Obama's equivocation on the Iraq war has shattered the last of my faith...

[mike_c]

...in the democratic party.

I'll admit, I've not been a stalwart party supporter since the Clinton years when I began to feel a strong disjunct between my liberalism and the nation's direction. Still, I had hopes for the democratic party, and as a liberal, I really wanted some political representation. It's not just that the democratic party ignores liberals-- the truth is far worse. The party uses us, then betrays us. It asks us to support democratic candidates and political agendas, but it never reciprocates. Not in my lifetime, at least, and I've been paying attention since I began voting in the early 1970s.

We've been used again. Now we're being betrayed.

Despite arguments from party apologists that Obama is taking a pragmatic approach to the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, the undeniable truth is that most Americans, and certainly all but the most incomprehensible liberals, want America out of those wars and that we voted for Obama because we saw him as the best way to accomplish that. Admittedly, he never promised outright to end them. He has always equivocated, but even among his most ardent supporters there was always the baseline assumption that "Obama will end Bush's unnecessary wars." I was assured of that in this forum many times during the campaign.

Now we're told that his only real promise was to "try" to end "combat operations" by 16 months after assuming office, and that the definitions of "try to end" and "combat operations" are just as difficult for him to pin down today as the definition of "sex" was difficult for Bill Clinton to be unequivocal about. We are being betrayed.

Further, we're learning that he's always thought it would be "necessary" for American troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely for a host of other purposes, not "combat" per se, but with the slippery definition of "combat" in question, the role of American military forces in Iraq can be changed at the stroke of a definition. We are being betrayed.

What Obama said or didn't say isn't really the issue here, either. Let's be clear about that. The real issues are the nature of the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, and the unequivocal desire of Americans to be rid of them.

The wars are crimes against humanity. They are illegal and immoral. They are wars of aggression. There is no gilding that can make them look otherwise. Americans-- and their allies-- fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are war criminals by definition. There was no justification for invading either country, no justification for aggression against the people of either country, no reason that justifies their wholesale murder by Americans. Since the Clinton years we have killed close to two million Iraqi civilians, and it's hard to say, at this point, whether Clinton or Bush holds the record for murdering the greatest number. But that too isn't really the point either.

There is simply no possible justification for continuing either war in any form. They are crimes, plain and simple. We-- Americans-- are war criminals and our crime is ongoing. We must stop it. We cannot restore our innocence-- it is far too late for that, but we can stop the crime before more people die and more of Iraq and Afghanistan are destroyed. Every day that we continue the wars compounds our guilt. Every day. We are being betrayed.

It's also true that there is no good reason to continue this crime for 16 months or perhaps indefinitely except to massage the pride of the guilty. Do we tell bank robbers or kidnappers that they have to stop in 16 months? Of course not. We demand that criminals face the consequences of their crimes, and the first step is always ceasing the crime if it is still in progress.

Finally, the real point is that Americans did not elect Barak Obama to continue the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan for 16 more months, or longer. Liberals-- the folks the democratic party has so consistently betrayed for at least the last twenty years-- certainly did not work for Obama in order to keep those crimes against humanity going. We are being betrayed.

We want an end to American crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan. We want our government to hear OUR voices, rather than the voices of the already guilty clamoring for more war, longer war, more blood, greater destruction. We want to be heard, rather than betrayed yet again.

Mr Obama, stop the wars.

[ryanmuegge]

1. Stop them out of economic necessity if nothing else.

[wroberts189]

137. OBAMA SAID HE WOULD PULL US OUT PERIOD.

Afghanistan is a different matter.

as soon as I find the speech I will post a link.


Hang in there ...Obama will bring the change you want.

[Name removed]

167. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

197. Why are you smearing a long time DUer?

[readmoreoften]

212. He's not a green party member. What the heck are you talking about?

His beef is legitimate.

[EFerrari]

218. Not to mention, Greens are welcome to DU

as long as they follow the rules like everyone else. :crazy:

[mike_c]

224. I did in fact vote green in the 2004 presidential race....

And although currently registered as a dem, I strongly support green party candidates for local office, and would DEFINITELY support the green party platform in the national election. It's not about who's in what party, IMO-- it's about electing progressives who will change the direction this country is heading in.

I had high hopes for Obama. I wept though his speech in Chicago on election night. I read extensively that he was going to turn left after being elected. I hoped. I really hoped.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

268. Have you noticed

that Obama has not yet been sworn in?

Your passion is noted, and I hope, with this bit of news, your hysteria is calmed.

[Capn Sunshine]

331. Yes. There it is

He hasn't started yet.

What do you (Mikec the Green) propose? Seriously?
Can you find any faster way to get the troops out SAFELY with minimal trauma and no civilian deaths?
What equivocating?
Closing Guantanamo, not good enough for you?
New prosecutions of torturers, not good enough?
Investigation and prosecution of the Gonzales Dept of Justice, not good enough?

Maybe he needs to move faster?
Calm down, bepto.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

341. It's gonna be a great four years here at DU,

if people are sniping like BEFORE he's even sworn in. Do they understand, I wonder, that Obama has no authority, that being "President-elect" isn't even a job, but is only a title?

He's getting so much done since the day after Election Day, I'm in awe. I might not agree with all his choices so far, but I applaud what he's doing.

A friend of mine is a mercenary and works for one of the companies that provides all sorts of stuff for our troops in Iraq. He's also a Marine veteran, and when he explained to me what it takes to clear out of a country - no, it's not always like the bug-out in Saigon - I had a whole new appreciation of how these things work. It's a long, laborious process, involving highly-detailed planning and execution.

What I sense here at DU a lot of the time - and this is my own failing - is a far lower level of sophistication and knowledge about how government works than I expected. Hence, people railing at a man who's not yet President really baffles me.

[Seldona]

367. Preciserly. He isn't even a Senator anymore.

He can't DO anything until January. What we have here is a case of FEAR. This COULD, or that COULD, happen. Bah!

There are NO official acts as President Obama, because he is NOT President. Even if he could magically set policy, who can know what the situation on the ground will be like in January? Let alone a freaking year and a half from now?

Bush is still President. And we are wasting our time imo not acting as such. Some of the greatest damage of his entire administration, and that is seriously saying something, can arguably be accomplished in his last couple months. Still I see a 1000x's more bitching about Obama's picks than I do about what Bush is still doing.

:think:

This is the last group of people I thought would drop the ball in this way. Pukes must be laughing their asses off. I thought this was supposed to be the reality based community.

[EFerrari]

379. What part of "transition" is unclear?

Obama is setting out the template for the next four years. In the reality based community, we know that his government doesn't magically appear with a fully formed policy in mid-January. :think:

[Ken Burch]

364. The roots for the OP's distrust and fear (and that of others)

Can be traced back at least to 1964, and the repeated utterance of the phrase "we seek no wider war".

I still believe it's possible President-Obama will get us out of war, but those who care about getting the Middle East wars ended(which is a group that doesn't include ALL Democrats, for some reason) will need to keep speaking out.

It's NOT enough to say "we have a Democratic president coming in".

[EFerrari]

378. Ridiculous. He's transiting into the presidency.

He's talking to foreign leaders, setting up a government, being briefed and holding press conferences. He's not in a closet somewhere, he's active and making decisions that will shape his first term.

Observing that isn't hysteria unless your own threshold for hysteria is very, very low.

[jahyarain]

216. careful Malachi

"these people" r the only reason ur party is relevant.

[sandnsea]

2. He never said he'd get out of Aghanistan

So maybe you should just listen better. Most Americans are completely supportive of destroying, yes destroying, the terrorist organizations that exist in the border region. It's the main argument for ending the war in Iraq for the last 5 years. It caused us to drop the ball on the terrorists in Afghanistan.

Quit making shit up about your faith in Obama when you didn't even vote for him in the first place.

[mike_c]

4. if you are the voice of the democratic party, then I don't even recognize it...

...any longer.

[sandnsea]

11. He ran on staying in Afghanistan

Why are you pretending otherwise? You can disagree all you want, but you can't act "shocked" because it's nothing different from what he ever said. And if you think the Democratic Party stands passively by while we're being attacked several times a year, then you're the one that doesn't know what the Party stands for.

[Two Americas]

71. simple, really

We were all told again and again to not criticize the candidates before the election, and that they had to "run to the right" in order to get elected.

Have we all forgotten that pre-election drama?

We were also told that once the election was over, then it would be the appropriate time to speak out.

We were all told to put our minds at ease because once he was elected, we would all be "holding his feet to the fire." Remember?

We were all told that while the candidates needed to run to the right to get elected, as a matter of practical reality, that after the election they would be moving to the left. Now we are hearing from the same people that we must govern from the center, with some even saying rule from the center.

I don't think this has anything to do with Obama, and I have not been critical of him. It has nothing to so with what he did or didn't say, nor what was or was not "in the book" or "on the website" it has to do with what his supporters are saying now, and what they were saying then. I hardly think it is "practical" or "realistic" to expect people not to notice and comment on that.

[Sirveri]

126. He ran on shifting focus from Iraq to Afghanistan to be specific.

He basically said he was going to pull troops from Iraq and dump them into Afghanistan. Which appears to be what he's doing. I really love how people think Obama can just snap his fingers and make our troops magically shift back home. Too bad it doesn't work like that. Biden was the only candidate who had any serious plan to get the troops home without completly screwing the pooch. And if they ask us to stay as foreign advisors or for some help, we fucking owe it to them for all the carnage we've caused over there. But the Iraqi parliment is already voting us out, so it doesn't much matter.

[Renew Deal]

202. OK, Bye

:hi:

[ryanmuegge]

7. Terrorism is an overblown threat. Vastly overblown. The bigger threats to our well-being are the

suicide economy and the climate crisis.

We are going to have to choose between having an obscenely huge military or keeping Social Security and Medicare. There is simply not a realistic alternative when looking at the numbers. By promising to increase troops in Afghanistan, Obama has signaled which he will be choosing. He wasn't kidding when he said he was going to "deal with entitlements" in that third debate.

[Martin Eden]

217. I agree with you about the threat assessments ...

... although terrorists getting their hands on a nuke is a HUGE threat, though a low probability.

Obama is playing with dynamite in Aghanistan and Pakistan, the latter being nuclear-armed. Killing al Qaeda and Taliban operatives hiding in caves and in the tribal border areas should not be the first priority in regards to this region. What we need is STABILITY and to keep Pakistani nukes out of the hands of Islamic radicals.

The problem is that Afghanistan is a tiger we have by the tail. What happens if we let it go? Does it devolve futher into a chaotic narc-state and breeding/training ground for jihadists? Is it a waste of blood and treasure trying to build a stable national government there? Will our efforts only serve to recruit more jihadists?

Important questions to which I do not have the answers. Does Obama?

[JoseGaspar]

13. This "you must not have been listening" meme gets old really fast.

That is just a bunch of crap comparable to the "you didn't read the fine print" line of a dishonest auto insurer. If most Americans wanted to "destroy, yes destroy terrorists", they would have voted for McCain. Obama stood for "Peace" and it doesn't matter what the fine print says. If that was a misunderstanding, then it was his responsibility to clear it up.

It bodes very poorly that this line has to be so dishonest 2 months before inauguration and only a few weeks after the election.

[sandnsea]

15. This is pure bullshit

Every single time he said to end the war in Iraq he said we needed to focus on Afghanistan. To say otherwise is just a flat out lie and I really don't know why people do it.

[JoseGaspar]

23. They must be liars.

Just as in 2006. Poor Pelosi and Reid must have been victimized by liars who didn't read the fine print.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

95. Obama was once asked where he would get the money to pay for one of his propsals....

...he said it would come from ending our war in Iraq.

Dems won both the house and senate in '06 based on ending the war in Iraq. We were lied to from our own party.

Our leaders NEVER held anyone accountable, and I doubt they ever will. I think I'm more angry with our own party than I am with the lying cheating republicans. I expect to be let down by any politician with an (R) after their name, but to be let down by people who I worked so hard to get elected, or lost friends because of my passion for change, or went into debt because I wanted support democratic candidates. ...If Obama doesn't end this war, or bring accountability to our White House, his legacy will be that of a man who was Dick Cheney's distant cousin who continued to screw us over.

[NM Independent]

369. This BS is getting ridiculous, so I have to back you up on this!

Come the FUCK on people. You all knew good and damn well what his positions were. People on this site SHOULD be the ones that campaigned for him, knocked on doors, phonebanked, etc.

This is basic STUMP speech we've heard over and over and over and over, over the past couple years.

How many debates were there? Were you listening AT ALL?

The plan all along was to get out of Iraq, and focus on Afghanistan where the actual enemy is.

He even spoke of STRIKING ON PAKISTANI SOIL if they have acurate intelligence, and the Pakistan government refuses to act. He was NOT KIDDING.

"OH MY GOD, OH MY GOD, OH MY GOD!!!!111!!1!1 Obama doesn't feel exactly as I do about everything, and he isn't REALLY the 'most liberal Senator' and oh my God he wasn't lying when he ran center-left, instead of super-progressive, AND he isn't really super-progressive. I'm just going to go cry." - DU here lately.

Give me a damn break. He said what he meant and he meant what he said. You trusted his judgement up until now and that got the first black man named Barack Hussein Obama elected president. Maybe HE KNOWS WHAT THE HELL HE'S DOING.

He said he would build a bi-partisan cabinet. Did you really not think that wouldn't include DLC Dems who helped to get him elected - much less some R's too (just wait)? Really?

He said he was going to finish the job in Afghanistan and get us out of Iraq. Did you really think he would just pull out of both and expect to get re-elected? Really?

ALL candidates for POTUS are Corporatists, did you Really expect any different? Really?

Grow up and get fucking real. I'd expect to hear this much negativity about Obama on AM radio, not DU of all places.

Sheeeeit!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

271. Get real

Welcome to DU, and enjoy your stay here.

Peace as part of Obama's platform? Are you kidding me? Nowhere did he ever plug "peace." He said he'd bring our troops home from Iraq, but he also said we'd stay in Afghanistan and redouble the effort.

What campaign were you following? The one in your head?

Oh, and say hi to your freeper buddies for all of us here at DU. We sure do get some great laughs from you folks................

[cliffordu]

365. Nice try. Yawn.

[mikelgb]

199. Unfortunantely....

destroying terrorists is not unlike Mickey Mouse destroying the mops in Fantasia

the pieces grow and become mops themselves

[EFerrari]

3. I don't feel that acute sense of betrayal this time

having put a great deal of distance right there. But I support your post, mike_c.

[Mithreal]

97. I agree with you, I do not feel betrayed, PE Obama has been relatively clear

However, I am against both occupations so support the op in general. Calling folks apologists even though it may fit in some rare cases is a little irritating, it does NOT promote discussion AT ALL.

[mike_c]

241. I agree that was perhaps a poor choice of words....

I'm not sure what other choice I could have substituted-- "enthusiasts" perhaps? I meant the group of folks who are now supporting an additional year and a half of illegal and immoral war of aggression against Iraq SIMPLY because that is president-elect Obama's position, without any substantive justification otherwise. "Apologist" fits, I think, but you're right, the connotation is unfortunate.

[superduperfarleft]

5. It was clear that Obama wasn't planning to end the Iraq War quickly

and one of the main disagreements I had with him from the beginning was his commitment to the war on the Afghan people. It took a lot of effort on my part to even convince myself to vote for Obama because of this.

Other than those things, I agree with the spirit of your post 100%.

[Mithreal]

101. I am with you on this. nt

[dflprincess]

339. What many don't want to admit is that a lot of Democratts voted for Obama

only because he was not McCain and we thought he would be marginall.

The fact we voted for him does not mean we support or accept his plan to continue the Bush policy of endless war.

[superduperfarleft]

343. Exactly.

That's the ONLY reason I voted for him.

(as the anarchists I know mocked me endlessly for bothering to vote...)

[G_j]

6. with the military industrial complex unchallenged

the REAL peace makers will always be left in the cold.

[loudsue]

151. G_j, that is the real issue here. The whole country is now built on war.

Our economy, our politics, our media....the whole country is about war (war on drugs, war on terror, and whatever other war feeds the money machine), and those of us who are for peace are totally out of step with the true culture of our country.

It's time to face it: if the liberals in the United States want peace and health care and renewable energy, we're going to either have to declare non-violent civil war, or we're going to have to break away from our country. Since the bush mafia took over, many people have moved away from the U.S.

With Pelosi and Reid in charge, we might as well have Karl Rove running things. The Dems winning the past 2 elections have only served to put lipstick on this war-mongering pig that our country has become. Anybody who read Obama's two books before they jumped on that bandwagon would have known that he is a global trade fan, and very much in step with the conservative base on that issue. He might push to get some of the worst of the ineqalities dealt with, but things aren't going to look much different. We will still be the most greedy, most warring nation the world has ever seen.

Non-violent civil war. That's what the liberals must declare.

[L0oniX]

158. I am suprised that we don't have a few more wars to help fix the economy.

:evilfrown:

We are a sad pathetic people to let our military and its corporations take over our government. Eisenhower warned us and we didn't protect ourselves from it. We are paying a huge price because we didn't listen to history.

[anaxarchos]

171. Paul Krugman...

...addressed this the other day by stating the obvious when asked if "Public Works Projects" were enough or whether a new war was needed to "stimulate" the economy. He said, "there is nothing magical about making bombs and shells versus anything else. It is all about creating effective demand when there is none."

The reason "wars" are seen as a "cure" to recessions is political. It is politically easier to start a war than it is to simply provide jobs, relief, and national investment. It has been this way since the 19th century.

[EFerrari]

222. It that the truth. Our society has been so militarized we don't even see it any more. n/t

[G_j]

300. loudsue

You must have noted at some point, that your name sounds like Lao Tzu.

Whatever the case, you have something in common, wisdom.

peace!

[Median Democrat]

8. Obama Also Did Nothing To Prevent The Mumbai Attacks!

Oh yeah, he is not yet President.

[mike_c]

12. if he moves to end those wars quickly after Jan 20...

...I will celebrate with the tastiest crow pie you can possibly imagine. I will publicly apologize for losing faith. I will be the happiest mistaken person in this forum.

I'd love to be wrong about this.

I don't think I'm going to be in that position though, no matter how much I'd love to be. Time will tell.

[Median Democrat]

14. But That Would Violate His Promised 16 Month Timeframe!

[emulatorloo]

28. As well as his stated goal of refocusing on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan

Somedays I feel I have fallen though the DU looking glass

[EFerrari]

72. bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan. Some days, I feel the same way. n/t

[defendandprotect]

117. "I'd love to be wrong about this." Me, too ---

[Idealism]

9. Stop the insanely unrealistic posts.

To be liberal in this country is to be an idealist, unfortunately. Things are easier said than done. The real enemy is the GOP party who will block our attempts at reform, and the conservative Pentagon who will try to stop our efforts at scaling back the military-industrial complex, and ultimately the troop levels. Of course Iraq needs to be ended, but if you think we are going to transport 150,000 troops in a few weeks (not to mention para-military and non-military personnel), you are crazy. Afghanistan, I don't so much mind as at least we were in the right direction to taking out Al Qaeda and getting retaliation for 9/11. And the truth is, the little troops we have in Afghanistan add to its instability. We have too little of a troop presence there to clean out the mountainous regions that is suspected to hold many of these terrorist camps. Whether you agree or not with Afghanistan, thats a different matter, but Iraq is Bush's folly-- not Obama's. It is unfortunate that Obama has inherited such a quagmire of a problem, but this situation will come to an end shortly. I guess it isn't soon enough for your liking, but such is life. Get over it.

[G_j]

17. "our efforts at scaling back the military-industrial complex"

are you talking about Democrats?

Kucinich makes those efforts, how many others?

[Idealism]

21. Anyone who wants to end a war encourages this

[suzie]

154. Kucinich makes speeches, not efforts.

He's the Joe Lieberman of the Left, in love with his own voice and seeing himself on TV.

[ima_sinnic]

232. is that so? what a ridiculous thing to say. sheesh. have you ever even listened to the man?

[suzie]

374. Have listened to him in person.

Was unimpressed.

What has Kucinich done that would accomplish anything? Anyone can give speeches.

[dflprincess]

333. Kucinich on TV?

You must mean CSPAN because I don't recall the MSM ever giving him much air time. If it had, he might have been done better during in the primaries and cacuses. Instead, the MSM decided the Democratic candidate would be either Clinton or Obama and most Democrats fell into that trap.

[suzie]

375. Unfortunately, you have to be likable to get elected.

Even the person with the most integrity still has to be likable.

Kucinich lacks that quality. Blaming the media for his lack of success won't change that basic fact. If he'd received more attention, he would have done worse.

[EFerrari]

22. If only idealists are calling for a prompt end to war crimes

the pragmatists have dropped the ball and we're screwn.

And don't kid yourself about the Democrats not benefiting from our military budget. Plenty of them do and so do their districts, including Pelosi's, aka, mine.

[Idealism]

26. I think that is what will end up happening

The ball will be dropped. Ultimately we will leave Iraq, Afghanistan most likely won't be changed while we have an economic crisis at home, so I truly don't see the point of this OP. You can't expect nearly 200,000 troops to just be evac'd from two countries in the matter of a few weeks.

And I didn't say Democrats don't benefit from the military industrial complex, I said that anyone who encourages the end of any war naturally opposes the vice grip that has become that complex.

[EFerrari]

29. I support this OP because we cannot let up for a minute

on encouraging Obama to get the hell out of those "wars". You know the lobbyists won't, ever.

Obama does seem to waffle sometimes. He backed a measure in 2007 to start "redeploying" by March 2008. Maybe he is as aware are we are that the deadline keeps skipping forward in time. Regardless, our job is to continue to show our own commitment to ending these "wars" and to showing his administration how important that is to us.

[Idealism]

34. The OP wrongly assumed that Obama's official platform was ending Afghanistan

It was to "finish the fight" against Bin Laden, redirecting troops from the Iraq withdrawal to finish the job Bush half-assed and gave up on. He never said he was going to immediately leave both countries, he has been saying the 16-month time frame for awhile now, and since SOFA was passed he may just let that be- possibly claiming that Iraq's sovereign government wanted it thus- and it can be a shrewdly political move as well. I am all for leaving Iraq, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't endanger the locals live anymore than we've already done.

[EFerrari]

38. No, mike_c didn't do that. In fact, he explicitly doesn't.

"Admittedly, he never promised outright to end them."

[Idealism]

40. You were late to this swarray

Edited on Thu Dec-04-08 07:22 PM by mike_c

[EFerrari]

43. If mike_c clarified or otherwise corrected his OP

what is your point? Can we not discuss the stakes, the issues here?

[Idealism]

49. Which issue are you trying to explain

I already told you :

A. I disagree with the entire premise of the Iraq War and wish it could be ended sooner than it will be.

B. I think we didn't accomplish anything in Afghanistan because we didn't have any real strategy. It was a travesty the things that happened, air-bombing civilians and the like. It should not have happened, but that doesn't make me disagree with the original reason for being there.

C. Realistically, Iraq will be concluded thanks to the SOFA and probably not any sooner because we have bigger fish to fry making sure the country doesn't fall into the second great depression.

[mike_c]

46. that line was never edited or changed....

It is precisely as written in the original post, I believe. All editing changes were grammatical, I think.

Look, the point of the OP is that the majority of Americans and certainly the majority of liberals want the U.S. out of Bush's wars of aggression, which are wrong in any event. We deserve political leadership who will work for that objective. I think MANY folks voted for Obama because they wanted out of Iraq and assumed he would work toward that goal WITHOUT UNNECESSARY DELAY.

I think we were betrayed.

[Idealism]

54. Glad you feel that way, I dont

Most Americans don't feel Afghanistan to be unjust, and I don't think so either. Iraq is another matter. Obama didn't campaign on "Change and Getting the Hell Out Of Afghanistan" last I checked. His initial campaign was to stop Iraq and he will do so. He may be receiving recommendations from both sides of the issue, but just because he is contemplating a move that he won't be able to make for two months, you think he has systemically betrayed all of his voters? That is rediculous, he told us he will engage in dialogue with people on both sides of issues. He said he would work out the differances, and listen especially when people disagree with his views. Remember that? Well, when he SIMPLY LISTENS to other people on topics, you cry foul? What the hell is wrong with your expectations?

[acmavm]

141. You are so right about this...

<snip>

FINANCE: U.S. Lawmakers Invested in Iraq, Afghanistan Wars

<snip>

Senator John Kerry, the Democrat from Massachusetts who staked his 2004 presidential bid in part on his opposition to the war, tops the list of investors. His holdings in firms with Pentagon contracts of at least five million dollars stood at between 28.9 million dollars and 38.2 million dollars as of Dec. 31, 2006. Kerry sits on the Senate foreign relations panel.

-snip-

Other top investors include Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen, a New Jersey Republican with holdings of 12.1 million - 49.1 million dollars; Rep. Robin Hayes, a North Carolina Republican (9.2 million - 37.1 million dollars); Republican Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin (5.2 million - 7.6 million dollars); and Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat (2.7 million - 6.3 million dollars).

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the Democrat and former governor of West Virginia who chairs the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, invested some 2.0 million dollars in Pentagon contractors, CRP says.

Other panel chiefs who invested in defence firms include Sen. Joseph Lieberman, the Connecticut Independent who presides over the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Rep. Howard Berman, the California Democrat who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3144217

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41893

[Bongo Prophet]

355. By the criteria in that article, IBM, Microsoft or Coca-Cola stocks would apply.

Even mutual funds or blind trust investments would be considered "war profiteering" -- so anyone with a 401-k plan might be guilty of the same.
That is one mighty broad blood-soaked brush you are wielding. Nice way to snip that article, though. Skillful.
By editing the world, we can see what we wish, the way we conceive the world to be.

Do you use microsoft OS or drink a coke or use Johnson & Johnson products? MURDERER!
I guess we could all be complicit in this, if we define it that broadly.
I will think about it next time I grab a Q-tip.

Not all the firms deal in arms or military equipment. Some make soft drinks or medical supplies and military contracts represent a small fraction of their revenues. Many are leaders in their industries and, as such, feature in the investment portfolios of millions of ordinary people who invest at least a portion of their savings in mutual funds, which in turn hold stocks in up to hundreds of companies.

"Giant corporations outside of the defence sector, such as Pepsico, IBM, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson, have received defence contracts and are all popular investments for both members of Congress and the general public," says CRP.

"So common are these companies, both as personal investments and as defence contractors, it would appear difficult to build a diverse blue-chip stock portfolio without at least some of them," the group acknowledges.

If some of the stocks appear innocent, aides say legislators also are. Some did not buy the stocks in question but inherited them. Many hold them in blind trusts, so called because the investments are handled by independent entities, at least theoretically without the politicians' knowledge of how their assets are being managed.

[MagickMuffin]

361. Reading IS fundamental ;=D

:thumbsup:

[uppityperson]

10. "Admittedly, he never promised outright to end them. He has always equivocated,"

"but even among his most ardent supporters there was always the baseline assumption that "Obama will end Bush's unnecessary wars." I was assured of that in this forum many times during the campaign."


then you write "What Obama said or didn't say isn't really the issue here, either."

If you want to talk about the wars, then don't start by complaining about Obama. Good lord man, he continues to say what he has said, yet you are upset since he is continuing to say what he has said, not what you assumed, based on what a bunch of anonymous internet forum users said?

If you'd take that part out, I would agree with the rest. Time to stop the wars.

[pnwmom]

358. Right, he's complaining because Obama's being consistent -- and he was

hoping that Obama wouldn't be.

As much as I want the war in Iraq to end -- yesterday -- I don't think it's as easy as some here think it should be.

[alfredo]

16. He was clear that his withdrawal plans would be modified by

"conditions on the ground." Now that the US and Iraq have signed a SOFA, Obama has to go along with this agreement, even though bush didn't bother to tell us what was in that plan. He didn't even bother to translate the plan into English. The plan is not perfect because bush negotiated in secret and from a weakened position. But the plan does set a time table for disengagement and withdrawal. That takes a lot of pressure off of Obama, allowing him to focus on our economy.

Afghanistan is lost, 20,000 troops won't help. Look for changes in his plans for that campaign. Obama is getting briefings every day, I'm sure he will have a much better idea of what is happening there by the time he raises his right hand.

I don't see him doing anything different from what he said in respect to Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember too, the world wide economic collapse needs immediate attention. It might be smart to let the Iraq SOFA, with it's timetables to run its course. We will be out of Iraq, just not as fast as we'd want.

[mike_c]

18. that is the most odious lie of all....

Conditions on the ground?!

How about the condition that the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan are wars of aggression, crimes against humanity by international accord? What ever happened to consideration of THAT condition on the ground?

[alfredo]

36. Obama knew he didn't know the full truth about our situation in Iraq,

so he was smart to say that.

Afghanistan did support the 9-11 attack, so we did have a right to go in and destroy those who planned the attack. Even the Muslims felt we were right to seek vengeance against al Qaeda. Remember, innocent Muslims died in the twin towers. Of course bush turned that campaign into shit, was indiscriminate in their bombing and has lost that war. Obama will have to pull out, and rethink the WOT as a law enforcement problem. I think Petraeus will advise him to modify his stance on Afghanistan.

Read "Jawbreaker" by Gary Bernsten. It could have taken no more that 800 men.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502717.html

[Pastiche423]

48. Would you be so kind

as to provide evidence that "Afghanistan did support the 9-11 attack?

I must have missed it. Don't know how since it is an issue of up most concern for me.

[alfredo]

55. They hosted al Qaeda and Osama. Taleban leader Omar is Osama's

son in law. They provided safe haven because of family ties and Islamic laws covering the protection of guests.

BTW, I'm going out shopping. Cover me. If not back by dark, send out a search team.

[Pastiche423]

100. Maybe you misunderstood

What I was/am asking for is proof, as in evidence. There has not been one lick of proof given to the public.

Where is it?

[alfredo]

111. I read news from all over the world, and I have not read anything that made

me doubt that the Taleban was at the least complicit. Read "Imperial Hubris" and you will get an idea of what's shaking there. The writer seems to have a very good grasp on what we face there. He has no doubt about the link. He's no friend of bush or the neocons.

We should have gotten our vengeance and then got out. That's where we fucked up. The occupation of Afghanistan is wrong and doesn't serve our national interests. In fact, by allowing ourselves to get bogged down there is precisely what Osama wanted. He wanted to goad us into attacking.

[blindpig]

146. Islamic law

That is right. The US government demanded that the Taliban deliver Osama and his people unconditionally. The Taliban requested definite evidence that the guest law might be satisfied and the US government told them to fuck off, no conditions.

A little reasonable diplomacy and the whole mess could have been avoided, but that was never in the cards.

Afghanistan IS a war crime. Continuing the occupation of Afghanistan is a war crime.

[The Doctor.]

88. You seem to be naïve on this point.

If a proper withdrawal that will result in less damage can be executed, it should be. Otherwise, you are saying that it's preferable to be hasty, damn the results.

I would think that you would be wise enough to know that if we can prevent more damage than we have already caused, or would cause by leaving a total enforcement vacuum, that we should take the prudent approach.

If your revulsion to war, however justified, would will greater suffering, then it is your ideology overwhelming your reason.

[mike_c]

227. no, I agree with you-- a "proper withdrawal" is necessary....

But it won't take 16 months to effect an orderly withdrawal-- I'm absolutely certain the Pentagon has contingency plans for MUCH faster withdrawal in case of necessity, and what could be more necessary than stopping war crimes?

Further, Obama is now talking about the necessity of maintaining a PERMANENT U.S. military presence in Iraq. That is the very foundation of neo-conservative PNAC middle east wet dreams.

Where's the change?

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. Who in the world was dim enough to vote for Obama because they thought he would get us out of

Afghanistan? He promised to INCREASE the number of troops there.

[mike_c]

20. do you really think that's the point of the OP, or are you...

...just trying to dodge the central issue? Americans, and especially liberals in the democratic and other parties, want Bush's wars ENDED, not CONTINUED. They are a stain on our history.

[Idealism]

24. I truly don't think most American's think Afghanistan is a stain on our history

Iraq, of course. But not Afghanistan. It didn't suceed in its prime objective perhaps but it isn't Vietnam II. It is a hotbed for the opium wars and terrorism, both things we have a vested interest in trying to eradicate. I think it has been horribly mismanaged, and I think a 10 year old could do a better job of "strategery" but the premise in Afghanistan is a valid one.

[EFerrari]

32. Bombing an entire country to capture a few individuals is not valid.

If BushCo could be honest for even a second, they would have admitted that the Taliban was not in a position to give up bin Laden.

And meanwhile, Afghani children find cluster bombs made in the same colors as the packages of peanut butter and crackers we dropped on them. USA!

[Idealism]

39. That wasn't the premise of Afghanistan. Period.

Re-read what I wrote if you don't understand me. The handling of both wars was horrendously done, and my little sister probably could've figured out a better plan, but the premise for being in Afghanistan-- to take out Bin Laden and to bring Al Qaeda to its' knees so it won't be able to commit another 9/11 again- were valid points. Those points I would say most Americans still would like to see accomplished. I am not debating the atrocities commited in a mismanaged war, I am simply stating the supposed purpose for going into that country was not one I disagreed with.

[EFerrari]

41. Yes, it was the premise of Afghanistan. To capture bin Laden

and to dismantle the safe haven. Do you not remember the days of non-stop coverage of the fake negotiations with the Taliban?

[Idealism]

45. I am not here to defend a mismanaged war

As I have pointed out several times over, the military, especially the intelligensia has failed this country numerous times in the past decade. I do not disagree with the initial purpose. Thats it, everything from thereafter pretty much was fucked up and wrong. I have been a witness to some of the horrible things this country has done in the past eight years, things I never believed the United States of America would ever do. I am only putting forth the original stated purpose behind invading Afghanistan, one that I find was acceptable, because they were harboring terrorists. The crimes that happened afterwards, there is no defense for, and those responsible should be brought to justice- but won't.

[EFerrari]

53. Right and I don't mean to be obtuse. But the whole idea of the Taliban

"harboring terrorists" framed the matter less than truthfully. The Taliban was in no position to expell bin Laden. They themselves are horrible criminals but they didn't have that power at the time.

And the even more horrible reality is that Omar has been sitting in Pakistan this whole time. His whereabouts are known and nobody from our "government" is in the least interested in going after him because he was never really the locus of power. That was Pakistan, the ISI and their network, not the Taliban. Omar took orders from them and we pretended that he was somehow in charge of Afghanistan.

[Idealism]

57. I suppose you cannot harbor a terrorist if you yourself are one

But the matter could've been handled more discreetly than a full-scale war. Even so, I feel it was within our right to strike a blow verse the organization that attacked us. We failed on the implementation of the plan, the gathering of intelligence, and failed to keep the civilians out of peril. That doesn't mean the reasons for going to war were unfounded.

Pakistan is a bit different. You can't invade your allies and the government has no legitimacy to expel anyone

[EFerrari]

58. The Taliban did not attack us. They had everything to lose

as a result of bin Laden's activities. They had no choice in the matter. So, attacking the Afghani population for what bin Laden did under the wing of the ISI is not valid.

[Idealism]

59. I'm not really convinced of the relations between the Taliban and ISI

Theres a lot more at work there than meets the eye, I'm sure. Too bad no one I deem credible in the media will do stories on it. They all seem to be fond of Bush running the country into the ground with zero accountability

[EFerrari]

60. The Taliban was created by the ISI.

And I agree completely about the media. The last eight years would have been impossible without their collusion.

[Idealism]

62. It was my understanding that after the decision was made

They became seperate entities and actually had small conflicts between themselves. Again, can't find much on it but snippets and half-truths amid mostly wrong rants.

[EFerrari]

65. I accidentally caught a conference where Tariq Ali spoke that was aired on BookTV

about 18 months ago. It may have been at Brookings. He more or less told what was a roomful of American media reps and some academics involved in think tanks, "Look, your government 1) has known that Omar is in Karachi for years now. Why don't you know that? It's not a mystery. 2) Your government knows that al Qaida has set up a campus in the tribal regions that is recruiting from all over the world. They have brought in translators so they can teach in many languages. Why haven't you reported that? 3) The rebels in the Pakistani inner cities are now in communication with those in the tribal regions. They are networking. 4) The tribal regions have purposefully been left as a zone of no control by the military so they can claim they have no control there and so black ops (ISI) has a mostly free reign there.

The room was silent for a moment. Dead quiet.

The ISI used Afghanistan as a client. They picked a side in the civil war and helped shape them and essentially, helped them into power. The Talibani weren't exactly puppets but they didn't have the power to turn bin Laden out or to give him up. There were cultural and familial ties between the Taliban and al Qaida but if you think about it, the last thing the Taliban needed was to piss off the United States. They had their fiefdom going. It wasn't in their interests to invite trouble. They were used both by Pakistan and by BushCo.

[Idealism]

69. Brings to question why he would mention any of that

Political motivations? I guess I am just suspicious of one mans opinon of information. If it was widely known by the american public, perhaps we would have objections. If thats so, then the press has failed ever more than first realized in protecting the truth

[EFerrari]

70. You might check him out. I'm now a compulsive checker behind any media figure

and I've never tripped him up yet, although, it may happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ali

[Javaman]

106. my bad, I wasn't responding to your post, I was responding to the OP and posted in the wrong spot.

sorry. :/

[defendandprotect]

119. US/CIA created Taliban/Al Qaeda via ISI-Pakistan --

[defendandprotect]

121. Yes, I do-- Made as much sense as bombing all of Mississippi ....

to wipe out the KKK --

Also ... alleged hijackers were Saudis --!!!

[knixphan]

208. seconded.

[JoseGaspar]

31. All in all,

if this salad gets diced any finer, it is going to be a gazpacho.

Afghanistan will become Vietnam II and the ownership is already assured. It is both stupid and immoral.

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. Are you suggesting that most liberals were stupid enough to believe that Obama was going to take

a completely different direction on Afghanistan? I believe that most liberals are sophisticated to realize that this was pretty big promise on Obama's part, and that he would be unlikely reverse this.

[mike_c]

191. are you too stupid to understand that liberals want representation too...

...and that we're sick to death of looking to the democratic party to provide it only to be betrayed time after time?

[Freddie Stubbs]

228. How is anyone being betrayed by a man keeping the promises he made to the voters?

:shrug:

If liberals wanted someone would withdraw troops from Afghanistan, they should have nominated a candidate who promised to do so.

[Lex]

25. I believed Obama to be less hawk-ish than Hillary, but still I had no illusions

that he was a "get out of the wars now" kind of guy. My expectations were always that he'd be a moderate, so I guess that's why I'm not disappointed.

[mike_c]

27. you're genuinely "not disappointed" that the wars will continue...?

Wow. I'm shocked at the number of democrats who apparently share that view. The democratic party is about to own those wars-- I suppose it's a good thing to have pride of ownership.

[emulatorloo]

30. Obama campaigned on 1) phased withdrawal from Iraq 2) focusing on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan

and making them ineffective,

He was pretty clear.

Personally I want both of those thing. I am not alone as a Liberal Democrat in wanting those things -- Iraq war was a distraction from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

[EFerrari]

35. Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan and we all know that.

More troops to Afghanistan will yield more coffins and that is all it will yield.

[MarjorieG]

51. He also said we need an economics piece to changing Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, there are many crises at once to fix.

[EFerrari]

61. Poor Afghanistan. Obama has a lot on his plate -- BushCo saw to that.

Somehow, we have to help Afghanistan. Those people have been put through everything over and over again.

[mike_c]

37. ok-- thanks for clarifying....

I think the war against Iraq is a crime, so a "phased withdrawal" makes about as much sense as a phased cessation of serial killing or a phased end to a bank robber's career. If the war is wrong 16 months from now, and there are no stated objectives to achieve, why isn't it wrong today?

As for Afghanistan, I have never shared your conviction that Afghanistan had anything at all to do with al-Qaeda or that the Afghan people should have been so brutally punished for something neither they nor their government had any hand in, i.e. 9/11 or other putative al-Qaeda crimes. And in any event, punative invasion and destruction of a state because of the actions of individual terrorists operating outside state control is little more than revenge killing of yet more innocents.

If one can find any actual justification for the invasion of Afghanistan, doesn't that justification go double for Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia? How many other countries should we arbitrarily destroy to feed our revenge?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

290. What mike_c said

I never had ANY expectations of Obama, because I could tell that his speeches were largely vague generalities, but it pains me to no end that the mainstream Democrats seem determined to continue playing American Empire in the Middle East.

NOTHING would raise America's standing in the world more than a public apology, "My predecessors were wrong to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and we're leaving as soon as logistically possible. America will no longer meddle in other countries on my watch."

[Lex]

33. YOU MUST READ.

That is not what I said, thanks.

[mike_c]

42. I decried Obama's continuation of Bush's wars...

...you said you were not disappointed because he campaigned as a moderate. Yes, I presumed you meant you're not disappointed that he'll continue the wars. Did you mean something else?

[Lex]

47. He never campaigned on a "I'll end the wars right now" platform.

So, ergo, I didn't expect that, so ergo, I'm not disappointed in him because I expected from him what he said he'd do.

Whether I'm disappointed that the wars will continue is another matter, and yes I certainly am disappointed. But I haven't made up this fantasy out of whole cloth about what he said he'd do in order to be disappointed in him.

I'm sure you can see there is a difference.

[leftchick]

44. it will NEVER happen with a corporate one party system

The Pentagon budget will never be slashed and there will always be wars, covert or other wise until there is a paradigm shift. Which I do not see happening in my lifetime, but I hope my children see it in theirs.

:(

[Control-Z]

50. Wow

I only became an Obama supporter after supporting 3 other candidates. I never did become an Obama enthusiast, but I voted for him because he was the outstanding choice for POTUS.

Throughout the campaign I hung onto every word from all the candidates, and watched almost every debate, and for the life of me, I don't recall even one time that Obama didn't state in one way or another that he supported a withdrawal from Iraq in 16 months, but wanted additional support in Afghanistan.

What I do recall, in fact, was that he spoke at length, more than once, about the need for more troops in Afghanistan, and about pulling troops from Iraq to put there.

And while he promised a withdrawal (from Iraq) in 16 months time, I am well aware that the odds of a complete withdrawal on that timetable is probably unlikely. I expect his efforts will be to come as close as possible.

Give the guy a break. He hasn't even been sworn in.

[Truth Teller]

52. Your real beef is with *who we nominated*

not about Obama shifting positions.

Obama is doing what he said - phased withdrawl from Iraq and upping the ante in Afghanistan. He hasn't much changed.

The problem is we didn't nominate Kucinich or the like.

[tritsofme]

63. Tough shit. Get over it.

If you don't like it, vote for someone else next time.

[G_j]

68. another ' love or leave it ' disciple

or put in another way, "just shut the hell up!

[tritsofme]

73. It reminds me more of when I had small children when they would whine and cry

And I would play the Lassie song for them on the world's smallest violin.

You don't have to shut the hell up, but I won't be paying attention to the whining.

[G_j]

80. well as someone

who has been a committed peace activist since the Vietnam war. it sounds very familiar.

BTW, I voted for Obama, but that doesn't mean I'm not dead set against the war in Afghanistan, and my vote did not buy my silence.

[EFerrari]

81. Ridicule is such a character builder. n/t

[f the letter]

173. Good Lord..

Speaking out against war crimes is whining and playing the Lassie song? Er....

i haven't been posting here in recent months but have been closely following the back-and-forth of people who want to hold Obama accountable for his campaign promises and those who think that we should all just quit dissenting and fall in step behind Obama, no matter what he does. i think it's ridiculous. Any argument that rests on the assertion that a dissenter is a "whiner," an "idealist," or the like is empty and childish.

The OP is absolutely right. The "left" has once again been betrayed by the Democratic party, and there have been a number of examples of backsliding from campaign rhetoric. i voted for Obama and was realistic about his utter lack of progressivism, but his rhetoric pulled a lot of people from the left into his camp and he has changed his story on too many things for us to ignore this.

As far as i'm concerned, his policy slides do matter. God help us if this makes me a whiner

[martymar64]

272. Then send your kids to Afghanistan and don't bitch when they end up dead

You voted for him with full knowledge that he'll continue the war. So when he demands your children go fight and possibly die in Afghanistan, we expect you to send them without hesitation or complaint.

If you don't like it, then tough shit. You get what you voted for.

[Pastiche423]

64. I began having niggling feelings about Obama during the

primaries. Those tiny hairs at the back of my neck were sending me a warning. I listened to those tiny hairs until a few days before October 29, 2008, the day I voted. Then just like in 2004, the FEAR of another stolen election crept in. And I voted for him.

Since the announcement of his choice for CoS, my faith has steadily gone down hill. There has been no upward movement at all.

I may be unlike most here at DU. I was against bombing the fuck out of Afghanistan. No evidence has ever been presented to either the American people or for anyone else for that matter of the country's role in the September 11 attacks. Furthermore, no evidence of Osama bin Laden's role in the attacks has been proven, nor is he on the FBI's Most Wanted List for the attacks. Besides, he's been dead since December 2001.

So why are we still there and why does Obama want to send twenty fucking thousand more troops there? For what purpose?

Mike, I will happily share that crow pie w/you if it turns out our fears were for naught.

[EFerrari]

67. Both candidates gave me the same feeling. And, that's probably right.

That's why I feel no disappointment or even antagonism toward Obama. He's a natural consequence of our culture. And likely the better one we could have wound up with because he's still not up to his eyeballs in the corruption.

I like pie, too. My fork is in the ready position. :)

[fla nocount]

75. We've secured the oil, now we have to move it.

The Trans-Afghan Pipeline, old news really but this provides some history and time lines back to when Kindasleazy was still CEO of Chevron/Unocal.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A.html

[Pastiche423]

103. Are you saying that moving our ill gotten gains is the reason

Obama wants to put more troops there?


I know all about the pipeline. Knew about that before "we" bombed them back to the stoneage.

[fla nocount]

107. Yes! Why else would the Messiah of the Western World...

vote for the FISA bill. He's a slut for the status quo, a Daley Democrat like Rahma-Rahma Ding-Dong and all that the label implies. He sucks and we're fucked by yet another silver-tongued urbane bastard foisted upon us by the machine.

A little music to sleep by, nice picture of Cindy too...though fleeting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8efNCOAUtc

[fla nocount]

66. Pay no attention to the cheerleaders, they're not really in the game.

We and the nation have been betrayed and since the neo-liberal wing-nuts that post here number a dozen at most it's hard to figure how they can claim to have a finger on the pulse of "most" Americans.

How many on the left would have voted for BO if he had said, " I'm a corporate whore and I'm going to surround myself with the Clinton Administrations' whores for a round of sloppy seconds?" He didn't say that but that is what he's done. Good argument for betrayal.

The anger and resentment from this participation without representation is good in that it solidifies resolve in the victims and fans the revolutionary flames that are present in this country's nature. Someday the neo-liberals and DLC Glee Clubbers are going to be standing around holding on to their wee bits wondering why they no longer have a voice. It will be because they were cheering for the wrong team.

Every unemployed person in this country is a recruit for the ranks of the displaced and disenfranchised. Every pensioner, every war widow, the homeless, the wanta-be college student, those who've lost their home to foreclosure or had their vehicle repossessed, every victim of any stripe suffering from the failed policies of the last 3 decades is a recruit.

It will be sooner than later, I feel, that some charismatic individual is going to realize that these people and those that sympathize with them are the real America and will give them a voice.

There's a person like that waiting in the wings with nothing to do. He doesn't need the MSM to be effective and we all know his name.

[Stardust]

113. Who?

[Moochy]

155. the ones named 'ignored'

Those cheerleaders.

[truedelphi]

263. Who is the person in the wings waiting/ I probably would be agreeing with you

But who is it?

[Celeborn Skywalker]

74. I'm giving him till he gets in office

and starts implementing policy. If he continues on the course of neoliberalism/neoconservatism I will quickly lose all faith in him. I'll still support Democrats over Republicans, but I have high hopes for Obama that I hope are not shattered.

[Javaman]

76. huh, last time I checked he wasn't president yet. nt

[jonnyblitz]

77. yeah, we know, pay no attention to who his cabinet picks are.

:eyes: this "he isn't even president yet" excuse is getting fucking TIRESOME and TRANSPARENT.

you Obama followers will always have a reason why he can't be criticized.

[truedelphi]

264. First it will be "He isn't in office -

Then it will be, give him time.

Then it will be that the mid-term elections are on the horizon (That one should probably start its effects summer of 2009)

Etc Etc.

I am so tired of the majority of people in this country wanting leadership but only getting politicians instead.

[Odin2005]

78. Didn't he said we would be out by 2011?

Oh wait, not fast enough for the purists. :eyes:

And I fully support Obama's position on Afganistan. Being a left-winger does not mean I have to be a naive pacifist that think we can talk away our problems. You cannot have a rational discussion with people who prefer shooting you (or flying jet-liners into buildings) over being convinced by you. AQ and the remnants of the Taliban need to be crushed and Osama's head needs to be on the end of a pike.

The growing isolationism here disturbs me.

[EFerrari]

79. There were no Afghanis on those flights on 9/11 and bin Laden isn't in Afghanistan.

Your willingness to make war on innocent people disturbs me.

[Odin2005]

83. The tribal regions of Pakistan are, for all practical purposes, extensions of Afganistan.

And it doesn't matter which countries the hijackers were from, the training camps were in Afghanistan. Afganistan MUST NOT be allowed to become another Somalia. Somalia told the Islamists that we were a bunch of wimps, and that emboldened them, and look what happened.

Let me tell you this; I remember seeing images of the Bosnian War on the news as a kid, it is those images being seared into my brain more then anything else that makes me a Wilsonian Interventionist. NATO, could of went into Rwanda, we didn't. NATO could be going into Darfur to protect all those people from their own government, we aren't. We could be in Congo cleaning up the BS that was a result of the Rwandan Genocide spilling across the border. We could be helping the people of Zimbabwe get rid of that thug Mugabe.

Dante once said the lowest circles of Hell were reserved for those that, in time of a moral crisis, remained neutral.

[EFerrari]

84. I'm in no way neutral. I think sending thousands more troops into Afghanistan is madness.

And it mattered a great deal to Afghanis that we bombed the whole country in order to punish bin Laden. It matters especially to the families of the dead.

Good god -- now you're claiming it didn't MATTER where the hijackers came from?

So then, does it MATTER who we kill by the hundreds of thousands? Who we maim? Displace?

In fact, acting like mentally deficient aggressors is the best recruiting tool we can put into the hands of extremists. But it's all good because at least no one can call us a name.

[Odin2005]

85. You are creating strawmen.

You're nuts if you honestly think I want to target innocent civilians.

[EFerrari]

86. What strawman? Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan.

:wtf:

[Odin2005]

89. And he's not there because we are there.

We would have him by now were it not for the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI, which has strong links with the Taliban and militant Islamists and is the real rulers of Pakistan.

[EFerrari]

98. Sending more troops to Afghanistan will not get bin Laden. n/t

[Odin2005]

108. Afganistan at the very least needs to be a stable country that casn't be used by AQ.

Then we can start playing hardball with Pakistan.

[EFerrari]

115. It will take half a century to build Afghanistan and it has to be an international effort.

Our troops are trained to kill bad guys, not to build nations.

[Odin2005]

143. Of course, but somebody needs to keep the "bad guys" from sabotaging things.

[EFerrari]

200. Perhaps but it shouldn't be us since we've done quite a bit of the sabotaging ourselves

by drawing insurgents into the area.

[martymar64]

275. Historically, Afghanistan is where empires go to die

The region hasn't been subdued since the days of Tamerlane and Genghis Khan and these dipshits think we can nation-build there.
I guess that they haven't studied history. Maybe they should just ask the British or the Russians how their adventures in Afghanistan went.

[EFerrari]

291. No kidding.

:)

[Ani Yun Wiya]

132. Pray tell, brave warrior...

Have you signed up for combat in this crusade yet?

And where should the ax fall after Pakistan; Somalia?, Indonesia? or would YOUR preference be Saudi Arabia?

[bvar22]

160. So, which tribes must die? All of them?

...or maybe they are all just ragheads, and it doesn't make any difference who we are killing.
Osama was brown, the people who live in the tribal regions are brown.
Case closed. 20,000 more troops please. More $Billions please.
Let the games continue.


And who the fuck are we to be making the decisions about who lives and dies in those regions?

[Odin2005]

280. Strawman. Quit putting words in my mouth.

Christ, my views stem from the genocide in Bosnia and you accuse me of being a racist that wants to go around massacring civilians? WTF are you smoking? :wtf: Methinks your biases are showing, the bias being that of the "Westerners are inherently evil racist colonialists" variety.

[mike_c]

87. it's not isolationism to oppose unnecessary and immoral wars....

What possible reason is there for prolonging the war against Iraq another year and a half, or more? Note that there is absolutely no discussion about measurable objectives, just timetables for withdrawal.

What no one seems to want to face is the ridiculousness of that approach. Breaking it down:

1) we decide there is nothing to achieve and no reason to continue the war, so we determine we'll withdraw forces;

2) having determined there's no reason to continue the war, we decide to keep troops there for another year and a half.

(1) and (2) don't make any sense together in the same plan. If there's no reason to remain at war with Iraq, why not withdraw troops as quickly as possible?

You and I both know why-- it's just that no one wants to acknowledge it. We cannot withdraw sooner because that would seem too much like admitting the truth, that it was all a mistake in the first place. If there was any justification for invading Iraq, we can suggest that some remnant of that justifies a prolonged war today. If there's no reason to be there, we are tacitly acknowledging war crimes guilt. Ergo, we must stay at least long enough for the new president to APPEAR to be accomplishing something there.

It is all a sham-- unfortunately, one that is murdering people by the dozens.

The war was wrong on the day of the invasion, it's been wrong ever since, and it's wrong today. What's the 16+ months for? It will still be wrong then.

[superduperfarleft]

148. History strongly disagrees with your assertion

that foreign occupiers can do anything to Afghanistan that Afghanistan does not want done to it.

The American invaders are the ones that will be crushed in Afghanistan just like every invader of that country ever has been.

But if you want to support sending more innocent Americans into a meat grinder and condemning scores of innocent Afghan people to death, have at it.

[martymar64]

277. The last one to "conquer" Afghanistan was Genghis Khan

and he achieved it through genocide.
That's the only way it will ever be subdued and I for one refuse to take that step. I hope Obama realizes the folly of his policy before it is too late.

[superduperfarleft]

304. Maybe it wasn't genocide.

Maybe it was just "peace-keeping." /sarcasm

[Odin2005]

306. Thanks for shitting on peacekeepers, there, genius.

:eyes:

[superduperfarleft]

324. Thanks for assuming that I agree with you as to the true role of "peacekeepers," genius.

:eyes:

[Odin2005]

283. Peace-keeping and conquest are different things, I hope you know.

When we went into the Balkans we didn't conquer Bosnia.

[superduperfarleft]

303. And we killed tons of civilians in the process.

I'm sure all that "collateral damage" really appreciated it.

And do you think Westerners in the Middle East is ever going to make things better? Do you understand Bin Laden's issue with the West in the first place?

[Odin2005]

305. His issues with the west are merely an extension of his religious lunacy and/or...

typical "all Westerners are evil, racist neo-colonialists" BS.

I bet you want me to understand Mugabe's BS "issues" with the "evil West" too? :eyes:

[superduperfarleft]

323. No, I'd like people to examine the motivations of others a little deeper than

"they hate us for our freedoms." Sorry if I'm not as interested in you in typical lazy-ass Americanesque binary thinking.

America's meddling in the Middle East is what caused most of these conflicts and their consequences. But I'm sure more meddling will work out just fine. And I'm sure our experience in Afghanistan will somehow be different than the numerous others throughout the centuries. :eyes: right back at you.

[martymar64]

273. Then join the army and go to Afghanistan

If you're so gung ho to get your war on, then you should volunteer today and go hunt for Osama. Otherwise you're just another armchair general playing army.
BTW, most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, funded by members of the Saudi royal family, but I'm sure you knew that already.

[Odin2005]

308. Some of us are not medically qualified, smartass.

Epic. Fail. :eyes:

[superduperfarleft]

325. But some of us are clearly qualified to send others into the meatgrinder in their place. n/t

[dflprincess]

334. That was Rush Limbaugh's excuse too

It's easy to support a war that's half a world away.

[Odin2005]

348. Jeez, so because Limpballs was a liar that means I must me?

Nice logic there. :eyes:

[dflprincess]

353. Limbaugh didn't lie,

apparently his anal cyst was good enough for the Selective Service to give him a medical deferment.

My dad - who saw a lot of combat in WWII - taught me people who are the most gung ho for war are the ones who know they won't have to fight whatever their reason.

[bvar22]

82. I read the fine print.

I realized very early in the Primaries that neither Obama nor Hillary had any intention of ending the Occupation of either country.

Once again, America would be given a choice between:

1) a Democrat who would continue the Wars and INCREASE "Defense" Spending

OR

2) a Republican who would continue the Wars and INCREASE "Defense" Spending

I voted for the Democrat who would continue the Wars and INCREASE Defense spending, but do not suffer from any starry eyed delusions about who Obama is, and WHO he represents.

I posted the above several times in GDP during the Primaries and was gang attacked by partisan supporters who insisted that Obama/Hillary would "End the Wars and Bring our troops home".
The very same people are now promoting MORE War and an Escalation in Afghanistan. They seem to have an uncanny ability to simply turn in mid-Air, fall in line with a blank stare, and never question things that happened yesterday. :shrug:
I am cursed with a memory.




I agree with the substance of your OP 100%.

K&R
:patriot:

"There is not a single, solid anti-war voice in the upper echelons of the Obama foreign policy apparatus. And this is the point: Obama is not going to fundamentally change US foreign policy. He is a status quo Democrat. And that is why the mono-partisan Washington insiders are gushing over Obama's new team. At the same time, it is also disingenuous to act as though Obama is engaging in some epic betrayal. Of course these appointments contradict his campaign rhetoric of change. But move past the speeches and Obama's selections are very much in sync with his record and the foreign policy vision he articulated on the campaign trail, from his pledge to escalate the war in Afghanistan to his "residual force" plan in Iraq to his vow to use unilateral force in Pakistan to defend US interests to his posturing on Iran. "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel," Obama said in his famed speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last summer."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/01/barack-obama-foreign-policy

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[KG]

91. the dem party is not, has not been, and will never be 'anti-war'.

[bvar22]

96. But Millions who vote "Democrat" ARE Anti-Bad Wars

Shouldn't we have a voice?

[KG]

104. yell and scream till you're hoarse. you'll be ignored by the dem PTB

and, oops, i didn't mean to reply to you post, but to the OP. but it works anyway. :)

[bvar22]

166. "ignored by the dem PTB"

Now we got Your Children's Money too !!!
And there is not a fucking thing you can do about it!
Now THAT is "Bi-Partisanship"!
Get Used To It!!!
Hahahahahaha......SUCKERS !

[Cronus Protagonist]

223. ummm they vote DEMOCRATIC, not "Democrat"

It seems odd that you didn't write the actual name of our party.

[blindpig]

150. Undoubtably true.

Yet again and again people are seduced into believing otherwise, buying into the 'lesser of two evils' argument, believing that there is no alternative. But that is not the case, politics is a whole lot more than the dog and pony show of our electoral politics.

[Gorobei]

157. Pray tell us then

What is the alternative of which you speak?

Which candidate from which party would have been able to win the presidency and provide all our liberal desires? Which candidate really would have been the "most liberal ever" or some such non-sense that the GOP spouts every frickin election and could still have won the election, and had any hope of governing effectively?

John McCain would have beaten anyone you can name. Anyone. And then we'd have VP cotton candy brains and the geezer panicking about our financial crisis right now, W doing exactly what he's doing now e.g. nothing and we'd be more royally screwed than ever.

You may have the right ideas, and you may have the right answers. But in this country, in a democracy, that is simply not enough. You need to convince a majority of the country that you have the right answers. You cannot simply install the person who does. It just doesn't work that way. And the media works against us, and our education system works against us and the corporate system works against us and even human nature works against us.

[blindpig]

183. The one thing this election should make perfectly obvious

is that there is no 'hope' to be found in our electoral system. The candidate who says and means the things we really want, say, truly out of Iraq and Afghanistan, universal health care, will never be allowed near the White House. So instead we get some mealy-mouthed horseshit which might sorta sound like what the people want but will never get near the real thing.

Forget elections, all they do is put the people's stamp on bidness as usual.It is past time to take up politics by other means: the strike, the general strike. It is time to organize outside of the system.

[KG]

201. and ya know, there's always someone who feels compelled to remind us

that the dem party is all there is so shut up eat it. like we haven't heard it before. yawn.

[Gorobei]

320. How do you rate the likelyhood of a General Strike being effective

When the market is flooded with people who need work and need to feed their family? Are you going to beat people who cross the picket lines?

Again, you are talking about something that is a pipe dream. You have no foundation for this, you can't even get your message out to people. There is no momentum, not even any interest from the majority of hearing about an alternative. They are still quite happy if they can get their iPod and watch dancing with the stars.

Until you have put in the time to sell the idea of socialism to the public, you will be standing alone shaking your fist at the wind. Until someone does this the real horseshit is coming from people who are calling for a revolution or massive worker action when there is NO will for it among the people. What your selling is cynicism and nihilism and there is a limited market for that.

Stop trying to tell everyone how it's all wrong and start trying to sell people on how to do it right. Otherwise you're doing the same thing as the fundies. Attacking people for not being part of your religion and condemning the world to hell for not living up to your expectations.

While you're working that up though, maybe the rest of us can try to make the best of what we do have and try to make things better.

[blindpig]

371. Events will dictate

There is nothing to sell. The people are already well to the left of the Democratic leadership. Any attempt to subvert Social Security would bring people into the streets. The vast majority want socialized health care. Does not the matter of 50% of the eligible not voting show that cynicism is rampant? As the economy sinks and the bankruptcy of the economic order becomes unavoidable these trends will grow. It is not a matter of selling anything, a repugnant concept in any case, it is a matter of being articulate. It is a matter of being ready and resolute.

So while you are working within the system to no good effect the people will dictate the course of affairs. Not all at once nor in a very organized fashion(at first) but the combination of the total dismissal of the left by the Democratic Party and the crash of the economy ensure that people will be looking for other answers and will find that those answers have been around for 150 years.

[balantz]

102. Your words speak for me. n/t

[DerekG]

131. Why didn't you vote third-party?

You aver that both candidates were war-mongering scumbags--which they were--but you still voted for one of them?

WTF?

[bvar22]

165. *

Anyone with a Wellstone avatar gets a salute from me.

:patriot:

[Greyhound]

90. I understand and have gone through it myself.

I suppose that's why I've registered Independent until 2001. We really do need a second party.
:kick: & R

[ooglymoogly]

92. I too support your post but I think it is more like well, a lot of things...FISA, Lie berman, Rahm,

and a few other turns to the right Which have disappointed me more than I can say and though he did promise to get out of Iraq responsibly he did say he intended to pursue the Afghanistan adventure.

For those like me who have studied history even a little know that Afghanistan is a money pit. The Brits tried no less than three times in the late 18 and early 19 hundreds in an all out effort and concluded they would go bankrupt if they stayed fighting a useless unwinable war against zealots, declared victory and left Afghanistan to its own devices; History then repeated that debacle with the Russians who did go bankrupt and lost all their power after 10 years of futility and left Afghanistan to the Taliban, certainly the most mind numbingly stupid zealots that have ever existed. We then saw the fall of the Russian empire; No small feat that. Now in comes naivete, foaming at the mouth with greed on steroids thinking fantastically that he can do the thing no one else could and will instead get himself bogged down here for the foreseeable future as he has in Iraq and sink further and further into debt. It is a money trap where sanity can not be achieved no matter how much money and power is thrown at it. Iraq was a secular country and was moving fast toward westernization on its own till an idiot invaded it; Now it is becoming more and more unwindable as secularity becomes a distant memory. Countries like Afghanistan and Iran` where zealots reign cannot be forced into sanity, they must find it themselves as Iraq was so nicely doing. I have come to these conclusions about Iraq because I lived and worked there when much of the far reaching modernization crossed my drawing board, but that was when I was a young man and just when Saddam forcefully took over the country and expanded on the secularism with far more brutality. Was he one of the worst dictators in history? That is what appears to be true but certainly not the only one. Did he keep the heard of cats in check that is Iraq? Yes he did. To me the president who preceded him was far better. Things change and we have to roll with the punches but we do not invade them if they are not a clear and eminent threat to us; Especially if the bigger threat to us is the action will bankrupt this country and lose everything and that appears to be what is happening. The big winner for our trillions of wasted dollars in Iraq will be Iran, also run by zealots and a far greater risk to this country than either Iraq or Afghanistan. The winner for the trillions we have yet to spend will be terrorists and zealots. One has to wonder that this much stupidity cannot exist and that maybe a larger game is being played at our expense.

[unkachuck]

93. K&R....n/t

[DutchLiberal]

94. If you had listened to Obama in the primaries, you could've foreseen all of this...

It's not like you're being betrayed. You just didn't pay enough attention during the primaries and you went for the slogans and the rhetoric.

[LuckyTheDog]

99. Dude, Obama is being realistic

If he can't live up to your unrealistic expectations, I would not call that "betrayal."

[Orwellian_Ghost]

178. What does that mean?

Saying he is "being realistic" means nothing. Is continuation of a war crime what passes for realism these days? Are you in support of such "realism?" Does this then mean that those of us who are not cheerleaders for war crimes are the ones who are "unrealistic?" What manner of manufactured reality is this that you allude to?

[LuckyTheDog]

209. WTF?

How in the world does unwinding the Iraq war equal the "continuation of a war crime"?

Did anyone really think that Obama would take over Jan. 21 and that all of our troops would leave Iraq on Jan. 21? That is unrealistic.

The Iraq fiasco is a huge mess. It will take time to clean it up.

[Odin2005]

307. Realism and Naderism are like oil and water, they don't mix

FDR, Truman, and JFK would of laughed at this naive pacifism. Sorry, but there are people in this world for which diplomacy fails. You can't have a rational discussion with a person that prefers shooting you (or blowing you up) over being convinced by you.

[slipslidingaway]

105. "...There always was a tension, if not a bit of a contradiction,

in the two parts of Mr. Obama’s campaign platform to “end the war” by withdrawing all combat troops by May 2010. To be sure, Mr. Obama was careful to say that the drawdowns he was promising included only combat troops. But supporters who keyed on the language of ending the war might be forgiven if they thought that would mean bringing home all of the troops.

Pentagon planners say that it is possible that Mr. Obama’s goal could be accomplished at least in part by relabeling some units, so that those currently counted as combat troops could be “re-missioned,” their efforts redefined as training and support for the Iraqis.

In Iraq today, there are 15 brigades defined as combat forces in this debate, with one on its way home. But the overall number of troops on the ground is more than 50 brigade equivalents, for a total of 146,000 troops, including service and support personnel. Even now, after the departure of the five “surge” brigades that President Bush sent to Iraq in January 2006, the overall number of troops in Iraq remains higher than when Mr. Bush ordered the troop increase, owing to the number of support and service personnel remaining..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04military.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

[Buzz Clik]

109. More drama. BORING!

[Moochy]

156. Beat that brow!

[f the letter]

175. Grow up.. this is serious

[Buzz Clik]

185. Grow up? I'm not the obsessive/compulsive with the patience of a two-year-old.

For you people, there is no tomorrow. Everything is immediate. "Oh my God! Gates as Defense? We've been betrayed! Former Clintonistas everywhere! God damn him! Coporatist sumbitch!"

The OP (along with a choir of other doomsdayers) proclaims that we have been betrayed again. No, we have not. Obama is exactly who he campaigned to be. If you wanted Kucinich or someone else even further to left -- too bad. It was down to Clinton and Obama for the last months, and only Clinton decided to redefine herself on a daily basis.

If you didn't know who Obama was by November 4, then that's your fault for being lazy and uninformed.

[EFerrari]

278. Framing the anti-war left as somehow immature doesn't work.

The anti-war left has the best batting average for the last eight years.

And neither does bashing them for objecting to the same "retreads" that Obama's own people (maybe stupidly) claimed they would not use.

Argue the case on its merits because the bashing doesn't get us anywhere.

For me, there is a tomorrow. There is a tomorrow that I won't like if I don't take action today in the wind up. And I think I knew pretty much who Obama was on November 4. That doesn't preclude me from weighing in now or later or even continuously from now until he leaves office.

[martymar64]

281. So, when are you heading to Afghanistan to fight?

Obama needs warm bodies to escalate his war and since you have no illusions and you support his position on the wars, I suppose that you'll be signing up and volunteering to go get Osama, right?

[f the letter]

373. Can we drop the name-calling?

i am not obsessive, compulsive, impatient, a doomsayer, lazy, or uninformed. Clear?

i wouldn't say any of those about you because i don't know anything about you beyond your response to the OP. Can we bring back a sense of reasonable discourse here?

Obama is absolutely not exactly who he has campaigned to be. The most significant backslides include:
- Going from filibustering the FISA bill which contained immunity for the illegal activities of the telecom companies to actually voting in favor of it. This is a big deal, and a black mark on our country. We have just opened the door to any company sharing any information with the government at any time, regardless of law.

- Going from vehemently opposing offshore drilling to supporting offshore drilling.

- Going from ending the Bush tax cuts on 250K+ earners to letting it expire down the road, maybe.. and who knows what will happen between now and then? Maybe we'll renew them at that time to reflect 'realities on the ground'

- Going from campaigning as an anti-war candidate who will actually end the war to a foggily anti-war candidate who may eventually end the wars possibly

You're right that it's early on, and i hope that i'm wrong. i would love to see him change his position on this stuff again and be more of who he was a year ago. But it is not true that these viewpoints make me lazy/uninformed/etc/etc.

[Odin2005]

311. The Naderites wouldn't know "serious" if it bit them in the ass.

Sorry, I have no use for this perverse kind of naive pacifism.

[f the letter]

372. i hope you're not implying i'm a Naderite?

First and foremost, fuck Ralph Nader. You won't hear me supporting him.

Pacifism is not necessarily naive, especially in this particular case. An illegal, immoral, unaffordable, unwinnable war should not be fought. Since it is fait accompli that it has been begun, it should be ended immediately. Is that naive?

[madrchsod]

297. come on now, what`s wrong with a flame fest on a cold windy day?

[Buzz Clik]

301. Hm. I never thought of the practical aspects.

God knows it's cold here.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moochy]

163. and you are full of piss and vinegar

as usual.

[comrade snarky]

112. Shattered your faith in Obama eh?

Must be a mess, faith shards everywhere. I'll get a broom and dustpan.

A very small broom and dustpan.

[martymar64]

282. Another volunteer for Afghanistan, when are you going?

[SpankMe]

114. I largely agree with the OP.

I don't think we've hit "betrayal" status, yet. But I agree with the crux of mike_c's statement. Obama's swing to the center is an abandonment - or at least a marked attenuation - of those progressive traits that made me vote for him.

The Republicans - from the Gingrich revolution through Bush's 2004 victory - did NOT win by moving to the center. They won by swinging way right and firing up their base. Then, when they won - even by the smallest of margins - they didn't govern from the center. Rather, they pushed the hard right agenda for all it was worth. The only reason they lost big in '06 and in '08 was because of the war, the economy and all the sex scandals. The hard right governance wasn't nearly as much of a factor.

And, hard left governance wouldn't be a factor either. Just as people accepted Bush and Cheney's hard right crap, they'd follow a more progressive agenda, too. People are sheep with just enough apathy to go wherever the leaders take them. We ought to strike while the iron is hot. If we can stay out of scandal, bring the war(s) to a close, bring the economy out of a coma, get back some of our foreign relations cred and just otherwise keep our noses clean, then we can hold office long enough (two senatorial cycles at least) to implement some progressive movement on stuff like labor rights, gay rights, environmental remedies, women's rights, health care and so on.

It's a mistake to think we're a center-right country. We only look that way because that's what a focused Republican leadership has sold us on. When our side - the progressive side - can grow some balls and sell the American people OUR agenda (rather than look at polls and feed the people "what they want") then in ten years the useless mainstream media will be calling us a center-left country.

In the meanwhile, Obama has my support. Even though his swing to the center is disapointing, the fact that we have our fist black president is really satifying. It's probably one of the most significant political occurrences in our history since the constitution was ratified.

[patriotvoice]

145. "[H]ard left governance wouldn't be a factor either." Ding ding ding.

Succinctly and very well said. ++good;
Welcome to DU!

[lostnotforgotten]

116. Screwed Yet Again - This Is The Reason That I Am An Avowed Independent

In regard to equivocation, the Dems are just as bad as the Repugs.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

118. When did Obama say he would be continuing our presence in Iraq indefinitely?

I must've missed that. If I remember correctly, he repeatedly said that he wanted to be "as careful getting out as we were going in", which always suggested to me that it wouldn't be precipitous ("fast") but that it would happen a LOT faster than "100 years or more" McCain. As for the SOFA, my read of it is that it ALLOWS us to stay in Iraq for another 3 years but don't mandate it (unless somebody else has a different reading of it). Is Obama saying that we ARE staying in Iraq (with more or less the same level of forces) for the next 3 years? Obama's 16-month plan, assuming that is still more or less the plan, always seemed pretty reasonable to me and I don't have a problem with him maintaining a smaller residual (support) force for awhile to continue to help stabilize the fledgling Iraqi government. Did I miss him saying something new?

[defendandprotect]

120. Our nation is bankrupt -- let the oil industry pay for the wars ---!!!

[Truth2Tell]

122. I will recommend this thread,

because it hits the nail on the head in many ways. But I disagree with the proposition that we have been betrayed. Obama has not yet taken office, and so he has betrayed nothing and no one yet. Check back in 150 days. Maybe then we will have been betrayed. But we really don't know yet.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

123. I had no expectations of Obama, which is why I'm angry, but not surprised

I've become more cynical with each election cycle, and I have concluded that no one who REALLY challenges the status quo, especially the military-industrial complex, will ever get major media coverage or party support.

[20score]

124. No one should ever be afraid to question or challenge his or her government.

I hope you're wrong too. But, I felt betrayed with the FISA vote... hope it doesn't happen again.
K&R

[snot]

125. Rec'd. But pls explain: how is it that

"it's hard to say, at this point, whether Clinton or Bush holds the record for murdering the greatest number" of Iraqi civilians. Do you mean, bec. of bombings w/in the no-fly zone, or what? Clinton was responsible for killing one or more millions of Iraqis?

PS: I agree, Obama's vote on FISA was at best mystifying; among other things . . .

[LeftyMom]

134. The trade sanctions.

A lot of people died due to lack of food, medical supplies or supplies needed to rebuild the infrastructure after the first Gulf War, and the diseases that caused due to bad water, etc. Estimates of exactly how many vary, but iirc the low number's around a quarter mil and a mil is the typical upper estimate.

For some analysis of the numbers: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright concludes that there were 350,000 excess deaths just of children under five.

Moreover, the sanctions were illegal under the Geneva Convention, which bans deliberate starvation as a tactic of warfare.

[mike_c]

230. yes, Clinton was responsible for an estimated one million Iraqi deaths...

...approx. 560,000 of them children. In case you've forgotten what his SecState had to say about that:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

[snot]

340. wow, thanks.

but do you think it's still at least a little different from directly bombing the sh*t out of the country based on a total lie?

i'm not saying clinton's actions were ok -- maybe that helps explain why he's been so eager to defend Bush's invasion? -- but i think it's helpful to try to discern distinctions among gradations of good/evil.

[Swamp Rat]

127. Be the Peace President, Obama!.............. BRING THEM HOME NOW!

We need to tell President Obama VERY LOUDLY that the ILLEGAL and IMMORAL war waged upon the Iraqi people must end IMMEDIATELY!

[EFerrari]

128. Love it!

:applause:

[Swamp Rat]

129. Órale sfexpat2000!

:hi::hug:

Mira, el Presidente Obama, nuestro empleado, tiene que hacer lo que qisieramos.

[EFerrari]

130. Tengo esperanza que el joven haga bien. No apuesto contra esta dama.

He'll be okay. Would you bet against this lady? lol



:hug:

:hi:

[fascisthunter]

302. as usual....

I agree with you.

[amborin]

133. 2 more U.S. troops killed today, Dec 4, in Iraq bombing nt

[saltpoint]

135. I think there is a danger in underestimating Barack Obama.

Since he has been a vibrant presence on the national stage, dating say, from his race for the U.S. Senate in Illinois and his 2004 keynote address at our convention in Boston, and certainly through the preceding 12 months of primaries and caucuses, among the most visible constants about Obama is his instinct for what is effective.

Obama invokes Lincoln. I believe properly so. Many grossly underestimated Lincoln. They regarded him as a weasel-voiced provincial hilljack soon to be shredded to bits by the ruthless, sure-footed power circles of Washington.

Lincoln did just fine. Team of rivals, two terms, much-honored.

You can't fire somebody before they show up for their first day of work.

It's fair play to allow good time for proper evaluation.

[Evoman]

136. Sometimes I feel like the donkey from Animal Farm.

I have little need for a "leader", and I am almost a complete cynic when it comes to politics. I never put my hope into Obama, and I never will. The best I hope for is that he isn't as big a fuck up as the last guy.

In the entire history of humanity, there have been very few men or women who were worth following. However, people will fall for charisma over and over...they give their devotion, and in return they are used and discarded. It's a farce....a mummer's play. It's time to grow up and come to grips that nobody is going to do shit for you. I find it astounding that people have any loyalty to Obama, or Hillary, or Bush, or Mcain, or Nader, or any of the people who would lead us. I find it astounding that anybody "trusts" any person who wants to lead.

I love DU....and I love it because the people here have big hearts. Good hearts. But I suffer no illusions that I belong here with the loyalists.

[Captain Hilts]

260. I'm not into the 'rah rah' stuff either. Dukakis is STILL my guy!

I think it's great Obama gives a great speech, but that doesn't matter a damn to me.

He's a politician. That's why he had to be convinced to make the famous anti-war speech in '02. That's why he supported the DC gun ban during the DC primary and opposed it when he got the nomination. Same for FISA, the embargo on Cuba, campaign finance.

he's a politician.

[quaker bill]

138. I assume

from your post that you never had much "faith" in the first place. The man has not spent a single day in office.

Most experts indicate that it will take roughly 18 months to disassemble, pack, load, and ship all of our people and hardware out if Iraq. I cannot imagine how it would serve the cause of peace to leave all that crap behind. I would be happy to see it done faster, but I want all our military hardware either removed or destroyed in place.

Afghanistan will take a bit longer, because a political settlement is not at hand. I do not expect this to occur before the demise of Bin Laden for more than one reason. No President in their right mind could walk away leaving OBL standing, politically speaking, so this will not happen. I think his demise is important to any claim of "victory" we might propose, but I also think that this condition is a necessary precedent to getting the Taliban elements to sit at the table and form a political solution. I do however expect that the number of days OBL has left on this earth becomes small and finite after 1/20/09. Once this milestone is passed, the pathway toward our exit becomes much less complex politically, and I mean here at home, not over there.

[GOPBasher]

139. He said sixteen months. Can we give him sixteen months before we tear him down? n/t

[pnwmom]

169. The guy is a Green party member. He's been bashing Dems all along. n/t

[f the letter]

177. His point is still valid,

regardless of party affiliation. Although this is a democratic site, there are many democrats who agree with this point (myself included). The party can't afford to alienate all progressives, so this is our problem and we should deal with it.

[EFerrari]

274. No, he hasn't and how would you know?

[HughMoran]

289. The fact that you're defending him tells me all I need to know

I'm sure you know that many of us realize who are critics of DU on other sites. Let's not pretend we are stupid here.

[EFerrari]

293. Good. I hope you take that to the bank.

I don't post anywhere else, actually. And for you to imply that I do just shows how completely out of control this shit is.

Maybe you should rethink that whole "stupid" thing.

[pnwmom]

312. All you have to do is search his DU posts. In a few seconds, you could

have found an anti-Dem/pro-Green post, just as I did.

[EFerrari]

349. You might benefit from rereading the DU rules. There's a link

at the bottom of each post.

And I have no reason to search the archives for the posts of a friend I've had for years.

[pnwmom]

359. Green party people are welcome when they share in our goals. Not

when they're here primarily to disparage Democrats. And I don't see how the OP can be interpreted in any other way, considering that Obama hasn't even taken office yet.

[EFerrari]

363. If you have a question about DU rules, you should contact the admins. n/t

[pnwmom]

310. I know he's a Green supporter/Dem basher from other posts on DU.

For example, this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3540071#3540207

"I mean, there are only a handful of dems in congress that haven't betrayed us. Anyone willing to run under a green banner-- and at least appear to mean it-- is ahead of most dems leaders I've seen in the last dozen years or so."

[Odin2005]

313. Green party member? Like I said, F-ing Naderites.

Methinks Skinner needs to start cooking the pizzas, the Naderites are exposing themselves and are available to be tombstoned.

[mike_c]

182. why sixteen months? What is it about killing more Iraqis that we should...

...give more time for?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

140. You did better than I did last week when I posted something similar - fewer

flamers. I was terribly dissappointed at Obama's lukewarm statement about withdrawal. No, he's not
in yet. But his tone lacked his earlier campaign conviction.

56 US soldiers have died since the primaries ended.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

142. Obama has always stated that he would redeploy troops from Iraq and into Afghanistan

There has been no change in his platform from the beginning. While I personally think that deploying more troops in Afghanistan isn't going to solve the problem and will just make it worse, this is what he has been saying all along. As far as I know the 16 month time table in Iraq is what he has been saying for a while anyway. I don't think he has changed on that. The OP is under the impression that Obama was going to end the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, he never stated that. He wants to escalate Afghanistan and this was always understood. I personally don't agree with it but that is what he has always wanted to do. What was your alternative? Voting for McCain?

[Le Taz Hot]

144. You lasted longer than I did.

In 2004, I was a member of the California Democratic Party Executive Board and Chaired 3 local Democratic Party committees. When the Party Machine was loosed against Howard Dean and we watched Kerry being shoved down our collective throats, I flat quit the party. Not JUST because Howard Dean was frozen out (where's his cabinet position????) but it was the way it was done. Trust me, I watched this up close and personal from the inside.

We all know the alternative which we can't discuss on this board but I think it will become a reality when all the disillusioned Democrats AND (real) Republicans wake up and realize neither party is representing US.

[islandmkl]

147. i find two fundamental problems with the nature of the OP:

1) "The wars are crimes against humanity. They are illegal and immoral. They are wars of aggression." While true and accurate, these statements actually offer some implied suggestion that there are legal and moral wars, which would be agreeable. ALL WARS ARE AT THEIR BASE ILLEGAL AND IMMORAL. The challenge of humanity in general is to avoid and prevent war as a means to any ends. Bush has failed this challenge, near fatally for our country. To express 'betrayal' by Barack Obama, based on evaluations of his 'cabinet picks' at best, because all of his stated positions on Iraq AND Afghanistan are well-documented, is to apply an analysis on his Presidential management and direction with no base facts/actions/results to provide subjective data.

2) There is absolutely nothing OFFICIAL that Barack can achieve until 1.20.09. The matter of his cabinet is evidence of many things to all of us. To me, I expect the picks to reveal that Barack intends to lead this country...LEAD this country. If anyone has no faith that Barack can offer the direction and make the decisions to lead this country out of the TOTAL quagmire we are in, then THAT is the true question. One who cannot possibly see how Barack has in the past and intends in the future to operate would be easily 'betrayed', because they have no working knowledge of his views of leadership. This is not a time for ideological cabinet picks to prove we are rejecting the Bush agenda. This is a time for Barack to surround himself with people who collectively can help form programs and implement actions to achieve his directions.

Why do so many think the cabinet has suddenly become more powerful than the President? Do some think Barack has just all of the sudden lost his vision of where he wants to lead this nation? Now, he has rejected his own deep-rooted principles (and beliefs about what this country is all about) to let some 'retreads' and worse (republicans) in his cabinet dictate the direction he wants to take? If one believes such, then I would say that that person had absolutely no faith in Barack Obama to begin with...and cannot possibly be disappointed, let alone 'betrayed'.

Dissent is fine, even essential to democracy. I am not saying to STFU. "Mr. Obama, stop the wars" should have been the opening line in your op...IMO. Then you could have suggested how he accomplishes that, instead of constructing an argument based on things he has not yet done while ignoring his stated positions.

STOP THE WARS. I am with you, there.

[EFerrari]

164. Obama' own people were saying "no retreads" right up to election night.

I watched the MNBC coverage again, and the very phrase is right there. So maybe you should take up with them their own inconsistency and stop claiming we didn't listen, don't know or expect too much too soon or some other red herring. Unless Obama goes into a coma for the next few weeks, he is responsible and responsible to us for his behavior.

[Odin2005]

316. I know I'll be flamed for saying this by the naive pacifists, but sometimes war is the lesser evil.

The bombing of Serbia, for example was the lesser of the two evils, the other evil being the genocide being committed by Serbia first against Bosniaks and then against Albanians.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[roody]

152. They are not wars. They are occupations.

[happychatter]

153. This is so fucking naive I don't know where to begin

Obama is going to KEEP troops in Iraq to guard the largest embassy in history.

We will KEEP bases there and those bases will have to be protected. Even if we keep the SOFA, and don't launch direct attacks in Syria or Afghanistan or Pakistan... we will USE those bases for logistical support.

This will require tens of thousands of Americans and American contractors LONG TERM.

Obama never explicitly said he would do anything different than THIS.

We will escalate activities in Afghanistan. Pakistan is on the verge of being a failed state, and it is nuclear armed.

I am with you 100%. You are right. Protest, email, carry on... I'm right with you.

But do NOT give me this frothy, saccharine bullshit about the Democratic Party or President Elect Obama.

If we had an actual "Peace Candidate" anywhere NEAR the nomination, representing a threat to the MIC and Energy Transnationals... they would gun his ass down... DEAD. War Profiteers own the media AND your precious Democrats.

Um, where have you been the past forty years?

edited AGAIN to add:

I LOVE BARACK OBAMA and I believe he may be the last, best hope of this country AND the world.

Why, is another subject.

[EFerrari]

162. You recite the Pentagon's rationale for keeping tens of thousands of Americans in Iraq,

but claim THE OP IS NAIVE? Oh, brother.

[happychatter]

170. I'm not saying it's correct... I'm saying that's the way it IS

and your willful oversight of that FACT is more bullshit

you want to do something?

fucking do it

but don't give me this you're "so crestfallen and heartbroken" horse shit

there are no broken promises

[EFerrari]

192. Your charming mouth aside, yes, that's the way it is.

And that's why we voted for change.

Good luck keeping the whole progressive community quiet if Obama doesn't clarify this pronto.

[ieoeja]

176. I would like to think even anti-war types are okay with embassy guards.

But those f'ing bases have to go.

In WW-I Middle Easterners largely supported the Brits and French as they promised to liberate them from the Turks. But the Brits and French ended up taking the Turks place.

In WW-II Middle Easterners largely supported the Germans and Italians as they promised to liberate them from the Brits and French. But the Brits and French won.

Islamic terrorist attacks began on the Brits and French shortly thereafter. The Brits (wisely) pulled out fairly early. The French stayed for decades and not surprisingly France became the #1 target of Islamic terrorists outside the Middle East. That stopped when France finally pulled out of the Middle East and North Africa.

The United States sent troops into the region many times for various purposes. But we always left. This is why Muslims always looked to the United States as the arbitrator for Israeli/Muslim issues. It is also why they rallied behind us for the liberation of Kuwait in 1991. They trusted us.

But this time we stayed. We were invited to do so, but to the radicals it looked like we were just another colonizing force.

FACT: The United States established our first permanent presence in the Middle East in 1991.
FACT: The United States was first attacked by Islamic terrorists in 1993.

Why is it so fucking difficult for our National Security "experts" to connect two simple dots?

It's not like they even have to figure it out for themselves. Al Qaeda SAID they wanted to attack the United States over those bases. Ever occur to our idiots that maybe they were telling the truth?

[asteroid2003QQ47]

159. "Right-Wingers and Neocons Love Obama's Cabinet Appointments"

by Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet at 9:51 AM on November 30, 2008.

A collection of praise for Obama's White House team from Karl Rove, David Brooks, Henry Kissinger and more.
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/www.alternet.org/109160/
-----------------------------------------------------------

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you'll join me as we try to change it."
--Barack Obama

[NashVegas]

161. Sorry, Mike

Some of us tried to warn DU. Not much to be done about it now, other than trying to make your voice heard on individual issues.

[pnwmom]

168. You never had any faith in the Democrats. You've always preferred the

Green party, but you're still here, trying to peel away progressive support from Obama.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3540071#3540207

[mike_c]

184. no, not always-- I was a straight dem voter for thirty years....

And I'm still in the position of having to rely on the democratic party for ANY political representation at state and national scales. Yes. I'm critical. Why shouldn't I be. Obama supposedly represents my interests. He's the guy who will govern my country.

Are you suggesting that my criticisms are somehow less legitimate than another American's might be?

[martymar64]

285. She just hates dissent, she want slaves not thinkers

For somebody that claims to be a democrat, she sure has anti-democratic, authoritarian tendencies.

[truthspout]

189. PNWMOM

PNWMOM :

I could probably sell you a brige in Alaska

I have stood my the dems for as long as i've been involved in politics. They continue to let me down and i'm sick and tired of it. Not to even go over this discussion let's talk about the policy wonks he's appointed. Same ol' same ol' people. Many of them even had a LARGE HAND in initiating this economic mess were in right now but Obama thinks they're good enough for his white house. I'm disappointed more than anything else.

But more importantly, "bipartisanship" is already rampant in Washington, not rare. And, in almost every significant case, what "bipartisanship" means in Washington is that enough Democrats join with all of the Republicans to endorse and enact into law Republican policies, with which most Democratic voters disagree. That's how so-called "bipartisanship" manifests in almost every case.

In almost every case, the proposals that are enacted are ones favored by the White House and supported by all GOP lawmakers, and then Democrats split and enough of them join with Republicans to ensure that the GOP gets what it wants. That's "bipartisanhip" in Washington:

Let me premise by saying I don't think it's any "coincidence" that all these crucial votes "Just" passed with "Just" enough help from the democrats as to not enflame their supporter's for walking lockstep w/ the White House and Republicans ...

To support the new Bush-supported FISA law:

GOP - 48-0

Dems - 12-36

To compel redeployment of troops from Iraq:

GOP - 0-49

Dems - 24-21

To confirm Michael Mukasey as Attorney General:

GOP - 46-0

Dems - 7-40

To confirm Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge:

GOP - 49-0

Dems - 8-38

Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran:

GOP - 46-2

Dems - 30-20

To condemn MoveOn.org:

GOP - 49-0

Dems - 23-25

The Protect America Act:

GOP - 44-0

Dems - 20-28

Declaring English to be the Government's official language:

GOP - 48-1

Dems - 16-33

The Military Commissions Act:

GOP - 53-0

Dems - 12-34

To renew the Patriot Act:

GOP - 54-0

Dems - 34-10

Cloture Vote on Sam Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court:

GOP - 54-0

Dems - 18-25

Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq:

GOP - 48-1

Dems - 29-22

On virtually every major controversial issue -- particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism -- the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to "bipartisan" support. That's what "bipartisanship" in Washington means.

Leaving aside how shallow and, shall we say, unserious is this endless chirping for more "bipartisanship" -- as though it's a magic feel-good formula for resolving actual policy differences -- it's hard to imagine how there could possibly be any more "bipartisanship" in Washington even if that were the only goal. Other than formally disbanding as a party -- or granting a permanent proxy of their collective vote to Mitch McConnell -- how could Congressional Democrats possibly be more accommodating than they already are?

SO, how has the democrats stood up for you recently?

[fla nocount]

243. Welcome! Incredible first post.

Concise, neutral, well written and well researched. Where in the fuck have you been...or are you a shape-shifting name changer? I'm thinking about that myself.

[EFerrari]

196. What do you mean, "still here"? Mike has been here four years longer than you have. n/t

[pnwmom]

314. So he's been here longer. Unlike him, I've never been here to promote

the Green party over the Dems.

[EFerrari]

352. mike_c is a long time, respected DUer

and your bs is just pathetic.

[pnwmom]

357. You haven't said anything that counters his own words.

"I mean, there are only a handful of dems in congress that haven't betrayed us. Anyone willing to run under a green banner-- and at least appear to mean it-- is ahead of most dems leaders I've seen in the last dozen years or so."

Obama's a Dem, and the poster's never trusted Dems. So, big surprise, he's already lost what little faith he ever had in Obama.

[EFerrari]

376. I have no need to counter what Mike says.

If you have a problem, you should contact the admins.

[readmoreoften]

214. Mike C supported Obama. Stop baiting with a personal attack. You were for Hillary for awhile.

So what. He supported the candidate in the general. Over and out. That's all that was asked of him on DU.

[pnwmom]

317. He has expressed a strong preference for Greens over Dems, so I'm not surprised

that he's already suspicious of Obama and criticizing him before he's even taken office.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3540071#3540207

"I mean, there are only a handful of dems in congress that haven't betrayed us. Anyone willing to run under a green banner-- and at least appear to mean it-- is ahead of most dems leaders I've seen in the last dozen years or so."

And you're wrong about my supporting Hillary. I was consistently NEUTRAL during the primary, and I expressed this over and over again. I didn't vote in the WA caucuses or primary. I thought we had a great field, and I would have strongly supported any of them in the general election. I did find myself defending Hillary on some occasions when she was subject to other DUers sexist attacks, but that didn't mean I supported her over anyone else.

[debunkthelies]

172. BRAVEHEART

I kind of feel as William Wallace must have felt when he pulled the helmet from The Bruce's head and realized he had been betrayed, by someone he had trusted.:hurts:

[f the letter]

174. Thank you!

Amen.

[mistertrickster]

179. Oh, shut up. The guy isn't even in office yet. Leave it to "liberals" to find a black cloud

in the middle of a shining triumph for our side.

I've been protesting in the streets against the illegal and immoral war in Iraq since before the US invaded.

Give the guy a chance to not eff up, before you claim he has effed up.

[jeff47]

180. Stop lying

The large danger from the folks on the right is they have their own personal reality. It's impossible to have a rational debate when the other side believes in it's own facts.

You are doing the same thing. First of all, it massively weakens any arguement you are trying to make. Second of all, it's a distraction from getting any real work done.

#1) Obama never promised to get out of Afghanistan. In fact, he campaigned on the OPPOSITE position, to increase our involvement in Afghanistan.

#2) Obama has never backed off on his plan to leave Iraq. Whatever the position of his cabinet appointments, they work for Obama. The secretary of defense works for the president, not the other way around. (The problem with the Bush administration was that the president was actually Cheney).

#3) While the Iraq war is pretty much unjustified, the Afghanistan war was justified by our right to self-defense. The folks who attacked us were there. The fact that Bush blew it and let them escape doesn't change that. Now that we're there, we should not leave the country to chaos. Iraq, flawed as our policy was, now has a functional national government. Afghanistan does not, and should be stabilized before we pull out.

[mike_c]

186. clearly we disagree on those three points....

1) I realize that Obama did not promise to get out of Afghanistan. However, liberal voters were essentially disenfranchised in not having ANY credible representation on that issue-- we had the war mongerer McCain and the lesser war mongerer Obama. That does not diminish my liberalism on that issue. I want the U.S. to stop killing Afghans out of some misplaced retribution for 9/11.

2) Obama has stated that he wants to keep troops in combat in Iraq for 16 more months-- without articulating any objectives other than crossing the time line. He has also said American troops will stay indefinitely in "non-combat" roles-- foreign policy enforcement thugs, in my estimation. In any event, the war was wrong in 2003, it's wrong today, and it will be wrong for the next 16 months. We should get out with all possible dispatch.

3) The Afghan people that we bombed until the rubble bounced and whom we continue to murder had absolutely nothing to do with attacking the U.S. What self-defense? Afghans played no role in the 9/11 attacks and the Afghan government was not in any position to respond to U.S. demands that they hand over bin Ladin. Just as Pakistan cannot respond to this day.

If the war against Afghanistan is about self defense, why are we not fighting Pakistan and Saudi Arabia too, or instead?

[martymar64]

286. So sign up and go to Afghanistan

If you think its so justified, you need to go put your ass on the line.
Otherwise , you're just another punk-ass armchair general playing war with other people's lives.

Coward.

[HughMoran]

336. Excellent post

Simple and factual.

[Mari333]

181. completely agree with you

and people on here who advocate more war and troop buildup should be either willing to enlist themselves, or support a draft for their own children to be enlisted.
the troops have been deployed 3 4 5 times over and over. they are at the breaking point.
anyone who supports these wars and isnt willing to go fight them or have their own kids fight them is a chickenhawk.

[mike_c]

188. thank you!

:hi:

I completely agree that the folks who think killing Iraqis for another 16 months is suddenly admirable because it comes with Obama's stamp of approval need to enlist and get their war on without the rest of us! The democratic party has owned this war since the 2006 congressional election. Now they're about to take full possession.

[Mari333]

206. its a weird mentality

obamabot...now i know what it means. if bush was advocating a 20,000 troop surge to afghanistan, people on here would be going ballistic.

[HughMoran]

338. "obamabot" ?? So you do not support this site as he is the Democratic leader

...and this is a Democratic site.

Are you in effect supporting our foes?

[HughMoran]

337. Since nobody here supports the war (what an idiotic statement), then you are saying Obama supporters

...are defacto supporting the war by extention.

That's how stupid your post reads to anybody who is thinking.

[lavndrblue]

187. Obama's not even in office

yet! I am so sick and tired of all from the right, the left, the middle, the green, EVERYONE that is bashing Obama before he even gets in office. You nor I have any idea what is will do starting January 21, 2009. IF after he takes office is doesn't end the Iraq war then we have something to complain about. As well, Obama never said he was ending the Afghanistan war.

[mike_c]

190. so you won't mind criticism of Obama about the war after Jan. 20?

Ok. I'm sure there will be plenty. :hi:

[HughMoran]

346. & I'm sure you'll be at the head of the class - crapping in our faces

thanks for being a nasty grump

[FrenchieCat]

193. You never had any faith in Barack Obama......

and that obviously continues.

Betrayal is what one does when they denounce someone for something they haven't yet done.....and attempt to obscure the truth of the fact that they were never in support of that person to begin with.

Americans elected Barack Obama to get us out of Iraq in 16 months (give or take, which was part of his campaign wording on Iraq) and to deal with Afghanistan in terms of AlQaeda, apart from other issues. You have bastardized the facts to fit your outrage, and some would call that lying. You may be justified in your outrage on the topic of wars, but you are not justified to make up your own facts as to what platform Obama ran on....

So the question is who is betraying who? I would say that this thread was written specifically to instigate and manipulate the opinions of those who read it. The OP is about as disingenuous as any as I have read at DU. I may agree with your overall sentiments about war, but I disagree with your use of Barack Obama who has yet to be sworn in.

In fact, I say...Shame on you for utilizing the same tactics as the warmongers you denounce. They also skirt the truth, exaggerate, inflame and use fear tactics. That's what you are doing, and it is unjustified....because hypocrisy never makes one right.

[mike_c]

195. you are doing everything you can to avoid the real issue here....

The war is wrong. It was wrong in 2003, it is wrong today, and it will be wrong 16 months from now. Crapping on me for pointing that out is a cheap avoidance at best. What is it about 16 more months of murdering Iraqis that you support?

PLEASE answer that last question without equivocating. Please.

[FrenchieCat]

198. No, you are doing everything that you can to inflame passion of one issue

by conflating it with another.

The war was wrong, and Obama agrees with you.
He ran on on a platform that he has not deviated from, which makes you and your op wrong....
and your statement that I somehow support the murdering of Iraqis is hyperbole, and I'm not buying it.....as I was out protesting prior to the start of this war.

In other words, I repeat that you are using the same tactics that those you claim to oppose use, which makes you no better than they are. You are being intellectually dishonest in your assertions, which makes you a fraud.

It is one thing to have a passion in what you believe in. It is quite another to twist the truth in order to make your point. That is all that you are doing with this OP and your responses to various posts. You need to grab a mirror and ask yourself if lying about what others have said or done or believe is really the best means in achieving your noble end?

[totodeinhere]

205. Thanks for calling him a "fraud" Frenchie. Because that's what he is.

[mike_c]

219. why can't you face that essential question?

What is it about 16 more months of killing Iraqis that you support?

[FrenchieCat]

234. Do you deny intellectual dishonesty on your part......

in reference to your OP?

That is the real question, because the op is your whole point that has made this debate possible.
Isolating one question and posing it to me doesn't obscure the obvious lies
and the dishonest propaganda that you yourself are guilty of.

[EFerrari]

221. The loss of civility is not a net gain of support for Obama. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

229. The truth should not fall victim to the OP's propagation

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."-- Martin Luther King Jr.

[EFerrari]

231. There is no factual error in the OP and the opinions are owned.

You are trivializing Dr. King in using his words this way.

If the issues were argued on their merits, this thread would be completed by now as well.

[FrenchieCat]

240. There are not only factual errors in the OP; there are also outright lies!

FIRST LIE: (Most Americans want us out of the Iraq War. Using plural instead of the singular, makes the following statement incorrect.) the undeniable truth is that most Americans, and certainly all but the most incomprehensible liberals, want America out of those wars and that we voted for Obama because we saw him as the best way to accomplish that.

SECOND LIE: He has always equivocated....

THIRD LIE (because we always knew- it is not just now that we are being told anything):Now we're told that his only real promise was to "try" to end "combat operations" by 16 months after assuming office, and that the definitions of "try to end" and "combat operations" are just as difficult for him to pin down today as the definition of "sex" was difficult for Bill Clinton to be unequivocal about. We are being betrayed.

FOURTH LIE (we are not "learning" this, as what Obama actually said is not reflected here, as Obama has never said "American troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely for a host of other purposes"): Further, we're learning that he's always thought it would be "necessary" for American troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely for a host of other purposes, not "combat" per se, but with the slippery definition of "combat" in question, the role of American military forces in Iraq can be changed at the stroke of a definition.

FIFTH LIE: (since this statement is made directly after the fourth lie, it is a lie as well, as it implies that Obama told us something false, and that is where the betrayal occurred) : We are being betrayed.

SIXTH LIE: (because what Obama said is exactly what the op is all about, just look at the prior lies I've listed) : What Obama said or didn't say isn't really the issue here, either.

SEVENTH LIE: (Including Afghanistan makes this a lie) : Finally, the real point is that Americans did not elect Barak Obama to continue the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan for 16 more months, or longer.

[mike_c]

242. we disagree on those points, but setting aside that disagreement...

...for just a moment, do you support continuing the war against Iraq for sixteen more months and then maintaining a permanent military presence there? Note that is the essence of the neocon argument for force projection into the middle east. Do you support it? Why or why not?

[FrenchieCat]

246. Your intellectual dishonesty may allow you to switch to a different argument,

while the dishonesty of your op doesn't allow me to deviate from my original point; which is that your op is intellectually dishonest.

That is where I rest my case.
That is why I posted in this thread.

Had you posted the questions that you now pose isolated from the propaganda included against our President Elect as you did, my decision to enter into a debate with you may have been different.

[EFerrari]

250. What utter tautalogical cr@p. n/t

[EFerrari]

245. Okay. Framing your post as a list of lies is ugly, btw.

1) So, you are arguing that most Americans voted for Obama to stay in those wars?

2) Are you claiming that unlike all other politicians, Obama doesn't equivocate?

3) Obama sponsored a bill to start redeploying by March 2009. So, has he changed his position? And, the OP isn't the only one who has noticed slippage in Obama's rhetoric. So have various media outlets. The NYTs, Scahill, Greenwald, etc.

This is something that deserves attention. And we could have a conversation about this usefully.

4) See above.

5) That is an opinion. An opinion is not a lie.

6) That is a clarification.

7) That is a generalization, not a lie.

You're way over the top in continuing to attack people for their opinions, Frenchie Cat. It's not useful. It doesn't garner support and it doesn't resolve anything.

[Runcible Spoon]

203. You will never get an answer of substance from that one.

100% propaganda 24/7. Must be exhausting. Mike, I appreciate your candor and the issues in your OP. I didn't vote for Obama thinking he would end EITHER way, and yes he was less than direct about stating his intentions about Iraq and Afghanistan. He allowed, dare I say encouraged, a LOT of people to frame him as an anti-war candidate. I didn't swallow that bullshit, but a lot of people projected their hopes onto him and bought his vague, flowery speeches without actually looking at the susbtance of the man underneath.

I read Baudrillard in grad school, and something about Obama's campaign struck a nerve. Then I found this excellent article:
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/144623/index.php

I hope you get a chance to read it!

[FrenchieCat]

226. it appears that you wouldn't know substance if it hit you in the face.

Meanwhile you confuse Intellectual dishonesty for candor.

Barack Obama was not "vague" in his speeches, and any true liberal mind who bothered to listen knows this. The imposters are the ones that will pretend that he spoke in terms lacking of substance and consistency.

FarceOfNature, the official meaning of propaganda reads as: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc..., and so it is your accusation of my lacking substance that is the propaganda in the context in which we each communicate.

I am providing you with three speeches made by Barack Obama from 2007 to 2008, and each is consistent and substantive....and each basically exposes the lies that is contained in the OP, and obliterates your claim of Obama having been vague.

.....and so, a little more than a year after that bright September day, I was in the streets of Chicago again, this time speaking at a rally in opposition to war in Iraq. I did not oppose all wars, I said. I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda."

The political winds were blowing in a different direction. The President was determined to go to war. There was just one obstacle: the U.S. Congress. Nine days after I spoke, that obstacle was removed. Congress rubber-stamped the rush to war, giving the President the broad and open-ended authority he uses to this day. With that vote, Congress became co-author of a catastrophic war. And we went off to fight on the wrong battlefield, with no appreciation of how many enemies we would create, and no plan for how to get out.

Because of a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11.
--
Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.
--
When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support -- not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda's appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.

Ending the war will help isolate al Qaeda and give Iraqis the incentive and opportunity to take them out. It will also allow us to direct badly needed resources to Afghanistan. Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need?and deserve. As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs, and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country.

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO's efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations. -- Barack Obama, August 1, 2007, Washington DC
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/08/sweet_blog_special_in_terroris.html

History will catalog the reasons why we waged a war that didn’t need to be fought, but two stand out. In 2002, when the fateful decisions about Iraq were made, there was a President for whom ideology overrode pragmatism, and there were too many politicians in Washington who spent too little time reading the intelligence reports, and too much time reading public opinion. The lesson of Iraq is that when we are making decisions about matters as grave as war, we need a policy rooted in reason and facts, not ideology and politics.

Now we are debating who should be our next Commander in Chief. And I am running for President because it’s time to turn the page on a failed ideology and a fundamentally flawed political strategy, so that we can make pragmatic judgments to keep our country safe. That’s what I did when I stood up and opposed this war from the start, and said that we needed to finish the fight against al Qaeda. And that’s what I’ll do as President of the United States.
--
So when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war. Not because politics compels it. Not because our troops cannot bear the burden– as heavy as it is. But because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer.

In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy. What I propose is not – and never has been – a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started.-- Barack Obama, March 19, 2008, in Fayetteville
http://billyliggett.wordpress.com/about-me/transcript-from-obamas-speech-in-fayetteville/

As commander-in-chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.


I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taleban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st Century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.--Barack Obama, August 28, 2008, at his Acceptance Speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7587321.stm

[EFerrari]

233. And you are confusing a swathe of text for explication while you continue

to evade the question and slander the OP.

Good grief.

[FrenchieCat]

235. The OP has slandered himself, and I am offering proof of it;

proof that you prefer to deny by avoiding even reading what I have offered while not acknowledging that the poster that I responded to was busy slandering me.

[EFerrari]

238. Posting paragraphs as if they are transparent is not proof of anything

except the ability to cut and paste.

Why not do as requested and simply argue your position, Frenchie Cat? If it is as clear as you seem to believe it is, it should be a simple matter.

[FrenchieCat]

244. I think I've communicated what I felt needed to be communicated,

and did so without lying.

If you don't appreciate excerpts from speeches to prove consistency and unequivocation, that's your problem. Fortunately, you are not the only one reading this, and you are not the only one that I posted what I posted for.

Now, I will politely say that my debate with you on this is over....as I am not willing to go round and round for your entertainment pleasure. I do kindly thank you for participating...and for keeping it civil. That's appreciated.

[EFerrari]

247. I imagine you have done what you set out to do.

However, the text you posted is not unequivocal. All you have to do is look at all the abstract nouns and the lack of specifics to see that it requires unpacking.

I expect a lot of commentary from the left to be devoted to this unpacking and I also expect Obama to do some himself in order that his course will be clarified for his supporters.

[mike_c]

236. so the left has no right to speak out against the war or feel betrayed...

...by its continuance? Because neither of the major candidates chose to represent us on this issue, we get a steaming mug of shut-the-fuck-up?

No thanks. It's my country too.

And you've never answered my question: why do you support 16 more months of war against Iraq?

[HughMoran]

288. Well said

You spent the time to spell out how I was feeling after reading another of these oh-so-predictible borish threads from someone who's clearly never been part of the Democratic party.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

354. Faith?

What is all this 'Faith in the leader' stuff? That in and of itself is harrowing and cause for wariness towards any who use such religiosity to assert some unsubstantiated position.

Talk politics not religion. Be specific.

What exactly do you consider to be "Out of Iraq in 16 months?" Give specific logistical details.

What are your expectations and what will you do if those expectations are not met?

[mirrera]

194. K & R

[totodeinhere]

204. I reject what you said in the strongest terms.

We-- Americans-- are war criminals and our crime is ongoing.

I call total bullshit on that. On the one hand you say that we Americans want out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. So far so good. But then at the same time you say unequivocally that "we Americans are war criminals." So I suppose that carrying your logic further would mean that Barack Obama is also a war criminal, and I guess I am one too.

You are way too far out in left field for me, and if during the campaign Obama had said what you are saying now, we would be looking at President John McCain.

[anaxarchos]

253. You must have missed Nuremberg, then.

Wars of Aggression are war crimes, even ignoring torture and genocide and the rest.

Failing to prosecute war criminals is also a violation of U.S. law, and for legislators, falls somewhere between violating their oaths to uphold the Constitution and treason. It doesn't matter if such prosecutions may be impolitic or cause indigestion after breakfast.

But wait... it gets worse. If you know about war crimes, you are also complicit. Being a good German and following orders ain't good enough.

Now, I'm sure that your own personal complicity ain't so bad and there are more than enough jail-house lawyers on this thread who are willing to endlessly parse your words to the n-th degree so that it is absolutely clear that you knew "nothing, nothing, nothing", but "calling bullshit" isn't really a good defense....

...neither is putting your personal irritation or degree of "leftward persuasion" above issues as serious as war and peace, let alone war crimes.

Goes triple for putting your "faith" or anything else so trivial above such issues.

[bagrman]

345. Your part of WE, as in "We the people" the government is us. Got a peace sign on your truck?

[Rudyabdul]

207. PE Obama didnt lie nor betray us.

You have either forgotten or just haven't been paying attention. PE Obama has said repeatedly during his campaign that he will end the war responsibly. Here's a link for the ones who don't mind reading: Ending the war in Iraq

[Radical Activist]

210. You're stuck in a rut from the last 20 years.

You need to have faith before you can lose it.

[readmoreoften]

215. Why the hell do you have a Maoist guerrilla icon and call yourself 'radical' if you support Obama?

You do know that he's appointing someone who advocated for paramilitary thugs who killed thousands of union workers for Chiquita banana, right?

[Radical Activist]

220. You'll get more progressive policies enacted

by supporting Obama's progressive policies and speaking out against his conservative ones, than you can by spreading cynicism and making exaggerations to criticize him at every opportunity. Being radical doesn't mean being ineffective. It doesn't mean you have to be cynical and hopeless.
Like this guy:
Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals by Saul Alinsky.
A former community organizer is the closest thing to a real liberal or radical that America has ever elected President so this is a rare opportunity if we don't squander it by splintering ourselves.

[Odin2005]

318. Exactly. I'm a F-ing SOCIALIST, yet I'm an evil millitarist neo-colonialist according to some DUers.

My PoliticalCcompass.org score is the same as Gandhi's fer Christ sakes and people think I'm some DLC tool. :crazy:

Oh and my liking for Obama went up a lot when I read that he was influenced by Alinsky!

[Ani Yun Wiya]

368. Pray tell brave warrior...

What kind of "socialist" advocates turning another country into a "glass parking lot" ?

[Baby Snooks]

211. Unfortunately we have to remain...

We no longer have Saddam Hussein to keep civil order. That is a sad reality even the Republicans are having to accept. The alternative is the Islamic Republic of Iraq. Given the threat that the Islamic Republic of Iran represents, another Islamic Republic is not in anyone's best interest. If we pull out completely, the Shi'ites will most likely seize power and massacre as many Sunnis as possible in retaliation for the years of oppression by the Sunnis. Just the same, Saddam Hussein recognized the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Somthing that seem to have been overlooked by the Bushes.

All you can do is hope that our presence blocks any further profiting by the Bushes and their Boys. Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Shell, and of course the Hunts.

We have to restore democracy. Not establish it. What a legacy the Bushes have left. They will burn in Hell for eternity.

[anaxarchos]

266. You do realize...

...that you have just resurrected the slogans of virtually every losing colonial power in history, don't you? Killing a million people (or three hundred thousand) does not qualify you to make any pronouncements whatever on what "civil order" consists of. Ask the French in Algeria, the British in half of the world, or Nixon in Vietnam. Losing a colonial war does not qualify you to meditate on what happens afterwards. It qualifies you to leave.

"We have to restore democracy. Not establish it." So, we're back to "nation building" that easily... just change a word or two?

"What a legacy the Bushes have left. They will burn in Hell for eternity." At least at this rate, they won't be lonely.

[Odin2005]

321. Oh great, here we go again with the "all westerners are evil, racist colonialists" crap again.

You would make a fine press secretary for Robert Mugabe.

[superduperfarleft]

326. Knowledge of history and critical thinking aren't your strong suit, I'm assuming. n/t

[Odin2005]

329. My critical thinking skills are just fine and I read a lot of history.

So, one again, FAIL.

[superduperfarleft]

330. So when are you enlisting?

A strapping young man like yourself should be in Afghanistan spreading democracy and keeping the peace, not arguing on the internets with naive FAILures like me.

[anaxarchos]

342. Sorry...

I can't talk to you. You are a "fucking socialist", as you just said up thread.

Frankly, you are not a very good "fucking socialist" since you instantly ignored what I said above and instead went for some insane, guilt-ridden, ad hominem just like any normal suburban philistine. More, you are yet another one who thinks that what you "believe" makes up for what you stand for. Francois Mitterrand was a socialist (a "fucking socialist" in fact) and he extended the war in Algeria and presided over years of torture because he thought it impolitic to do otherwise. Perhaps you are like that?

I was talking about actual colonial powers with actual Colonial Offices and actual Colonial Policies (well, with the exception of Nixon who was kinda analogous).

In any case, since I already know you are a "fucking socialist", I don't really care if you are evil or racist. Besides, it would be rude to ask.

[Odin2005]

350. You are comparing apples to oranges. Afghanistan is NOT Algeria

France's BS in Algeria was a childish fit of rage from a country that was in denial that it's days of "imperial glory" had come to an end.

[anaxarchos]

362. So, NOW, you wanna talk.

Perhaps it is just your custom to begin a conversation by calling the other person a mass murderer?

Well OK, Mr.Odin-god-of-smoke-and-fury-signifying-nothing, then you are quite right. Afghanistan is not Algeria. Albania comes in between them alphabetically and Algeria has no black in its national flag. But it is not Afghanistan and Algeria that are at issue. It is France and the United States. And, here there is a striking similarity despite the obvious difference of circumstances. In fact, I could not put it more eloquently than you. Afghanistan was precisely "a childish fit of rage from a country that was in denial that it's days of 'imperial glory' had come to an end."

Am I sounding like Mugabe again? Well then, you'll be surprised to know that the neo-cons who lent ideology to the "Afghanistan venture" articulated it in exactly the same terms, and this not once but many times. Kristol, for one, wrote approvingly of the punitive expeditions into Afghanistan by the old British Empire, intended to "teach the 'Fuzzies' a lesson". It is an analogy that is a little too close for comfort, Mr. Norse God, and it does not help that almost all of the arguments for Obama on this thread that do not rely on "faith", fall back almost immediately on the most right-wing justifications for "childish fits of rage" as you call them.

In the aftermath of 911, the United States declared war on some guy, a former employee. That guy was then used to justify the invasion of a former client state which was not directly involved but remained defiant (Afghanistan) and one that was not involved at all (Iraq). In both cases, "lesson teaching", not about "terrorism" (which in the case of Afghan "terrorism" was made in the U.S.A. - Langley, Virginia in fact), but about doing as the U.S. directs, was most assuredly on the agenda. When frustrated by the inability to teach such "lessons", the U.S. turned increasingly to collective punishment, torture, bombing of civilian areas, and genocide - all of these war crimes.

It is not by accident that those who would defend and prolong the above need to turn to neo-con garbage because there is little in the "progressive" lexicon to support it.

No amount of good looks and telegenic charm can overcome that for Mr. Obama, no reading of what he said ever can support it, and as for you, no angry repetitions of empty slogans will help.

[Odin2005]

319. That is EXACTLY my thinking on the issue.

Or, as a certain ex-Bushie turned Obama supporter once said "You break it, you own it."

[newtothegame]

213. Unfortuneatly many Dems and DU'ers were more concerned with their vote being historic...

Thus we brushed aside Kucinich and demonized Hillary in the race to get Obama in the White House.

[Kolesar]

239. Historic? That's truly silly ... eom

[ramapo]

225. Oh give me a break

Get in line with Barney Frank and his inane comment that Obama is not doing enough about the economy.

First, just to restate the obvious, it is President-elect Obama, not President Obama. Big difference.

Second. Let us see where we are 16 months after he takes office, which is when the troops should be out of Iraq, more or less. Expect more troops in Afghanistan. Expect Obama to change course if and when needed. I hope and trust that he would do so. And do you know why? Because I TRUST Obama.

Call me a fool but he gets the benefit of the doubt and way more from me. And not just for a couple of weeks or months.

I didn't elect a liberal. I didn't elect a conservative. I elected a man who I think has the wisdom and judgment to decide what is best for all of us. I realize I won't always agree and won't always be happy. That is OK. I don't agree with my wife all the time either.

Reading this crap just makes me realize that there are people who will never be happy, no matter what.
I've waited basically my whole life (well 1963 actually when in third grade I saw the lights go out on the future) for a man, a leader, like Obama to come along.

[georgecolombo]

237. What He Said

I agree with just about every word of that.

[rvablue]

248. Mike C also rants and raves that no one appreciates or listens to his favorite indie band

but then when they finally get a contract and can fill a concert hall he bitches and moan that they've sold out.

Can Obama become President before you start complaining. And could you venture, for one moment, to think that people with decades of military experience know how to conduct a safe withdrawal much, much better than you?

[EFerrari]

249. Rumsfeld had plenty of experience, too. And Gates is an Iran Contra criminal.

Barack Obama is the President Elect, is he not? Does he not issue statements and hold press conferences and talk to world leaders? Does he himself not know he's supposed to be on ice right now?

[mike_c]

251. do WHAT?!

I'm having a complete memory lapse over that one, although I'd be the first to admit it SOUNDS plausible. :rofl:

As for the second comment, perhaps I'd feel a bit better if those folks with all that experience would explain their objectives and their reasons to the rest of us. My feeling is that an orderly withdrawal can be effected much more quickly than 16 months. More like 2-3. IIRC, Kucinich has published similar time lines several times, and supported his rationale for them.

At any rate, you're correct-- I'm NOT a military planner and never have been, so I'll happily listen to reasoned explanations about WHY it will take another year and a half to withdraw troops from Iraq instead of two or three months-- but those explanations have so far not been forthcoming. In particular, I'd like to know what the U.S. hopes to achieve during that 16 months.

[rvablue]

256. They haven't been forthcoming b/c Obama isn't President yet

I have little doubt that within short order we will being hearing more details after Jan. 20th.

Can you at least wait until then?

[Lena inRI]

252. Dear. . .dear mike-c. . .I tip my hat to you for standing up. . .

. . .for us goddamn liberal gadflies. . .your OP got me back on because I've been burrowed deep in my nest as PE Obama ignores such liberals as Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich, and Wesley Clark. . .no "Obama pie" for these liberal-leaning people. . .

. . .or he lets one Samantha Power in, through a back door transition position. . .but some how I see even this pick as a minor concession to his former colleague, Cass Sunstein, who's Samantha's husband. . .I guess having the "couple advisors" will be convenient but, in no way, openly and equally representing liberal input. . .no POWER for Samantha Power!

Let me support your position by adding:

Actions speak louder than words. . .

1--Obama's words "end Iraq war in 16 months" don't jive with his act of appointing SOS HR Clinton whose words "obliterate Iran" make me cringe. . .oh yeah, Obama's got the ultimate power to stop her thinking. . .but Iranian/Iraqi officials won't be looking into Obama's face across the negotiating table. . .they must REALLY be cringing right about now! And Jesus bleeding Christ. . .James L. Jones over Wes Clark for National Security . . .uuuuuggggh!

2--Obama's words "there are no liberal Americans or conservative Americans, only Americans". . .yadda yadda yadda. ..don't jive with his decidedly lopsided selection of NO LIBERALS. . .where?. . .where? Where are the goddamn liberal gadflies anywhere near Obama in the circle of advisors he has announced so far?

WTF. . .liberal is STILL a dirty word? . . .gotta say progressive, and even that sparingly?. . .maybe Obama will have a few on a secret, de facto "kitchen cabinet" like President Jackson. . .hmmmm. . .maybe call it the "basketball court cabinet". . .is Kucinich any good on that kind of court?

Hey, mike-c, what can I say, as a liberal kindred spirit, I'm as dejected as you. . .feel used like being "stood-up for a date". . .getting that sour taste in my gullet that I've tasted for 40 + years now. . .

. . .I was ready to email change.gov all my "bright ideas" freely and lovingly but that email addy I deleted until I see some, at least ONE, goddamn liberal ACTION from Team Obama. . . call it liberal collateral BEFORE I give him my generous "political capital support."

WOW. . .PE Obama meeting with "grassroots" this week-end. . .do ya think we have his ear now?

Remember we're not liberals now. . .

we're grassroots,

by golly!

Best of the holidays, mike-c. . .genuinely PEACE to you and yours. . .

:fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump: :fistbump:

[Independent_Thinker]

254. Practical Folks, lets talk practical...

I see lots of posts but little acknowledgment of reality. No politician when they are in charge will want to have a war lost. Obama will keep the Iraq war going till it is won and the surge that Bush started on two years has gone a long way to cutting back the violence and getting to a point where we can leave. Right now some American cities have a higher murder rate than Baghdad (deaths per 100,000). Also there is the fact that it will take approx 3 years to move all of the equipment back out of Iraq - I know I deployed several times already. For this same reason stated above, he will surge the troops in Afghanistan to make sure that there is no failure on his watch. Again, no politician will risk loosing a war regardless of the promises he made. If he pulls out too early the right would beat him over the head for the next four years. And lastly, Gitmo will probably stay open. The reality of what do with these people is really up in the air. The countries that these people are from for the most part do not want them, or if they are sent there they will be killed. I am not sure that he wants to put them into our legal system as the trials will contain highly classified info. The practical solution of just closing it down is just not practical.

The reality of running the government is far far harder than campaign promises.

[mike_c]

255. the war against Irag cannot be "won"-- it was lost the day it began....

What, exactly, would constitute "winning" the war against Iraq? Eradicating hatred of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East by killing every man, woman, and child? Establishing a puppet democracy at gunpoint? Finding and destroying massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction? Oh, wait....

The point is that there are NO achievable objectives. There never really have been, other than the obvious one of giving the Bush administration an excuse to unleash the MIC and play with all the cool exploding toys. Too bad about all the dead folks that entailed.

It cannot be won. There isn't any finish line. We either walk away in failure now, or we walk away in failure later after more people have been murdered and more money has been squandered, saddling our children with more foolish old men's debt. BTW, I've been writing exactly the same thing since 2003 and it's still true. In 2003 folks said just give it time, we'll win....

I want leadership that can lead the nation, not just lead the cheers.

[Independent_Thinker]

270. We can win...

The goal was to have a fully functioning democracy in that country. Yes, that is a high goal considering the country and the long history. I do remember the voters of that country risking their lives to vote, and then I look at our country where most voters complain if they have to wait a little while to vote. We are not installing a puppet government - hell they just signed off on the SOFA that will remove the US Military in 2011. We are winning but it is slow going. I think History will be favorable to this venture. But it will take many decades to get the clarity.

I deployed in support of GWOT and have been shot at several times while trying to bring food and medicine to some of the poorest people on the planet. Wonder how many DU'ers would risk (and I mean really risk - several of my friends were killed) their lives to bring relief to the poorest among us. I know the mission and have helped implement that mission. It did work locally, I saw the success, and I pray that this country will continue to improve and that there is success.

I choose to cheer and pray for those over there. I served them and hopefully America has brought them into Democracy.

[kimmerspixelated]

276. Mike C, I agree with you on so many fronts.

War is wrong, NO MATTER WHAT! I'm definitely far left on that. I won't reiterate the fact that we should first give Obama the benefit of the doubt, however a thought came to me regarding the fact that for so long our intelligence folks and pentagon "pals" were told to act and report matters in the strictist neo-con ways, and forget the facts, so to speak..and we can see how that has turned out... If the intelligence folks are allowed to come out with the truth of the way things really are, such as the fact that Bin Laden has actually been dead for years, let's just say, perhaps war mongering actions might take a different turn. WHen the truth is allowed to come forward on Obama's watch, there is a very good chance plans will go a different direction. I like to believe that Obama is waiting to real info. I'm probably naive in my thinking, but it just seems to be plausible.

[EFerrari]

258. Welcome to DU, Independent_Thinker.

The folks at Gitmo have not been sent home because Condi Rice's State Department has dug its heels in and will not co-operate to get them sent home. That was clearly established by several humanitarian groups providing lawyers for the detainees. Bush doesn't want them out before he's out of office regardless of whether they are safe and welcome in their home countries or not. :shrug:

Clive Stafford Smith, an attorney, testified to that effect before Congress last summer. This is his org's site:

http://www.reprieve.org.uk/staff_clivestaffordsmith.htm

[Independent_Thinker]

259. I think that is incorrect...

We are not allowed to send home someone that we know will be executed or tortured. That is a executive order, I think signed by Bush but I am not sure.

And, practicallity again. If Bush let's them out now, it will be on his head. If Obama does it after Bush leaves, it becomes his problem. He is kicking the can down the road.

We have had trials long ago. Now we are just really stuck.

[EFerrari]

262. No, it's right. State is holding up releases.

We don't send people home that will be tortured or killed, that's true. But that isn't the problem here at all.

We've gotten a lot of disinformation on this topic -- such as the number of released detainees that have gone back into combat. The Pentagon can't even reconcile its own numbers which turn out to be bs.

There was a hearing on May 20 in the House on this topic with a great panel. CSPAN carried it and should have an archived video. I only remember because I wrote about it. DeLaHunt's committee on Human Rights.

[G_j]

296. I suspect the reason may be

that so many of them are mistaken identities, innocent people caught up in raids, others turned in over false witness of people who don't like them, etc...

There may be little or no evidence on many or most of the detainees. I suppose they want to let it come out in the wash, when they are out of the spotlight. Personally, I feel that we need to keep Bush's crimes in the light, or we have utterly failed, and will never be able to find moral ground as a country.

[EFerrari]

298. They're clearly waiting out the clock.

Bakers, tourists, goatherders, Rumsfeld was not picky when he made his sweep. :grr:

[truedelphi]

265. Thank you for that link. n/t

[EFerrari]

267. Andy also works there and he's written about these cases here:

www.andyworthington.co.uk

I LOVE these people. :hi:

[madrchsod]

295. i`d say it will be a draw...other than that i agree with what you wrote

by all counts the surge did/is working and it`s the real bad guys that need to be taken out...i`m going with 18 months to withdraw

[sallyseven]

257. Poor baby we are going to

miss you. No room for moderation? I have faith in Obama. Just remember that the difficult takes time the impossible a little longer. He will be fine and right now he has no power to change anything. Even when he is inaugurated he has to deal with the nitwits in congress. The repukes will be all over him like flies on rotted fruit. .

[Captain Hilts]

261. Hey, at least Clinton was honest it was a complicated situation. nt

[Name removed]

269. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SmileyRose]

279. Is there any popcorn left.

extra salt please.

[HughMoran]

284. I could have written this post 6 months ago

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by posting this - you already knew that these were his plans before he was elected and stated as much in your O/P. If rallying the people from the rival web sites to come over here and show us all that DU is not truly "liberal", then I think you are probably pretty small minded. Since you've more or less burned your bridges here in this thread, I can assume that my previous sentence is correct.

Shame on you - this thread is not constructive at all - it's actually quite predictable and child-like crapping on everybody's face.

[CadenBlaker]

287. Keep things in perspective.

You are jumping the gun. Obama is the president elect. He simply is trying to be pragmatic and do things right. I'm a liberal and I still have faith that Obama will do well from the center, which is the way it should be done.

[madrchsod]

292. it`s going to take at least 16 months to draw down the troops for....

a safe withdraw from iraq. it will take that long to decide what stays and goes. it`s called an orderly retreat. the iraqi`s have decided for now to set aside their differences so the americans can leave while the two sides disarm and decide how to share power.

the united states is going to have an influence in iraq for a long time to come.

[quickesst]

294. America elects a president......

...every four years. If only one of them had been able to accomplish the things promised in their campaign, congress, with the support of the American people, would have changed the constitution, and elected this person for life. I'm surprised there are people who still believe this could happen. I also do not believe a president-elect's position changes once the election is over. I think they hold onto these ideals all the way up to the White House briefing. Whatever the machinations, and we will never know, there are events in motion that shape the course of a new president's direction. The goals might still remain, but the map has got to be re-written. I'm betting Obama's smart enough to read the map if the detours, delays, and distractions don't cause him to arrive at the destination too late. America elects a president every four years. What if he needs five? Thanks.
quickesst

[truthspout]

299. ?

Where are all the progressives in the obama cabinet / policy team ?

[Odin2005]

322. He is a liberal, a REAL liberal, not a Naderite. n/t

[superduperfarleft]

327. That's one of the dumbest statements I've seen all day, both on and off DU.

Congrats.

[Odin2005]

332. So this isn't liberal, huh?

http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm


Obama



Biden



Emanuel



Daschle



Hillary




Once Again, EPIC FAIL!

[superduperfarleft]

335. Um, way to be OT.

Despite your skill with posting completely irrelevant images, I was referring to your assertion that a so-called Naderite isn't a liberal. In fact, I think it's clear that your understanding of what a liberal actually is must be pretty warped (and I say this as someone who is decidedly not a liberal). It wasn't Naderites who voted for the Iraq War and its continued funding, or the occupation of Afghanistan, or supported continuing the Iraqi sanctions which killed millions, NAFTA, DADT, DOMA, welfare reform, the FISA amendments, Kyl-Lieberman, abandoning impeachment, et-fucking-cetera....

And you really need to quit the "epic fail" crap, you just look sad. There's a word for guys like you on the site where that phrase originated, the kind of guys that throw around slang that they really have no business using and only look ridiculous when they do. I won't say the actual word, but the term n00b works just as well.

[Odin2005]

347. I was posting those for all the posters who are spewing the " Obama is a centrist" BS.

As for Nader, he hasn't done any good since he switched from being a consumer advocate to being a egotistical nut-case hell-bent on destroying the Democratic Party and spewing BS about there "being no difference between the two parties." Nader and his supporters are armchair radicals who make a lot of hot air but do nothing productive. Nader is a perfect example of the colossal failure that is ideological puritanism.

[superduperfarleft]

351. Armchair? That's really hilarious....

considering you've been asked several times when you're planning to enlist and go keep the peace and spread democracy in Afghanistan. And yet you never respond....

[quakerboy]

309. It will be interesting

to see what happens when Obama is president, rather than a private citizen.

I suggest keeping the public input to his people up. let them know what we want.

For myself, I never convinced myself that Obama was going to be an automatic lefty. I am convinced that he will listen, however. And thats why I was willing to vote for him. So lets give him something to listen to, rather than judging him before he is sworn in.

[Geek_Girl]

315. I really hate the fact that some many on here actually thought Obama was a Liberal

He never was. He never said he was and his voting recorded certainly didn't reflect that. He was painted as an ultra left winger by the GOP to scare people into believing he's some kind of Marxist.

If Liberals wanted out of Iraq ASAP, if they wanted a strong progressive agenda, they should've flocked to Kucinich instead of drinking the Obama Koo-laid.

Obama was the 2nd most conservative candidate running next to Hillary. I'm not surprised in the least that his policies, cabinet picks are moderate at best. And no one on this board should be surprised, shocked or disheartened IMHO.

[Amonester]

328. At least there won't be any Supreme Court appointment(s) made by...

a preznitortot mcsamecrazysh*tforyearstocome (amongst many other disasters, one of 'em being that he'd "go sleep eternit"....)

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!! :hi:

[LSK]

344. you would be better served by reading Obama instead of bitching about things he hasnt done

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=barack+obama&x=0&y=0

If you took the time to see where he is coming from you might have more faith in him to do what he has always said he would do during the campaign.

Also, his long standing policy would be to try to end the war based on the conditions on the ground in 16 months. He has said this over and over during the campaign and I see no contradiction now.

[DWilliamsamh]

356. I am as liberal as they come...and Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT the same thing

In the simplest terms.....

1) The invasion of Afghanistan's was justified as they held the base of the folks who ACTUALLY mounted an attack on our nation. That government gave aid comfort and support to materially help with that attack, and refused to help apprehend the perpetrators (Bin Laden and his crew).

2) Iraq was unjustified in that Iraq was not then and never was a threat to the United States. All "evidence that they were" was wrong at best fabricated at worst. They didn't attack us. .


ONE of the many reasons I voted for Barack Obama was that he said he would withdraw troops from Iraq. He NEVER said he would do it in anything less than 16 months. There IS a military reality that withdrawal has to be done in a manner that is safe for our personnel. There is a political reality that it has to be done in such a way as to not leave a vacuum that the Iraqi government can't fill. Hence the 16 month time frame and a nod to the reality that plans accelerate or decelerate depending on the facts on the ground.

I am sorry that you feel "betrayed" by Mr. Obama's acknowledgment of the reality that he has to deal with but he has been honest about his take on that reality and his plans in light of it for a long time. No matter how much we might like him to, Barack Obama can't blink his eyes and make the last 8 years as if they never happened. Fixing the damage, including the invasion of Iraq which can't be "fixed," will take hard work and time and a firm grasp on reality. That is what Barack Obama has been saying all along. You apparently weren't listening.

[Jack Sprat]

360. Honorable stand, Mike

You have been around enough to recognize it. There is precious little conviction among modern Democratic leadership. Concerning free trade, outsourcing of jobs, foreign interventionism and using the military to carry out the will of PNAC, there seems to be a timidness of the Democratic Party to stand with the people against the powers that be. While the Republicans don't pretend to buck the status quo, the Democrats pretend they will but yet won't.

Ref: The capitulation of the 110th Congress as a prime example. No termination of war funding, no effort to impeach Bush or Cheney. Only the brave stood up when it counted. Thanks Dennis Kucinich

[caseymoz]

366. Relax. Don't call a strike till the pitch is thrown.

The guy doesn't take office for 6 weeks already! If he's a good politician (understatement), he will lower expectations right now. Except on the economy that is, but that's an exception.

[EFerrari]

377. Welcome to DU, caseymoz.

lol

:)

[Agony]

370. Right On! mike

Luckily, with this wonderfully awesome system we have here I can be a member of the Democratic party and still beat myself up when "they" are wrong...

makes your head spin, who else do I have to work with?