...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.

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.

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

His beef is legitimate.

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

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.

that Obama has not yet been sworn in?

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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".

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.

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

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.

...any longer.

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.

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.

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.

:hi:

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.

... 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?

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.

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.

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

...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.

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!

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................

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

the pieces grow and become mops themselves

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

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.

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.

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%.

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.

That's the ONLY reason I voted for him.

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

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

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.

: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.

...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.

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

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

peace!

Oh yeah, he is not yet President.

...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.

Somedays I feel I have fallen though the DU looking glass

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.

are you talking about Democrats?

Kucinich makes those efforts, how many others?

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

Was unimpressed.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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?

<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

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.

:thumbsup:

"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.

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.

"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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

...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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

"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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

sorry. :/

to wipe out the KKK --

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

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.

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.

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

:shrug:

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Unfortunately, there are many crises at once to fix.

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

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?

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."

That is not what I said, thanks.

...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?

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.

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.

:(

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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. :)

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

Obama wants to put more troops there?


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

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

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.

Those cheerleaders.

But who is it?

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.

: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.

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.

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.

Your willingness to make war on innocent people disturbs me.

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.

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.

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

:wtf:

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.

Then we can start playing hardball with Pakistan.

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

by drawing insurgents into the area.

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.

:)

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?

...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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

:eyes:

:eyes:

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

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?

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:

"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.

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.

Epic. Fail. :eyes:

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

Nice logic there. :eyes:

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.

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 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

Shouldn't we have a voice?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

WTF?

Anyone with a Wellstone avatar gets a salute from me.

:patriot:

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

God knows it's cold here.

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

as usual.

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

A very small broom and dustpan.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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.