I am not sure anyone understands what needs to be done. Most especially by anyone that does not live in the region. If I am not mistaken and it is the best analysis of the situation and it comes from Scott Ritter, that unless anyone even giving opinions on the status of Iraq educates themself as to the whole of the peoples of that region that were independent tribes at the least before being forced to live together in one country under a single leader and now that unity has been destroyed, trying to come up with a plan to get a government that will ‘stand up’ really seems impossible from any outsiders unless it would be the other countries and states in the region. That is where the best ideas and guidance to help the three groups that made up the country of Iraq would come from, maybe with an international obsever group. But to get any resemblance of order it most probably will have to do with each group, sunni,shia,kurds having their own state.
This trying to create a government for them in just one country would be slap in the face and still leave the impression of being an occupied country. I mean do as we did in viet nam, just leave. As the Iraqis are starting to say more and more as of late, they want us to leave. And just as with viet nam so will iraq most probably go through more secular violence but we would gone and they would settle their on disputes. And if what is said by a lot of people including the iraqis, they would handle any invasion of al-qada(sp) so we should believe them on this.
But again, I think any attempt to remain even as a guardian or just and observer only shows that we are there for their oil, if it is still their oil.
But the big picture of the forest is, there are too many people on this planet and with the current political, religious and economy systems in place then peace, unity or ‘global free market’ will never happen as evidenced by all the strife that the US has created just for the profit of a few very sorry evil people.

Monsanto Corporation should be remembered was the inventor who pushed Bovine Hormone Growth into the milk supply. Taking the lead from wholesale club Costco, now even the Kroger company is working to remove BHG from all dairy supplies. They also experimented with a virus resistant, genetically altered type of corn that nearly destroyed the Monarch butterfly.

Beerdoc

Thanks for confirming my suspicions on the connection to Monsanto on the destruction of seed stocks. Purplewolf is the one who told me that this was occurring, but she didn’t mention who was involved. I guessed Monsanto, just because they are as nefarious as you suggest.

Meantime, I was able to find her some green bean seeds here in my own area, that might in fact be the last of the untainted variety.  Hopefully she’ll hold on to them. We might have to survive on green beans and fruit preserves for the next several years. I’ve got some rice stashed as well.

BTW, I was able to check out the whole speech that you referenced in Obama’s use of the Marshall plan as a basis for that speech. TD had kindly published the entire thing here.

In reference to the nuclear talk, I can only say that it sounds like he studied from the same master of the
effort to remove all nuclear weapons from the world as I have.

It’s a long and arduous effort by a small group of academics and other specialists. They are partially represented by a group formed as The Nuclear Peace Foundation. My own mentor, (Dr. Richard Falk) has committed a great deal of work with that group, and has written extensively over the years, regarding this effort.

Sounds like Obama might have read and studied some of his stuff.

re By Rus7355, July 16 at 6:11 am

Just some basic thoughts in response to your questions here..and not even all of them. And definitely very basic, from a forest rather than a tree view…

On this…

•  “…The second question is just as basic. What would a President Obama do if Iraq slips back into sectarian violence or Qaeda types are found to be operating inside the new Iraq after we leave? Will he order troops back to Iraq? Will he seek out world opinion before he acts?
My ‘basic’ answer to your ‘basic’ question is pretty basic..

It will not be on President Obama to do ANYTHING if Iraq slips back into sectarian violence or ‘al-Qaeda types’ are found to be operating inside what YOU are calling the ‘new Iraq’ after we leave. We simply cannot ever put aside the fact that the Iraqi people were a sovereign nation state WITH NO AL QAEDA, and NO SECTARIAN VIOLENCE, prior to the US occupation of that sovereign nation state. So Maybe rus, we shouldn’t call it the ‘new Iraq’ or the US Iraq.

Maybe we just have to think a bit less imperialistically rus. Again, there was NO al-Qaeda in Iraq, prior to the US invasion and occupation. Prior to the US invasion and occupation, the Iraqi people did not experience this sectarian violence. The Kurds were mostly autonomous in the North, and the Sunni and Shia Arabs were no more ‘segregated’ from each other in the rest of Iraq than we are here in the US, in our own most homogenized areas.

Based on those very basic elements of human behaviors and the way that societies govern themselves, I suspect that your fears are unwarranted. Whether they are or not, it is NOT the concern of an Obama presidency. Iraq’s neighbors can do far more to assist them in regaining and rebuilding their destroyed nation, than the ones who destroyed it in the first place, and I have every confidence that they will.

The stuff about bin Laden and Zawahiri doesn’t even figure in. They never had any ‘goals’ for Iraq until George Bush invited them in, and it’s HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE that they even had any then. So, there are no ‘victories’ to be claimed by anyone in Iraq, regardless of what Senator Obama says. If there can be any victories at all, they could only be claimed by the Iraqi people, once we are out and they can reclaim their nation.

As for this:

•  “…Another question:  While bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri have both been very clear that the “central front against the West is in Iraq” how does Sen. Obama arrive at his conclusion that Iraq is not, and never has been, the central fight against Qaeda?”

When have they been ‘very clear’ Rus? And how can either OBL or Zawahiri make a claim about an action in Iraq that they had nothing to do with? THEY didn’t start the war in Iraq, holy or otherwise. What ‘central front against the West” is in Iraq? And when did you talk to them, to get this ‘clear’ message? If you honestly believe that either of them has been saying anything to anybody as late as 2007, you’re gonna need some DNA to prove it to me. bin Laden’s last confirmed appearance anywhere was on Sept 10, 2001, when he was back in hospital at the Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi. He was presumably still there on 12 September

“...‘when Sec. Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing” (him.)”.. (which obviously never happened). for this, see the URL below.

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html

As well, I find myself wondering: isn’t this the same guy who said - during at least half a dozen of the hundred or so debates (LOL) - that he would begin removing troops IMMEDIATELY after being elected, at a rate of “one or two brigades per month” (~3,500 troops), allowing “all combat troops” to be withdrawn “within 13 months?”

~~~~

So Maani, he’ll be sworn in on Jan 21st, 2009, and he said he’ll start the first day. How much more immediately do you think it can be managed? Can you help?

Alas, it’s gonna take 3 months longer than he said a couple of years ago. Ya think it might be because the situation has changed on the ground a little bit?

Naw…couldn’t be that. Besides, HE PROMISED..WHAH, WHAH, WHAH? No, he said 13 months. Now he’s saying saying 16 months. Why land’s sake, he’s just a criminal.

*I* know what we can do. We’ll just re-elect Dick Bush, THEY’LL have the troops out in THIRTEEN MINUTES!! Oh yeah. And we’ll be sure to tell dickeroo to punish that bad, bad Obama for dilly-dallying and lying about getting those troops out.

That’ll fix him!!

Thank you Louise for comments on the so-called war on terror. The Department of Homeland Security has made what was an essential freedom of privacy, the safe deposit box, meaningless. Monsanto is a very nefarious corporation. Not only the destruction of seed stocks, but the patenting of the seeds themselves, which forces farmers to pay licensing fees for use. This is corporate controlled, monopolized capitalism at its worse.

•  “…Pulling out the nuclear terrorist card seemed exceptionally lame. Never once does he acknowledge that his sacrosanct military support of Israel is the giant scab on a wound that will not heal…”

Beerdoc,

Can you help me make the connection in this speech, to him ‘pulling out the nuclear terrorist card”?  I’m not saying that couldn’t be your interpretation, but I’m just trying to figure out how you came to that conclusion.

You say also, that he never acknowledges that his military support for Israel is the…..

You’re mixing stuff here, (though cleverly, even if unintentionally) First, the military support of Israel is not “HIS” military support. In the visceral need to demonize Barack Obama, so many of his demonizers are falling into the inverse trap of making him appear to be far more powerful than he is. In short,  the creation of, support of, and all the rest of the properties that have made Israel the thorn in the side of the world, are NOT the doings of a junior senator from Illinois.

Indeed, the continued military support of Israel, BY THE WEST (which includes the US and Western Europe) is indeed the promoter of the scab that will not heal. WITHOUT this 40 year old support from the West, (and yes, specifically the US) Israel would NOT have been able to manage the destruction that it has.
I don’t believe that anyone would argue that. At least not anyone even attempting to make a fair analysis, minus the inherent bias that is always so evident in yours and other comments.

Can you really say that the long term US support of Israel is ‘his”?  And, since it IS NOT, why would he acknowledge it? More to the point, why would he even discuss the previous (or even current)US military support of Israel, in an isolated foreign policy speech? And more to the point, why would we connect THIS old speech to the current op-ed speech that this article referenced, in terms of the terrorism that he sees in South Asia as being the root of the attacks against the US?

What has ANY of that, to do with the US military support of Israel? And, shouldn’t we also define what is US military support? Because the reality of that, is that it is money and weapons that the US provides as military support. Be clear that Israel does the rest of their own dirty work, and they do it quite well, with their most well trained military, created by COMPULSORY service of ALL it’s citizens, regardless of gender.

So please, can we keep skip all of the fantastic exaggerations and distortions? Whatever Barack Obama is or is not, he is NOT the president yet. He does *not* wield the kind of power that you and others are trying to assign to him, because no ONE leader/politician/president in the history of this country has or does, and it is NOT his ‘responsibility’ to ‘acknowledge’ the crimes of Israel, that have been on-going since before this guy (Obama) even existed.

Meantime, help me understand how you figure he pulled the nuclear terrorist card. There IS a nuclear terrorist card that can be pulled, because there are rogue states with terrorist properties who have nuclear capacities. Israel, Pakistan, and the US to name a few.

And in case you hadn’t noticed, Russia DOES still have nuclear capacities. Russia has continued to be targeted by the US here of late. (please read the comment by Louise #169421.)

Now if you need more to slam Obama with, that’s fine. I’m sure you can find stuff. But come up with something that already exists. This CREATION of imaginary crimes by innuendo and exaggeration is what’s exceedingly lame.

The wound that is the Israeli crimes against humanity will never heal until the responsibility is correctly placed in the hands of those responsible. Retoric such as yours that diverts attention from the real source is only harmful, not helpful.

ACKNOWLEDGE THAT!

Louise, this made me think of something that I *didn’t* know:

•  “Did you know our very own DHS has the right to go into any safe deposit box anywhere in the United States? And if they are looking for pictures of bin Laden and you have a pile of gold coins loose in the box, guess how many will be left when the agents leave the bank?”

I knew this (about DHS) but I only discovered recently, that the DHS had also taken over the Dept of Agriculture. I guess most of us (or some of us at least) understand the creation of these new ‘entities’ or duplicate bureaucratic agencies (Such as the Department of Homeland Security) as part of any Fascist or Totalitarian takeover. It creates a shadow apparatus to control everything about the ostensible (or previously legitimate) one. But, why the Dept of Agriculture?

Wall street is apparently connected there as well…Monsanto. So, if one is attempting to hoard old pre-DHS version of crop seeds, (like in a safe-deposit box) they could snatch those as well. From what I understand, the ‘properties’ of these current seeds have been so drastically altered that they can no longer be retained from crop cycle to crop cycle as we’ve been able to for Centuries and Centuries. In other words, the seeds produced by the crops of one season, if used again, *do not* produce the same quality next time around.

Allegedly, (because I’ve not had time to research it more) the US operation in Iraq is actually confiscating the seeds from the few farmers left there, and forcing them to buy their crop seeds from Monsanto. These have been manipulated to be “one-time only” crop producers, so these seeds cannot be reused. Or, if they were, they wouldn’t produce anything. Same thing here of course. So many seeds are becoming impossible to find. The ones that are available, are these genetically altered ones from Monsanto and similar Wall Steet controllers, working with this “Dept of Homeland Security” via the Dept. of Agriculture, so that they now control what we eat as well, or if we even CAN (eat). So, if anybody has any crop seeds from prior to 2000, one needs to hang on to them. Just don’t put them anywhere that DHS can get to ‘em.

On this…

•  “It is interesting to see the media coverage of what is obviously the collapse of the American banking and credit system. Yes, I said collapse. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are slowly sinking into nothing and a number of the major American banks are joining them…

I just realized that Fannie and Freddy aren’t even SLOWLY sinking. They’re both dead, and nearly overnight. And, IndyMac Bank crashed last week as well.

And this:

•  “…“An attack on Iran is now a direct threat to Russia’s strategic interests in the region.”
(Because of Gazprom) and now Russian WARships returning to Arctic waters. In other words, the WWIII that GW has promised (out loud and throughout the world airwaves) in the making.
Anyway, thanks so much for the information roundup and the links.

For some reason, (and reading many of these blog comments) I think folks STILL don’t get it! What’s it gonna take?

Read the text of Senator Obama’s major foreign policy speech. First off, he starts talking about George Marshall and the Marshall Plan. I must admit it takes some pretty big stones to bring up a figure as monumental as General Marshall. It would have been good for the historical record if Senator Obama would have noted that Secretary of State Marshall was opposed to the creation of Israel, which President Truman chose to pursue over Marshall’s objections.
Senator Obama then proceeds to say that 9/11 made the victory of the cold war come crashing down. Comparing the desperate brutal act of a terrorist cult with the monumental arms race with the Soviet Union, is remarkable, to say the least.
There are other caveats in the speech, some quite dubious. The only real good I could see was his directive for no permanent bases in Iraq. Much of the rest is misdirected nonsense. Pulling out the nuclear terrorist card seemed exceptionally lame. Never once does he acknowledge that his sacrosanct military support of Israel is the giant scab on a wound that will not heal.
I think this is the link:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newstrategy

TxRebel…How many years and how much money do we spend in Iraq?  Like that or not, those things matter and I find it strange that all of a sudden, GOPers find fault in Democrats about a war started by Republicans so that republicans can stay in power to stay in Iraq. (Geeez, you guys haven’t gotten over Vietnam yet, and “bam” Shock and awe” and then the 6 year drag.)

Obama isn’t the problem; you guys are!  This sh*t in Iraq must stop, not on moral grounds, but because Cheney and friend have royaly f*cked things up.  If you’re going to ruin the world for oil, dammit, do it right. Moreover, this surge sh*t, and it’s assumed success is bull-crap. It’s deflective, political clap-trapping you guys are using to tar any Democrat running and, therefore, preventing the GOP from it’s pursuit of redemption. Pushing a square boulder with a feather up a greased hill is more probable,(and cheaper)then RepubliCons winning either of these wars. So lying for four more years isn’t going to get it done and neither is good old American WISH THINK.

No matter how many times I see George Bush give a press conference, I’m shocked as to how suprise I am as to why he’s doing them.  It’s evident that he knows not of which he’s asked and the sheepish media defers way too much.

So then I ask, “why does he do them, and why do they show up?”, because this sure doesn’t inspire confidence. It’s a sideshow circus.

By Paolo,
•  “As a libertarian, my view of the situation is that the central front in the “War on Terror” is WASHINGTON, DC.”

I agree Paolo, but I would only change (as I did 5 years ago) the wording on this so-called terror war. If it’s going to be called anything, it should be WASHINGTON DC’s “War OF Terror.”

But on this, I worry about –your- worry…

•  “…The problem I have with Obama is that he seems all too willing to expand the war to Pakistan or Syria, especially if another terrorist attack occurs…”

You say that he “*seems* all to willing to EXPAND the war to Pakistan or Syria”….

I’m concerned about your interpretation on this, because I’m not certain why you would think of is as an ‘expansion’ in terms of Pakistan, or why you believe that Syria would be in the mix at all. I guess I could go back and re-read the speech to see if he mentioned Syria, because I don’t remember him referencing Syria at all. (I agree that there would be no need)

But on Pakistan, any action there could hardly be considered an ‘expansion’. Not by any realistic measure at all, simply because any bona fide ‘terror’ that actually existed prior to the launching of this phony ‘war of terror’ was limited to that small space, (a sort of no-man’s land) at Afghanistan’s northern boarder with Pakistan. In short, the main source of logistical and other support for the Taliban and the cave-dwelling al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, was PAKISTAN. They provided cover for them, and harbored them (specifically the Taliban) and allegedly, OBL and his al-Qaeda Crew as well.

So, if ever there was any connection to OBL or al-Qaeda, it was in Afghanistan AND –  just as specifically Pakistan. That’s why Afghanistan was attacked so immediately after 9//11. NOT because Afghanistan had anything to do with the attacks, (and I’m not sure that al-Qaeda did either, other than OBL being set-used as a patsie) but because it can at least be verified that Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri were operating out of Afghanistan, near the boarder of Pakistan, and supported or otherwise protected by the Taliban. In fact, we know that bin Laden’s connection to Afghanistan goes way back to the 80’s when the US provided funds and logistical support to bin Laden and his group at the time, to run the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

So, the connection of bin Laden, al-Qaeda, training camps, and Afghanistan, is well documented. No one has ever been in doubt of that. The same can be said for Pakistan, which became a refuge for many of these same militants, after the initial US invasion that.

~Waziristan: Bin Laden’s hiding place?

•  “There is growing world attention on the remote Pakistani tribal region of South Waziristan as efforts continue to locate Osama Bin Laden and other key al-Qaeda and Taleban suspects. … so far no senior al-Qaeda or Taleban figure has been caught in this semi-autonomous area where the Pakistani army beefed up its presence after the US intervention in neighbouring Afghanistan in October, 2001.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3532841.stm

The Taleban stronghold of Waziristan

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4939688.stm

Remember even back to the 2004 Campaign when John Kerry accused the bush thugs of ‘outsourcing’ the operation to get rid of these militants in this area, since they were the ones who had been blamed for 9/11? Well, this is what he meant. Iran, (on the –other- side of Afghanistan) had immediately run out any remnants of this same group from their own border with Afghanistan, immediately after 9/11.But the bush thugs immediately cut a deal with the dictator regime in PAKISTAN, (Musharraf’s) to take over the responsibility of finding them and killing them off, or capturing them, or whatever. The bush thugs have PAID Pakistan over $22 billion of our tax dollars, to do exactly that.

It’s obvious that language has been perverted by think tankers, pudits, the media and politicians. Manicured lies gave warhawks cover and “patriots” confidence. “Redeploy” means whatever the user(s)‘want it to mean; from the dais of the Penetagon or the Oval office; the newsroom of FauxNews or the NY Times; or here in TruthDugLand.

Should we parse what’s been “mediarized” or search for the new; the first way.

I vote “Twainian” plain prose; k.i.s.s.

Part 2 of 2

BUT..Musharraf never followed through. He and his army basically just gave these guys a free pass, and allowed them to continue to operate. I remember there was a big ‘to do’ about it, when Musharraf said that he wouldn’t force his army to do anything about them.

So, in respect to Pakistan, Obama has been consistent from day one. If one accepts the premise, (as he apparently does) that the 9/11 perpetrators where hatched in this area, and we’ve given Pakistan all of this money to supposedly ‘deal with them’ (and they haven’t) then this is basically right in line with his comments all along. He made the point again in the early democratic debates, (along with Chris Dodd and Richardson) that these groups were continuing to operate with Pakistan’s blessing, and so if they wouldn’t do anything about them, (especially since gw was giving them all if this money) he said that if we came up with actionable intelligence on where they were, we should go after them ourselves. Needless to say he caught all kinds of flack on that, because of all of the BS twisting and intentional repug propaganda, (that was also Hillary’s kitchen sink at the time). BUT, the bottom line of it all – again, if one really was ever serious about hunting down OBL and al-Qaeda, is that this area of Pakistan was the place. So, this is *not* an ‘expansion’ into Pakistan. It’s been there all along.

And, it’s this same area from which the assassinators of Benazhir Bhutto also hailed from. AND…Pakistan has the bomb. So there’s never been any doubt that Obama has been steadfast on this location as the place to deal with these terrorists. So if there is any semi-legitimacy to this ‘war on terror’ it would ONLY have been applicable in this area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It was NEVER in Iraq, because we know that Osama and bin Laden hated each other, and so there was NO al-Qaeda in Iraq either. Saddam wouldn’t have it. Now you or I may disagree on the need to track bin Laden or any of his alleged gang at all. (and I personally believe OBL is dead). Be that as it may, for whomever still believes in pursuing the stated perpetrators of 9/11, this is the place to be. It was NEVER Iraq, and Syria’s not in this either. Pakistan and Afghanistan are South Asia. Syria is still the Middle East. Syria may have it’s own dictatorial regime, but they aren’t in on this part, and I don’t think Obama has made any mention of them at all. Syria is clearly an enemy to Israel, but Obama hasn’t made any connections to Syria as hosting any connection to the alleged terrorists of 9/11.

Still, if we’re talking about a commitment to peace that would include pulling everybody out of Afghanistan/Pakistan as well, and giving up the pursuit of those who supposedly attacked us, and whose operation HAS since grown in leaps and bounds, then that’s a horse of another color. It would mean that we’ve simply decided not to do anything about that place that is the genuine source of the terror. But again, it wouldn’t be an ‘expansion’. It would simply be the place that they should never have left to begin with. Because if there are still any of this bunch left, that’s where they are. And it would appear from all of the suicide bombs, and the killings of American military, that they are still very active in that area.

So, I don’t think you have to worry about Syria, but there’s no denying that Obama has always wanted to eliminate that radical element in Pakistan/Afghanistan. It’s worth looking at a map of the area if you can find one. A larger one than the links provide. It’s easier to follow the logic that way. Interesting too.

Obama: ‘The Central Front in the War on Terror Is Not Iraq’

That’s right. The central front in the Global War On Terror [Bushes GWOT] is currently in Washington D.C., with foot soldiers on Wall Street and in Israel.

By show of hands, who didn’t know that already?

Voice of the White House:
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2858.htm

“It is interesting to see the media coverage of what is obviously the collapse of the American banking and credit system. Yes, I said collapse. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are slowly sinking into nothing and a number of the major American banks are joining them -a combination of rigged mortgages and hedge fund swindles - The FDIC only works so long and then it will be impossible for the federal government to cover the losses of bank depositors.”

“Did you know our very own DHS has the right to go into any safe deposit box anywhere in the United States? And if they are looking for pictures of bin Laden and you have a pile of gold coins loose in the box, guess how many will be left when the agents leave the bank?”

*

Your SEC Chairman at Work
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2008/07/sec-to-halt-naked-short-selling-of.html

“Christopher Cox, Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, told legislators today that the agency would issue an emergency rule to stop so-called “naked” short-selling of shares in significant financial entities. The SEC will also consider new rules to extend those trading limits to the rest of the market.”
“This is remarkable news, since naked short selling is already illegal.”

*

Gazprom connects to Iran
http://www.kommersant.com/p912431/Russian-Iranian_relations_Gazprom/

“Gazprom has signed a memorandum on cooperation in production and transportation of oil and natural gas with the National Iranian Oil Co. The Iranian company, which all other oil companies in the world refuse to work with, is promising Gazprom “a full package of projects.” The memorandum was signed by Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller, Iranian Oil Minister Gholam Hossein Nozari and NIOC managing director Seifollah Jashnsaz. Gazprom will thus have the chance to strengthen its position in the countries with the world’s second largest gas reserves.”

“An attack on Iran is now a direct threat to Russia’s strategic interests in the region.”

*

As Gazprom Goes, So Goes Russia
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/business/worldbusiness/11gaz.html

*

Russian warships to return to Arctic waters
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-07-14-russian-warships_N.htm

“Russia announced Monday that it is sending warships to patrol Arctic waters for the first time since the breakup of the Soviet Union—the latest move to increase the country’s global military presence.”

*
The House I Live In
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-house-i-live-in/#more-2053

“Bush is so far away from his refugee loser roots that he just doesn’t get what it is to be American. So he steals the one thing that every American is handed off the boat: a chance. When they take away your Social Security and overtime and tell you sleeper cells are sleeping under your staircase, you don’t take a chance, you lose your chance, and the land of opportunity becomes a landscape of fear and suspicion, an armed madhouse.”

“You want to say that George Bush is an evil sonovabitch? I’d go further: he’s UN-AMERICAN.”

“And that’s why he lost the election. TWICE.”

*

But buying the presidency allowed him to parley into an “attack” on America, followed by a call to defend America by declaring a Global War On Terror and attacking one defenseless country with lots of oil.

Along the way he has collapsed America’s economy and looted the Treasury, while making a very small group of elites who paid for his “election” very, very wealthy. Media pundits declare he’s trying to save his legacy. No, he hasn’t stolen everything yet!

Terror.

A word.

And in the hands of a violent and amoral despot a terrible weapon.

As a libertarian, my view of the situation is that the central front in the “War on Terror” is WASHINGTON, DC.

If our lords and masters in Washington would just stop having delusions about being able to rule the world, terrorism against us would stop. “Terrorists” do not engage in suicide missions unless they have a powerful motivation. Having your homeland occupied by foreigners who proceed to steal your resources, torture your neighbors, bomb your home, and kill your parents or children is big-time motivation.

The problem I have with Obama is that he seems all too willing to expand the war to Pakistan or Syria, especially if another terrorist attack occurs. What we really need is an anti-war president. I’m not sure Obama has the courage to take a really uncompromising, pro-peace stand.

Obama’s approach is seriously flawed for these reasons.

1. We’re in Iraq whether he likes it or not, and our exit strategy must be based not on a single-minded desire to withdraw, but on a strategic assessment of conditions on the ground.  Leaving prematurely, and reversing the huge gains we’ve made would counterproductive and foolish.

2. The situation in Afghanistan cannot dictate our policy in Iraq.  Both are important.  If anything, NATO should be stepping up its involvement even further, since the consequences of “losing” in Afghanistan are global.

An example of the folly of his reasoning can be seen simply by asking this question: What if we’d withdrawn from Iraq a year ago as many proposed?

dinghy

“When a military commander talks about “redeployment” he means: “remove the troops from front A or combat area B and move them to fight at front B or in combat area C.” He has no intention whatsoever to end the fighting and bring the troops home. Neither has Obama.”

So dingy,

Are you a military commander? Is that how you know what a military commander means when he/she talks about ‘redeployment’? Just curious, because the military people that I know contend that it means to withdraw the troops.

Either way, since Obama isn’t a military commander, how do you know that he means anything other than what he said he meant?

He wasn’t shy or coy about saying what he believed to be needed in terms of troops in Afghanistan, whether we think that’s a good idea or not. No, he said that really clearly. At least I was able to read it. Not many big words there.

Same thing with his plan to WITHDRAW TROOPS from Iraq. How is that hard to digest? How is it that all of you crystal ball readers somehow come up with some entirely different meaning for some pretty straightforward English language?

He says one thing is this real plain language, (like I said, he’s even gotten away from using big words) and you all still decide that it means something else.

So, should I buy a lottery ticket, and which numbers should I play?

By cyrena, July 15 at 12:02 pm

Well, in my highest admiration for Chalmers Johnson and his 3 book blowback trilogy of which I am almost finished reading for the 2nd time and I don’t think I misinterpreted what was stated in the book and that at its inception at the urging of Wild Bill Donavon, it was created and probably through Truman’s term, used as such and I believe I read correctly that the original act of 1947 to create the CIA or the OSS whatever its original name was, the intent and use was for that, just gathering info for the president so another ‘Pearl Harbor’ would not happen. I remember mention also of another act in 1949, I believe that added or changed some of the 1947 act. And Johnson does state in his book, ‘Sorrows of the Empire’ that at least in the Eisenhower administration it turned into the private army of the president(how else could he appease the british to gain or keep control of Iran’s oil) with no congressional oversight and its budget totally black. But any of this could be a gradual move just as if a book is published in 2005 it was in the works long before the publish date.
I would think you have or can get these books and if I am wrong I won’t mind admitting it and actually would thank you for straightening me out.
Well, it’s in ‘Nemesis’ p.93, I am right and you kinda of are and are not if you please. The original 1947 National Security Act placed under the direction of the National Security Council with five functions of which 4 were gathering intel only but the 5th was worded as ‘to perform such other functions and duties to intelligence affecting the national security as the NSC may from time to time direct’.  This last function made it the president’s personal army but nothing is said to have been done with it until the 1953 over throw of the democractically elected government of Iran. The 1949 act created secrecy so absolute that accountability was almost impossible.
Which says it was but appears to not been used as a personal army until 1953. I am prone to take what is written as correct but also realize that Truman could have used it in nefarious ways and even Eisenhower before 1953. If you find evidence of such be sure and clue me in. I think I have himhawed around enough to cover my ass to even make that dwarf in the white house proud.

Txrebel:

“Regardless of what you think of our war with Iraq, Hussain was a tyrant, like Hitler, and needed to be killed.”

Sorry, pal.  It is NEVER okay - under ANY rubric - to pre-emptively invade a sovereign nation - no matter how corrupt or violent or whatever (and particularly when it had ZERO connection to 9/11) - and unilaterally effect a “regime change,” including essentially murdering the elected leader of that country (even if his election was suspect).

“And, as you know, they just found uranium yellow cake in Iraq that could have been used for nuclear weapons.”  They didn’t “just find” anything; they knew it was there, and that Saddam had simply been stockpiling it, but never actually attempted to weaponize it.  So, no, it could not have “been used for nuclear weapons.”

Zeitgeist:

Your post suggests a connection running from Enron to 9/11.  Although this has been speculated about before, it does fit neatly with something we know for CERTAIN: among the offices in WTC 7 was the NY regional office of the IRS - and by sheer coincidence (NOT!), this was the office that had all the Enron files, which are now gone.

Peace.

From the git-go of the Iraq war Senator Obama has always advocated “redeployment” of the troops there. When a military commander talks about “redeployment” he means: “remove the troops from front A or combat area B and move them to fight at front B or in combat area C.” He has no intention whatsoever to end the fighting and bring the troops home. Neither has Obama.
This has always been the global strategy of neo-imperialist Obama who intends to transfer the “killing fields” from Iraq to Afghanistan by an “Obama-surge” once he becomes our next President, God forbid, and use our troops in Iraq as a feedstock for his paranoia . The outcome can only be an even greater disaster than Iraq.
1. There is no “exit sign” for us in Kabul and there will be none for a long time to come.
2. Insurgencies have the nasty habit of going dormant for a while only to spring up again later as we experience in Afghanistan.
3. Whereas Afghanistan has fewer inhabitants than Iraq the country is larger and much more mountainous. There is no telling how much soldiers will be needed to “keep the insurgents under our heels” which is the only conceivable near-term outcome.
4. Whereas Iraq has long had a “national army” and adequate police forces especially under Saddam Hussein, there have been none and there will be none any time soon in Afghanistan. There will not be an “we will stand down as they stand up” pablum for Obama.
5. The people of England and the Netherlands are restless about their participation on the current “killing field” of Afghanistan. Their governments may be forced to become “quitting allies.”
6. The logistics for the US forces in Afghanistan may become a nightmare if the Pakistani port of Karachi becomes unsafe for transshipment of the needs for our Armed Forces in Afghanistan.
7. The war in and occupation of Afghanistan will only end if its paymasters get tired of it or, which is less likely, we get kicked out.
I am astounded that there are still any apologetics (“he really means well”)of Obama’s potentially disastrous Middle- and Far-Eastern policies. Senator McCain will want to have his own surge in Afghanistan because he believes blindly in surges. I know that I am right but I promise not to run for the Senate.

doug: “whether you like what he has to say or not, it is clearly the most thought out and intelligent strategy that’s been presented since 9/11.”

Really doug.. care to explain what you mean by that?

Gee, maybe he’s getting a little nervous?

Maybe he suspects that his recent sharp drop in the polls has something to do with the fact that’s gone all Hillary on us and started kissing the asses of the vicious, racist warmongers at AIPAC?

In regards to Obama and Blackwater: From “Open Left”

A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not “rule out” using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in. Obama’s campaign says that instead he will focus on bringing accountability to these forces while increasing funding for the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency that employs Blackwater and other private security contractors.

samosamo, slight correction on this..

“..And the CIA needs to be relegated back to being solely a source of intelligence for the president to make day to day or hour to hour decisions instead of acting as the president’s private army…”

In all seriousness and honest to all fact, the CIA has NEVER been solely a source of intelligence for the president. Oh no. They’ve always been there to do the bidding of the president in illegal operations that generally involve the takeover of the regimes of other countries whenever they desire regime change.

THAT is the real job of the CIA. Iran in 1954..the CIA did THAT coup. In Chile, they assisted the coup by Pinochet. In Peru, they installed Fujimori. I could go on, but I’ve gotta get clothes out of the wash.

Anyway, that’s what the CIA does. Any ‘intelligence gathering is specifically for those purposes.

Doug,

You’re so correct about it being the best constructed plan to date, and the guy isn’t even on the clock yet.

It’s not that these people don’t like what Obama is saying. They don’t like HIM. For the regular Obama bashers, it wouldn’t matter WHAT he said. They’d still be bitching and bashing him.

It’s standard fare for them. If you asked them if they had a better plan, they wouldn’t know whether to shit or blow their noses. NO WAY would they be able to come up with anything. Their only purpose here is to bitch about whatever he comes up with.

Enron Was Behind the War in Afghanistan?

Now that the neocon warmongers wish to play a shell game by moving troops from one illicit invasion, Iraq, into Afghanistan, another, perhaps it would benefit all if we were to revisit the timeline encompassing the events of: Enron – Afghanistan – 9/11.

The Enron scandal runs so deep into Bush/Cheney regime that evidence shows Enron may be a factor in Bush/Cheney complicity in 9/11 as pretext for present “war on terrorism” a war for the control of Central Asian oil and gas reserves, and their prerequisite pipelines, implicating the Bush/Cheney neocon regime in both the Enron scandal and 9/11, as Enron also had its interests in Afghanistan/Central Asia energy grab.

From 2001 to 2003, Dick Cheney continued to openly break the law by defying GAO requests to turn over his records of meetings with Enron. The General Accounting Office decided not to challenge a judge’s decision to dismiss the watchdog agency’s lawsuit against Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force.

The decision by GAO ended a nearly two-year battle with the White House over documents detailing meetings Cheney held with the National Energy Policy Development Group in 2001. The meetings resulted in the president’s national energy policy and many of the officials there came from Enron Corp., the Houston-based energy company that filed for bankruptcy in December 2001 amid accusations of hidden debt, inflated profits and improper accounting methods.

There are indications that Enron and the White House were working closely with the Taliban—including Osama bin Laden—up to weeks before the Sept. 11 attack. Why was the bin Laden family, swiftly whisked out of the country, immediately following the events of 9/11?

The Bush Oil Team, and their neocon drivers can momentarily rely on the support of the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, may think that war and oil profits mix. But there is simply too much evidence that the War in Afghanistan was primarily about building UNOCAL’s pipeline, not about fighting terrorism. The Democrats, who control the Senate and its investigation agenda, should investigate the secretive deals between Big Oil, Bush, and the Taliban.

Reading this material will allow you to see the Enron scandal and its ties to Bush-Cheney in a whole new light:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD201A.html

9/11 may very well have been a rouge GLADIO-CIA styled false-flag operation utilized to ignite the necessary psychodrama that has swept and permeated the public mind into accepting the all consuming global war on terror, a bloody cover for imperial madness…money and power!

I say reopen the investigations into Enron/Cheney because that just might be the thread to unraval the cloak of 9/11.

Wake up Barack, otherwise the shadows will ride you to their finish line!

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Duncan: I believe he did say he had no inention of taking out blackwater just a few months ago. I’ll have to find the link to that.

Well, many of us are not the least bit surprised.  More wars for israel, no civil liberties, more corporate greed and no separation of church and state.

He has finally morphed into bush’s doppleganger.

felicity you pretty much sum the whole blasted thing up.
“It was just robbery with violence, aggravated murder on a great scale, and men going at it blind—as is very proper for those who tackle a darkness. The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretense but an idea; and an unselfish belief in the idea—something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to…”
JOSEPH CONRAD, Heart of Darkness
I do not think I have ever read a more apt description of the neocon agenda, than this by the great Polish writer.

So, it comes down to beginning the process of withdrawal from Iraq, or remaining, withdrawal off the table. 

If the Iraqi people are anything like a young, spirited horse refusing to be broken and thus controllable, that eventually succumbs to the bit and saddle, spirit broken, the Iraqi people may just give up and submit to our occupation and control.  I think that’s the Bushco mind-set because Iraq, unfortunately for her, has something we want to control and can’t if we’re not in control of the country.

offered a 16-month troop withdrawal timetable and outlined his plans for combating terrorism if he is elected president in November

I for sure hope you don’t mean to leave the military in charge of ‘fighting the war on terror’. That will just leave us in the exact samo situation we are already in. As a matter of fact there needs to be some very serious restructuring military protcol of and oversight in military activities all around everything. The military is MUCH TOO MUCH powerful to let it keep having its way.
And the CIA needs to be relegated back to being solely a source of intelligence for the president to make day to day or hour to hour decisions instead of acting as the president’s private army.
These are core issues and are in much need of immediate attention and correction.

As long as they call they “War Of Terror” by it’s propaganda name, the “War On Terror” you know that you are being lied to.

Duncan:

Don’t mince words - tell us what you REALLY think!  LOL.

Seriously, though, you make a good point about Blackwater et al.  Neither he nor McCain has addressed the mercenary issue at all.

As well, I find myself wondering: isn’t this the same guy who said - during at least half a dozen of the hundred or so debates (LOL) - that he would begin removing troops IMMEDIATELY after being elected, at a rate of “one or two brigades per month” (~3,500 troops), allowing “all combat troops” to be withdrawn “within 13 months?”

Whatever happened to THAT campaign promise?!

Peace.  (in our time?)

Please DuncanIdaho…don’t hold back. Tell us what you really think.

But Iraq is where the oil is.

Well Beerdoc,

I don’t know that he’s in charge just yet. But as far as his decision on when the killing should stop, it seems pretty clear that he decided that before it began, suggesting that it shouldn’t. (the killing or the war)

My own criticism is the same as it’s always been, and that is my own severe skepticism about this so-called ‘war on terror’ anyway. I know that Obama certainly didn’t initiate the concept or the activities, but he has embraced it as legitimate, and that’s my primary criticism.

Of course nearly 7 years later, it probably has become more legitimate, just because the activities involved in the so-called ‘war on terror’ have in fact CREATED the terror that is now threatening to destroy the entire region.

Scott Ritter’s most recent piece here pretty clearly lays that out.

Perhaps my senility is showing, but I have never understood how bombing and invading a sovereign nation is an appropriate or even viable solution to ending ‘terrorism.’

Here you go Senator. You are in charge now. You decide when the killing stops.