Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Obama Channeling Bill?

In Ruth Marcus's column, today, she compares Bill Clinton with Barrack Obama and contrasts them thusly;

It's hard to name a prominent moment when, like Clinton pushing welfare reform, he (Obama) deviated from party orthodoxy. Sorry, senator, but voting for class action lawsuit reform doesn't cut it. Obama's book features an erudite discussion of the folly, and futility, of resisting globalization -- at which point he summarily announces that he voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement nonetheless. His signature divergence from the other leading candidates in the Democratic field comes from the left: He opposed the Iraq war from the start.

Ms Marcus, like many others, attempts to define the Iraq war issue as a matter of being Left or Right. She deliberately confuses the process of Democracy with the process of Free Market Capitalism. The only way in which this war has had anything to with economic policy was when the "post-war" occupation and "reconstruction" was executed by people selected solely on the basis of right wing ideological purity. Their attempts to revolutionize the Iraqi economic system to an utopian free market capitalist model proved disastrous for the Iraqi people and laid bare the greed and corruption at the heart of the neocon agenda. But it says nothing about those who opposed the war or have since come to oppose it.

Self-described "Paleo-cons" from the Goldwater era, led by Pat Buchannon, strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq. Would Ruth have us believe these folks are a bunch of pinkos and libtards?

John Yoo Says "...Every War Since WWII Has Been Illegal"

John Yoo, current law professor at UC Berkley, author of the famous 2002 torture memo and former Bush administration lawyer, has been cited recently as saying "People think that congress has to say OK to everything. But if that were true, that means every war we've fought since WWII has been illegal." (Well, Duh!) He elaborates that Bush's request for a congressional authorization for the use of force in '02 was purely political. It passed overwhelmingly but was not considered a declaration of war. The resolution was only seen as a way to bring democrats on board. (oh, thank you so much for allowing half the country the opportunity to either oppose the terrorists or support Saddam!)

In other words, they don't believe that there is any necessity, except in the political sense, to seek approval from congress for military action.

If you liked Iraq, You'll love Iran!

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Lugar - Just Another Dick

Sen Richard Lugar's Op-Ed in the Washington Post this morning reveals the true depth of the cynicism of the republican party. Faced with ownership of a failed war and chaotic state of affairs in Iraq he and his party have decided to try honesty. They honestly see this thing as a game in which we find ourselves in a tough spot. They acknowledge that securing access to oil and confronting Iran are their primary objectives. They "admit" that if this plan doesn't work, we may have to punt.

Sen Lugar as well as Sens Coleman, Warner, Smith, Snowe etc. had better wake up and get a clue about what they are saying to the American public. It boils down to this; The interests of Big Oil and Military contractors are worth mortgaging the future of our country and the deaths of thousands more of your children. And if it doesn't work, well it's just a game, right?

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Democratic Think Tanks

The democratic think tank you are referring to wouldnt happen to be the ISG, would it? The only truly bi-partisan proposal on how to deal with the real disaster for Americas Middle East policy was rejected by Bush in favor of more neocon mischief. Who is playing partisan politics with our national security? James Baker III? Chuck Hegel? Olympia Snowe? Gordon Smith? Dick Lugar? And Maliki is unfit because he is ninety percent Shia? I would venture to say he is one hundred percent Shia. What did you expect when you brought down a secular nationalist government and delivered it into the hands of the long oppressed Shiite Islamic Fundamentalists. Mr Broder should be ashamed that even at this late date he refuses to acknowledge the fundamental errors in waging this preemptive war for regime change in Iraq.

Jeb in '08?

Are you fucking kidding me? SV Date's column in today's Washington Post is a perverted fantasy about both what might have been if it had been Jeb instead of George in 2000 and how great a candidate he would make in '08 or 2012.

*Jeb Bush will turn 54 next month. He has plenty of time. Given his personality and his sense of mission -- not to mention that his father and brother have already succeeded at this -- it seems impossible that Jeb would not run for president. Whether in two or six or 10 years, the United States will face the prospect of yet another Bush in the White House. Americans will then quickly learn what we in Florida already know: This Bush not only combines his father's interest in governing and his brother's permanent campaign but also brings a relentlessness to impose his will that seems entirely his own.*

Yeah, that's exactly what America needs; a permanent campaign, a president who relentlessly imposes his will and HWBush's interest in governing! Though the attention span of Americans could be challenged by a common house fly, the results of the presidencies of both Bush 41 and 43 will remind us for decades if not centuries to come to heed the advice of Jesse Jackson at the 2000 Democratic Convention, *America, keep out of the Bushes!*. If Mr. Date wants to compare dynasties, I would ask who does he think Americans would vote for in a match up between Bill Clinton and GW? I dont really care for Hillary but she would mop the country with Jeb.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Anti-Capitalist Forum Opens In Kenya?

The World Social Forum will be a chance to showcase "Africa and her unbroken history of struggle against foreign domination, colonialism and neocolonialism," according to a statement on the event Web site.

Interesting that AP considers "...struggle against foreign domination, colonialism and neo-colonialism." to be anti-capitalistic. Does that mean they consider foreign domination, colonialism and neo-colonialism to be capitalist?

Should I be shocked?

Reading responses to Kimberly Strossel's column, Unbowed, at this morning was a sobering experience. Is it possible that the readers of the WSJ are still one-hundred percent behind Joe Lieberman and President Bush? It's almost perverted the way the republicans fawn over Joe. Why then does he cling the the "Independent Democrat" label? Please, Senator, if you choose to bathe in the blood of innocent people with the neocons, at least have the decency to call yourself a republican.