Tony Wicher- How would an Israeli attack on the USS Liberty start an American war against Egypt, or the Middle East?  I ask because the motivation for this attack is still obscure, and many commenters, including myself, are puzzled by it.

KDelphi: ‘… We had “military advisers” there, as early as 1950(it may have seemed like a “minor” thing to us--to the Viet. peasants, it was prob not). ...’

I doubt if many Vietnamese peasants were affected by the MAAG mission under Eisenhower.  I think the maximum number reached was 1100, and they were really advisors.  Under Kennedy, the U.S. started training regular combat troops for service against guerrilla forces in a rural, densely forested tropical environment; it’s not hard to figure out what was being planned.

I have read that these plans were first composed in the 1950s at the instigation of Richard Nixon and Cardinal Spellman, but Eisenhower was too smart to put them into operation.  He was one of those people who perceived that an ill-defined war on the Asian land mass was not a good idea.  In any case, the insertion and use of regular large-scale combat units occurred on Kennedy’s watch, and I think he should be given credit for starting the war—the U.S. chapter of the war, that is.

I did not, in any way, say that Johnson was blameless, nor, even, less blameless than JFK. I just get tired of the idolization of JFK, like he was a “prince of peace”. When JFK took office, we had 800 “military advisers” in SE Asia. By the time he was assassinated, we had 16,300 troops. JFK, it is said (NYT) hoped that the S. Vietnamese military could soon “step up to the plate”. (Sounds familiar, eh?) And I am NOT targeting Dems for this. The US has been a very reckless nilitary invader for a very long time.

We had “military advisers” there, as early as 1950(it may have seemed like a “minor” thing to us--to the Viet. peasants, it was prob not). In 1965, JFK declared, after meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna, that"Now we have a problem in making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place”. (NYT)

Westmoreland was a war criminal (I’m sure you saw “The Fog of War"). He advised the escalation (surge?) in 1964, to 21,000 troops.In 1969, it was increased to 553,000. We were joined by Korea, Austrailia, New Zealand, Thailand and the phillipines. In 1968, Nixon won the the nomination /election with the fake “Peace with Honor” plan (of which, you prob know by now--he had none)

After the Gulf of Tonkin, Congress voted LBJ the power to “conduct military operations w/out a declaration of war” (sounds familiar again, eh?)

Reagan decided to fight out the “Cold War’ in Afghanistan (Thats what I think, anyway)When asked if he should be makign deals with a “terrorist” (binLaden), he replied “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. We did not defeat USSR. They were running out of money. If we had worked with Gorbachev a little more, under both Reagan and Clinton, I dont think we would have had the steamy relationship we have today. Bush made it worse, of course. He made everything worse.

The Gulf of Tonkin was almost certainly a fabrication (although, to this day, I’m sure that peole involved would say that they thought it was a real threat)

I guess that my point is, that to count on either party to “get us out of” (or keep us out of) further conflicts and invasions, as long as we claim to have this “moral authority” in the world, is useless. We spend way too much money on it, and , I think that most politicians just find it irresistable to use after awhile. (You remember Rummy--why have it if you dont use it, and moving from Afghanistan to Iraq because there were “not enough good targets”. That’s what Shock and Awe was)

I said that I did not believe the propagnda on the JFK assasssination. I meant, by that, the Oswald threory. But, unless I see evidence to the contrary (and i am open to taht), I think it is unfair to blame LBJ.

By KDelphi, September 23 at 1:11 pm #

Tony --There is no way that LBJ “manufactured the Vietnam war”. Eisenhower had some troops in, Kennedy escalated it, and LBJ continued it. I dont care for LBJ for alot of reasons.But to act like all the other Dems were innocent on Vietnam is to simoply be mistaken.
-----------------------------------------------------
All the other Dems were not innocent. Robert MacNamara is about as guilty as it is possible to be.

The Vietnam war was a minor conflict under Kennedy and Eisenhower. All the U.S. had at the time were “advisors.” At the time Kennedy was assassinated we had lost virutally no troops. Johnson escalated it to a major war, and he did so by manufacturing the Gulf of Tonkin incident, as all historians now admit. Of course most other Democrats did go along with it, were RIGHTLY tagged as responsible for the war by the American People. This is what destroyed the Democratic party, and that is why they have been out of power for most of the last 40 years. This is about to be reversed, as the American people hold Republicans responsible for the Iraq war. Let’s hope they don’t forget or forgive for another 40 years. 

What about the U.S.S. Liberty? Think that was just an accident? I don’t. I think Johnson was trying to manufacture another war to justify invading the Middle East, Egypt in this case. The Russians’ fortuitous appearance was the only thing that stopped it. The survivors of the Liberty are unanimous that this was a deliberate attack, not an accident.

The assassination of Kennedy? Does anybody in the 21st century still believe it was Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone? Who had connections with the Mafia in Dallas? Johnson. Who else could have covered it up but Johnson? 

The Kennedy

Fear, a reliable and very useful tool used by religions, Politics and extortionists.

Tony Wicher:
Turns out my last post was behind the curve. Now McCain is out there saying that we can’t just give a trillion dollars or 700 billion or whatever to Paulsen to do with as he sees fit, no questions asked or askable. I swear that is the exact opposite of what he said yesterday!

The politicians are getting the word from back home.

hat really surprises me is that normally enlightened people can see the political hack style politics (outlined by Cyrena below) of Obama (voting for a bill he intends to dismantle if elected) and fit this into a “change” mentality…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Da Bronx,

I’m not so sure that the FISA vote could be fit into a ‘change’ mentality. I wasn’t suggesting that myself, though we could certainly ‘fit’ it however we might choose to. Therein lies the problem in my own opinion.

The FISA thing wasn’t ‘change’ unless someone wants to conceive it that way. *I* personally call it *reality* though there is another academic sort of term for it; ‘real politick’ (which is supposed to be italicized, except that I can’t do it). Another word is pragmatism. Ideologues balk at that word pragmatism and reality, because I suppose the ‘idealist’ is the preferred cerebral choice. Makes sense.

But the bottom line on FISA is that Obama couldn’t have swayed that vote. That’s the reality of the process that we’ve been using since the beginning. They vote to change up the percentages of what takes what to pass or veto something from time to time, but that’s still the system. And when the system is hijacked, *from the INSIDE* as it has been by people from both parties, but one cannot blame the most destructive of the stuff on anyone other than the cabal that highjacked us ALL in the Coup of 2000, this is what happens.

The saddest part of the FISA vote, (which has been missed by the majority of the population) is that ANY Democrats voted for it!! At least that is my own opinion. But, they did. And that’s the reality. It really doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not Obama plans to revise it after he’s elected. It doesn’t even have to be ‘him’ that does it. It can be easily repaired in Congress, and I doubt he’d have any problems signing off on it. There really was only one loophole that needed to be addressed in the old one. (I think I have it tagged somewhere around here). But that’s just *me* throwing that in. I can’t speak for what Obama was considering for the future, and that may or may not have had any bearing on his thinking.

No, the REALITY part of it, was that the FISA thing was gonna pass, regardless of his vote. For me, had he voted against it (like Hillary did *THIS TIME* since this was taking place in FEBRUARY 2008, hint, hint) I would have seen it as some sort of a cheap trick, just like I perceived Hillary’s lame ass vote. (she’d intentionally avoided voting twice before – same issue). I think Purple Girl said it best, and I paraphrase…when you take a shot in the gut, and wind up with a gapping wound, and all you’ve got is a dirty, rotten, rag, you use it. (to stop the bleeding so you survive). And then, you go after the bastards that shot ya.

Anyway, that’s the reality, and we’ve come far from it, in all of the rhetoric and linguistic misuse. He’s been accused of ‘supporting’ the violation of out rights, and ‘encouraging’ a police state, and blah, blah, blah. But the reality is that he doesn’t like it any better than many of us do, and he’s already said that. He said it up front, when apparently nobody was listening. He said, “I DON’T LIKE it. It’s not what I wanted….” But, it didn’t matter, because enough other people were gonna pass it, and they did. So, he (and the rest of us) took one in the gut.

And, that takes us back to the saddest part. Why are more American’s not asking why their own representatives voted to pass that legislation? Why did it get through the House, and wind up at the Senate, with little more than the revision that Obama tacked on to eliminate the immunity for the telecoms? It didn’t pass by a paltry margin. It passed by a substantial majority. So, what’s up with that? I’d say that there are several million American’s who aren’t doing their own part. In fact, I *know that*.

Tony --There is no way that LBJ “manufactured the Vietnam war”. Eisenhower had some troops in, Kennedy escalated it, and LBJ continued it. I dont care for LBJ for alot of reasons.But to act like all the other Dems were innocent on Vietnam is to simoply be mistaken.

He passed Medicaid, and tried to pass alot of the “Great Society” laws. He also signed the Voting Rights Act, (which I’m sure youve been told by now, it is ‘racist” even to mention LBJ and the VRA in the same sentence--its not)

He admitted that, by signing it, he would be ‘giving away the south to the GOP for the rest of his lifetime”. And he did.But, he says he thought that it was the right thing to do. He may have had poitical reasons, also, but so does every damn president we’ve had. And, if you think Obama is not political, well...I dont know>

I dont like alot of things he did (bombing Cambodia is certaily the worst), but this idolization of JFK, and demonization of LBJ , is a littel silly. If you THINK he killed JFK, then, that is your opinion. I suppose RFK adn MLKJ, too. I dont necessarily go along with the propaganda theories, but I just find the idea that, just becauwse they didnt get along, LBJ just participated in his murder. I’d have to see more than an opinion.

If you like Clinton’s messing arond--you wouldve loved JFKs!! He never even got in any trouble for it. I dont really give a damn, but, there it is.

What JFK did in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, to the Cuban peasants, who were merely trying to get rid of capitalist dictator Baptista, was an extreme over-reaction. Castro came to Kennedy for help first. The continuing blockade is nonsense.

JFK did some good things, of course. To my mind, the entire american presidency is an “over-reaction”. We put way too much power, hopes, adn angers into this one person. No one can live up to these expectations, and half the country wil always be unhappy about who wins. We need proportional representation, a prime minister, parliament (that can question the pM), etc. But, that is just my opinion.

By Da Bronx, September 23 at 5:03 am #

It’s quite sad really. If the Democrats had run a real candidate (instead of getting all PC with gender and race) they would have won this thing in a landslide al la LBJ in ‘64. 

(1) LBJ was the biggest snake in the history of the United States, at least until Bush. Besides the Vietnam war which he engineered with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the U.S.S. Liberty which looks like a similar effort to justify an invasion of the Middle East that barely failed, there is also the assassination of JFK, for which I believe he is ultimately responsible.

(2) Obama is a real candidate, the most progressive since Roosevelt, your cheap cynicism notwithstanding. He represents the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, the Howard Dean wing, and not the DLC-corporate wing represented by Clinton. His victory within the Democratic party was historic and has united the party and made it more progressive. His election will represent the realization of Martin Luther King’s dream. You call that “PC”? If you are right it will be because there are enough cheap cynics like you.

Re Folktruther, September 22 at 7:07 pm

If Republicans steal this election and Obama calls them on it, you will see more that 500,000 march on Washington and I will be one of them.

1 of 2 re: Folktruther, September 22 at 7:07 pm
Cyrena, the point of Obama’s voting for lawless spying is:

1. “He promise his supporters he would OPPOSE it and not only broke his promise to progressives but voted against the filibuster for it.”

• ~Admittedly I’m done with the issue on the FISA bill. I was thoroughly disgusted that ANY democrats voted for it, and the big ta-do about Obama voting for it is just so much wasted air to me. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: There *are* in fact larger issues where Obama makes me downright nervous, but this isn’t one of them. I managed to ‘follow’ it while it was going down, and as much as some folks might wanna make it about Obama, it just ain’t. There reality of the parliamentary process and real politick all speaks for itself. So, I’m not wasting anymore time on this particular subject. The stuff is easily enough rewritten under a new Congress, and that’s what I expect to happen. I don’t beat dead horses. There’s also been nothing that verifies that he voted against a filibuster for it. I know that he wrote a revision to it (which was his OPPOSITION to the telecom immunity) and while that did go to a vote, it didn’t pass. I’ve not been aware of any vote to filibuster. Must’ve missed that part.

2.  “He is comfortable with police state measures in the US, and will support our bipartisan decline into a police state to be president despite his identificatiion with Constitutional law.”

• Same here. I’m obviously aware of the increased police state measures that have been going on for EIGHT LONG ASS YEARS, but I’ve not heard Obama say anything that would indicates that he supports it or is otherwise ‘comfortable’ with that. That kind of language makes me nervous as well. “Comfortable” with? I dunno folktruther. Actually, I do know. I’m not buying that.

Think up some other stuff to black ball him on. (no pun intended). This is all nothing more than a pimple on a gnats ass when one is inclined to recognize what’s REALLY happened to us. And, I hate even THINKING about how much time I’ve spent yelling about the police state, and the encroaching collapse, without anybody ever seeming to be all that concerned before. And even now, most folks, (there are exceptions here – like progressives dems who really ARE progressive dems, and have been working hard WITH OTHER progressive dems in the PDA) don’t seem to get their own responsibilities on the local levels, to put the right people in the Congress.

Oh yeah, we’ve had some sins committed in this respect right here in my own lovely state. (maybe we’re too big and should consider secession – I’m for it) but overall, we’ve been able to work around most of the traitors and the leach-elitists, and actually get some good people elected here and there, and at some point in the near future, we’ll get rid of the criminals and the bums, at least from my own state.

But, we aren’t responsible for what this criminal cabal noted as the bush administration has destroyed in the past 8 years, and nobody can say I didn’t tell you so, or try to blame THAT on Obama too. The reality says *he* ‘didn’t do it.’ The irony is that if Dick Bush hadn’t fucked us up SOOOO badly, and if some of us hadn’t been able to see this getting worse and worse, waaayyyy back when, Barack Obama probably wouldn’t have run for the office this time around.

Seriously. I mentioned this right about the time he decided to run, and I’ve been thinking it ever since. If any of this was about Obama, he wouldn’t be running. It isn’t a ‘political’ thing, at least for *him*, because he’s a young guy. And as you said, is a politically talented and intelligent man, though I don’t believe it’s his job to serve a ‘useful purpose’ as a black person. Sorry. That’s not why he’s running.

2 of 2 re: By Folktruther, September 22 at 7:07 pm

In fact, in running, he knows as well as any other intelligent person does, that he’s open to assassination on any given day of the week, at any given time of the day. That’s a reality he knew going in, and again…if it was about him, he didn’t have to run now. He could have hung out for another 8 years, and kept on doing whatever he was doing, enjoying his family, blessing his students, and becoming a progressive power-ball in the Senate. It’s not like the prez job pays all that much. (I think it’s still $300,000 a year) and look at all the work involved?

So, him being black is of limited relevance except of course in the large proportions of racists still hanging about, and concentrated largely on main st usa. If he’s ‘useful’ it’s because he’s a good thinker, a talented politician, an intelligent and educated politician, and genuinely has the interests of the USA (that’s us) as his highest priority. NOT because he’s black. In fact, the only ones who pay attention to his race aren’t the ones likely to think him ‘useful’ for anything. Besides, slavery has been outlawed for well over a century. So the bottom line is that he really doesn’t ‘have’ to be ‘useful’ to anybody other than himself and his family.

Still, SOMEBODY has to STOP the carnage; here, there and everywhere, and there wasn’t another person running, besides Kucinich that would have done it. And, I’m not so sure that Kucinich *could* have done it, because he’s another purist, and he hasn’t really made the right kind of ‘connections’. It’s probably not his ‘fault’ per se, but that’s just the way it worked out. Nader would have been another option if he wasn’t such an obstinate renegade, determined to be the “anti-politician”, politician. What a perennial paradox. 

As for your unsubstantiated suggestion that Obama’s military and corporate policies are similar to bush, I’m certain you and I don’t process the same information (judging by what he’s ‘done’ so far) in the same manner. He hasn’t ‘done’ much of anything lately, except campaign. That’s the American tradition. Every 4 years, we do this. The only other thing candidates ‘do’ during this time every 4 years, is their current job duties, which of course we know are often left to the general attendance of a staff under these circumstances.

So, for you to say what he’s done so far, really doesn’t give us anything to work with, in agreement OR disagreement. We could agree or disagree with what he’s SAID he will do, based on real-time circumstances and situations, but that’s about all. You can look to what he’s done or failed to do as a Senator, but I don’t think that’s gonna do much for your case.

So you say that this election isn’t going to ‘solve’ anything. Actually, it will. It will STOP the DESTRUCTION!!! It will halt the ongoing destruction of the past 8 years. In other words, we can at least begin to work at putting the fire out, instead of continuing to feed it with that toxic brand of Dick Bush oxygen. And it will do a lot more if there is a significant changeover in the both chambers of Congress as well. MOST of the repugs and the corporate dems have to go, and be replaced with a few dozen more of the Bernie Sanders lineage.

So yes, I believe this election CAN solve *some* things. Not everything, and not immediately, because the destruction has been so huge that the worst of it will take decades to repair. I’m under no illusions about that. No train can stop on a dime. That’s why we have train wrecks.

So, whether it DOES resolve anything more than putting out the fire remains to be seen. It CAN happen in a way that gives us at the minimum, a survival option, and that would be an Obama administration. Or, we could jack this up too, and just end it all in a final collapse of what little is actually still standing.

Folktruther: Though your post wasn’t directed at me, it does make me curious. I am not thrilled by Obama either. Is your point that McCain is a preferable choice? I disagree.
McCain=Bush, which for all of his shortcomings, and there are several, Obama isn’t. All the blogging in the world isn’t going to change that. Just what is your proposal re: the POTUS election or are you going to sit it out? Do you have a candidate?

Cyrena, the point of Obama’s voting for lawless spying is:

1. He promise his supporters he would OPPOSE it and not only broke his promise to progressives but voted against the filibuster for it.

2.  He is comfortable with police state measures in the US, and will support our bipartisan decline into a police state to be president despite his identificatiion with Constitutional law.

He also appointed a Zionist war monger as VP who innitiated a law adding a hundred thousand police to the US.  He is for more American gunmen both abroad and in the US.

In addition to being a militarist, he is corporate Dem.  He was the major force behind the credit card corps gutting the old bankrupcy bill.  In addition, Obama has all the old Clintonites as advisers and would be cabinet members, including Rubin who was strongly againsst regulation of Wall street.

Obama is politially talented, intelligent, and seves a useful purpose in serving as a black president, but the military and corporate policies are similar to Bush and McCain.  He is going to continue them, judged by what he has done so far.

I can understand voting for him as an alternative to the joke Gop candidates, but the election will not solve anything.  It will be more of the same, possibly better managed.  And the historical trajectory is downward to more war and economic collapse.

So the population must be mobilized against it.  How this can be done when the corporations have destroyed the unions, the universities are their captives, and the chruches are loony is something that has to be worked out.  This will not be done by voting for Obama, or anyone for that matter.  If voting actually changed anything it would be illegal.

We have to get to the point where instead of 5 housand protesters at the RNC, there are five hundred thousand.  It can be done historically as people realize that the corporations have taken control of the government and they are driving the American people, and the people of the world, into the ground.  It is our task to moralize the
American people, and the election is to a large extent a distraction from this task.

Turns out my last post was behind the curve. Now McCain is out there saying that we can’t just give a trillion dollars or 700 billion or whatever to Paulsen to do with as he sees fit, no questions asked or askable. I swear that is the exact opposite of what he said yesterday!

Re: Cyrena

Your comment: “Actually, that’s EXACTLY who you go to,”

>> I disagree.  It is obvious you’re attempting to paint this as some inside, really intelligent thing to do.

It won’t fly.  Using that type of reasoning, maybe Obama should choose GW as VP, or McCain.  Hell… let’s put Manson in charge of the prison system too.  How about Jeffrey Dahmer in charge of missing persons...?

I hear voices saying the bailout is a big power grab which the administration is trying to stampede through. Pelosi and the Democrats, together with Obama, seem to be digging in their heels. McCain is out there saying that “we can’t wait for Senator Obama’s input” and we have to give Paulsen and the administration a blank check for some 700 billion, no questions asked. This is going to be good! I’m off to watch the Rachel Maddow Show!

The Corporationist ( In inudstry and In POLITICS) have been trying to tear down all safety measures which were installed in this country since the Great depression- 80 yrs ago!
Reagan was the first to make head way- Privatizing and deregulating everything he could get away with.Clinton sold the Store out from under US (NAFTA)- We were beginning a downslide at the end of the ‘90s.
9/11 was not an Unforeseeable event Either. Iran Hostage/ Highjackings/WTC ‘93.....Fill in the other numerous events that apply. We knew we Wanted OUT of the M.E. In the ‘70’s - We wanted Off their Oil (and their YoYo hoarding) and We wanted to sever any other ties -esp economically. Now who do we owe our children’s and Grandchildrens future to?
These Oil Corps and the Immoral Financial Gamblers ‘Danced with the Devil’ and THEY, PERSONALLY, SHOULD PAY THE PRICE!
So now we have to add another Trillion for their Good Time on OUR Bill! Freeze their personal and Co assets, Seize all their Capital and ship their asses aver to Saudi Arabia, or China for the Remaining Balance Due!If they are dead and gone- seize the kids stuff they have received from this ‘Blood Money’
there is as much Blood on the hands of the “Trickle Downers”, the Oil, Auto and Financial industries in this country as Osama Bin Ladens! THOSE ARE WHO’S ‘CHICKENS HAVE COME HOME TO ROOST’ Let’s Cook ‘em Up for Dinner!

Outraged:
I’m well aware that Obama got much support from “voters” to vote no on the FISA legislation. I was one of them. I realized at the time, that I should have sent it to the other 68 Senators who voted for it as well, but I didn’t. So, it wasn’t enough for the ‘voters’ to support ONE Senator to vote no. Maybe the voters should have targeted their own senators to vote no. How did yours vote? In the current system, (been set up this way for close to three hundred years now) those people voting in the House and the Senate –ARE- the ‘voters’, and 68 of them (including Obama) passed the bill. That’s still the reality, whether you wanna accept it or not. They needed 51 either way. Sorry, your reality is off the numbers.
And yeah, I got the message from Obama’s vote as well, but I didn’t just use his vote to get the message. I looked at everything else, and we’ve gone through this before. For you, it’s about ‘symbolism’. I’ve yet to find a way to use symbols to pay for groceries, or to squeeze blood from a turnip, or really for much of anything at all. The message I got was that after 3 years of wrangling with these jackasses, it was time to move on. Obama made the point on gridlock, and I happen to have first hand experience in what gridlock does NOT accomplish. One can stand in the road beating a dead horse, or one can start walking. I generally choose to start walking when I can.

• “To turn things around, (and that may not be a plausible option) you don’t go to the crooks who helped create the situation!  As you know, liberal economics IS the free-market ideology.”
Actually, that’s EXACTLY who you go to, IN ADDITION to others.

Thanks for the quotes from Furman. I really didn’t know anything about him, and this gives me more.

As for free market ideology, it is what it is, and Obama damn sure didn’t invent it. Neither did his advisers.

Re: Cyrena

Your comment: “Here’s the ‘overwhelming support you mentioned. Reality strikes again!”

He had overwhelming support from VOTERS.  That is the overwhelming support I spoke of, but you’re well aware of that aren’t you.  In addition, voting FOR this legislation sent a message, I received it. 

About Furman:

“During a Tuesday conference call with reporters, Furman was peppered with questions about Rubin’s influence by Tom Edsall, a long-time Washington Post writer who is now political editor at the liberal Huffington Post.

Stammering at first, Furman said his appointment was “no reflection at all” on Rubin’s influence before suggesting that the advice of Rubin, who is now chairman of Citigroup’s executive committee, would be balanced by more labor-oriented economists.

“Before taking this job,” he continued, “I spoke regularly to folks like Jared Bernstien (of the liberal Economic Policy Institute) and since taking it I’ll speak to them even more often, and I’ll certainly speak to Bob Rubin and (former Treasury Secretary) Larry Summers and James Galbraith, (a liberal University of Texas economist) “as well....”

“....So I think I personally have a pretty wide range of people that I like to talk to about the economy, and learn from, and that is certainly where Sen. Obama is,” Furman continued. “And I don’t think this has anything to do with, with my own personal views.  They’re not relevant for a staff person on the campaign.”

Later in the call, Edsall asserted that Furman comes from a school of economics that is “more free-market oriented” than Obama’s tone during the run-up to the Ohio primary when the Illinois Democrat was outspoken about his pledge not only to aid workers displaced by trade but also to renegotiate the NAFTA agreement which is already on the books with Mexico and Canada....

“....“I think he had a choice,” Sirota said of Obama’s Furman pick, “he could bring someone in with a worker’s perspective, or a Wall Street perspective, and he chose someone who, at least starts, in Wall Street’s camp, and I think that’s a troubling signal...”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama- economic.html

Your comment: “I don’t know why he ALLOWED Madeline Albright to drift from the Hillary camp over to his. I don’t know how or why Rubin became involved either. Same with Furman. Maybe Furman knows something we don’t, and Rubin sure knows how the shit got jacked-up to begin with.

As for Biden, I don’t have any particular issues with him...at least nothing serious. He could have probably selected someone else, but something makes me think you wouldn’t have approved of them either.

>> But Obama didn’t select someone else, he choose this group.  For this reason I will not vote for Obama.  It is apparent, that you are comfortable with or support his choices.  I don’t.  Rubin and Furman are of the “free-market ideology”.  That’s why were in the mess we’re in.  Obviously, “free market” is just a useful more palatible term for “screw the little guy”. 

I’m quite POSITIVE Furman and Rubin “know things” we don’t.  To turn things around, (and that may not be a plausible option) you don’t go to the crooks who helped create the situation!  As you know, liberal economics IS the free-market ideology.

They call it “free-market”, I call it criminal.
You call it narrow-minded, I call it critical reasoning.

We have to start somewhere. As a class we can sit in boards like this pointing the finger at the two inept, corrupt major parties who are both to blame or get off our ass and take a short term proactive step to get our country back from the thieves. Bottom line: like it or not, there is an election in six weeks and only one of two men has a chance to win POTUS. The choice is not good: Bush III, with metastatic brain cancer and an idiot hick VP who couldn’t teach high school civics, on the one hand. On the other, a minor-league speech-maker surrounded by old-school stiffs whose GOP-lite boss left sperm stains on the oval office floor. After eight years of being bled dry, I am sick at this choice but will vote, and not throw it away on some straw dog like Ron Paul, loudmouth like McKinney, or egomaniac like Nader. I am going to have no choice but to hold my nose and vote for Obama and resume my activities trying to get people to wake up and demonstrate for worker’s rights.
We need to take a hard look at what this country has become. We are the country club of the world, and its meth capital. We love our guns, our prescription drugs, and our full-size pickups, our fantasy football leagues and baseball players that make as much to play a game as Babe Ruth did to play a season. We have let the thieves run amok for eight years, blatantly, and for over 20 without any reigns, and though they have robbed us before, we never stopped them from doing it again.
There should be no one in this country with personal income above $1 million that is not subject to flat, 98% income tax. Corporate taxes on windfall profits should be similar; profit levels should be planned and coordinated to comply with other economic goals after full employment of all at substantially higher living wages and health benefits are realized, and other social goals are realized for the working class. Society should be the common shareholders in major corporations which should be centrally planned and run by committees of working class members. It is wrong for members of a society to wallow in luxury while contributing nothing while other, constitutionally equal members of the society are working themselves to death to avoid destitution and sickness, or failing in that effort. If the Secretary of the Treasury can make law and make my life savings be risked to save bankers who stole from this society, we need to start by change at the top. The first change is going to be small, but it will be a change to end the Bush/Cheney Reichstag. It is not a vote of confidence for the Democratic, capitalist thieves, but the cold equations. I will vote, and for Obama. Long live the worker revolution and the Socialist New Deal.

One of the best articles I’ve read on this.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& aid=10279

The government shouldn’t be willing to rush in.  The market will sort itself out and many will loose the fortunes they made getting into this mess.

• “…In addition, I am not holding Obama SOLELY responsible as you infer.  Obama is one of the current presidential candidates, so it MATTERS MORE.  For that reason, with the overwhelming support he had from his voting block AND outside of it, he should have voted it down....but he didn’t.  Why...?”

Outraged,

Here’s the ‘overwhelming support you mentioned. Reality strikes again!

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session

As compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question:On Passage of the Bill (S.2248 as Amended )

Vote Number:  20 Vote Date:  February 12, 2008, 05:30 PM
Required For Majority:  1/2 Vote Result:  Bill Passed
Measure Number:  S. 2248 (FISA Amendments Act of 2007 )

Measure Title:  An original bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, to modernize and streamline the provisions of that Act, and for other purposes.

Vote Counts:  YEAs 68
NAYs 29
Not Voting 3

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/ roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote= 00020

Why didn’t he ‘vote it down’? He couldn’t. (vote it “down” that is.) He could have voted no though. And if he had, it would THEN have passed 67 to 30. Gee. What is it about that, that you don’t get?

“What’s with choosing Robert Rubin, Madeline Albright, and Jason Furman as advisors?  What in the world made him decide to choose Biden as VP?  Why is he endorsing the funding of faith-based groups?  In fact, he’s expanding them. Why is NAFTA, only symbolic..?  These issues have to do with more than just some voting block.”

I don’t know why he ALLOWED Madeline Albright to drift from the Hillary camp over to his. I don’t know how or why Rubin became involved either. Same with Furman. Maybe Furman knows something we don’t, and Rubin sure knows how the shit got jacked-up to begin with.

As for Biden, I don’t have any particular issues with him...at least nothing serious. He could have probably selected someone else, but something makes me think you wouldn’t have approved of them either.

• “To add insult to injury, Obama TAUGHT constitutional law, yet these are the people he’s choosing and this is his platform...!?  If that DOESN’T scare you nothing will. “

I don’t know why you are so narrowly imbued as to suggest that ‘this’ (whatever THIS is) is his ‘platform’. Tell me again what his ‘platform’ is. Do you REALLY think his ‘platform’ is about faith-based incentive groups? Do you really think that his platform, (which you’ve failed to explain, other than to say ‘this is his platform’) is based on 3 individuals that you don’t like, (I don’t like Albright, and I don’t know enough about Furman to like him or not like him…so how do you?) and a proposal to fund non-governmental groups, some of whom have religious affiliations is what is platform is ALL about?

No, THAT scares me Outraged. It scares the shit out of me every time I encounter such a narrow view, and I say that as a comparative law scholar myself. (yes, that includes a thorough study of Constitutional Law...a full 2 years worth of that alone). That’s how I know there’s more than one section of the Constitution, and more than one amendment, and how jurisprudence connects them. My guess is that you don’t.

WE’RE GONNA HAVE A SCARY HALLOWEEN!” A musical forewarning on this same theme. Mp3/Lyrics:

http://soundclick.com/share?songid=5896354

Mr. Scheer, you were phenomenal on Democracy Now. Thank you. Let’s hope your comments and insights will “go viral” starting today.

re cyrena and jackpine:

“A return to the draft *now*, such as existed in the 60’s and 70’s of the Vietnam Era, would have prevented these “Adventures of Dick Bush” times to even happen. Iraq what not have been allowed if a draft had been operating at the time. I’m convinced of that. The ‘then’ ‘middle-class’ would not have allowed it. “Not my child”. Cynical? Maybe. But, that’s how it’s been, and that’s what was planned and expected.”
===================================================
I totally agree with both of you. The so-called “volunteer” army we have now is essentially a mercenary army of poor people, for whom going into the army is the only way to get a foot on the economic ladder up in a society which has ceased to offer other forms of equal opportunity such as a good education, while the rest of us follow Bush’s suggestion and go shopping. They are goven all sorts of phoney honors but they are just being used. I am for bringing back the draft, and also for expanding it so that every young person is required to do two years of public service whether in peace or war. I would hope that the most of such work would be of the peace corps variety. Young people could learn all sorts of job skills that way, a work ethic and a sense of public service. I think something like that might be just the thing to pry a lot of Gen X and Y slackers out of their parent’s house and get them on the road to being contributing members of society.

Re: Cyrena

Your comment: “I’m still hoping you’ll explain to me how Obama was responsible for the FISA bill.”

>> I have gone there.  Again, there wasn’t any reason to vote for the FISA legislation.  Obama did.  Why...?  Wouldn’t it have been IN HIS INTERESTS as a candidate to vote against it?  So, why did he vote FOR it...?  He had overwhelming support to vote against it.  So why..?  Think about that in terms of how, when, what and why Obama choose to do that?

In addition, I am not holding Obama SOLELY responsible as you infer.  Obama is one of the current presidential candidates, so it MATTERS MORE.  For that reason, with the overwhelming support he had from his voting block AND outside of it, he should have voted it down....but he didn’t.  Why...?  This is what we need to understand, at least concerning FISA.  But there are other issues here as well.  Many of them David Sirota points out in his article.  And he’s correct.  We cannot ignore these things, well...I suppose we can, but at our own peril.

What’s with choosing Robert Rubin, Madeline Albright, and Jason Furman as advisors?  What in the world made him decide to choose Biden as VP?  Why is he endorsing the funding of faith-based groups?  In fact, he’s expanding them. Why is NAFTA, only symbolic..?  These issues have to do with more than just some voting block.

To add insult to injury, Obama TAUGHT constitutional law, yet these are the people he’s choosing and this is his platform...!?  If that DOESN’T scare you nothing will.

McCain is terrible for THE PEOPLE also.  Gramm is McCain’s economic advisor, his mentor, Robert Rubin is Obama’s.  Both worked for Goldman-Sachs while this whole mess ensued!  I will not vote for McCain and I will not vote for Obama.  You have to HAVE a breaking point, I agree with Nader on that.

You can trust me on this.  There will NEVER be “a good time” to vote outside the two-parties, THEY’LL MAKE SURE OF THAT.  I will not vote out of fear or intimidation.  I KNOW what that is. And I ALSO KNOW where succumbing to it will get you.

Do what you will, but I will vote for Nader.  I can trust Nader to stand up and to fight for what he says he believes is right.

OK, I got curious about the draft/conscription thing, so I started checking around. I still haven’t answered my own question.

Be that as it may, this is very interesting, if only because this is from 2004. (the last time we did this presidential election exercise)

~~~

~” 530634, KERRY’S NO-DRAFT PLAN vs. BUSH SPENDING $28 MIL to reactivate DRAFT!

Posted by Dems Will Win on Wed May-19-04 04:18 PM
This summer Bush is reducing DRAFT ACTIVATION time by having the SSS conduct NATIONWIDE EXERCISES to test the whole system, even to the point of filling all DRAFT BOARD vacancies and gearing up the Alternative Service for COs for the first time in three decades. With the current reactivation plan due to go into effect in a few weeks, the SSS must report to the Director on March 31, 2005 they are tuned up and ready to conscript within 75 days of reauthorization from Congress (just a trigger resolution is needed, no new law). The first lottery for 20 year-olds could be June 15, 2005.

http://www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html

That’s what Bush is doing. Quietly oiling up the DRAFT Machinery for Spring 2005.

Before 130 College Paper Editors in April, Kerry when asked about the draft said “NO. NO DRAFT.”

Kerry’s NO-DRAFT plan to raise 40,000 additional troops and avoid reinstatement of the draft is added up this way (my synthesis):

1. Move some paper-pushers to combat (lots of potential there in nearly a million non-active-duty)
2. Increase enlistment with real scholarships and pay raises
3. Let troops know Special Ops will hunt al-Queda, no more invasions needed, so Guard/Reserve re-up rate goes up. “Primarily a law enforcement effort, not a full military effort”, say JK on MTP last Sunday.
4. Start a “Civilian Stability Corps” that would help in reconstructing Afghanistan and Iraq and relieve military pressure.
5. GET FOREIGN TROOPS TO COME INTO INSTEAD OF LEAVE IRAQ!!

http://www.candidatemap.com

“...I propose that we enlist thousands of them in a Civilian Stability Corps, a reserve organization of volunteers ready to help win the peace in troubled places. Like military reservists, they will have peacetime jobs; but in times of national need, they will be called into service to restore roads, renovate schools, open hospitals, repair power systems, draft a constitution, or build a police force. A Civilian Stability Corps can bring the best of America to the worst of the world—and reduce pressure on the military.”

< Source: Kerry, John. “Protecting Our Military Families in Times of War: A Military Family Bill of Rights.”

March 17, 2004. http://johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0317.html >

With this NO-DRAFT PLAN, Kerry will not have to resort to conscription, even after Bush screwed the whole thing up.

From STOPTHEDRAFT.COM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.p hp?az=view_all&address=132x530634

By jackpine savage, September 21 at 6:55 pm

• “But there is some sense to a draft in that it does a better job of spreading the burden of war across socio-economic lines. …..A major reason why the adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq have gotten so little sustained resistance is because they can be ignored by the “middle class”.  The suburban kids don’t have to make a decision to fight, resist, or run...so their parents don’t have to confront the issue either. “
~~~~~~

EXACTLY!!!!

That’s what I’ve been saying for years now, but nobody was ‘getting’ it. Or, at least it didn’t seem like it. Because, like you said…the middle class (what’s left of it) can ‘ignore it’ and…. they do. That’s just the truth of it.

That’s also why I ‘got it’ when Rangle first introduced it, along with another guy I can’t remember. He said it then, that without a draft, we were gonna wind up with a mostly black and brown army, with poor white people filling it in.

It was bound to develop that way, as long as there was no fear of a draft. A return to the draft *now*, such as existed in the 60’s and 70’s of the Vietnam Era, would have prevented these “Adventures of Dick Bush” times to even happen. Iraq what not have been allowed if a draft had been operating at the time. I’m convinced of that. The ‘then’ ‘middle-class’ would not have allowed it. “Not my child”. Cynical? Maybe. But, that’s how it’s been, and that’s what was planned and expected.

Nobody ever expected such an idea to get anywhere in the Congress. (it might be worth a trivia sort of research, to actually find out if, with all of this so-called ‘draft talk’, is there anything actually in the ‘system’ right now to indicate that? I mean like some sort of legislation?

That was over 6 years ago when Rangle and the other guy made such a proposal, which obviously died before it went anywhere. And, I don’t see any citations to specific legislation reinstate the draft. 

That stuff does still have to happen. Nobody can just zap the draft right into place again. I mean, it’s ALMOST that bad, but there’s still SOME tiny measure of pretense that we’re trying to follow here. I mean, we’re at least pretending to have a Congress, because they keep passing or approving a lot of *bad* Law!! It’s not even bad law, it’s something far worse.

Still, I don’t see a draft happening without the approval of Congress. Unless...Cheney uses his Unitary Executive status as world chief, to call for it himself. Far as I know, only the Prez (that would be Cheney in this case) can call for the conscription thing. Am I wrong?

Somebody can advise on that, one way or another. I can’t remember if the decision to abandon it after Vietnam, (or whenever it was) was just a “Presidential” decision, (as in Executive Order) or if something like that needed to be introduced in both Houses of Congress. I don’t know if I ever knew (to remember). Just seems like it was something that happened in the Clinton era. My history could be way off.

Well, I got way side-tracked as well. I was just agreeing with why the draft does make sense, if folks really wanna be fair about it.

They don’t. That’s what I figured out a long time ago.

Re: Cyrena
Most likely you MISSED this portion of the article, dated June 25, 2002.
~~~~~~
Nope, I didn’t miss it Outraged. In fact, I even REPEATED (as in copied and pasted)it, in one of my own posts right here. So, maybe you missed that. (and it’s not important enough for me to go looking for at this point).

So yeah, I read it. I read it when it was published in the LA Times, and I read it when it was published here, and I agree..it is what it is. You’re basically only repeating what I said in the earlier post.

But, just for the hell of it, I’m willing to repeat a portion of it here. The problems that we see in the financial collapse now DID start long before little bush. They began with Regan’s Era of trickle down (NOT) and side supply economics. Regan’s Era was the start of massive deregulation that hasn’t stopped since. The airline industry was among the first to be DEREGULATED, and it became a survival of the fittest, with the ‘successors’ violating anti-trust laws everywhere a bear can shit. We’re talking dog eat dog. Remember PATCO? That was Regan…union busting Regan.

And yes, I agree that the Clinton’s had a part in it. I’ve never been inclined to give Clinton a pass. EVER. Yes, he DID sign-off on NAFTA. His wife, (as far as I’m concerned) *IS* the original Miss Wal-Mart. SHE was a Goldwater Girl. And yes, Slick Willey DID sign off on NAFTA. No, He didn’t come up with NAFTA, because that was long before his time. But yeah, he did follow it through and sign-off on it.

Again, I REPOSTED this very thing in my earlier comment….
• ”To be fair, the corporate corruption of our political system has long been bipartisan. The Clinton White House, for example, sponsored major deregulation acts, including the Financial Services Modernization Act, which reversed consumer protections enacted under Roosevelt, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which effectively ended all public accountability for the communications industry and has permitted a few media giants to gobble up vast markets.

I even CAPITALIZED the ‘to be fair’ because I still haven’t figured out how to do bold and italics for postings. So it would appear that your complaint is my mention of the 8 year Kleptocracy, which has actually been ON TOP of the standard corporate corruption of the political system that has LONG BEEN BIPARTISAN. And, I personally don’t have a problem ‘qualifying’ that at all, since I can point to several ‘sources’ that turned it all into a full fledged KELPTOCRACY since the COUP of 2000. Oh yeah, I can qualify it very clearly. My guess is that even a moron could manage that, when we know that we weren’t spending a BILLIONS a week on wars prior to the Coup. And, that’s been only one of the new mechanisms of the Kleptocracy.

So, if you want to argue about something really substantial, (instead of picking at semantics) I’m still hoping you’ll explain to me how Obama was responsible for the FISA bill. But, you don’t seem to wanna go there, other than to say that he voted for it. You just keep repeating that over and over again, like if he was the sole ‘decider’ and his one vote is the reason it passed, and would have otherwise failed if he hadn’t voted yes on that portion of it. (you’ve also failed to acknowledge that he added language to the senate version that would have prevented the immunity for telecoms, but that it failed, because again…he wasn’t the only one voting).

Now I love to argue about things that we can all gain from, but bullshit semantics isn’t helpful. If you want it to be a 30 or 40 year Kleptocracy, I’m good with that. Call it whatever you want.

Bush got a blank check for his Iraq War, are we going do the same on this bail out?  Accountability please, regulations please. Where has all the money gone? Seems like the old trickle up theory?

“Another fine mess you got us into Ollie!

But there is some sense to a draft in that it does a better job of spreading the burden of war across socio-economic lines.

A major reason why the adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq have gotten so little sustained resistance is because they can be ignored by the “middle class”.  The suburban kids don’t have to make a decision to fight, resist, or run...so their parents don’t have to confront the issue either.

What seems to be happening is that what Paulson has announced is that he will establish a Federal agency to buy up what will amount to trillions of dollars of bad debt. The debt will become the liability of the US taxpayer. The bankers will get off scot free.

But make no mistake, as far as the financial system is concerned, this will achieve nothing, other than delay the inevitable once again.

Paulsen’s bankers friends will be throwing him a great big party as soon as the servile Congress passes his proposed legislation. Several of them have stashed away the billion dollars of bonuses they received last Christmas as reported in Forbes Magazine.

So much for the government of the people, by the people and for the people. From now on it should read Government of the Bankers, by the Bankers for the Bankers.

Re: Tony Wicher

Your comment: “In 1993 bin Laden declared war on the U.S.
In the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings (August 7, 1998), hundreds of people were killed in simultaneous car bomb explosions at the United States embassies in the East African capital cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya. Clinton’s subsequent actions and his speech was a response to these actions. There was also the U.S.S. Cole afterwards. Are you saying these things didn’t happen?”

>> NONE of these things warranted the fear mongering they were given.  Bombing and murdering INNOCENT civilians, won’t stop these types of attacks.  Rounding up “insurgents” won’t do it.  As for “Clinton’s speech being a response to these actions” is a ridiculous assertion.  Clinton’s speech was an EXCUSE, to take the actions he took.  A “selling point” if you will.

Consider this Tony, if “Clinton’s actions” were an appropriate way to handle the situation..., Why do we now have the SAME problem....only worse?

KDelphi- both Obama and McCain came out for a draft on their nice get together on 9/11.  The media buried it of course.  Kennedy is also proposing a National Security service bill, whose details are hazy, focused on college students.  Rangel has been proposing draft bills for years in the House.  More Equal, don’t you see.  They are going to need more cannon fodder if they are going to make Pakistan the center front of the War on Terrorism.

The power function of the Dems is to serve the interests of the ruling class under a vague people- oriented rhetoric.  So they have gotten the hard chores of making war and drafts historically.

Wilson, after winning the 1916 election by the issue that he kept us out of war, committed the US to the war after he was elected and enacted a draft.

Roosevelt in 1940, after promising not to send our sons to “foreign’ wars, manipulated a Japanese attack on the US, and enacted a draft.  (Gore Vidal of the truthdiggers opposed it.)

Truman enacted the first peace time draft after WW2, well in time to fight the Korean war.

John