War is Good, Isn't It?

We have three wardogs in the race for the White House. Obama -- while supporting continued threats to the Middle East and military action in Sudan -- seems the most peaceful in intent and current actions. Hillary is both shrill and angry, and McCain is all that and more.

Active-duty military and many veterans tend to find Ron Paul's brand of conservatism -- including its native non-intervention -- wiser and more welcome. Ron Paul is still polling as high as 11% nationally -- this despite a very real mainstream media shutout all year. Ralph Nader is antiwar -- and he is probably pulling 3-5% as we speak. But 15% of the people will not be served -- instead we will get a more urbane version of George W. Bush for another four to eight years.

I know many of you are saying, "...but Obama is about change!" But Hillary is right -- change sounds good, but it takes a bit more than talk to implement concrete redirection and reduction in Washington. Obama, bless his heart, is probably not going to be -- forgive me -- shrill and angry enough to make it happen!

Given that we face a future GWB-lite regime, allow me to put a happy face on it. Here's three bits of good news for us under a continued regime of war, abroad and at home:

First, one in 99 Americans in behind bars, and our spending on prisons, prison construction and prison related employment is skyrocketing. And think of it -- all those young adults aren't out there trying to steal your job!

Secondly, our president recently said that war helps the economy here at home -- you know, the economy that isn't having a recession now and isn't going to have one? Check this out -- Bush says the war in Iraq is good for our economy, violating all known understanding of economics.

Thirdly and along those same lines, what we are doing in Iraq is destroying their agricultural production -- which must mean future good news for farmers in America, what with the increased market and and the need for years of tax-funded food aid in kind to the fertile crescent!

Bush-lite is coming to an America even more financially and emotionally stretched than it has been in the past few years. Don't worry, little sheeple. Voting is your civic duty, and you'll feel so much better after the next election.

Comments

[LeeFromVA]

Karen, the one obvious thing that president Obama can do, without being shrill and angry, is to end the war in Iraq and set a new tone for foreign policy. Those are things he can do without approval from Congress. It's actually the most convincing reason to vote for him. Your argument might have made sense if you were talking about health care or some other domestic issue. But even in those cases, we need to get past the bickering. It's time to take the high road and hope for the best.

[Pyrum]

If you think Obama is going to end the war in Iraq, you're not paying attention. Obama votes in favor of funding the war. If he were actually against the war, he'd vote against funding it. It's as simple as that! His claims of representing "change" are empty rhetoric designed to play on the emotions of the American people for his own personal gain, and nothing more.

[LeeFromVA]

He opposes the war but supports the troops. It's not rocket science. He knows that Dubya wouldn't end the war even if he lost funding, and then the troops would suffer due to lack of protective equipment. He knows the only way to end the war is to take it to the people and empower them by becoming president.

Hillary is the one that wouldn't end the war. She is consistently hawkish on the war. She would simply explain her reversal in plans as based on some new world event. She has recieved the biggest amount of Defense Industry contributions. She would never let them down.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Oh Yeah Hillary is Right, Far Right.

[Bulbul]

Karan say Hillary is both Shrill and Angry.

Hillary is Shrill ? where in her speech and debate you find her voice shrill ?
Actually Hillary, is an excellent debator, and Barack has come a long way to do well too.


Angry ? Yes, after 8 years of Bush-Cheney if one is not angry, they do not belong in the race !
Actually the correct term would be Hillary is passionate, and always makes compelling statements.
You prefer Obama, say it , Karen, but please make some logical statement , to stand by, your support.

[vanessa04]

Bulbul, read the whole post. I don't think she's preferring Obama.

"I know many of you are saying, "...but Obama is about change!" But Hillary is right -- change sounds good, but it takes a bit more than talk to implement concrete redirection and reduction in Washington. Obama, bless his heart, is probably not going to be -- forgive me -- shrill and angry enough to make it happen!

Given that we face a future GWB-lite regime, allow me to put a happy face on it. Here's three bits of good news for us under a continued regime of war, abroad and at home:..."


I know, I almost stopped reading at "shrill and angry", too.

[technomist]

The concerning thing about Obama for me is how he has carried on the destructive rhetoric that Gates initiated (and had to back-track from) in attacking the United States' European allies at a time when they have proportionately more troops per head of population deployed in Afghanistan than the United States has managed to field. These Nato allies, including key ones like the UK, which punches well above its weight, are getting heartily fed up with US politicians spouting off at their expense in order to get into a White House. The present adminsistration has made it less than comfortable for US allies to be the United State's firend by its exacerbation of political conflict sin the world (and creating real additional security risks) by the use of torture, detentions in Guantanamo (which are clearly illegal in the allies' eyes) and lying about extraordinary renditions through their allies territory.

If Obama is going to carry on with this kind of rhetoric, and not understand just how ignorant it looks, without addressing these concerns from the point of view of public opinion among their European allies' , the many friends the USA has will have a difficult time persuading their publics of the value of alliances like NATO in upholding the values they wish to live by.

[anghiari]

Karen,

The sheeple are a certain group of purportedly upperclass educated women who have chosen to dump all closely held personal values and engage in intellectually dishonest whining on behalf of a candidate who is the least competent in this race. Talk is as cheap as that 35 years of vaunted experience. When will any of it come to play in this election? So far she has been a disaster. She and her team totally underestimated her opponent and it came back and bit her in the campaign butt. These guys thought they would be down in the bahamas on a rest and relaxation timeout...so blowing through the $100 million was a no-brainer...except Barack Obama happened. Hillary's incompetence and arrogance was on full display...so how do they make that go away...Sacrifice Solis-Doyle to the employee-prove-your loyalty-by­-biting-th­e-bullit gods. Any staffer working for a politician knows that call may come when you have to lie and say you were the one who made the mistake so the boss can save face. Somebody had to be responsible for all that money being spent so early. Hillary couldn't admit she was soooo sure she had this in the bag! So the girls hang in their excusing her lying, her manipulation and her incompetence. Karen look around on the Huffpost site and read Rebecca Walker's Sunday piece...get some perspective...and go figure out how to be honest wth yourself and everybody else in Clinton's campaign. This is what Bill Clinton once said in 2004 during Kerry's campaign against George Bush,

" If one candidate is trying to scare you and the other one is try get you to think, if one candidate is appealing to your fears and the other one is appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

Seems like Thoughtfulness and Hope were signs of intelligence for the Clintons at one time...given Hillary's latest fearmongering ad....guess which candidate fits which description.

[vanessa04]

Obama wants you to hope. He's not asking you to think. Big difference.

Hillary's 3 a.m ad simply reiterates what she's been saying all along: that she is better prepared to deal with our enemies than he is.

Now dispute that if you want (and I'm sure you will). But it is hardly fear-mongering to say in an ad that she is better on defense than he is. It's called "creating a difference between you and your opponent".

If it bothers you that much, I guess it's not just words.

[PioneerKing]

I'll miss Shrub W. Bush in 2009.

[robbrian]

You may be right. After all America twice drank the Bush kool aid, with his 'compassionate conservative' and then 'continue the war for Iraqi freedom' crapolla. Now, Obama and Clinton sing the 'change/experience' duet, gulped down by millions.

At least they're not stupid warmongers, crafty, but not stupid.

Neither has any real idea of what's going on in the global economy. If they do they're scared to death to tell anyone. So we can look forward to hard scrabble days ahead no matter who wins.

On health care someone needs to call Hillary and Bill out over their close, poisoning ties to Monsanto. The company that brought us killer seeds, meat with steroids and agricultural ruin in developing countries.

She's going to support for-profit­-health-ca­re which will not disappoint her Big Pharma Masters as much as she'll disappoint the little guy who gets sucked into thinking that there's some "there" there.

[DemandTruth]

So, what? Are you trying to say we should elect Ron Paul as president? If so, be ready to get out your checkbook when you call 911 or the fire department. He's against taxpayer funded social programs for the common good, you know. Be ready to take care of your parents in your own home until they die - and spend your retirement savings to do so. Because he doesn't believe in social programs like Medicare and Social Security. So he'll end the war, and end taxes. And you can use that saved money to grow mint to make your own toothpaste. And make your own pet food. And raise your own beef. And spinach. And make and paint your own toys. And cherish that garden in your yard - because after the logging companies and coal companies and water companies and oil companies have their way - there won't be anything left of an "environment" on our planet! Because he doesn't believe business should be regulated either. And maybe a little boat to get you across the river - because all the bridges will collapse eventually. Ron Paul doesn't believe in socialist taxpayer funded government programs like road maintenance.

Out of the candidates that we have - Out of the candidates who could possibly win - who should we vote for then? Or should we just all pack it up and crunch on the cyanide pill - because nobody can solve our problems or get us out of this war?
I mean, what exactly are you saying here? Or are you just being pessimistic because that's all you know and all you have to offer?

[Pyrum]

Wow. You are so wrong I don't even know where to begin. Ron Paul isn't in favor of ending all taxes, just federal income tax. Ron Paul has introduced legislation into Congress to guarantee funds collected for social security get used for social security, because currently they're being used to help fund unrelated programs. You're contradicting yourself by saying there won't be any businesses around to produce food for you and your pets and make toothpaste and toys, but there will be businesses around to destroy the environment! That doesn't make any sense.

Currently, fire departments and road maintenance are being taken care of mainly at state and local levels, and Ron Paul isn't against that. All he wants to do is decentralize to government so the federal part (there are functions of government best served at a federal level, such as national defense and foreign diplomacy) stays in it's place and doesn't stick it's nose into the more local levels of government where it doesn't belong.

Let me ask you this: if the war continues and our $9 trillion budget deficit keeps growing and we continue to borrow $12 billion a month from China to fund the war, what do you think is going to happen to our economy, and where do you think all the money for your precious socialized programs is going to come from?

And yes, I think Karen Kwiatkowski IS saying we should do everything is our power to elect Ron Paul as president. She's absolutely right about that.

[JohnFromCensornati]

She's saying we should elect Nader.

[YankeeCanuck]

Much more to the point about Obama's foreign policy ideas is Jon Wiener's post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/samantha-power-how-obama_b_88963.html
Since reading this, I have every confidence Obama will assemble a great team around him.

It is also heartening that Obama has noticed the genocide in Sudan. Our foreign policy has very rarely suggested action "because it is the right thing to do". It's about time we stopped our "business as usual" foreign policy and took a clear-eyed view of the world. Not only will Obama send a different message to the world simply by being elected, he will have a different approach to foreign policy, one that many old foreign policy hands will gather round. They have had a hard time being heard by this administration. It's not that our current president is hard of hearing -- he's hard of listening.

[technomist]

So far, apart from having 'noticed' the genocide in Sudan,Obama has not been impressive, when viewed from abroad.

His recent ignorant calls for Europe to send more troops to Afghanistan, at a time when European troop deployments per head of population are proportionately way in excess of those the USA has bothered to commit just shows how poorly briefed he is. It seems he's stumbled into the same echo chamber as Gates for his ideas. He may have lots of charisma with the American people but so far it just looks like there isn't much substance there, if what he is going to do is mend relations with Europe after the disasterous Bush administration.

He could start with a few insubstantial gestures of respect: getting US diplomats to pay their road congestion charges in London wouyld be one. He can then work his way up to some biggies, like dealing with the porr communications, training and targetting issues that are behind the 'friendly fire' problems that make fighting alongside the US such a nightmare for your allies. He could plan to apologe for the way the US Airforce has refused to co-operate with the British judiciary during inquests into these deaths, close Guantanamo and compensate the British citizens and residents who have been illegally held there and abused. He could say he will end the misuse of Diego Garcia, and end the practice of US officials lying to the British Government about extra-ordinary rendition. He could end extra-ordinary rendition itself, stop torture and bring all US torturers and those who train them and instruct them to do such things to justice . All these are fixables.

[YankeeCanuck]

I would urge you to read Samantha Powers' book, "Problem from Hell". From your comment, I know you would find it interesting.
On Obama's comment on Afghanistan, he has said for some time that what we began to do there has been hijacked by our ill-considered "effort" in Iraq. You are right, far more European troops are committed to Afghanistan precisely because the US has deployed so many to Iraq.
I've lived outside the US for many years and have a different view than most here in the US. As you do. Suspicion of the US and its motives is a Canadian national sport, and it's not entirely unfounded.
I too felt unsure about Obama's foreign policy experience, but the post I mention above indicates that Obama is a man who does his research, knows what questions to ask, is aware of what he does not know, and knows who to call upon to add to his knowledge.I think that beats someone who says he/she knows it all already.
In Iowa I made the effort to hear every candidate many times and to personally ask questions. I backed Biden for his substance and depth of experience. He too, has charisma, but no money.
Charisma alone is not enough. I see Obama now as a younger version of Biden. Both possess a rare quality among politician­s:authenti­city.

[IsobelDeBrujah]

" Obama, bless his heart, is probably not going to be -- forgive me -- shrill and angry enough to make it happen!"
Good. Shrill and angry as well as stubborn and stupid is the strategy we've been attempting for almost a decade now. As a veteran, I'm more than happy to back a candidate who recognized that those tactics have failed rather than one who thinks that continuing with them is the best answer.

[marignymitch]

War is not only good, it's excellent, for the only constituency that matters in America these days, the corporatocracy. It's why we're in Iraq and itching to invade Iran.

[jhamm1]

Actually, the fact that HIlary is so "shrill and angry" is precisely why she has failed to implement change in the first place. Consider her ill-fated attempts to reform healthcare in 1993, during which her my-way-or-­the-highwa­y attitude coupled with a propensity to demonize anyone who voiced even the slightest disagreement with her positions solidified her refusal to compromise, and thus proceeded to alienate those who initially supported her. Evidently, the failure to enact complete reform overnight bred many of her supporters, including Bill Bradley, to advice compromising on certain terms, thus allowing some changes that would gradually achieve the ends to which she aspired, to which she responded with such rage that eventually prompted her counterparts to part company. As a result, nothing was accomplished. Not only has she failed to implement change in the past, but her hardlined demeanor ensures that her potential role as commander in chief is only bound to encite more disassociation than cooperation.

[scandinavian]

you mean anger is the ultimate power behind INTELLIGENT action?

[AnninCA]

Obama is simply confused. His responses on Iraq?

Nothing more than this is the AA guy who just wants to win. He doesn't have a vision or a clue for America.

Whatever.

It can't be worse than Bush.

I predict Obama will become the idiot of the world.

But not worse than Bush.

So whatever.

In the meantime, I'm going to be Independent for my first time in life.

I feel iinvigorated!

Hillary, obviously, is out.

But I get to vote for Nader!

Now, that's a new and wierd experience.

I feel the surge of youth.

I like it.

[butchie65]

Hey Annin, they are looking for you on the other sites. They said it was nice that you weren't there to harrass them as usual. They are having a nice conversation without you.

[JavaCityGal]

I can never figure out Ann's point in any of her comments-- seems like random ramblings

[nacilbuper]

what you need to feel is a 'surge of reality.'

'but i get to vote for nader!' you feel better now.

how about this: why don't you just vote for yourself as a write-in candidate? it wouldn't be any less of a wasted vote.

[Pyrum]

If you're voting for who you really want, it's not a wasted vote. I'm voting for Ron Paul, even if I have to write his name in. In the meantime. I'm doing everything I can in my power to get him the republican nomination.

[davegnyc]

All true, but you still have to vote for Obama in the end if you are against the war.

He is the least bad.

[Pyrum]

Obama is equally bad when it comes to the Iraq war, he's just better at lying about it. Ron Paul is the only candidate for people serious about getting that war ended.