Read the whole article and comment below.
egretApril 8th, 2009 at 5:08 am
Hooray for comments!
antigonApril 8th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Raimondo, do you realize what this will do to your next fund-raiser? Get with the program!
knowbuddhauApril 8th, 2009 at 8:47 am
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If al-Qaeda has “deep historical roots” in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then they run far deeper in, say, Saudi Arabia – where most of the 9/11 hijackers were from. If we go by Korbian logic, that merits a U.S. invasion and decade-long military occupation of the Kingdom.
Is it something in the water in Washington, or is it just the water-cooler in CAP’s D.C. offices? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If we’re going to be so absolutely vigilant against threats, according to Korbian logic, shouldn’t we invade Italy and make war on the mafia, too? Haven’t they done more to harm US, cost us more lives and treasure etc? For god’s sake, they’re known to operate criminal syndicates right out of restaurants!
Skylark6April 8th, 2009 at 11:03 am
This is no surprise to those who have always viewed the welfare/warfare state as one entity. After all, there is always some type of war- on poverty, on drugs, hot or cold- that justifies an interventionist foreign policy and/or a restriction of liberties at home.To the many liberals who constituted the antiwar movement George Bush was just an interloper who managed to seize the apparatus of a powerful central government that they had spent the forty previous years building up. And now that they have recaptured that apparatus the neo-cons can return home as The Obamacons and God will be in in his heaven again.
Geo1671April 8th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Justin :^) There is another website that is backing Obama–Crooks and Liars.To them,those two terms only applied to Bush's regime.
Justin :^( Please stop blaming any Arabs for pulling off the 911 attacks. It is impossable for it to have happened without government(S) inside help. Even, Canada had a roll in it. FYI: 3 wtc towers pulverized in less than 8 seconds each and 2 planes. Did you flunk Physics 101 and math 101 ?
deepbedApril 8th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Is it not disingenuous to bring up the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan without mentioning the United States efforts to destabilize the then current socialist government of that country that were purposely used to lure the big bad Soviets into their death.
Patrick7April 8th, 2009 at 11:53 am
We are doomed. The members of the Obama cult have given the Dear Leader a blank check to committ mass murder. If we are honest, it is the cult of diversity that drives the whole thing.
radicaltruthApril 8th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Apparently, surging, endless war, spying on Americans and economic bailouts were 'bad' when the Bush regime committed to them but anything goes for Obama & Co.
Obama/Democrats are not only an extension of Bush/Republicans, now things are in hyper-drive…
'Change', it would appear, is only skin deep (and this seems enough to satisfy the dolts who continue to believe in and support the two party system, which is actually designed to prevent any real change from taking place at all).
This serves to illustrate just how truly ignorant the masses are. (This is not a sporting event, there are a great many lives at stake and the people who continue to vote these warmongers in are responsible. Voting is a moral responsibility, regardless of rigged elections, and in the hands of politically stupid people, it has become a dangerous farce. The left-right paradigm is a construct which serves the political elite, not the people.)
A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf…
Welcome to the era of Neoliberalism…
youngfogeyApril 8th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Spot-on as always.
http://aconservativesiteforpeace.info
Strider55April 8th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
There can be no better proof that the US is under the iron rule of a 1-party oligarchy with two branches that only pretend to oppose each other. The sooner the US goes the way of the USSR the better.
LiberaltarianApril 8th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Now that there are comments, we must guard against not only profanities, but also lovefests for our heros like Justin (who wouldn't care anyway). But I must say, Justin, you sure do a lot of actual HOMEWORK, a lot more than those mainstream bloviating hacks on Sunday morning TV.
bear47April 8th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Mr. Raimondo, excellent commentary. The "lefties" are just as much for the empire as the neo-crazies who ran the Bush administration. MoveOn has moved over, from being a bit anti war, more like anti Shrub, to being in favor of Oh-bomb-them's war. Both the "left" and the "right" are in this for empire. Makes me feel good about not being a member of either the donkey nor the elephant gang. Not sure where I "fall" politically, but as a former US Marine/Vietnam vet, I am definitely anti war.
BluemoleApril 8th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Justin, I could not agree more. This Afghan double-down is insane, I guess our only hope is that it quickly becomes a bigger fiasco and Obama is forced to "re-evaluate" and pull the plug on the whole mess. Not likely
mountainairesApril 8th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Jeremy Scahill agrees:
Obama's Neoliberals: Selling His Afghan War One Report at a Time Why is the liberal Center for American Progress aligning with former foes? By Jeremy Scahill Published: Tuesday April 7th, 2009
http://gnn.tv/articles/3988/Obama_s_Neoliberals_S...
writermanApril 8th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
A comments section is an excellent idea, as there must be many people with interesting perspectives and knowledge about a range of issues that could function as a kind of 'brains trust' and really expand the quality of specific articles and themes.
I, for one, am absolutely incredulous, and gobsmacked, at the thought of escalating the conflict in Afghanistan, and seeing it pour over the border into Pakistan. This 'policy' is insane, in my opinion. Destabilizing a country like Pakistan, with a population of around 175 million people, deep class and ethnic rifts, a 'fuedal' aristocracy controlling the lives of tens of millions of peasants, is a recipe for disaster.
Pakistan is often described as a military with a country behind it. The military is, Pakistan. The military is the state, really the only part that functions. Yet there are deep, deep, divisions opening up inside the military, and it's vast security services, and anything the Americans do that worsens this schism, could have monumental and dire consequences. Who believes the Obama administration really understands the complexities of a country like Pakistan?
Basically what's happening in Pakistan is that the pro-western, ruling elite, is becoming increasingly detached from the rest of society, much the same story as in the rest of the Middle East. The war, or occupation of Afghanistan is a lost cause, the momentum has gone over to the 'resistance', which whilst appearing to be 'religious' in nature, is also profoundly nationalist, in the sense of their dedication to driving all foreigners out of their territory, no matter how many decades it'll take. Sending Americans to fight a colonial war, to create a strategic bridgehead in Asia, is nuts and doomed to failure. It truly beggars belief that such a policy has traction in Washington.
Obama's adminstration is arrogant and conceited, in the extreme. They really seem to believe in their own mythology,and this fact, when the ruling elite really begins to believe in myths, to the exclusion of reality, is when great powers, and empires, enter their terminal phase.
The Progressive Mind » ‘Progressive’ Warmongers by Justin Raimondo — Antiwar.comApril 8th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
[...] Liberals rally ’round Obama’s war by Justin Raimondo, April 08, 2009 Email This | Print This | var addthis_pub=”wiredispatch”; var addthis_options = ‘facebook, twitter,digg, email, delicious, myspace, stumbleupon, reddit, more’; Share This | Comment [...]
JustinRaimondoApril 8th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
GradyWilson: I did not accuse American liberals of being supporters of Stalin, I merely compared liberals who opposed the Iraq war and who now support Obama's war — in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other locations yet to be determined — to the Stalinists of the 1930s, who turned on a dime in their "antiwar" stance when the USSR was invaded by the Germans.
"Many liberals have spoken out against obama's escalation of the empire's war in Afghanistan"? Really? Please name them. I have named names in my piece: Lawrence Korb, Moveon.org, the Center for American Progress, etc. So I'm not making a blanket accusation against "liberals" or "the left." I'm targeting individuals and institutions.
Reply to Grady, Pt. II:
Oh, and I have news for you: do you know who funds "this US imperialistic warmingering," as you put it? YOU do. We ALL do. It's called "taxation." If you think the "free market" is attacking Afghanistan and Pakistan in the person of President Barack Obama, then youi're smoking some pretty strong stuff.
No, I don't hate the Left — what I hate is hypocrisy and doubletalk, both of which our current President seems to embody. As do his more perfervid supporters.
GradyWilsonApril 8th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Columns like this by Justin are why I always catch myself when I get close to donating to antiwar.com. This is nothing more than Justin exposing his seething hatred for "the Left". He is not looking to build bridges or extend a hand to sincere antiwar lefties to form a coalition - no he must mock the left and of course, in the spirit of libertarian anti-communist paranoia make the simple minded equivalency of American liberals being supporters of Stalin. Much of this column could have been written by Sean Hannity or Jonah Goldberg.
Many liberals have spoken out against Obama's escalation of the empire's war in Afghanistan and the truth is that most Democrats are not liberals just as most Republicans are not conservatives. We all know this. Both parties are extensions of unchecked corporate power, but Justin has to play dumb and pretend warmongering Dems are "progressives" and indulge in self gratification of beating up on 'the left'.
The never talked about rampaging elephant in the center of this antiwar.com website is the fact that this US imperialistic warmongering (which this site claims to oppose) is executed by the same people who fund Cato and all the other free market think tanks (an ideology which this site advocates with zealotry) . Its the libertarian free market, de-regulation, no checks on capital, no limits on campaign funding/spending, ideology which has brought America to this place in history - not Stalin. Free Markets, in real life documented history (as opposed to Austrian theology or corporate think tank philosophy), are spread by the US military by force. Libertarians like Raimondo, pretending to be anti-empire but pro free market capitalism, are the hypocrites who deserve scorn and ridicule.
GradyWilsonApril 8th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Many liberals have spoken out against obama's escalation of the empire's war in Afghanistan - Grady
Really? Please name them - Justin
Chris Hedges, Robert Parry, Jim Hightower, Glen Greenwald, Robert Scheer, Ted Rall, Amy Goodman, and many more - you know this. Why do you pretend otherwise?
Mike EApril 9th, 2009 at 1:00 am
Just a heads up to everyone on this discussion: you can hit the "Post Reply" button to directly respond to comments and create "threads." Thanks!
greendaworldApril 9th, 2009 at 1:01 am
Justin: Grady has a good point. There are many progressive who speak out against Obama and the Wars, however their critiques are not usually welcomed in the liberal end of the media spectrum, when I posted less than flattering commentary about Obama on commondreams.org I got banned.
I am a progressive green who reads anti-war everyday, liberals are neo-con lites, just as dangerous but better looking. Don't confuse progressive and liberal. Liberals often call themselves progressive. I still believe that the only political solution we can hope for, something you wrote about before, is a progressive libertarian alliance. Thanks for the comments.
Ira7EpsteinApril 9th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Von Mises wrote that acts of economc intervention were contrary to the purpose of those promotng the act of interventon. Policymakers enact a price ceiling on milk wth the intention of making milk more available to the masses, The result is a shortage of milk, thus defeating the purpose of the price celing. Acts of intervention in foriegn affairs should be looked upon in the same manner as Von Mises looked upon acts of intervention in economic affairs. Promoters of the Iraq war thought the war would spread democracy in the Middle East, decrease the influence of Islamic extremism, and make Israel more secure. The war gave democracy a black eye in the Middle East, increased the influence of Islamic extremism, and handed Iran a significant strategic victory in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, thus defeating the purpose of the war from the point of view of those who promoted it. (continued)
Ira7EpsteinApril 9th, 2009 at 1:26 am
Von Mises also wrote that policymakers like to use one economic intervention to justify another economic intervention. Policymakers would use the shortage of milk caused by the price ceiling to justify the rationing of milk. In the case of foriegn affairs those who promoted the Iraq war are using that war to justify a war against Syria and Iran. In Afghanistan, the promotors of that war are using it to justify another war against Pakistan. Von Mises thought that if policymakers continued down the road of using one economic intervention to justify another it would lead to the destruction of the free economy and its replacement by a command and control economy. Such a result would be a disaster of unmitigated proportions that would lead to the impoverishment of millions. If policymakers continue to use one war to justify another war it could lead to an even bigger disaster than the destruction of the free economy. It could lead to the death of everyone on Earth because of a nuclear war.
JustinRaimondoApril 9th, 2009 at 6:08 am
Grady: None of the people you mentioned are anything other than marginal figures, with zero access to the major media and less-than-zero political influence in the Democratic party, and so there is no need to "pretend" anything. Where are the congressional Democrats, the keith Olbermanns, the Air America agitators who will talk back to the Dear Leader on the futility and unjustice of his war? Liberals, progressives — six of one, half dozen of the other. I find such hair-splitting tiresome. It seems to me that the real dividing line is between good old fashioned leftists — revolutionaries, like Alex Cockburn — and Washington go-alongs-to-get-alongs, job-seekers and opportunists (such as those I mentioned by name).
JustinRaimondoApril 9th, 2009 at 6:10 am
And I think that my point — which is that certain sections of the "left" are peculiarly vulnerable to the lure of the War Party — stands. After all, if government spending is the only way out of our economic predicament, then that Keynesian policy also includes increased military spending. And war leads to the centralization of economic power in the hands of the State — a goal shared by many modern liberals and "progressives." This is the real cause of my animus against much of what passes for the "left" today — their willingness to forget anti-imperialism in the interests of advancing their wrong-headed domestic agenda.
GradyWilsonApril 9th, 2009 at 10:20 am
"After all, if government spending is the only way out of our economic predicament, then that Keynesian policy also includes increased military spending." -Justin
really? all liberals support military Keynesianism? That's quite an unsubstantiated assertion. One could make a stronger argument that all libertarians support bloody US military interventionism because using history as a guide - that is the only way their beloved 'free markets' have spread. This is the real cause of my animus against libertarians — their willful ignorance refusing to acknowledge that US imperialism is advanced by their wrong-headed domestic agenda of having no limits on capital, no regulation on the wealthy corrupting and owning government in the name of 'freedom' and 'liberty'. Libertarian ideology creates this situation of unchecked corporate rule and militant imperialism. And war leads to the centralization of economic power in the hands of the wealthy who control the State - many of whom support Cato, AEI, the Chicago School, etc.
Alexander De LargeApril 9th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Grady Wilson is a troll. Instead of talking specifically about how 0bma's warmongering, drone murdering and troop retaining is a complete betrayal of his promises and all of his brainwashed supporters, he plays word games and types lies about what Libertarians are. Its completely pointless… but then again, that is what trolls do; they make people waste energy in circular debate. The fact of the matter is, and most commenters understand this, that the entire Washington system is one entity, and the theatre of left and right is just that; theatre. Justin nails it when he says its all about tax; it REALLY IS all about tax, and the aggregation of power taxation creates. Those people who think they are 'on the left' would do well to study where their money goes and why they think that governments have the right to take money from them… or anyone for that matter… wether it is for war or 'looking after the poor'. Libertarian ideas are spreading like wildfire. They are simple to understand. When people like Grady mischaracterize them they sound completely silly. Finally, Its best not to 'feed the trolls'. It only makes them troll harder and waste more time / make more noise. Libertarians are winning the debate; that is why their numbers are growing and the numbers ranks of the imaginary left/right axis are diminishing.
Ira7EpsteinApril 9th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
You are incorrect to claim that advocates of free market capitalism are leading supporters of military intervention and imperialism. Adam Smith, based upon cost benefit analysis, opposed the entire system of British imperialism. Richard Cobden, one of the founders of the Manchester School, lost his seat in Parliment because of his opposition to the Crimean War. Robert Higgs has done more than anyone else to debunk the myth that it was WWII that pulled the United States out the Great Depression. He has also done an outstanding job in documenting and exposing the corrupt nature of the Military Industrial Congressional Complex. (continued)
Ira7EpsteinApril 9th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Ludwig Von Mise went so far as to state that peace is the father of all things. In all of his works he rejects nationalism, militarism, infationism, and protectionism. Finally, I would not consider Cato or AEI as think tanks that support free market capitalism. The Chicago school does have some nice things to say about free trade and the operation of a market economy, but they still support the Fed and its regime of paper money and monetary central planning.
LiberaltarianApril 9th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I am antiwar but favor some form of universal health care and other such social programs. Also, I fear the government or any kind of group coercion. Therefore I call myself a 'liberaltarian'. The libertarians have a good point that big government can be dangerous. Politicians are usually corrupt; that's a fact of life. And the libertarian economists are well worth reading. If you think the Fed is on your side, you're on another planet! Oh, and Democrats have gotten us into more wars than Republicans. Beware of labels! Alex Cockburn was a great addition to the FFF conference! As well as Glenn Greenwald and others who are considered to the 'left'. And how do you categorize the excellent Paul Craig Roberts?
JustinRaimondoApril 9th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
I didn't say anything about all liberals: only that Keynesian theory, which seems to be quite popular in certain influential circles at the moment, is inherently prone to warmaking, and serves as a rationale for "priming the pump," as it were. And, of course, if we lived in a libertarian society, "owning the government" would get Big Business nowhere, because there wouldn't be all that much to own.
JustinRaimondoApril 9th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
As for the Cato Institute, AEI, and the Chicago School: AEI is hardly libertarian, the Chicago School is a rather vague and eclectic designation, and Cato — please go back in the archives and you'll see I've attacked Cato on all too many occasions, by name, in the most (ahem) unflattering terms.
LiberaltarianApril 9th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Liberals may get us into wars, because they like to use government to 'solve problems', both domestic and foreign. I don't believe that Obama is expanding into Afghanistan as some sort of crass 'priming the pump' social program. He just doesn't want to be tarred by the Republicans as 'weak on defense'. After all, we might have another 9/11. But this doesn't excuse him, because expanding the Afghan war will solve nothing and will only help the terrorists and kill innocents. Therefore, his duty is to be brave and logical and tell the public the truth. But he won't, because he's primarily a politician. I will agree that he has no real conscience, a quality rarely found among successful politicians. A smiley face who simply brushes the victims of drones aside in his mind! I would even call that a kind of schizophrenia.
Fernando_LezaApril 9th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Justin, the new comments section is very useful. I've always wondered who else was reading and donating to antiwar.com, and now I get to see who else is out there. And for those who think US warmongering is limited to the right wingers, I'd like to point out the Kosovo incident in 1999. Read about it and try to understand what really happened, and you'll see left leaning politicians are just as likely to blunder. Bush just happened to be a lot more stupid and therefore took the warmongering to a higher level. Obama proves that to get elected President of the USA one has to be first and foremost a semi educated dummy.
binkApril 9th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Why are we at all surprised about Liberal war-mongering? Isn't the "Lobby" well represented in BOTH the main U.S. political parties as well as in EU, Canadian, Australian, and a select few South/East Asian governments?
art guerrillaApril 9th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
1. longtime listener, first time caller… 2. do not generally waste time on me-tooisms or attaboys, but am impressed by your consistency and steadfast beliefs in regards to warmaking, even though i would be considered a lefty by the caller above… though no particular fan of obama, (other than the obvious symbolic advancement); he is a power elite playa, no genuine populist hero and defender of the constitution… 3. sort of appreciate comments section (which are almost all the online equivalent of Big Bother's ™ freespeech pens, er, zones, The Man ™ so generously provides us sheeple to bleat in and chew our soma-cuds); but i do like a good f*ckity f*ck-f*ck-fuck (oops!) when called for… i get kind of annoyed at bloggers and posters who seem to labor under the delusion that comment sections are supposed to be communal, academic white papers to 'solve' the issue at hand… no, this is a watercooler conversation, a bull session at a bar, a chance to argue and retort, not provide his story's footnote references… that is crazy talk… enlightenment is entirely accidental; but it is *exactly* the serendipitous accident that real, rollicking free speech will generate… 4. given kapitalist imperialism stranglehold on our country for so long, obama has little choice but to continue their reign, or risk being deposed (one way or the other)… *UNLESS* he really did go all populist on the power elites' ass, and rode the wave of populism bubbling beneath the surface, waiting for the first spark, catastrophe, or charismatic leader (*ahem*) to focus that 'mob' on re-forming this country for the greatest good for the greatest number… but how about we just wait for a corrupt and broken system to reform itself ? 'cause *that's* always worked out…. hee hee hee ho ho ho ha ha ha ak ak ak
art guerrilla aka ann archy artguerrilla@windstream.net
eof
Surly BobApril 10th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Given the choice between investing 20 million dollars in R&D for a new product and 20 million dollars to lobby for some no-bid contracts, any profit-seeking enterprise will go for the lobbying. That is market failure, pure and simple. Blaming the government, in this case, is like blaming the dog when it catches fleas.
That's what irks me about "anti-war libertarians" (full disclosure: I considered myself one, once). When the military industrial complex compels the state to murder in our name, in order to fill out their income statements, you scream for us to look away and blame the government, or the democrats, or the republicans. Just blame anyone except the big businesses instigating the conflicts, because the free market is an inherently good entity that couldn't possibly fail or create insanely negative externalities! In case you didn't know, that was sarcasm.
Do you think our economy could function, in its present form, without constant the foreigner-killing? How about without the massive prison-industrial complex? War on drugs? Of course not. These are all pieces of an economic program developed by folks who believe in enlightened self-interest, "greed is good", and all that rot. I promise you that the CEOs of Halliburton and Blackwater want to "get the government out of their business" — no-bid contracts excluded, of course!
Anyways, I'm a longtime reader. Keep up the thought-provoking stuff, Justin!
antiwarApril 10th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Unfortunately, there is some vile stuff posted on this site. We don\\'t want that content associated with Antiwar.com. We don\\'t moderate all comments, only some.
MonkeyMuffinsApril 10th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Geo1671 is the conspiradroid who flunked physics and math. The easily debunked urban legend, nine-eleven-was-an-inside-job, is a counterproductive, denial-producing mind-virus like any other.
For those seeking a cure, all the medicine you need will be found at, wtc7lies.googlepages.com.
MonkeyMuffinsApril 10th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
"What is to prevent the U.S. from courting a similar fate, at a time when our economy is melting down and the domestic crisis makes such grandiose "nation-building" schemes seem like bubble-think at its most hubristic?"
And the answer is, there isn't anything to prevent the U.S. from courting a similar fate.
Which sounds good to me (great in fact!).
The more boondoggles the better.
"Bring 'em on!"
Our fundamental cultural problem is our mythology of infinite growth on a finite planet. "Nation building" in service to the Empire is a textbook symptom of this unsustainable-by-definition way-of-life (the desperate need to continually try to create-and-maintain Empire-friendly governments in resource-rich regions is a result of trying to sustain our unsustainable imported-carrying-capacity).
The bottom line is our too-oft-vaunted way-of-life is literally impossible to maintain, ecologically and economically.
We're not going to voluntarily adapt to the reality of a finite planet. One need look no further than the Libertarian myths and Conspiradroid urban legends which regularly infest these pages to understand that we are a population of primates steeped in wishful thinking and denial.
So I say, the more boondoggles the better. They'll do what we won't: crash the system so we can at least have a shot at Steady State (SteadyState.org or MoralEconomy.org).
As Jared Diamond–author of Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed–recently observed (tinyurl.com/ctuhms), "I think I would like to see the rich suffer even more and — and the politicians suffer even more. [B]ecause they would then be motivated to solve all of our problems, and they wouldn't have the sense that, 'It'll be OK for us.' "
The only way that will happen is via crash and collapse, so the more boondoggles the better!
War boondoggles — YEAH!
Green boondoggles — YEAH!
Infrastructure boondoggles — YEAH!
You-name-it boondoggles — YEAH!
Status Quobama is all about boondoggles so there's good reason for optimism.
Awakening SheepleApril 11th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Obama is a tool of the Elites, as were all our other presidents for decades before, with the exception of JFK, perhaps. The Republican/Democrat, left/right paradigm has been infiltrated & neutralized—they are two sides of the very same coin.
AleGApril 13th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
So, Obama and his neo-libs have bent the "Axis of Evil" into an "Arc of Instability"? That is such a facile and transparent morph it is laughable; sadly, that nothing more is currently needed to enlist the support of those idiot masses who prefer a close-up and personal view of a donkey's derriere to the end of an elephant. Between the utter devastation presently being visited on what remains of the US economy through the fevered application of thoroughly discredited paradigms, and this disaster on the ascent in Afghanistan (aside: has it occurred to anyone just how vindicating V. Putin might find the prospect of tossing a monkey wrench into Obama's plans there?) I believe that our Presidential Putz has sowed the wind. The masses who worship Obama vastly prefer titillation and handouts to thought and work, but my guess is that they will ultimately be forced to realize that their Savior is a charlatan, and that their envisioned entitlements are worthless. At that point, they may be in howling, mindless anguish, and seeking a convenient venue to vent their anger. If/when that comes to pass, it will not be a happy time. My prediction is that the crash and burn of Obama and his supporters will make Jimmy Carter's last year in office look like a day at the beach.
By the way, several posters declared as a danger the prospects of profanity in this newly minted comments section. I wish that they had better defined what they wish to prohibit. "War", "government", "politicians", "taxes", and (yes) "government" are all profanities and obscenities, but a prohibition of those terms could make it passing difficult to discuss the issues. Conversely, words such as "ass-clown" may not be a classical part of political dialogue, but are economical, well-understood, and frequently appropriate in such discourse.
-Alexander Goristal
greenferretApril 15th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
MoveOn, CAP and their ilk are not anti-war; they are partisan. Of course they are backing Obama's war.
The only national party that has actively opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since before they started is the Green Party. If you are truly anti-war, then get active in a party that is independent of the military-industrial-political complex. You can find out more about the Greens at http://gp.org/
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
