Nixon debacle.
The Players have been around for a long time now. And as FDR said, "When it comes to politics, whatever happens is NO ACCIDENT." [my emphasis]
The solutions for the dilemma we find ourselves in requires hi-tech on the one hand, which we have with the Internet, but also some feet on the ground, and good old-fashioned print hand-outs, conversations door-to-door, and neighborhood meetings.
In other words, as Howard Zinn, Chomsky, and others like them, say over and over ... ORGANIZE.
Singular one-day protests and parades, no matter how well-attended or colorful are given short shrift, if covered at all.
So whatever we've really got to do has to be: Organized thoughtfully with facts and clear objectives, and then to the streets, person-to-person to inform, educate, and inspire with appropriate clear, short, charts, statements, whatever, defining the problems and telling the truth.
If there was a small army of interested people to take this on, it would be much what Obama did in his campaign. It's called Community Organizing. And his project to gain the presidency evolved into a presence in small towns and cities all across the United States, and constant correspondence and updates with people who signed up and had computers. SO, we know it's do-able.
And let's face it, if the above were done, this would become a very dangerous population to the Establishment, because the results in the words of Howard Beale might be: "I'm so damn mad," leading to "I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!"
How much are we going to take before it's too late?
peace, cm
Last year, those of us who came out strong for Nader or Mckinney were banned from some of the progressive/liberal blogosphere. Well, now that Obama is in charge and fudging everything up serves you right. This South Carolinian didn't give a shit about Nader not having a chance of winning but voted for him anyway !
The Military/Industrial Complex is working like a well oiled machine, as usual...
there is no two party system, get over it. there are neocons, neolibs, ziocons, and ziolibs. they all have the same agenda. and ending endless wars is not part of their agenda. on the contrary, the mic must be fed, and our political system is serving them.
Overall, the article describes the [awful] weakness, etcetera, of the Dem. Party members and supporters wanting a plan for withdrawing from Afghanistan (some decades in the future being evidently okay, as long as they're provided with some politically concocted plan). Both the party's members and the supporters are downright sick, extremely weak "in the mind", etcetera.
The party members may as well "hang up their hats" and fire themselves, for they clearly all are atrociously incompetent and/or worse than only incompetent. The supporters should "hang up their hats" and consider their right to vote only a privilege for them and one to now end, themselves. Such incompetent voters are a national and international security danger.
The article says the following.
Quote: "Obama has said that U.S. combat troops will leave Iraq by August 2010, so the congressional anti-war effort is now turning largely to Afghanistan."
That, right now, is an assumption based on believing the words of politicians. There's strong reason to believe that the so-called plan to be out of Iraq in 2010 is really only for deception, for presently deceiving the public of the USA. It's very likely that they really plan on being in Iraq much longer. There are present reasons for realising this. We just have to know what the reasons are and this only takes a little more time for reading from other sources than what CD posts articles for or from. Otoh, perhaps some TomDispatch.com articles that've been recently (enough) posted at CD refer to and/or explain some of the reasons I'm speaking of.
Whoever naively or blindly believes the words of politicians, political leaders, is what? Gullible, easily anyway, and this is to say the least, for it's also to be [careless], i.e., negligent.
"Against Prosecution (III): Obama and the Triumph of the American Myth",
by Arthur Silber, May 12 2009
(url broken over two lines in order to fit, wholly, in this post)
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/05/
against-prosecution-iii-obama-and.html
QUOTE:
...
Given the fundamentalist fervor with which the U.S. ruling class maintains and burnishes the national mythology, an exercise in which the majority of "ordinary" Americans join with equal enthusiasm (for such dedication to onanistic joys will forever find many followers), Barack Obama was inevitable. It was dangerous enough when truth was the enemy; truth was to be destroyed, but there remained a barely discernible acknowledgment that the truth still existed. With the ascension of Obama the Marketer, Obama the Fulfiller of Dreams, Obama the Commander of Illusion, the lie occupies the most prominent national space. Once installed, the lie grows daily and hourly. The smallest remaining tatters of truth are pushed always farther to the edges, until they vanish into the growing swamp of pain, suffering and death. ...
...
Honest to Christ, talk about the lie ascendant. I suppose it is "uniquely American" that the first Black American president could only have been elected by molding himself entirely in the image of the white, male ruling class, and by adopting a white racist perspective. But still he has Black skin! O, glorious symbolism! O, wondrous marketing!
...
Torture and the American Project
When we attempt to gauge whether an individual is genuine and honest about his proclaimed goals and intentions, we can look to various indicators in our search for evidence. We will note conflicts and contradictions between a person's statements and his actions, always remembering that, especially in the realm of politics, a person's statements will convey what he wants you to believe, while his actions will reveal what he himself is in fact concerned about. (Keep that point in mind; we will return to it later in this series when we consider the realities of Obama's foreign policy.)
END QUOTE
That basically is or illustrates one of the reasons I was referring to, but I was also meaning reasons based on events in Iraq since Obama was inaugurated in January; and the events keep occurring, instead of the opposite.
Again, understanding requires reading beyond or more than what CD provides for articles. Uruknet is one website that provides for regular, daily enough, articles on events in Iraq.
"Siouxrose May 16th, 2009 6:09 pm
Sioux Rose
DFAIRLEY: A most-excellent post, although your concluding sentence should not be set in stone."
Since when does treating the innocent Afghan men and the Taliban fighting only for reasons of defence constitute being "most-excellent" for perspective? How about getting with the hard, critical truth of the matter, which is that innocent men, whether they are white, black, ..., American, Afghan, ..., or ... are [innocent] human beings and all innocent human beings have the right to life. And, again, the Taliban aren't the "bad guys" except in American comic books, disney, etcetera, for they are only fighting for defence, which everyone has the [right] to do.
All innocent people, not only innocent women and children, have the right to be defended, have the right to life and to be protected under international laws, conventions, etcetera. Otherwise we pretend that it's okay to kill the innocent males as long as they're children, and that'd be a totally heinous, bigotted, ... view. All innocent children have the right for both of their innocent parents and all of their innocent brothers and sisters to not be killed or attacked.
People seem awfully bigotted against men around here, CD. I keep seeing references like the one dfairley wrote and Siouxrose claims to be "most-excellent".
"Do for others as you would want done for yourself" and "do not do to others that which you would not want done for yourself". I don't see an sexual or age discrimination in these two principles, but maybe some of you oddly do.
"TruthKnoller May 16th, 2009 2:50 pm
...
This Nation will not tolerate aother 4 years of BUsh."
Good luck with that "pipe dream". It was the theme several years ago and what came of it? Certainly [no] good fruit has been realised yet.
The "nation", which it isn't, not imo anyway, tolerated, very easily too, the unconstitutional, rogue, despotic, ... barring of Dennis Kucinich from [six] Dem. Party candidate debates for the nomination, and a whole [hell] of a lot more wickedness will be tolerated now; I believe, anyway.
They'll again come up with cocky, nonsensical reasoning for supporting what they claim to be lessers of evils, while thereby and again supporting evils and too easily being fooled into believing 'lesser' when there is really no substantial basis for having such a view. Obama certainly wasn't innocent or anywhere near it during his years as a senator, but his supporters living in a weird dreamland claimed he was a "lesser evil" or that the Dem. Party was or is.
The Dem. Party is a lesser evil, compared to the Repub. Party? I think ... not. There's insignificant, basically meaningless difference.
The Dem. Party leadership was complicit in ensuring the rogue, ... barring of Dennis Kucinich from the debates for the nomination and this tells us actually plenty about the party being really evil, in terms of the leadership anyway. They were [traitors] not only internally, but also with respect to the U.S. Constitution, for their rogue complicity in this barring of Dennis Kucinich. They can't escape with excuses like not having known, for they could not possibly have been unaware of this.
The two parties are basically "merged". While some individual members deserve public support, they're evidently in the wrong party(ies).
Sell America - Buy Greens
"dfairley May 16th, 2009 4:28 pm
FTA -- While the reasons for invading Iraq proved to be questionable, there's far less controversy about Afghanistan, Pitney said, because, "That's where the bad guys are."
This sounds like something out of a Superman comic book, not not the causus belli of a 21st Century, supposedly advanced country.
What the hell gives us the right to be fighting a war in Afghanistan? Where is the outrage in the US over our killing of innocent women and children? ..."
I AGREE with dfairley, but not wholly in terms of the ending of the above quoted text, for there aren't only innocent women and children being killed or murdered by the U.S. and NATO, and Afghans aligned with the U.S., plus Taliban who accidentally kill some innocent Afghans because of fighting against the criminal invaders; there are also innocent Afghan males being killed, including elderly ones. I don't discount [any] innocent human lives, iow. Since when do we have any moral or legal right to treat the lives of innocent men as being unimportant? I believe that that is not quite what dfairley had in mind, for meaning.
Otoh, the sentence snipped out of the last of the above-quoted paragraphs of his or her post causes me to wonder about what his or her view really is on the criminal killing of innocent Afghan men.
Quote: "Do Americans believe that our "smart bombs" can tell the good guys from the bad guys?"
I rather think that that question is actually one that is moot, because the whole damn war on the Taliban and Afghanistan was [never] justifiable, except in feeble, very gullible minds. The war was always of criminal aggression (not that there is any such thing as non-criminal aggression though, really, but I guess emphasis can't hurt, either); therefore, it doesn't matter if "smart bombs" can distinguish between innocent women and children, from innocent Afghan males, they are all innocent and the bombs can't distinguish between innocent and guilty! And the Taliban are fighting defence, so they're not the "bad guys", either!
If the "smart bombs" could distinguish between the "good" and the "bad", then the west's "smart bombs" would be bombing western forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan! They [are] the "bad guys", the enemy there!
So I guess I do have a "slightly" different view from dfairley's, after all; eh.
Whoa there, Mike. I wholeheartedly agree with most of your analysis, especially the part about DK, my hero, who was off the ballot by the time my Ohio primary was held.
BUT, I have to say, the Taliban are too the bad guys. Their laws are harsh, the punishment harsher and no appeals. Life for women under Sharia law is miserable. The men rule by sadistic violence cloaked in religious piety.
Does that give the US the right to go steal their oil and blast the countryside with white phosphorus? Of course not, but make no mistake, just because they are defending their desire to be as bloodthirsty and terrifying as they want to be on their own land doesn't make the Taliban good. Bad guys fight other bad guys all the time.
Why would antiwar Democrats be powerless, after all, they just elected a pro-war president?
Oh...
The article opens with the following.
QUOTE:
WASHINGTON - The anti-war crowd had waited years for this moment, when it could finally use its political muscle to end or at least sharply curtail American involvement in a war that seems endless.
Instead, Congress' most vocal anti-war activists were badly outnumbered this week when they tried to define an exit strategy for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan.
END QUOTE
Well, want some educational "food for thought" about what everyone should have been expecting from an Obama, Dem. Party, administration? I haven't viewed this documentary film yet, but read the short text description for it at GR and more about the doc. at the website for this doc., where visistors can also view video clips of interviews or presentations by several of the people involved in this doc. I feel confident that this is evidently a very recommendable doc.
The link for the doc. film's website is in the following page, which provides an embedded trailer that's a little over 2 minutes.
"VIDEO: Superpower (Film Trailer)
"The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know."",
May 14 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13629
A certainly complimentary video is one in which Pepe Escobar, for TheRealNews.com, provides a very good, or stronger, presentation on what the U.S. elites are really aiming for, which is [full spectrum dominance], a topic which I've found to be complemented in a slightly different way and which I learned of through (or was reminded of by) reading an article at globalresearch.ca, but I forget the name of the author.
Pepe Escobar's presentation, entitled "Full spectrum dominance" (at Youtube anyway), is focused on the real objectives of the U.S. and its western allies in these present GWoT wars; although, actually, it includes the relevant or related 1999 war on Kosovo, f.e. The article I read at globalresearch.ca was possibly by Dr Griffin, or maybe Peter Dale Scott, or ... (?), and it referred to the "Vision 2020" plan which the Pentagon or DoD (of the U.S.) has in formal or official terms and which is much about extending the USA's military dominance (on or for Earth) into space or outer space. And that plan, which maybe Pepe Escobar does actually refer to in his presentation for TRN, for I haven't viewed that video for many enough months now, well, the plan is such that the U.S. already has military superpower dominance on Earth and this, the "crazies" want, is to be extended ever more by dominance from space.
That video and article should be easy to find with simple Web searches, so I'll leave it to readers who want these items to do the simple searches for them.
Those will complement the above doc. film, "Superpower: ..."; definitely. And among other complimentary sources and/or kinds of information is, f.e., Zbigniew Brzezinski's book, "The Grand Chessboard: ...", let's not forget.
With all of this knowledge or awareness no one should have been expecting more than superficially pleasing good from the Obama, that is, another Dem. Party, administration, imo. The admin. may offer or propose to do some good that Americans seriously impacted by the economic crisis need and this will be pleasing for those who benefit, but BEWARE! Wolves in sheep's clothing also act in such deceptive ways, as to offer a little good with one hand, while working great evils with the other; an old "magicians'" or devils' sort of trickery, say.
If Dennis Kucinich had been respectfully and Constitutionally treated as a Dem. Party contender for the nomination, then I'd have a different view to express; but he was unconstitutionally, roguely, ... excluded or banned, barred from participating in [six] Dem. Party candidate debates! So, ... as per above!
Powerless, except when they EMPOWER THE BANKSTERS AND THE MIC.
FTA -- While the reasons for invading Iraq proved to be questionable, there's far less controversy about Afghanistan, Pitney said, because, "That's where the bad guys are."
This sounds like something out of a Superman comic book, not the causus belli of a 21st Century, supposedly advanced country.
What the hell gives us the right to be fighting a war in Afghanistan? Where is the outrage in the US over our killing of innocent women and children? Do Americans believe that our "smart bombs" can tell the good guys from the bad guys?
I identified a feeling I've had in my gut for a while. It is dread. I look at Washington, and I recall the line I heard recently: Washington -- Where principles go to die. There is bipartisan support for mass slaughter to further the interests of America's empire and the corporations and the fabulously wealthy for which it stands. Apparently, respect for the laws of man and God is for sissies.
My dread is that enough Americans support the madness that is US foreign policy that there can be no stopping this evil juggernaut.
Sioux Rose
DFAIRLEY: A most-excellent post, although your concluding sentence should not be set in stone. US citizens are among the most poorly informed. Fed a diet of jingoism from their sporting events to many of their churches, with entertainment acting as soft propaganda at every spare interval, what passes for consensus is more like a drunk accepting another beer. It's a thoughtless REFLEX based on fabrications not genuine agreement.
Quell f@#king surprise.
The "anti-war" folks are pretending to be as dumb and naive as any Cheney/Bush cult member.
First of all, the USA is neither officially nor Constitutionally in a State Of War with any nation on Earth. Try changing your label to "anti-occupationists," maybe you'll get a tad better traction.
Second, no military actions in foreign countries means no military profiteering for GE, Lockheed, Blackwater, KBR, etc.
Half of the so-called federal budget goes to the military-intel-contractor complex. Anyone who thinks this group of government co-owners are willing to lose hundreds of billions of dollars/year of free taxpayer money just because there's a new pseudo-sheriff in town is a kool-aid addict.
Isn't It Madness That We Look To Our Government For The Change We Can Believe In?
"Based on?"
"Something about insanity = doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
"But if not our government, who & what?"
"Turnabout?"
"The start-up?"
"Online."
"The vision?"
"A world where there is no war no more, nowhere, never, not even one; where each of us is in charge of her (or his) own destiny and where there are no have-nots nor left-outs."
"The plan?"
"We rise up en masse."
"The spirit?"
"Yes we can."
Baring false witness
Bring America Back !!!!.....We had Obama "With" us in all of his pre election speeches, debates, promises, etc etc.
***Who knew that Team Obama would fail to fight the DC culture of corruption as He promised.? Who knew that Team Obama would cave in to the military-industrial complex and continue to feed the Beast of Wars ???
***It is almost predominently clear that Obama had no intent to deliver to America the substances of the campaign for hope, promise, and constitutionality.
When the proof becomes solid, it will be Impeach Obama time !
This Nation will not tolerate aother 4 years of BUsh.
Wait a minute, Obama gained traction with the speech in Germany, the speech in which he was calling for recruits to help fight the evil terrorists, not peace. He voted to extend the Patriot Act, for FISA, for the Military Commissions Act, and all funding for the "wars" without a peep of protest. Oh yeah, and joined the parade to fund the economic charade. Have I forgotten something? Maybe, people should have checked his voting record before joining the herd. Idiot Americans thought they were voting for the new M.L. King.
Quagmire deja vu! Money for Afghanistan should instead go to fix up our crumbling infrastructure, upgrading the social security fund etc.
More money than we can imagine is flowing from the coffers of the industries of death directly into the pockets of Democratic legislators.
Education, health, railroads, highways, bridges are getting less money by the minute so the poor can kill and die for the rich to get richer.
There was a plan when Obama was voted in. First off, Bush and his party were unbearable, if the Republicans had won because the independents had split off onto different candidates (such as: McKinney, Nader and Dr. Paul) the neo-cons would have won the election, again... And yes, some people would feel great because of their clear conscious while the neverending war would continue to be pushed down their throats.
We voted for Obama because he was the next logical step. Now that people are getting fed up with Obama's unwillingness to follow through with what was expected of him, it is time to go for the candidate which embodies the dream of most Americans, that of a society where we are not at war, where we are not at the mercy of government surveillance, a society where we use common sense instead of pandering to interest groups when we make decisions. At the moment, the internet is opening up possibilities for this type of model, the truth exists, logic is logical and it is only a matter of time before direct democracy becomes a viable solution in the world. We can see that governments, especially in Europe have been threatened by this possibility and therefore are creating rules to govern and monitor web usage in order to keep power in the hands of the few interest holders.
We need to start making demands.
Iraq needs to be ended, its not difficult.
Afghanistan needs to be ended, everyone knows that Osama is dead and that should bring about a quick end to the regime there. We have to realize as a people that our best weapon against tyranny is the truth and openness, we have to wield it and make sure it is heeded in all corners of the planet, when this happens, petty governments will not be able to rule over the enlightened masses.
The biggest threat to our Common Dreams is mass surveillance which is already generally accepted in the USA, there are many European countries where this battle is being fought and I feel that I stand on the front lines in Sweden, though I really do plan on moving back to the states in a short while.
Now is the time to apply pressure to Mr. Obama, he is starting to falter in the face of Republican pressure and this is unnecessary and wrong. We need to restore the Constitution and restore personal integrity at all levels. Its time for a massive protest to show that we are not pleased with the current turns of events, we are not pleased with a compromised Constitution and we are not pleased with being at War on the other side of the planet because of a Texan plant.
Now is the time to apply pressure to Mr. Obama [...]
___________________________________________________
I'm not writing this out of bitterness and desperation (although I am bitter and desperate), but as a practical question: what substantial pressure CAN citizens place on elected incumbents?
One of my numerous criticisms of our entrenched duopoly is that once elected, We the People need incumbents more than incumbents need We the People.
Of course this is not an absolute-- there's considerable interaction between the voters and the politicians. But the party serves to PROTECT the incumbent against dissent and opposition that threatens to interfere with the President and Party's joint and several Agendas.
It still pleases me to warn, as I've been doing since Obama's nomination, that naïve supporters urging the remedy of "holding Obama's feet to the fire" may find that those feet are actually cloven hooves, and much accustomed to warm places.
I've had no reason to retract or repent of this caveat.
Again, in no way being snide or mean-spirited, I question the limits of the traditional bottom-up democratic methods of freedom of speech and petition for the redress of grievances in effectuating change.
Consider the manner in which Senator Baucus, however civilly, swept aside citizen protest at his rigged health-care dog and pony show. Over the months, there have been numerous verified reports of politicians like Dave Obey or Barney Frank gruffing and snapping at citizens who pressed them on unsavory positions.
This is why I decisively abandoned the belief that the duopoly can be reformed by the dual strategy of infiltrating party ranks ("electing more and better Democrats") combined with relentless public demands and constant individual citizen communication with elected officials. Once elected and co-opted, incumbents are inclined to let We the Chattel bark, whine, scratch, dig, and paw at the door as much as we like.
The doggie door opens from the INSIDE, and in this century, remains nailed shut.
· Yr Obd't Servant
I can only say: Wow! And thank you - I've been trying to raise this question for a long time, and it's really nice to have company.
And just think: the attitude you're responding to belongs to the REALISTS among the Democrats. But I've yet to see convincing proposals for pressuring Democratic incumbents, short of leaving the Democratic Party. We all know what happened when they tried to get rid of Lieberman.
Oregoncharles
"It still pleases me to warn, as I've been doing since Obama's nomination, that naïve supporters urging the remedy of "holding Obama's feet to the fire" may find that those feet are actually cloven hooves, and much accustomed to warm places."
You are a master of metaphor!
And excellent points in the rest of your piece.
I believe we are living in a time when the enlightenment-era democratic movements - and the ongoing threat of the people taking democracy seriously, have finally, 230 years later, been successfully reigned in. History will judge Bernays and Lippman - fathers of modern PR and the elite control of the levers of polity, to be as important as Rosseau or Locke were in their days.
By the way, the criticism of a certain websites treatment, of those of us who tried to warn everyone about Obama is still not allowed.
And there's a reason for that (actually several), and until you can show some signs of engaging those reasons you're pretty much reduced to blasting every thread on here with a link.
If you can tell me precisely how libertarians would rebalance the power between the public and private spheres to the point where business interests don't dominate our lives through economic power, I'll take you seriously.
Maybe the anti-war folks should have voted for a president who did not vote for the wars?
Duh.