Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
March 23, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

I Am Brian Wilson

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Email this item Print this item

Dems Dropping the Ball on Iraq Debate

Posted on Mar 6, 2008
Dems in Cleveland
AP photo / Carolyn Kaster, file

Psst! Hey, over here ... it’s the Iraq war. Focus, people.

By Bill Boyarsky

I’m afraid Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are giving the game away to John McCain on the most important matter facing the country, the Iraq war.

I hate to sound like one of those middle-aged jock-loving MSNBC pundits, but as I sit here on the sidelines I want to scream, “Quit playing defense.” What’s wrong with them? Why don’t they hit McCain on the head with the war instead of dancing around the subject?

It’s because the Democratic candidates are consumed by their desire to establish themselves as tough on that vague concept of “national security.” That’s the reason for their pointless debate over who would be most adept at answering the White House emergency phone at 3 a.m.

The phone call issue was immortalized in the Clinton commercial that has been given too much credit for the senator’s victories in the Ohio and Texas primaries. It showed a worried-looking mom peeping in at her sleeping kids. The message was that Mom could rest easy if Clinton was there to pick up the White House phone and issue orders that would protect our security.

Or, as Clinton put it in her Ohio victory speech, “Protecting America is the first and most urgent duty of the president. When there’s a crisis and that phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House, there’s no time for speeches or on-the-job training. You have to be ready to make a decision.”

As is the case with most commercials, this one wasn’t quite true to life. Worried parents peep into their children’s rooms to check whether they’re breathing or—if the kids are teenagers—whether they’re home. As for the time, the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon occurred mid-morning, not at 3 a.m.

Those are quibbles. The biggest mistake of the commercial was that it was a defensive move to establish Clinton as tough enough to be commander in chief—or all-night national security desk officer, as she apparently views the job. Obama, by implication, was too weak to make a decision at 3 a.m. or even wake up to answer the phone. Obama’s method of reply was a copycat commercial.

Such a debate is perfect for McCain. The very mushiness of the word security helps him. It’s broad, scary and simple. It doesn’t mean anything. Most important, it is not the name of that national sinkhole, Iraq. If the word Iraq becomes a staple of the political debate, as it was in 2006 and 2007, McCain could be in trouble.

McCain, of course, talks about Iraq all the time. He believes in the war. And his “No Surrender” advocacy helped bring the Republican base to his side when his campaign seemed to be failing in 2007. 

In his speech celebrating his Texas primary victory, McCain said, “I will defend the decision to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime as I also criticized the failed tactics that were employed too long.” He pledged “to establish the conditions that will allow us to leave that country with our country’s interests secure and our honor intact. ... The next president must explain how he or she intends to bring that war to the swiftest possible conclusion without exacerbating a sectarian conflict that could quickly descend into genocide destabilizing the entire Middle East and ending our security there.”

In other words, be prepared for a stay of many years. As McCain said earlier this year, “Maybe 100 [years]. As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaida is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.”

The Democratic candidates should be attacking McCain on this point every day. Both Clinton and Obama favor withdrawal, although her plan seems more stretched out than his. Yet, despite the endless nature of the war, neither Clinton nor Obama has been saying much about it lately. Clinton gave the war just passing mention in her Ohio victory speech: “We’re ready to end the war in Iraq and win the war in Afghanistan. And we’re past ready to serve our veterans with the same devotion that they served us.”

Perhaps they’re frightened by the polls. A Pew Research Center poll in February showed 12 percent of those surveyed thought the military effort in Iraq was going “very well,” while 36 percent said “fairly well.” But I think the polls are a function of news coverage of Iraq, which is dwindling. The Project for Excellence in Journalism reported that between Feb. 25 and March 2 just 3 percent of the available time and space for news was devoted to Iraq.

Part of this is journalists’ short attention span. Part is a shrinking of the Iraq press corps due to media industry cutbacks, but much of the blame rests with the Democratic agenda, in which Iraq is sinking toward the bottom.

The Democratic candidates could make powerful and fresh attacks on the war. A new book by Joseph Stiglitz, who is a Nobel prize-winning economist, and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes puts the cost of the war at $3 trillion. In fact that’s the title of the book, “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict.”

Think of what that money could have bought. Better public schools to train young people to work in difficult jobs of the new economy, decent health insurance, public works projects to repair a decaying infrastructure.

Go for it, Clinton and Obama. Quit these piddling little attacks on each other. Play offense. Make McCain justify a perpetual stay in Iraq—and the huge expenditure of lives and money.


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Mark Anderson, March 12, 2008 at 3:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Please stop calling our occupation of Iraq a “war”!

Report this

By Maani, March 11, 2008 at 8:30 am Link to this comment


You say, “In short, not much would keep the ORIGINAL Cabal from doing another 9/11.”

And they still might!  Indeed, if one puts the puzzle pieces together, the likelihood is actually quite high.

It begins and ends with centralizing power in the executive branch - which is what BushCheney & Co. have been doing, both quietly and not-so-quietly, for seven years, via signing statements, line items in otherwise unremarkable bills, and end runs around the Constitution.

Consider that the president now has the power to unilaterally declare ANYONE - including an American citizen - an “enemy combatant” (subject to up to three years in prison without access to family or lawyers) and to unilaterally declare martial law, as the result of the evisceration of the Posse Comitatus Act.  Add to this the evisceration of habeus corpus, the contract with Blackwater to serve as an adjunct to the National Guard in times of “national crisis,” and the almost certain passage this summer of the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act - which will make certain speech “treasonous” - and you have the recipe for an attempted “coup” via another false flag operation.  Needless to say, in order for it to work, this false flag op would have to make 9/11 pale in comparison.

Here is how it might play out.

Sometime between late August and early October, there are major biological or chemical “terrorist” attacks in multiple cities in the U.S.  (Let’s say Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, Boston, Seattle.) Thousands - possibly tens of thousands - are killed or dying.  Evacuations are required.  The president declares a “national emergency,” declares martial law - and calls for suspension of the elections. Alternatively, the scenario could play out between the election and January 20, in which case Bush could (legally or not) refuse to cede power during such a major “national emergency.”

Think it can’t happen here?  Think again.  They got away with 9/11.  And they have even MORE poer now than they did then.  So what makes anyone think they could not get away with another, even more devastating, “terrorist” attack?

Obviously, I hope I’m wrong.  But if what I’m suggesting - or anything like it - occurs between now and January, anyone reading this will not be able to say that it wasn’t predicted.


Report this

By Joe, March 10, 2008 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mike-  I’m one who does not think Chenebush planned that attack. It did happen on their watch, though, and in manly fashion they tried to blame the disaster on Bill Clinton. Now Bill and his wife are indeed responsible for countless death and misery in the world (depleted-uranium poisoning of southern Iraq during the 90’s, assist to Turkish bombardment of Kurdish villages, refusal to remove landmines from SE Asia, bombing of the Sudanese meds factory without warning workers to evacuate, Hillary’s approval of the Bush invasion, on and on). That aside, I believe the quick collapse of the towers was a result mainly of two factors: unsturdy construction and the sway-control mass shift system. The latter was installed near the tops of both towers after it was found the buildings were swaying/flexing excessively in moderate winds. The system, as I understand it, involved computer-controlled shifting along a rail of a massive concrete weight, I think the weights were something like 100 tons each. Once the upper structure became softened by fire, these weights would not only have fallen straight down through the structures, but accelerated as they fell. Any factual errors on this are mine. I’m working from memory. Thank you for your observations.

Report this

By cyrena, March 10, 2008 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment


You’ve definitely got a point here:

“....what makes anyone think that once a new administration comes into power that at the least the original cabal that allowed the first attack to occur will not stage another one? Or to keep the corporate control over this country and its empire that they will allow another attack?”

And, I have no answer, other than to say…not much.

In short, not much would keep the ORIGINAL Cabal from doing another 9/11. As a matter of fact, I’ve just been trying to tie some similar stuff together myself, in respect to the after effects of the reigns of terror that took place in several of the Latin American countries. Specifically, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay. I see so many obvious comparisons between the coups that brought those brutal dictators to power, (they FINALLY got Pinochet, only for the dirty bastard to die before they could incarcerate him for life) and the Cabal that has destroyed the US.

And of course, all of the same stuff happens, and generally for the same reasons. All of those countries were democracies before they were attacked from within. (in some cases, with the assistance of the US). And, even after they were removed from their ‘official’ spots of dictatorship, they still retained enormous power.

So, I don’t know the answer, but it’s something I believe we should probably be paying attention to. Maybe if we’d been paying closer attention 10 or 15 or 20 years ago, we could have seen the coup d’etat of December 2000, for what it was. Of course by then, 9/11 was already in the making, so don’t know at what point, it may have been stopped.

I agree that foreign actors were probably involved, but I remain convinced that the plan for 9/11 was hatched right there in Cheney’s Chambers.

Report this

By Maani, March 10, 2008 at 7:42 am Link to this comment


Bravo re your focus on 9/11 truth.  [MMC: at least you and I agree on SOMETHING! LOL]  Here in NYC, I am involved in getting a ballot initiative on the ballot for November, which would create a new, non-political, non-partisan group to FULLY investigate 9/11 - following ALL the evidence WHEREVER it leads, without political or other outside influence.  If you are registered to vote in NYC, you can join in at  Some comments on Mike’s post:

“Hours later building 7 comes down.  Forty five stories, dropped like a rock.”

Are you aware that the BBC reported the collapse of that building 30 MINUTES BEFORE IT OCCURRED?  In fact, the BBC reporter in NYC was reporting its collapse WHILE THE BUILDING WAS STILL STANDING IN THE BACKGROUND BEHIND HER!  Someone jumped the gun on the (pre-prepared) press release…

“The 911 Commission Report is a joke.  Can anyone tell me with a straight face that the commission got the real skinny from the Bush Administration?”

Not only did the not get the real skinny, but Kean and Hamilton admit in their book that they were stonewalled at every turn, particularly by the White House, the DOD and the FAA.  The Report itself is a hopeless whitewash, with many errors and omissions - to say nothing of the serious conflicts of interest of the commissioners (at least four were on the boards of the very airlines they were investigating, among other things), and the conflicts of the Commission’s executive director, Philip Zelikow, who was (among other things) a member of the Bush-Cheney transition team, and a member of the neocon Aspen Strategy Group, which included Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle et al.

“The kicker?  The owner of the complex insured it against terror damage just months before the demolition.”

There are so MANY “kickers” it would take an entire thread to list them all.  Try the fact that among the offices destroyed in WTC 7 were the CIA office, the IRS office - and the SEC office, including (by sheer coinciddence, of course…) ALL of the Enron files.

Another kicker: the recent revelation - from the FBI, no less - that Ted Olson (then solicitor general for Bush) was lying when he claimed to have received two phone calls from his wife, Barbara, who was a passenger on Flight 77.  The FBI determined that (i) cellphone records show only ONE call having been attempted, but (ii) that call was NOT completed.  This is a CRITICAL “smoking gun,” since Mr. Olson’s claims are the ONLY “proof” that (i) the hijackers were “Middle Eastern” and (ii) that they carried “knives and boxcutters.”  Since Olson never spoke to his wife, certain foundational aspects of the “official story” are severly undermined.  As a related aside, the FBI report in which this came out also included technical data supporting the fact that, based on cellphone technology at the time, no call made above 8,000 feet would have connected in any case.

I could go on.  Suffice to say that until more people open their eyes to what really occurred on 9/11, there will never be enough widespread anger and indignation to truly change anything.


Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, March 10, 2008 at 5:15 am Link to this comment

National security ???
Would that entail Protecting and Defending the Constitutional rights of the citiizens.
Would that entail prosecuting those who have put US in peril- not just in the last 7 yrs- but over the last 40 . the time in which the Oil industry of this country changed alliegence to the Oil Rich Foriegn ‘leaders and Royal Families- Oppressive regimes.
Would National security entail curtailing rhetoric and actions which Provoke attacks?
Would Naitonal Security entail FINALLY Pulling the the plastic Bag of Oil out of innovators mouths and off their discoveries. Finally acting on the 35 yr old Promise to get US off Foreign Oil
Does this national Security include cutting Loan Shark ties with Foreign & Domestic Mafia’s?
Does National Security also aim to focus on our Security and no longer the Multinationals Profit margins.
Does Naational Security mean we will finally bring down the corrupt Brick & mortar of our financial institutions who screw Us amking money and Spending money and charging US interest far into our children life time. Does it entail rebuking the Auction block, the Indentured Slavery practices which caused the attacks of 9/11?
Teh last 35 yrs ahve proven themselve to be the WRONG WAY- becasue it has not bothered to take the right way- NOT PROFITABLE.
I know what the likes of Hill & Mac offer- strengthening the Paper and Promise which are wrapped tightly around our necks already. A stangle Hold on Democracy, and on the Free Market!

Report this

By rick bensco, March 10, 2008 at 12:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Millions spoke out about the war. But millions were not politically connected. Obama is a calculating politician, not just some guy on the street. Rezko knew him in school not just some 5 hour business relationship he suggest. How did BO get from a neighborhood organizer to where he is today. I’ve heard much about how he gave up a potential lucrative career in law to be such an altruistic soul,why? Who put up the money for this rise to fame? More important why did they put up the money? Ask yourself what favors did they want and who are they? Just some questions! I would be wondering how long before the Republican attack machine connects the dots for the American people. True or false. They made Kerry a war hero to look like a traitor. Do you think they can make this stick? I sure do.

Report this

By i,Q, March 9, 2008 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

An amazing conflation of superficial considerations.

The ONLY reason that Barrack Obama would speak out against the war in Iraq is because he knows a Syrian business man who got in over his head borrowing from two Iraqi business men (who Obama didn’t know), yet they persuaded him (through a third party, Rezko) to speak out against a war that was on its face stupid, illegal, immoral, and a divergence from the actual stated goal of catching Osama bin Laden. Sounds like they did him a favor.

Hell, i don’t know Mark Rezko, and i never heard Obama’s speech.
Those are just ideas i thought strongly and came to independently before the war began.  i must be a freak of nature for not having to have my thoughts given to me by rich Arab business men.

The only people who are going to think twice about that kind of spurious suggestion are the same people who would never vote for a Dem in the first place and will hopefully stay home on election day because they hate that “maveric” McCain too.

Report this

By samosamo, March 9, 2008 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment

By cyrena, March 6 at 11:36 pm #
(2905 comments total)

Good points. Except of course if they start looking too closely into what could have averted 9/11, we would confirm that 9/11 was the act of treason that it was.

It is good to see that there are people still around that want the real answers to 9/11 attack. I am sure that foreigners were involved in 9/11 but they were not the main force of the event. 9/11 was allowed to happen for the uncontested power grab that quickly came after it. It was not enough to just have a couple of planes fly into some buildings but in the case of the world trade center no less than 3 building were dropped by controlled demolition. All the videos show the 2 towers and building 7 collapsing from controlled demolition. Professional engneers and scientists also confirm the collapses were from demolition charges. Thus the whole event was a lot uglier and upsetting so much so that people never gave it a chance to see what really happened. Of course, the msm, the scooping up of the debris and shipping it off to never never land so the forensic evidence could not be tested. Couple this with all the information that w & dick & company had on the potential for just such an attack absolutely implicates them criminally.
When someone or somebodies are in charge of such an act/attack then it is easier for them to act as if they are doing the best job of protecting this country even though the original attack occurred on their watch. So they can rightly claim that there has not been another attack since then because of their vigilance in the past 6 and a half years. I don’t think that is true as I consider any and all the school and mall shootings and then the absolutely reckless polluting of our environment for the sake of money to all be terrorist attacks which make our truly great corporations the major terrorists on the planet.
Now, that I sort of tied that all together, what makes anyone think that once a new administration comes into power that at the least the original cabal that allowed the first attack to occur will not stage another one? Or to keep the corporate control over this country and its empire that they will allow another attack? Don’t forget that the private contractors of blackwater, kbr, dynacorp(sp)and the rest which are made up of the perfect operators including ex-military trained special forces and jacked up on steroids that are just waiting for the orders to come in and move on this country again.
It’s a not so brave new world and I am beginning to believe that this is a do-nothing country so I am not really sure that the old can be re-gained, especially under the construct of our founding fathers which is just another inheritence where the heirs pick up the cash and power and fuck everything else. And unless the people do become brave and willing to take back the country then expect to be trodden under foot.

Report this

By i,Q, March 9, 2008 at 8:55 pm Link to this comment

It is not below… it was supposed to be a reply to your original post, but i posted as its own comment entitled: “Actually…”

Report this

By i,Q, March 9, 2008 at 8:53 pm Link to this comment

Bill Clinton is not the Democratic party, and he certainly isn’t the future. And HE AIN’T ME. The problem you are having with your nit-picking is that you are trying to make a big show of old news. Hey, remember when that other Bush guy sent 500,000 troops to Iraq? He could have averted 9-11 by taking out Saddam back then!

If you’ve got a particular point to make, then make it. You might consider taking a quote or two out of your too-long-for-this-blog article and seeing what “our” rebuttal is. We are apparently a single , aggregate voice to you, so maybe one response will satisfy, which i have politely provided below.

Report this

By i,Q, March 9, 2008 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment is a myth that all of us “libby-libs” want to bust a Lewinski on Bill Clinton’s political johnson. Clinton is certainly no saint, however, one must also consider the Clinton administration’s creating of a budget surplus; staying out of full scale unilateral warfare; maintaining positive relations with our historical global allies; fostering an economy which helped many Americans rather than just a few… well i think you get the picture.

Yes, Bill lied to us. Yes, Bill bombed Iraq to distract the media from Betty Blowjob, and for those things, especially the latter, i was angry and outraged. Guess what? NAFTA sucks too. And he royally kissed the asses of the MPAA and the RIAA with his corporate friendly copyright laws.

When Bill lies it is political. When Bush lies, it’s because he’s trying to obfuscate massive insider corruption, or because he’s dissociative.

On a personal note, Anon, the name-calling and character assassination bullsh*t has got to stop. In the vacuum left behind when reason exited the political dialogue, bizarre notions have rushed in to take it’s place:

• that a person who supports a candidate is in favor of everything that the candidate has ever said or done

• that if a person is of (an)other political affiliation, or merely a different opinion about something then that person is a sh*tbag

• that arguments can’t be had based on facts and conducted in a civil matter
(you got the first part right)

i’m the first to admit that i have at times myself misbehaved in these ways, but i’m tired of that same old song, so i try to be conscious about what i say and how i say it, and to realize that no matter how much i believe the universe would be so great if i ran it, that there are six billion other minds out there. Perhaps they are having the same thought….

Report this

By Thomas Billis, March 9, 2008 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment

The phone rings at three in the morning in the White House.Hillary sleeping in her pajama pants suits with her hair and make up perfect answers the phone.On the other end is secret service reporting that Bill Clinton has just left a motel and is headed for the White House.Hillary issues a kill Bill order.Goes back to sleep.The country is safe again.Hillary Clinton ready to screw up in the White House from day one.
Regarding the war and democrats.Democrats are always looking to appeal to voters who would not vote for them if they were the only names on the ballot.In so doing they look wishy washy on issues of national security.As someone once said “the American people will respect any position on any issue as long as it is not fetal position.”

Report this

By cyrena, March 9, 2008 at 12:00 am Link to this comment

•  “I suppose I *could* be wrong, but I think that the history of Yugoslavia, Darfur, N. Ireland, and the numerous other global religious/ethnic conflicts that spiraled out of control lacking a strong central peace-keeping force would be a more reliable gauge than my opinion alone.”

Marshall, you ARE wrong, and in the case of the former Yugoslavia, the US actually made that conflict bigger and far worse than it was, by their intervention. That one is on Bill Clinton’s head, but the US has done the same in many other places. The alleged ‘peace keepers’  (Dutch) in the former Yugoslavia stood back and did absolutely nothing as the Belgrade supplied weapons were used against the Albanians, and the women were raped en mass. The Dutch Peacekeepers stood by.

Needless to say, the US is NOT a central or any other kind of ‘peacekeeping force’ in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East. What bullshit.

You write this, and it is also a blatant lie:

•  “Not to mention the fact that our troop increase, along with the cooperation of local groups who have sided with us, has already had extremely positive effects right in Iraq.”

Such a statement from you at this point, (even though you perpetrate these falsehoods consistently on this site) can only be interpreted as willful perfidy, rather than stupidity, because NO PERSON that has even ‘glanced’ at standard news reports in the past weeks could possibly say that there has been any SUCCESS in Iraq.

And NO ‘local groups’ are ‘on our side’. The invasion of Iraq CREATED the civil strife, so common sense would make it obvious that NONE of them are ‘on our side’.

See the link below for the revelation of your lies on success in Iraq:

The Myth of the Surge
  By Nir Rosen
  Rolling Stone
  Thursday 06 March 2008

Hoping to turn enemies into allies, US forces are arming Iraqis who fought with the insurgents. But it’s already starting to backfire. A report from the front lines of the new Iraq.

In so far as ethnic/religious conflicts are concerned, your opinion is worthless. You’re trying to push Iraq as such a conflict, when the fact of the matter is that the horror of current Iraq was CREATED by the US, since no ethic/religious conflict existed there before the invasion and occupation. If there was any conflict it was between Saddam and the Kurds in the North, who have long maintained semi-autonomy, and the area was quiet enough pre-invasion. The Sunni and Shia did NOT have this ethnic strife before the invasion and occupation of their State, and you are in fact in criminal collusion with the rest of this lying administration by suggesting it.

Meantime, after you’ve read about the lies of the ‘surge’ and the real story of how the continued US presence in Iraq continues to destroy THEM as well as US, you’ll understand this additional piece, and why the thugs in DC want to keep the next ‘assessment’ a secret.

Officials Lean Toward Keeping Next Iraq Assessment Secret

  By Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung
  The Washington Post

You also don’t even understand what ‘genocidal’ even means.

Report this

By J, March 8, 2008 at 10:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Liza,  Wise words. You’ve described the tenuous
state of our nation’s physical structure. For
reasons I haven’t been able to fathom, we have
thousands of nukes postured to eliminate all evil foreigners. Imagine the cascade effect of even a very limited nuclear exchange.

Back when there was a simply named Defense
Department, I enrolled in two cost-free nuclear emergency response courses. The effects of even modest detonations on or over populated areas is more horrifying than most people can picture. Near a target, don’t even worry about the radiation; the concrete cellars in which most suburban families would be huddled would instantly shake to pieces if anywhere near the twenty foot high swell of earth rolling outward from a surface blast at maybe 2000 feet per second. I think these weapons we are all aiming at each other are our way of embracing mother nature, her quietly whispered goodbye to the world of men. Time to try something else.

Report this

By rick bensco, March 8, 2008 at 7:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why did Obama give his anti war speech? Do you think his money backers from the Mideast Rezko the Syrian Auchi the Iraqi and Alsamarrae the Iraqi wanted him to give the speech? His ties to the Iraqi’s of Chicago will be the end of his FAIRY TALE when the Republican attack machine attacks.

Report this

By yours trulyj, March 8, 2008 at 6:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Time We Let Go Of The She Says He Says & The Horse Race

“What instead?”

“Our electing a president who’ll end the Iraq War, negotiate with Iran plus turning things around here at home.”

“And then what sort of world?”

“It’ll be up to us.”

Report this

By Dragon, March 8, 2008 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Democratic candidates should both go after Sen. McCain for his stance on Iraq, and its supposed connection to al Qaeda and the War on Terror. Al Qaeda’s headquarters is in Pakistan and/or Afghanistan, not Iraq. The majority of Iraqis are Shiites, who detest Sunnis in general, and al Qaeda in particular. Now, even the Sunnis in Iraq have turned against al Qaeda, because they realize that al Qaeda’s attacks on Shiites have worsened their position in Iraqi politics. Al Qaeda has the same chance of establishing a training/logistics base in Iraq as the Ku Klux Klan has of doing so in Harlem.
Meanwhile, the man who planned the 9/11 attacks is still at large. Sen. McCain (alias “Bush Lite”), by advocating our staying 100 years in Iraq and diverting our troops from the hunt for Osama bin Laden, is playing right into al Qaeda’s hands.
Why are they letting him get away with playing the patriotism card, when the Iraq policy he supports is so obviously against our national interests?

Report this

By anon, March 8, 2008 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obviously, the comment I sent you yesterday about Bill Clintons 1998 Iraq address, about why he bombed, got the better of you. I will simply post it on other comment boards, and make it well known to present day voters. More legitimate news agencies won’t sweep it under the rug quite so quickly, AND there is not a damn thing you can do about it!!

Report this

By Liza, March 8, 2008 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

On March 19, the fifth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq, Senator Obama needs to give the mother of all speeches.

This accomplishes two things:
1.  It tells Hillary Clinton that despite her desperate appeal to the American public to consider Obama nothing but a gasbag, what you are able to communicate in an eloquent and passionate manner is important.
2.  It brings Iraq back to the forefront of this election where it belongs.  Obama needs to go back to square one and remind America how this happened.  He needs to emphasize the tremendous price paid in lives lost, lives ruined, and hundreds of billions of dollars borrowed from the future of the young Americans who must repay it.  In the meantime, an American city, New Orleans, was drowned because our nation’s aging infrastructure is in such a state of neglect.  Our healthcare system has failed 50 million people.  And so on.  Obama must emphasize the opportunity cost of this war and he must promise to end it.

Report this

By Ostrogoth, March 8, 2008 at 6:11 am Link to this comment

“...those who believe the Bush administration invented false intelligence have only to look at our history of conflict with Iraq to see the fallacy of that belief.” -By Marshall, March 7 at 6:12 pm

Whoops! I must need glasses, because I’m having trouble seeing the fallacy of that belief. Can’t see all the Iraqi WMD either. Maybe instead of glasses I need ideological blinders like yours?

All I can see is Cheney’s Office of Special Plans to cook intelligence, Powell lying his head off at the UN, forged Niger yellow-cake documents, constant innuendo about bogus Al Qaeda/Iraq connections, and threats of imminent mushroom clouds over the U.S.

Report this

By Marshall, March 7, 2008 at 7:12 pm Link to this comment

While your liberal-baiting language is over the top, you’re point is well taken; that those who believe the Bush administration invented false intelligence have only to look at our history of conflict with Iraq to see the fallacy of that belief.

Report this

By cyrena, March 7, 2008 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment

You’re right PH. It’s HIMSELF he’s worried about, and with good reason, as you’ve stated above.

Report this

By DennisD, March 7, 2008 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Until we all realize that a “war of terrorism” is being waged on Americans by our own government(D’s& R’s alike)there can be NO “hope”, “change” or “solutions” for us.

It will take a second revolution in America to have a true democracy/republic that once again acts in the interests of it’s people. A mere election won’t rid us of the parasites that really run this government. They’re dug in too deep.

Report this

By John J. Wernsdorfer, March 7, 2008 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We should be having a discussion over the two best candidates who offered themselves to political slaughter. ie John Edwards and Dennis Kuccinic.  Unfortunately we have are the most expensive money could buy (as usual) and not what could have been best for the citizens of our country. The majority of voters get their information from television and this is what the money buys.
Newspapers (the ones that report the news not the propaganda), Magazines (same comment), political publications and books are left untouched. These of course will test your knowledge and intelligence and make you think. Then we may have a country of informed voters.
  In the meantime exercise your right to vote for the best of mediocre.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 7, 2008 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment

He means he may die (suicided) if an NIE is released contrary to the administrations stated foreign policy objectives.

Report this

By Anon., March 7, 2008 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I just thought I would remind you demi-dems what Bill Clintonian said a few years back.

One wonders why our ‘illustrious media’ has not mentioned, or reminded the public about the following words from the modern day version of the “Liberalistic Golden Boy”.

I just can’t imagine ignoring Bill Clintons own words on this issue!!

I just wonder (yeah), if many liberal institutions have done their best to hide this transcript because what follows below, blows you libby-libs right out of the water.

Oh yeah, and I don’t remember any of you libbies calling Billy-Bob a terrorist when he bombed………

I would have copied and pasted it here but it is too long, but you can ‘Google it up’ yourself and find other news agencies copies also.


Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 7, 2008 at 11:57 am Link to this comment

How are things really going in Iraq? And should the American public know about it…...???

Director of National Intelligence… Michael McConnell is no fan of public debate of intelligence issues. He’s said that all this debate about the surveillance bill “means that some Americans are going to die.” And he thinks that NIEs should stay secret…...

It was a policy that he tried to maintain with regard to the recent NIE on Iran—which effectively undercut the administration’s increasing alarmism about the nuclear threat of Iran by proclaiming that the intelligence community thought that Iran had suspended its nuclear program…....

Duh, “some Americans are going to die” by staying in Iraq anyway…... because the administration is providing aid to Pakistan’s military which is providing funding to Al Qaeda and the Taleban….... so that they can keep receiving aid from the USA…....

By the way, the Iraqis would all like the USA to go away, too….... so that they can get on with living a normal life with their neighbors, Iran and Turkey. But when is the USA going to stop funding Israel…. to solve the rest of the problems in the M.East???

Report this

By Marshall, March 7, 2008 at 11:52 am Link to this comment

I suppose I *could* be wrong, but I think that the history of Yugoslavia, Darfur, N. Ireland, and the numerous other global religious/ethnic conflicts that spiraled out of control lacking a strong central peace-keeping force would be a more reliable gauge than my opinion alone.

Not to mention the fact that our troop increase, along with the cooperation of local groups who have sided with us, has already had extremely positive effects right in Iraq.

Leaving would be foolish and genocidal, and I suspect that most Americans actually know this, beyond their anger over the decision to go in the first place.

Report this

By R. Wonkles, March 7, 2008 at 9:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you for this. From the opening of the race I have been frustrated with the lack of courage from the all the democratic front-runners. As usual, the field is driven by political strategy vs. independent thinking. Where is the outrage?

Report this

By Maani, March 7, 2008 at 9:37 am Link to this comment


If 9/11 was “the act of treason that it was,” then those complicit in its planning and execution are in the Bush administration.  Thus, had Bush never been elected - and Cheney & Co. never been part of the administration - 9/11 COULD NOT have occurred, which makes everything after it (including “averting” it) moot.


Report this

By Expat, March 7, 2008 at 7:32 am Link to this comment

^ I think you are correct; “gutter overdrive”; very good.  Somebody throw some water on her; maybe she’ll melt.

Report this

By Expat, March 7, 2008 at 7:14 am Link to this comment

^ not the repugs!

Report this

By RdV, March 7, 2008 at 7:14 am Link to this comment

You know, I noticed you folks are a little slow on the uptake here… In the last couple of days Hillary the hawk has come out endorsing McCain and attacking Obama for not being as qualified as she and McCain are. Hillary the hawk last made such a statement while surrounded by Uniformed generals. I don’t think ending the war and occupation was the agenda and it is very scary development in an unstable and surreal Clinton campaign going into gutter overdrive.

Report this

By Expat, March 7, 2008 at 7:12 am Link to this comment

^ the chuckle.  Actually, I’ll take the creature.

Report this

By Expat, March 7, 2008 at 7:05 am Link to this comment

^ correct and true; shame on him.  Actually, all of the candidates are shit!  So in the end, it doesn’t matter.

Report this

By cyrena, March 7, 2008 at 6:59 am Link to this comment

He is wrong Kath. The thing is though, if you’ve read his other posts, he’s one of those who thinks that the Iraqi’s OIL actually DOES belong to US.

It’s that simple. So, he blames the trouble there on the Iraqis themselves. He doesn’t acknowledge that they had a functioning government before, (a highly functioning civil structure) and that they had professionals and bascially a carefree life, as long as they weren’t pissing off Saddam. And, their form of government actually worked fine for them.

But when the US went over, the first lie was Saddam and WMD, (even though they knew he didn’t have any) then it was getting rid of him, except that they’ve been digging oil up since the day we got there. Now they have 5 huge military bases there, the entire Green Zone that is like the US Capital of Iraq, and on and on.

But, Marshall says we can’t leave, because for OUR interests, it’s much better that we stay. And what he means by OUR interests, are the interests of the multinational oil companies. (several of which are American).

So, he blames it on the Iraqis that we’re there, because they haven’t selected leaders or set up the kind of democracy that WE want them to have, rather than their OWN democracy, of which their perfectly capable of managing. So he says they refuse to choose their leaders, except of course we know that they DID choose new leaders, and Condi Rice and her side kick ran them out, and replaced them with their own puppets.

BUT, the US Cabal STILL hasn’t been able to all that they went for, with is basically the oil draft law that would allow them to do a much stronger and more severe rape than they’ve so far been able to manage, since the Iraqis have been doing their past to fight them off, and they refuse to sign over their only resource.

So, Marshall thinks we should just stay there forever, for OUR interests, and it doesn’t matter how many Iraqis are killed. For him, it’s their fault. Kind of like him coming into your home to rape and then rob you. He’ll tell you that if you try to fight back, it’s just gonna be harder and more painful for you. But, if you just do what you’re told, and follow along, you can live relatively hassle free under a colonial system where the occupier has all of the power. As long as you don’t fight back, you’ll still be raped, and your oil will still be taken without compensation, but it won’t be as painful.

So, that’s the reason behind Marshall’s insistence that we stay. There’s a lot of oil to be had there, and it’ll take years to get it all. If the Iraqis would just hand it over, or at least get out of the way, we wouldn’t have to kill so many of them.

But, he actually blames in on their failure to elect leaders who would behave as proper puppets for the US.

In reality, all we have to do is leave, and the Iraqis will pull themselves together eventually. The long we stay, the more difficult it becomes, and we may have even passed that point.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 7, 2008 at 6:13 am Link to this comment

By kath cantarella, March 6: “The US could simply be standing in the way of the real solution….”

Its the same as with the Israel-Palestine issues, kath. But Barack Obama may have already given the game away to John McCain on Israel, too…...

From the interview with Edwards, Clinton and Obama…..  Sojourners Presidential Forum

OBAMA: I believe that the Israelis want peace, and they want security. And oftentimes, in the midst of achieving security, there have been times when there’s no doubt that Palestinians have been placed in situations that we wouldn’t want our own families to be placed in.

Israelis have been killed. They’ve got bombs flying into their territories right now. And we would expect them to act appropriately in defending themselves. So when I look at the situation in the Middle East—and this is true in other conflicts around the world—the question I ask myself—and this is where I do think faith comes in—is, is there a way for us to reconcile the claims of both sides of the conflict in a way that leads to resolution and a better life for all people?

And that, I think, is something that can be achieved, but it’s going to require some soul-searching on the Palestinian side. They have to recognize Israel’s right to exist; they have to renounce violence and terrorism as a tool to achieve their political ends; they have to abide by agreements. In that context, I think the Israelis will gladly say, “Let’s move forward negotiations that would allow them to live side by side with the Palestinians in peace and security….”

As a professor of law, it is strange that Obama believes whatever line the Israelis want him to. Despite their own vicious military reprisals and the bombing and invasion of Lebanon (50% Christian), Israel continues to demand that other nations be regarded as “outsiders”  and shunned from the international community if they don’t support Israel’s hegemonic and expansionist military aggression.

It should be obvious, then, that Israel has no intention of peace either regarding Arab Palestinians or the other countries in the region. All they are concerned about is their oil and water pipelines and their ‘security’ after having threatened all Arab countries, the Turks and the Persians (Iran) with nuclear annihilation for decades. ” Driving the Arabs into the sea”   is their real solution.

The other thing that should be obvious is that, for Arab Palestinians, it is a war of occupation, and nothing less. They are not a delinquent minority nor a renegade province (like Taiwan). They are the original occupiers and their land and their rights have been usurped by the European Jewish invasion of the 1940’s - 60’s to the exclusive advantage of those ethnic/religious groups who once shared with them.

The claims of the Jews are the claims of an occupying ‘settler society’ which has disrupted the peace of the region and has intentionally manipulated the naivete and ignorance of Western Christians worldwide to their own selfish advantage. The “way that leads to resolution and a better life for all people”  in the region is simply for the USA to stop funding Israel’s military and the construction of Jewish settlements on Arab lands - and it has nothing to do with rabbitting on about ‘faith’, uhh.

There is NO “soul-searching”   required on the Palestinian side as they are a people under oppression and a decades-long war of attrition. As HAMAS’ Khalid Mishaal said,  “Our people are practically an army - but we are a people who do not surrender, a people who can never be broken. We are armed by a just cause and genuine rights.”   They know that they can either meekly surrender as cowards or die fighting - and they have chosen the path of self-respect and bravery - as they should as a FREE people!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, March 7, 2008 at 6:01 am Link to this comment

Ha ha, quit complaining, Expat, at least Hillary is a real person - not like those ‘creatures from the black lagoon’ that the Repug’s have on offer….

Report this

By Expat, March 7, 2008 at 5:01 am Link to this comment

^ to Huffpost and Larry David.  Not so funny as it is poignant.

Hope you like it.

Report this

By Expat, March 7, 2008 at 3:57 am Link to this comment

^ the worst recessions; and maybe worse since ’29.  This may be exactly what we need to knock some common sense into our thick little heads.  Innocents?  There are no innocents over the age of 18.

Report this

By cyrena, March 7, 2008 at 12:36 am Link to this comment

Good points. Except of course if they start looking too closely into what could have averted 9/11, we would confirm that 9/11 was the act of treason that it was.

And, that’s not to say that more careful and consistent action such as Clinton/Gore had in place wasn’t necessary, and that we shouldn’t have had it. I don’t think that would have helped with 9/11 though, because I’m still not at all convinced that it was a FOREIGN terrorist operation.

On the slim chance that it WAS, then yes, it would have been averted under Gore. And, if Gore had been president, there would have been no need for the neocons to carry it out, or allow it to take place, since I’m certain that Al Gore had no plans to use a catastrophe to take over the state, and turn the US into a fascist dictatorship that would make Hitler look like just a maladjusted kid with an attitude problem.

Report this

By cyrena, March 7, 2008 at 12:27 am Link to this comment

Love your post Louise, and decided to scream for every time you mentioned it here. It DOES make me wanna scream, and so…that’s exactly what I did.

But, the other thing I was going to say, was that amazingly, (because I do find it pretty amazing) I have HAVE received responses to my emails to the Obama campaign, that are actually real responses. (not the standard form stuff, like thank you for contacting my office sort of thing).

So, I’ve even written to complain a couple of times when he’s done something boneheaded, or just to give some kitchen table advice and I have indeed received responses to nearly all of the mail that I’ve sent.

So, maybe he’s been thrown off target, which happens to the best of us, whether it be a result of running on caffeine for too long, or because we’re under constant attack ourselves. I’ve had both experiences, and when that kind of thing is SUSTAINED…even when we think that we’re dealing with it well enough, it can take it’s toll, and often result in the knee-jerk type reactions that we thought we were avoiding.

Like in this case, the commercial that Obama released in response to Hillary’s red phone thing. I’m not suggesting that they shouldn’t have released ANYTHING in response,but that would have been an excellent time to put the focus back on Iraq, instead of getting sucked into the “National Security Credentials” argument, which is just Hillary’s snatching from the Rove/Bush playbook.

In other words, this would be an EXCELLENT time for him to address the whole myth of this “National Security” thing to begin with. Since when did the most important job of the President become ‘keeping the American People safe?” GW says it’s the most important job of the pres, and now Hillary says it as well.

So, maybe Obama needs to question what ‘keeping us safe’ actually means or involves. Should we be safe from the poisoning of imports, toxic environment,  hunger, homelessness, pandemic ignorance, a busted infrastructure? How about the effects of war? Should we be safe from that? Should we care about abiding by the laws of war, since reciprocity is such a huge element in all of that?

He could address the consequences of war in those terms, making it clear that our aggressive wars in other parts of the globe have made us far LESS safe, and that as long as we continue to pursue that aggressive action, the cost to us will be far more than many Americans can see right now, especially since only a tiny fraction of Americans are paying the ULTIMATE price NOW, in the loss of their loved ones.

Too many have yet to make the connections to what it does to our COLLECTIVE “National Security” in terms of the consequences down the road. It doesn’t help of course, that we’ve never addressed the real reasons behind earlier attacks on our nation, or that the thugs have actually created themselves, a reason for this “national security’ theme. If we had called these things what they were, instead of hearing GW say stupid shit like, “They hate our freedoms” (which paradoxically does have a bit of truth to it, since I’m sure ‘they’ DO hate the ‘freedoms’ that we take with the sovereign status of other nations -  the freedoms with which we help ourselves to their natural resources.)

So, maybe Obama should start making those connections for people, so that voters understand that National Security isn’t about a red phone ringing at 3:00am. It’s about NOT doing unto others, what we DON’T WANT them to do to US!! And that it’s about spending trillions on building our OWN nation, rather than the DESTRUCTION of another.

Report this

By kath cantarella, March 6, 2008 at 9:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You could be wrong. The threat of an imminent US withdrawal may make the Iraqis pull together past factionalism to secure the country. The US could simply be standing in the way of the real solution.

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, March 6, 2008 at 8:56 pm Link to this comment

9/11 Truth (& False Flag Terror) FINALLY on CBS NATIONAL Radio - Jim Bohannan
Show !!  STUNNING National CBS Radio Interview!

Report this

By guntotinganglion, March 6, 2008 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As Bushemada said, wars good for the economy. We’ve gotta stop building homes and build more bombs and the planes to deliver the ordinance on target. Blood and viscera are the lubricants for the American War Machine, and only those raw materials can make the war machine profitable.

If an economic collapse is what’s needed to stop this madness, I’m for it. Only problem, either way, a lot of innocent people are hurt or worse. Just wish there were a way to make the people responsible for all this savagery accountable. Law? Hmmm, interesting concept…maybe next century.

Report this

By John Q, March 6, 2008 at 8:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A mystery to me why the Dems haven’t been pointing out (for the last six years) that if Al Gore had been prez in 2001, 9/11 may well have been averted.  Because Gore was aware of the Al Qaida threat, and wasn’t ignoring it the way Bush did.  When the 1999 millennium threat came up, Clinton/Gore set up a dedicated WH situation room to send out DAILY to all agencies, asking what they had, and to be alert.  And an alert customs agent did in fact catch the guy with the explposives.  Don’t you think a similar operation in 2001 would have connected enough dots to have averted 9/11?  Why are the Dems too chickenshit to point it out, and claim their rightful place as the party better on natiional security?

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, March 6, 2008 at 7:13 pm Link to this comment

As a Libertarian, I long ago gave up on either Democrats or Republicans ever seriously changing our aggressive policy of global hegemony. Obama, Clinton, and McCain all want to continue our policing of the entire globe through our unbelievably huge network of military bases. They just differ on minutiae.

The role of our military should be to protect us from invasion. That’s it. The military budget could easily be cut by ninety percent, and still accomplish this.

The D’s and R’s will quibble about meaningless details. Neither party offers any fundamental change. We had a chance with Ron Paul, who managed about fourteen percent in his best showings.

No matter who gets elected in November, we will have an aggressive, militaristic foreign policy, unless (and this, unfortunately, is very likely) we experience an economic collapse and depression before then.

Sorry to be depressing, folks—but those are the facts.

Report this

By guntotinganglion, March 6, 2008 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sorry, we are the problem. We stay, the problem gets worse. We leave, they work it out, and someday figure out how to live together, or not. As long as we are there, the military capitalists (aka warmongers) will post record profits, and the death toll will rise. If America feels no shame for whichever death toll you prefer to believe, 100,000 or 1.2 million, then we are doomed. Our shame should be complete, but Americans have a very real talent for utter shamelessness. Sad.

This area of the world, was none of our business. We had then no right, and we have now no right, other than might, to be there. We are the 800 billion ton gorilla that has smashed every china shop in Iraq, totally destroyed their country, murdered countless civilians, and yet, we continue to say we should be there. That is retarded.

The figures speak for themselves, and for the sake of argument I quote the lowest verified numbers from IBC, which this day stand at 81,632 dead civilians. Saddam is reported to have killed 300,000 civilians during his 21 year reign of terror. That works out to about 14,286 per annum. I am going to assume on March 19th, that the Iraqi death toll will be 82,000. That puts the US per annum death rate for Iraqi civilians at 16,400. Do you see the significance? Bushemada has killed more Iraqi’s per annum than Saddam ever did. And don’t tell me it’s not his responsibility. When you kick the boulder into motion, or shout fire in the theater that kills large numbers of people, you are the KILLER. And so it is with Bushemada. He is demonstrably worse than Saddam…by the numbers.

And as an adjunct to that thought, 3,966 US service people have lost their lives so far. We’ll assume 82K Iraqi’s. Are we there to protect the Iraqi people, or just our access to the oil? Propagandists working with Bushemada would have you believe the former. If we are there for the betterment of the Iraqi people, why are over 95% of the casualties Iraqi civilians? Do the math…it’s all in the numbers.

And please remember, these numbers are not real, these are the IBC numbers, which are abysmally lower than reality. I’d say, personally, that the ratio of dead Iraqi’s to US service people is over 99%...that’s what you get if you run the numbers up to the half million to million, that are certainly the reality in Iraq.

This war was insane, is insane, and will not stop being insane if we stay. The only way to sanity is to admit our crime, pay restitution to the Iraqi people, and pray to whatever God we believe in for forgiveness for the brutal savagery we have inflicted on the bodies and nation of so many innocent men, women, boys, girls, infants and unborn babies.

We should all be very very ashamed.

Report this

By Enemy of State, March 6, 2008 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

Yes, an exit strategy from mess-o-potamia should be high on the list. This war, and our militarism as well is draining us financially. Our militarism is a major cause of our accellerating economic meltdown. Ignoring lending regulation, and the need to get off oil (i.e. making substantive moves to use less oil), are also major contributing factors to the current issue that most worries Americans the most -the economic slide. For all of these causes the Republicans are substantially to blame -let I see little beating of this drum.

  But, Bill is right. Democrats (and liberals in general), have been badly tarred with the weak on defense brush. It has now become an obsession -especially for Hillary. If we can’t outgrow this childishness we are going to face a bleak future.

Report this

By Expat, March 6, 2008 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment

^ thoroughly disgusted with the whole tenor of this campaign.  I am particularly disgusted with Hillary.  She elevates McCain while attacking Obama.  Just what the hell is she doing?  She’s insane!  She’ll destroy the Dems.  There is something terribly wrong here; she wants this too much.  This campaign has taken the path to the dark side.  Win at all costs.  Somebody in her crew needs a reality check.  I agree it’s the war stupid, but that “focus” doesn’t exist.  The dems will hand this election to McShrub sure as hell.  I’m already out of the U.S. and if the Dems blow this I’ll be looking for a way off of this sick fucking planet; E.T. where are you….HELP!!!!!

Report this

By Louise, March 6, 2008 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment

Thanks for the wake-up call Bill!

Maybe the problem is the candidates are clueless because they are sleepless and turn in dependency to their advisers who spend more time checking the pulse of the pollsters than they do the pulse of the voters. Maybe that’s the biggest single problem in the democrat party. Checking the wrong pulse. And every time they do, they run inside the echo chamber to bounce their view off the walls, and listen to their locked in space and time restricted view bounce back.

Just makes a person want to scream!

All the candidates have web sites. Course they probably get millions of hits every day, so there’s no guarantee they actually ever see anything that might get asked them via email. Once again having to rely on a plethora of pre-disposed advisers, who probably all have their own personal agenda as well.

What to do?

Who was it said we’re going to see the democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?

Meanwhile both candidates have released the predictable canned response regarding the attacks on Palastine, because Israel has to defend itself. Pretty well indicating they don’t have a clue what’s going on there either. But then, few if any in the echo chamber have a clue what’s going on there.

Just another “want to scream” moment.

So the challenge is ... how do we get sleepy and nod to slow down, pay attention, tell their advisers to take a hike and start paying attention?

Hopeless task. There is no way mainstreammedia is going to let that happen. They slipped a bit there for a few days and actually started paying attention to what was actually going on. Then someone kicked them in the head and they got back on track. Shaping the debate, shaping our views, and generally influencing the public thought process.




I just had a scary thought. Ever had to run on coffee for a 24 hour cycle? I have, and after a while you get giddy and silly and then delusional. Not something I recommend except in an emergency. Maybe that’s the problem. Maybe the candidates are running on caffeine and who knows what else, which could, probably would alter their minds a bit. Turns off the normal thought process.

The whole process sucks and really needs to change.

Report this

By Marshall, March 6, 2008 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

The reason the Dems are hammering McCain on withdrawing from Iraq is that they would be vulnerable to having to answer the question you pose but fail to address: why would we abandon Iraq and create a much greater and longer term problem for ourselves than if we stay?

There is no good answer to that, and the Dems know it. 

And I’m rather amazed at the author’s naive “zero sum” belief about the economy: that every dollar spent in Iraq robs some social program.  That’s just not the way it works.

Report this

By guntotinganglion, March 6, 2008 at 5:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Protecting America is the first and most urgent duty of the president.”

BULL SHIT. Read the oath…

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The first, and only sworn duty of the President, is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution is the set of principles designed to protect the American people, not the President. When you abandon those principles, set down in that document, so carefully written and amended, you reap the whirlwind of anarchy, as Bushemada has.

The President is the custodian for, and protector of, the Constitution. When the President knows this, and acts upon this principle, then he gets his marching orders for the first part of the oath to, “execute the Office of President of the United States”. The execution of which is defined in THE CONSTITUTION!!!

It’s hard to put this more simply, and yet, there’s Hillary aping the dishonor of Bushemada, who has NEVER done what he swore to do. And this alone should first, get him impeached, then second, get him charged, by the Senate, with crimes against the Constitution, the United States, Iraq, Afghanistan and all humanity. He then should face trial for his life.

This country is lost if this criminal walks. The only way it survives in the pure image the Constitution defines, is if this man who has defiled, dishonored and put to shame all the brave human beings who have defended it in times of REAL peril, is held to the full measure of the law of the land, which he has violated countless times. And that law proscribes the death penalty for violations of the War Crimes Act of 1996, if death results from torture. We have no idea how many he has killed while being tortured, but we know of many who have died. And all on his orders.

How can this be put more plainly? It can’t. I am done for now.

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right 3, Site wide - Exposure Dynamics
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook