babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Obama-rama

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Obama-rama
quart o' homomilk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13309

posted 10 February 2007 08:58 AM      Profile for quart o' homomilk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He's in!
As of today.

Democrat Barack Obama declared himself a candidate Saturday for the White House in 2008.


From: saturday | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 10 February 2007 09:49 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Whew! Thanks for that news. Now I can exhale!

I've been wondering for weeks whether he would be running, and now it's official.

Obama deconstructed


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
quart o' homomilk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13309

posted 10 February 2007 10:19 AM      Profile for quart o' homomilk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No need to be flippant
I hadn't seen that.

From: saturday | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 10 February 2007 02:59 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it would shock the rest of the world if a multiracial liberal of muslim ancestry won the presidency.

So... any other montrealers feel like a road trip to new hampshire in a few months or so? He'll likely be doing ground campaigning there and be easy to get a hold on.


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Khimia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11641

posted 10 February 2007 04:51 PM      Profile for Khimia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
He is a media creation, he will fade perhaps even burn out. My hope is a Hilary/Rudy showdown in 08.
From: Burlington | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 10 February 2007 04:56 PM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
George Bush was a media creation. Do you not remember the punditry following his reelection as Texas Governor? It would either be him or his brother, and soon it was him. Another two years of Steve Forbes, John McCain, Al Gore and compassionate conservatism, and Bush won the presidency. He has since implemented most of his agenda.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Khimia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11641

posted 10 February 2007 05:00 PM      Profile for Khimia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Still I see little to propel him to the presidency. Rudy has a lot of baggage, divorce, pro-choice views etc that will hurt him among the social conservatives however with Hilary as an opponent my belief is that he will win should the two face-off.
From: Burlington | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 10 February 2007 06:01 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Khimia:
My hope is a Hilary/Rudy showdown in 08.

Dear God....why?


From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 10 February 2007 06:11 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obama may peak too soon with two years to go to election and may not be able to counter two years of mudslinging from the powermongers of the establishment.

It is very refreshing to have a candidate who did inhale and is not a phony frat boy philanderer or a power hungry philanderee willing to abase herself. Looks good to me.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
quart o' homomilk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13309

posted 10 February 2007 07:04 PM      Profile for quart o' homomilk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hilary is a gong show.

She talks tough now, but where was she when Bush was doing his worst? Voting in lock step with 'em. Her record in the senate is abysmal.
I don't know if she may as well be republican. At best she has no internal values and will do anything to hold on to power. She could be the Paul Martin of the US.


From: saturday | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 10 February 2007 08:30 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obama might not win this time around, but if he does reasonably well, could be a powerful force next time around. I still think the Dem nomination is Hillary's to lose, although I can't stand her anymore. The only Dems I care for nowadays are Kucinich, who doesn't stand a chance, and Gore, who won't run again.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 11 February 2007 11:19 AM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, Obama's not bad. He apparently opposed the war from the start,and seems to be less of a rightwing liar than Hillary. Still, even if he tries to act like Jimmy Carter, he wont go far. Wait for him to change his tune in coming months.

quote:
I don't know if she may as well be republican. At best she has no internal values and will do anything to hold on to power. She could be the Paul Martin of the US.

Exactly! Except Paul Martin wasnt certain about bombing some MidEast country in advance


From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 11 February 2007 11:29 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From what I recall, Martin's people let out the word they disagreed with Chretien's decision on Iraq, and everyone forgot once history vindicated Chretien's decision.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
BetterRed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11865

posted 11 February 2007 11:36 AM      Profile for BetterRed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes very true.
The point I was making is that Hillary,as the leader of a superpower, can do more damage than Paul Martin.
If the winds will blow again towards militarism in the US she could get really carried away and do something atrocious.

From: They change the course of history, everyday ppl like you and me | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 11 February 2007 11:42 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obama is interviewed on "60 Minutes" tonight, saw a preview of it this morning. Interesting.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
quart o' homomilk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13309

posted 11 February 2007 12:07 PM      Profile for quart o' homomilk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
An interesting question is, what if Obama, while president, is put in the position where he does, as you say, something atrocious?

It's very possible. For example, he speaks of pulling out of Iraq, but what if the civil war bubbles over and he's forced to wade back into the mess that Bush made? Could he/would he ever be justified?


From: saturday | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
quart o' homomilk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13309

posted 11 February 2007 12:09 PM      Profile for quart o' homomilk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm still amazed that anybody would want to take over the presidency at this point in time.
From: saturday | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Abdul_Maria
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11105

posted 11 February 2007 01:12 PM      Profile for Abdul_Maria     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
what have been Obama's votes on Iraq ?
From: San Fran | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Khimia
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11641

posted 11 February 2007 01:26 PM      Profile for Khimia     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dear God....why?
Because it would be a great fight, I am pullin for Rudy.

From: Burlington | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 February 2007 01:09 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by minkepants in the other (closed) thread:
I agree that Obama's joke is a bit of a dick measuring contest. I think it falls below the Gandhian standard of not subjecting your opponent to ridicule. But... I liked it. I think it pointed out the hypocricy of a man who calls for another nation to spill it's blood for his cause.
Ironically, however, Prime Minister Howard was not being a hypocrite at all! He was just being his normal, consistent, warmongering self when he suggested that al Qaeda would welcome the election of Obama as US president.

It is rather Obama, as between the two of them, who is the hypocrite. He poses as an antiwar candidate, but he's as much of a war hawk as Hillary and the rest.

And his response to Howard's comments merely reinforce that hypocrisy; instead of defending the idea of troop withdrawal from Iraq (by, for instance, saying something to indicate that keeping the troops in Iraq actually strengthens al Qaeda), Obama makes some smart remark about how Howard can't be taken seriously because he only has 1/100th as many troops in Iraq as the US does.

So having 140,000 US troops in Iraq is a good thing, to be bragged about? or a bad thing, to be corrected as soon as possible?

Does Obama even know?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 13 February 2007 03:16 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, I don't think that statement proves he's a warmonger. If he told Howard to go jump off the roof i don't think that would make him an advocate of suicide, just rhetoric. If you said that the fact he's allowed to even play the game demonstrates he's a captive of the MI complex, if you posted a donor list including Ratheon and Blackwater and CACI, or if you cited a bunch of hawklike comments he's given that would be interesting. Moreover, I'll bet, that since he's being given serious consideration as a Presidential candidate all those things exist.

One piece of rhetoric doesn't close the case.

[ 13 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 February 2007 04:44 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You obviously know nothing about Obama. Pay attention for the next year and a half and read what has been written about his past actions and statements. You will learn that he is indeed a warmonger and much more. You will also be far less inclined to "cut him slack".
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Abdul_Maria
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11105

posted 13 February 2007 05:51 PM      Profile for Abdul_Maria     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
i told myself i wasn't going to do this.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/iraq/index.html

i can't find anything about how he actually VOTED on the issue. i had a feeling that he voted for the initial War authorization and the funding requests.

if he's going along with the "we don't talk about the serious subjects" pattern of the Democrats-in-name-primarily, they could just as well change their name to the Smurf Party.


From: San Fran | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 13 February 2007 05:54 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Abdul_Maria,

was Obama even a Senator when the vote on Iraq took place? He was first elected in 2004 election I thought vote was before he was sworn in in Jan 2005


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 13 February 2007 06:47 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You obviously know nothing about Obama. Pay attention for the next year and a half and read what has been written about his past actions and statements. You will learn that he is indeed a warmonger and much more. You will also be far less inclined to "cut him slack".

Was that directed at me? Well, if so, then ...thanks for that. I never used the phrase "cut him slack, " neither did anyone else in this new thread. I said I'd be suspicious of anyone even allowed to play the game. In other words, I'm predisposed to agree with you. I'm just pointing out your 6 time repeated tautology isn't very persuasive. As Hunter S. Thompson said of candidate Clinton: don't feel too bad if he loses "ain't no nice guys getting off the last stop of this bus."

I asked if you had anything more concrete than your A=b, therefore a = f fallacies to demonstratew your position, too bad.

and, no Miles, he wasn't in the Senate when the vote was taken, which is why, if anyone can provide it, I'd be very curious what other statements he made at the time, either to the press or in his capacity as a state legislator.

[ 13 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 February 2007 07:14 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by minkepants:
I'm just pointing out your 6 time repeated tautology isn't very persuasive....I asked if you had anything more concrete than your A=b, therefore a = f fallacies to demonstratew your position, too bad.
And I'm just pointing out to you that Obama's reply to Howard is only one example of the man's long history of hypocrisy and pretension. Only someone who regards Obama as a blank slate would assume otherwise.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 13 February 2007 07:51 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
I think it would shock the rest of the world if a multiracial liberal of muslim ancestry won the presidency.

....


wait for it...., someone is going to publically state this is a sign of the impending apocolypse.

Well, someone in addition to Australia's PM Howard that is

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6352785.stm


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 13 February 2007 08:37 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
only one example of the man's long history of hypocrisy and pretension

again, what are the other examples?

Tautology: needless repetition of an idea, esp. in words other than those of the immediate context, without imparting additional force or clearness.

anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread. You win. I'm convinced.

[ 13 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 February 2007 09:58 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Don't expect me to educate you. Do your own homework.

You might start with the previous thread on this topic, where there are many many links to information about Obama's history of deception and hypocrisy.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 13 February 2007 10:08 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
gee, Hope you're not doing canvassing in the next election. i already said i agreed with most of what you said.

That being said, thank you for referring me back to the other thread. I didn't notice your listing a variety of concerns four months back in the previous thread. If you had pointed me there I would have known. I don't always read the thread that far back if it's covering breaking news. I don't see why saying scroll up to October would have been such a burden, but thanks regardless.

[ 13 February 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
minkepants
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13708

posted 13 February 2007 10:39 PM      Profile for minkepants     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And now that I've read the old postings i think you make a compelling case. I have to read more but that's food for thought. I would agree with the other poster who reposted your points. As the election cycle progresses, I think it would be illumninating for you to reprint your list from time to time. If you don't, I might.

cheers


From: Scarborough | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061

posted 13 February 2007 10:41 PM      Profile for TCD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Barrack Obama supports a possible attack on Iran.

Hillary Clinton supports a possible attack on Iran.

John Edwards supports a possible war on Iran.

Why am I, as an anti-war progressive, supposed to get excited about these warmonging assholes? It's like saying I can cure gangrene by shooting myself in the head.


From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 14 February 2007 09:46 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Who* Does Hillary Clinton Think She’s Kidding?
quote:
Beneath all his false claims to being a grassroots “outsider” and “progressive,” Obama is a conservative, privilege-worshipping man of Empire and Inequality, Inc. He’s an open supporter of neoliberal capitalism and U.S. global dominance (see Paul Street, “The Obama Illusion,” Z Magazine, February 2007; Street, “Obama’s Audacious Deference to Power,” Black Agenda Report, February 7, 2007; Street, “Keynote Reflections,” ZNet, July 29th, 2004, consistent with his passion to be president and his Ivy League education/indoctrination.

But even then state Senator Obama refused to be fooled in the fall of 2002. “With no access to intelligence reports,” Obama “recognized that administration claims of Saddam’s ‘imminent threat to the United States’ were hype and foresaw that an American occupation of Iraq would be of ‘undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.’”

I am quoting liberal New York Times columnist Frank Rich (Rich, “Stop Him Before He Gets More Experience,” New York Times, 11 February 2004, who might want to consider that neither I nor untold millions of others needed “access” to “intelligence reports” to know that the White House was lying about Iraq.

To his credit, Edwards now renounces his 2002 vote without claiming that he was bamboozled by Bush or the CIA (see Jeffrey Goldberg, "The Starting Gate: Foreign Policy Divides the Democrats," The New Yorker, January 15, 2007).

This hardly means that Edwards is less of a United States global-supremacist than Clinton and Obama (see revolting David Brooks’ interesting reflections on Edwards’ hawkish sentiments in a grotesque, power-worshipping column: “The Iraq Syndrome, R.I.P.,” The New York Times, 1 February 2007).

All of the Big Three Democratic presidential candidates, it is important to note, refuse to acknowledge the obvious petro-imperialist motivations behind Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L.). For his part, Obama (who loves to take sly little shots at leftists) cynically dismisses the notion of such administration motivation as left-wing “cynicism” (see Christopher Hayes, “Only Words,” The Nation, February 12, 2007).

All of the Big Three doctrinally repeat the childish fairy tale (see Paul Street, “Bedtime Stories for the Bewildered Herd: Iraq War Fairy Tales in the Age of Never Mind Media,” Z Magazine [January 2007]: 33-37) which claims that the U.S. invaded Iraq out of a “well-intentioned” (Obama) desire to export something called “democracy.” Never mind that the notion of the Iraqi people doing whatever they wish with their nation-state’s critical petroleum resources is completely unacceptable to U.S. foreign policy makers from either of the nation’s dominant two imperial business parties. The oil and related world-economic and strategic geopolitical stakes in Iraq and the region are simply too high for that.

All of the Big Three criticize the “war in [on, P.S.] Iraq” as a “strategic blunder.” They will not acknowledge O.I.L.'s status as a monumental war crime of brazen imperial aggression, consistent with the American Empire Project’s longstanding reliance on unlawful and brute force. The fact that most U.S. citizens actually reject that project and the perverted priorities it imposes on U.S. policy and society (see Paul Street, “Happy Imperial New Year,” The Empire and Inequality Report, no. 6, January 6, 2007, and The Chicago Foreign Relations Council's survey of American public opinion in the fall of 2004 [.pdf file]) is nearly irrelevant under the corporate-imperial rules of the narrow-spectrum U.S. electoral system (see Street, “What is a Democracy?” The Empire and Inequality Report, no. 9, February 3, 2007)


------------
* Whom, actually.

[ 04 August 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 16 February 2007 08:57 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
At his core, Obama is not opposed to U.S. violations of other nations' sovereignty; he simply opposes "dumb wars" - as he told a reporter for the Chicago Reader - meaning, aggressions executed by less-than-bright American Commanders-in-Chief. U.S.-designated "interests," not adherence to international law, are paramount - the fundamental tenet of imperialism.

Of the declared Democratic candidates, only Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich can pass anti-imperialist muster; thus the near-certainty of another imperialist in the White House in 2009. Which brings us to the special price that African Americans will pay if the face of U.S. imperialism, is Black.


Putting Black Faces on Imperial Aggression

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 16 February 2007 09:14 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Compare and contrast:
quote:
In the spirit of international revolutionary solidarity, the Black Panther Party hereby offers ... an undetermined number of troops to assist you in your fight against American imperialism. It is appropriate for the Black Panther Party to take this action at this time in recognition of the fact that your struggle is also our struggle, for we recognize that our common enemy is U.S. imperialism which is the leader of international bourgeois domination. There is no fascist or reactionary government in the world today that could stand without the support of United States imperialism. Therefore our problem is international, and we offer these troops in recognition of the necessity for international alliance to deal with the problem… Such alliance will advance the struggle toward the final act of dealing with American imperialism. To end this oppression we must liberate the developing nations… As one nation is liberated elsewhere, it gives us a better chance to be free.
- Huey P. Newton, from a letter dated October 29, 1970 to the National Front for Liberation and Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam.
quote:
I understood (Reagan’s) appeal. It was the same appeal that the military bases back in Hawaii always held for me as a young boy, with their tidy streets and well-oiled machinery, the crisp uniforms and crisper salutes. . . . Reagan spoke to America’s longing for order, our need to believe that we are not subject to blind, impersonal forces, but that we can shape our individual and collective destinies. So long as we rediscover the traditional values of hard work, patriotism, personal responsibility, optimism, and faith.
- Barack Obama, in his book, The Audacity of Hope.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dana Larsen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10033

posted 16 February 2007 09:20 PM      Profile for Dana Larsen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
He is a media creation, he will fade perhaps even burn out. My hope is a Hilary/Rudy showdown in 08.

This is what you hope for...?

That would make for a terrible choice between which candidate I hate less.

If I could pick, I'd like to see a showdown between Dennis Kucinich for the Democrats and Ron Paul for the Republicans.

I know either of them getting their party's nomination is unlikely, but that's what I'd hope for...


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 March 2007 09:24 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From an Obama speech March 2, 2007:
quote:
The U.S. military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. Our troops have done all that we have asked them to do and more. ...

As the U.S. redeploys from Iraq, we can recapture lost influence in the Middle East. We can refocus our efforts to critical, yet neglected priorities, such as combating international terrorism and winning the war in Afghanistan. And we can, then, more effectively deal with one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace: Iran. ...

... And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons....

At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.



From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 09 May 2007 04:29 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Weather of Mass Destruction [Apologies to BBC, this is my own title...]

quote:
In a campaign slip-up, US Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama dramatically overstated the number killed by recent tornadoes in Kansas.

"In case you missed it, this week there was a tragedy in Kansas," he said, adding that 10,000 people had died.

The true number of people killed was 12. Mr Obama later appeared to blame tiredness for the gaffe.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 13 July 2008 06:49 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
For thirty-five years the Democratic Party has enjoyed a nearly unquestioned hegemony over environmental politics, even though the greatest gains for the Earth were made during the Nixon administration.

In fact, environmentalists, along with civil rights and pro-abortion groups, have long constituted the activist core of the party: they have been its most effective organizers, most faithful (and forgiving) voters and most aggressive fundraisers.

But out in the American West there are signs that this long-standing relationship is heading for a crack-up. In several key western states, New Mexico, Montana, and Arizona, where the lines of separation between Republicans and Democrats have blurred to indistinction, have been launching independent and third party campaigns with the premeditated intent of evicting Democrats from seats they have long held. Encrusted incumbents, they call them.

The reason: mounting anger at the Democratic Party’s neglect and, in many instances, active subversion of pro-environmental policies, particularly regarding the forests and rivers on federal lands in the West.

The price of these independent campaigns may well be the election of more Republicans to federal and state offices. But this is an outcome that many greens are willing to accept as the down payment on building a new political movement—and as a just political punishment for past abuses.

“The Democrats now represent a far greater danger to the environment than Republicans,” asserts Tim Hermach, director of the Native Forest Council in Eugene, Oregon. “Clinton and Gore damaged our cause more in eight years, than the Republicans did in twelve.”


excerpt from Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance from the Heartland

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 13 July 2008 07:28 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
CNN's latest poll:

Obama 48%

McCain 42%

(near end of page)


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 14 July 2008 01:13 AM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I would have voted for James Brown.

I mean, if he was alive. And ran for funky President.

James Brown - Funky President (People It's Bad)


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 14 July 2008 02:45 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 14 July 2008 04:51 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In any case:


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 July 2008 04:54 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been told the content of the article is quite positive, but how could anyone get past this: Controversial New Yorker Cover Shows Muslim, Flag-Burning, Osama-Loving, Fist-Bumping Obama

From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 14 July 2008 05:11 AM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I've been told the content of the article is quite positive, but how could anyone get past this: Controversial New Yorker Cover Shows Muslim, Flag-Burning, Osama-Loving, Fist-Bumping Obama

Ahaha, that's funny, man. I'm gonna buy that issue and hanf the cover on my refridgerator door. I only ever buy the New Yorker for the cartoons, anyway, the artcles usually put me to sleep.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 14 July 2008 05:25 AM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
I wouldn't.

Oh-oh. The truth. Yep, Brown was a batterer and sexual abuser. That's some bad shit right there, too. I wasn't being real serious with stating my voting preference, but yeah, Brown was a sick man, and usually high when he took out his frustrations on woman. I would not soft-pedal that shocking part of him. And, I appreciate Michelle reminding me of it.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752

posted 14 July 2008 05:44 AM      Profile for Caissa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bob Dylan has endorsed Obama.
From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 14 July 2008 06:15 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Bob Dylan has endorsed Obama.

Something is happening here, and you don't know what it is.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 July 2008 06:15 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A friend of mine in the US writes:

The local Republican party will have a booth at the fair with a life size picture of John Wayne for people to have their pictures taken with. The last election we had a similar picture of the President, but not this time.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 July 2008 06:17 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Something is happening here, and you don't know what it is.

...do you, Mr. Jones.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 14 July 2008 06:31 AM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Something is happening here, and you don't know what it is.


Dylan, huh. He's such a religious man. Well, all I can do is...

get on my knees and pray
we don't get fooled again.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752

posted 14 July 2008 06:36 AM      Profile for Caissa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief.
From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 14 July 2008 06:44 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now I'm singing and I can't quit.

This is the first Obama thread that has had that effect on me. Thanks, Caissa, Boom Boom et al!


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 July 2008 06:56 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 14 July 2008 07:19 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
A friend of mine in the US writes:

The local Republican party will have a booth at the fair with a life size picture of John Wayne for people to have their pictures taken with. The last election we had a similar picture of the President, but not this time.


That's too bad - they probably could have made more money if they'd used it for a sponge toss.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 14 July 2008 10:32 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From July 8: Obama Addresses Critics on ‘Centrist’ Moves

excerpt:

He is at heart, he told a crowd in suburban Atlanta, a pretty progressive guy who just happens to pack along a complicated world view.

excerpt:

“I am someone who is no doubt progressive,” he said, adding that he believes in universal health care and that government has a strong role to play in overseeing financial institutions and cracking down on abuses in bankruptcies and the like.

Not sure which smiley goes here, I'll go with this one:


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
RationalThought
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15338

posted 14 July 2008 09:43 PM      Profile for RationalThought        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

This is how the Obamas are being portrayed.


From: not relevent | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 14 July 2008 11:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If only!
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 15 July 2008 04:18 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tom Tomorrow on the Obama Phenomena...


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 15 July 2008 07:43 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's not every day a political commentary allows you to learn a new word:

The tergiversation of Obama


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 15 July 2008 07:58 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doug:
It's not every day a political commentary allows you to learn a new word:

The tergiversation of Obama


From the Richard Reeves article you linked to:

Mr. Obama was always clear that he was running for the presidency of the United States, not the chairmanship of MoveOn.org. He has repeatedly presented himself as a post-partisan problem-solver who wants to work with Republicans as well as Democrats. ... This is no airy-fairy liberal who is going to allow himself to be pushed around by Middle Eastern despots. This is a shrewd opportunist at work.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 16 July 2008 12:33 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Mother Jones talks to Russ Feingold about Obama, McCain and FISA:

quote:
MJ: What would a McCain presidency mean?

RF: You know, I think McCain would be better on this than the current administration, to be candid with you. There've been some remarks that he's made about—even though he's pulled back some on telecom immunity—he's said that he would do no signing statements. I think he knows and his people know that this administration is just out of control and is just really lawless. But the difference between Obama and McCain on the specifics would be significant. I think that Obama would be far more likely to insist on some court review and some protections against things like bulk collection of information, reverse targeting of Americans. There's no question he would understand that and I would hope we'd have a much better shot at him trying to correct those problems than Senator McCain.



From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 16 July 2008 05:05 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
John McCain says he would return Omar Khadr to Canada, if Stephen Harper asked, thereby placing himself higher on the humanitarian scale than our criminal PM.

What is Barack Obama's position? I have searched in vain for any indication that Obama is even aware of the existence of Omar Khadr.

Saying he will close Gunatanamo Bay is no answer, because it doesn't tell us what he would do with the inmates - subject them to show trials, ship them off to any one of a hundred other gulags around the world, turn them loose?

When will Obama call for the release of Omar Khadr?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 17 July 2008 10:38 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obama loses endorsement of Hugo Chavez - campaign in a panic

Not.

quote:
In his quest for the White House, there are some endorsements Barack Obama can do without and today the Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez, did him a favour.

Chavez, who in the past implied that he favoured Obama over his Republican rival, John McCain, today declared a plague on both their houses.

In a speech to supporters, Chavez said there was no difference between the two and that US-Venezuela relations would not improve if Obama won in November. The problem, Chavez said, was the nature of the US itself.

"Let's not kid ourselves, it is the empire and the empire must fall. That's the only solution, that it comes to an end."

Thank heaven, will be the reaction of the Obama campaign, where there is a concerted effort to project a more hawkish image of their man and shed the earlier more dovish vibes.



From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Caissa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12752

posted 17 July 2008 10:40 AM      Profile for Caissa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Any word on Mugabe's endorsement?
From: Saint John | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 July 2008 10:41 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
All Obama needs now to clinch his victory is to discover a long-lost letter signed by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declaring Obama to be a bastard.

Everyone else of quality has already spoken.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 17 July 2008 10:46 AM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
All Obama needs now to clinch his victory is to discover a long-lost letter signed by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declaring Obama to be a bastard.

Everyone else of quality has already spoken.


Ahahah, yeah, nothing like a Republican's opinion to convince the fence-strattlers.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 17 July 2008 01:49 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Thank heaven, will be the reaction of the Obama campaign, where there is a concerted effort to project a more hawkish image of their man and shed the earlier more dovish vibes.

Yes. The American people are clamouring for a more warlike CINC. They are tired from the eight long years of the current hippy-dippy, bleeding heart presidency.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 17 July 2008 02:06 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obama has another celebrity endorsement, from none other than British Conservative leader David Cameron.
quote:
David Cameron has called on absent black fathers to take more responsibility for their children.

He spoke out last night in praise of US presidential candidate Barack Obama's warning that too many African Americans have abandoned their children.

Mr Cameron called for a 'responsibility revolution' to change patterns of behaviour.

He agreed with Mr Obama, who spoke only hours earlier, that government and business alone couldn’t be blamed for problems in black neighbourhoods.

The Tory leader commended Mr Obama's 'bravery' and said that many black church leaders had expressed the same anxiety to him.

Referring to Mr Obama's speech, in which he warned that absent black fathers were behaving like teenagers and shirking their responsibilities, Mr Cameron said: 'I think he's absolutely right.

'I mean I think it's a very brave thing to do.

'And it will have a huge influence that he has said it.

'I've had a number of meetings with black church leaders who make the same point too.

'They are very concerned about family breakdown and social breakdown and want to see what I call a responsibility revolution take place.

'I think it is a very important part of our responsibility agenda.'

The veteran civil rights campaigner Jesse Jackson has accused Mr Obama of 'talking down to blacks', but Mr Cameron said this was wrong.


Source

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 17 July 2008 02:25 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:

Yes. The American people are clamouring for a more warlike CINC. They are tired from the eight long years of the current hippy-dippy, bleeding heart presidency.


It would be a mistake to read from the reaction to the Iraq war that Americans want a pacifist President. They want a President who will go to war with more thought and more responsibly, but still one who when American interests are threatened will come out shooting if other methods fail.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 18 July 2008 07:06 AM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
would be a mistake to read from the reaction to the Iraq war that Americans want a pacifist President.

Oh, I know. There is no such thing as an "anti-war" movement in the 'States. The liberal position is to be "anti-losing-a-war". The vast majority of Americans have no problem with their imperial actions, as long as the death toll doesn't include Americans.

They want a big strong daddy to chase away the monsters.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 18 July 2008 08:02 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
An interesting video interview about Democrats (not just Obama) and "occupying Muslim lands" ... (from 5 min 50 sec onwards)
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 18 July 2008 02:01 PM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you want to blame someone for the FISA fudge, you could do worse.
From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 18 July 2008 03:48 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obama might be a socialist!

So John McCain says, so I suppose it's sadly not so.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 19 July 2008 04:14 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Obama, the great liberal senator, circa 2001:
quote:
It was January 17, 2001, and Illinois state senator Barack Obama was on WTTW11’s “Chicago Tonight."

Discussing his opposition to Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft, Obama praised newly-elected President Bush's new nominee for Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.

“The proof in the pudding is looking at the treatment of the other Bush nominees," Obama said. "I mean for the most part, I for example do not agree with a missile defense system, but I dont think that soon-to-be-Secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I give him credit for that.

"So I don’t want to be pegged as being far left simply because I find certain aspects in John Ashcroft’s record to be divisive or offensive," Obama continued. "I think it’s legitimate for me to raise that. As I said before, if he brought before us a nominee who didn’t agree with me on affirmative action and yet said that, you know, I do think that and showed a history for showing regard and concern for racial justice, if he came before us and said I oppose a woman’s right to choose, or I oppose abortion, I find it religiously offensive, and yet I do respect, for example, the notion that we shouldn’t be solving these things with violence, historically, if that had been what was said, then I don’t think I would object. And I think that’s a fair position to take.”


Read more

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 19 July 2008 10:38 PM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
All Obama needs now to clinch his victory is to discover a long-lost letter signed by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. declaring Obama to be a bastard.

Everyone else of quality has already spoken.



You must really hate this guy with a passion.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 July 2008 05:10 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MCunningBC:
You must really hate this guy with a passion.

No, I love Obama dearly, him and his buddies:

quote:
US Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has met President Hamid Karzai while on a visit to Afghanistan. ...

In a speech earlier this week, Mr Obama promised to commit at least two more combat brigades - up to 10,000 men - to Afghanistan, if he wins November's election.


Obama, Man of Peace - you must love him with a passion, MCunningBC?

quote:
Correspondents say the McCain campaign will seize on every perceived misstep during Mr Obama's trip ...

So will the roadside bombs.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 20 July 2008 07:42 AM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

So will the roadside bombs.



As another Presidential candidate once said, "There you go again".


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 July 2008 07:51 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You didn't appreciate my wit?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 20 July 2008 08:50 AM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
You didn't appreciate my wit?


I thought it was just about exactly as witty as Senator Clinton's recollections about June 1968 primaries, and how they ended.


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 20 July 2008 11:35 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The presumably cultured liberal Obama failed to explain why killing more Afghans rather than killings Iraqis will make Americans safer, or how adopting the Bush-McCain rhetoric on the "war on terror" will win him the presidency.

It would have sufficed to take the moral high ground on the question of the unpopular war in Iraq instead of offering a pretext to widen an unwinnable and unnecessary war in Afghanistan seven years on....

But it is an election year and candidate Obama must move to the centre to win the presidency. Right?

Well, true, but that does not mean the American centre is militaristic. If the last half century is any guide, Democrats have generally lost elections when they played into Cold War Republican militarism.


Al Jazeera

And Eric Margolis says:

quote:
It is distressing to see Obama succumb to the blitz of war propaganda over Afghanistan and adopt George W. Bush's faux terminology of terrorism. Before Obama urges widening America's war there, he should consider:

- Al-Qaida never numbered more than 300 men. There are hardly any left in Afghanistan. Survivors scattered into Pakistan. Finding them is police and intelligence work, not a job for thousands more western troops.

- U.S. policy towards Afghanistan is driven by energy geopolitics. Pacification of rebellious Pashtun tribesmen is necessary in order to build energy pipelines south from the Caspian Basin. That is the primary strategic mission of U.S. and Canadian troops.

- Taliban fighters are not "terrorists." The Taliban was founded as a fundamentalist Muslim religious movement of Pashtun tribesmen to fight banditry, rape, drugs and Afghan Communists. The Taliban received millions in U.S. aid until four months before 9/11. It had no part in 9/11 and knew nothing about it....

- Pashtun tribes comprise half of Afghanistan's population, and 15% of neighbouring Pakistan's people. The western powers are involved in an old-fashioned, colonial-style pacification campaign against the Pashtun Taliban....

- Before urging expansion of the Afghan war, Obama should total up the bill for America's military misadventures. As of last January, according to the Pentagon and data revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars cost 72,043 American battlefield casualties. Veteran's Administration hospitals have treated 263,909 veterans from these wars and registered over 245,000 disability claims.

No one knows how many Iraqis and Afghans have been killed. The number could be over one million....

- According to a Democratic congressional committee report, the two wars will cost $1.6 trillion by the end of 2008, or $16,500 per U.S. family of four -- not counting the cost of borrowing money to pay for the wars.


[ 20 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 July 2008 12:36 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally cited by M. Spector:
If the last half century is any guide, Democrats have generally lost elections when they played into Cold War Republican militarism.

You mean like this:

quote:
As Americans, we are absolutely united in our determination to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. They are barbarians.

And I will stop at absolutely nothing to hunt down, capture, or kill the terrorists wherever they are, whatever it takes, period.


I figure that a few more bold statements like that and Obama Kerry would have been a shoo-in.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 20 July 2008 01:09 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Al Jazeera also gives examples in the portion of the article that I didn't quote:
quote:
Remember, for example, how Michael Dukakis lost his double digit lead over George Bush Sr by playing the commander-in-chief role from the cockpit of an army tank, while Bill Clinton won the 1992 elections by steering away from the war rhetoric with the slogan 'it's the economy stupid'.

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 July 2008 02:20 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
And Eric Margolis says:

quote:

It is distressing to see Obama succumb to the blitz of war propaganda over Afghanistan and adopt George W. Bush's faux terminology of terrorism. Before Obama urges widening America's war there, he should consider:


Excellent article by Margolis, someone I read whenever possible. Thanks for the link.

ETA: I was pretty sure I saw Obama on CNN back down on the rehetoric over Pakistan, but this confirms that Pakistan is still on radar.

[ 20 July 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 July 2008 02:37 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
ETA: I saw Obama on CNN, he's backing down on the rhetoric on Pakistan, now says he wants a political solution to whatever the issue over Pakistan is.

Unfortunately, no talk about political solutions:

quote:
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has insisted that his administration will strike at Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if it gets actionable intelligence on the group. ...

"... what I've said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value Al Qaeda targets and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that we should," he said.

"Now, my hope is that it doesn't come to that. Pakistani government would recognise that if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights, that we should fire or capture..." Obama said making the point that this indeed is the current doctrine.

"I think actually this is current doctrine. There was some dispute when I said this last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, well, you know, you shouldn't go around saying that. But I don't think there's any doubt that it should be our policy and will continue to be our policy... I don't think there is going to be a change there," he said.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 July 2008 02:52 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Heh. I edited my post just about the same time you sent your reply.

It's insane for Obama to be talking about engaging Pakistan militarily. Isn't it?

ETA: Actually, wouldn't Obama have the full support of Musharraf in going after the insurgents who move back and forth between Afganistan and Pakistan? Isn't it precisely because Musharraf doesn't have the power to control the border that this is even an issue for Obama in the first place?

[ 20 July 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 July 2008 02:55 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
It's insane for Obama to be talking about engaging Pakistan militarily. Isn't it?

Why? Something has to be done to prevent Pakistan from joining the nuclear club. Plus Obama could march to Islamabad and make it a hat-trick (with Iraq and Afghanistan).

Hope. Change. Fool the idiots. Again.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 20 July 2008 02:57 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is it? I don't think so. Americans can't come up with a littering program without calling it a "WAR ON TRASH!" There is always a "WAR ON" something. Obmama is a slick politician. His polling and focus groups tell him Americans have more of a stomoach for continuing to kill brown people in Asia than in the middle-east where it hasn't gone so well.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 20 July 2008 04:56 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Chomsky: Can a Democrat change US Middle East policy?

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 July 2008 05:59 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Why? Something has to be done to prevent Pakistan from joining the nuclear club. Plus Obama could march to Islamabad and make it a hat-trick (with Iraq and Afghanistan).

Pakistan (and India) already are in the nuclear club - Obama according to what I've seen posted wants to prevent Pakistan from collapsing and the "terrists" getting ahold of those weapons. Isn't Musharraf dependent on the US to stay in power and hold off the ravenging hordes?


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 July 2008 06:38 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Pakistan (and India) already are in the nuclear club -

Yes, I know, I was just trying to ridicule Obama - probably didn't do as well as I wanted.

quote:
Obama according to what I've seen posted wants to prevent Pakistan from collapsing and the "terrists" getting ahold of those weapons. Isn't Musharraf dependent on the US to stay in power and hold off the ravenging hordes?

Obama (like McCain, Clinton, and the rest) is a cold-hearted warmonger who wants to display U.S. moral superiority by force of arms, run the whole world, make his masters wealthier still (if that were possible), and blithely ignore the corpses of dispensable "lesser" peoples that litter the way. If you can identify some nobler motive or ambition for the horrendous things that issue from his mouth, be sure to let me know.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 20 July 2008 07:00 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What I was trying to suggest in my previous post is that perhaps Musharraf is encouraging the US to go after the so-called 'bad guys' that regularly cross the Afganistan - Pakistan border, because he lacks the resources to do so himself. Obama is probably giving Musharraf wet dreams.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903

posted 22 July 2008 09:54 PM      Profile for MCunningBC        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Obama (like McCain, Clinton, and the rest) is a cold-hearted warmonger who wants to display U.S. moral superiority by force of arms, run the whole world, make his masters wealthier still (if that were possible), and blithely ignore the corpses of dispensable "lesser" peoples that litter the way. If you can identify some nobler motive or ambition for the horrendous things that issue from his mouth, be sure to let me know.

Can I borrow this passage and use it in the NY Times Caucus Blog?


From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 July 2008 10:42 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
- Taliban fighters are not "terrorists." The Taliban was founded as a fundamentalist Muslim religious movement of Pashtun tribesmen to fight banditry, rape, drugs and Afghan Communists. The Taliban received millions in U.S. aid until four months before 9/11. It had no part in 9/11 and knew nothing about it....

Margolis makes it sound as if the Taliban are an Afghan equivalent of the boy scouts. U.S. news media have admitted that Taliban came to power in 1995 partly as a result of U.S. support of mujahideen, a group of religious extremists in the 1980's. A Lahore news journalist says many Pakistanis blame Afghans for Talibanization of the 1980's and are unaware that extremist religious views went out to Afghanistan from Pakistan with financial support from the CIA and Saudi princes. Khaled Ahmed commented that the Britain's Muslim population are now even more radicalized by the puritanical Deobandi message than are mosques in Pakistan.

Osama-rama "Yes we did support him, but then he went against us!?" It wasn't "Blowback" - it was the ol' "Gladio" routine

[ 22 July 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca