Max: “Fiftygig sounds like the typical complacent mamby pampy that’s been having it his way for years. This is your system Fiftygigs and it’s working just honkey dorey for you!”

It’s namby pamby and hunky dory, you idiot.

Your writing is almost as sloppy as your thinking, and your constant ignorant insults prove your intellectual bankruptcy.

You are to this board what bankers are to the financial crisis—selfishness making things worse.

“I’ll give you that one, but, US track record these days is scarecely better than Russia and worse than Poland’s , from where I sit.”

KDelphi, regardless of what you say, I’m of a mind to just surrender because you actually gave a thoughtful, reasoned reply *laughs* and they are SO DAMN HARD to get here! I’m sincerely grateful. Thank you.

I agree, the US track record could be considerably better. I hope we also agree, though, it’s no worse than Russia’s.

“57% of Poles and Chezchs do NOT want the Pat Missile Shield in their country.”

I did not know that. That would be very persuasive for me if it means what the face of it suggests. I’d like to know more. Are they afraid of the ramifications? Or just don’t think they need it? Interesting.

“And you believe [Condi] Rice?”

Touche, but she is a second source, and again they are in fact defensive missiles.

Yes, “huh” was added by me. Russia claims to be concerned that the defensive system will morph into an offensive system. Of course, I’d be more inclined to trust Condi with my plants than Putin.

I understand your point that Russia is reacting—rationally or irrationally—and your hypothesis is that if the system were not introduced, they would not need to react at all, and everyone would be safer because the two nuclear giants wouldn’t be playing a game of chicken.

That’s a valid argument, and, since you didn’t jump to the conclusion that the US must therefore be the bad guy, I’ll not repeat my argument that the US is not necessarily the bad guy in that game, except to point out the other side of the coin… if the ability of the US to defend itself is good, would it not be legitimate to say that the defense of an ally is good too, because it puts another layer of security between us and war? In other words, does an undefended Poland make us safer?

Yes, there’s a few more volleys we can trade to clarify all this, and I’d be happy to discuss this further, if you want, but again thanks for a challenging point.

Oh, excellent conclusion. There is that profit thing that distorts all this. You’re right.

“By the way, KDelphi, it depends on who you want to believe, the US, Poland, and Russia.”

I’ll give you that one, but, US track record these days is scarecely better than Russia and worse than Poland’s , from where I sit.

“For many Poles - whose country has been a staunch U.S. ally - the accord represented what they believed would be a guarantee of safety for themselves in the face of a newly assertive Russia.”

57% of Poles and Chezchs do NOT want the Pat Missile Shield in their country.

“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed any suggestion the 10 missile defense interceptors - which Washington says are intended to defend Europe and the U.S. from the possible threat of long-distance missiles from Iran - represent a threat to Russia.”
And you believe Rice—I wouldnt trust her to water my plants.

“Moscow says that the missiles in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic could threaten its own defenses. (huh??) The system might be small to start with, it says, but could expand. The radar could be used to spy on Russia.”

I assume that the (huh?) was put in by you…i think it is obvious why they would be concerned that the uS may deploy missile shields right on their border. We already have a “missile shield from Iran”—its the heavily armed Israel. We dont need it, and, its too expensive, and, people do not want it.

“Russia has announced the testing of a new multiple-warhead missile, the RS-24, which it says is designed to overcome missile defenses.”

I see your comments about it, BUT, this is a RESPONSE. That is how Cold Wars get started again. HOw can you complain about them responding to our threatening actions, in Poland, as well as Georgia?

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090216_u_s_russia_iran_possible_deal_missile_defense

Take a look at pic. What would you think.

The “Patriot Missile” shield is unproven, and,consists of, basically, a missile hitting a missile. (successful—-sortve—once—what could we “hit” instead…)It is bound to stir up Cold Warriors (just what we need right now), and, most of the people of Czech Rep and Poland do not want it there. It will decidedly increase our troop presence, and, put these countries in danger. If it is truly for protection from Iran (for EU), we should find out if the EU want the damn thing.

That is why Pres. Obama is reconsidering it, as he should be (you are aware that the Beloved ONe is reconsidering, no?). It would cost around $32 billion.

Tony—Pres. Obama SAYS alot of things (and obfiscates even more). It remains to be seen, how well he will follow up on any promises. Yes, he is better than Bush. Not hard to be.

So who DOES want this thing? Its not hard to guess..

Have any of you obama fans every asked yourself this question: why does the ultra right-wing David Horowitz, approve of Obama? Here’s what he said:

“Consider: When President Obama commits this nation to war against the Islamic terrorists, as he already has in Afghanistan, he will take millions of previously alienated and disaffected Americans with him, and they will support our troops in a way that most of his party has refused to support them until now. When another liberal, Bill Clinton went to war from the air, there was no anti-war movement in the streets or in his party’s ranks to oppose him. That is an encouraging fact for us . . .”

Go figure…divide and rule obama; and he’s got you wrapped around his syllables like little lost lambs.

Tony Wicher

What was the last office you ran for there, buddy?

I actually ran for city council. And you? You’re a phony who believes your “chip on your shoulder” is ok when it’s someone else other than the guy you voted for. In the world of children that may make sense.

By altlic, February 25 at 1:41 am

I’m with you, altlic. Obama is a better than any other president of my lifetime, which goes back to Truman. He is saying stuff that hasn’t been said by any major American politician since Roosevelt. Max does have a big chip on his shoulder. He picks on all the bad things Obama has said - while not balancing that with all the good things he says and does. If you want purity, stay out of politics.

Look Fiftygig, et al it’s time you grow up. There aint no santa claus and Obama is just Bill Clinton after the fall. More war, more rendition, continued occupation in Iraq with thousands of troops indefinitely, and 10s of thousands of mercenaries, expansion of the insane “war on terror”; and trillion dollar bankers’ bailout, and a complete mis-understanding of where the US is at this point in time - RECOVERY! Bull shit. It’s time to see reality. And it’s US bankruptcy 101.

All of this is cloaked in language of deceipt, just enough to make it look like Obama is going to “do this” while he actually, “does that”. He’s clueless. He wants to take on healthcare…incrementally. That’s worse than just letting the system be. He’s a half-way guy when only major changes are needed, he just throws money at it…90% of that money will never get to where we think it’s suppose to go. Katrina is what happens when you throw down money, it gets sucked up with nothing to show. That’s not Bush, that’s basic top-down economics (but ohhh he says WE need to sacrifice…what the hell does that mean…loose retirements, reduce spending….what the fuck is he saying? Let me tell you what he’s saying: He hasn’t a f*ckn CLUE!! And you suck it up like it’s Jesus or Mohammed or something!!

You guys hear someone who can chew gum and walk and you think it’s the second coming for christ’s sake!!

But look, Fiftygig sounds like the typical complacent mamby pampy that’s been having it his way for years. This is your system Fiftygigs and it’s working just honkey dorey for you!

altlic, with all due respect, you’re a certifiable FLAKE!

altlic
Ya that’s me, the old poke in the eye complainer. Just keep watching and listening to Obama. Anything seems better after the dumbestsonofabitch who just left.

Shit, I can’t think of a POTUS who wouldn’t look good after George W. Add to that the free falling economy…

Remember there’s still the sacred lamb of a TRILLION dollar budget for war, the drones killing innocents, the endless occupation of Iraq and expansion of the “war on terror”. His economics does not get at the root cause…

Ya know, it would be nice if peace and freedom would just break out in the world. It is far more likely that a nuclear detonation will occur in a major city.

It would be nice if Kucinich could’ve been elected. It was far more likely that Bush get elected to a third term. And that, according to Max, is what we got with Obama.

But I agree with fiftygigs. In the real world, Obama is a breakthrough.

Now I am also aware that, for a number of reasons, including pure chance or inertia, the measure of human suffering and/or planetary health could get calamitously worse. I would particularly suggest that the outbreak of peace and sanity could lead to very nasty unintended consequences. But let’s look on the bright side and hope that, if we put our best foot forward in the sphere of American politics, humanity will take steps to improve its behavior.

I submit to you that anyone on the left that thinks Obama is worse than Bush or is no different than Bush, has a big chip on their shoulder. Remember, I’m talking about the real world here.

If, in the next four years, y’all can get a movement underway that persuades the public that Kucinich should be our next president then great, I would (probably) vote for the guy. But, guess what, it ain’t happenin’.

So what’s with all the kvetching, Max?  Are you really telling me that if you could sit down with Bush and Obama separately, and debate worldviews for as long as it takes, that you would end up feeling the same about both of them?

For one thing, as fiftygigs implies, Obama’s spiritual understanding is way more advanced than Bush’s. We’re talking WAY more. And that counts for an awful lot in my book.

True, Obama then plugs in to basically the same machinery, so the difference may be tempered in all sorts of ways, but it still holds that Obama is better than Bush - in all sorts of ways.

The big chip? That the world is such a heartbreak. It’s enough to make an idealist reject all that is impure. Reality bites.

“When in the last 30 years has Russia proved to be a military threat whereby “millions” of people have been killed?” You know the answer, but you also know you’re crafting the question so there can only be one answer. That still skips a lot.

I’m just not convinced, as I seem to be reading in other posts here, that Obama represents the status quo as far as nuclear proliferation and disarmament. I think to come to any conclusions about him on that, at this stage, is very presumptuous.

I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying it sounds like you just want to complain.

I absolutely agree that the profanity of seeing the world as a “dangerous place” is a major obstacle and problem. I’m not sure whether it’s more attributable to the rise of imperialism or the decline of spirituality, and maybe that explains why you see Obama as the status quo while I harbor the hope that he may indicate a change in the trend.

Almost certainly, Obama won’t fix everything. He may not change this very much. Nobody’s had that sweeping effect in about 2,000 years. But the globe has been in the grasp of choking conservatism (with its concurrent militarism) for close to 50 years now. The promise of 60’s liberalism was cut off with the deaths of Bobby and John Kennedy and Martin Luther King and others. No generation alive has actually seen it in full bloom.

Now, we have a President who speaks of spirituality not as a political hook to a constituency but as a personal attribute, who first-hand understands at least one other continent. We have Kucinich and other very bright people on stage. We have the founder of Al Quaeda finally realizing his silliness and expounding a spiritual interpretation that every Christian and Muslim could accept.

It’s possible. It really is. Possible that we may be witnessing the start of something new. Something that will continue to move in the right direction and accelerate.

Yes, the Military Industrial Complex is a problem, as Eisenhower wisely warned.

And so is Putin. He’s the status quo.

Fiftygigs,
“But before our Love Fest goes too far, let me pose a question. If, as reported, Poland asks to buy a defensive system from us because it wants to protect itself against what it sees as an increasingly aggressive Russia, why would it not also be imperial for us to say, “No. We’ve decided the world will be better off if you are the next Soviet satellite”?

Isn’t that picking the world order too, and turning our back on millions who might die?”

Yes, I see this quite differently. While we seem to agree that the military industrial complex is a problem, I say that it is a central driver behind arms sales. Selling arms, has, it turns out, is one (if not the) largest export in materials.

The sale of missils to Poland - regardless of who initiates the say - is hardly a “friendly” gesture vis a vis Russia.

But to your last question - when in the last 30 years has Russia proved to be a military threat whereby “millions” of people have been killed? And to that I would add the obvious - who is it in the process of occupying, perpetrating military action in two (now 3) soverign nations? Russia? Hardly.

There are choices. Selling arms is a choice. There is nothing “imperial in not pursuing sophisticated ‘gun-running”. The opposite would be negotiating a de-militarization. The “realpolitik” takes the narrative that it is a dangerous world…and that has opened the door to escalation, and proxy wars…that is not change…that is the problem.

Nice post, Max.

“It is the use of US tax payer money to position Poland as a proxy site for US missiles targeted in the Russian region.”

I think that states it very well, except I don’t know about the taxpayer part. Are we giving the system to them or are they buying it? I don’t know. Maybe you do.

“My problem with your comments, Fiftygigs is that they are based on an imperial view of the world stage, one whereby the US plays the good guy, policing the world.”

Let me make clear that my view of the US isn’t one of making us the “good guy, policing the world.” The arguments I’ve presented would lead to that conclusion, and you’ve corrected picked them out, but understand that I sometimes play the “devil’s advocate”. I am not a proponent of an “imperial” US, but neither am I an isolationist. I also don’t believe the US is automatically the world’s “bad guy”. If the US destroyed its nuclear arsenal tomorrow, I don’t think Russia would too.

I suspect you and I probably have the same opinion about the Military Industrial Complex.

But before our Love Fest goes too far, let me pose a question. If, as reported, Poland asks to buy a defensive system from us because it wants to protect itself against what it sees as an increasingly aggressive Russia, why would it not also be imperial for us to say, “No. We’ve decided the world will be better off if you are the next Soviet satellite”?

Isn’t that picking the world order too, and turning our back on millions who might die?

Fiftygigs,

“We can’t. That’s why it’s not a first-strike missile system. It’s not even a nuclear system. It’s a PATRIOT surface-to-air missile interceptor.”

This is the crux of the issue. It is not what the missile system is, it is the use of US tax payer money to position Poland as a proxy site for US missiles targeted in the Russian region. This is a clear threatening gesture in anybodies book.

Setting this kind of threat/counterthreat, spirils into military escalation. We know that this serves a military industrial complex’s raison d’être and not our understanding of how escalation and enemy creation is put in motion as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

My problem with your comments, Fiftygigs is that they are based on an imperial view of the world stage, one whereby the US plays the good guy, policing the world; determining who the next enemy will be and than beating the drums on the home front. What we know is that such a mindset has created millions of deaths, mostly of innocent children and civilians.

While such conflict may not be with Russia it is played out through proxies around the globe (ala cold war). This is a backward step in policy rather than forward.

A president who takes this approach is not about change, but about a Democratic version of the same neocon end-game. It is simply a change in how intervention and war is packaged.

That is hypocrisy of the ultimate order.

“How in the world can we expect Russia to remain even rational, let alone well disposed to the U.S., if we go ahead and put first-strike missile systems in Poland?”

We can’t. That’s why it’s not a first-strike missile system. It’s not even a nuclear system. It’s a PATRIOT surface-to-air missile interceptor.

The learned critics of Obama on this thread have made a concerted effort to skirt that fact. But then the system isn’t the point. The point is to cast Obama as the opiate of the masses, so his support can be discounted as misguided without having to provide bothersome facts.

What’s wrong with Poland determining it’s own defense? Is it really rational and humane for Russia to threaten global nuclear annihilation over a defensive system such as this?

By the way, KDelphi, it depends on who you want to believe, the US, Poland, and Russia.

According to an article on Huffington Post:

“For many Poles - whose country has been a staunch U.S. ally - the accord represented what they believed would be a guarantee of safety for themselves in the face of a newly assertive Russia.”

“Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed any suggestion the 10 missile defense interceptors - which Washington says are intended to defend Europe and the U.S. from the possible threat of long-distance missiles from Iran - represent a threat to Russia.”

In a BBC report:

“Moscow says that the missiles in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic could threaten its own defenses. (huh??) The system might be small to start with, it says, but could expand. The radar could be used to spy on Russia.”

“Russia has announced the testing of a new multiple-warhead missile, the RS-24, which it says is designed to overcome missile defenses.”

Now, why would they do THAT? To stop countries from defending themselves because, even if they try, Russia will develop systems to overtake their defenses? That’s their idea of peace?

FiftyGigs—I thought that the “
missile shield” was to “protect Europe from Iran”??

Which is it?

“I wouldn’t feel better if Russia had first-strike missiles in Cuba pointed at us even if we were allowed to go and inspect them every once in awhile. Have I missed a major piece here?”

Hush, it’s all better now, Obama is the prez. It’s okay to do what Bush did, because the face of America has changed.

It’s now back to Bush and Clinton grand strategy for the New World Order. (It’s not what the prez does it’s which party he’s “in” like there’s more than a packaging difference - ask the Afghans who keep getting smacked by drones…)

“This idea of “protecting” Polond from “rogue” states tells me you do read, but you are into cold war spy fiction.”

You seem to be making an effort to discuss and debate honestly, and I sincerely appreciate that.

You write: “Putting missile system in Poland has already had the reaction of Russia as a threatening move. To say they “probably won’t be used” is a Cheney-like argument at best.”

An understandable point, except I suspect you realize Cheney would be an awful lot slicker than me. Probably reads better spy novels

My original point addressed the implication that Obama ducked Helen Thomas because nukes were not a priority for him. I simply offered evidence to the contrary. So, we’ve gone from Obama-isn’t-focused-on-nukes to Obama-is-pursuing-the-wrong-policy.

I’m really not an authority to speak about the latter.

If I had to armchair quarterback, I’d probably think it would have been better if he had reversed Bush’s deal, but my equivocation (as you call it) isn’t infatuation with Obama. My mind isn’t made up. After all, the system, I believe, isn’t to be deployed until 2012, so things can change.

The only thing I know about nukes is that I don’t know a lot. And, I respectfully suggest, neither do you unless you’ve personally tossed a nuclear threat at a career Russian military General.

But about the following statement: “It is precisely Obama’s ... policy in Russia that is the greatest danger to nueclear war.” I totally disagree.

Russia’s nuclear policy is the greatest danger.

According to Pravda, “we [Russia] can use nuclear weapons against the countries possessing nuclear weapons.” That’s the Russian Federation defense doctrine. Yet, Pravda itself confirms these are PATRIOT systems. Those are purely defensive systems, surface-to-air missile. Not even nuclear.

So, when I say, it “probably wouldn’t be used” I’m giving YOU the benefit of the doubt. If Russia never attacks Poland, those missiles will never be launched. That’s a fact. Even if they were, they’d just buzz around in the air looking for something to slam into. I think they have a range of about 15 miles.

The Russian “doctrine” being enforced here is the provision to nuke any country that “somehow supports” a country that has nukes. For Putin, this isn’t about stopping proliferation. It’s about dominance through oppression.

Russia is rattling sabers over 96 .. count ‘em ... 96 PATRIOT missiles.

Russia has THOUSANDS of offensive nukes deployed along it’s western front. For what? To defend against Poland??? There isn’t even a German army to speak of anymore. Recently, Russia moved militarily into Georgia. And it cut oil supplies to Europe “as a substitute for diplomatic policy”, according to the London Times.

So, where is Putin’s disarmament initiative? After all, he’s had a lot more time in office to work one up. At least, let’s rail against HIM too.

I went a bit long, Sorry. Look forward to further discussions with you.

FiftyGigs,

“I find it hard to believe Obama decided to follow the agreement through to delude me into thinking he wants peace when he really wants to annihilate the world.”

This is, hopefully, is a kind of joke?! You present your arguments from the perspective of “my man” is in office, so let me humor you all a bit.

You may take this personal - though it is not meant to be - but your arguments while attempting to be both condescending and equivocating, seem to simply like the direction Obama is taking, as if criticism, a tad here and there is fine, as long as the criticism innocuous.

Putting missile system in Poland has already had the reaction of Russia as a threatening move. To say they “probably won’t be used” is a Cheney-like argument at best. It’s downright imperial of you.

This idea of “protecting” Polond from “rogue” states tells me you do read, but you are into cold war spy fiction.

No offence, but this thinking IS the problem and it proves that Obama’s supporters are really from the neo-liberal hawkish side of the Dem party; at least on this blog.

There’s no mystery. We have the historical episode of the Cuban missile crisis as a model for how the US would react.

FiftyGigs—the US turned down offers to allow Russia to inspect.
Think of it as Russia’s first strikers in Canada or Mexico…esp. after the Georgia “incident”, what would you think?

“What he does not say is that Obama is going to cintinue the first strike missile project in Poland and Checho which makes such an agreement impossible.”

That’s a valid point, Folktruther, leaving aside the furtive implications of either myself or Obama.

Poland did sign the agreement which was initialed last summer by the Bush administration. And Russia sure is screaming about it.

I find it hard to believe Obama decided to follow the agreement through to delude me into thinking he wants peace when he really wants to annihilate the world.

One other consideration, though, is that the United States (and Poland) maintain the system is defensive—an ABM system—to protect Poland against a rogue attack. Poland has also offered on-going Soviet inspections of the facilities. So, one could make a case that the system clearly poses no threat to Russia, is intended to never be used, and therefore is a minimal danger. It could actually save Polish lives one day. Poland, after all, does share a continent with a lot of whackos.

I assume your position would be that the existence of nuclear weapons for ANY purpose is a danger. You may be surprised to know I probably agree with you on that point more than disagree with you.

I think US policy has tended to be too heavy on the non-proliferation side—to the point where it seems the US believes nuclear weapons can be managed—and too light on the disarmament side of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Anyway, depending on what Russia does, you may be right. So, the administration is moving ahead on the ABM system, and stated it’s intention of working with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons. My point addressed the implication that Obama dodged Helen Thomas’ question because he didn’t care about the nuclear issue.

Both of us seem to agree, good or bad, he’s not ignoring it.

fiftygigs,

Mighty sensitive there. But I suppose it goes with your sense of what’s not good for the goose is good for the gander. Or some weird distortion of that old bromide.

“I would suggest you start by reading a good book - for you any will do.”

I got one for you. How about the board FAQ?

“Truthdig will not tolerate: personal attacks on our writers or readers.”

That’s the first rule. You care?

Fiftygigs states that Obama has stated that he is going to work with Russia to reduce nuclear warheads.

What he does not say is that Obama is going to cintinue the first strike missile project in Poland and Checho which makes such an agreement impossible. 

It is precisely Obama’s, and his mentor Zbig’s, policy in Russia that is the greatest danger to nueclear war.  Which is the reason he puts out these meaningless public relations announcements of reducing nuclear weapons to delude the Fiftygigs and Tony Wichers of America to continue to support Obama.

FiftyGigs

All of the “quotes” you have taken the time to pull out are of course entirely out of context.

I would suggest you start by reading a good book - for you any will do.

I’m sorry that you are part of a tiny “believer colony” here. Most of the commenters seem in pretty much agreement to my comments. In fact some of them have made even more targeted remarks than I. You’re just taking out all that pent up frustration on Max.

I said the “posters”, meaning the people who write for this blog, not the commenters, the people who respond to what they write, are mostly status quo.

Prove differently. Just take that one and show me how I’m wrong…

I don’t expect you’ll respond with much more than thoughtless ad hominems. That’s what you get from commenters who have yet to think through a cogent argument.

I respect thoughtful opinions but, puh-leeezzz…

“Max Shields is stating what a growing number of progressives are thinking…”

Prove it. He reflects nothing.

“As tsunamia becomes apparent…” Huh? “We’d better get use to the dark…” Whaaa? “Let’s be clear, this is not about Obama. This is about a new world.” Ya mean, about mixed metaphors?? “The political system cannot match the demand for change which is needed.” Boinggggggg!!!

By Max Shields, February 9:
“Over half the pundit posters on this blog represent the status quo system.”

By Max Shields, February 15:
“...nor are the rest on this blog who pretty much concur with what I say (which is a growing majority, by the way…in case you haven’t noticed.”

And that’s all from ONE thread! Six days! (And on the 7th, he rested.) Max has his own Neverland Ranch going on.

Let ME be clear. I don’t believe the guy can predict the future.

The left is not immune from Obama’s warning in his National Prayer speech, his warning against simplistic thinking and the use of religion “as a tool to divide us from one another”.

A person doesn’t have to be a right-wing Republican evangelical zealot to be guilty of what Obama is talking about. People who believe things are dire and will only get worse if their opinion isn’t heeded tend to be either terribly bored and in search of melodrama, or egomaniacs in love with the idea that no one in history has ever faced distress. Surely, they argue, we are so special because we are so challenged. We are so brilliant because our babble isn’t understood.

Baloney. Junk-thought. Fast-food philosophy.

Don’t take my word for it. Four years from now, the same people will be harping the same dire warnings about the next four years. That’s a prediction you can verify.

Jesus! The world survived Bush, but (OMG) Obama is certain destruction! Give me a friggin’ break. Is that REALLY what passes for “progressive” intellect??????

Tony, Max Shields is stating what a growing number of progressives are thinking, inlcuding myself, as Obama sells out the left.

Sepharad, I care, for one, whether you revise your opinions.  And not to gloat in any way either.  I genuinely think Israel is headed for disaster with its current power structure and policies and only changing opinion in the US can avert it.

The choice ended up being Obama/Clinton/McCain, not because it came from “on high”. That is what so many screamed at others that they wanted.

They still are.

Tony W.

For the record, I’m neither blind, deaf or “foreign” nor are the rest on this blog who pretty much concur with what I say (which is a growing majority, by the way…in case you haven’t noticed, Tony.

I think of you a Republican-lite and in fact we both see the same thing. The difference Tony - you like it and I don’t.

RE Max Shields, February 13 at 12:17 pm #

So, far we see an administration that is hardcore on Bush fundamental principles. Some of the language is softer, but substantively it’s the same without the ugliness of Cheney or the incoherency of Bush.
           
          x x x x x x x x x x x

From my standpoint, Max, only people who are so politically blind they really need a seeing-eye dog could say such things. But that’s because I actually pay attention to what is going on in the political world. I stay informed. I really listen to what they are saying. It’s like you are from some foreign country and don’t even understand the language, so all these politicians look and sound alike to you. Well, they aren’t.

Sepharad,

You’ve restored a bit of my faith in those who really wanted Kucinich.

We can’t afford Bush III no matter how it’s packaged.

Max

Sepharad

First, let me say I appreciate where you’re coming from and your first choice was really the only real choice the Dems offerd. The tit for tat between Obama and Hillary merely obfiscated the differences and led to a faux run-off with like minded (but muddled) McCain in the final.

I think, and have for some time, that Obama and now his neocon/liberal administration is a real danger. What makes Obama most dangerous Sepharad are folks like you. People who think they got a better deal with Obama as if half a loaf (assuming you really thought Kucinich was the real deal) is better than none.

So, far we see an administration that is hardcore on Bush fundamental principles. Some of the language is softer, but substantively it’s the same without the ugliness of Cheney or the incoherency of Bush. But Cheney’s ugliness and Bush’s inchoherency were actually helpful in keeping the volume up on them.

Because of the corporated owned-duopoly the only thing to off-set the new Bush (Bush III) are the…Republicans!!!

You guys are going to be so friggin busy fighting off Republican attacks that you’ll miss the intervention here and there, the murder by US troops and air raids here and there, the Clinton rendition here and there, the questionable torture here and there. That’s what happened during Bill Clinton’s administration. But unlike his administration, we now have a full blown economic collapse and a reading of history which is always vague at best depending on the “lessons” which may portend more war to “get us out of the collapse”. That wont’ work for a lot of reasons, the major one being (other than we don’t know if it was the ended the first Depression or not) but more importantly this is NOT the 1920s/1930s.

So, I think Mr. O is a pretty dangerous fellow. His light touch on rendition and torcher shows he’s all for ceremonial change. But this is just Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama…. And when the Dems are in the white house the liberals give em a free ride to do all the same stuff the Republicans do (and perhaps more…given all the wars that Dems have gotten us into exceeds that of Republicans).

Good luck!

Re Sepharad, February 11 at 10:46 pm #
Wasn’t my first or even second choice but I voted for him instead of McCain and absolutely do not regret that. Do you?

      x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Sepharad,

I presume you are not addressing me. I have been a huge Obama supporter since the beginning of his campaign in Feb 2007, and am more sure every day of the correctness of my judgment. But I think it’s going to come down to whether or not the truth of 9/11 comes out. If it does, Obama will be the greatest president ever. If it doesn’t, his administration will be compromised and nothing fundamental will change.

Thanks altlic

Tony Wicher,

I don’t “belong” to a political organization. I do the work that needs doing. BALLE (yes you read right) is not a political organization. It is a sustainable economics network which is based on the notion of local economies a blend of Jane Jacobs and E.F. Schumacher.

Some of the folks involved may be Republicans or Democats, Greens or Libertarians. The point is they converge on the mission of BALLE.

But BALLE is only part of an important movement for local living economies.

Obama doesn’t own the agenda, contrary to politicos such as you, Tony. In fact, from my perspective he’s irrelevant, except where I think we need someone who’ll demilitarize the US and its pathological economic system that destroys livelihoods throughout the world in search for cheap resources and labor. Obama is part of that and I don’t see him changing.

Otherwise, its just a continuation of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama.

Re altlic, February 11 at 10:59 pm #

Max,
Well you seem to be walking your talk. I checked out BALLE and I think it’s right on the money.
              x x x x x x x x

I read this post and just out of curiousity I googled “BALLE” which I had never heard of. Are you talking about the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies group? Strange, they seem so non-political, whereas Max sounds like a political extremist of some kind. It would seem on first glance that such a group ought to contact the Obama adminstration to work on changes in government policy that can help local businesses. I have always thought that a big expansion of the small business administration that would put a lot more capital into local businesses would be a fine socialist idea. I don’t understand the antipathy to Obama. Is it that this group is ideologically anarcho-syndicalist and thinks government as such has to be evil?

Max,
Well you seem to be walking your talk. I checked out BALLE and I think it’s right on the money. So thank you for your efforts to create a saner world. I also have to admit that you are probably right about the Obama cult, given that he IS, at this point, the establishment. At least, I completely get where you’re coming from. I think that your refusal to give Obama any credence at all is useful because it throws the responsibility back to the individual.

BUT

I think many (young) people have been inspired by his oratory and what he symbolizes, and as a result they are going to help propagate the new paradigm that BALLE exemplifies.

BUT

you keep preaching it, brother. Let’s hope that something like the hundredth monkey happens, and peaceful evolutionary change does actually take place.

Re Grace, February 11 at 6:54 am #

“You are still projecting your deepest desires on to Obama. He is none of those things. He is a player. This is all just fun and games for him. 10-1 he’s sitting for another photo shoot right now, reading your column with a big satisfied smile on his face-the game is still going strong.”

        x x x x x x x x

Grace,

No, you are projecting your deepest fears onto Obama. You have no evidence for this characterization; it is just your projection, your cynicism and nothing else.

“The beltway, like you, is perfectly fine with Obama ignoring the question.”

I can’t speak for the beltway, but, yes, I am fine with Obama not answering a stupid question that would not positively contribute to anything at this time.

When the time comes for him to deal with Israel and the Mid East, I’ll judge him them. See, I’m willing to give him a chance, and I don’t expect Obama (or Bush, for that matter) to dance to Helen Thomas’ agenda. By the way, where does she stand on the disappearing oysters issue? Is her silence on THAT indicative of some deep character flaw?

Regarding nukes, I’ll wait until Obama is ready to deal with… oh, just a sec…

February 4, 2009: “President Obama will work with Russia to reduce both nations’ stockpiles down to 1,000 nuclear warheads each, an 80 percent reduction. The US and Russia together have about 90 percent of all the world’s nuclear weapons, making a treaty to shrink these arsenals a linchpin in efforts to convince other countries to reduce their arsenals. “

Now, you were saying he’s ignoring the nuclear issue?

P.S. We agree the MSM is useless.

You Obamaites are really something when it comes to self-delusion.

First, you go on about Obama as a change agent. The difference we can believe in. Then he’s the great pragmatist who must be a political realist and can’t afford to be the “change agent”. Then he’s the smartest president ever. Then he’s not so much smart but needs “us” to tell him what the right thing to do is so he can “grow” into the office (like Lincoln). (btw, he’s Kennedy, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, FDR, LBJ all wrapped in one OBAMA marketing package).

Soon he’ll be flawed, but an icon and hero. This is a myth not of historical proportion, but of a marketing ploy with all of the glitz of a pop star who keeps gaining weight just to get on the front page of the Yahoo/Google site on a daily basis.

He kisses old women being pushed out of their home, with as much “I feel your pain” as a wet fish.

But he’s your fish, Obamaites. He’s smart enough to fool some of the people, but not all of the people. There are still people in my State who are waiting for the Obama stimulus to pay for the State’s collapsing economy. He’s the ultimate sugar daddy, for all the poor immature orphans.

Fiftygigs,
“While the beltway crowd and people with an axe to grind about Obama try to spin a dumb question into something relevant, average citizens at Obama’s town hall managed to ask truly challenging questions, the kind that make the audience squirm because of their blunt honesty. But then all they wanted was information about an important subject; they weren’t looking for a headline.”

Problem is that the MSM doesn’t report these things.

This is not “in the beltway”? The beltway, like you, is perfectly fine with Obama ignoring the question.

Its “average” citizens that would like to hear their president be forthright and honest.

Are you thick or are you happy the AIPAC is crowd is getting its payback? You do know who AIPAC is; right? I don’t want to assume anything with your.

“Fifty”? Methinks you’re a bit beyond that age. I suppose others here are use to your limited take on the issues.

Well, I finally heard the famous Helen Thomas question, and I must say I feel kind of let-down by the “controversy” ... lol

In my opinion, it was beneath her. It was just a trick question. Say yes or no, and you’ll be fried by someone. Any dummy—even Bush—would have seen the blinking “Don’t be stupid” light. Helen can ask tough, direct questions. That wasn’t one of them.
“Do you know of any nukes?” Holy mackerel!

While the beltway crowd and people with an axe to grind about Obama try to spin a dumb question into something relevant, average citizens at Obama’s town hall managed to ask truly challenging questions, the kind that make the audience squirm because of their blunt honesty. But then all they wanted was information about an important subject; they weren’t looking for a headline.

“Obama is just as totalitarian as Bush was.”

Yes, Obama is demonstrating this rather clearly. He has already violated some of his most important campaign promises. Says out of one side of his face that we will not torture, but then says we must keep the extraordinary rendition because it is a valuable tool. But only reason to keep rendition is to send people off to be tortured—so Obama is just as willing to have people tortured as Bush.

Obama is willing to use the State Secrets Privilege to hide crimes and embarrassments of our Government. His DOJ argued this week that individuals who were tortured in Gitmo have no recourse in the Courts because the government has an interest in keeping the information involved secret.

Also, last week Obama thanked Great Britain for quashing the release of information about Gitmo tortures. Of course that information leaked within a day of this thanking the British government. Turns out he wanted to suppress the genital cutting and mutilation, and worse, of a British subject. Obama’s action were both criminal and stupid. Given his position, I am not sure if the criminality or the idiocy of Obama’s statement was worse.

Even Bush43 was this totalitarian in his first three weeks.

Like you, altlic, Rosenberg is an apologist for Obama. I call it a lie of omission and disrespecting the people’s right to know the answer to a simple question.

Simply quoting Rosenberg, wraps his “liberalism” around the apology that allows Obama to keep slipping dodging and weaving and for Wind and Tony to think this just shows how “savvy a pol” Obama is.

They’re right, he’s pol first and foremost. Simply the Democratic version of imperial empire. A little softer which makes them even more dangerous. The killing stays off the evening news.

99jonny100
Local initiatives around sustainable economy and community building.

There are things, like the ones I mentioned (de-militarizing the US, climate change) which require national efforts; but much can and needs to be done locally.

Take a look at BALLE (Business for Local Living Economy) to get some idea of the economics. But our non-profit works on living democracy and building community from the inside out. Real things for real people.

If you can’t change “city hall” you sure can’t change DC.

Sorry, FityGigs. I mix irony with sarcasm and for you it doesn’t work.

But I don’t think Helen is a “catcha” reporter. And the fact that a state has nuclear warheads which are unaccounted for is pretty damn serious in my book. There is no connection between the agreement with Begin and Sadat and the military complex in Israel today. We see the use of illegal weapons from Israel with total impunity - because our government looks the other way or vetos any action against Israel.

If you think that’s minor, than fine. I think it’s more than a big deal, it’s criminal.

too Altlic: Obama is just as’ totalitarian’ as Bush was. You won’t have long to wait
to confidently acknowlege this fact. (Yes—this Obama has put a bee in MY little bonnet.)

to Max Shields:  Now you have piqued my curiosity—Just exactly what “real
things in the real world” are you actually doing to affect this dismal state of affairs?  Pray tell!

Max, I think there’s a lot to criticize about Israeli policies in general, and I think their policies are least half the problem in the Middle East. I think the US gives Israel way too much money for weapons. I don’t think Iran is saintly no matter how many treaties they sign.

I also think nukes are dangerous in ANY hands, and the more nukes a country has the more dangerous it is.

Now, let me repeat the point you skirted. I don’t think Israel’s arsenal is relevant to the issue of peace in the region. If you think that no one should have nukes, then we’re in total agreement. If you think Israel shouldn’t but Iran should, then we do disagree.

I’m not aware of Israel using nukes in its latest attack, but if the use of cluster bombs denotes wild behavior, then I would point out the behavior of a certain country which did the same thing, only it immorally and wrongly and criminally attacked Iran without provocation, and it—you say—is the GOOD guy?

Funny how you’re lambasting people who think it’s possible for a politician to be a good person, whose every utterance isn’t designed to hide some evil nefarious purpose… and yet you conclude so easily that the US deserves the key to thousands of nuclear weapons headed by a Bush or Palin who might be ordered from “above” to jumpstart the Book of Revelations.

As for Obama not answering Helen Thomas’ question, I didn’t see it, so I’ve avoided commenting on it specifically. I do think the point altlic makes sounds about right.

I have great admiration for Helen Thomas, but none for gotcha journalism, and that isn’t beneath her at times. Finally, journalists, including Helen, are not the moral guardians of society whose purposes are pure. They’re simply doing a job to make a buck.

MJ Rosenberg from the Israel Policy Forum said this at huffpost re: Helen Thomas’ Q about nukes.

“So why did Obama refuse to answer? Simple. Because if he did, the media would have reported it as a gaffe. Reporters either know nothing about the Middle East or, for the most part, have adopted Israel’s perspective.

Had Obama spoken the truth, the media would have made his “blunder” the story of the night.
He cannot afford that because, frankly, we have more important things to worry about, like rescuing the economy.

So I don’t fault Obama. But I salute Helen Thomas. Next time she should ask how he felt about those pictures that came out of Gaza. As the father of those two precious girls, we all know how he felt. But it would help America in the eyes of the world if he’d just say it.”

This points to the quandry about Obama speaking out. Max would say he missed the opportunity. Rosenberg says that we need to ask him the right questions.

Max, let’s see if we can move forward.

1. Regardless of what’s in O’s heart, he isn’t going to start telling the truth to the American people in any meaningful way.

2.Hope is a distraction because it creates delusion and, worse, passivity.

Hmm. And people felt powerless to oppose Bush because he was basically totalitarian and had the right all excited about taking over the world.

Hmmm. So maybe the left will feel more empowered to push the radical progressive alternative because Obama is more receptive to governance from the ground up?

What’s need Tony is boldness, not simply “smarts” (smarter than Bush) or intellectual astuteness (aka aloofness).

“What Obama Might Have Learned From Chavez and Populist-Style Mobilization”
The Stimulus Imbroglio
By NIKOLAS KOhttp://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff02102009.htmlZLOFF

FiftyGigs,

I know you don’t “agree”. But your point and mine are really quite divergent.

First, I rather doubt the Israeli nuclear missile arsenal was as much an issue when Sadat and Begin consumated their agreement. Since that time, Israel significantly grown not only this arsenal but its nuclear submarine fleet. It is the most powerful entity in the Middle East by far.

Israel, in case you haven’t noticed, regularly attacks its neighbors using illegal cluster bombs and other illegal weapons on civilians and children.

Since Israel will not official say they have nuclear warheads they are outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s oversight (they are unwilling to sign such an agreement.) On the other hand, Iran is a signatore of the NPT and is regularly monitored to ensure compliance.

The US has signed, but refuses to be monitored. India and Pakistan have not signed either.

You get my drift, Fiftygigs? Or is this picture not clear? Israel run rampant with nuclear weapons aimed without check, but Iran, the nation, the US and its Presidents regularly demonize are in full compliance with NPT.

So, when Helen Thomas asks this question, brillian worman and par excellent reporter that she is, it is not a trivial matter. Obama’s answer, in this case his utter dismissal, illustrates the extent to which a President of the US cannot even answer a simple straight forward question. One that has deep geopolitical ramifications.

As far as George Bush: he’s gone from office. And the US still has over 10,000 nuclear warheads pointed hither and yon. But we’re the “good guys”, remember and don’t need to be an example to the world that we comply with our treaties by having inspectors come and see what we’re up to (the military is looking to grow that number and capability offensively as well as defensively.) This military complex is part of a mult-trillion dollar cost to American tax payers and not a word that it will do anything but grow, even as we face utter economic collapse.

And our client state - Israel has a good model to follow in the US.

Max Shields: “you said his plate is “full” and Israel’s nuclear arsenal (a major stumbling block in any kind of peace in the region) is something he just can’t fit on his “full” plate. Well he’d better find room.”

I don’t agree with this. I don’t think Israel’s nuclear arsenal is at all relevant. It didn’t stop Egypt from establishing peaceful relationships that have lasted years.

If your concern is nuclear weapons as a threat to world stability, I’d argue that what’s more relevant is the vast nuclear arsenal of a country composed of a citizenry so whacked out it elected George Bush as its leader and handed the trigger to a man who answered only to a “higher power” (than you and I).

It’s a wonder we’re still here to talk about it.

Max,

Well, I have no idea what you are doing, but I am willing to believe your heart is in the right place too, and that in the end we will be on the same side. So good luck.

Meanwhile, check out this article just in from the Huffpost:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/10/exclusive-leahy-talks-to_n_165774.html

“Obama went on to say that he would rather look forward than backward, but he promised to prosecute any crime—whether committed was a former White House official or everyday citizen.

Asked about the President’s response, Leahy said that he believed the White House was right to maintain its focus on economic matters at this moment. “But I do intend to follow up and talk with him about this,” he said. “I’m not wedded to any part of the plan so long as we get all the facts out. I would hate to see us take the attitude that that was then and this is now, let’s not worry about any of the mistakes or the abuse of the law and give it a pass ... because it is my experience that you continue to make mistakes until somebody calls you on it.”

Leahy did add an important ripple to the story in the interview with the Huffington Post: Congress will likely proceed with investigations regardless of whether Obama is on board.

“Oh yeah,” Leahy said when asked if he would go forward without Obama’s endorsement. “I think the Senate and the Congress as whole has an oversight responsibility that has to be carried out here anyway. Now it is much easier with the cooperation of the administration. A lot of things with the subpoenas I issued the past few years, we got a lot of information but a lot of it was held back.”

This path could create a curious situation for the Obama team, in which the president has committed his administration to prosecuting illegality and the Congress provides the evidence of such.

“What I would much rather see is to see us working together,” said Leahy. “We have a common interest, both the Congress and the administration to get this thing worked out ... In this instance, this is so important that our common interest is to get the truth out.”

Tony,

Believe it or not but there are those of us who are doing real things in the real world, which is not DC or tweaking the system which is owned by corporations and major lobbies.

So you think what ever you little heart wishes regarding Obama.

Some of us will be working on real change.
Max

Max,

I don’t know for sure what is in anyone’s heart, except my own. I do not know but choose to believe that Obama is an honest man of principle as well as a savvy politician doing the best he can. You go ahead and thunder away from the sidelines. Some of the rest of us are going to pitch in and help.

I forgot to mention one more thing about Senator Leahy’s proposed “truth and reconciliation ommission”. Leahy is the man whom Cheney famously told to “go fuck yourself” when Leahy accused him of war profiteering for Haliburton. This would seem to be a strong motivation for Leahy to return the favor, sideways, with barbed wire wrapped around it, I hope.

That’s right Tony, EXCUSES.

I don’t care about his heart. You haven’t a clue what is heart is all about.

I’m saying you said his plate is “full” and Israel’s nuclear arsenal (a major stumbling block in any kind of peace in the region) is something he just can’t fit on his “full” plate.

Well he’d better find room. Again, he ran for this job. Stop excusing him with what YOU think he can and cannot do because of his buy schedule.

And where his energy is going, in this ridiculus perfect storm where he thinks yesterday’s “cures” will begin to deal with what we’re about to face then…well so much for his so-called “intellect”. As long as apologists like you Tony keep giving him the “his heart is in the right place”; then he’ll figure that’s good enough.

As Jonathan Schell saids, we can either continue in our little world of fixes or face reality. In the end, it will be reality that wins out.

By Max Shields, February 10 at 12:18 pm

“Excuses”? Obama is not an all-powerful god, but a a politician with limited powers. If his heart is in the right place, as I believe, he sure can’t do it alone, and you sure aren’t helping any with your raving and ranting.

I want prosecution and, life terms in prison and seizure of assets. But, barring that, T&R Commission is better than nothing. I know its not enough. But, I just dont see the Dems having the balls to follow Conyers lead—-on prosecution OR health care!

I dont want torture or the death penalty—I understand the feeling, but, I dont want to end up being a neo-con…Saddam Hussein wouldve had huge propaganda value for them, tottering around in his pajamas on live video every day. Wouldnt you rather laugh at Rummy in his underwear, with Joe the Plumber as his boyfriend, in there for tax evasion??

Tony,

Your point on Obama having ‘so much on his plate” is straight from the Huffington post. So, glad to see you got your talking points all in place for spewing them here.

Making excuses for nuclear arsenal is hardle a “plate full issue”. Obama wanted the job. Why are you making excuses for him? Huh?

Re screamingpalm, February 10 at 3:49 am #

There was a debate about this, I believe it was on Amy Goodman’s show, just recently. The problem with these truth and reconciliation commissions, is that someone usually ends up getting immunity in exchange for information.

I want to see prosecution. Commissions like these can end being counter-productive. The first step, in my opinion, is to reform the Justice Department.

        x x x x x x x x x x x x

screamingpalm,

I want to see prosecution, too - in the worst way. I am normally against the death penalty, but maybe an exception should be made for high treason. Obviously reforming the Justice Department is essential. Let us hope that Holder is up to the job. Not only has it been politicized, but there are no doubt members of the 9/11 gang in high positions in the FBI, which is part of the justice department. Exposing these people will be a major task.

But a “truth and reconciliation commission” is a good start. Just because it is called a “commission” does not mean it has to be a coverup like the the Warren Commission or the 9/11 Commission. These commissions were coverups because the criminal administrations in power (the Johnson and Bush administrations respectively) wanted them to be coverups. An honest investigation, whether it begins as a prosecution or not, is all that is needed for the whole thing to unravel.

By Inherit The Wind, February 10 at 4:11 am #

You know what? The fact that President Obama skirted Helen Thomas’s question so deftly only increases my respect for him.

Was her question inappropriate? Not at all! Helen Thomas is STILL one of the smartest reporters ever to grace the White House Press room.

But the key to Obama’s answer is that to admit Israel has nukes opens up a can of worms, and at exactly the worst possible time.  The man ain’t dumb and he ain’t Dumbya.  He sees the implications and consequences of his actions.

            x x x x x x x x

ITW,

I’m with you all the way. Helen Thomas asked a very smart question, and Obama avoided answering it for good political reasons. I’m not sure how “deft” it was; I mean, it should have been pretty obvious to anyone who cares about the Middle East and nuclear proliferation what the point of the question was and that Obama more or less blew it off, since the ONLY country in the Middle East proper that has nuclear weapons is in fact Israel, and he did not even let the word “Israel” pass his lips in the whole news conference - an interesting fact in itself - and all he would talk about is Iran, which according to the IAEA head Mohammed el Baradei is in compliance with the NPT as far as he can tell, although he wants additional transparency from the Iranians.

Obama’s statements on a diplomatic approach to Iran were admirable. When negotiations begin, however, I would think Iran would not allow them to get very far without raising the issue of Israeli nuclear weapons, and it seems to me perfectly fair to ask why Israel is privileged to have nuclear weapons and Iran isn’t. But Obama has so much on his plate that the time has not yet come to take on Israeli violations of international law.

Good points, Max Shields..

to Max Shields:  Thank you for your clarification. Apologies for my
sarcasm.  I now understand your position as it is similar to my
own. But the question remains: What are you going to DO? You could call me an alarmist, but I am quite realistic.
The “hope” I hold is of a different kind—I hope the situation
doesn’t get too bloody as NWO running dogs attempt to maintain
control over an enraged US populace. Don’t think for a minute that
they won’t shoot to kill—All over the planet, this scene is being
played out. I repeat, they’re all set to move. A hitlerian
program already functional. I don’t hope it won’t happen; Obama gov’t is preparing for it as we speak under the umbrella of the loathsome FEMA.  If you are a skeptic,
start by googling ‘concentration camps in the us’ and do some
research.  What price anarchy?  Even Wolf Blitzer in the CNN
1984 Situation Room won’t be of any help in this New American
Century. Allow me to quote the former human, Henry Kissinger:
“Moderation is a virtue only in those who are thought to have an
alternative”. While no longer advocating violent revolution, I am cynical now. I did my share of marching in protest, in the day, and
now it seems it was all in vain.

I would gladly go on my merry way building as we must do from the ground up. But I cannot negotiate the downsizing of our military or do the kind of heavy lifting to dramatically reduce climate change - and this aint just turning lights off, this is about major de-industrialization changes, life style change for Americans who consume 5 times the energy of the average human on the planet.

I know the power-elite have most of the power, but the President can alter the game. It will be tough. He’ll have the press turn on him, big time, and than “centrists” and Republicans will investigate and look for impeachment options - you know the kind that no one had time for with GWB.

But it will take that. FDR had major flaws, but anyone who actually got corporations to plot a coup against him has touched my respect button.

“The party is over” is not some slogan. It means that all of this changes. Not we just have to “recover”. We need to recover all right, to recover from the insanity that is the uneconomic growth pathology that we’ve been on for much of the 20th C to now.

”.

I do believe Obama envisions something different, which means the notion of “pushing” him to the left is meaningless.

I suspect he’s more likely guided by a principle that says if you want change, then you yourself have to change”
_____________________________________________________

Another one sees what he/she is looking for instead
of what is actually there.
So all of sudden , Obama the slick politician and accomplished bullshit artist who got twice the
amount McCain got from Wall Street for the election
campaign is a spiritual guide to the American people.
How do you know that???!!  This kind of thinking release Obama of all his campaign promises and rhetoric.
It means that the status quo will stay the same unless the American people change. Is that what
he meant when he talked about CHANGE??!!
So, It is all the fault of the average Joes/Janes and
Wall Street and corporate America are innocent.
Ha Ha.!!
What a silly joke. What kind of weed are you smoking??!!

As I said, Altlic, he says just enough to keep you “hoping”.

He hasn’t said anything that everyone in the world hasn’t acknowledged, including the pundits who he must appease to get “good press”.

He needs a peace policy. He needs to state that we are spending more than the rest of the world combined on a war machine. That it is draining our economy, not protecting Americans, but creating enemies and fear. It must, over time, be significantly reduced. We must begin negotiations on the elimination of planet destroying nuclear weapons. We must be as transparent as we are expecting Iran to be. We have signed treaties and we will adhere, by first, allowing inspection of our missil stock pile to provide the world with evidence that we are compliant with NPT we signed…and that’s just the beginning.

These press conference, and his speeches are to keep the crowds mollified, as he goes about business as usual. It’s easy to talk about “stimulus packages”. That’s been the answer (sure, in smaller doses) for decades. Nothing “new” there.

The monster within is the trillion dollar military industrial complex and US invasions and occupations around the globe.

Domestic and foreign policies are not separate - certainly not from an economic perspective.

Watch what he “does” not what he says. He’s going to keep cruising for as long as he can with speeches. He’ll get his “hand slapped” by the media if it looks like he’s really going off the “reservation”.

Again, his deflection of Helen Thomas’ question, a simple question for an honest man with integrity are the real signs. Not the hocus pocus of stimulus this and that. The old Dem/Repub voodoo.

Obama will be sliced and diced “ten ways to Sunday” in the coming years. When all is said and done, I hope we understand him.

I suspect that Obama’s broad exposure to religious doctrine translates to a pretty deep understanding of spirituality, maybe deeper than most Americans, maybe not. Certainly deeper than the religious right.

Evangelical Christians are in total la-la land. The universe is 6,000 years old because… they added up ages in the bible???? The fact that the religious right has turned into big business totally misses the camel/eye of the needle thing Jesus talked about.

My point is this. Assume a spirituality to Obama. That would mean he’s guided NOT by a principle saying “Now that liberals are in power, we can make leftwing laws instead of rightwing laws until a conservative gets elected who’ll make rightwing laws again”.

I do believe Obama envisions something different, which means the notion of “pushing” him to the left is meaningless.

I suspect he’s more likely guided by a principle that says if you want change, then you yourself have to change. It’s ludicrous to say things have to change, but you don’t have to because… why? You’ve been hassled by the Bush administration???

Instead of asking what Obama is going to do about (fill in the blank), Obama is expecting YOU to tell everyone what you’re going to do differently today to make your home, family, government, business, your car, your armored division, your dog, your life better?

This isn’t about doing the same thing from a liberal perspective. It’s about rebirth.

You know what? The fact that President Obama skirted Helen Thomas’s question so deftly only increases my respect for him.

Was her question inappropriate? Not at all! Helen Thomas is STILL one of the smartest reporters ever to grace the White House Press room.

So just what DOES his response mean? Well, suppose he said “Sure. Israel has nukes”?  Then the question would be “How do we keep Israel from using them inappropriately?” or “If we are willing to do SO much to prevent Iran from having nukes why do we tolerate them in Israel?” etc, etc.

He would then “own” the problem.  And that’s what he avoided.  See, Israel had nukes all the way back in 1973, when a shaken Moshe Dayan suggested Israel may need to use them against Syria and Egypt and was slapped down by, I believe, Golda Meir.

Yet somehow, in the 35 years since, Israel has never tested or used these weapons. Can you imagine ANY Arab nation holding back so long?  Only Pakistan has them—but India has more, and so does China and Russia, all around her so that’s SOME control.  Yet those idiots just let go the guy who sold atomic secrets abroad.

I suspect Japan has a nuclear program as well—she certainly has all the necessary technology.  Germany? Possibly—for the same reasons. France and Britain are long-time “members of the club”.

But the key to Obama’s answer is that to admit Israel has nukes opens up a can of worms, and at exactly the worst possible time.  The man ain’t dumb and he ain’t Dumbya.  He sees the implications and consequences of his actions.

By Tony Wicher, February 9 at 7:43 pm #

Hey all you cynics, here’s a news flash: Senator Patrick Leahy is calling for a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate “abuses of detainees, politically inspired moves at the Justice Department, intelligence before the Iraq war, and other matters”. He is picking up support from other senators. He should pick up support from all of us as well.

***************************************************

There was a debate about this, I believe it was on Amy Goodman’s show, just recently. The problem with these truth and reconciliation commissions, is that someone usually ends up getting immunity in exchange for information.

I want to see prosecution. Commissions like these can end being counter-productive. The first step, in my opinion, is to reform the Justice Department.

Tony—”..president who can really think and reason. I’m like, so impressed I’m practically cumming in my drawers. Yee haa!!”

Good gawd! lol!

I have watched all three speeches. Everytime I start to think, “Yes!”—like when he said that it was the bankers and speculators, his eyes lit up a little with anger, and then he squelches it! Why?! “Dont come in with more sorry tax cuts and samo/samo..” (I am obviously para-phrasing)and then negotiates for more tax cuts. I was just really hoping, when Thomas asked her question, that he would say, “
Well, Pakistan and Israel, of course.” Dont say “he cant say that”—he could!! I am not all for this “stimulus plan”, but, alot of it is making up for all the cuts under Dubya and Clinton, all the way back to Reagan. When he said to GOP “I won”, I thought, “yes, you did. stop negotiating”. But, he falls back into “compliance”.

I am starting to believe that, yes, it is true, that there is a progresive in there somehwere. I just dont think that the system (or his idea of what a president should be??) will let him follow up on it. That is why nothing can change until the system does, even if some of the people in power want it to.

Maybe it is true what people say about trying to “push Obama left”...maybe he would respond. He hasnt so far. But, I do sense something—-he is not happy with this crap. But, will he actually…I kept thinking tonight “You know what is right—I can tell…DO IT!”

There was fleeting strong emotion when he spoke of calling people to tell them that their sons died—then, it disappeared! I dont know why people keep pushing the “cool” stuff—I like to see real human emotion. But, for the most part, it stays below the surface with him.If he is concerned with appearing “tough”, consider the largest voting block he has—-female Democrats and moderates. I can guarantee you that they would NOT hold it against him if he shed a tear!

As long as he understands that Dems are happy with what he is doing now, or, are willing to accept less than real change, he has little motivation to do it. Whatever happened to the “move Obama Left” idea??

I heard where Lahey wants the T&R Council—but, Pres. Obama said that he would “look at it” , but, that, his primary goal was to “move forward”. I just cannot imagine Pres. Obama agreeing to such a thing. It would not be a trial, but, it would be better than letting it slide. Just letting it go, implies that it is all right. War criminals are not ikely to “learn their leson” without punishment. If tehy dont learn, at least they woudl be locked up…

Max, yeah Obama was very naughty not to answer Helen’s question. But he did say THE PARTY’S OVER. Can’t imagine Bush or Clinton or McCain saying that. Ron Paul would. Kucinich and Nader would, but they can’t get elected. Barack won’t lay it out in the daylight, and he won’t say Israel is a bully, because he’d be commiting suicide, but he will drop clues here and there to wise people up to reality.

Really what he said was: “there’s no going back to the way it’s been for the last 50 years or 150 years. It’s over. Finished. I’m going to keep leading the country in a way that people don’t start freaking out because God knows people can only handle truth in little spoonfuls, but if you can hear me you will start making some changes in your life and start thinking about what changes need to happen in this country. It’s up to you. I’m just a dude that made all the compromises necessary to become president, so my hands are tied. I’m just trying to keep all this shit together, hoping that you all come to the right conclusions.”

And Max, don’t be thinking that convulsive change is going to do it and we can just say goodbye to that nasty old corporate regime. Because 1) people have a lot of animal instincts just waiting to slip out from under those civilized restraints, and 2) there are other regimes out there waiting for this country to go down. Sorry, facts of life, human nature and all.

So despite your very convincing arguments to the contrary, I think it’s best not to throw the baby out with the bath water, to not make a clean break. It’s going to take time, and it’s going to take A LOT of effort, and it’s going to get a little rough (a nuclear detonation? secession? definitely breakage of many threads in the fabric of society). But hopefully not a return to the Dark Ages.

Tony baby, it was the one question where he had to show SPINE. He failed. The rest was just looking and sounding smarter that Mr. Bushwacked. I know some third graders who pass that standard.

So, ol boy. Obama will begin to wear thin with each of these freshman prof presentations.

Maybe he’ll grow a couple while in office. Or maybe he’ll realize just what he got himself into.

Just another politician. You can be good at being a crook but your still a crook. Robert McNamara was one of the brightest guys in the room - and look what he got us into. It’s not smarts. Shit FDR was thought to be a bit of a dimwit.

99jonny100

First, I’m going to hold you to your “I’m not trying to be rude” comment, and give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply want me to clarify:

Ok, the premise of my remarks is that we are fast approaching net energy (dramatic climate change, and a complete and utter economic collapse on all levels) whereby the cost to get the energy needed to keep this economy going (endless upward growth) is peaking. The industrial empire we call home is built on cheap fossil and it is fossil which is essential to this “American way of life”. It is the American way of life that Mr. Obama is trying to preserve (return us all to). My point is that that way of life is going. That returning to it is a fool’s journey and they we should, instead be preparing for a new way of life.

Obama has not demonstrated the capacity for that kind of fundamental change. It’s understandable. He is a person of and for the system, the system which rejects my proposition because it means that the power structure would suffer, suffer deeply. It is better to have us all go off the cliff than to face reality.

Jonathan Schell (The Return of the Real: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090209/schell) in The Nation wrote a good piece on this recently. I submit the challenge is greater than the power structure and Mr. Obama (being of that) can face. I invite you to read the Schell article.

Hope that provides you with your “definitions”, well it was more an explanation.

Peace brother

to Max Shields:  You ask if “we should move quickly to meet the challenges that
require fundamental change”. I’m not trying to be rude, but just what are you
talking about?  Could you please define your terms, starting with “we”?  Thank you.

Re Max Shields, February 9 at 7:59 pm #

“Didn’t you just love the way he skirted the question by Helen Thomas tonight when she asked him: who in the middle east has nuclear missiles? Some nerve, that Helen. He hemmed and hawed with the first part of her question and never gave the answer to the nuclear threat (that’s a secret…Israel…don’t ya know). He’s a sweet heart. Was that his middle finger he brought to his nose when she tried to get him to answer. Love that guy - change you can believe in. Poor guy. This just shouldn’t be happening to a sweet guy like that.”

      x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x

Very observant, Max. That was the weakest answer he gave, all right. He really only mentioned Iran. He started talking about Pakistan but it wasn’t clear at least to me how what he said related to her question. And he never mentioned “Israel” at all.

I thought he did great on all the economic questions. The way he reasoned and thought on his feet was just a sight for sore eyes for me.

By the way, I hope you all caught Obama’s news conference. A bravura performance! At last, an intelligent president who can really think and reason. I’m like, so impressed I’m practically cumming in my drawers. Yee haa!!

Ah Tony, dude, I’m feeling so much better knowing Leahy is pushing on this. I’ve hung up my cynical blues and I’m ready to shout in the streets. Go Leahy, go man go!!

Ah Kath, I know Obama got left a pile of shit. Aint life a bitch. It’s just unfair. Obama was suppose to have smooth sailing and crap…he got a war in Iraq and Afganistan (these were secret wars, Kath) and then there was the financial collapse (again, it was a surprise surprise surprise…).

Didn’t you just love the way he skirted the question by Helen Thomas tonight when she asked him: who in the middle east has nuclear missiles? Some nerve, that Helen. He hemmed and hawed with the first part of her question and never gave the answer to the nuclear threat (that’s a secret…Israel…don’t ya know). He’s a sweet heart. Was that his middle finger he brought to his nose when she tried to get him to answer. Love that guy - change you can believe in. Poor guy. This just shouldn’t be happening to a sweet guy like that.

Let’s all say a little prayer for him tonight. But hey he said he’s the leader and leaders lead…stiff upper lip, chin up..tata

By Margaret Currey, February 9 at 3:21 pm #

I am one of the people that think that 9/11 was something that Bush wanted, after all the best way to go around the constitution is to have a war, I wonder what Bush & Co. would have done if there was no war.

Bush was told that something could happen but he chose to ignore it or wanted to ignore it.

        x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x

Margaret,

Congratulations, you are almost there. Now all you have to do is visit the website of Engineers and Architects for 9/11 Truth and watch the two-hour presentation by architect Richard Gage. It is an elementary science lesson. It will convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the three buildings that collapsed in the World Trade Center did so as a result of controlled demolition, thousands of pre-set steel-cutting thermate charges exploded synchronistically. It follows from the laws of physics that there is no other way a steel-frame structure could come down in this fashion. Acutal samples of unexploded and partially exploded military thermate have been found in samples of dust still widely available. Convince yourself of this, then realize that this was not just a case of allowing it to happen, which would be bad enough. No, they made it happen. The “War on Terror” starring Osama bin Laden is a movie brought to you by the Bush administration. Understand that even though they no longer control the presidency, the people who did this are still in our government and no doubt have nuclear and biological weapons at their disposal to create a “terrorist incident” at a time of their choosing.

Hey all you cynics, here’s a news flash: Senator Patrick Leahy is calling for a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate “abuses of detainees, politically inspired moves at the Justice Department, intelligence before the Iraq war, and other matters”. He is picking up support from other senators. He should pick up support from all of us as well.

Please call Patrick Leahy’s with your expressions of encouragement and support at: 202-224-4242.

Also, Atty. Gen. Holder’s office is asking for letters:
    Attorney General Eric Holder
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
    Washington, DC 20530-0001

99jonny100,

You misread my comment. I don’t expect Obama to do anything that George W. Bush didn’t do. I don’t think that cynicism anymore than what I said was pessimistic.

I saying what we need. We don’t have the policial system which is owned by corporations and major lobby groups to do what I said needs to be done.

By the way, I sincerely believe - and there are sound facts to support it - that whether Obama does what I say or not, the party is clearly over.

The question is: do we move quickly to meet the challenge that requires major, fundamental changes? Or do we slam into what will clearly be a catastrophe?

to Max Shields:  Obama is going to “dismantle the military industrial
complex”. I think that’s over the top, pure pollyanna-ism; more
like pure fantasy. He may be a hero to some, but a Superhero he’s
not.  It’s especially mistaken to ignore that his campaign was floated by that very same complex. I’m a cynic but I actually believe that the
story of his millions garnered from small internet contributions was a fib—a convenient untruth.

Taikan- Thanks for the info that Obama is protecting rendition enablers from legal scrutany in the same way Bush did.  Bush also got Britain to quash a legal examination of Britain’s part in a rendition case, threatening not to share intelligence.  Obama followed up congratulating the Brits on it and stating the US would now share intelligence.

Like Bush, Obama says that the US doesn’t torture.

Tony, I’ll pray for you.

truedigger3

One person’s pessimism is another’s realism.

We can be optimistic about many things. Let’s count our “blessing” in terms of what is most precious and see to it that we do what we can to preserve and create a better like.

But optimism about this empire is not healthy (ok, in my opinion). It is not simply the empire, it is much of the industrialization that created this imperial empire.

Energy is key. And the industrial empire we’ve grown up with needs fossil. There is no viable alternative to it to keep this economy “growing”. Alternative sources are needed, need to be renewaable and non-nuclear. But together these will never match what we’ve gotten from fossil and our world must change. Obama can start by downsizing our military - drastically, dismantling the military industrial complex, negotiate a complete dismantling of all nuclear and office weapons. He can than, through executive order, nationalize all natural resources, downsize the GDP and replace it with a sustainable set of metrics that will deal with the end of cheap fossil fuel.

He will need to prepare the American people for a complete downsizing of our use of energy sources, push power to local control wherever possible. He will have to aggressively tackle climate change NOW. And lastly he will have to reinvent the US economic system to one of a steady-state economics, negotiate with the rest of the world a revised scaling back of energy use.

The above will require a leader, a leader with balls. Have we the right man for the job? That’s the real question folks.

Locally we need to create sustainable environments from the ground up.

Yes, there’s work to be done - NOW. The future I see works - that’s not pessimism!

Re Max Shields, February 9 at 1:50 pm #

Tony,

You’re such a pol. Our pathological economic system didn’t all of sudden go off the tracks because of George Bush.

        x x x x x x x x x x x x

Who said it did? This gang has been in government at least since the early 60’s when CIA joined forces with the Mob to assassinate Kennedy, with the blessing of LBJ.

              x x x x x x x

“What movement are you running with, by the way. The one that got Obama elected and who than hired every neoliberal, some neocons, kept Bush’s military honchos in charge and brought in much of the same warmongers who walked the halls of power during the Clinton administration. That movement?”
         
            x x x x x x x x x x

Yep, that movement. That’s because as a 9/11 truther I intend to metastasize and infiltrate the entire American body politic, and the best place to start is with Obama supporters, most of whom are honest, idealistic Americans who know their government has been bad for a long time but who haven’t begun to suspect just how bad.

          x x x x x x x x x

“You’ll coop every chance you get there Tony, just like a pol, shamelessly.”

          x x x x x x x x x

What I won’t give an inch on is the truth of what happened on 9/11.

To Max Shield,

You wrote:“In the end, altlic, the empire is unraveling and Obama is the last stop before the dike busts through.”

I am not sure why such pessimism. Am I missing something.
Yes, Obama is a puppet for big Money/Business.
Yes, tough times are ahead for the average Joes/janes with severe hardships for many and more money for the super-rich.
In my humble opinio, I do not think there will be collapse or anything like it.
In the end the country will pull through with probably reduced living standards for the average citizens and with more concentration of wealth at the top.

Re Folktruther, February 9 at 1:25 pm #

“tony, you are getting to be as dingy as Sheronymous.  No power system is going to reveal that their regieme commintted mass murder on their own people.  Especially to initiate a Zionist inspired War on Terrorism that Obama is still pursuing. Try to get a hold of yourself.”

          x x x x x x x x

Folktruther,

You don’t seem to differentiate between the criminal gang that was actually in the White House the last eight years, and the totality of the U.S. government. Most people in the government are at worst incompetent bureaucrats and many if not most are actually honest, hard-working and conscientious. These folks have no idea what is going on and will be utterly horrified when they find out. What we have to do is fight their natural incredulity that their own government could do such a thing and get them informed. Only a minority of people in government are actually criminal. What we must do is push from below as hard as we can. Let us assume that Obama is like most other Americans and people in government in that he does not understand the situation. If he does, he is playing his cards incredibly close to his chest, or, of course, he is a member of the gang. We need to get to people in his organization, whether they are in government or not, beginning with people who have active in getting him elected and their higher-level organizers. I know somebody who knows Hilda Solis, Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Labor, and I have asked him to talk to her and give her the DVD “9/11: Blueprint for Truth” by architect Richard Gage.” This is the sort of thing we can all DO to advance our cause. Eventually the news will trickle up to Obama. Then we will find out what side he and everybody else is really on.

By altlic, February 9 at 1:24 pm #

“All I’m saying is, I think it’s a mistake to dismiss Obama as more of the same. Yes, let’s be realistic; but making him the enemy at this point is playing into the hands of the right-wingers. And I say again, the onus is now on the disaffected and zombified public to pull its head out of its consumption orifice and get mobilized. As far as leadership, we shouldn’t be counting on the POTUS to lead the revolution.”

Let me be clear. I’m not looking for the POTUS to lead a revolution. I’m not frustrated with Obama. I’m not frustrated with the Republicans or Democrats or the system.

I am a bit frustrated by those who think this system is 1) worth saving 2) can save anything beside its own hide (and that game is pretty much over).

Obama is the system. His job is to keep folks like you off balance with “hope” for as long as he can. He’ll do a few simple things to off-set the fact that he’s following the same course as the last administration. “we don’t torture” is the Bush slogan re-treaded through the Obama talking points. We’re going to “close Gitmo…in a year or so” No more “extraordinary” rendition…just rendition…

Not that’s the “good stuff”. He’ll talk about global warming a little more than his predecessor, there’ll be a little stem cell research ovatures (money won’t be avaiable but he’ll have talked the talk…at least).

In the end, altlic, the empire is unraveling and Obama is the last stop before the dike busts through. Stem cell research will be the least of our concerns. As will the kind of renditioning the US government is doing.

The party is over…now where do we go from here. Tell Obama to turn off the lights before leaving…