SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LTK007 who wrote (79230)7/31/2009 11:38:35 PM
From: denizen48  Respond to of 89467
 
Don't you feel like you're being used? You are. You're the announcer for what's coming down the pike. It won't do any good to pre-announce. It'll happen. Just like the banker bonuses.



To: LTK007 who wrote (79230)8/1/2009 2:15:57 AM
From: Crimson Ghost  Respond to of 89467
 
Early on I thought that Obama -- awful as he is -- at least would not go along with Israeli plans for war with Iran.

But now it is clear that Obama is totally owned by the Israel lobby on fundamental issues of war and peace--some minor tactical disagreements notwithstanding.

He is more dangerous than Bush because he has more credibility -- although this is starting to slip.



To: LTK007 who wrote (79230)8/8/2009 10:51:42 AM
From: Crimson Ghost1 Recommendation  Respond to of 89467
 
Tons of Imperial Fun: Hellfire Hillary Pours Oil on Somalia's Fire
Chris Floyd

August 7, 2009

There is apparently no path blazed by George W. Bush that Barack Obama will not eagerly follow. Surges, assassinations, indefinite detention, defense of torture, senseless wars and rampant militarism -- in just a few short months, we've seen it all.

To this dismaying record of complicity and continuity, we can add an increasing direct involvement in the horrific, hydra-headed conflict in Somalia, whose latest round of fiery hell was instigated by the American-backed invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia in late 2006. Under Bush, U.S. forces were deeply and directly enmeshed in the murderous action, dropping bombs on fleeing refugees, "renditioning" other refugees to the tender mercies of Ethiopia's notorious prisons, and even sending in death squads to clean up after missile strikes and bombings. (For background, see "Silent Surge: Bipartisan Terror War Intensifies in Somalia.")

The result of that intervention has been the deaths of thousands of innocent people, the displacement and ruination of hundreds of thousands, and the creation of what many experts call the most dire humanitarian crisis in the world today. It has also resulted in the empowerment of violent sectarian groups and criminal gangs, who have stepped forth to fill the gaps of the fledgling state that the American-Ethiopian "regime change" operation destroyed.

So what do we see from the administration of "hope and change"? We see -- wait for it -- a new "surge" of direct American involvement in the war, with Obama's most ferocious war hawk -- sorry, his top diplomat -- Hillary "The Obliterator" Clinton leading the charge. As Jason Ditz at Antiwar.com reports, Clinton has pledged to double the recently announced supply of American weapons to Somalia's "transitional government" -- a weak reed cobbled together by Western interests from various CIA-paid warlords and other factions, and now headed, ironically, by the former leader of the aforementioned fledgling state overthrown by Washington. (Yes, it is hard to tell the players without a scorecard -- or even with one. But if you follow the weapons and the money, you can usually tell who is temporarily on which side at any given moment.)

Clinton, bellicose as ever, accompanied the shipment of 80 tons of death-dealing hardware with a heavy dose of the wild fearmongering rhetoric we've come to know so well in this New American Century. As AP reports, she declared that the radical faction al-Shabab, now leading the insurgency against the transitional government, has only one goal in mind: bring in al Qaeda and destabilizing the whole entire world.

Yes, dear hearts, once again the survival of the planet -- not to mention the sacred American way of life -- is under imminent threat from a gang of evil maniacs; a threat requiring the urgent enrichment of the U.S. arms industry -- sorry, I mean the urgent intervention of American know-how. For as the history of American foreign policy in the last 60 years has clearly shown us, there has never been an internal conflict in any country of the world that was not actually, deep down, a direct threat to all the sweet American babies sleeping in their cribs.

The interim Somali president, Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed -- an Islamist who only a few years ago was considered by Washington as, well, an evil maniac in league with al Qaeda -- agreed with Clinton, saying that al-Shabab aims to "make Somalia a ground to destabilize the whole world." This would be the same al-Shabab that Ahmed has spent most of his presidency trying to negotiate a power-sharing agreement with. (Where's that scorecard again?)

As usual, the AP story buries some of the most blazing, salient facts way down in the uncritical regurgitation of official rhetoric. But credit where it's due, the story does finally note that the new American assistance is not confined to stuff that can kill more Somalis; it also includes - wait for it again -- U.S. military "advisors" to help "train" the forces of the ever-collapsing transitional government.

Clinton also shook a sword at neighboring Eritrea, accusing it of supporting al-Shabab and "interfering" in Somalia's internal affairs. This, while she was announcing the delivery of 80 tons of American weapons to be poured into Somalia's internal affairs. This line is of course just an echo of the continual Bush-Obama warnings against "foreigners" interfering in Iraq. The gall of these gilded poltroons -- denouncing foreign interference while standing on mountains of corpses produced by the endless American "interference" in other countries -- is truly sublime. Clinton said that if Eritrea doesn't start toeing the imperial line, "we intend to take actions." (All you future Gold Star mothers and war widows out there better get out your atlases: your loved ones could soon be dying in yet another part of the world you never heard of.)

What will be the effect of this new "humanitarian intervention" of weapons and advisers? Same as it ever was: more death, more ruin, more suffering, more extremism, more hatred, more sorrow -- and more money for the war profiteers. That is the point, isn't it?



To: LTK007 who wrote (79230)8/18/2009 9:57:00 PM
From: Crimson Ghost1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Fairy tale turned nightmare: Obama, liberal warmonger-in-chief, can’t be trusted on Iraq
D.K. Jamaal


August 18, 2009

In January 2008, while defending Hillary’s vote to authorize use of force in Iraq, Bill Clinton slammed then-candidate Obama’s anti-war hypocrisy, declaring that Obama's vaunted opposition to the Iraq War was a farce.

Bill pointed out that Obama admitted he didn’t know how he would have voted on the war had he been in the Senate at the time, that Obama had once said "there was no difference" between his stance on the war and that of President Bush, and that when it came to funding the war Obama’s voting record was identical to Hillary’s.

"Give me a break," Clinton continued to applause. "The whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen."

At the time, the Obama campaign and Obama’s media allies quickly libeled Clinton as racist for affirming that Obama's anti-war bonafides were fictitious. Since then, President Obama’s pro-war activities have ratified Clinton's old complaint about Obama’s false anti-Iraq sanctimony.

President Barack Obama speaks at the Veterans of Foreign Wars
National Convention on Aug. 17. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
As President, Obama has timidly held to Bush’s own plan to move troops from Iraqi cities by June 2009, this despite complaining about that deal as a Presidential candidate. Purportedly, the 130,000 American soldiers still in Iraq are now based in rural areas. Breaking his campaign promise to begin removing combat forces immediately, Obama told a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention yesterday, "We will begin removing our combat brigades from Iraq later this year."

Later this year? The President has already stepped back from his original May 2010 deadline for withdrawal of combat troops. Will the new August 2010 deadline hold or be broken also now that General Odierno, the commander of forces in Iraq, is requesting more troops?

Similar to its muddled on-again, off-again support for a health care public option, the Obama administration has sent mixed signals about ending the war. Obama told the VFW group: "We will remove all our combat brigades by the end of next August. And we will remove all our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011."

But earlier statements by Pentagon officials including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who wields enormous bipartisan influence, indicated that those combat brigades will simply be renamed – "advisory and assistance brigades," "brigades enhanced for stability operations" and "brigade combat team-security force assistance" are just some of the names floated thus far.

Gen. Ray Odierno holds a press conference in Iraq. The top U.S.
commander in Iraq said that he wants to deploy more soldiers, a
departure the planned pull back. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban, file)
It’s all very 1984, a game of semantics and wordplay intended to dupe the true believers. The likely reality is that Obama’s White House probably intends to keep anywhere from 50,000 to 70,000 don't-call-them-combat brigades in Iraq indefinitely beyond the August 2010 deadline.

The necessity of those expanded troop levels is up for fair debate. The unacceptability of the Democrats' insincerity on Iraq is not.

Unsurprisingly, none of this seems to alarm the suddenly quiet anti-war movement, despite Obama’s history of hedging on his progressive pledges. Neither are they apparently alarmed that Obama is doing Bush one better by ratcheting up the war in Afghanistan. One can only imagine the apoplexy from Democrats had John McCain implemented an Afghan surge as President.

The silence from the "anti-war" left on Obama’s warmongering indicates that for many, opposition to Iraq was never really about bringing the troops home. It was about intense dislike of Bush. If Bush had declared that dogs bark, his opponents would have sworn they meow. It was, indeed, all a fairly tale…

...Or was it a nightmare?