Arnie @ 17

If you were wondering what your dollar was doing today – $1.4232/Euro

Holy shit. There go my dreams of Danish furniture.

Danish furniture???? What about the Brie???

Some of you more in-the-know, a question or two.

Rahm was a Bill Clinton favorite in the 90’s. He may have worked on his staff. He was also connected to the DLC was he not (and remains so)? And he was a party functionary that selected or help select candidates to run in the mid-terms–or more importantly, who got the funds and blessing from Party-central, yes?

So if the above is true, is it reasonable to suppose he is doing what he is exerting himself to lock up Hillary votes, especially in the big electoral states—or is that too much of a supposition?

Rahm’s claim to fame is as a “bagman”.

By that I mean, that he is a top gun at getting bags and bags of money from donors. This was his primary speciality when working for the Clintons the last time around.

And this is the only thing that counts when you want to move up the party ladder. This again accounts for why Rahm hangs around these days at the top of the Democratic Congressional leadership circle.

As a matter of fact, this is exactly why almost all of the Democratic Congressional leadership are where they are today.

Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader? Another top bagman.

Chuck Schumer, stealth executive assistant Senate Majority Leader? Another top bagman.

I would hazard a guess that Rahm’s destiny and next big gig is as a high-level muckety-muck (maybe even Cabinet-level) in Hillary’s planned administration.

So yes, Rahm is a Clinton creature, and rocking the boat is definitely not his and their agenda.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/ca…..n=cartoons

Thanks for answering that. What you say at least somewhat substantiates some of what my History prof taught, but he said nobody ever asks historians what they think before they go in with guns. OTOH, most of the veterans of that war that I’ve met, even the educated ones and the ones that were against it, insist that it was the domino theory that got us into Vietnam. I bolded the sentence that was almost identical to the way the history prof introduced the subject, from what I can remember from some 30 years ago.

You’re most welcome!

And remember too, if one looked closely at the “issue” of Communism in our last dozen or so conflicts/wars, what does that mean exactly?

Communism versus…wait for it…Capitalism!

When you really get down to the nitty-gritty, what’s being talked about in that issue is “ownership” of stuff. “All is Mine” versus “All is Everybody’s”.

Stripped of the fancy philosophical nuance and polish, most wars have been since time immemorial about:

“I want that. No, you can’t have it. It’s mine.”

Some of you more in-the-know, a question or two.

Rahm was a Bill Clinton favorite in the 90’s. He may have worked on his staff. He was also connected to the DLC was he not (and remains so)? And he was a party functionary that selected or help select candidates to run in the mid-terms–or more importantly, who got the funds and blessing from Party-central, yes?

So if the above is true, is it reasonable to suppose he is exerting himself to lock up Hillary votes, especially in the big electoral states—or is that too much of a supposition?

Doctor Amir al-Khuzai, the health ministry’s pointman in tackling the crisis, said the number of infections in Kirkuk had risen to 2,069 at the weekend from 1,671 earlier in the week

Rahm was a Bill Clinton favorite in the 90’s. He may have worked on his staff. He was also connected to the DLC was he not (and remains so)? And he was a party functionary that selected or help select candidates to run in the mid-terms–or more importantly, who got the funds and blessing from Party-central, yes?

So if the above is true, is it reasonable to suppose he is doing what he is exerting himself to lock up Hillary votes, especially in the big electoral states—or is that too much of a supposition?

From The Politico (which Republican controlled e-rag I refuse to link to), via TPM:

Republicans ask Waxman to postpone Blackwater hearing

Seven House Republicans have urged Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) to postpone a hearing about Blackwater USA until the State Department and a separate commission report on the most recent incident involving the North Carolina-based security firm in which Iraqi civilians were killed.

And, given recent evidence, the Dems will probably oblige.

Only if the report is going to be a factual one.

Ann in AZ @ 81

Well, if this is so, in light of what you say, please explain to me why greed lead us to Viet Nam? Were we after their rubber? (I’m serious; I’m not being rhetorical, and I’m not meaning this in a snotty way. I really want to know what you think about that?)

I don’t take your comments as snotty at all. And sure, I’ll give you a short synopsis of how the Vietnam war fits the bill too.

Remember how the Vietnam conflict actually started?

It started after WWII, because the French wanted to move back in to their “French Indochina” where they had been the profiting colonialists running the show for decades and decades.

The US decided to “help” the French out during the start of the conflict by supplying their airlift capability (of which the French after WW II had none and the US had beaucoup planes), by supplying their arms and munitions (of which the French after WW II had none and the US had beaucoup arms and munitions), and by generally helping the French “business interests” like rubber plantations, banking, etc. stay in business.

Remember, after WW II, the US industries which had provided all the aircraft, arms and munitions were facing a catastrophic drop off in US government orders. And the Korean War had not yet popped up over the horizon.

Those US industries were facing bankruptcy, shutdowns with massive unemployment, and of course, mucho loss of profits. Profits they had been sucking down like an addict with a huge jones. Why war-profiteering was so bad during WW II, that it elevated an obscure Missouri congressman via his war-profiteering hearings to the very pinnacle of power, the Presidency. Yup, that be Harry Truman.

Continuing on. While much has been made of the “communist influence” in Vietnam after WW II, most historians point to “nationalism” as a better motivation for the Vietnamese.

In either case, what can be said with certainty is that the Vietnamese wanted to take back “ownership” of their country after WW II, and that the French didn’t want to lose that ownership.

To shorten the story, from the close of WW II until the first real US troops were committed to Vietnam in 1965, the US was busy supplying lots and lots of airlift, arms and munitions.

While “eventually”, Communism became the raison d’être for US war policies in Vietnam, it really wasn’t the primary focus that began the conflict immediately after the close of WW II.

For a “relatively” helpful account of how this all started, see the First Indochina War over at Wiki.

And of course, there are a multitude of excellent books that quite thoroughly document how we got involved.

Bottomline? Greed started it, and the rest as they say, is history.

Thanks for answering that. What you say at least somewhat substantiates some of what my History prof taught, but he said nobody ever asks historians what they think before they go in with guns. OTOH, most of the veterans of that war that I’ve met, even the educated ones and the ones that were against it, insist that it was the domino theory that got us into Vietnam. I bolded the sentence that was almost identical to the way the history prof introduced the subject, from what I can remember from some 30 years ago.

Ed*ard Teller, I went here and wrote the following this morning to any European who might be reading. Funny the blog won’t post my comment…..

I left one there yesterday and it’s not been posted. ???