1. Eliminate the electoral college.
Most Americans agree. It’s the legislatures of the smallest states that are blocking such an amendment to the Consitution.

2. Eliminate the so-called Executive Privilege.
Again, most people agree. EP should be SOLELY limited to the right to maintain secrecy in certain diplomatic, intelligence, and military procedures, strictly defined and enforced.

3. Eliminate Presidential Veto.
Why? This indicates a lack of understanding of the checks and balances of the Democratic system. Plus the veto isn’t absolute—2/3 of each house and it’s bypassed, so you REALLY need a strong belief of something among the 535 Sens and Congs to bypass the President’s veto.  Instead outlaw signing statements.

4. Outlaw lobbying.
I don’t know how you can do this in a free society.  Anybody needs to be able to petition senators and congressmen for what they want done. That’s the simplest def of lobbying. However, all the strategies to create hidden quid pro quos should be deemed graft, and enforced as felonies.

5. Limit congress terms to two terms.
Term limits have been bandied around for years and some states have them. Most people believe in them—for the OTHER party! Frankly, I think a democracy should have the right to continually elect someone they think is doing a good job, even if he’s a total bone-head like Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky.

6. Outlaw private fund raising for political campaigns and allocate equal funds from the public treasury and mandate that national media outlet give equal time to articulate their campaign platforms to the public.
With you on this one.  Freedom of Speech was never intended to mean freedom to give as much as you want to a candidate.

7. Find a way to end the dictatorship and tyranny of the two party system and expand the parties to at least five.
Can’t do it without completely changing our system from an executive system to a parliamentary system, creating a far more centralized government, and introducing proportional representation in Congress and the Senate.  Parliamentary systems work all over Europe, but do we need to completely throw away what has worked for 220 years?

8. It would be great if we can eliminate or, at least, shrink the power and size of our military industrial complex, as well as the size and power of the CIA.
I wouldn’t want to eliminate them, but making both leaner and MORE PROFESSIONAL would be good.  Lots of things about the CIA would work great if you could get the agenda-oriented pols out of it, and have proper effective legal oversight of it.

Re Inherit The Wind, July 21 at 9:31 am #

But the time and the opportunity to destroy Al Qaeda and their enablers, the Taliban, has been squandered
————————& #8212;———————R 12;———————— —-
By this time, I have started to believe there was never any attempt to catch bin Laden by the Bush administration because they were working together all along. If that guy with the dyed beard really is Osama and they do catch him somehow, I hope this comes out at his trial. That would be funny.

In life, timing is everything.  The time to act in Afghanistan is either in the past or in the future, but not now.  The ONLY thing I agree with Obama about is it would be better to be fighting those actually involved in the 9/11 attacks than those (Iraqis) who were minding their own business, living under a contained dictator.

Had Bush not made his criminal blunder of moving troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, it would all have been wrapped up.  It was both criminal and a blunder.

But the time and the opportunity to destroy Al Qaeda and their enablers, the Taliban, has been squandered.

Ahhhhh…Schadenfreude and zeitgeist: two German phrases Americans love to love. (and practice).

The spirit of the age of enjoying others suffering.  Could that be our post-war posture for the last sixty years? Is the Cheney/Bush era of neo-clownservative interjection in the middle east? The Reagan/Bush Elder era of helping Central American Farmer Kings kill off their union seeking Freedom Fighters? (AKA communist)

I wonder if H. Kissinger and P. Gramm have t-shirts bearing those phrases regarding, respectively, Chile (Allende) and California utility customers (Whiners). Yes, “suffer the little children to come unto” “THEM” (Reaganomics/Grammnomics).  It’s been fun.

Or Obama/McCain could just keep it simple in ‘09.

It’s is obvious that chasing Bin Laden isn’t in the cards for anyone right know.  Hell, no ones demanded that this president get him (see 2004 elections), too much Sadaam on our minds, as plain as those crazy ads by “veterans” hoping that America keep up the surge that can’t be kept up. The “generals on the ground” just announced that troop withdrawals will commence before the Summer ends. (They suspended June and Julys scheduled troop removals; you know, the surge), but why aren’t they critizied?  Well it’s over now and the United States Marines have already begun what the U.S. Army is starting to do. So what’s next?

Afghanistan? Maybe. It’s about the only ballgame left. But is there still time?  Only if the U.S. maintain a Taliban focused mission. No Pakistan incursion or get Bin Laden foot patrols. Pakistan is going to fall in a minute and Cheney/Bush knows this; why the nuclear agreement with India? Keep it simple: Kill the Taliban, attack Al Qaeda training camps (not Madrasas, unless we think they can be Christianized) and then leave. Let’s get back to the Cold War/WWIII proxy, Realist perspective that flurished before DickBush 01-09.

Just charter the next, inevitable military coup group in Islambad to deal with it, and if they can’t, stop the Cheney/Rumsfeld money train. After starving for Ballywood CD’s and other things, they’ll eventually piss off India with a terrorist attack and all hell will break out; India could use the economic boost. World War IV? You bet, but wasn’t that the way we were going in the first place?

Goodnight, King George.  Try not to make a bigger mess.

Schadenenfreude (translation): malicious joy, malicious pleasure, taking a perverse pleasure in someone’s misfortune.
Note: this translation is easily available by putting schadenfreude (translation) in the firefox/google browser. If you do not have the Mozilla firefox browser get it. It is free.

By dihey, July 18 at 11:53 am

•  “I have started reading Truthdig againI enjoy Cyrena’s squirming about Obama with gigantic “Schadenfreude”: “what can he really do about that at this point?” she asks. Exactly: what can he do about anything in the world at this point or at later points? Not much then either except hope that blowing hot air at “talks” will scare into some compliance the Iraqis, Iranians, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Somalis, Saudis, Chinese, Russians, Cubans, Sudanese, and Venezuelans (I may have forgotten some).”

~~~

So dihey…you would like to blame *me* for the curse of your return. Not fair. You existence on this forum or anywhere else is not my fault or my responsibility.

I have no idea what schadenfreude means, although it ‘sounds’ German. I don’t do German. Have no reason to learn it.

As for your quoting me, it’s the standard perfidy that can be expected from you, along with your intentional cutting and pasting of this incomplete though. When I said ‘what can he really do about that at this point?” you know perfectly well that I was speaking to the issue of the recent FISA legislation, as the Obama Bashers have made it a point to hold him solely responsible for the passage of that legislation, despite the fact that he had nothing to do with the construction or introduction of it, into the agenda. You know as well as I do, that the legislation, (bad as it is) was prepared in the House, and that he made it clear that he didn’t like it, and that it was not what he wanted, and that he would work to remove the provision on immunity for the telecoms. And you also know that it didn’t work. He was one of a handful that tried that. The same is the case with the full Senate vote. Bottom line, that legislation was going to pass regardless of what Obama did or didn’t do, and that’s exactly what I was talking about when I made the statement/question that your dishonestly re-formatted in this question, leaving out the context.

That said, it has nothing to do with ‘what can he do about anything in the world, (now or later) because he’s running for US president, not President of the world. So no, you didn’t ‘forget’ anybody…you included all of the WRONG countries. Because you see, Barack Obama’s responsibilities as our president, (I’m a US citizen by the way…don’t know what you are), are to the people of this country, and not any of the others that you so glibly blah your way though here, in a lame attempt at derision and cynicism. His only responsibility on the International level is to make sure that the US complies with the laws, treaties, and international agreements to which we are obligated. His responsibility it to clean up the horrific damage that the current Criminal Cabal has created in the Middle East, and he can do that by removing ALL US presence from Iraq. He can also (and I hope he will at some point) stop providing billions of dollars of assistance, (and weapons) to Israel, since Israel is not our problem, and because we cannot be seen in terms of supporting a rogue state that uses that assistance to commit their own atrocious violations of international law, including but not limited to genocide and other crimes against humanity.

That’s the extent of any international involvement or hot or cold air that he’s expected to come up with. And, even THAT he will need to do in conjunction with the rest of the international community.

Now of course you can return to your geography lesson if that entertains you, and if it might give the rest of us a break. But your geography lesson has nothing to do with a selection for the next US president. Foreign policy is only ONE of his jobs, and I’m more than convinced that he can do it far better than you, or the current president who doesn’t even know the difference between his so-called ‘good Korea or bad Korea.”

Tony, I was a tad bit concerned about the ‘recreate68’ title myself. (though I certainly have had the boiling blood in reference to the caging up of demonstrators, which has been happening for quite a while now). The ‘caging areas’ by the way, are always away from the press. Keeps them hidden.

So, let me know if you find out anything about this group. The name gives me pause.

Meantime, here’s something for folks to do, besides bitch and moan. (I mean, if anyone is really interested in doing anything more than that. )

Got this from my political action committee; Peace Action West.

“Today Sen. Obama arrived in Afghanistan. His next stop will be Iraq. This will be a visit that he has said would help him refine his policy on Iraq.
We agree Sen. Obama’s policy, which involves leaving behind as many as 30,000 soldiers in Iraq after withdrawal, could use some refining.  Tell him you want no soldier left behind in Iraq. 

Iraq’s Prime Minister has made increasingly direct calls for a timetable for complete withdrawal of US troops, and despite the Bush administration’s recent arm twisting, the sentiment is still clear: As the Washington Post reported, “National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie said his government was ‘impatiently waiting’ for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops.”

Leaving a large “residual force” in Iraq is an idea with roots in political maneuvering, with no sound military rationale. A partial occupation is still an occupation, a reality that would not be lost on the Iraqi people. In addition, our soldiers would be like sitting ducks if they were part of a force too small to protect itself. If the Iraqi people support international peacekeeping we should help facilitate that, but US troops cannot play that role.
Send the Obama campaign your message right now. We need the next president to replace Bush’s open-ended occupation with a comprehensive plan for Iraq that includes a diplomatic surge, as well as economic and humanitarian aid to restart Iraq’s economy and provide relief to the millions of Iraqis that have been forced out of their homes.

Thank you for delivering this crucial message.”

There’s more here: it’s the main page for the No Soldier Left Behind Campaign

“This is a campaign promoting a comprehensive plan to end the war in Iraq and improve the security and well being of Iraqis and Americans.

This means making truly effective investments in political, economic and diplomatic strategies. But our first step must be to bring every soldier home, and end the failed occupation of Iraq.”

http://www.peaceactionwest.org/category/nosoldierle ftbehind/

I just looked up recreate68. I support the right of the people to peaceably assemble and protest. I am especially outraged by the idea of a fenced-in area called a free speech zone. But the thing is, who in the hell wants to “recreate68”? Chicago 68 was the biggest disaster for progressive forces in my lifetime. Those protesters absolutely played into the hands of the reactionaries. They and the provacateurs among them, egging the young fools on. Because of them, we got Nixon and 40 years of reaction, Republicanism and ruin. We have to be smarter this time. So who are the recreate68 people, anyway, and what do they really want? I’m deeply suspicious.

Part 1 of 2
Fadel,

On your list:

#5 is the question of limiting Congressional terms, and it comes up often, because there is a built-it catch 22, and 23, and 24. The most obvious of them is that if the democracy is to be a real democracy, the people should not be limited in who they elected as their representatives. Limiting presidential terms is critical to avoiding tyranny. Limiting the terms of Congress (the house and senate reps) may indeed solve some of the problems that come from cronyism, but you also lose the advantage that experienced and devoted public servants can provide. I honestly hate to think where we might be, if the people of Massachusetts had failed to keep Ted Kennedy as their senator. I feel the same way about my own States’ contribution of Henry Waxman and Barbara Lee to the House. Same thing with Bernie Sanders from Vermont.

The job of the Congress is to make and pass legislation, based on what is in the best interests of their own constituencies of course, but to the larger end, to negotiate and collaborate with the other representatives so that the greater good is accomplished to the degree that it can be. So I don’t believe that the ‘time’ or number of terms is the issue. Rather it is a matter of keeping these representatives honest and uncorrupted by special interests, be those special interests their own or others. It takes years and time to develop and establish working relationships to produce the kinds of effective results required. The matter of governing such a huge mass (especially if we actually want to stick to this rule of law thing) isn’t and shouldn’t be undertaken by a 2 year stint here, or a 4 year stint there.
So it makes sense to have career legislators, just as it makes sense to have career diplomats. It’s up In other words, the Congress probably isn’t the place for a ‘high turnover’ for the same reasons that high turnover isn’t good for any ‘body’ of employees expected to maintain a good product. It’s up to the people to maintain vigilant quality control.

Your complaints about campaign financing are certainly valid, and more than a few dozens years and as many efforts have been exerted on fixing THAT. But that system is also corrupted and broken. The swiftboaters who were the undoing of the John Kerry are the same 527 PAC’s who are after Obama now. All privately financed. Of course there is legislation governing these, but that legislation is full of more holes than a kitchen sieve, and dishonest people will find a way to exploit that.

I agree with #8, but it’s not so much the size of the CIA as it is the power that goes hand in hand with the undemocratic notion of Executive Privilege. The CIA is there to answer to the prez and the prez only, and to do his bidding. They are the secret police, answering to no one other than the prez, or in this case, dick cheney.

As for more and/or multiple parties. That seems to be the battle cry of late, but I don’t know that it is the solution. The reality is that we already have multiple parties. At the end of the day, the legislative rules still require a majority to make and pass legislation, or a certain number to block it. I don’t know that it matters what party they come from. I’m not saying that having a ‘choice’ isn’t a good idea, but this concern about the ‘status quo’ isn’t resolved by multiple parties with various and sundry names. Just a look at the ever changing Democratic party to evolve itself in a progressive branch is an example of that. We are still democrats, but not the Democrats of the DNC. Does changing the name or creating a separate ‘branch’ of progressives out of the old name really change anything more than the cosmetics? It might be enough satisfy those hollering for something that isn’t Democrat or Republican. But I don’t honestly see how anyone who believes that there is no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is actually gonna be satisfied by 5 or 6 parties with different names.

Part 2 of 2

On a different note of the same tune, thanks Tony, for sharing the post from ron4obama. It speaks to this same rejection of the ‘status quo’ but I fear that we all slip into using that ‘status quo’ as the boogeyman to be avoided, without understanding the dialectical nature of that concept. In other words, WHO or WHAT ‘defines’ the ‘status quo’? As a stand-alone concept, the ‘status quo’ is not a bad thing. It represents ‘the norm’. And the ‘norm’ generally reflects stability. In other words, the center. It’s only when the ‘norm’ takes on radical or extreme properties, that it becomes destabilizing, and something to be reformatted. So the staus quo, in and of itself is not an unwelcome state,  since conceptually, it represents the norm. But if the ‘norm’ is a state of imbalance and perpetual extreme, than the ‘norm’ ain’t so good. In other words, when the “State of Exception’ becomes the status quo, then there’s a problem. But until an individual or a group can decide what they DEFINE as ‘the status quo’ then it’s a matter of spinning wheels to rebel against it. That’s because you can’t just break something, without a clue as to what state you wish to create in its place. If the thing is out of balance, you bring it back to balance FIRST. THEN you can make corrections or adjustments that are more in line with whatever the environment is at the time. Otherwise, at best, the result is to just change the direction of the extreme, or at worst to crash the whole damn thing.

I think the name of the group effort; recreate68 -  is telling in this manner, and may suggest that we can use an old technique that worked then, but needs adjustments 40 years later. Because while the ‘status quo’ of that time DID need to be adjusted, it wasn’t the extreme or radical state of affairs that we find ourselves in today. In other words, as awful as it was, racial segregation and similar inequalities WERE closer to the ‘status quo’,  having developed from customary practice over a long period time, and even incorporated into the body and language of the Constitution. War wasn’t exactly a ‘new’ or radical concept either. The US has been warring since its inception. That’s how it got to be the US.

What we have been living with the past decade or so is a radical, departure from the status quo. It is the absolute antithesis of ‘the norm’. It is a ‘state of exception’. But when that state of exception exists for so long, and long enough to BECOME ‘the norm’, then it must first be returned to a state or relative normalcy, before any corrections can likely be instituted. That’s the whole point of the rule of law, and that has been abandoned. When we return to the rule of law, which is a concept that doesn’t change, even while the components of what IS the law may and should change, then the adjustments are possible. THEN we can talk about the updates that are in fact necessary and should be accomplished in light of the circumstances and environment that exists today.

Ebb and flow is the status quo. Tsunamis are the state of extreme exception. They represent crises. Fixing the crises or addressing the tsunami can possiblyaccomplished by creating another tsunami in a polar opposite space, which would be akin to fighting fire with fire. Sometimes that works, but it’s damn risky. The safer albeit slower way is to deal with bringing the one tsunami under control, and getting back to the standard ebb and flow of the more stable status quo. At least that is my humble opinion.

Just some thoughts. Now I have to go find a new mouse somewhere. The old one has quit on me, and this built-in thing is very temperamental. It needs an adjustment.

I have started reading Truthdig again because I enjoy Cyrena’s squirming about Obama with gigantic “Schadenfreude”: “what can he really do about that at this point?” she asks. Exactly: what can he do about anything in the world at this point or at later points? Not much then either except hope that blowing hot air at “talks” will scare into some compliance the Iraqis, Iranians, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Somalis, Saudis, Chinese, Russians, Cubans, Sudanese, and Venezuelans (I may have forgotten some). If hot air does not work, you can always blockade and if that does not work send the marines(oops combat units)or bomb once you are our next President cum Commander-in-Chief. When you have the biggest, baddest army in the world at your fingertips you can still try to do a lot, especially after you add about 60,000 new soldiers, but you can also fail miserably as we have seen. Obama has taken the first toddler-steps in that direction. The big steps (Afghanistan/Pakistan) will surely follow once he is our Commander-in-Mischief.

A MESSAGE FROM THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN

Ron4Obama, an Obama activist, writes:

Time and again during the course of the primary campaign I’ve heard my fellow Obama supporters pose the question “...why is Recreate68 targeting the Dems, why don’t they go after the Republicans instead, they are the ones that have everything all messed up?”  Well the answer to that is pretty simple but it should also be noted that the groups that constitute Recreate68 will also be targeting the RNC convention.
So here’s why:
The FISA vote
The vote on Iran
The vote on Iraq
Failure to impeach Bush, Cheney et.al.
I think you start to get the picture, the older folks who will be part of the activist protests have seen all too often that when it is politically expedient the Democrats will sell their souls to the devil for votes and even the younger activists have seen more than enough of this in their short lifetimes.
Their hope of course is two fold, to garner media attention for their various causes and the still cling to the hope that their street demonstrations will have an impact on the politicians gathered together as they are only once every four years. 
Yes, in addition to the many activists who will come and protest in colorful and mostly cordial ways there will also be a small contingent of those whose stated mission is to “disrupt the convention”, “No More Business As Usual” folks whose action will likely result in a very strong reaction from the police and security and whose actions will become the focus of the media as well. 
Whereas you or I may personally find some of the actions of those who seek to ‘disrupt’ as objectionable, I nevertheless hold a certain special respect for and have a keen understanding of these folks who risk arrest to make the point that the status quo is unacceptable. 
You see I’m one of those in a small minority of Americans who when Ronald Reagan refused to join the U.S.S.R in a nuclear weapons moratorium, I’m one of those who marched his lily white butt four days and three night through the Nevada desert to ground zero to stop an underground nuclear weapons test, I’m one of those who marched in the first Earth Day walk 38 years ago and very much like the ‘anarchists’ who will garner so much attention in the media, I burned my draft card and organized and participated in the “End the War’ rallies of the Viet Nam era.  Simultaneous with those actions I also petitioned my representatives and voted and participated in ‘mainstream’ politics to try to effect change.
The unfortunate reality is that these folks feel as strongly about the various causes that they come to voice their concerns about as we do about our candidate.  What is even more unfortunate is the larger reality that the causes that they support and want their concerns heard about are to far to large a degree the same ones that have been bringing protesters to the streets for over 4 decades in this country.  Is there any reason they should really think that the status quo has changed?

A MESSAGE FROM THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN (cont).

Ron4Obama concludes

As I write this the fires that fueled my frustration with the ‘status quo’ are stoked anew, especially when I consider that those ‘un-credentialed’ individuals who wish to exercise their rights to free speech without risking arrest must do so by volunteering themselves to locked in a cage called a “Free Speech Zone” the very words and what they imply make me want to lash out.
When we see the evening news awash with images of protesters having their constitutional rights smashed by the police let’s commit ourselves to all continue to pressure our representatives for change at every opportunity, to hold them accountable because particularly where the environment and global warming are concerned we may not have another 4 decades to turn things around in fact many experts suggest we may have a decade or less if its not too late already.
I have a dream, that by the time the 2008 election cycle comes around that with Obama as president and with the grassroots continuing to bring pressure that instead of the 2008 media reporting on protesters at conventions the conventions will instead be over run by people cheering on the changes that being made.
Ron Booth
Adams County, CO
Precinct 020
CD2

Beerdoctor, those who can take theological comfort in the current situation are welcome to it ; I’ll just cultivate my (balcony) garden….

Henri

M Henri Day, yes the son is not suppose to know how little sense runs this world, but is should also be noted:
‘Nihil cavum neque sine signo apud Deum.’
Irenaeus, Adversus haereses

Given the foreign policy «experts» Senator Obama has chosen to advise him, it is, alas, extremely unlikely that his administration will adopt anything more significantly related to «change» than a return to standard US post-WW II imperial foreign policies. That this seems almost welcome after nearly eight years of Messrs Bush and Cheney merely indicates how inept these latter have shown themselves to be. But, whatever the rhetoric, don’t look to Senator Obama for a restoration of the Republic and the dismantling of the Empire - nor will the decline of the position of the United States on the global scene be any more than slowed. As Axel Oxenstierna asked his son more than three and a half centuries ago, «An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur ?»...

Henri

re: Fadel Abdallah 7/17 8:02 pm
Concerning point #2
To prove we truly live in the United States of Amnesia, as Mr. Vidal so aptly put it, who can remember the book by Raul Berger, titled Executive Privilege, A Constitutional Myth? Written at the time of the Nixon tapes, Berger reveals through extensive research how this nonsense was started that continues to this very day. If you never read it, check it out. It also worth a Google see.

Fadel,

Although many of the reforms you speak of would be worthwhile if they could be accomplished, I wonder if it the problem is ultimately “the system” or the people. We have a constitution. It has served us well, although it’s getting pretty antiquated and could really use an update. But it only means something if elected officials actually respect it. Bush and Cheney use it for toilet paper. It remains to be seen whether real respect will be restored under an Obama administration or not.

By Tony Wicher, July 17 at 5:03 pm #

Fadel Abdallah, July 17 at 12:18 pm #

Right, we’re not running for office, we’re not politicians, so we can afford to tell the truth. But don’t expect this of any politician. That’s not what they do. “Pandering” is their job description. If they can get anything worthwhile done while they’re doing it, fine, but first things first.
=========================================
Thanks Tony Wicher for you feedback! I said it before and I will repeated again that the problems of the country we call home are too big for any one politician to solve, no matter how experienced, smart, articulate or educated he / she may be. The problem is in the system which needs drastic reform; and I can summarize it in the following points:

1. Eliminate the electoral college and replace it with the direct democracy of the popular vote. Electoral votes can always be bought and manipulate. Not so the popular vote.

2. Eliminate the so-called Executive Privilege; for this privilege subverts the force of law and the concept that all citizens, ruler and ruled are equal under the law. Moreover, it allows the president to act as a tyrant, thinking he is above the law.

3. Eliminate Presidential Veto. This point is related to the previous one and further hinders and paralyze the Congress from passing reform laws.

4. Outlaw lobbying, for the very word stands for groups who seek privileges for their members, which can only be done at the expense of the general population and those who cannot organized for lack of means. Actually, most of the scandals of recent history were caused by overeager lobbyists, such as Abramoff.

5. Limit congress terms to two terms. Much energy and money is wasted by incumbents to win another term, at the expense of devoting it to serve the nation. The longer a congressperson is in office, the more likely he / she considers himself as part of the elite establishment, and thus becomes more inclined to ally him/herself with those who have money and power to help them get elected again and again.

6. Outlaw private fund raising for political campaigns and allocate equal funds from the public treasury and mandate that national media outlet give equal time to articulate their campaign platforms to the public.

7. Find a way to end the dictatorship and tyranny of the two party system and expand the parties to at least five.       

8. It would be great if we can eliminate or, at least, shrink the power and size of our military industrial complex, as well as the size and power of the CIA.

By Tony Wicher,
On the other hand, if Osama is alive and they do catch him, maybe it will come out at his trial that he was working with the ISI, Mossad, CIA, etc.
 
If one believes 9-11 was an inside job, it seems a pointless exercise to run around Waziristan looking for a guy with a dyed beard.
~~

Ah Tony,

You’ve hit the crux of my own conflict here. First, I don’t personally believe that bin Laden is still alive. But of course there’s no ‘proof’ of that. Benizher Bhutto claims that one of the current gangs in the area killed him, but before that, I always believed that he was either at the compound in Kennebunkport, or simply dead. Renal failure is deadly. 

Still, even if he was still alive, there’s no way they’d want him to stand trial, because of exactly what you said. It would come out that he was a patsie for at least the CIA, if not the others. (hard for me to imagine him working with Mossad, because I’ve always thought he was pretty sincere about his negative opinion of Israel, but for sure I’m convinced that he was as much involved with the CIA in 9/11 as he was when we helped him beat off the Soviets in Afghanistan. No strangers are they.

So, based on any of the above scenarios, bin Laden is never gonna be ‘caught’ and so he’s damn sure not gonna be standing trial. Besides, 9/11 was an inside operation. BUT…Barack obviously DOES believe the official version, or at best, the more agnostic version of ‘LET it happen on purpose” as opposed to the few that many of us hold, which is the Dick Rumsfeld MADE it happen on purpose. So, if he believes either the official cover up, or even the LIHOP version, that would still put bin Laden in the action. Even if he’s dead, the rest of them are still around, or Afghanistan wouldn’t be exploding with suicide bombers and the like.

Meantime, for those who would continue to embrace the naively arrogant premise that the extremist/wahhabist version of the al-Qaeda and Taliban types are just standard fare, and none of anyone’s concern, you do so at the peril of us all. I wholeheartedly agree with silly_article in the statement of fact, that al-Qaeda and their various off-shoots are joined at the hip with the Taliban, and while the Taliban may have “always been around’ as some would like assure us, that doesn’t make them harmless. They absolutely DO NOT speak for or otherwise represent traditional Islam, anymore than the Waco Wacko David Koresh and his cult represented mainstream Christianity. And BTW, I concur with silly_article that for anyone who actually wants to know the difference, the book recommended, “Imperial Hubris” is an excellent way to find out. I think the author is Michael Schuler, Should be required reading, but I won’t hold my breath on that.

I’ll concede that the US invasion made them far worse, but it’s not like the hook-up between them and their ilk should simply be ignored. I don’t get what other folks don’t get about crazies having access to nuclear weapons. By the end of last year, the number of suicide bombings in Afghanistan alone, had reached some insane number like over 600. In a year. (I’ll look for the info if anyone cares to trace this overwhelming indication of a completely failed state) Now if somebody/anybody, is willing to blow up themselves and others with conventional bombs, why is anyone so stupid as to assume that they would be less inclined if they happened to get their hands on nuclear ones?

Call me an ideologue on this if you want, but I’m very invested in the commitment to wipe out the worlds’ arsenal of nuclear weapons. I don’t see the return to Afghanistan/Pakistan as some ‘war to be won’ in the traditional sense, or in the intentionally deceptive purposes of the Thug Regime. What I KNOW, is that the chances of nukes falling into the hands of extremists in that area should be a concern to all.

Fadel Abdallah, July 17 at 12:18 pm #

Right, we’re not running for office, we’re not politicians, so we can afford to tell the truth. But don’t expect this of any politician. That’s not what they do. “Pandering” is their job description. If they can get anything worthwhile done while they’re doing it, fine, but first things first.

“If there is no enemy then there is no reason of inducting billion of dollars in the Defence Budget. Do you think pentagon wants to see its budget going down? In my humble opinion no. “

hey! it would take billions of dollars and years of manpower to dismantle our 100s of 1000s of obsolete weapons and create a modern system to circumvent or at least minimize the future build up of dangerous, unused weaponry. this would be a solid days work that anyone could be proud of and require a huge peacetime budget for the pentagon to boot. yeah the mass lack of character and vision is off the hook and inherently so, but one day they will have to dig in to this shit and it will keep them plenty busy. why not now? i mean besides the fact that it’s not as fun as playing with people’s lives like chess pieces? my point is, just as in the case of domestic car manufacturing or capturing fossil fuels or even the dying record industry the entire system needs to be shook up and approached from the opposite side. in my alternate universe improvisation and humility are the real vehicles for kicking ass. technology is FLYING now. people that can accommodate rapid, sometimes totally uncharted change without a puffed up agenda will be the only ones who can take the heat. everyone else will be eating their dust.

Without getting into a process of hair-splitting in regard to William Pfaff’s article, I do agree with the essence of his argument. I believe that he is more informed and has a deeper reality based analysis than either Barack Obama or McCain. I further believe that it would serve Obama and this country well to place Pfaff as his top foreign policy adviser; for he has more sound judgment than all those stupid ignoramus ones who have been running our foreign policy for decades! Which is why they got us into this mess.

Of course, I am praising Pfaff on condition that he remains faithful to his principles and educated judgment; for if he becomes an adviser to Obama, he might have to do the things politicians do best: pandering to this or that group of lobbyists on the hope that they get elected! That’s why I believe that any reform to the current US political system should start with outlawing lobbies!

We all know the adage that says, “Power corrupts!” And no one is an exception to this rule, including myself. And that’s why I am not running for an office! (This last statement is intended as jest!)

Obama should definately think again, before he ungulfs this battered military on the other front, also unwinnable. If the Russians couldn’nt in their own backyard, what makes Obama think he has this country’s backing/?

No what he has is elitist backing and apparently allready commitments to that group which will in turn get him elected. What a democracy!!

I agree with Jackpine Savage. Afghans are and have been very well aware of the existence of the US. Ask the hippies that were there getting enlightened in the 70’s.I agree its the other way around. Just look at John McCain and his ignorance of the state of the Cech Republic. And yes the Taliban and Al Qaida are very much joined at the hip now though they weren’t always. Al Qaida, Islamic Jihad, Jamaat al Islami, et cetera are just umbrella groups of the wide ranging Wahhabi jihadi movements around the world.I think the author should do some research about Islam. The Taliban and Al Qaida are not examples of “traditionalist” Islam, they are part of a pretty young interpretation of Islam, they themselves just have the false idea that they are traditionalist Islam. And if the US doesn’t deal with the Taliban, it’s not going to be like “uh, okay the Americans have gone home we don’t need to attack them anymore”, no, the US needs to change its foreign policy toward Islamic countries and its “why, yes go ahead” support for Israel. Even 60% of Israelies know that. And Pakistan is full of shit too, but if we didn’t support India and its periscution of Kashmir and China and there persecution of Muslims which by they way they have been in China longer than most Islamic communities in non-Islamic countries, Pakistan wouldn’t be so unstable. I agree with the shift of Iraq back to Afghanistan. But I’m not saying it has to be “blow em up” policies either. Jackpine Savage is pretty right on. There is also a good book recomended to me by a Muslim Scholar called Imperial Hubris by an anonymous CIA officer that supports our policy changes toward the huge Islamic community of our planet. We have the power to pull the rug out from under the Islamists without war and bloodshed.

If this country and every country that has an entangling alliance with Israel were to end it, PT, and treat Israel just like any other country, it would go far towards making sure the training camps dry up because there’d be no more casus belli for fighting the West. The fantasy that Israel’s existence is somehow “ordained by God” and that it would be a sin to cease uncritical support for Israel has cost this country more blood and treasure than it can afford to lose. Similarly, the fantasy that “Uncle Sam is always right” and must therefore be supported in its “global war on terror” has cost the European countries far more blood and treasure than they can afford.

It’s got to stop.

Yep, use cruise missles on the al-Qaida training camps if they are reconstituted.  Whether or not that is thought cowardly by guys who (bravely?) put bombs on trains is of no concern, likewise whether it makes them mad.

However, if a candidate would allow the training camps to be run again, he should tell the American public that right now.

Bomb them, PT? With what? Nuclear weapons, perhaps?

Simply bombing people from long distance, or using cruise missiles, only outrages the targets and makes the bomber look like a coward for striking from the relative safety of high altitude or a submarine (or from the Oval Office, for that matter).

Afghanistan, like Iraq, needs to be written off. This country can’t win either of those open-ended quagmires; the longer they go on, the worse for America. As Sun Tzu said 2,500 years ago, “There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefitted.”

beerdoctor,

You are quite right.  Those Russian veterans know full well what committing to war in Afghanistan means.  I regularly gave money to an Afghan vet that i often passed on the street in St. Petersburg.  He wore his bdu’s and sat in an underpass…his light blue, spetsnez beret in his lap for collecting change.  His eyes were blank with the 1000 yard stare.  He had no arms and no legs.  And my guess was that he spent his time wishing that his buddies had killed him or let him die.

The Afghans have been there since time immemorial, never submitting to the rule of outsiders (Alexander was more passing through than occupying and losing to Alexander doesn’t really count because everyone lost to Alexander.)  My guess is that the Afghans know about America, but haven’t heard of - nor do they care about - the myth of American exceptionalism. 

Afghanistan is the wrong place to prove your tough guy credentials.  As people go, they’re hard as nails…harder than the Russians and that’s saying something.

Ok, wait a minute.  Pfaff says that the Northern Alliance “invaded”.  That’s false.  The NA was holed up in their valley, hemmed in but not defeated by the Taliban…but they were still in Afghanistan.  With US air support and money they rolled out; note that the NA leader was assassinated shortly after deposing the Taliban.

What kind of ignorant blather is to suggest that the Pashtun tribesmen don’t even know of the existence of the US?  Twenty years ago they were shooting US made missiles at Soviet aircraft.

What does “ungovernable” mean?  Maybe their tribal customs are perfectly good at governing themselves.  Much of the Taliban’s fundamentalism was brought in with the foreign mujahadin fighters from the Soviet occupation.  And the Pashtun code of giving shelter is non-negotiable, even when the person in need of shelter is your enemy.  Maybe they aren’t savages, they just have their own ways that the rest of the world keeps interfering in.  (And never mind that the Soviets were reviled by some for letting girls go to school, etc.)

Kath, heroin production in Afghanistan had dropped to zero under the Taliban.  The nation did not start accounting for 90% of world opium production until after the US arrived.  Moreover, Afghanistan previously exported unrefined opium.  Under US occupation they’ve become a heroin (refined opium) exporter.  And never mind that the stuff has been seen leaving the country in US military aircraft bound for the newly independent narco-mafia state of Kosovo.  And the original Taliban were supported/trained by the Paki ISI and funded by the US and Saudi Arabia.  Many of them were foreign fighters.  They won the post-Soviet civil war when the Western moneys started going exclusively to the Taliban.

The vast majority of US citizens, other than those currently bombing Afghanistan or Pakistan, undoubtedly are totally ignorant even of the existence of the Afghanistan, it’s history, people, or politics.

This is where the Illinois Senator reveals his lack of wisdom. There are most likely Russian veterans of the 1980 conflict who are shaking their heads thinking: he has no idea of what he is getting in to. Also, what is in the DNA of our American leaders, who think they have a God given right to screw with others? Make apologies forever if you care to, but only the doomed think they can win a war in Afghanistan. Call it the audacity of hubris.

I think the right way is to treat international terrorists as an international criminals, insofar as they are real danger and not a phoney pretext, to be handled within the context of international law by international courts, police, etc. We should become the become strongest supporters of the World Court.

Afghanistan is a big trap.  Obama could leave and state that if al-Qaida is allowed to set up training camps again there, the U.S. will bomb them.

Obama is trying to walk on water. Guess what, if he becomes our next President he will sink in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, if Osama is alive and they do catch him, maybe it will come out at his trial that he was working with the ISI, Mossad, CIA, etc.

If one believes 9-11 was an inside job, it seems a pointless exercise to run around Waziristan looking for a guy with a dyed beard.

“The United States has every interest in staying out od both.”  Exactly. We don’t need another cowboy in the White House. The world needs peace. Obama is no more committed to peace than McCain is—he just thinks he’s smarter, and he is really just as stupid….

”...At one point in their tangled history, they afforded hospitality to their fellow-traditionalist Muslim, the Saudi Arabian Osama bin-Laden. That was their big mistake. The Bush administration made the bigger mistake of becoming entangled with them, for which the United States will eventually be sorry. Barack Obama should think again….”

~~~~

Well, I have to agree with this. Barack Obama should in fact think again. His position on this (consistent as it is) is based on his ideology as a reaction to the attacks of 9/11. He’s NOT far off the mark that Pakistan had a hand in it, at least in my opinion. More than likely, they laundered the money, and continue to do so. ($22 billion from George to Musharraf since 2002)

But, that’s not gonna get him anywhere, so he needs to leave it alone. Yeah, Pakistan has terrorists. Yeah, Pakistan has the bomb. But..what can he really do about that, at this point? Not much.