Democrats now bring us WWIII, just like they brought us WWII and WWI

UPDATED: Sunday, September 20, 2009 11:54
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, September 18, 2009 4:27 PM


Obama has decided to take military action against Iran. Right now, it's just moving our nukes around, only were cleverly calling them "anti-missile systems" now, which has as much truth as "the clean air act." I guess that means that Frank Luntz still has a job.

Meanwhile, has anyone noticed that Bill Clinton is everywhere setting policy like it was his third term or something? Not recommening the .50 calibre solution, but can someone get him, them, out of here.

If I were Obama at this point, Damn, if I couldn't get out of this mess, I'd resign. He could be the first president to bring us a depression *and* a world war.

I'm just speculating here. I recall someone on Jon Stewart a couple years ago saying "in years to come you will look back fondly on George W. Bush" and Stewart said something to the effect of "How do you figure?" only is some more Jersey way, and the guest, who was some foreign dignitary IIRC said "As the only US president in the 21st c. who didn't *nuke* anyone."

Sadly, it's looking like that may be the case.

And okay, I earned some friendly fire on this one, but don't assume this is a kneejerk reaction, I'm trying real hard to remain objective on Obama, and personally, that's pretty easy, I like the guy, but my total lack of a god his govt. is full of rats.


Friday, September 18, 2009 4:45 PM





Friday, September 18, 2009 5:29 PM


Use the google. Iran Obama. This is all over the news, impossible to miss.


Friday, September 18, 2009 6:02 PM



Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Use the google. Iran Obama. This is all over the news, impossible to miss.

Not seeing anything to go to the same conclusions you have....

Missile defense co-operation with Russia is not a new idea, hell Putin once suggested it to Bush as an alternative to putting them in eastern europe.

As for the US Navy in the Gulf, Aegis ships have been routinely deployed there since the 1980's.

Hardly a prelude to war as " Obama has decided to take military action against Iran. " would suggest,

if anything I think it is merely a soundbite to accomplish two things...

1) deflate republican accusations about his being soft on defense, or not taking Iran seriously

2) indirectly attempt to prevent Israel from taking a pre-emtive action that would start a war, by publicly saying those ship could intercept ballistic missiles it counters whatever story Israel is likely to concoct.

" Right now, it's just moving our nukes around, only were cleverly calling them "anti-missile systems"

Moving Nukes around ? not necessary at all. While they would never admit it, ALL their carriers in Persian Gulf or the Arabian sea would be carrying, and I am sure many others have nuke Tomahawks on board. Also the USAF at Diego Garcia would likely have both weapons and probably a few aircraft rotated in to carry them.

Not saying its the perfect solution, but if he did nothing, Israel would be starting a war the US would get sucked into...

failing this explanation, they might be hyping things to sell some hardware

" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson

Lets party like its 1939


Friday, September 18, 2009 8:29 PM


Hey Dream,

I've been wanting to start a thread on Obama for a while now, but it would require a lot of research and sites and such and I don't really have the time for all that. The premise, my premise, about Obama is that every last one of the spin-doctors and the pundits, right AND left, keep getting him wrong, wrong, wrong. He is a new kinda animal, a new kinda cool as you'd say, and just doesn't fit into the tired cliches of political double-speak.

If you skip the analysis and just listen to as much of his actual words as you can get ahold of, read him as you would a book, as if you're trying to suss out the authors message, you will have a much better idea of where he's headed and what policies he'll be pushing. He's an artist, really, and artists are simultaneously more honest and more artful--flaky comes to mind, not quite deceptive, but nuanced, always nuanced--than your typical politician. He's a writer as much as he is a politician which means his leadership is gonna be pretty spotty, like a novelist's works--some good books, one or two masterworks, the rest, kinda inferior stuff. When he strikes a chord, he can move mountains, but a lot of the time he's just kinda working on his craft.

It's weird. I always knew perfectly well that he was gonna escalate the war in Afghanistan and that he was gonna move on the mountain border with Pakistan, 'cause he said so, that's the story that he told, and though he would emphasise different themes or subplots for different audiences, the spine of the narrative always stayed the same. I hoped that he was gonna bring Cheney & Rummy & co. to justice, but really I knew he wouldn't--that's not part of the story he's telling. I was not shocked at all when I found out that the troops were gonna be in Iraq through 2010 and beyond, because he always left that door open when he spoke of troop withdrawal. And now, when folk have been prognosticating all summer long that he was gonna throw the public option under the bus, that he was deeply embroiled in secret meetings selling us all out to Big Pharma and the insurance companies, so much so that I half believed them--even though I knew the prognosticators' methods were all wrong--we see that he continues to promote the public option because that's what he's always said he was gonna do. If he can strike a chord with the American people on this one, he will sail to victory on a wave of approval. But if he can't find the spine of his story, as it were, he'll lose his audience and reform will fail.

What I'm saying is that I think the guy is ultimately pretty transparent if you stop trying to second guess him. He's not perfect, I wish he were doing a lot of things he ain't, but I think history will bear me out that the man is pretty much who he says he is.

So. War with Iran? Not gonna happen. He's not interested in that. He's modelling this part of the story on Reagan. He's using the nukes diplomatically, 'cause at the moment, Iran is run by some pretty bad characters and that's the level of rhetoric they'll understand. Obama knows his audience and most of the time his audience is not the pundits and the spin-doctors, and like a lot of art critics, that makes 'em pretty cranky and jealous--and renders their reviews much less reliable.


Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.


Saturday, September 19, 2009 3:45 AM



Good analysis, and I mostly agree.

It's weird. I always knew perfectly well that he was gonna escalate the war in Afghanistan and that he was gonna move on the mountain border with Pakistan, 'cause he said so

Yes, I knew he would too, I believed him, but I actually listened to him, that's why I didn't vote for him. I think this was a unique election, in which all 4 people running in the final showdown were telling us the truth. Many people who did vote for Obama did so because they weren't listening: Obama said so himself: "I say what I'm going to do, and then people hear what they want to here." This is why I called him a magic man. But that's not people, Barack, that's you, you've got a skill, you couch your policies in the middle of triumphant political talks. Yes, he's the politically perfect globalist: They believe the Orwellian war is peace, and many presidents have tried, but Obama can actually say it.

People would be appalled to go back and listen word for word to political statements and realize if they wanted peace, who they really should have wanted in office: Join the early birthers, vote for mccain, and get president Sarah Palin. Ouch? Sad but true.

But people don't vote for peace. They try, but they keep voting for war. It's like a crackhead trying to use an ATM. (Oh, I hit balance again, if I could just get this money I could buy some more crack, better give the card to my dealer and tell him my number )

But seriously, sure, but a couple problems:

1. Reagan didn't have Nixon bopping pretending to be president. WTF is up with these clintonistas?

2. The manager of McDonalds doesn't determine what kind of food you get. Obama is president, but how much power does he actually have? Bush had none at all. Not so sure about Reagan either. Some presidents are in control, but it's not a dictatorship, and more than congress, it's the advisors and lobbyists setting policy. The president can tell us those policies, and then we can parse them out, as I just did at the beginning of this thread.

Okay, let me parse what Obama just said:

1. "New intelligence on Iran" Okay, that's a little white lie. We always have new intelligence on everything because we have an international spy agency, so we have new intelligence on Papua New Guinea, but no, we have nothing groundbreaking on Iran.

2. Yes, he's mostly on the level, but we know he does lie, because he got caught out in a lie twice on the campaign trail and quickly admitted it, but this isn't his main tool of deception. His principle rhetorical weapon is, as I said in an earlier post "We're going to respect our veterans, give them what they need to do the job, Better care at home, increase the troop levels in afghanistan and We will bring peace to the middle east!" Or something like that, but the little phrases are snug in the middle of the uplifting lines, to loud applause... by the very audience who opposes the policy.

2. The media has changed it's spin to be hyperactive against Iran again. They were mellow for a while. The media is the voice of power, the voice of the men behind the lobbyists and advisors. This means *someone* wants us to hate Iran.

3. The brinksmanship argument would make sense if there was any reason at all to do it. Iran is a self sufficient state, and the globalists hate that. You can look back to Germany's drive to become a self sufficient state, and how the allies forced the situation. Sure, the allies didn't invade Germany, and I'm not saying we're going to invade Iran, but this is not the same situation as Russia, it's really much more like Germany. I've personally become suspicious of the motives behind Hitler. I suspect that there may have been international advisors there pushing for bad policy. But germany was cornered. If someone's cornered, and then you feed the idea that there's a way out of this corner, you can head down the path to the 1938-on Nazi Germany. Now sure, you could argue that Germany was already meddling in spain, but then the US was already meddling in china. In short, We've surrounded Iran, and now intend to line it with nukes. Ahmadinejad seems a very steady hand, but things could change. Also, we might invade.

4. Is Obama really Reagan? I mean, sure, he says he wants to be, and I believe him. But his democratic party wants him to be FDR. Who really has the power? Right now, policywise, sure, Obama looks a lot like the policy on the campaign trail, not the one people believed in, but the one he actually said, the handgrenades hidden in the middle of flowers and bunnyrabbits.

But here's the snag:

The picture of a cabinet and advisor he painted on the campaign trail did not remotely resemble what actually happened when he got elected. Was Obama lying? Probably not. He just didn't have that power. He was told who to nominate by the DLC. In short, Democrats and Clintons had the power.

Ironically, Obama would probably have been a better Reaganite than Reagan, who after all, did appoint a fair number of commies to his govt. But Reaganity appointees might have problems in a lock solid majority democratic congress. But even this isn't enough to explain the cabinet we see. It's a clinton cabinet, not just a non-obama cabinet.

So, sure, Obama can lose power struggles. Yeah, I would say you're right, he's not interested in war with Iran, but he's the head of an organization that *is* interested.

Now if we can shelve the BS about terrorism and look at the real world, we're attacking Pakistan and staged a coup there to allow us to do so without fighting the Pakistan Army.

1. We want Pakistan to fight India, not us. Look around, you'll see this storm brewing.

2. We want to increase instability. This isn't a conspiracy theory, it was leaked already: Policy is to destabilize regions around Iran in hopes that this instability will spread to Iran. We are also setting up bases around Iran to then go in and "restore democracy" which means take down the guy they elected and put up someone we like, like Karzai, and pretend that he can get elected.

There's a flaw in this plan: Iran hates us. This was not true of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iranians like Americans, sure. But politically, we have a history. A lot of Iraqis thought the US invasion would be good. They hated their dictator, and America had helped them out in the past. Similar situation in Afghanistan. In Iran, we have the reputation for trying to oppose them, control them and oppress them at every turn since 1953, when we took over that role from the British, who had been trying to do the same thing.

The importance of this is that Iraqis might accept US-sponsored rule. Afghans probably won't accept any rule. Iranians will accept Iranian rule, but nothing to do with Us, (and they're very suspicious of Russia.) Still, they will take Russian support over ours, just not a Russian puppet govt.

We're not in Afghanistan or Pakistan to win, that would be impossible. We're in their to cause chaos. Iran might take it upon itself to quell that chaos.

Sure, Iran is not going to initiate hostilities unless they think that war is inevitable. But they are going to meddle in the affairs of neighbors.

If Obama becomes FDR, or BHO, which could easily happen in a depression, then we can have a situation where the only employer is the govt. This is a recipe for out of control militarization, enough to get the US into becoming a war machine for a south asian war. It doesn't necessarily mean millions of americans going to war, but it could mean millions of americans making weapons so that a puppet regime installed in India could go to war.

A Hindu-Islamic war would solve two major problems for globalists (don't think this wasn't what was behind WWI+II because it was: Germany and Russia were major obstacles. FDR and Churchill deliberately manipulated the situation to make this about Germany vs. Russia, twice.) And, of course, Japan vs. China, similar story.

The new USSR, called the EU, will try to puppeteer european possessions (ex-nations, post lisbon) into supporting the war as well, probably through industry.

All I'm saying is that the situation has all the markings of WWIII, and that being much more like WWI and WWII than it is like the apocalyptic fantasies of it, though there will definitely be a lot of technology involved.

So, sorry for the really long post, but my point being this:

Yes, HK, I agree we're not directly invading Iran, but this is part of a strategy that was already laid out to create a multi-regional conflict, which is just another way of saying "World War"

I think the Globalists think that this third war will help secure MEFTA and the African Union, as well as a state of Europe, and might try for a South American Bloc, probably under Chavez and Co, despite appearances, because we are letting China play this game... for now.

Save the West vs. China for WWIV


Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:03 AM


"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


2. The media has changed it's spin to be hyperactive against Iran again. They were mellow for a while. The media is the voice of power, the voice of the men behind the lobbyists and advisors. This means *someone* wants us to hate Iran.

Haven't read and digested your entire post, DT, but I wanted to say "Hell YES" to this point, at least.

I've noticed it, too. There's a pattern, and it's not pretty right now. There's a distinct uptick in the anti-Iran hate speech that's being put out by the media. It's NOT the stuff that's being said by the policy wonks, but rather the stuff that's being put out, often in tiny ways, by the media itself. Often as not, you'll see the White House start REFLECTING this mindset, not initiating it. Where the President is supposed to lead, he often ends up following the media and talking about what the talking heads WANT him to talk about.


Old friend charity
Cruel twisted smile
And the smile signals emptiness
For me
Starless and Bible black


Saturday, September 19, 2009 5:16 AM


Dreamtrove, The military industrial complex is none political. The so called right winger Reagan held them at bay. A couple of months ago I watched John Lehman former Sec. of the Navy under Reagan on CSPAN. He is Great. Talked about the old days and handling the MIC from rippen off the tax payers. Now he grasped todays issues and the current problems. Very smart man. Not living in the past. Understood what he could not do today because of a modern world. The Joint Chiefs of Staff advise the President on Military actions. These are not just educated men but warriors and understand the geopolitics of the areas in which they are to engage in. So the "O" can go on ESPN or the food channel what ever he is doing this weekend. But the JCS have a handle on it. I do think are Navy has declined alittle in fleet size. We should increase it from at least 60 to 100 more ships of the line. Now I have an idea the Royal Navy is looking to build their new aircraft carriers. But the recession has put that on hold. America puts an order in for 2 with options for 3 more. This gets the tooling up for the Brits when their ready to lay down the keels. Now this stimulates their economy. Now they have the money. We have smaller line ships to support without a strain on getting the manpower. Then these new ships could handle the pirate infested waters. Where as the supercarriers could remain in the Gulf. Now that is what I think we should do. Why we are in Iraq is because of Iran. It is what the think tank people came up with under the Reagan years.

"Battle of Serenity, Mal. Besides Zoe here, how many-" "I'm talkin at you! How many men in your platoon came out of their alive".


Saturday, September 19, 2009 7:23 AM


Heya Dream,

You ever think of writing political thrillers? You got a knack for a kind of narrative a certain audience would absolutely eat with a spoon. You got a very detailed mind, sir. I mean no snark at all, just see a muscularity to the plots you envision.

Your book's exciting and scary and not at all implausible, but I still see it as alternative history. I'm really not seeing this Clinton take-over that you are.

I'm wondering why you never mention Biden in all this discussion of who's writing policy.

Obama schooled Bubba and his wife during the campaign--made 'em look like fricken amateurs! Nobody had done that to them before. The Clintonistas are staying close to the President, not 'cause they're running his White House, they know better than to try that, but because they want in on his mojo--their cut, as it were. And he's no dummy, he knows their power and he ain't afraid to use it.

And I'll agree that the "globalists," the Pax Americana types have desperately wanted to destabilize the Middle East as much as they possibly can, but I don't see Obama as a globalist. Read his Cairo speech again. If he were a globalist, that speech would be a straight up lie, in spirit as well as in the letter. Sure, he wants to make the power structure in Iran look bad, he wants to make them look like aggressors and fanatics, not so we can role in and "establish democracy" but so the Middle Eastern world will put pressure on the Iranian government to lighten up, as it were. Obama wants a stable Middle East--I see that as one of his central ambitions. It's a pretty tall order to pull off, but that's the prize his eye is on.

On the one hand you acknowledge the whole "magic man" thing about Obama, but you turn around and assume he has to play the same manipulative games the less magically endowed have always had to play. Obama is the best politician this country has seen on the national stage in a very long time. I mean, dang man, he's a one term senator and he's black with a crazy name and a ne'er-do-well Muslim father from Kenya and now he's President of the fricken United States of America!!! lol

One thing I don't see him getting involved in is a disaster. He's had plenty of opportunity in the past. So, any truly disastrous plans you see him getting close to, he ain't gonna go there. It would have been a disaster, in terms of his personal political ambitions, to hand the healthcare bill to the Insurance companies the way everyone said he would. So he didn't do it. It would have been a disaster for him to have played the Clintons' game (and later the McCain game) during the election but he made 'em all look like chumps without even seeming to try. It would be a disaster to get into a shooting war with Iran. So, anything that you and I can recognize as a disaster, Obama's gonna recognize as a disaster and steer clear. WW III? Not if he can help it.

I think he wants to get the Middle East to love him and I think he might just do it. But he knows the current regime in Iran ain't gonna come around, as in ever. So, he wants to make them look bad. He wants to give them the rope to hang themselves. It's no mere coincidence that we've seen so much unrest in Tehran from practically the next day following Obama's Cairo speech. As I said, Obama has a stunning grasp of who is audience is.

We'll see which one of us is right soon enough, won't we?


Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.


Saturday, September 19, 2009 7:33 AM


Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Okay, I haven't read all of this, time is a constraint, so I may be repeating someone else.

What I heard is that the old system Bush tried to build didn't work, wouldn't work, and that the Defense Department itself has been against it for a long time and is more in favor of what Obama proposes; that the newly-proposed system WOULD work, or at least have a better chance of working, and made sense.

Installing a nuclear warhead on a long-range missile is a difficult task, and intelligence officials have determined that Iran is making quicker progress with its short and medium range missiles.

Since the ground-based interceptors are fixed, some military experts argue they are more vulnerable to attack. Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued that the new system will be more flexible, easily adapted as the threat from Iran or other nations changes.

"One of the realities of life is the enemy gets a vote," Cartwright said. "If you can't adapt, you're left disadvantaged. This system gives us a much more significant and robust capability to adapt to the threat as it actually emerges versus what we would like it to emerge as."

What I heard was that the old system was too costly and ineffective. Rachel Maddow used the wonderful clip from West Wing where they repeatedly tested long-range missle defense system unsuccessfully, and it missed by 135 miles; the joke was that they kept trying to convince the President that it would work, and every time it didn't, he likened it to Lucy pulling the football out from under Charlie Brown.


While he was canceling the system of interceptor missiles and tracking radars slated for Eastern Europe, Obama said he had signed off on a new missile defense strategy that would be based on proven technologies and aimed more at the short- and medium-range missiles that Iran is thought to be developing.

That, he said, would result in "stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies." report on NPR's Morning Edition noted that the missile defense system "has been plagued with technical problems" and has never been thoroughly tested, citing Government Accountability Office reports that indicate the system has no proven ability to shoot down a hostile missile 24 years and more than $100 billion spent to develop a U.S. missile defense, an American-operated system proposed for Europe would cost billions more to deploy and still may fail, a series of independent reports concludes.

The type of ground-based interceptors that would be deployed in Europe failed to hit targets in five of 13 tests, according to the Pentagon. They have not demonstrated an ability to detect decoys, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) says.

Independent technical analysis has shown that Iran and North Korea, which has a nuclear program, could fool the system using simple countermeasures such as balloons, says critic David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"Do I believe with any confidence that this system would be able to stop a nuclear attack? The answer is no," he said.

The successful tests "have all been scripted for success," said former Pentagon testing chief Philip Coyle, another skeptic. "It's a little bit like comparing the results of students doing open book exams."

The GAO told Congress last month that missile defense testing has been plagued by delays and "performance challenges." The type of system proposed for Europe, which is already partly in place in the United States, "continues to experience testing problems and delays," the GAO said.

A January report by the Congressional Research Service noted that "some observers continue to question how much confidence there should be in the system's potential operational or combat effectiveness based on the types of tests conducted and the test results to date."

Physicist Richard Garwin, who helped design the hydrogen bomb and served recently on a commission to assess the ballistic missile threat, said in an email that because it can be so easily defeated by decoys, the "system is not worth deploying, because it will be useless."

I realize these reports may be biased, but they cite experts who may know what they're talking about, too. I also realize Obama's move might have a lot to do with placating Russia, so I don't know how to interpret whether his decision is right or not. I heard the Checz Republic was against deployment of the initial system when it was proposed.


Russians had objected to the fact that the Czech-based radar was omni-directional and could look deep into their territory. That radar will be replaced with an X-band radar that will be pointed only at Iran.

Moscow also worried that ground-based interceptors in Poland could have been retrofitted with nuclear warheads. Gates, calling that fear unfounded, said the new missiles that will be deployed to Europe, the SM3, cannot be viewed as any kind of threat to Russia.

Installing the radar in the Czech Republic and interceptors in Poland has been controversial in those countries, but support solidified after Russia's invasion of Georgia last year. Following that conflict, Poland quickly signed the agreement to build the interceptors.,0

I don't feel I have enough factual knowledge to make an informed decision one way or the other, but given many of the things Bush wanted to do were more for show than really useful, that he had no problem increasing defense spending whether useful or not, and that his hawkish stance sometimes saw threats where there were none.

I know the right jumped on this move hard and are using it to say Obama is weak on defense, but that's to be expected so I take it with a huge grain of salt. I dunno...

Together we are greater than the sum of our parts


Saturday, September 19, 2009 11:44 AM



Agreed. The power is setting it out there and framing the debate, just like they did in the "You lie" incident. I saw not one mention that there was anything wrong with instituting a medical system in which only citizens would be able to receive medical treatment. As I said, I'm *for* benefits for illegal immigrants, and I suspect Obama is *also,* but TPTB had him so running scared that he put his fist down against the idea of medical care for mexicans to the point where it drove moron wilson to political tourettes. But if I were in Canada, I could get medical care. Hell, if I had a problem, I could *go* to Canada to *get* medical care. the same should be available to any mexican coming to or already in the US, but I digress.

Pirate Cat,

I know. It's just that democrats seem to either lack backbone and so bow to the pressure more, or they like war because it's some sort of "public works project." Not being partisanly pro-republican here just very angry at the democrats at the moment.


Thanks for the nod, and actually, you might be right. I might try that. Of course, in writing, you try everything as a short story first.

Little known fact that everyone on this board should know: No one publishes books by unknowns. It's almost unheard of. I know you can dig up an exception or two, but I live in a family of professional writers.

Here's how you become a known: Write short stories. This pays absolutely nothing, but it establishes your credibility.

Oh, and give a miss, no offense if anyone works there, but it has no more credibility than the Huffington post, actually, less. The most credibility in the US is definitely RandomHouse. I'm not vouching for their being logic behind this, it's just the "How it is."

It's not a point I'm arguing for either, it's just a little tip to anyone else out there who is trying to write: Don't write a 500 page book, send it to a dozen publishers, and then give up and self publish.

Myself, I'm extremely skeptical of the publishing world since it is part of the MSM, and they will try to control you, change your ideas and message, and make 10 times as much as you do over your ideas which they will then own. But if you want to establish credibility, that's the way to do it.

Oh, and one more tip: When you go independent, do NOT do it in the way Piers Anthony did. Think Neil Gaiman or Joss Whedon

Okay, sorry for that interruption, but I knew something and thought I should share it, a lot of people waste a lot of time barking up the wrong tree here.

Moving on. *(oh, and I like the idea btw)

But, HK, here's my philosophy on politics: My world is dark, I think Frank Miller is light and fluffy. It doesn't bug me because I like it dark. I like dark and ambiguous, Phillip K Dick, not Tolkien's dark (Love Tolkien, but there's not a lot of moral ambiguity there: a little, which I love...)

My reasoning is simple: If I look worst case, and I'm wrong, I have nothing to worry about. If I try the worst with the pollyanna and balance out in the middle and things are *worse*... I'm totally screwed.

So sure, maybe things aren't as dark as I see them, in which case, there's nothing to worry about, and I've prepared myself for a disaster that didn't happen. I'd rather be there, then on the other side of that equation, if you know what I mean.


Yes, no argument, the DOD hates the Bush plan, and came up with a better one, and handed it to Obama.

Here's my problem: Why do it at all?!?!?

Obama is bending to pressure because he is not holding all the cards. President is not dictator. Still, I would be happier if he stood up to Gates... Fuck it, I would be happier if he Fired Gates., and then hired someone competent who did not think that military technology was the solution to all our problems.

On the campaign trail Obama said he thought Chuck Hagel would make a good secretary of defense. Well, I agree with the President: Chuck Hagel would make a great secretary of defense, because he is IIRC the only combat vet in the senate who was an enlisted infantry, and not an officer. Sgt. Hagel was in an actual war, and on the actual front lines. He's going to think twice about what happens in war.

The snag is the Clintonistas won't confirm him because a) he's a republican and b) he's too anti-war. Hagel was such an opponent of Bush's wars that Cheney said "Hagel is barely a republican at all."

I'm not saying Obama is "weak on defense," I'm saying he's weak on political backbone. He's being pressured, and caving.

Sure, HK mentioned he said some of this on the campaign trail, and he did, which is why I didn't vote for him. But he was pressured into saying it. Every time Obama took a stance against a Bush policy, maintaining troops in Iraq, Patriot Act, whathaveyou, Hillary R- Clinton called him a pansy more or less, and he caved like a democrat and fell in line behind her ultra-militaristic agenda.

Does anyone remember Obama in a dem debate saying he wouldn't nuke Iran, and hillary called him a coward or some such, and then Obama changed his position to say "all options were on the table" with regard to iran? <-- This is an insane position. Harry S*hole f-ing Truman was insane, WWII-genocidal f-ing insane, like the rest of them, doing what Harry Truman did isn't making you a good American or a good Democrat, it's making you a nutcase. And I'm being way too kind here. I'll leave to Frem to tell it like it is Re: Truman.

Sorry, I's just hates the plan, I don't wanna see it better done. I wanna see it undone.


Sunday, September 20, 2009 7:17 AM


Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sigh..."I'm saying he's weak on political backbone. He's being pressured, and caving"...that was my first, worst fear about Obama, that they would eat him alive if he won. I think he's a good man...but then so was Carter, and it didn't help HIM.

Sadly, too much of what I see confirms my initial fears; how I wish I were wrong! I, too, would like us to get out of the "world policeman" role.

Together we are greater than the sum of our parts


Sunday, September 20, 2009 11:54 AM



Sigh..."I'm saying he's weak on political backbone. He's being pressured, and caving"...that was my first, worst fear about Obama, that they would eat him alive if he won. I think he's a good man...but then so was Carter, and it didn't help HIM.

Sadly, too much of what I see confirms my initial fears; how I wish I were wrong! I, too, would like us to get out of the "world policeman" role.

Having *been* an active operative of the democratic party, I can give maybe a little insight into this problem:

The DNC squashes dissent and does not promote people who do not cave to their wishes. And I'm not talking about policy here. When the democrats start employing a poor campaign or registration strategy, they will notice if you differ with them and try to suggest something more effective. It is not looked kindly on. You are in your place. People under you are under you, and people above you are not to be questioned, nor are their ideas. If you say something like "I think this tactic might annoy people to death, and they might end up voting for the other side." They'll say something to the effect of, "This is the strategy we're going with: we're going to phone bomb people. Now who wants to phone bomb?" I think even someone who suggested alternate targeting ideas for phone bombing would get a red X. They will keep you on, but they're not going to promote you.

The only way "democrat with a backbone" comes in is through some party organization so small that they didn't have to go through a lot of this. The same is probably true of republicans, they just have more small state candidates (though I don't know, Ron Paul is a Texas Republican. A NY Democrat is almost a guaranteed patsy, though some in the black caucus have backbone.)

Still, I think the structure selects in favor of people who bend to pressure, and not necessarily intentionally, it's just how it's set up as an organization.

My suspicion about Obama is that he has a very narrow agenda, which is the agenda that anyone from Hyde Park, white or black, is likely to have: Make America not a war zone, and probably into a productive country for everyone. But people on a mission can be swayed on subjects they don't care so much about. Where or to whom we have missiles pointed isn't going to affect the US situation on the ground on main street.

Step back and imagine being the Obamas, raising to young daughters in the USA who have to dodge sniper fire on their way to school. That's likely to affect your outlook on this country, and you political perspective.

And the Obamas are decidedly an upper middle class family, they just have a wee bit different experience than the Clintons and the Bushes. Just a little






"A psychopath": Psychologists call Trump the "most psychiatrically disordered president in history"
Tue, September 29, 2020 12:00 - 96 posts
Biden Close To Dropping Out Due To Mental Incompetence
Tue, September 29, 2020 11:58 - 18 posts
Voter Fraud in Ilhan Omar’s District new Video Exposes Ballot Harvesting
Tue, September 29, 2020 11:55 - 18 posts
Some Covid-19 thoughts
Tue, September 29, 2020 11:04 - 1367 posts
Elections 2020
Tue, September 29, 2020 10:43 - 1242 posts
Tue, September 29, 2020 10:40 - 258 posts
Where Did All Of The Voting Fraud Threads Go?
Tue, September 29, 2020 10:32 - 10 posts
A remarkable and nightmarish scene playing out in Portland should terrify anyone who cares about the US constitution
Tue, September 29, 2020 10:27 - 842 posts
Countdown Clock, Trumps Removal 'Starts'
Tue, September 29, 2020 09:54 - 442 posts
What happened to 'America first '
Tue, September 29, 2020 09:50 - 150 posts
Trumps thread of lies
Tue, September 29, 2020 09:38 - 97 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, September 29, 2020 09:25 - 4089 posts