Not surprised that the support for the HillBillies has started to crumble, though those who don’t think that the superdelegates are foresworn to Hillary should get their calculators out. What I see over and over and cannot figure is everyone thinking Obama is a ‘peace’ candidate. I’ll concede that he will likely be less inclined to enter another war than HillBill, but he has sent the billions in war funds to the Iraq slaughter with every bit as much gusto as she has for his term. He may say he ‘opposed’ the war, he doesn’t have the courage to take his opposition to the next level and his campaign, deliberately vague in most areas, is especially non-committal in this key area. I am not a Democrat, will likely vote Democrat in the election unless the candidate is H.Bill Clinton, and will vote for a Green candidate then. Obama is not a peace candidate, people. His promises of a drawdown of troop levels are preferable only to McCain’s likely increase back to a shock and awe, draft ‘em, ship ‘em, and bury ‘em war.

It’s a sad commentary on the state of American thinking(?) that a necessary course for high school graduation should be “Skeptcism of American Government Spin”. Obviously logical thinking is no longer required or we would have attacked Saudia Arabia after 911 since BY THE CLAIMS OF OUR OWN GOVERNMENT 15 of the 19 ‘supposed’ highjackers were from that country.

It is painfully obvious now that this whole middle-eastern fiasco (crime) is NOT about Saddam, Iraq, or even Osama, and certainly not about an intent by fascists to spread ‘democracy’, but domination of a region containing resources gluttonous America covets.

One sure way to steal these oil resources is to de-populate the whole region. Iraq is a failure, but intentionally meant to be so. We have killed or displaced at least 20% of the population, ruined their infrastructure & failed to rebuild, reduced their oil production capacity to enrich the major oil companies, and (most significantly) through usage of the internationally recognized illegal WMD of falsely named depleted uranium (DU still retains 1/3 of it’s original radioactivity…real DU is just lead) poisoned much of the middle east pretty much permanently. It’s genocide Hitler only imagined in his wildest dreams.

Sadly, thousands of unwitting American troops have died supporting this criminal fascist enterprise, and they are only a small portion of the returning troops who WILL die in the future from their exposure to DU, but does this administration care? What do the lives of many peons mean to the few elite who have stolen from all of us, trashed our Constitution, ruined our economy, and made every possible effort at not only stealing the resources of an entire region of the globe (and permanently poisoning its people), but turning America into a seriously divided police state.

If we don’t stand up now to this tyranny, there will not be a later.

Catastrophic to whom? Surely not Iraq, the whole middle east, or the average American. Now if we are talking about neo-CONS, fascists, corporate America, arms dealers, those with Zionist intent, warmongers, a bloated military & suppliers, big oil, K Street lobbys, or stupid warhawk Republicans in general, certainly so.

“(Though Obama was not in the U.S. Senate in 2002, he did speak out against the invasion and thus cannot be fairly blamed for this cardinal misjudgment.)”

No, he cannot be “fairly blamed” for the “cardinal misjudgment” of voting for the Iraq War resolution, but he CAN be blamed (yet they are apparently still unwilling to do so) for having voted to continue funding the war.

Peace.

Here are some other ‘reasons’:

Explaining Our View on Clinton-Obama

By Robert Parry
February 16, 2008

Over the past few months, as the Democratic presidential race has heated up, we have received a number of complaints about critical stories we have written about Barack Obama and, especially, Hillary Clinton.

A common theme in the complaints is that we should lighten up on the Democratic frontrunners and concentrate more on John McCain and the Republicans. Some readers have accused us of sounding like the MSM in our reporting on Sen. Clinton in particular.
Since we value the views of our readers, we feel we owe you a response, albeit one that is not likely to please everyone.

First and foremost, Consortiumnews.com is an independent journalistic entity that is not beholden to either the Democrats or the Republicans. Over the past several years, the bulk of our critical reporting has focused on the Bush administration, but we have not spared Democrats from criticism when they have deserved it.

As for our stories on Campaign 2008, we feel that each one was legitimate, raising fair questions about positions taken by the candidates or their actions.
We took some grief from Obama supporters when we challenged Obama’s comments about Ronald Reagan as a transformative leader who had brought a measure of accountability to the supposed excesses of the 1960s and 1970s. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Obama’s Dubious Praise for Reagan.”]

Our article recalled Reagan’s real history of covering up horrendous human rights crimes in Central America and other examples of Reagan’s avoidance of genuine accountability.

Another article from last year noted Sen. Obama’s tendency to duck head-on fights with the Bush administration over the Iraq War, particularly his joining with Sen. Carl Levin in rejecting a showdown over war funding. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Is Obama Getting Colin-ized?”]

Hillary Articles

As for Hillary Clinton, we have noted that she didn’t just vote to authorize the Iraq War; she remained a stalwart war supporter almost until the eve of the Democratic primary race when she realigned herself with the anti-war views of rank-and-file Democrats.
Clinton’s endorsement of the war also isn’t a minor issue. Once George W. Bush was allowed to proceed with the invasion in March 2003 – and once it became clear that many Iraqis would resist occupation – there were no good options left for resolving the conflict.

Sen. Clinton, who insists that she will be “ready on Day One,” wasn’t ready on that day in October 2002 when President Bush demanded a blank check to invade Iraq. She did what many other aspiring Democratic presidential hopefuls did; she tested the political winds and voted yes.

(Though Obama was not in the U.S. Senate in 2002, he did speak out against the invasion and thus cannot be fairly blamed for this cardinal misjudgment.)

We also noted that last September after Sen. Clinton solidified her frontrunner status, she reverted to her hawkish stance on the Middle East, voting for a resolution that urged Bush to take a more belligerent position toward Iran by declaring its Revolutionary Guard a “global terrorist organization.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Hillary Prods Bush to Go After Iran.”]

In our view, there have been other legitimate questions and concerns raised by how Sen. Clinton has run her campaign. [See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com’s “Hillary Plays a Risky Gender Card,” “The Clinton Audacity,” and “Hillary’s Curious Campaign Loan.”]

Though the mainstream media has since picked up on the points that we raised in those stories, our articles preceded – rather than followed – the MSM’s coverage.

Link to the rest below

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/021608.html

William,

I certainly can’t disagree with what you’ve pointed out here, about Blue Dog Dems, and your note that a full 19 Senators voted with Bush on the immunity for the telecoms. (shameful), or any of the rest of it…the impeachment they’ve refused to undertake, (Nancy Pelosi) and so many other things.

I can’t even begin to address all of the possible reasons for this, and there are no ‘excuses’ that can be provided. We the people, (dems mostly) obviously thought that more could and would be accomplished, once we got a ‘majority’ Democrat Congress. But we’ve had a year, and we know now, that it never was a majority Democrat Congress in reality. In part, because of the Blue Dogs, and then these others that while not ‘known’ Blue Dogs, have proven to be anti-democratic at least in respect to doing the will of the people.

So the lesson that I hope the democrats can take from your message, (and my own twist on it), is that we should CONTINUE to ‘vote our little (and big) tails off’ by voting for REAL Democrats, to PUT in Congress.

In short, we’ve been able to use these last years to finally start paying attention, to who we are actually are electing to Congress, beyond their superficial party affiliation. And, the traitors have been identified. At least some of them have.

So, we’re keeping a list, and checking it consistently, and making the necessary adjustments. (These voting records are very helpful on that end).

So yeah, I think we’re ‘getting it’ and I think that the traitors will be replaced, come election time, with real Democrats.

Meantime, we should take note of the fact that regardless of how those 19 Dems in the senate voted on the spying and immunity, the thing still was not passed.

Louise:

You said, “But Clinton’s position on the war, or how to end the war remains allusive. So does Obama’s for that matter. So I repeat, If he (Clark) has presented a plan to Hillary, she has remained silent on it. At least I haven’t heard anything.”

I’m not sure what you mean.  Both Hillary and Obama have outlined their plans during the past two or three debates.  What I have pointed out before is that although their plans are similar in many ways, it was Hillary who FIRST came out with the idea of removing one to two brigades per month, leaving a small force to protect Americans there and fight terrorism, and spoke out against Bush’s attempt to force the next president into having permanent military bases there.  Since Hillary came up with all of this first (Obama “lifted” much of it from her), it would be reasonable to assume the plan came from Clark.

So while he may not be “credited” with it, it is probably untrue that she has “remained silent” on any plan provided to her by Clark.

Peace.

Maani,
Re: Re: Amy’s right: it’s still the war
Louise:

“Clark endorsed Hillary in September, and has been advising her since.”

***

Uhhh, right. My comment was referring to the previous presidential primary (2003-4) when Clark was a candidate. Sorry, I figured since I linked him with Dean and Kucinich that would have been obvious.

(Broke my own first rule: Never assume anything!)

But Clinton’s position on the war, or how to end the war remains allusive. So does Obama’s for that matter. So I repeat, If he (Clark) has presented a plan to Hillary, she has remained silent on it. At least I haven’t heard anything.

By the way, I think anyone who is fed up with this war, and/or worried about neo-con/Bush ambitions for more war, should take a look at this:

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/2/gen_wesley_clark_weighs_presidential_bid

And this: http://www.stopiranwar.com/

Criticism of Clark will no doubt follow. But I think the important thing to remember is Clark is military. And while anti-war activists sometimes are also anti-military, I happen to be one of those weirdo’s who believes we need a military. Certainly here at home. And we also need to realize, if we don’t have a strong military here at home we are vulnerable. And current policy, Neo-con/Bush policy, has severely weakened our military here at home. All the bombs and guns in the world cant protect a nation against attack if there’s no-one to man the guns, or drop the bombs.

Remember what happened in Germany as WWII wound down. Hitler still had some major weapon facilities, but his standing military was so depleted, when the allies entered Germany they found many German defense lines were being manned by old men and little kids with toy guns ... who quickly surrendered!

Louise:

Clark endorsed Hillary in September, and has been advising her since.

Peace.

That’s true. Dean, Kucinich and Clark were the three who came out against the war in Iraq from day one! And, Kucinich and Clark were the two who called for an immediate end. And Clark was the one who had a carefully designed plan, based on years of military experience to make that happen. If he has presented a plan to Hillary, she has remained silent on it. At least I haven’t heard anything.

I think Hillary has put to much investment in “It’s the economy stupid!” Which hasn’t plaid well with the 70% in the country who want this stupid war to end!

Which is why it’s safe to say, Clark will immediately throw his support behind Obama as soon as Obama wins the Party’s nomination!

Non Credo:

“While no peacenik, Brzezinski is a fierce critic of the entire neoconservative agenda. He opposed the war against Iraq and stringently opposes going to war against Iran. There’s nobody like that who has the ear of Hillary Clinton.”

Actually, Albright was against the war, and Wesley Clark was one of the first people to develop an exit strategy for getting out of Iraq.

Peace.

Still so thankful for her contributions to our society.

I’m glad her and I are on the same page in regards to these new swing states of Texas and Virginia. Our theories have yet to be proved, but I don’t think it is out of the question to see many Republican strongholds to turn to Barack Obama this year.

A big congratulations to Donna Edwards. We need all the progressive and anti-war votes we can get.

Good questions freshir. I’m not positive of the answers, but here are some speculations..

•  “Remind me again why we invaded Iraq?”

I think that the neocons invaded Iraq to prepare for the forever occupation and ownership of the oil, and to get Saddam out of the way, since he was interfering with that. Such a nationalist type he was, eh? He just wouldn’t sign it over, and give Dick Bush et all a red carpet welcome to take it without a hassle. So really, it’s Saddam’s fault. He MADE them do it.

•  Remind me again why we have to continue to occupy Iraq?

Well, because there are billions of barrels of oil there to be stolen. That will take forever. Besides, they have to take ownership in Iran, Syria, and the rest of the area too. Iraq was the best place to start.

So, that pretty much covers the rest of it I guess. I mean, that’s why they can’t just walk away. I can’t bring myself to say ‘we’ even though that’s the reality, since WE are the ones dying, and killing. I guess that’s another reason we aren’t ‘walking’ away.

I’m not sure that Atta planned 9/11 anyway, from Germany or anywhere else. Even if he did, I don’t think he or any of his buds had anything to do with actually carrying it out. I think somebody else stole their idea, and did it before they could finish up any possible plans. (that I’m still not sure he or his friends had). Didn’t they say it was Islamic extremist types that did it? I might believe it if they said it was just some really pissed off Arabs, like of the same type that have done other attacks against the US, whenever we’ve been in places we shouldn’t be, and haven’t been invited.

So, maybe THOSE types would attack the US as well. But not the types that Dick Bush claimed…not because of our ‘freedoms’ here. Maybe because of the freedoms that we TAKE in the rest of the world. But nope, not because of any need to assert their Islamic religious preferences in the US.

Then again, that’s just speculation. No proof.

But, they don’t have any ‘proof’ that Islamic extremists did it either. Not a shred actually. Just the stuff that allegedly came from the torture, and whatever else they tell us they found through their investigations.

Who exactly talked to Mohammed Atta anyway? And, how did HE do the mastermind, when KSM is taking credit for it? See, we just don’t know who to believe. Besides, Atta is dead. Then again, how do we even know that? Did anybody check his DNA?

See how confusing it all is?

I can appreciate and understand why the US military’s leadership would like the US Congress and the US citizenry to remain patient and forbearing while the military tries to “win” the occupation of Iraq.  And given another 5 to 10 years, I dare say that the United States military could learn quite a lot and become more proficient in conducting counter-insurgency and unconventional warfare.  Of course, as to the issue of breathing legitimacy into the thoroughly corrupt al-Maliki government, I don’t think that the US military will ever be able to pull that rabbit out of their kevlar helmets.

Remind me again why we invaded Iraq?  Remind me again why we have to continue to occupy Iraq?  Is it because another Mohammed Atta is likely to use his living room in his Baghdad flat to mastermind another 9/11?  Oh, that’s right.  He did that from his flat in Germany.  Tell me again why it would be bad for the US to simply walk away from Iraq?  Couldn’t we just keep a very watchful eye from afar and bomb the daylights out of anything that made us nervous (like we did throughout the 1990’s or “preditate” (e.g., terminate via Predator) anyone who would have the temerity or the manifest destiny to eye-ball us?

Amy, you’re so right to point out that neither Obama or Clinton have spelled out an immediate end to the war in Iraq, but that only Barack Obama has been consistent in his disapproval of the acts that led to it, and has called for an end to the “mind set” that keeps America bogged down in foreign folly.

But, it’s like I heard Al Sharpton say once, when he was talking about why African-Americans continue to support Democrats who seem to deliver less than what’s needed to their constituents.

He said, “it’s in the details” meaning, I think, that if you look into the decision making process, you can see a progression towards change, where it might not be apparent that any is possible.

In Hillary, I see no hope for any real progress towards peace. Just platitudes, and prevarications. Not progress.

Thanks for speaking out about this Amy, I’m a permanent donor (nothing lavish) and I look to Democracy Now to point out the important information.

Ah Louise…

You and Timmy are just so ‘picky’.

I mean, come on…“the THREAT of the ‘use of force’” or the USE OF military force. Just minor details…close enough for government work, eh? Good enough for Hillary. I mean really, who has time for such minor details in the language?

Uh..LAYWERS? Maybe uh..LEGISLATORS?

Same with Condi the Rice. She’s far too busy with government business to be paying attention to those bureaucratic briefings, especially if it’s something about OBL. Whoever took HIM seriously?

I mean, remember back in the 80’s or 90’s, (can’t remember exactly now) when OBL wanted to wage a war against Saddam Hussein. He had like a couple hundred ‘warriors’ and Saddam had the 4th largest and most powerful military on the globe. Even OBL’s Wahabbist buddies told him he was crazy. So, why would Condi the Rice pay any attention to such foolishness?
(nevermind that the US armed him and his guys to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan back in the 80’s..apparently successfully). She probably forgot that part, even though she was a Soviet/Cold War Specialist.

So Louise, I just don’t know. Maybe you and Amy are just making too much of all this.

Could just be ‘honest mistakes’.

Speaking of which, I’ve gotta go count my billions now. Somebody just dropped a tanker full of cash and gold at my doorstep. I had to climb hike all over it just to get in the door.

It means elections don’t matter and that the Establishment is going to be there with American soldiers for the duration. They have bipartisan support.

Yes, well, that was in the past and the campaign is all about the future, or so I keep hearing.  Consider National Propoganda Radio’s Michelle Norris’ interview on the surge debate with lt. col. John Nagl, who retiring to join “The Center for a New American Security” (http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?32 - includes Albright, Armitage and O’Hanlon) says unconventional war strategy is the key. 

The war effort he says, needs to be “Wrapped up in tight information campaign: your side has the best interest of the population at heart.” NPR, huh? 

Here is a loose paraphrasing of the interview:

JN: “We forgot the lessons of Vietnam and decided that we weren’t going to fight counter insurgency campaigns anymore.  We need to show that we’re just as good at that as we are at conventional combat.” 

MN:  “We’re talking about long drawn out war.”

JN:  “These wars require sustained popular support.”

Note: that means *you* - turd-for-brains-liberal-chaff!

MN:  “A typical battle against a insurgency takes a decade.”

JN “Yes, we’re approaching the half-way point in both Afghanistan and Iraq.”

MN: “I’ve got to stop you there because you’re talking about the halfway point and I’m listening to what the candidates are talking about on the campaign trail and at least on one side they’re talking about pulling people home immediately.”

JN:  “Gates has said he would like to draw down the troops in Iraq to less than 15 brigades, about 130000 troops to about 100000 if the situation on the ground allows it and I’m hopeful it will.”

MN:  “I’m sorry to interrupt again, what I was asking was when you’re talking about being halfway through a ten year battle and candidates here in the US talk about a very quick withdrawal, is that realistic?  Based on the lessons that you’re talking about?”

JN:  “Anyone who understands the history of counterinsurgency campaigns and where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan understands that we have some momentum there and are slowly building a government that can stand on its own. [] To rapid a withdrawl would be catastrophic.”

Get the message?

“Clinton has staunchly refused to admit her war vote was a mistake. On a recent episode of “Meet the Press,” she claimed that the 2002 vote was not actually a vote for war:

“It is absolutely unfair to say that ... was a vote for war. It was a vote to use the threat of force against Saddam Hussein, who never did anything without being made to do so.”

To which Tim Russert reminded her, “The title of the act was the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Couldn’t help it. When I read this the first thing that popped into my head was a clear memory of another time when another woman tried to deny a certain reality.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MS. Rice: “There was nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S. in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President (PDB) received on August 6th.”

MR. BEN-VENISTE: “Isn’t it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6th PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB.”

MS. RICE: “I believe the title was “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes I did cut quite a few double-speak paragraphs from Rice’s testimony, but the important comments are there!

Along with the important fact!

Thanks Amy. Once again you give us clarity.