Second verse, same as first.

Impossible thesis you have, there. Knowing there would be no third term, the worst president ever started winding down the war that had for eight years enriched his enablers. He would have kept it going if it would have profited him.

This ought to turn out well.

We are a military nation with no good future.

Spitzer’s on democracynow.

Spitzer: Bernie Sanders is wrong. The FRB was not “asleep at the switch,” the FRB was complicit in creating the mess.

Fine. Make it McCain. Would McCain do anything different? Doubt it.

The two Rices have a lot in common.

interesting stuff going on right now on the connel “plane crash”;

Recently, the Connell family has been dealt another blow–an anonymous memo penned by someone identifying themselves as “Mark Felt” (the name of the man who was ultimately revealed to be “Deep Throat”), cataloguing an order and mission to remotely intercept and rig the instrument panel of Mike Connell’s plane then “sanitize” the area.

Heather confirms receipt of this memo, which was cc’d to six unknown recipients.

What does the memo mean? Abrahams reports that it is being taken seriously:

Those close to the case believe the person behind the memo is a real informant with inside knowledge about Connell’s plane crash. There are a number of Intelligence officials looking into it, including the FBI. The FBI field agent in charge of the case, Jack Vickery, did not return my calls. But Cliff Arnebeck, the prosecuting attorney in the case and the one who deposed Mike Connell last November, issued the following statement:

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2009/12/deep-throat-emerges-in-mike-connell.html

Does anyone think if this were Bush’s third term that he wouldn’t be doing exactly the same thing?

No. In matters of war, Obama is not Bush.

I think that Obama is doing the right thing regarding Iraq and that he’s unhappily doing what he has to do regarding Afghanistan and South Asia.

I think that we should continue to blame Bush, Cheney, and the gang of neocon assholes for their failures during eight years that not only left messes in Southwest Asia and South Asia, but also generated real hatred toward the United States.

Internationally, Obama’s trying to turn Bush’s failure around.

By July 2009, even Faux ‘news’ had to grudgingly admit it:

In his first six months in office, President Obama has traveled abroad the equivalent of twice around the world.

He’s visited Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow to strike an agreement on arms reduction. He’s given high-profile speeches to the Muslim world in both Egypt and Turkey. He’s set out to tackle the global economic crisis at summits in Europe. And he’s signed on to pledges to keep world temperatures from rising.

The Fox friends weren’t sharp enough to know that they were in fact complimenting him, but he does deserve some credit rather than be referred to as serving Bush’s third term.

McAyn is hard to argue about, right now he’s on about not cutting Medicare fraud expenses because the Dems have it in their hcr, while during the campaign he was all for it. But yes, I do think there would be no Exit involved and the military would have total sway over troop numbers.

What’s happening in Iraq is all owing to W who negotiated the SOFA. O is likely to violate the SOFA if elections don’t turn out the way he wants them.

What good does it do the U.S. if the prez goes around the world lying to people?

Employment report was better than expected. Only 11,000 jobs lost, and unemployment rate fell from 10.2 to 10.0%.

Wow. Thanks for the heads up.

I watched this performance in total disbelief. This mouthpiece is a betrayal of American people, American black people, women, black women, humanitarians and sane people, world-wide. I don’t know how she does this with a straight face. Disgraceful.

eCAHN -

Can reports like this be trusted?

Sad when one (meaning myself) becomes so jaded that the automatic assumption is, “YOU LIE!” :-(

Yes. The data a volatile on a monthly basis & subject to revision, but they are honestly collected & published, and show trends when smoothed over several months.

If this was Bush’s third term, we would be redeploying soldiers from Afghanistan to Iraq and preparing for war with Iran.

Bush was not going to double down on Afghanistan. It was window-dressing on the road to Baghdad.

What good does it do the U.S. if the prez goes around the world lying to people?

Your assertion that Obama is/may be going around the world lying to people is based on speculation:

O is likely to violate the SOFA if elections don’t turn out the way he wants them.

I commend Obama for traveling abroad the equivalent of twice around the world during his first six months in office, just as Faux ‘news’ grudgingly/unknowingly did back in July.

So, the CBO was correct about the stimulus helping and the GOP is once again proven to be talking out of its collective ass.

Mornin’, BT, pups

Good question.

As another jaded person I wouldn’t doubt they’ll start cooking the numbers to show that unemployment is slowing. I already think they’ve cooked the numbers of jobs created or saved.

Your assertion that Obama is/may be going around the world lying to people is based on speculation

Oh, I think there’s plenty of evidence that O is an inveterate liar. Or perhaps you would refer to it as “changing his mind?”

We’ll get another chance to see what the administration does when the Palestinians vote in January. Will we throw them under the bus again as Shrub did when Hamas won in Gaza? Probably.

We’re already complicit in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians, why stop now?

Do you mean Tehran?

You are now generalizing about O being a liar in an effort to support your earlier particular point that “O is likely to violate the SOFA if elections don’t turn out the way he wants them,” which is speculation.

I am disappointed in Obama on many fronts. But we cannot know the reality of what the President of the US has to deal with, or the forces that make him change his mind on issues. So I would not call him a liar, in most cases. I think we do our credibility no good when we fling these words around. Sorry, JMHO.

unemploymen HAS to slow, sooner or later you run out of jobs to lose

this does NOT represent some kind of turn around

howz the saying go, “been down so long it looks like up”?

msmolly, we have to judge the issues with the information we have, progressives don’t do too many things on faith, we base most of our political opinions on information

my friends used your argument when we were discussing going to war in Iraq, they used the old;

“you don’t know what the president knows”

to which I responded, “I do however know what’s available for public consumption and I base my opinion on that information”

I of course as right

obama doesn’t get to use the same tactic on us that worked for bush on his wing nuts

we’re not that gullable

No, I’m talking about FISA, transparency, torture, black sites, etc. I don’t have a link to Hugh’s list, but its about 50 items long.

You are correct. Not only have firms laid folks off due to the recession itself many have used the opportunity to downsize just to increase already substantial profit figures. I don’t see the banksters whining about how many people they’ve been “forced” to lay off because of the economic climate.

I am referring to comments like, “Obama is a liar.” We consign ourselves to the shrieking fringe along with the reichwing when we talk like that.

EDIT: I am a lefty liberal/progressive. I just want us to have credibility and if we use the language of the rightwing fringe, we lose it.

FISA is the shining example and a sign of things to come.

Tks!

A war against terrorism makes as much sense as a war against amphibious assault or a war against counterstrikes or a war against flanking maneuvers.

9/11 was an attack. It wasn’t a war until we made is so, which is exactly what our opponents — whose declared objective is to bankrupt us — wanted us to do. Judged by the state of the U.S. economy, their goal now seems well within reach, though they had unexpected assistance from Wall Street in getting to here.

I’ve probably quoted this too often but, per Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 400BC:

When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, [...] you will exhaust your strength, and if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the state will not be equal to the strain. [...] In all history, there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. Only one who knows the distasterous effects of a long war can realize the supreme importance of rapidity in bringing it to a close.

How much more accomodating to Al Qaeda could we possibly be?

Obama makes grand symbolic gestures then proceeds to do what the neoliberal agenda calls for. Whatever course of action furthers the neoliberal agenda is the path the administration will follow, regardless of whatever lip service it gives.

FISA and issues of transparency have to do with the extent/types of powers the government has. Perhaps Obama, who would definitely be pounded by the vast majority of Americans if there is another 9/11, thinks that he has to maintain certain powers, however distasteful.

Regarding torture and black sites, I agree that Obama has been much more willing to use brutal methods in fighting extremists than I would have expected. I’m referring to Jane Mayer’s The Predator War: What are the risks of the C.I.A.’s covert drone program?, about which more in Afghanistan and the Crises Brewing in South Asia.

I am referring to comments like, “Obama is a liar.” We consign ourselves to the shrieking fringe along with the reichwing when we talk like that.

EDIT: I am a lefty liberal/progressive. I just want us to have credibility and if we use the language of the rightwing fringe, we lose it.

I agree 100%.

Great quote. I’ve noticed that our warmonger friends on various threads are usually deficient in their knowledge of insurgencies in general and the history of imperial invasions of Afghanistan in particular.

I don’t have a link to Hugh’s list, but its about 50 items long.

http://obamascandalslist.blogspot.com/

It starts with scandals 101-116. Then comes 1-100.

Please clarify what you mean by “our warmonger friends on various threads.” To whom are you referring?

eCHAN. I do not understand how we can lose more jobs and the unemployment rate can drop simultaneously. If we had 10.2%, lose jobs, how can we end up at 10%?

a liar is someone who lies.

i didn’t have any trouble calling bush a liar when he lied. should i have a different standard for obama?

Off to swim in the great capitalist cesspool.

US KIA Irak: 4,367

US KIA Afghanistan: 931

US MBS 2009: 41,788

Be good to yourselves, and all other living things.

Namaste

Scarecrow is upstairs…

obama lied about his promise to help filibuster fisa telco immunity and then he lied about why he didn’t.

i don’t have the links handy, but will look them up for you if you would like.

I’m not going to name names but there are supporters of both wars on any thread that speaks to Irak or Afghanistan. They’re not hard to recognize.

I’m a long time member of the War Resisters League and other peace organizations. I’ll label anyone who supports either of these adventures a warmonger and make no excuse for doing so. I’m also a Viet Nam combat vet and have some experience in this subject.

re economic data (ecahn has probably od’ed on stuff like this, but for us newbies i think it’s a great source of summary stats), here is a useful link for weekly numbers (in chart form so easy to scan):

http://valance.us/valance_charts.html

Does anyone think if this were Bush’s third term that he wouldn’t be doing exactly the same thing?

Uh, no?

Not in Afghanistan, not in bailing out Wall Street. And not with respect to ending unemployment, challenging the terrorist industrial complex, standing up to the health care industrial complex, ending attacks on abortion, gay rights, urban blight, poverty….

Alas, Obama’s hero seems to be….Ronald Reagan?

Indeed, Susan Rice and Condolezza Rice are both affliated with Bilderberg and the CFR.

They are both members in good standing of America’s political and economic elite. And both [like their bosses] are intent always on making sure it stays that way.

I’ll label anyone who supports either of these adventures a warmonger.

So long as you don’t conflate support for Obama’s effort to clean up after Bush and Cheney with supporting either of the Bush/Cheney adventures, I’m fine with that.

Rachel Maddow enjoys referring to the war in Afghanistan as being in the ninth year, and misses the point that Bush fucking up so badly for the first seven plus of those years necessitates a ninth and a tenth year.

What Obama is talking about is a transition from troops in Afghanistan and a military presence in South Asia to diplomatic/civilian presence.

Here is a bit from Hillary Clinton’s opening statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee the other day:

“The case for action against al-Qaida and its allies has always been clear, but the United States’ course of action over the last eight years has not. The fog of another war obscured our focus. And while our attention was focused elsewhere, the Taliban gained momentum in Afghanistan. And the extremist threat grew in Pakistan – a country with 175 million people, a nuclear arsenal, and more than its share of challenges.

“It was against this backdrop that President Obama called for a careful, thorough review of the strategy. I was proud to be a part of that process, which questioned every assumption and took nothing for granted. And our objectives are clear: We will work with the Afghan and Pakistani governments to eliminate safe havens for those plotting to attack against us, our allies, and our interests; we will help to stabilize a region that we believe is fundamental to our national security; and we will develop a long-term, sustainable relationship with both Afghanistan and Pakistan so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. The duration of our military presence is not open-ended, but our civilian commitment must continue even as our troops begin eventually to come home.”

Frankly, you’re being unreasonable when you criticize Obama for not doing today what can’t be done in a day, not after the mess Bush and Cheney created.

When are we going to get a backbone and start voting for the Green Party??!!!! If we want the democrats to take us seriously we are going to have to truly stop supporting them!! We have to stop balking and really start acting.

I’m being unreasonable for wanting the killing to stop today? Just how many more people must die before we’ve “cleaned up” Shrub’s messes? Are those numbers going to be “acceptable,” as Madeline Albright termed the casualties of the sanctions against Irak? Have we not killed enough? Did we kill enough in Afghanistan yesterday to make up for the American grunt who was killed? *spit*

Rachel Maddow enjoys referring to the war in Afghanistan as being in the ninth year, and misses the point that Bush fucking up so badly for the first seven plus of those years necessitates a ninth and a tenth year.

disagree most strongly with you here knox. there is nothing that necessitates, let alone justifies, a ninth and tenth year of war against the people of afghanistan.

I think that Obama is doing the right thing regarding Iraq and that he’s unhappily doing what he has to do regarding Afghanistan and South Asia

Assertions like this are always tricky because:

1] none of us really has access to what unfolds inside Obama’s head

2] none of us really has access to the mountain of intelligence reports and hard data [on the ground] that he does

Instead, we respond to his policies based on our own moral and political assumptions about U.S. involvment in Afghanistan. In my view American foreign policy revolves around this:

Colin Miller:

Initially the Taliban enjoyed the support of Bill Clinton’s administration for a campaign against Iran, but the most strategically important goal was to secure the region’s oil and gas. In 1996-98 the US government supported the (US) Unocal oil company’s plans for a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan via Afghanistan.

What was support (or indifference) toward the Taliban in the Clinton years, has turned to antagonism and a goal of elimination, whatever the cost, today. So many near neighbours have meddled in Afghanistan’s affairs over decades – notably Pakistan and Russia, and to a lesser degree Iran and Saudi Arabia – that the region has rarely been free of conflict. And never more so than now, with the resurgent Taliban being fought vigorously with the stakes raised to dizzying heights in the interests of oil, and oil interests.

Prior to September 11, United States’ policy toward the Taliban was largely influenced by oil. In their book, Ben Laden, la verite interdite, 2002, (Bin Laden, the forbidden truth), former French intelligence officer Jean-Charles Brisard and journalist Guillaume Dasquie document the “oil” connection between George W. Bush and the Taliban.

The United States’ dependence on Middle East, and soon Central Asian, oil and gas has led the US government to intervene militarily under a variety of pretexts, which change to suit the domestic political mood at any given time. The development of a coherent U.S. energy policy would obviate the real (or perceived) need to dominate other countries.

george:

That is why we are in Afghanistan. And I believe that is something Obama [like Bush] is fully in support of.

So I reject his escalation of the war because it has little or nothing to do with either 1] democracy in afghanistan or 2] america’s national security

If I remember correctly, those who supported us in Southeast Asia in the late ’60s and early ’70s were left to fend for themselves when we left the region after making a mess of it.

Obama appears to me to be trying his best to avoid doing that in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The whole premise that it’s someone else who is the problem, that both Rice’s among others hold, is what is flawed.

I don’t think Obama is conducting a war against the people of afghanistan.

I don’t think Obama is a liar any more than any other who hopes to survive on rhetoric that is pleasing to the ear. Personally I think the term “pragmatist” fits very well.. I cannot see him as different from.any other man holding power. He wants to keep it. IOW, he blows in the wind based on what he believes will keep him in power.

I think/hope that if he can understand/believe he will lose power if he loses the support of his idealogue progressive base He has shown he will throw anyone under the bus. That could include the DLC and Rham Emanuel..

They are sorely testing those of us in that liberal base in these first 10 months. If we passively accept the notion that better than Bush is good enough and go along we will be enabling all that we loath of what his administration is promoting.

So I reject his escalation of the war because it has little or nothing to do with either 1] democracy in afghanistan or 2] america’s national security.

Let’s not forget that what he’s doing has at least as much to do with avoiding Pakistan’s descent into a failed state. See Afghanistan and the Crises Brewing in South Asia.

Voting for the green party or ralph nader is a vote for the fucking Republicans.

The Democratic Party per se is not the problem. In many crucial
respects relating to social issues like abortion, stem cell research, race relations, gay rights, separation of church and state, voting rights etc the democrats are vastly more progressive than the reactionaries in the Republican Party. Especially in this day and age. Just recall what Bush and the conservatives have done with the judicial branch over the past 10 years!!! Stopping the Republicans from further pushing the Supreme Court to the right is reason enough to elect Democrats.

No, the Democratic Party will almost certainly remain the foundation for liberals. Instead, what progressives need to do is 1] help to elect far more genuinely liberal members of that party and 2] help to build the sort of mass movements that existed in the 30s, 50s, 60s and 70s to put constant pressure on the Democrats to end their alliance with Wall Street and the military industrial complex.

I don’t think Obama is conducting a war against the people of afghanistan.

who do you think is being harmed the most by the war we are conducting?

who do you think is being harmed the most by the war we are conducting?

I understand your point.

All I can say is that, based on Obama’s work so far in planning a new strategy, I wish he were POTUS back in 2001, 2002 and 2003. I believe that the situation he now faces in Afghanistan and South Asia would be total different had he been the one in the White House then. So long as he and his team do their job and do what they’re saying now that they’re going to do, then I think it’s best to refrain from criticizing too much (the increased use of predator drones since he took office is troubling, for example, and maybe I should write more about it).

So long as he and his team do their job and do what they’re saying now that they’re going to do, then I think it’s best to refrain from criticizing too much

he says his plan is to escalate the war. i’m going to be criticizing and protest that as much as i’m capable of.

War is not healthy for children and other living things. Lipstick on the war pig doesn’t change anything, it’s still a war pig. And no, Knoxville, I’m not referring to Obama.

Never. Give. Up.

who do you think is being harmed the most by the war we are conducting?

The American people. As these awful facts of our government’s criminal and immoral behavior are exposed and accepted by the people as conventional in all armed conflicts we become complicit enablers. In reference to another situation you recall Thomas Jefferson about slavery expressed the concern for what it also did to the slave holders. And Golda Mier made a similar comment as to what the Palestinian wars were doing to the young men and women of Israel.

The people must be given great credit for electing Obama in the belief he would restore a modicum of morality in out way of conducting war. Betrayal of that trust is the one aspect I cannot forgive.

He said that his plan is to create the conditions that will allow us to make a transition from a military presence to a civilian effort, see my comment @ 50 above.

You can’t oppose Obama’s positions regarding war by oversimplifying them. That’s what Republicans do, and they’re wrong to do it.

Deepak Chopra wise words on Pres. Obama’s: Call to Arms:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/how-to-make-peace-with-ob_b_377483.html

amen.

i’m not trying to simplifying what obama claims are his reasons for war.

i’m calling them war propaganda.

btw, the “allow us” is a big clue:

He said that his plan is to create the conditions that will allow us to make a transition from a military presence to a civilian effort

nothing preventing us from ending our war. the use of “allow us” is an attempt to make us believe he and we have no choice.

i’ll agree that american civilians are also being harmed… but nothing like the harm being done to those on whom the bombs fall, or the harm done to the military people (and their families) we send to fight those wars.

What indications do you have that lead you to believe that the Afghan people are in favour of a central government, doing a 180 from thousands of years of tribal culture and “valleyism?” For the sake of argument, let’s say after another 10 years of counterinsurgency warfare the current “coalition of the willing” have “pacified” the countryside and a central government supported for over a decade by an occupying army is in place. How long do you think that government would last after the coalition withdraws its forces? Apply the same rationale to Irak because it’s going to happen there first.

Susan Rice comes across as smart and well-informed and thoughtful– until the body bags with dead Americans start coming home from Afghanistan. When that happens, all the strategic thinking and planning and rationalizing that she articulates won’t matter. It will just be another human tragedy that we will understand only in hindsight.