Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
July 28, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

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

The Gospel of Self

Truthdig Bazaar

Prejudicial Error

Bill Blum

more items

Email this item Print this item

The Afghanistan Speech Obama Should Give (but Won’t)

Posted on Nov 19, 2009
White House / Chuck Kennedy

By Tom Engelhardt

(Page 2)

I suggested then that the situation in Afghanistan was already “perilous.” I announced that we would be sending 17,000 more American soldiers into that war zone, as well as 4,000 trainers and advisors whose job would be to increase the size of the Afghan security forces so that they could someday take the lead in securing their own country. There could be no more serious decision for an American president.   

Eight months have passed since that day. This evening, after a comprehensive policy review of our options in that region that has involved commanders in the field, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Advisor James Jones, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Vice President Joe Biden, top intelligence and State Department officials and key ambassadors, special representative on Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, and experts from inside and outside this administration, I have a very different kind of announcement to make. 

I plan to speak to you tonight with the frankness Americans deserve from their president. I’ve recently noted a number of pundits who suggest that my task here should be to reassure you about Afghanistan. I don’t agree. What you need is the unvarnished truth just as it’s been given to me. We all need to face a tough situation, as Americans have done so many times in the past, with our eyes wide open. It doesn’t pay for a president or a people to fake it or, for that matter, to kick the can of a difficult decision down the road, especially when the lives of American troops are at stake. 

During the presidential campaign I called Afghanistan “the right war.” Let me say this: with the full information resources of the American presidency at my fingertips, I no longer believe that to be the case. I know a president isn’t supposed to say such things, but he, too, should have the flexibility to change his mind. In fact, more than most people, it’s important that he do so based on the best information available. No false pride or political calculation should keep him from that. 


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
And the best information available to me on the situation in Afghanistan is sobering. It doesn’t matter whether you are listening to our war commander, General Stanley McChrystal, who, as press reports have indicated, believes that with approximately 80,000 more troops—which we essentially don’t have available—there would be a reasonable chance of conducting a successful counterinsurgency war against the Taliban, or our ambassador to that country, Karl Eikenberry, a former general with significant experience there, who believes we shouldn’t send another soldier at present. All agree on the following seven points:

1. We have no partner in Afghanistan. The control of the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai hardly extends beyond the embattled capital of Kabul. He himself has just been returned to office in a presidential election in which voting fraud on an almost unimaginably large scale was the order of the day. His administration is believed to have lost all credibility with the Afghan people.

2. Afghanistan floats in a culture of corruption. This includes President Karzai’s administration up to its highest levels and also the warlords who control various areas and, like the Taliban insurgency, are to some degree dependent for their financing on opium, which the country produces in staggering quantities.  Afghanistan, in fact, is not only a narco-state, but the leading narco-state on the planet. 

3.  Despite billions of dollars of American money poured into training the Afghan security forces, the army is notoriously understrength and largely ineffective; the police forces are riddled with corruption and held in contempt by most of the populace. 

4.  The Taliban insurgency is spreading and gaining support largely because the Karzai regime has been so thoroughly discredited, the Afghan police and courts are so ineffective and corrupt, and reconstruction funds so badly misspent. Under these circumstances, American and NATO forces increasingly look like an army of occupation, and more of them are only likely to solidify this impression. 

5.  Al-Qaeda is no longer a significant factor in Afghanistan. The best intelligence available to me indicates—and again, whatever their disagreements, all my advisors agree on this—that there may be perhaps 100 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and another 300 in neighboring Pakistan. As I said in March, our goal has been to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and on this we have, especially recently, been successful. Osama bin Laden, of course, remains at large, and his terrorist organization is still a danger to us, but not a $100 billion-plus danger. 

6.  Our war in Afghanistan has become the military equivalent of a massive bail-out of a firm determined to fail. Simply to send another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan would, my advisors estimate, cost $40-$54 billion extra dollars; eighty thousand troops, more than $80 billion. Sending more trainers and advisors in an effort to double the size of the Afghan security forces, as many have suggested, would cost another estimated $10 billion a year. These figures are over and above the present projected annual costs of the war—$65 billion—and would ensure that the American people will be spending $100 billion a year or more on this war, probably for years to come. Simply put, this is not money we can afford to squander on a failing war thousands of miles from home.

7.  Our all-volunteer military has for years now shouldered the burden of our two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if we were capable of sending 40,000-80,000 more troops to Afghanistan, they would without question be servicepeople on their second, third, fourth, or even fifth tours of duty. A military, even the best in the world, wears down under this sort of stress and pressure. 

New and Improved Comments

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

Join the conversation

Load Comments
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 28, 2009 at 9:08 am Link to this comment


On hindsight, I see that my last comment was too lame, even if it was intellectually sound.

Anyone who has followed our exchanges on these thruthdig threads would come to the conclusion that you are the one who has been “Bitch slapped.” I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving, bitch.

(I hate to surrender in debate, even if it is an excessively emotional one.)

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 26, 2009 at 10:18 pm Link to this comment


I’ve noticed that during debate about Intellectual issues, if one of the debaters begins spouting false assertions, Adhominem attacks, and angry insults, that debater has lost the debate.

Report this

By mandinka, November 26, 2009 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment

jimmystick, it must be frustrating for you to post and then get bitch slapped by me. Time and again you try and post intellectual nonsense that doesn’t pass the smell test.
Its thanksgiving and I hate to ruin yours by making you look so little so I’ll sign off

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 26, 2009 at 11:54 am Link to this comment


You state:

“So for you to state that a small number of conspiracy minded historians is baseless since the documentation to make a reasonable decision isn’t there all you have on your side is pure conjecture”

Conjecture? Where’s the conjecture? Your logic is impeccable (Sarcasm.) You are hopeless. The only reason I respond to your drivel, is that I’m afraid that some one might actually believe it.
As long as this government is “Of the People, By the People, and For the People,” government actions should benefit all the people, and not just a few select individuals.

Report this

By mandinka, November 26, 2009 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

dipstick, lets see a fascist take over of the world, not a whole lot different than what the UN and barak’s plans are for this country. Elimination of free enterprise and government control of economy. Maybe the French can rescue us.
As for FDR notice that 60 years after his death non of the presidential records and his letters relating to WW2 have been released. This has been a conscious decision more had been released concerning W’s afgan and Iraq forays than we can get on FDR’s reasons. So for you to state that a small number of conspiracy minded historians is baseless since the documentation to make a reasonable decision isn’t there all you have on your side is pure conjecture

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 26, 2009 at 10:05 am Link to this comment


Further comment is necessary regarding your comment:

“…So what the hell a few hundred thousand US soldiers died”

The loss of 500,000 U.S soldier’s lives is indeed tragic, but those lives would not have been lost, if Fascists had not pursued their goals of empire in the world, killing millions in the process.

Over and above the moral imperatives involved, was the very real threat of world domination by Fascism, and the perpetuation of its very real brutalities.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 26, 2009 at 8:52 am Link to this comment


Your comment:

“…only by entering WW2 did FDR get us extracted. So what the hell a few hundred thousand US soldiers died.”

Requires some further comment.

You seem to ascribe to the conspiratorial historical analysis regarding the U.S. Governments entry into the Second World War put forth by a very small minority of conspiracy minded historians, who base their historical analysis on speculation.

In a nutshell, their contention is that Roosevelt’s policies gave the Japanese no alternative but to attack Pearl Harbor, and that he allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, so he would have a reason to enter the Second War. Regardless of where these conspiratorial historical theories have come from, their intent is to discredit Roosevelt. They believe that Roosevelt’s policies of economic sanctions on Japan were intended to provoke Japan into war, and not the result of Japan’s Imperialistic Military intervention into China.

I don’t have the time or the inclination to delve into these spurious accusations now, because I would rather reply to Hanson’s sophistry, but your truly sound analysis of what ended the world wide Depression brings up an interesting reality.

Let me see…? What was it that ended the world wide Depression? Hum…? Oh yeah, it was government spending. Government spending on weapons of destruction brought us out of the Depression.

I’m definitely not an advocate of irrational government spending on weapons of destruction as a means of improving the economy though. Historically, government spending on military systems has provided an incentive, by a few, for war.

I would prefer government spending to focus on improving the human condition. Government spending is in fact an investment. Government spending on job creation, for example, increases tax revenues, and strengthens demand in markets, which further increases tax revenues, thereby decreasing deficits.

The problem with government spending is that it sometimes creates deficits; that is why I advocate for a return to the more equitable tax policies we had during the Eisenhower administration, which was arguably the most prosperous time in our nation’s history.

One could argue that if the government had not spent money on defending our Nation and the World, forgetting the moral imperatives involved, people like Prescott Bush would have improved the economy by consolidating the wealth in their greedy little hands (Remember the 1%/95% reality?)

Again, I’m not advocating for military spending, I’m only pointing out the fallacy of neoliberal policies.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 25, 2009 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment

I thought you had some knowledge of the balance sheet. Increasing taxes does, in fact, reduce the deficit, just as decreasing tax revenues increases the deficit. 

Thank you for clarifying the neo communist thing. I finally understand. The neo communists are “Dems”, George W. Bush, and the Republican in Congress.

You are a great source of information. I didn’t know that Obama sneakily took over the government in November, 2008 .Did he do that before the election or after it?

“On ‘October 14, 2008,’ Secretary of the Treasury Paulson and President Bush separately announced revisions in the TARP program. The Treasury announced their intention to buy senior preferred stock and warrants in the nine largest American banks.”

Let me give - you - a little information, there is a difference between the Bailout (Tarp,) and the stimulus package.
“updated 5:50 p.m. MT, Tues., Feb. 17, 2009
DENVER - Racing to reverse the country’s economic spiral, President Barack Obama signed the stimulus package into law.”

Do you recognize the above? It’s called factual information.

Black Tuesday occurred October 19, 1929. It was the beginning of the Great Depression. Hoover the Republican President did very little to combat the Great Depression. In 1933 Franklyn Delano Roosevelt became President of the U.S., and the Democrats took over both houses of Congress.

1933 24.9%,
1934 21.7%,
1935, 20.1%,
!936, 16.9%
1937, 14.3%
“Economists attribute economic growth so far to heavy government spending that is somewhat deficit. Roosevelt, however, fears an unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation plunges into another recession.”

“1938 The year-long recession makes itself felt: the GNP falls 4.5 percent, and unemployment rises to 19.0 percent.”

Regarding Geithner; I’ll tell you a little secret. I don’t like Obama’s economic advisors either. They are Wall Street neoliberals (Not liberals, neoliberals) who followed the teachings of Greenspan and Friedman. Free Market Capitalists like George W., Clinton, Bush H.W., and Reagan, and now Obama.

Here’s an opinion, not a fact (There’s a difference.) I think Obama turned to the so called experts because he felt he lacked the necessary expertise to deal with the economic crisis.

Obama is definitely not like Roosevelt, he’s a centrist (Remember centrist?)

You say:

“Is so horribly un american to tax trial lawyers differently for their ill gotten gains and driving up healthcare costs for every citizen??”

I don’t get it. What’s your Point? I’m all for taxes. Tax the 1% that owns 95% of the wealth. It’s called redistribution of the wealth; isn’t that evil? Actually, Reagan began redistributing the wealth from ordinary Americans to the super rich back in the 80’s. It’s been going on since then, and continues today.

Oh!... I get it, your talking about “Tort Reform,” one of the major costs of health care (Not.) Actually I’ve talked to Doctors about the issue; I’d be more than happy to trade Tort Reform (Reform, not elimination,) for a single payer system.

You allege:

“Serving up Medicare as an example of a frugal ans smart healthcare system is silly on its face. Eliminating the fraud and unnecessary treatments under Medicare would generate enough saving to enroll everyone in private care thru insurance companies”

Wow! I didn’t know that. Is this another ManDinka “Fact”?

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 25, 2009 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment


Regarding Medicare, I gave you the numbers. Do you have a problem with numbers? The Medicare fraud is perpetrated by sleazy entrepreneurs, and needs to be eliminated. Obama has called for eliminating waste in Medicare; the waste in Medicare is dwarfed by the corruption in the Health Care Insurance Companies. This issue of fraud and waste is primarily an argument used by those on the Right, who hate government programs; because those programs actually help people and spending money to help people is contrary to their heartless ideology. The problem with Medicare is that it’s underfunded, and that can be easily corrected when people who currently feed the vampires with their dollars, buy into Medicare, but don’t worry it will never happen, because Corporatists own our government.

Report this

By mandinka, November 25, 2009 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment

dear Jimmy I have news for you cutting spending reduces the deficit only Dems and neo communists believe that creating huge deciciets is good for this country.
W was in error in going along with the stimulus but lets place the blame where it belongs. W knew that some action needed to happen right away and he allowed barak to appoint his man, you know the head of treasury Geithner, who was head of the Eastern Fed Reserve Bank, who didn’t pay his taxes to orchestrate the entire plan. Remember Barak saying that there can only 1 CIC but he was taking control of everything else in Nov or did you forget that?? FDR’s deficit spending caused the great depression to go on much longer that it should have and only by entering WW2 did FDR get us extracted. So what the hell a few hundred thousand US soldiers died

Is so horribly un american to tax trial lawyers differently for their ill gotten gains and driving up healthcare costs for every citizen??

Serving up Medicare as an example of a frugal ans smart healthcare system is silly on its face. Eliminating the fraud and unnecessary treatments under medicare would generate enough saving to enroll everyone in private care thru insurance companies

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 25, 2009 at 12:36 am Link to this comment


I’ve got a little economics lesson for you:

1.) Tax revenues reduce the deficit.
2.) 1% of the population owns 95% of the wealth.
3.) The Bush administration has set all kinds of records. His wars were the first ones we’ve ever fought with accompanying tax cuts.

Does it seem so incredibly, horribly, unfair to you that those who increase there wealth by trading paper, should have to pay taxes on their ill gotten gains? Many people believe that the Wall Street “Masters of the Universe” intentionally robbed our treasury, and that they are up there in their ivory towers laughing at us.  I’m not big on conspiracy theories, but it seems obvious that they are feeling pretty smug about now.

I know you’re going to blame Obama for the bailout, but it was Paulson, the Goldman Sachs Honcho, and Bush who put the Bailout together.  The money that Obama spent was a stimulus intended to grow the economy. Whether it will be successful remains to be seen. It may well be that the deregulation Bush, Greenspan, and other neoliberals pushed through congress, allowed Wall Street greed heads to put our economy in a hole that we’ll never get out of. The immediate problem we have now is that the banks are investing the money we gave them, and not making loans to business.
Bernanke’s claim to fame is that he is a student of the Great Depression. During the Great Depression, Roosevelt spent money, to grow the economy and save the American people from the ravages of the Depression. The recovery stalled when Roosevelt stopped spending money. Perhaps the policies that saved our economy during the Great Depression won’t work this time, because Volker’s fight against inflation, during the Carter and Reagan years, (Intended to protect the wealth of the super rich) along with Corporatist Global Economic Policies, effectively destroyed our manufacturing base (and the jobs.) They even shipped the manufacturing machinery overseas.

The cost of health care with the Health Care Bill must be contrasted to the cost of health care without the Bill.

The proposed Health Care Bills enrich the Health Care Insurance Companies. We should drive stakes through the hearts of the vampire like Health Insurance Companies and have everyone buy into Medicare. Having everyone buy into Medicare would grow our economy. Insurance companies have a 3% to 4% profit margin and operating expenses of 20% to 25%. Medicare has no profit margin and operating expenses of 4%.

Report this

By Hanson, November 24, 2009 at 7:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This speech is by far very irritating and naive.  Sure, the situation is not going well for us, and further escalation will cost us.  You could say the same about D-Day.  Thousands of US soldiers were killed during that operation, and millions of dollars were spent on executing the operation.  So, causalities and costs are not a very persuasive argument to withdraw our commitment. 

As for the failing nation point, South Korea was not much different from Afghanistan.  Its economic situation was awfully poor, and its government was heavily corrupted as well.  The reason why North Korea no longer attacks South Korea is b/c the US presence in protecting its allies.

Basically, this speech, to me, is a form of surrender.  Instead of giving up b/c our current policy isn’t working, we should instead focus on changing our policy.  Right now, US has been fighting an offensive war by trying to bomb and find the key players of the Taliban and Al-Qaida.  This is a very bad approach, because we are leaving our defenses wide open.  Also, our offensive approach has made us more distant from the Afghan people.  The Afghan people don’t care if the terrorists are dead or not.  All they want are sustenance and security.  So, instead of resigning just b/c the war is not on our favor, we should change our objectives and make the war more winnable.  Face it, we cannot capture anti-Western figures through our military might.  I mean look at Hamas and Hizbollah.  Even though they are more exposed and out in the open the Taliban are, US still wouldn’t dare strike against them b/c they know that they cannot nab them.

I don’t think we can eliminate the terrorists in general.  However, we can eliminate their will to fight against us.  If we make Afghanistan a stable country (unlike its past), then the Taliban will no longer have the motivation to attack Afghanistan and will move onto other targets.  All the insurgents want is to create instability.  If their target is very stable, then their goals of creating chaos will never be realized.

Come on, people.  Where’s our old US spirit?  Where’s the spirit that made the mighty country that we dreamed to be?

Report this

By mandinka, November 24, 2009 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment

dear jimmymystic, I guess you feel as though you need to post againg without doing a modicum of research. There is an amazing new device invented by Al Gore called the internet and you can find all kinds of information by “googling” a topic.
Since you were unable to find the data on military deaths in Afganistan its obvious that you ahve yet to learn how. Stop by a grade school and I bet they will be willing to teach you. Please write the instructions down so you’ll be able to do it in the future on your own.
No one is excusing W for his share of the budget deficiet but you want to turn a blind eye to the Messiah and his mastery of deficiet spending.
the dems in congress are attempting to institute a new tax called a 3peat
> a new tax on everyone eraning $30 or more to pay for any expansion of the war in Afganistan
> a tranaction tax on every wall street action
> an ongoing tax on stock profits.

Yep our great military mind barak and his outstanding economic leadership has just managed a 3peat!!!!!
Notice that they have no plans to pay for healthcare

Report this

By Orley Allen, November 24, 2009 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Afghanistan! AFGHANISTAN! If you’ve ever just touched a history book you know
this is the place that ate Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great! I KNEW
Alexander the Great. I loved Alexander the Great. Barack Obama is NO Alexander
the Great. The skill set to win the American Presidency is completely exclusive of
the skill set to govern, if governing is what we’re going for. It isn’t, and so the
Presidency has been a long line of empty suits. The corporate MSM picks these
guys and then makes us eat them. Our corporate overseers nullified the 2000
election because we’d elected someone they believed was a wrong guy and
replaced him with, you guessed it, another empty suit. But this one’s on us. An
actual leader might not be the best spoken or have the most telegenic face or
might (shudder) speak French. We’ll never know. God help us. This is the decline.

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 24, 2009 at 8:45 am Link to this comment


Having a rational debate with ManDinka is impossible. He relies on his “Facts” and presents these “Facts” with an, I gotcha attitude. However his “Facts” are little more than his opinions dressed up with fuzzy math. I have foolishly wasted valuable time searching for his nonexistent “Facts.”

He has presented himself as being a superior military strategist, and has used his “Facts,” backed up by fuzzy math, as evidence of his superiority.  The one real fact that is obvious here is that his military strategies are in direct contradiction to the military strategies put fourth by the Pentagon and the commanders in the field. He seems to imply that he has some military experience that gives credence to his radical theories, but I doubt that, because I don’t believe he could pass the psychological screening that is required during the recruitment process.

Now he’s presenting himself as an expert in economics, but he apparently isn’t able to distinguish between Fiscal and Monetary Policy. The Fed’s inventing money out of thin air in an effort to save a broken economy, is not the same thing as deficit spending as is practiced by Fiscal policy. To his credit, he seems to be aware of the rudimentary concept of the balance sheet. He needs to take a look at the Bush Administration’s balance sheets for the last eight years.

Report this

By dennis waite, November 23, 2009 at 4:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

mandinka, have you lost all of your mind:
saterday night live is a poor example of comedy and even worse political forum for this Progressive ;
I can see nothing in your humor…..Republicans have never been for this country -every move they make, has made this nation weaker, and more divided ;
they seem to like foriegn dollars and the take over of American government :

Report this

By mandinka, November 22, 2009 at 9:05 pm Link to this comment

dennis W left barak?? here’s a place for you to see how the Chinese feel

Report this

By mandinka, November 22, 2009 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment

Cabdriver please don’t give up your day job because reading and understanding facts are not your forte
. current unemployment is >17% suggest you read the Dept of labor monthly reports it includes all unemployment actual and those who have given up looking. the state run media always used that number when W was president
. deficit is from all sources the fed has over $6 Trillion that they put on their books that are loans that are not recoverable. Try an accounting course to see a balance sheet.
. casualties you provided were from both theaters and W fixed Iraq, what is going on in afghanistan are RECORD casualties 6 months running. The state run media only reports total casualties since the wars began and have been intentionally hiding the Afgan problem.
I will give you a rave for a first time poster but please get some facts in the future preferably not from the state run media

Report this

By cabdriver, November 21, 2009 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“mandinka”...I think you concocted this:

“I have made a mess of every thing I have touched as President unemployment is over 17%, the debt has increased by $8Trillion and the US dollar is no longer the World Standard. I have squander our standing in the world by apologizing and bowing to every crackpot leader.
I have no idea how the military functions but since my policies have been put in place the Army and Marines have sustained record KIA and Casualties…”

“unemployment is over 17%”

As of October 2009, it was 10.2%.

“the debt has increased by $8 Trillion”

The national debt when Barack Obama took office from George W. Bush in January of 2001 was $10.6 trillion. $4.5 trillion of it had been run up in the previous 8 years, during Bush Jr.‘s two terms in office.

That’s a historical record, by the way.

It’s presently $12 trillion. That means that $1.4 trillion has been added.

You pulled the $8 trillion figure out of…somewhere.

“The US dollar is no longer the World Standard.”

The US dollar is still the world’s reserve currency.

No president in the history of this country has been handed a bigger budget disaster than the current president.

In terms of inheriting a wrecked, looted economy, the closest related example I can think of is what happened when Raul Alfonsin took over the presidency of Argentina in late 1983 from the Dirty War junta who ruled the country for the previous 7 1/2 years.

And just like what you’re trying to do with Obama, Alfonsin and the Argentine Liberal Party eventually took the fall for the economic failures of the previous regime, a corrupt junta who ran the country into the ground as a kleptocracy.

“I have squander our standing in the world by apologizing and bowing to every crackpot leader. I have no idea how the military functions…”

You’re a regular fountain of Factoids. You know, those corny confections that Fox News feeds people, through their TV screens.

“...but since my policies have been put in place the Army and Marines have sustained record KIA and Casualties.”

Combined US military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are at about 450 in 2009, in the 10 months that Obama has been president.

Combined US military deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan during George W. Bush’s term:

2003-  534
2004-  901
2005-  945
2006-  920
2007- 1021
2008-  469

It looks as if you’ve just started keeping score, “mandinka.”

Bonus points for the phony screen name, a lame attempt at racist kneecapping. (Of course, the homeland of the Mandinka people is around 1000 miles west of Kenya, the birthplace of Barack Obama’s father. But no doubt, you think that’s close enough to get your point across, such as it is.)

Report this

By dennis waite, November 21, 2009 at 3:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

this nation is on food stamps and were “exploding” our resources- all over seas …throw in the – health care industry cost and together this is beating this nation in the ground …….Fine mess the Bush-admin. left for us to clean up !!
The President is right on the money to recieve more information and to think not re-act : the Prersident is thinking with a clear head !!
while the right wing enemies of this Nation are destroying the unity of this Country and dividing the races and the eletorial process by de-humanizing the-President-and the Black Americans who have seen all this crazzy talk before with the KKK….do we need to go back to the days of massive race riots ????? why aren’t these people put in Jail .why doesn’t Obama ,  start several- 9/11 trials and use the courts to investigate where all the money is:
the republicans are running amuck with free tv ads and those who own the television and radio stations are the same people who are behind this health care and health insurance
and this War !!
because they have bought the Senate and the congress…..what counrties own our Government now…Swiss-england -china-  and Austrilia ??!!  canada+mexico ???  all I know is we Americans don’t control our Nation:

Report this

By TAO Walker, November 21, 2009 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

AfPak is only the latest attempt by the U.S. military to erase the shame of Custer’s defeat in “1876.”  Korea and Viet Nam were earlier tries that only compounded the Pentagon’s debilitating case of institutional PTSD.  So another assault, in difficult terrain, on indigenous resistors to the allamerican imperial project has to be mounted and pursued….lest the entire criminal enterprise be exposed even to its half-witless aiders-and-abettors theamericanpeople for the suicidal MADness it’s always been.  “Doubling-down” on a losing proposition is, after all, as american as pie-in-the-sky.

So don’t look to Barack Obama to provide any teleprompted “deliverance” from four hundred years of euroamerican fatal folly here on Turtle Island.  Best to let the damned thing run its course, anyhow.  Maybe that will finally suffice to deprogram “....huddled masses,” and free them from the suffocating toils of theamericandream.

Or maybe not.


Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, November 21, 2009 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment

The speech written by Mr. Englehardt for President Obama provides the forum for making a cogent argument for ending the wars, but I feel the speech is too rational and complex for some people. The overwhelming body of evidence based on a fact based, common sense approach, provides too many concrete examples for some people to absorb.

Therefore I will suggest another solution to the dilemma that will be easier for people, who have difficulty in understanding the issues. I’ll call it the “Acorn Treatment.”

The Acorn Treatment: The next time we see allegations of criminal conduct by any member of the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan we immediately cut funding and withdraw all support for the offending member’s government.

The advantages of this solution would be: There is legal precedent, it would bring an immediate end to the problem, and it would be easier for some people to understand.

Report this
Peetawonkus's avatar

By Peetawonkus, November 21, 2009 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

Can I get an amen? The Democrats are simply the “nicer” face of our One & Only Corporate Party. Once in office, they’ve shown themselves to be not only spineless but afraid and dismissive of the very people who elected them. They’ve drug their heels and only reluctantly and petulantly moved forward on any decent legislation. But what is the alternative? One reason Democrats consistently betray those who elect them is because they know we have no where else to turn. With such a close battle for America’s soul going on at this pre-Civil War juncture in history, every progressive and liberal vote cast for a non-Democrat is a vote for a Republican. There is no viable third party to participate in elections on a national scale. Not even on a state level, for the most part. There are a few “Independents” who often act in concert with Progressive and Liberal Democrats but not enough to be the hammer we really need. We could field more local Democrat candidates who are genuinely progressive, and that has value—but more often than not their nominations are blocked and outspent by mainstream corporate Democrats. “Changing the system from within” and other noble transformations of the Democratic Party are still largely in the realm of fantasy. Indeed, as long as liberals and progressive continue to invest Democrat candidates with their hopes and dreams, those candidates will betray them. To me, this is a war fought on many fronts and there is no one single answer. But if we are to build an alternative to the Democrats, we need to begin at the bottom and build a base, county by county, state by state.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, November 21, 2009 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

Of course, there was the speech that Obama really did give back when he was trying to convince us to give him this job ....

“I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war” - Barack Obama, October 27, 2007

Report this

By Mary Ann McNeely, November 20, 2009 at 10:23 pm Link to this comment

By Gold Star Father, November 19 at 7:52 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

I believe that pigs can fly.

Yes.  Put George Worthless Bush, Dick Chaingang and the current Loser who calls himself president on an airplane and you will most definitely see pigs fly.

Report this

By mikel paul, November 20, 2009 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

Everything in words has a motive. Written, spoken, printed, etc etc etc. What people ‘do’ as opposed to say, although imperfect in its sincere hoped for effect, is as good a measure as we have to determine the truth, which is, I remind myself, not an absolute, but personal and filled with ongoing uncertainty as we each search for our way.
That “another is not us” is a clever way to offer up yet another problem. More clever would be to welcome our differences, but alas we seem to enjoy more the false battles rather than the truer hard work of acceptance.

Report this

By mandinka, November 20, 2009 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

To the American People

I have made a mess of every thing I have touched as President unemployment is over 17%, the debt has increased by $8Trillion and the US dollar is no longer the World Standard. I have squander our standing in the world by apologizing and bowing to every crackpot leader.
I have no idea how the military functions but since my policies have been put in place the Army and Marines have sustained record KIA and Casualties.
I will not seek another term in office, if nominated I will not run. This is what happens when you elect an empty suit, remember this the next time you vote.
Barak Osama Obama hmmm hmmm hmmmm

Report this

By sempdog, November 20, 2009 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

How about leaving Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time.
Al Queda and the Taliban are no real threat to me and mine.
The average street gang banger in my region or a high percentage of undocumented aliens are a far greater threat to my way of life. And don’t play the 9/11 card. We lose that many souls to DUI accidents in a month or two. We need help at home and a New Deal infrastructure plan would be a good place to start. Lots of jobs.

Report this
THE SNED's avatar

By THE SNED, November 20, 2009 at 11:52 am Link to this comment


Good Lord man….I just had a conversation this morning how Obama will serve
one term that will be an economic disaster created in very large part by 8
years of the most moronic administration there ever was. I needn’t detail it’s
laissez faire   attitude on the environment, big business, banking , science etc.
And it’s claim that the Iraq war would cost fifty billion dollars. It will now cost
over one hundred billion to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And that money
alone could bail out most of our states and the one trillion dollar Iraq war
would have paid for health care. There will be those of us who won’t forget. But
given the ability of big business to buy whatever it wants today…most people
will believe their propaganda statements. There is a report released about
corruption in Government which lists the US and pretty low on the corruption
scale. HAH! These Senators and Representatives are pretty much purchased by
special interests. It is quite a mess. But hey…you will have someone to blame
in 3 more years and it sure won’t be Bush or the Republican rich guys. No way.
In fact you’re well on the way aren’t you?

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, November 20, 2009 at 10:57 am Link to this comment

to the sned ...

Englehardt churns this stuff out regularly.  He works for the Nation, which has been loyal Democrat supporters for at least a decade now.  Every election, you’ll see the Nation come out and say that we all must go vote Democrat.

The purpose of the fake speech is to create an entirely fake image of Obama.  The idea is to put into the minds of the reader that he might actually give this speech.  Of course he won’t.  Obama has promised to escalate this war dating back to the Dem primaries.  The Democrats have supported this war all along.  There’s not a snowballs chance in Hades that Obama would give this speech.

But the idea is to make opponents of the war think that Obama might give this speech.  By creating the phony image in the minds of readers of Obama giving this fake speech, they create a lasting mirage that Obama is really opposed to this war.

You see this all through the Democratic propaganda these days. This constant notion that Obama really wants to end the wars, or that Obama really wants to give us all health care.  Voters are supposed to ignore the reality that Obama is escalating the wars and blocking health care reform for the next four years.  The whole idea is to create a myth that’s contrary to reality in the hopes that the foolish voters can be conned into voting Democrat again.

This is just more Democrats propaganda. Ignore it, and learn the real lesson. When you elect Democrats, all you do is to continue and expand the wars that the Democrats have supported all along.

Report this

By Dave Schwab, November 20, 2009 at 10:53 am Link to this comment

President Obama is now deciding whether to send as many as 60,000 additional U.S. soldiers to the war in Afghanistan.

Let’s urge Obama to earn his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Tell him to withdraw troops from Afghanistan—not send more.

Report this
THE SNED's avatar

By THE SNED, November 20, 2009 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

While I agree on the sentiments, I find that this idea of writing speeches for the
President that he’ll never give is stupid and arrogant…and NOT original.

It’s stupid, because if the president gave such a speech the author of the
“never would give” speech would be running up and down his or her street
yelling “he copied me he copied me!” And what President would give a major
speech that was plagiarized?

It’s arrogant because the President should know more about the consequences
of any action concerning a particular strategy than the “never give speech”
author will ever know.

And it’s not original….it’s just a me-too gimmick by now having read at least
one of these in the NY Times months ago.

The point is that it’s a self defeating tactic….like going in and telling the boss
he doesn’t know his ass from his elbow. (Which in my experience never
worked.)Much better to state your opinions as such, and help the president by
being a resource rather than a sore spot or the genius that one pretends to be.


Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, November 20, 2009 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

Asknot ... what a wonderful fake name for a war supporter.  Because certainly the one thing that can not be allowed is for citizens to ask why the heck are we fighting in Afghanistan.

Who the heck cares if the civil war that’s been going on in Afghanistan for the last 30 years continues after we are gone?  That in no way affects the interests or the security of Americans.  And it certainly isn’t worth an American tax payer dollar nor the blood of one more American to prevent.

But, that’s what we are not supposed to be asking.  Thus the loud message that we are all supposed to shut up and ‘ask not’.

Report this
THE SNED's avatar

By THE SNED, November 20, 2009 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

While I agree on the sentiments, I find that this idea of writing speeches for the
President that he’ll never give is stupid and arrogant…and NOT original.

It’s stupid, because if the president gave such a speech the author of the
“never would give” speech would be running up and down his or her street
yelling “he copied me he copied me!” And what President would give a major
speech that was plagiarized?

It’s arrogant because the President should know more about the consequences
of any action concerning a particular strategy than the “never give speech”
author will ever know.

And it’s not original….it’s just a me-too gimmick by now having read at least
one of these in the NY Times months ago.

The point is that it’s a self defeating tactic….like going in and telling the boss
he doesn’t know his ass from his elbow. (Which in my experience never
worked.)Much better to state your opinions as such, and help the president by
being a resource rather than a sore spot or the genius that one pretends to be.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, November 20, 2009 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

Of course, the main purpose of Democratic propaganda pieces like this is to create the myth that Obama really opposes these wars.

The reality is that Obama and the Democrats fully supported these wars from the beginning.  The Democrats voted to authorize them.  The Democrats voted to fund them.  Obama has already escalated the war in Afghanistan once, and the promised withdrawals from Iraq are a myth.

Heck, Obama ran for election calling Afghanistan the ‘right war’, and he promised even back then to escalate it.  Why on earth the ‘peace’ voters lined up to vote for him is beyond me?

The entire fake speech by Obama in this piece is just propaganda to try to perpetuate the myth that the Democrats oppose the wars.  Ignore this junk.

Learn the lesson.  These are as much Democratic wars as they are Republican wars.  Which means, if you want to end these wars, you have to elect a government that is neither Democrat nor Republican.

Report this

By cabdriver, November 20, 2009 at 10:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


I think that it’s possible tht plutocrats around the world- including Russians and Chinese- are only too have American troops shouldering the burdens of attempting to make Afghanistan safe for oil pipelines and mineral development.

And it appears to me that even if we manage to accomplish that feat- a very uncertain prospect, and neither easily or quickly achievable, even if it’s possible- the USA will be so exhausted by the end of it that Eurasia and Eastasia- or “Russia” and “China”, if you wish- will simply be able to shoulder us aside, and reap the benefits of the efforts of the US military.

“Now who better to get all of this than us?”

Who’s this “us”? You sound as if you’ve fallen for that cornball nonsense that the ordinary people in imperial nations are the ones to reap the benefits of imperial ventures. Since when?

That’s even less true nowadays than it was in the 19th century, incidentally. Do you really think that nations conquer resources these days in order to stockpile them for the exclusive use of their people? Any oil and gas that moves out of Central Asia is going to be sold at spot prices to the highest bidder. Oil is a global business.

Finally- this isn’t really about “America”, “China”, Russia”, Great Britain”, or any other national entity. It’s about the wealth and power ambitions of people who own assets of 100 million dollars and more. And the Russians, Americans, Chinese, etc. who fall into the category have a lot more in common with each other than they do with the ordinary citizens of their supposed “home countries.” The wealthy barons of the resource industries, the military-industrial complex, the globalized systems of factory production, etc. have an untold array of options. Like palatial residences all over the world, for instance.

Don’t be a sap, okay?

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, November 20, 2009 at 9:18 am Link to this comment

Imagine for a moment that Obama had never asked ANY general for a recommendation - rather imagine he had asked his personal advisors for a way to explain how to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq. 

The volume of Afghanistan related criticism was minimal by comparison until McChrystal’s “leak”.  The villain here is the collection of war mongering general officers.  O should have practiced “don’t ask, don’t tell”, thus preventing the military from escalating the pressure to decide to “win”. 

A “smart bomb” (or a “smart soldier”) should be defined as a device that figures out how NOT to engage in killing.

Report this

By melpol, November 20, 2009 at 7:59 am Link to this comment

Hidden among the militias of Afghanistan there are over a million silent
dissidents. They wear the traditional turbans and appear to be loyal to the Taliban
or the Karzai government, but their true loyalty is to the highest bidder. They can
be reached by the US military and turned into a powerful political and fighting
force. They can be named The Golden Coins.  Kabul and the Taliban will be forced
to listen when they speak.

Report this

By david z, November 20, 2009 at 7:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I suggest there is no way out, until we have a president, media and others alike
that speaks the truth, which in this case we are in afghanistan for a corporate
PIPELINE to Israel…and big pharma love opium. Sooowe take oput our trooops and
negotiate wuth th etaliban to keep the pipe line(as we tried to do before we
invaded, but the taliban said no, and we said then we will bomb you into the stone
age, why do we get fooled by “ism’s ” actually it is corporatism.

Report this

By GEM_in_Orange, November 20, 2009 at 7:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Only quibble:  it’s “and God bless the United States of America.”

Report this

By Han, November 20, 2009 at 6:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


You are very right, from the perspective of the super
wealthy this is just bussiness as usual and we’re
mere annoying by our calls for withdrawal. The fact
is that the US government could have invaded the
country, and could have rebuilt it and could have set
up a real democracy and could have won heart and
minds and could have made a decent bussiness. Which
would have really won them a lot of battles and
really made the name of the USA.

But no, they chose to kill the goose that lays the
golden eggs since that’s “more profitable.”

As long as golden goose slaughterers are in control
you will only cause grieve on this planet.

Report this

By blutenhalbmond, November 20, 2009 at 5:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Alan Macdonald:
Sir, Not that the American people did not have a candidate who answers your description of one free of entanglements and unburdened by the Corporate World’s weighty fetters. They did have one, a fellow named Kucinich—but they rejected him woleheartedly.

Report this

By miller, November 20, 2009 at 3:51 am Link to this comment

Obama’s only moral option is unilateral withdrawal. Of
course, the ‘patriots’ will immediately start braying
like scared donkies: coward! quitter! commie! However,
if Obama does not withdraw, men and women will continue
to be maimed and killed.  To what end?

Report this

By asknot, November 19, 2009 at 11:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So what are the options? 1. We pull out: another civil war. 2. We stay put:
eventual defeat. 3. We escalate; things get worse.

The only alternative is to stay, and work with Karzai, and with the tribes, and
tribal leaders. Ultimately, this is how we win.

It’s time to accept that we have to negotiate a surrender. Of course, you don’t
have to call it that, but that’s what it is. And if we have any integrity at all, we
will make the security and well-being of ordinary Afghans the most important
condition of that surrender, and this is how we win. If this deal does what we
failed to do despite eight long years of trying, it will go some way to make up
for all the blood and treasure that we so stupidly and needlessly spilled such a
long way from home.

Report this

By asknot, November 19, 2009 at 11:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We have screwed up. We have failed. The Taliban didn’t win - we lost. We have
a responsibility to admit this fact, accept it, and do whatever we can to set it
right for the victims of our error, even if - especially if - that means working
with our enemies. Anybody with a foot on the ground there recognises that a
negotiation with the Taliban is now essential, and this is where the
international approach toward Karzai is so very wrong.

Of course all the complaints about Karzai are legitimate when expressed in
isolation, without knowledge of the difficulties Afghanistan and its leader
confront on a daily basis. But, honestly, ask yourself, is there not just a hint of
the same hypocrisy here that characterises all our criticisms of Karzai? How
easy it is to opine in the sanctity and safety of your own home, so far from all
that destitution and dust. Much more difficult, isn’t it, to admit that we screwed
up, we lost, and now we’re blaming Karzai.

It’s not primarily a military failure, either (although it might be, just a little bit.)
What this situation is, is the consequence of a dysfunctional political and
intelligence apparatus back home. Those entrusted with making wise decisions
on behalf of our nation-states failed to do so either because of they were
bribed (you call it lobbying in America), or because the intelligence community
could not, or would not, accurately relay the facts back to the decision makers.

Either way this failure extends far beyond the borders of Afghanistan. It
reaches right to the heart of the US policy making process - U.S. Congress and
White House, in other words. It is yet another canary in the coal mine warning
the United States and its citizens that its political system can no longer make
rational decisions in the best interests of the state.

Regardless, please let us start dealing with reality, because until we do that, we
cannot possibly make a sensible decision on Afghanistan.

Here is another small slice of reality: There is nobody - literally, nobody - who
can do what Karzai now must. Karzai must now negotiate with the Taliban on
our behalf. Karzai love him or hate him, is the dealmaker who will establish the
price of our ticket out of Afghanistan. So why are we antagonising the very
person in a position to determine our future? (More stupidity - and you wonder
why we lost…)

It is time to accept that a lot of the so-called “Taliban” are in fact the Afghan
tribal leaders who are doing nothing more than cutting the deals and doing the
work to defend and feed their tribal members as best they possibly can in an
impossible situation. We are certainly at least partially responsible for those
difficulties, which is why they hate us.

The best thing the international community can do in this situation is shore up,
support and encourage those tribal leaders. They are the ones assuming
responsibility for the people. They know exactly what’s going on, who’s who,
who’s doing what where, and crucially, what they need. Unlike us Westerners,
these people have needs, not wants. Primarily they need food in their bellies,
water in the pumps, and drones out of the skies. It’s pretty simple. They
neither need, nor want, at this stage, schools. You have to be alive before you
can learn - just as you have to be able to read before you can learn what a
democracy is. Just as you have to be able to write to mark a ballot paper. Duh.

Report this

By asknot, November 19, 2009 at 11:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I just spent three months in Afghanistan. Third trip. I didn’t travel outside
Kabul, I refuse to do military embeds, and I’m a woman so my movements were
restricted. So it’s not like I’m an expert, but I did meet and talk to some
Afghans. And I also wasn’t stuck behind blast walls, or in a guest house, and so
saw things from the ground up. I tried to talk to anyone and everyone I met.
But I’m certainly not an “Afghan hand,” as they say.

Taking all that into consideration: I disagree with pretty much everything
written about Afghanistan, but this article irritated me less than most.

I’ve got a thing about our hypocrisy, about our failure. I don’t see us talk about
that. We seem to be focussed exclusively on Karzai and in my view, this is a

Yes, there was voter fraud in the 2009 election, but it was far less than in
2004. The real difference between 2009 and 2004 is that the internationals
wanted the 2004 outcome. The 2009 outcome, they did not want. And so they
make a big fuss about the vote fraud. The international ambassadors will even
admit this in private.

That type of blatant hypocrisy wins you no friends.

Furthermore, everyone in Afghanistan knew Karzai was going to win, had
accepted it as an inevitability for six months or more, and the vast majority of
Afghans simply resented the disruption the election and its aftermath. They
complained endlessly about the election. One said: I have no more spare time
and no more spare fingers. (You heard about the Taliban cutting off fingers,
right? How many Americans would vote if someone tried to chop them up on
the way to the polling booth? Think it’d match 30 percent? Me neither).

In addition, the international community with its emphasis on corruption is
doing itself far more harm than good, because in Afghanistan everyone knows
only too well that it is the internationals that are stealing the aid money, that
literally hundreds of millions of dollars have vanished into international bank
accounts belonging to internationals, some of them members of the more
respectable NGOs. Everyone also knows that many of the international troops
are not only failing to interdict drug traffic, they are instead guarding routes
and “taxing” it.

This level of hypocrisy does more to undermine the international troops there
than anything Karzai says or does, especially given that they’re all Afghan and
they understand the way he thinks. Some of his most controversial decisions in
the West are not just accepted there but are considered predictable.

If the international community is concerned about corruption, rather than
focussing on the warlords - who Karzai needs to maintain stability - they
should be disbanding the police. The police needs to be rebuilt from scratch as
a much smaller force that is properly trained, paid, organised and equipped.
The emphasis should be on professional grassroots policing, and NOT, as the
US military has insisted so far, on a para-military organisation that does
nothing apart from recruit cannon fodder.

Most of the reality of daily life in Afghanistan has not been reported, because it
cannot be. The internationals are stuck behind blast walls and either don’t
know or don’t care (so long as those biweekly paycheques get deposited);
those outside blast walls are only too aware but are also too terrified (quite

So. If this is the state of affairs for a hugely privileged foreigner, just imagine
what life is like for the ordinary Afghan.

It’s all very well to focus on America’s rights, wants and needs. But a
responsibility has been established here, not to the government of Karzai, but
to the people of Afghanistan. Life there is a combination of destitution and
terror, and it is almost certainly worse AFTER our involvement than it was

Report this

By gerard, November 19, 2009 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment

How fervently I wish!  Thank you, Tom, for verbalizing the hopes of millions both here and abroad, especially children and young people who want to be alive ten, twenty, thirty years from now. And Fallujah mothers who don’t want any more “chemically deformed” babies to be born.  And young men and women who want to put a stop to loss of hope, of loss of legs and arms and eyes and ears and all the horrors of PTSD nightmares and regrets.

Report this

By Steve E, November 19, 2009 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I believe this admirable speech would leak out before delivery and Obama would
be eliminated immediately.

Report this

By Chris, November 19, 2009 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Afghanistan = Caspian Sea oil and natural gas reserves. It is also a stepping-stone to Eurasia’s vast mineral deposits. Read “The Grand Chessboard” by Zbigniew Brzezinski. Now who better to get all of this than us? Or would you rather have the Russians and/or Chinese have it? This is geopolitics, something that has been going on since Alexander the Great, and not likely to end anytime soon. Political Correctness is simply a flash in the pan, although a wonderful emasculator if you go for that sort of thing in a real and vicious world.

Report this

By Alan MacDonald, November 19, 2009 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Essentially all the media are hewing the same line: “bad options—hope Obama picks the least worst”.

Well, why shouldn’t Obama pick the ‘least worst’ in Afghanistan?  After all, the majority of Americans voted for the ‘least worst’ last November.  And although we didn’t expect it, we got only a slightly ‘least worst’ result, despite our naive ‘hope’ that he might be a bit more ‘least worst’ than he has turned out to be.

The key issue though is that we never asked the most important question in the ‘08 presidential campaign:

“Where do you stand on the global ruling-elite corporate /financial Empire, which controls our country by hiding behind the facade of it two-party ‘Vichy’ sham of democracy?  Where do you stand on the Empire that causes all the imperialist wars ‘abroad’, and the economic oppression and increasing police-state tyranny and spying ‘at home’ in our own former democratic Republic?”

If we had asked that most important question in 2008, when we had a chance to vote for better than ‘least worst’, then we probably wouldn’t be crossing our fingers and holding our noses now and ‘hoping’ that our ‘least worst’ president would be making any better than a ‘least worst’ secret decision now about the future of our world.

The only ‘hopeful’ thing about Obama is that he is now so obviously working for that Empire that it is our greatest gift!

The fact that Obama is so obviously in the tank for the global ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire—- that controls our country (and others) by hiding behind the facade of its two-party ‘Vichy’ sham of democracy—- is the greatest opportunity for the vast majority of average people to finally swear-off this Empire and join together in a Global People’s Movement.

While Bill Clinton, Obama or any other false ‘hopesters’ existed and were partially believable, the organization and development of a truly Global People’s Movement (qua Revolution) was stunted, aborted, and still-born.

Now that we all recognize that such smooth-talking con-artists and ‘hope’ hucksters are merely the planted ‘good cops’ working for the very same Global Ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire as the ‘bad-cops’, like Reagan and Bushes, we are now free to kiss-off them and their entire deceitful system of Empire, and to start fresh in our serious business of building a Global People’s Movement.

The vast majority of average, working/middle-class Americans are, as Marx predicted, going to lead the world in a Global People’s Movement in rejecting not just the old, already discredited nationalist-style empires of the 18th to 20th century, but this newer, and more dangerous 21st century global ruling-elite corporate/financial Empire, and is currently recruiting like-minded ruling-elites in the U.K, Israel, China, etc.

Their smoothest ‘front-man’, Obama, is currently trying to square the circle between America’s failing image of ‘democratic capitalism’ (moron Bush’s oxymoron) with the reality of China’s ‘corporate communism’ (as Dylan Ratigan accurately describes the Empire here and there).

But Obama’s silky smooth fabrications will not sell to people anywhere——starting with a sales collapse right here in River City.

The American people are already suffering the worst income inequality in the world (GINI Coefficient). They can already palpably feel it—- and it’s going to get worse fast—- which is why the American people are going to be the true vanguard of a fast developing Global People’s Movement (which will make the fall of the Berlin Wall look like a slow motion news reel—- news that the CIA will similarly and incredulously watch on TV).

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

Report this

By Gold Star Father, November 19, 2009 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I believe that pigs can fly.

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