Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDebate Evades Dark Realities
Perhaps it's unrealistic to expect a U.S. presidential debate to deal substantively - and honestly - with wrongful actions by the American government, even at the end of George W. Bush's eight-year reign as one of the planet's preeminent rogue operatives.
The acceptable political parameters may allow some tactical disagreements (Barack Obama saying the Iraq War "took our eye off the ball") or even some implied moral criticism (John McCain saying he opposed Bush "on torture of prisoners").
But there's no place for a serious discussion of wholesale U.S. war crimes, such as Bush's decision to launch an aggressive war under false pretenses, the sort of offense that the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II called the "supreme" international crime.
In a healthy democracy, moderator Jim Lehrer might have been expected to ask Obama and McCain whether President Bush should be shipped off to The Hague for a trial as a war criminal or whether he should be put before American courts to face serious criminal charges, such as violation of anti-torture statutes.
There might be a question, too, about hypocrisy: how can Obama and McCain so righteously condemn Russia for its alleged aggression against Georgia (after Georgia attacked the pro-Russian province of South Ossetia) when the United States has asserted its right not only to invade Iraq (under Bush) but to attack Yugoslavia when it was throttling a separatist movement in Kosovo (as Bill Clinton did)?
Granted, endless double standards have become part of the American political landscape. Many journalists and politicians have avoided criticizing the illegality or immorality of U.S. foreign interventions since 1984 when U.N. Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick famously chastised anyone who would "blame America first."
Since then, questions about American misconduct had to be muted for fear that any criticism would be labeled unpatriotic or disloyal. Mainstream journalists and politicians learned to couch their concerns about U.S. foreign policy as questions about tactics or effectiveness.
Arguably, however, that timidity has contributed to the frequency, brutality and criminality of U.S. military actions. It is hard to explain the Iraq War, for instance, without observing that Bush and his neoconservative advisers were confident they could roll both Congress and the Washington press corps.
Knowing that few people of conscience would dare stand in the way, Bush and the neocons sold the war based on false allegations about WMD and a historically unprecedented claim that the United States had the right to intervene preemptively anywhere in the world if it could foresee some possible future threat to its security.
This so-called Bush Doctrine meant that the United States and its political leadership had stepped beyond the reach of international law. Even as President Bush railed about the need to eliminate "rogue" regimes, he was turning the U.S. into the ultimate "rogue" state.
(Interestingly, ABC News anchor Charles Gibson did ask Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin about the Bush Doctrine in the Republican vice presidential nominee's first prime-time debate, and she flubbed the answer, seeming not to know that the Bush Doctrine was.)
Not Mentioned
For Lehrer's part, however, this stunning doctrine was never mentioned in the debate between the two politicians seeking to succeed President Bush. Only implicitly was it clear that McCain supported the notion of intervening aggressively abroad and that Obama was somewhat less eager to send troops on overseas missions.
Though a constitutional law scholar, Obama avoided posing either a moral or legal argument against Bush-style interventionism. Instead, he posited his opposition to the Iraq War on practical grounds.
"Six years ago, I stood up and opposed this war," Obama said, "because I said that not only did we not know how much it was going to cost, what our exit strategy might be, how it would affect our relationships around the world and whether our intelligence was sound but also because we hadn't finished the job in Afghanistan.
"We hadn't caught bin Laden. We hadn't put Al Qaeda to rest. And as a consequence, I thought that it was going to be a distraction."
Obama also cited the war's extraordinary cost to the U.S. Treasury (over $600 billion and sure to pass $1 trillion), the blood shed by American soldiers (more than 4,000 dead and 30,000 wounded), and the fact that "Al Qaeda is resurgent" in secure base camps along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
Obama concluded that "we did not use our military wisely in Iraq."
While there can be little doubt about the accuracy of his points, Obama dodged the larger question of whether the Bush Doctrine was illegal and immoral, nor did he mention the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the unnecessary invasion that turned their country into a living hell.
If Obama had ventured into that territory, he surely would have invited accusations that he was "blaming America first." Or if he had compared Russian actions in South Ossetia to NATO's intervention to protect Kosovo, he would have faced charges of "moral equivalence," a favorite neocon attack line that essentially argues that the United States cannot be held to the same standards as other nations.
So Obama retreated behind a defensive line of what's practical and what's not.
McCain's Counterattack
That opened Obama to McCain's own practical arguments, that whatever the initial mistakes in Iraq, the real question now is what can be done.
"The next President of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not," McCain said. "The next President of the United States is going to have to decide how we leave, when we leave, and what we leave behind."
McCain mocked Obama's proposal for a withdrawal timetable and insisted that victory was the only acceptable outcome.
Faced with McCain's flurry of attacks, Obama didn't even respond by noting that the Iraqi government has been insisting on a withdrawal time frame for American troops and that the White House has generally accepted that idea.
Indeed, the end result of all the U.S. sacrifice in blood and treasure in Iraq might well be the Iraqis saying "thanks, but no thanks" to a continued U.S. presence - or Washington laying bare its imperialist designs by staying regardless of what the Iraqis want.
Obama also chose not to reengage in a debate over whether McCain's "successful surge" argument is a reality or a myth. Over the past several months, Obama has been pummeled in interview after interview for not completely accepting the current conventional wisdom that the "surge" has worked and that McCain deserves credit.
For instance, on Sept. 7, ABC's "This Week" host George Stephanopoulos demanded of Obama: "How do you escape the logic that ... John McCain was right about the surge," dispatching an additional 30,000 combat troops to Iraq.
When Obama responded that he couldn't understand "why people are so focused on what has happened in the last year and a half and not on the previous five," Stephanopoulos cut him off, saying "Granted, you think you made the right decision about going in, but about the surge?"
Again, this was a case of a limited frame allowed by the major U.S. news media giving McCain a strong advantage. It is now widely accepted in Washington - despite evidence to the contrary - that the "surge" was the singular reason for the drop in Iraq's violence.
This conventional wisdom has prevailed even though it is challenged by military officials interviewed for Bob Woodward's new book, The War Within. Some of Woodward's sources saw the "surge" as more of a secondary factor.
As Woodward writes, "In Washington, conventional wisdom translated these events into a simple view: The surge had worked. But the full story was more complicated. At least three other factors were as important as, or even more important than, the surge."
Woodward, whose book draws heavily from Pentagon insiders, reported that the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province (which preceded the surge) and the surprise decision of radical Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr to order a unilateral cease-fire by his militia were two important factors.
A third factor, which Woodward argued may have been the most significant, was the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders. Woodward agreed to withhold details of these secret techniques from his book so as not to undercut their continuing success.
But there have been previous glimpses of classified U.S. programs that combine high-tech means of identifying insurgents - such as sophisticated biometrics and night-vision-equipped drones - with old-fashioned brutality on the ground, including on-the-spot executions of suspects. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com's "Bush's Global Dirty War" and "Iraq's Laboratory of Repression."]
Successful Repression
As we've reported previously, other brutal factors - that the Washington press corps almost never mentions - help explain the decline in violence:
Vicious ethnic cleansing has succeeded in separating Sunnis and Shiites to such a degree that there are fewer targets to kill. Several million Iraqis are estimated to be refugees either in neighboring countries or within their own.
- Concrete walls built between Sunni and Shiite areas have made "death-squad" raids more difficult but also have "cantonized" much of Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, making everyday life for Iraqis even more exhausting as they seek food or travel to work.
- During the "surge," U.S. forces expanded a policy of rounding up so-called "military age males" and locking up tens of thousands in prison.
- Awesome U.S. firepower, concentrated on Iraqi insurgents and civilian bystanders for more than five years, has slaughtered countless thousands of Iraqis and has intimidated many others to look simply to their own survival.
- With the total Iraqi death toll estimated in the hundreds of thousands and many more Iraqis horribly maimed, the society has been deeply traumatized. As tyrants have learned throughout history, at some point violent repression does work.
But this dark side of the "successful surge" is excluded from the U.S. political debate, much like the illegality of Bush's original invasion.
That blindness to what might be the most important geopolitical question of this era - the presumed Bush Doctrine right of the United States to invade any country of its choosing - has now continued into the presidential debates.
87 Comments so far
Show AllAs George Carlin has pointed out,"This country was founded on a very basic double standard. It was founded by slaveowners who wanted to be free."
The entire assumption that there were terrorist attacks on the US on 9/11 makes the debate irrelevant as far as I am concerned. What can be gained when both parties are missing the point and arguing about fluff without substance?
I hope that the US citizens will take a page from France in the 1790s and let the wealthy fall in an economic collapse; Let the cost of housing go way down. No more cheap dollars. No more expensive CEOs and their piggish habits. Power to the people, to the Constitution.
I wonder if Parry believes his own tripe or is he talking for the sake of hearing his own words? Keep in mind that Parry advocates on behalf of Obama: the other self proclaimed war candidate. He talks about the "dark side" but fails to look in the mirror at his own shadow.
Parry tells us this with a straight face:
"But there's no place for a serious discussion of wholesale U.S. war crimes, such as Bush's decision to launch an aggressive war under false pretenses, the sort of offense that the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II called the "supreme" international crime.
In a healthy democracy, moderator Jim Lehrer might have been expected to ask Obama and McCain whether President Bush should be shipped off to The Hague for a trial as a war criminal or whether he should be put before American courts to face serious criminal charges, such as violation of anti-torture statutes."
If Parry actually believed what he is telling us about "war crimes" of the Bush Administration, then it follows that anyone who funded the war (like Obama did for four years, and contrary to the knowledge that we now know is false taking us into war) is every bit as culpable as the Bush Administration. This is just another Texas two-step on behalf of the Obama campaign. Nothing more!
You're partly right, I think; but not entirely so, in saying that Parry advocates on behalf of Obama. In this article, for example, he certainly points out some very ugly weaknesses in Obama's positions.
I've read Parry for a long time, both his articles & his books. It's true that he has a liberal bias, tending to favor Democrats over Republicans. At the same time, though, he has unusual integrity for an American journalist. In fact, he has so much integrity that he was fired from Newsweek & AP because of it. He had this "weird fixation" in the 1980's of trying to tell unpopular truths about the Reagan administration, & was exiled by the MSM establishment for his troubles.
He's not a radical, & accepts both capitalism and the 2-party system. He's also somewhat of a lesser-evilist. So in those ways, you're right. On the other hand, he's very aware of the Democrats' hideous deficiencies, & admirably aware of the historical context in which events are unfolding. He doesn't shy away from painful & important truths that most liberals are in denial about.
I think he's often well worth reading, even though one has to be aware of the limitations of his perspective. There are writers who are very worth reading, even if one doesn't accept their basic perspective. For instance, Paul Krugman is often well worth reading, even though he's a shameless Democrat (in fact, a Hillary-supporting Democrat), an apologist for much of the Establishment, & works for the wretched NY Times.
A politician has to dance on top of the fence on real issues.
He made his points on Iraq with numbers during the debate. I feel Obama did the right way to say BUSH was wrong. To come out and say it was illegal then he would to back this with a list all the points of law ( world or other) to prove it. By that time 90% of the people watching would have turned off.
Neocons have to look at Iraq from the serge on and not the years before. It puts a positive spin on the invasion. Has the US won in Iraq ? I don't feel they have and all the resistance fighters in Iraq are doing is a rope a dope. They are letting the US relax and feel they have won but as soon as they leave Iraq will have a new Gov and new leaders and new oil deals and the US will be SOL. The US and other countries wants as Iraq will never be unified and a threat to Israel.
I call insurgents, resistance fighters BECAUSE they are fighting an invading army and live they in Iraq. This is no different than France in WW2 who fought an invading army. The US could't have them called resistance since it makes the US look wrong.
Bush will never be held accountable. If he WAS, then Addington, Libby, Perle, Feith, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Miller and AIPAC would have to be held accountable. And, for these latter, there is no accountability.
"In a healthy democracy, moderator Jim Lehrer might have been expected to ask Obama and McCain whether President Bush should be shipped off to The Hague for a trial as a war criminal or whether he should be put before American courts . . ."
Exactly! Well said!
I simply don't understand how those Obama supporters who are truly anti-war could in good conscience vote for him based on his foreign policy positions! Are the lives of others overseas not important to you? Have you really read his books, listened to his interviews, realized how vague he is in his speeches, watched the first debate and listened to his words? You are settling for the crumbs he will give you because McCain is worse. It's all so sad when we need you to help us get to true progressivism. Until we can get rid of this support the duopoly thinking we can never get there.
.
Nader/Gonzales is looking better and BETTER...
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
Support by giving DONATIONS to make this happen ...
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!! WORLD PEACE !!!!!!! End THE WARS......
.
I thought Ralph looked great walking next to the one and only, world famous, OBAMA GIRL!!!!!
HEHEHE
wild ;)
Regressive,
Of the two candidates one is clearly closer to progressive ideals than the other.
If you vote for him he stands a better chance of winning.
If you don't vote, or vote for a third party candidate, you're letting others choose for you.
Not voting is not going to change the two-party system
Voting third party in the Presidential election is not going to change the two-party system.
Doing as you suggest will do nothing but help McCain.
Lesser Evilism is the real evil.
Tell it to President McCain. It'll be easy to do, just speak into your phone as you normally would.
In the debate, McCain said regarding Iraq War Veterans:
"I Love them."
and Obama let him get away with it.
I wish Obama had read the following on Common Dreams 4/9/08
"According to Disabled American Veterans (DAV), McCain voted almost a dozen separate times against spending additional money on veterans' health care in 2005 and 2006 -- even as hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Marines were returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and filing disability claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
During that time, McCain voted against expanding mental health care and readjustment counseling for returning service members, efforts to expand inpatient and outpatient treatment for injured veterans, and proposals to lower co-payments and enrollment fees veterans must pay to obtain prescription drugs."
Why are people on this site so angry at those who are disappointed?
Obama needs to come out fighting and stop trying to pretend that he's so good at compromising with Republicans that he won't say anything when they lie or insult him. I'm sure he does this to appeal to the ignorant swing voters.
But this strategy has never worked.
Maybe he meant it in the sense of "Love 'em and leave 'em." You know, like with his first wife.
The terrible bush government is not the only ones to blame for Iraq and Afghan.
Every one that has gone over to these countries are to blame.
The spies, the construction workers, the troops, the air force, etc,etc.
They are all part and parcel of the bush wrecking crew.
The bush cheney gang have never personally shot or pulled the switch on anyone.
They get followers to do the dirty work for them.
im pretty sure cheney shot his buddy, while hunting. i heard it was an accident.
Agreed. The Nader YouTube debate is much better than Nader/Obama Girl.
(what's with Nader and the typewriter? I can't believe he chastised using computers when speaking at the Google forum)
You would think some liberal celebrity could lend him the funds to air more ads. But it seems like the mutiny of 2000 made that impossible. I notice that folks like Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon are now big Obama supporters, but you'd think that even so, if they care about the voicing the issues, they could cough up some dough for Nader to at least run critical ads.
America as a rogue state? That would have made for an interesting debate topic although America is actually a failed rogue state. Successful rogue states and successful rogue political systems usually manage to acquire some measure of gain, be it in status, power, treasure or territory. Loathe the Nazis as they are a genuine target for loathing yet they did secure measurable gains that had they tempered ambitions could have been sustained indefinitely.
America's slide into the darkness of rogue state may be looked at by future historians as having been the victim of political vandalism. A system sacked. Historians aren’t sure who the Vandals were who sacked ancient Europe but if nothing else the will know who the political vandals were in the early part of the 21st Century. But like the Vandals of history the outcome will undoubtedly be noteworthy in its senselessness and total lack of meaningful gains.
Excellent article!
Thanks Mr. Parry, you are the last great journalist standing.
Please remember the great investigative journalist Gary Webb whose death can be laid at the feet of the vile forces that Parry speaks of in this article.
Well, if you don't allow the Nader and McKinney into the debates these issues aren't going to come up.
Barack Obama was for single payer before he came out against it.
Erroll,
I will vote McKinney, Nader, or La Riva. But I'm not very impressed by how limply they've been running their campaigns. Which is not to say that it's an easy task and they get any help from the M$media (or even here at CD, BTW, is Cindy Sheehan really banned from posting articles?). I recently saw the Nader/Obama Girl/Ventura ad, and for a second, in spite of totally supporting Nader's values, I just wished he would either go away or hire a good PR specialist.
z
I agree, Nader's Obama Girl ad was weak and insipid but I think that the Nader "debate" on youtube more than made up for the Obama Girl faux pas. If Nader's campaign team had enough funds, this is the kind of ad that would, I believe, help him if it were allowed to be played on the corporate airwaves.
l'm trying my best to be a good Obama supporter but he sounds more and more like McCain light. RE; intervening aggressively abroad and the statement "Obama was somewhat less eager" from what l remember he virtually declared war on Pakistan. lsn't it time to stop the empire building and solve our domestic problems. Talk about" taking the eye off the ball" China is developing a space program, both Russia and China are developing relations with Latin America and Africa, and we are spending our treasure playing hide and seek in the mountains of Afghanistan. We used to vacation in third world countries now we are becoming one!
Both candidates want to stay in Iraq in the near future, and offer only a vague re-deployment plan over the next couple of years, both candidates want to expand the war in Afghanistan, both support the wars of Israel/US, both side with Georgia against Russia... Suppose I'm looking for difference between them in foreign policy, and I don't want to go to war with Pakistan, who do I vote for? (Not that I would ever support McCain, but I'm just saying, it's a sad state of affairs)
z
If you scroll down to the entry entitled I Approve This Message, you may find that this may provide you with a choice this November. The first entry-How Lucky We Are-is also well done.
http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/
The best article here in a long time. Thanks, that's exactly it.
It was paining me to watch these two exchange lies and half-truths, particularly re Iraq and the Caucasus. My esteem of Obama dropped immensely. He seems to be briefed by the same kind of cold warriors as McCain is. And they are full of spin and lies.
It was a "here we go again" moment when it comes to the abysmal real knowledge of foreign policy exhibited habitually every 4 years by US presidents or presidential candidates.
Which would be okay if the US didn't have troops stationed all over the world and if they weren't constantly trying to interfere in other countries' business.
The USA under this Bush Administration has now Fully Vietnamized Iraq with:
* the construction and filling of "strategic hamlets", i.e. concentration camps, and perpetration of ethnic cleansing, this time with high concrete walls and strategic ghettos for the different religious traditions, which did not exist before
* the Iraq version of "Operation Phoenix". A couple of the old Operation Phoenix Special Forces Vietnam soldiers have confirmed this. They called themselves 'America's Assassins' -and killed and killed without mercy or pity; men, women, children, innocent or not, destroying whole villages in their path... killing villagers living in their very own country, as is now being done to Iraquis living in their very own country. America's Assassins are now at work again, in Iraq and elsewhere
* the corruption and hobbling of the Iraqui government with decrees and demands and bribes of money and puppet leaders that must be agreed to by the US... or else
* the breaking of the US Armed Forces with unremitting warfare, wearing out people and equipment and resources
* the buying-off of regional leaders and groups with cash for not fighting Americans, cash which must continue to flow
* the military incursions into neighboring nations, this time Iran and Pakistan and Syria and Lebanon and Afghanistan, similar to incursions into Cambodia and Laos back then
* the massive yet secret aerial bombing campaign on Iraq, like that of the Nixonian era on Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos
* the virtual 'mining' of Iraq's harbors by Navy blockade
* the killing of hudreds of thousands if not millions of innocent nationals in-country, in the attempt to 'free' them
* the 'justification' of all this mayhem through a claimed 'existential threat' to the USA, that in the end turned out to be completely BOGUS and fraudulent
* the spending down of the US treasury in the course of the war, transferring the assets and treasures of the American people to giant private corporations during this process; corporations like Cheney's Halliburton, now headquartered in Dubai to evade American laws, oversight and taxes
* the deployment of the most sophisticated weapons of the day against rudimentary weapons of an indiginous population
* the claiming that the 'enemy' are 'attackers' or 'insurgents' -when these see themselves as 'freedom fighters' fighting against an occupation
* the 'economic warfare' used against Iraq and Iran, like that used against Vietnam... which is an act of war against Iran
* the 'Iraquification' of the war, a very distinct, exact parallel with the 'Vietnamization' of the war then
* the... ad infinitum...you get the picture...
McCain has his Vietnam all over again. Like he has his S&L meltdown all over again. There IS no 'winning' in Iraq, as there was not in Vietnam. But he can't let the Vietnam War go. He crazily thinks we could have 'won' in Vietnam. Won what? How? Bomb, bomb, bomb? Kill them ALL? Is that victory? Was it necessary? Was it in the end a vital interest of the USA? Or was it, as McNamara now says, a great big error, a mistake of colossal degree, a war that should not have been fought, perhaps even a war crime? Just like Iraq, and for that matter, Afghanistan.
The McCain Iraq/Vietnam recipe guarantees continual occupation for a long time to come. The differences between Iraq and Vietnam, apart from terrain, are that there is no draft now to touch American lives directly, nor are there any major nations like China and Russia, who supplied the North Vietnamese, supplying Iraq.
McCain has his advisor and "friend for thirty years" Henry Kissinger by his side!!! Wow, Iraq IS Vietnam all over again, complete with arch-warcriminal Kissinger. 'Nam in the Desert. The Iraq War cannot be 'Won', and the Iraq War is an illegal and therefore unwinnable full-blown warcrime. This warcrime McCain fully embraces, as the total warmonger-militarist he is. Not satisfied with two or three ongoing Warfronts, McCain has already tried to start it up with Russia again (with its 55,000 nuclear weapons arsenal) over the little nation of Georgia. a state headed by a corrupt leader who heavily and for years paid a McCain advisor to lobby for him!
McNuts.
Out of Iraq! Now!
Good post and amen. I got such a sick feeling at the militarism being spewed in the debate. And yet evidently the people ate it up. Obama's polls went up after that performance.
We have a lot of work to do building alternatives that will lead to peace, justice, honor and an end to poverty.
Joe
FVHorn
Your statement that "The McCain Iraq/Vietnam recipe guarantees continual occupation for a long time to come" is well taken. But it certainly should be applied to Barack Obama also as he is advocating that 32,000 to 80,000 American forces should be left behind in Iraq as a residual force even after his phased [as opposed to immediate] withdrawal plan has been finally completed. In addition, the [alleged] antiwar candidate also wishes to leave 100,000 civilian contractors [which would include the infamous Blackwater organization] in Iraq. Leaving all those American soldiers and freelancing paramilitary forces behind in Iraq will mean that the Iraqis will continue to resent and hate the United States since they realize that neither Obama nor McCain has any intention of ever leaving Iraq and allowing the Iraqis to govern their own country. American militarism at its finest [or worst].
You pull those number out your ass. Show me a link.
Nice post! what gets me is how American turn against the war when it goes badly, and then when things improve they turn back to supporting it. No question of legality or morality---just if we're winning. We are truly a sick nation.
I'm upset by the pro-Nader stuff I see here. I love the guy, who was practically
started by someone I grew up with, then editor of the Princeton Nassau, next editor (along with Andrew Kopkind) of The New Republic, then Washington guy for The Village Voice and now writing for Mother Jones, James Ridgeway.
Jimmy is one of the great muckrakers ever, like Ralph Nader himself, and like someone else I worked with, P. Davitt McAteer. McAteer collaborated on a book about mining with Nader and was main source for an article I wrote on Black Lung for Virginia Country Magazine.
We don't have many true reformers these days. These guys are the heroes as far as I'm concerned. However, voting for Ralph Nader in November 2008 makes no sense (of the common variety) whatsoever.
I'm hoping that my friend Ellen Wilbur will sign up here and hold forth for herself since she is a powerful writer. She's the one who has been most critical of Obama in the comments attached to this article so far. She explicitly linked Obama's comment about "taking out" Bin Laden to the warmongering of the last eight years. But did you notice whom she said she was going to vote for?
Excuse me, please, but I think anyone who votes for anyone but Obama is a complete loon. I live in the South now and really miss loons, but a person who won't vote for Obama now is detached from reality. Politics is about immediately
achievable gains. There are only two viable choices at the moment. Go ahead, work for change. I'll try and support you. But not if you destroy the world first, which sounds dramatic, a scare tactic, but really isn't.
As Gore Vidal has pointed out so well, we are the United States of Amnesia; i.e., we've lost our historical sense. People should be thinking about how World War I started right now-- no kidding. And that's before Health Care, the economy, education and all the rest of it, not least of which is the wonderful idea of electing a black man as our president.
Don't be too intellectual about this, pointing out that his blood is mixed, etc., he edited Harvard Law Review, etc. Use the standard of sordid American history.
If your blood was one twentieth Negro you were a slave.
This is a left wing purist pro-Nader website. I'm one of the few pro-Obama people on here.
If you wanted to see loons you picked the right website!!!
Actualy, this has always been a progressive website. Most of the 3rd party loons aren't native.
They have a number of mating calls including:
"Obama/McCain the same"
"Lesser-evilism"
"Obama is a war-monger"
"Obama is in the pocket of X because they donated X amount to his campaign"
"You shouldn't vote at all because voting supports a broken system"
"The Democrats and Republicans are both corporate parties"
"Vote 3rd party to fix things (or for your conscience)"
"Don't vote"
They repeat these calls over and over until a flock of them gather together, telling each other how good they sound, while fouling the area.
Anyway, Bottle welcome to the aviary.
too funny!
kman2
The major problem with your complaint is that the overwhelming majority of liberal blogs support Barack Obama. You make it appear that you have no place to find those who support your views while ignoring the fact that there are a plethora of web sites that you can go to that will back your candidate [while also condemning those who dare to criticize the great and powerful Obama] while there are very few genuine leftist sites on the Internet where one can read views that are expressed like the ones that one can read on Common Dreams and where commenters do not have to worry about expressing their support for someone like Ralph Nader.
Excuse me, please, but I think anyone who votes for anyone but Obama is a complete loon.
______________________________
You're excused.
Just one more in a long line of staged shams... eat it up America. It may be all we have left to eat soon enough.
These are some very sobering observations for most Americans. For others, whether inside the borders or outside as observers; the over due recognition that the USA is a rogue nation borders on the absurd.
From the begining the USA has been little else but a rogue nation.
Setting aside the atrocities against the Native People for a moment and study the atrocities the Americans inflicted upon themselves from their own "Civil War", then couple that with the misery they have created for millions of their fellow human beings in almost every corner of the planet, whether land or sea.
One strong political group, strives to control the bodies of women outside of their belief systems and social circles with a "deep concern" for "innocent lives" but for all practical purposes they are silent concerning the "collateral damages" their beloved military forces create all over the planet.
The Americans are incapable of keeping their treaties, and careful to use the most absurd excuses for these short comings while they are very quick to make an illegal war of aggression against anyone they deem as having indulged in the same activities.
The American was considered the strongest for most of the 20th century, but hardly out of the first decade they have caused the world to "rethink" that assumption, while the "Euro" is worth more each day than the US dollar, and now the world will view the circus for free, while the Americans wallow in the mud with the pigs they put in charge of the "purse" with little or no oversight: but "watch out for the maid at the hotel, you know they are known to steal you blind the first chance they get".
The only true form of "democracy" the USA ever knew; the labor Unions, was effectively defused when a "Cowboy/Movie Star/Politician" (most likely already suffering from the early stages of the disorder that eventually "took him from us", the one that takes the mind away first, "Alzheimer's") took the main stage, and the puppets that put him there tugged the strings. Then the mind set of the working class turned against their only form of representation. They the American workers were soon replaced with illegal workers who could be manipulated easier than the American workers, and if they got too far out of line there was always the INS. But then, the Americans needed to meddle in the affairs of those countries that would supply those "guest workers" so that they would have a "pressing motive" to leave their homes and most often families behind, and "go to America".
And it goes on and on and now, an international criminal is about to leave the White House and retire to the "ranch" ----or somewhere "off shore" perhaps, just in case, ya know?
The American people may have "painted themselves into a corner". They have little or nothing to complain of to the world, about others. They have "done it all", and no one has come to get them---yet.
NOW---the economy is in a shambles, they are fighting another illegal war of aggression which they have already lost. They owe trillions for these and other foolish mistakes to a very ---at least Historically aggressive---ancient nation, the Chinese for their own stupidity. It would not be impossible to imagine the Soviets ---tired of American duplicity, and the Chinese, and a few others, coming together to make the US Economy into one that reflects a third world image, and they would not need to attack. Just wait for the Americans to turn on each other, and then they could just wait for the smoke to blow away, and the dust settle----and they just move in---take over a dysfunctional, former -----rogue nation.
Then again the good people of America could take over. Even though they are out numbered grossly, the "others are not that smart". They could change the course the USA has taken. Pay reparations and restitution to the "world", or at least every where they have been and left destruction. They could take precautions that such fools will never gain control of so much power again. They could take care of their own business and leave the world alone---lead by example for a change, it certainly would be the first time in their history.
A very good start would be to hand over the entire Bush administration, and most of the High Command over for trials for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
But don't anyone hold your breath.
Not one more - I took the test and got Nader.
RichM - great you are helping clear up proaganda about Yugoslavia.
As I wrote on another thread, I emailed the Obama campaign and told them if that if Obama wasnt going to totally repudiate, denounce and end the neocon Imperial project, ending this insane spending on Imperial delusions of grandeur that are destroying this country, that I would vote for McKinney. I told them I was stunned that Obama doesnt seem to be very aware of important ideas necessary to saving this country from utter ruin, articulated with great precision by Andrew Bacevich and Chalmers Johnson. Links:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09262008/watch.html
http://mondediplo.com/2008/02/05military
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3067364950234559926
Now, try this. Watch the above presentations AND TRY TO IMAGINE OBAMA, AT THE DEBATE, HITTING MCCAIN WITH THESE FACTS OF THE SITUATION. I expected him to at least begin to do so, but he didnt. I couldnt believe it! I will either vote for McKinney of Nader.
This situation is insane. Obama threw that debate away, and/or he showed that he isnt willing to tell the financial aristocracy that they have destroyed this country and that we the people will not allow it to go on any longer.
Also, it is way past time to totally repudiate this insane procedure whereby anyone running for president is required to kiss the collective ass of the right-wing christian nutcases. I am sssooo sick of these dumbed-down nutjobs dragging this country down because of their stupidity and refusal to emerge from childhood and grow up that....ah forget it - dont even get me started!
"I emailed the Obama campaign and told them if that if Obama wasnt going to totally repudiate, denounce and end the neocon Imperial project, ending this insane spending on Imperial delusions of grandeur that are destroying this country, that I would vote for McKinney."
I'll bet that caused quite an uproar in the campaign. They probably had all kinds of meetings and discussions about losing your vote. Maybe they're still working on a statement.
Sarcasm ill becomes you, madcow. This is a poster who excersized the right of free expression, who engaged in the political process and who doesnt deserve such a childish response to such actions.
If you are so cynical perhaps you might consider withdrawing from the process, and leaving the field to those who still care.
.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
By all means madcow, please leave the field open to those who care enough to get really snippy when you don't agree with them.
lol
In as much as the body politic is irrelevant to the process, as evidenced by the contempt with which the overwhelming majority of the DNC wonks, members of both Houses from both parties, and, of course, the neo-cons have:
* ignored the established ~76% disapproval of the erestwhile "bailout;"
* ignored the "mandate" given Pelosi and Reid to restore accountabliity in:
- Congressional oversight of the executive;
- reigning-in continued rapacious economic deregulation,
privitization and corportist profiteering in all facets of our
economic lives;
- environmental matters;
- enegy policy;
- amongst the many other abuses of power
in favor of business as usual, (greed, hubris & cronyism);
* ignored the clear majority abhorrance to the Iraq carnage wrought in our names;
* rolled-over on the Patriot Act, torture, habeus corpus, domestic spying,
ad nauseum
the only conclusion I can come to is that I, amongst the bulk of us who rant against the failing Americcan state can look forward to time behind the wire under the "civilizing" influence of Blackwater and thier ilk.
Complain, march, write, speak, or vote as we may, even when clearly in the majority, we American citizens no longer matter. What we think, what we pay for, what we stand for, what we work for have all become irrelevant.
The difference between Graham and Pelosi is a matter of degree, not of substance, and with the exception of a handful of legislators whose work has been marginalized by the duopoly, (Wexler, Kuccinich, amongst a gallant few), there has been no effective opposition.
The kowtowing to the Republican line by Obama makes my teeth itch. His timidity in the farcical debate shows no stand beyond neo-light.
I'm disgusted. Sick to my stomach. And angry as hell.
Impotence does that to one.
Political Viagra is called for!!!
The article says:
"Obama didn't even respond by noting that the Iraqi government has been insisting on a withdrawal time frame for American troops and that the White House has generally accepted that idea."
The problem is that the White House is always lying.
US troops won't leave until the whole region is a puppet government for the USA and the place is riddled with CIA, US military bases, Blackwater headquarters, Halliburton construction sites and oil and gas pipelines. (McDonalds, Starbucks, etc., etc)
"The problem is that the White House is always lying."
That is true. Unfortunately, the media and Congress going along with those lies. The Republicans and Democrats had a chance to show that they had an understanding of checks and balances but they FAILED.
"US troops won't leave until the whole region is a puppet government for the USA and the place is riddled with CIA, US military bases, Blackwater headquarters, Halliburton construction sites and oil and gas pipelines. (McDonalds, Starbucks, etc., etc)"
That or until the oil dries up or our military is stretched so thin that it all becomes too costly to maintain the occupation in Iraq. My guess is that global oil production has already started peaking in 2005 and this year alone it has only gotten really worse given a sharper rise in gas prices. The prices may have come down a little starting in mid July but only because this is an election season. It will go up and even sharper than this year once the election is over. Add the stronger likelyhood that the crisis on Wall $treet is only going to worsen even more next year and with some luck more people will join in and call their Congress people to stop funding the war machine.
Yes, I agree, we've already hit peak oil. Even if there are billions of barrels left in the ground. The cost of appropriating them for the American lifestyle of overconsumption and toxic affluence has already proven to be higher than the value of the resource.
That, along with the complete corruption in the the war machine and related businesses that make this possible (and the Flim Flam the government is now trying to palm off on the public) means we the people will never see the benefits of any of the government's desperate actions.
Until the real cost of environmental degradation, lives lost and destroyed and the missing billions that have gone to the legalized gangster cabal in Washington are added up, we Americans will never know the true price of a gallon of gas.
Found this website where it asks you questions and then tells you which candidate is closest to supporting your views.
http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html
Even though it is a military slanted website, it worked for me. It included 6 presidential candidates that it was judging your views against (as opposed to many which only have the two corporate candidates).
Nader 91.49% match
Barack Obama (Democrat) - 70.21%
Cynthia McKinney (Green Party) - 70.21%
Bob Barr (Libertarian) - 63.83%
Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) - 46.81%
John McCain (Republican) - 21.28%
Nader's cool, but I'm going with the candidate who can beat McCain----can you guess who?
Gallop---Obama 52 McCain 41
Neat site...Thanks.
My match...
Ralph Nader (Independant) 92.65% match
Cynthia McKinney (Green Party) - 75.00%
Barack Obama (Democrat) - 63.97%
Bob Barr (Libertarian) - 51.47%
Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) - 39.71%
John McCain (Republican) - 14.71%
i got nader, 86% ..mccain 22%.....each vote topic has a nice definition of the vote issue
The calculator compiles the most popular responses from all voters to create a composite candidate, a candidate whose views match most with the average responses of users.
Barack Obama (Democrat) - 38.64%
Ralph Nader (Independant) - 29.55%
Bob Barr (Libertarian) - 25.00%
John McCain (Republican) - 22.73%
Cynthia McKinney (Green Party) - 22.73%
Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) - 18.18%
approx. 43,000+ survey
Nice
On the gun control issue, I stayed neutral although I do support background checks but not outright bans.
Overall, I ended up 94% Nader, 82% Obama, 76% Mckinney, 53% Barr, 47% Baldwin, 11% Mccain !
Frederick Johnson & others
I think that you may find this take on the debate [How Lucky We Are] to be of interest. If you scroll down past that entry, you will find, I believe, the next entry [I Approve This Message- youtube] to be particularly pertinent.
http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/
I took the test leaving everything in the medium range, and came out Nader, 90%; McKinney 81%, and Obama 76%. Then I retook it, putting some of the items on "high" and came out with Nader, then Obama, and McKinney. Both had McCain last, at below 20%. That was cool. Thanks for posting the site.
I am proud to say that my "McCain" score came out at 4.7%
I clicked on the link. My #1 (by far: 97%!) was Ralph Nader. Cynthia McKinney came in 2nd, and surprisingly John McCain came in 6th, with 17%! I was surprised that Barr and Baldwin came up higher than McCain for me. I would love for Obama supporters to click on it!
While I don't say that Obama and McCain are exactly the same, they are both on the same path (US military imperialism under the cover of spreading 'democracy'); they both fail to meet the minimum necessary standards for a president who will lead based on justice, peace, and transparency. They both fail as presidential candidates, though they both may represent the majority of the American people, which fails to hold people accountable or willing to change the system that produced the current problems (which did not occur overnight).
Ralph Nader interviewed by Gregg LaGambina in A.V. Club
September 25th, 2008
AVC: By your own admission, the Bush administration is one of the worst in recent memory. Going by what you've said in the past about how the lesser of two evils is still evil, do you see McCain and Obama as indistinguishable? If you agree that McCain would be an extension of Bush's policy, wouldn't Obama be at least a smidgen less evil? And isn't that reason enough to vote for him?
Ralph Nader: Let's accept your premise. Here's my response. The lesser of two evils, or the least of the worst, is not good enough for the American people anymore. They've both gone down below the flunk bar. When you consider Democrats today compared to Democrats in the '60s—ha! Democrats today are overwhelmed with what might be called, indelicately, anal flutter.
AVC: Anal flutter? That's a new one.
Ralph Nader: In other words, they have no political fortitude. They're always trying to engage in protective imitation of the Republicans—"More soldiers in Iraq" or "I'm John Kerry and I'm ready for duty." [Adopts tough-guy voice.] "We wouldn't have pulled out of Fallujah!" he says to Bush in the first debate. So, after the election, Bush blew Fallujah apart. Obama swings back and forth—hope, change, hope, change—like a metronome, inducing hypnosis. And McCain is the candidate of perpetual war and omnipresent military bases.
[for rest of article, go to http://www.avclub.com/content/interview/ralph_nader/1]
www.NotOneMore.US
A friend, Ellen Wilbur, wrote: "I was so disappointed in Obama last night. Yes, I will still vote for him as opposed to the McCain/Palin monstrosity, but how can any man running for the presidency talk about "killing" someone, even if the man is Bin Laden. I did not hear ANY talk of the CHANGE Obama is supposed to represent. Maybe only a woman COULD stand up and say (running for president) that it is time to try to put an end to war, that all leaders of this shrinking modern world should be willing to talk to each other seriously and respectfully and intelligently as ADULTS who want peace for their nations and to join together to save this planet. That was the "Change" I was hoping for in Obama, but it seems that politics and the need for tough talk if you are an American male has done its job on Obama. I don't have much excitement about him anymore."
I heard an interesting comment by an evangelical Christian on npr this morning. I wish I had gotten the name. His world view is not black and white with a list of social conservative musts (such as being anti-abortion). He is looking at the character of the candidates, and characterizes McCain as a "warrior" and Obama as a "healer".
It is discouraging to see Obama do Gore/Kerry-like dances and flip flops to get elected, but I guess he has to look tough to offset neocon accusations and scare mongering. The question isn't if he really wants to change things, its how succesful will he be.
"...the United States has asserted its right not only to invade Iraq (under Bush) but to attack Yugoslavia when it was throttling a separatist movement in Kosovo (as Bill Clinton did)?"
Is this a joke?
Did Mr. Parry somehow miss the genocide in what he euphemistically calls "throttling a separatist movement" in Yugoslavia?
Does the name Milošević ring a small bell in Mr. Parry's brain?
Does he have some final refutation of the State Department's calculation that 500,000 Kosovar Albanians were missing and feared dead?
Was Mr. Parry out to lunch at the time of the Račak massacre?
Was there some parallel to genocidal Serbian militias in Georgia's suppression of their break-away republics?
I agree with most of Mr. Parry's article, but his ludicrous comparison between Georgia and Kosovo discredits the rest of it.
Jacob Freeze
Just because the US media claimed there was "genocide" doesn't mean that anything of the sort actually took place. Are you familiar with what Chomsky, Michael Parenti et al have written about Kosovo? The gist of it was that there was a degree of violence both on the side of the Serbs, & on the side of Albanian Kosovars. But the magnitude of this violence was vastly less than the numbers claimed by initial US media reports. In May of 1999, the US govt & media claimed "hundreds of thousands" of deaths, mostly Albanians. But after the NATO bombing ended, independent reseachers and Canadian media & others undertook studies of the claims, & found them to be wildly inflated. Many of these studies revised estimates of the number of deaths down to a few thousand, with Serbs suffering roughly half of them. A word like "genocide" is not the right word for a few thousand deaths.
Parry isn't saying that the 2 situations were comparable in terms of the number of innocents killed. He's saying that the politics of both situations were very analogous -- an attempted breakaway of a separatist region, which the US supported in one situation, & opposed in the other (with Russia taking the opposite stance in both cases).
Rich M points are well taken.
But why did the the US/Nato side with the Albanian thugs? They sided with the Albanians for the same old usual reason - Serbia wanted to pursue an independent socialist path of economic development. And there is NO sin - even slaughtering a million people, that is greater than that.
I am so sick of brain-dead apologists for Serbian murderers like Ratko Mladic, Radovan Karadzic, and Slobodan Milosevic!
Why didn't the US just watch while Serbia turned Kosovo into a bigger and better version of Srebrenica? After all, it was only in Srebrenica that the Serbs had previously committed genocide so obviously that they could actually be convicted of crimes against humanity! From such trifling evidence, who would leap to totally unfounded assumptions about their intentions in Kosovo? One little genocide on their record... It's almost like making a fuss about a parking ticket!
Yes indeed, it has been difficult to prove Serbia's genocidal intentions according the the high international threshold, and all we really have is a long record of "mass rape, ethnic cleansing and torture in concentration camps and detention centers."
"Despite the evidence of widespread killings, the siege of towns, mass rape, ethnic cleansing and torture in concentration camps and detention centers conducted by different Serb forces including JNA (VJ), especially in Prijedor, Zvornik, Banja Luka and Foča, the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide with the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Bosnian Muslims were met only in Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia in 1995.[4]"
Human Rights Watch provides a convenient overview of Serbian intentions:
"The operations that began in late March 1999 went far beyond counterinsurgency: Serbian and Yugoslav forces carried out a systematic campaign of violence and forcible depopulation that left an estimated 80 percent of the civilians displaced from their homes.7 Areas with no history of support for the KLA and which had previously escaped the violence in Drenica and southwestern Kosovo, such as Pristina and eastern Kosovo, were targeted for mass expulsion. The killing and terror against civilians began to encompass any area with a current or historic link to the KLA, as well as some areas without any such link. In short, localized counterinsurgency was joined by systematic "ethnic cleansing."
Slobodan Milosevic, the White Knight of Serbian apologists like RichM, died during his trial for crimes against humanity at the Hague war crimes tribunal, and so his fans can celebrate the happy fact that at least in this instance, the question of genocide is effectively moot.
Jacob Freeze
"....Milosevic, the White Knight of Serbian apologists like RichM,..."
- Allow me to laugh in your face. This remark is just like the Republicans' calling anyone who opposed the Iraq War "Saddam Hussein apologists." The entire propaganda campaign against Milosevic was the same sort of hype & demonization that accompanied the Iraq invasion. Most of the noise about Milosevic was grotesquely exaggerated, simply to "justify" the NATO assault in the public mind. This is a standard US tactic, whenever it wants to violently put its paws on an area not already under its control.
The US-led NATO action was motivated by "opposition to genocide" about as much as the Iraq invasion was motivated by the desire to "liberate Iraq from a cruel dictator."
Writers like Chomsky & Parenti are hardly "braindead apologists" for anyone. As a rule of thumb, when they both agree on something, and the US media takes the opposite side of the issue, Chomsky & Parenti are probably right about 100% of the time. Even if they were ever wrong on something that the US media was right about, it's babyish to call them "braindead." They're obviously both brilliant. Anyone who doesn't see that is a dummy.
suckerbeagle
Show them that they don't automatically get our votes. www.votenader.org
A brilliant article that cuts to the heart of what's wrong with American politics and media. So, what do we do about it?
Here are some of the strongest points in what I agree was a top-notch article:
--------------------
In a healthy democracy, moderator Jim Lehrer might have been expected to ask ... whether President Bush should be shipped off to The Hague for a trial as a war criminal or whether he should be put before American courts to face serious criminal charges, such as violation of anti-torture statutes....
....Though a constitutional law scholar, Obama avoided posing either a moral or legal argument against Bush-style interventionism. Instead, he posited his opposition to the Iraq War on practical grounds...
....Obama concluded that “we did not use our military wisely in Iraq.”....While there can be little doubt about the accuracy of his points, Obama dodged the larger question of whether the Bush Doctrine was illegal and immoral, nor did he mention the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the unnecessary invasion that turned their country into a living hell.
-------------------
You ask, So what do we do about it?
- The first thing is to give up illusions that the problem can be solved by voting for the lesser evil of the two corrupt big-business parties. Lesser-evilists argue that Obama is not as bad as McCain, and in some ways, this is true. But it's beside the point, because both parties function together, as a system. The 2 parties are like 2 pistons in a single engine, and what's important is not whether one piston seems a bit nicer than the other piston, but rather how the whole engine works, as a unified whole, when the pistons are working in tandem. And our governmental "engine" consistently works to serve the class of financial oligarchs, at the expense of the rest of the population.
The above quotes from Robt Parry demonstrate that the disease of US society is SYSTEMIC. It's not just a matter of "mean Republicans." Rather, even one of the better figures in the US media, Jim Lehrer, is unwilling to get anywhere near asking whether the Bush administration should be tried for war crimes. And Obama, a very typical Democrat, is unwilling to go further than the very gentlest & low-key criticisms of the Bush administration.
You personally have argued elsewhere that there's no way to tell how Obama will govern, once he's in office; that one can't judge him by the "mask" he wears, while "trying to get elected." But as I've told you elsewhere, the "mask becomes the man." (Credit where credit is due: the phrase is actually Alex Cockburn's.) Even if one assumes that Obama is "secretly" far more progressive than his positions indicate, if he ever dared to "rip off the mask" and start advocating against ruling class interests, he'd be brought down overnight. And it's not just Obama, of course -- there are no Democrats who will seriously challenge the power structure. (No, Kucinich is not really an example of a serious challenge, either, despite his laudable stances.) The structure is set up so that only one outcome is possible: the govt will always serve the ruling class, no matter what the price is for the rest of us.
So for starters, "what we do about it" should include giving up illusions in lesser-evilism, recognizing that the disease is SYSTEMIC, & recognizing how the disease derives from the class nature of US society, in which only the top class really has any power.
PS - I hope you'll get a chance to look at the response I wrote you this morning in Saturday's Vanden Heuvel thread, about Carter's policy towards the Sandinistas.
RichM: Excellent post. Very well stated. It leaves unanswered the question of whether to vote 3rd party or just skip voting altogether. I've decided to vote for Cynthia McKinney, because she represents my values, whereas Obama does not. And yet I'm aware the deck is stacked against 3rd parties, and she cannot possibly win. But she could conceivably get 5% (admittedly, it's unlikely) and qualify for matching funds for the Green Party, which is certainly a worthwhile goal.
RichM
No matter what the issue, your response/solution always involves not voting for Obama.
If your post above is accurate, it's not just Obama, you wouldn't want any Democrat or Republican party candidate elected.
So all your attacks on Obama are just in the interest of getting people not to vote.
You don't really care how good or bad Obama is.
But you do everything you can to try to convince others not to vote for him.
McCain must love you.
"If your post above is accurate, it's not just Obama, you wouldn't want any Democrat or Republican party candidate elected..."
- That's right. Both parties are simply the political instruments of the capitalist elite, whose interests conflict with those of the general public.
"So all your attacks on Obama are just in the interest of getting people not to vote..."
- No. They're in the interest of getting people to abandon their illusions that voting for the lesser evil of 2 big-business parties can possibly alter our society's overall trajectory.
"You don't really care how good or bad Obama is..."
- I do care. Obama is a terrible candidate. He is viewed with solid approval & acceptance both by the military establishment & by Wall St. By itself, that tells you that something's very wrong with him.
"But you do everything you can to try to convince others not to vote for him...."
- The US has been ruined & disgraced by its 2-party system. If you oppose unjust US wars, want cuts in military spending, oppose outrageous handouts to big business, & want tax money spent for constructive social purposes, you're left with no one to vote for in US elections. That's not a negligible or abstract problem. It amounts to a thinly-disguised tyranny. No matter who you vote for, you're voting for the war machine & continued rule by a financial oligarchy.
"McCain must love you..."
- Republicans control their voters by terrifying them with overblown scare stories about external enemies. Democrats control their voters by terrifying them with overblown scare stories about Republican bogeymen. The truth is that Republicans -- miserable & rotten as they are -- would be entirely harmless if Democrats ever stood up to them. But Democrats never stand up to them. You should ask yourself why that is.
The best thing about banging one's head against the wall is that it feels so good to stop. You attempt to debate with one who is so completely out of touch with the political realities, one whose rabid partisanship ( does he walk around with his head up a donkey's ass?) prevents him from noting that we who reject the candidacy of Barack Obama do so with a logical and thoughtful appraisal of both his track record and that of his party.
His responses would indicate his intolerance of any sort of criticisms, almost as if, instead of the rational argument you had made, you had told him his mother wears combat boots.....I never cease to wonder at such a blind and unreasoning loyalty, one that prevents any sort of logical response, only bitter invective and sophomoric accusations, and to a response that I considered well reasoned and polite as well...so sad, too bad, he aint worth it.
He really should devote more time to his High School civics classes....
.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
The most primitive of the defense mechanisms are considered to be primitive because they fundamentally rely on blatant misrepresentation or outright ignoring of reality in order to function. These mechanisms flourish in situations (and minds) where emotion trumps reason and impulsivity rules the day. Children use them naturally and normally, but then again, children are by definition emotionally immature and not held to a higher standard as are adults. When adults use these methods on a regular basis, it is an indication that their emotional development is at some level delayed.
Denial; an outright refusal or inability to accept some aspect of reality that is troubling. For example: "this thing has not happened" when it actually has.
Splitting; a person cannot stand the thought that someone might have both good and bad aspects, so they polarize their view of that person as someone who is "all good" or "all bad". Any evidence to the contrary is ignored. For example: "My boss is evil", after being let go from work, when in reality, the boss had no choice in the matter and was acting under orders herself. Splitting functions by way of
Dissociation, which is an ability people have in varying amounts to be able to wall off certain experiences and not think about them.
Projection; a person's thought or emotion about another person, place or thing is too troubling to admit, and so, that thought or emotion is attributed to originate from that other person, place or thing. For example: "He hates me", when it is actually the speaker who hates. A variation on the theme of Projection is known as "Externalization". In Externalization, you blame others for your problems rather than owning up to any role you may play in causing them.
Passive-aggression; A thought or feeling is not acceptable enough to a person to be allowed direct expression. Instead, that person behaves in an indirect manner that expresses the thought or emotion. For example: Failing to wash your hands before cooking when you normally would, and happen to be cooking for someone you don't like.
Acting out; an inability to be thoughtful about an impulse. The impulse is expressed directly without any reflection or consideration as to whether it is a good idea to do so. For example: a person attacks another person in a fit of anger without stopping to consider that this could seriously wound or disfigure that other person and/or possibly result in legal problems.
Fantasy; engaging in daydreams about how things should be, rather than doing anything about how things are. For example: Daydreaming of killing a bully, instead of taking concrete action to stop the bully from bothering you.
http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=9791&cn=353
ardee
I agree. When one attempts to point out Obama's militarism to Obama's fans, they all too often respond with an emotional outburst, claiming that those critical of Obama must be a "troll" or, worse, a neoconservative while never wishing to recognize that their candidate's neoliberal policies are just as destructive as the policies of the neoconservatives.
The point is RichM, if the Democratic candidate walked on water you'd still attack him/her because you are against the two-party system.
You are not objective about Obama because you are pre-disposed to looking for things to attack.
----------------------------
"The truth is that Republicans -- miserable & rotten as they are -- would be entirely harmless if Democrats ever stood up to them. But Democrats never stand up to them. You should ask yourself why that is."
I think they've made a political calculation to avoid giving the Republicans political ammunition to use against them. I don't agree with it, but I think that's why they fold.
"...if the Democratic candidate walked on water you'd still attack him/her because you are against the two-party system...."
- Your premise here contains a hidden assumption that I categorically reject. It's not possible for the Democrats to run a candidate that "walks on water," because they're a big business party, & would therefore never nominate anyone who stands for things like cutbacks in military spending, etc. For instance, they would never nominate a Kucinich, even if he had all the superficial characteristics (tall, handsome, charismatic, etc) deemed so necessary in American politics.
"...You are not objective about Obama because you are pre-disposed to looking for things to attack..."
- I'm perfectly objective about him. He's a thoroughly horrible candidate. Admittedly, not as horrible as McCain -- but still completely unacceptable. And merely being less horrible than McCain is not enough to cure the underlying disease. At best, it might very modestly slow down the rate of deterioration. // Parry's article was not about how awful McCain is. It was about how deficient BOTH candidates are, observing that even Lehrer couldn't ask what would have been the obvious Number One question in a politically healthy society.
In response to my statement that D's never stand up to R's, you write, "...I think they've made a political calculation to avoid giving the Republicans political ammunition to use against them. I don't agree with it, but I think that's why they fold..."
- That's just a way of rationalizing their behavior. It's a weak excuse, & just not good enough. The fact is that they never stand up to Republicans. They never even seriously try to. The most they ever do is try to CREATE THE IMPRESSION of "trying to stand up to Republicans." This has been going on for many decades already.
I'll stand by what I wrote before. You are prejudiced against any Democratic candidate because supporting a Democratic candidate would be supporting a system you want to replace.
As for the issue of the ' D's never stand up to R's' it's the same thing. You are looking for issues to bolster your position that the two-party system is broken and needs replacement. So an explanation that makes the Dems behavior understandable is, to you, a rationalization.
You wrote: "The most they ever do is try to CREATE THE IMPRESSION of "trying to stand up to Republicans." This has been going on for many decades already."
Nonsense. If the parties were working together to try to give the false impression that they were robust opposition parties, they'd do a better job of it.
"....You are prejudiced against any Democratic candidate because supporting a Democratic candidate would be supporting a system you want to replace..."
- I'm "prejudiced" against Democrats because they don't stand up to Republicans, don't defend the Constitution, support illegal immoral wars, are utterly servile pawns of Wall Street & the military industrial complex; & are 2-faced liars who never fight for the interests of the working population. In other words, they don't believe in things I believe in, while they actively support things I strongly oppose.
"...You are looking for issues to bolster your position that the two-party system is broken and needs replacement. So an explanation that makes the Dems behavior understandable is, to you, a rationalization...."
- Do you seriously doubt that the 2-party system is broken? By now, I would think it's beyond obvious. This position hardly needs much "bolstering." Every day's events only "bolster" it still more. (Did you see Pelosi, Reid, Dodd & Barney Frank groveling on their yellow bellies to give Paulson the $700 billion?)
RichM
Excellent rebuttal.
RichM
Very well stated.
"....Though a constitutional law scholar, Obama avoided posing either a moral or legal argument against Bush-style interventionism"
I've been bringing this up lately in my conversations about Obama with people. Surely a constitutional law professor would be well-suited to restore the balance between our branches of government...but I do not think he has mentioned anything about the Constitution.
My question for John McCain: explain to me what you mean by "victory" in Iraq? In full detail.
Yeah, It would be nice if the pundits had asked Bush what he meant by "Freedom".
Wage slavery?, no healthcare? foreclosure? lost retirement? shreaded Constitution?
I'm sure he means not having to take our remaining people off the embassy roof just ahead of the tanks. That would be my guess.