Author
|
Topic: High Anxiety in the Mile High City (Read 1998 times) |
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.25
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
  
|
 |
High Anxiety in the Mile High City
« on: 2008-08-27 20:23:03 » |
 |
My fellow neocon hating friends.
There is a disturbance in the "force".
That disturbance goes by the name of Clinton.
Both of them.
I'm hoping Mo, who is active in local Democrat politics where he lives, will get on here and tell me it's not true.
The Democrats once again appear to be entering their all-too-familiar self-destruct mode, with this particular instantiation of it courtesy Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Another person that also goes by the nickname of Mo (Maureen Dowd), says it best in her opinion column in the New York Times this morning (SEE BELOW).
Read 'em and weep.
There's a real possibility we'll have a new President of the United States next year that has pink skin, gray hair, white teeth and a black heart.
Tell me it ain't so. Somebody. Please. Anyone.
Walter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times
August 27, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
High Anxiety in the Mile High City
By MAUREEN DOWD
DENVER
I’ve been to a lot of conventions, and there’s always something gratifyingly weird that happens.
Dan Quayle acting like a Dancing Hamster. Teresa Heinz Kerry reprising Blanche DuBois. Dick Morris getting nabbed triangulating between a hooker and toes.
But this Democratic convention has a vibe so weird and jittery, so at odds with the early thrilling, fairy dust feel of the Obama revolution, that I had to consult Mike Murphy, the peppery Republican strategist and former McCain guru.
“What is that feeling in the air?” I asked him.
“Submerged hate,” he promptly replied.
There were a lot of bitter Clinton associates, fund-raisers and supporters wandering the halls, spewing vindictiveness, complaining of slights, scheming about Hillary’s roll call and plotting trouble, with some in the Clinton coterie dissing Obama by planning early departures, before the nominee even speaks.
At a press conference with New York reporters on Monday, Hillary looked as if she were straining at the bit to announce her 2012 exploratory committee.
“Remember, 18 million people voted for me, 18 million people, give or take, voted for Barack,” she said, while making a faux pro-Obama point. She keeps acting as if her delegates are out of her control, when she’s been privately egging on people to keep her dream alive as long as possible, no matter what the cost to Obama.
Hillary also said she was happy about the choice of Joe Biden because he added “intensity” to the ticket. Ouch.
She added insult to injury by coming out Tuesday night looking great in a blazing orange pantsuit and teaching the precocious pup Obama something about intensity and message. She thanked her “sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits,” and slyly noted that Obama would enact her health care plan rather than his.
She offered the electrifying fight that the limpid Obama has not — setting off paranoia among some Democrats that they had chosen the wrong nominee or that Obama had chosen the wrong running mate. “It makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together in the Twin Cities because these days they are awfully hard to tell apart,” she said.
Afterward, some of her supporters began crying, as they were interviewed by reporters, saying that her speech had proved that she would make a better president than Obama. And, as one said, she would only give him “two months” to prove himself.
Ed Rendell, the governor of Pennsylvania, compared Obama to the passive-aggressive Adlai Stevenson and told The Washington Post that Obama gives six-minute answers and “is not exactly the easiest guy in the world to identify with.”
At a meeting of the Democratic women’s caucus Tuesday, 74-year-old Carol Anderson of Vancouver, Wash., a former Hillary volunteer, stood in the back of the room in a Hillary T-shirt and hat signed by Hillary and “Nobama” button and booed every time any of the women speakers mentioned Obama’s name.
She’s voting for McCain and had nothing nice to say about the Obamas. What about the kids, I asked. “Adorable,” she agreed. Well, I said, Michelle raised them.
“I think her mother does,” Anderson shot back, adding: “I wonder if Michelle would give the Queen one of her little knuckle punches?”
Bill’s pals said he was still gnawing at his many grievances against the younger version of himself he has to praise Wednesday night; the latest one being that the Obama folks, like all winners, wanted control over Bill’s speech, so that he did not give a paean to himself and his economic record, which is what he wanted to do, because he was incensed that Obama said a couple critical things about his administration during a heated campaign.
Finally, Obama had to give in on Monday and say he would allow the ex-president to do exactly as he likes, which is what he usually does anyhow.
Obama’s pacification of Bill made his supporters depressed and anxious that he was going to be a weaker candidate than they had hoped and fearful that, as in Obama’s favorite movie, “The Godfather,” every time Democrats try to get away, the Clintons pull them back in.
And Democrats have begun internalizing the criticisms of Hillary and John McCain about Obama’s rock-star prowess, worrying that the Invesco Field extravaganza Thursday, with Bruce Springsteen and Bon Jovi, will just add to the celebrity cachet that Democrats have somehow been shamed into seeing as a negative.
So that added to the weird mood at the convention, with some Democrats nitpicking Obama’s appearance, after Michelle’s knock-out speech and the fabulously cute girls, with a reassuring white family in a town he couldn’t remember at one point. They wondered why he wasn’t wearing a tie, fearing he looked too young, and second-guessed Michelle’s green dress, wondering if it clashed with the blue stage, and fretted that there wasn’t a speaker Monday night attacking McCain and yelling about gas prices.
“I’m telling you, man,” said one top Democrat, “it’s something about our party, the shtetl mentality.”
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 5.40
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:High Anxiety in the Mile High City
« Reply #1 on: 2008-08-27 20:52:30 » |
|
Hah!
Well, I actually know a lot of Clinton supporters, not to mention a few Clinton delegates at the convention. Frankly the general sentiment seems to be some disappointment at coming so close and not getting the nomination, however I have yet to meet any Clinton supporters yet who are seriously considering McCain or any other non-Democratic candidates. The commercial media, of course, amplifies any anecdotal dissention they can find, because anything else is simply not news. I don't see Ms. Dowd as any exception on this point -- I mean how exciting is it when most people are actually getting along? Bah Humbug! they must hate each other to make her and other talking heads relevant!
I could be a little bit biased, but I would wait a few more weeks before daring to predict this one. The electoral map (which is the only relevant metric in the end) is still looking good for Obama no matter the national polls, and McCain's mo (as in momentum) doesn't mean much until he can change that calculus. As for all the supposed bitterness . . . I watched Hillary yesterday and I personally saw no significant holding-back on her part. We will get the other half of that story once Bill gives his speech tonight.
Anyway, I know Blunderov is salivating at the imminent collapse of the US empire under POTUS John McCain . . . and on this point I think he's at least looking for the right signs as every other significant empire has collapsed largely if not entirely from military over-reaching. McCain has just such a program etched into his long term memory. The crazy fuck-up is still trying to win the Vietnam war for crissakes, not to mention his eagerness to commit US to 10,000 years in Iraq, his desire to bomb Iran, and his willingness to commit to another cold war with Russia. Howevermuch I don't share his basic interests, Blunderov has at least identified the most imminent trigger to the collapse of US interests both domestically and globally . . . the possiblity of John McCain winning.
Our disaster lurks closely waiting for just such an opportunity.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.30
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:High Anxiety in the Mile High City
« Reply #2 on: 2008-08-27 23:57:05 » |
|
Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2008-08-27 20:52:30 | <snip>Anyway, I know Blunderov is salivating at the imminent collapse of the US empire under POTUS John McCain . . .</snip> |
[Blunderov] Well, I don't know about salivating exactly. I relish, it's true, the prospect of the failure of the neo con dream of "The American Century" but I take no pleasure in the pain this will cause to the many decent Americans who have been so cynically manipulated by the oligarchical collective. Two words though. Joe Biden.
With all due respect to Mo whom I consider to be most admirable for, amongst other things, giving effort and time to active politics, it seems I was right to take absolutely no interest in this election.
For all that Obama goes as an agent of change, that is actually the very last thing he really is!
Something gotta change though. I don't know how much more "democracy" the rest of the world can stand without the concept losing altogether those few tattered remnants of credibility that it still retains.
Best Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
Fritz
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 7.93
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:High Anxiety in the Mile High City
« Reply #3 on: 2008-08-28 00:01:23 » |
|
Okey guys , can someone explain this one to me I am really confused.
Cheers
Fritz
source:Global Research
date : 2008.08.23
Editor's Note
Is this legal filing on Obama's birth certificate part of a carefully prepared ploy to trigger a crisis at the Democratic Convention? The suit was filed in Philadelphia five days prior to the Democratic Convention.
Philip Berg is close to Hillary Clinton. Is this action being launched because Hillary Clinton was not chosen as Obama's running mate for the office of the Vice President?
Will the law suit be allowed to proceed?
Are the Republicans supportive of this initiative? Will the lawsuit be used by the McCain campaign?
The mainstream media has not covered the issue. There is barely mention of the lawsuit in America's main news sources. The text of the Press Release is contained in Annex. Links to the main legal dcouments are also provided.
The article below is posted with a view to informing our readers. Global Research does not necessarily support the views expressed in the article.
Global Research will provide further analysis as events unfold.
Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 23, 2008
A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.
Philip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit--just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver--for the health of the Democratic Party.
"I filed this action at this time," Berg stated, "to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.".
Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator's background, and in today's lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.
Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table.
In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama's mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, "apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight." As Sen. Obama's own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham--Obama's mother--gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.
Berg cites inconsistent accounts of Sen. Obama's birth, including reports that he was born at two separate hospitals--Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu, as well a profound lack of birthing records for Stanley Ann Dunham, though simple "registry of birth" records for Barack Obama are available in a Hawaiian public records office.
Should Sen. Obama truly have been born in Kenya, Berg writes, the laws on the books at the time of his birth hold that U.S. citizenship may only pass to a child born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent and non-citizen parent if the former was at least 19 years of age. Sen. Obama's mother was only 18 at the time. Therefore, because U.S. citizenship could not legally be passed on to him, Obama could not be registered as a "natural born" citizen and would therefore be ineligible to seek the presidency pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed "natural born," that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen. Berg also states that he possesses copies of Sen. Obama's registration to Fransiskus Assisi School In Jakarta, Indonesia which clearly show that he was registered under the name "Barry Soetoro" and his citizenship listed as Indonesian.
The Hawaiian birth certificate, Berg says, is a forgery. In the suit, the attorney states that the birth certificate on record is a forgery, has been identified as such by three independent document forensic experts, and actually belonged to Maya Kasandra Soetoro, Sen. Obama's half-sister.
"Voters donated money, goods and services to elect a nominee and were defrauded by Sen. Obama's lies and obfuscations," Berg stated. "If the DNC officers ... had performed one ounce of due diligence we would not find ourselves in this emergency predicament, one week away from making a person the nominee who has lost their citizenship as a child and failed to even perform the basic steps of regaining citizenship as prescribed by constitutional laws."
"It is unfair to the country," he continued, "for candidates of either party to become the nominee when there is any question of the ability to serve if elected."
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 5.40
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:High Anxiety in the Mile High City
« Reply #4 on: 2008-08-28 15:19:26 » |
|
Quote from: Fritz on 2008-08-28 00:04:10 Okey guys , can someone explain this one to me I am really confused.
Cheers
Fritz
|
Alrighty,
I'm highly skeptical about these kinds of claims. In my mind they fall into the same category of "Obama is a Muslim", "Obama attended a Madrasa", "Obama is a homosexual drug addict", more subtle and insidious implications that he sees himself as a messiah, or even that "Obama wants to raise your taxes" (which is only true if you make more than $250K/year, otherwise he has consistently advocated tax cuts for everyone else).
Of course blatant political lies are almost a natural part of any campaign, however I've been at times astonished at the volume and often outright brazen stupidity of the lies launched against Obama. On some level it causes me to wonder if many of the vectors of such slanders aren't operating on some visceral racial hatred in justifying their falsehoods. Especially in terms of the most popular lie - that Obama is a secret Muslim - I generally assume that anyone asserting such a thoroughly debunked falsehood is really using it as a cover/substitute for real racism. While its almost universally considered uncivilized to reveal one's racial biases, in the post 9/11 US it has lately become almost patriotic to express hatred or bias against Muslims.
Anyways, to the claim at hand that Obama is not really a citizen . . . yeah it sounds like just another variant on the Muslim claim. Whether its true or not it certainly fits very nicely into the Obama isn't really an American like you and I (refering to the intended audience here). This is the first time I've heard this particular political slander and I'm sure there are many others like it I have yet to encounter. In any case, the Republicans have already had several prior opportunities where it would have been well in their interests to validate such a claim, long before he was ever seriously considered as a presidential contender when he first ran for state and US Senate. And of course there was Hillary, one of the most ambitious females in American politics who would have very likely championed such an issue herself if there was any remote credibility to the claim, and would have likely not waited until the eve of the convention to launch such claims. The fact that one of her wayward supporters waited until long after she endorsed Obama indicates to me that Clinton herself does not seriously believe such a contention. She's had millions of dollars and over a year to chase down anything credible about such allegations and obviously chose not to.
I'd consider researching this claim if I thought it had any remote possiblity of truth, however given the circumstances of this belated incredible claim, I suspect its simply more of the increasingly typical irrational bullshit that Obama somehow inspires in his political enemies.
BTW, in the US libel and slander laws have a much higher burden of proof for political speech. In theory it SHOULD be possible to sue someone for political slanders where the vector demonstrates reckless disregard for the truth, but in practice freedom of political speech in the US is nearly absolute. I certainly don't recommend it, but if you wish to create and disseminate blatant falsehoods about those running for public office within this country I doubt you will suffer many if any negative consequences. I'm not a fan of censorship, however I often wonder if an occasional to rare lawsuit against some of the more blatant purveyors of political slander were seriously considered by the courts of this country, it wouldn't improve the overall quality of our political discourse.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 5.40
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:High Anxiety in the Mile High City
« Reply #5 on: 2008-08-28 16:46:37 » |
|
Quote from: Blunderov on 2008-08-27 23:57:05
Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2008-08-27 20:52:30 | <snip>Anyway, I know Blunderov is salivating at the imminent collapse of the US empire under POTUS John McCain . . .</snip> |
[Blunderov] Well, I don't know about salivating exactly. I relish, it's true, the prospect of the failure of the neo con dream of "The American Century" but I take no pleasure in the pain this will cause to the many decent Americans who have been so cynically manipulated by the oligarchical collective. Two words though. Joe Biden.
With all due respect to Mo whom I consider to be most admirable for, amongst other things, giving effort and time to active politics, it seems I was right to take absolutely no interest in this election.
For all that Obama goes as an agent of change, that is actually the very last thing he really is!
Something gotta change though. I don't know how much more "democracy" the rest of the world can stand without the concept losing altogether those few tattered remnants of credibility that it still retains.
Best Regards.
|
Good points. I don't view Obama or Biden as a neo-cons; however I can see how they can look that way to some outside of the US. I wasn't pleased at all in how he seemed so easily to roll over and show his belly for the AIPAC crowd; so if the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is your metric I understand your skepticism. Regardless of my opinion about that, it isn't an issue I typically consider in voting. Just for comparison, my opinion is EXTREMELY pro-choice on the abortion issue, but not being female I've found that I can easily tolerate many politician's anti-choice positions if they otherwise match my agenda and don't otherwise cater to the religious right crowd (by advocating creationism or abstinence-only in the public schools, or attempting to destroy the public school system through vouchers and other defunding tactics, for example). To me and many others in the US being a neo-con is a constellation of many issues and narratives, not just Israel or abortion.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Fritz
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 7.93
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:High Anxiety in the Mile High City
« Reply #6 on: 2008-08-28 17:32:03 » |
|
Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2008-08-28 15:19:26
<snip>
Anyways, to the claim at hand that Obama is not really a citizen . . . yeah it sounds like just another variant on the Muslim claim. Whether its true or not it certainly fits very nicely into the Obama isn't really an American like you and I (refering to the intended audience here). <snip> |
Thanks [Mo]
I makes ya wonder abouts the other info on the sites this stuff is posted on, and disturbing is I've had to correct people in our nation's capital no less, that Obama is not really Muslim, as if that were a crime if he were.
Cheers
Fritz
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Initiate
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 5.40
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:High Anxiety in the Mile High City
« Reply #7 on: 2008-08-28 19:07:54 » |
|
full article: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/obama_getting_convention_bounc.php
excerpt:
Quote:[bold]Obama Getting Convention Bounce In Gallup -- And It May Just Be Beginning[/bold]
By Eric Kleefeld - August 28, 2008, 3:15PM
Barack Obama might just might be getting a convention bounce, if today's Gallup tracking poll is to be believed.
The new numbers: Obama 48%, McCain 42%, outside the ±2% margin of error. Just two days ago, Gallup had McCain up 46%-44%. |
This polling was concluded the day after Hillary's acceptance speech, so this bounce includes whatever influence she had. It does not reflect events since, and so for the full convention effect we will need to check out the numbers by Labor Day or so. Even though I saw a couple of pre-convention polls that had McCain pulling ahead in the popular vote, I have yet to see any polling yet giving McCain any projected advantage in the electoral college. So far, even on the worst days Obama has held an EC advantage.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.30
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:High Anxiety in the Mile High City
« Reply #8 on: 2008-09-01 01:08:15 » |
|
Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2008-08-27 20:52:30
<snip>I don't view Obama or Biden as a neo-cons; however I can see how they can look that way to some outside of the US.</snip> |
[Bl.] From where I'm sitting Joe Biden looks virtually indistinguishable from Bush himself. And now so does Barack Obama.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ZUN20080831&articleId=10017
Biden, Iraq and Obama's Betrayal
by Prof Stephen Zunes
Global Research, August 31, 2008
Foreign Policy in Focus
Incipient Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's selection of Joseph Biden as his running mate constitutes a stunning betrayal of the anti-war constituency who made possible his hard-fought victory in the Democratic primaries and caucuses.
The veteran Delaware senator has been one the leading congressional supporters of U.S. militarization of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, of strict economic sanctions against Cuba, and of Israeli occupation policies.
Most significantly, however, Biden, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the lead-up to the Iraq War during the latter half of 2002, was perhaps the single most important congressional backer of the Bush administration's decision to invade that oil-rich country.
Shrinking Gap Between Candidates
One of the most important differences between Obama and the soon-to-be Republican presidential nominee John McCain is that Obama had the wisdom and courage to oppose the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Obama and his supporters had been arguing correctly that judgment in foreign policy is far more important than experience; this was a key and likely decisive argument in the Illinois senator's campaign against Senator Hillary Clinton, who had joined McCain in backing the Iraq war resolution.
However, in choosing Biden who, like the forthcoming Republican nominee, has more experience in international affairs but notoriously poor judgment, Obama is essentially saying that this critical difference between the two prospective presidential candidates doesn't really matter. This decision thereby negates one of his biggest advantages in the general election. Of particular concern is the possibility that the pick of an establishment figure from the hawkish wing of the party indicates the kind of foreign policy appointments Obama will make as president.
Obama's choice of Biden as his running mate will likely have a hugely negative impact on his once-enthusiastic base of supporters. Obama's supporters had greatly appreciated the fact that he did not blindly accept the Bush administration's transparently false claims about Iraq being an imminent danger to U.S. national security interests that required an invasion and occupation of that country. At the same time Biden was joining his Republican colleagues in pushing through a Senate resolution authorizing the invasion, Obama was speaking at a major anti-war rally in Chicago correctly noting that Iraq's war-making ability had been substantially weakened and that the international community could successfully contain Saddam Hussein from any future acts of aggression.
In Washington, by contrast, Biden was insisting that Bush was right and Obama was wrong, falsely claiming that Iraq under Saddam Hussein - severely weakened by UN disarmament efforts and comprehensive international sanctions - somehow constituted both "a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security" and was an "extreme danger to the world." Despite the absence of any "weapons of mass destruction" or offensive military capabilities, Biden when reminded of those remarks during an interview last year, replied, "That's right, and I was correct about that."
Biden Shepherds the War Authorization
It is difficult to over-estimate the critical role Biden played in making the tragedy of the Iraq war possible. More than two months prior to the 2002 war resolution even being introduced, in what was widely interpreted as the first sign that Congress would endorse a U.S. invasion of Iraq, Biden declared on August 4 that the United States was probably going to war. In his powerful position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he orchestrated a propaganda show designed to sell the war to skeptical colleagues and the America public by ensuring that dissenting voices would not get a fair hearing. As Scott Ritter, the former chief UN weapons inspector, noted at the time, "For Sen. Biden's Iraq hearings to be anything more than a political sham used to invoke a modern-day Gulf of Tonkin resolution-equivalent for Iraq, his committee will need to ask hard questions - and demand hard facts - concerning the real nature of the weapons threat posed by Iraq."
It soon became apparent that Biden had no intention of doing so. Biden refused to even allow Ritter himself - who knew more about Iraq's WMD capabilities than anyone and would have testified that Iraq had achieved at least qualitative disarmament - to testify. Ironically, on Meet the Press last year, Biden defended his false claims about Iraqi WMDs by insisting that "everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them."
Biden also refused to honor requests by some of his Democratic colleagues to include in the hearings some of the leading anti-war scholars familiar with Iraq and Middle East. These included both those who would have reiterated Ritter's conclusions about non-existent Iraqi WMD capabilities as well as those prepared to testify that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would likely set back the struggle against al-Qaeda, alienate the United States from much of the world, and precipitate bloody urban counter-insurgency warfare amid rising terrorism, Islamist extremism, and sectarian violence. All of these predictions ended up being exactly what transpired.
Nor did Biden even call some of the dissenting officials in the Pentagon or State Department who were willing to challenge the alarmist claims of their ideologically-driven superiors. He was willing, however, to allow Iraqi defectors of highly dubious credentials to make false testimony about the vast quantities of WMD materiel supposedly in Saddam Hussein's possession. Ritter has correctly accused Biden of having "preordained a conclusion that seeks to remove Saddam Hussein from power regardless of the facts and . . . using these hearings to provide political cover for a massive military attack on Iraq."
Supported an Invasion Before Bush Rather than being a hapless victim of the Bush administration's lies and manipulation, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of Iraq and making false statements regarding Saddam Hussein's supposed possession of "weapons of mass destruction" years before President George W. Bush even came to office. As far back as 1998, Biden was calling for a U.S. invasion of that oil rich country. Even though UN inspectors and the UN-led disarmament process led to the elimination of Iraq's WMD threat, Biden - in an effort to discredit the world body and make an excuse for war - insisted that UN inspectors could never be trusted to do the job. During Senate hearings on Iraq in September of that year, Biden told Ritter, "As long as Saddam's at the helm, there is no reasonable prospect you or any other inspector is ever going to be able to guarantee that we have rooted out, root and branch, the entirety of Saddam's program relative to weapons of mass destruction."
Calling for military action on the scale of the Gulf War seven years earlier, he continued, "The only way we're going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we're going to end up having to start it alone," telling the Marine veteran "it's going to require guys like you in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down." When Ritter tried to make the case that President Bill Clinton's proposed large-scale bombing of Iraq could jeopardize the UN inspections process, Biden condescendingly replied that decisions on the use of military force were "beyond your pay grade." As Ritter predicted, when Clinton ordered UN inspectors out of Iraq in December of that year and followed up with a four-day bombing campaign known as Operation Desert Fox, Saddam was provided with an excuse to refuse to allow the inspectors to return. Biden then conveniently used Saddam's failure to allow them to return as an excuse for going to war four years later.
Biden's False Claims to Bolster War
In the face of widespread skepticism over administration claims regarding Iraq's military capabilities, Biden declared that President Bush was justified in being concerned about Iraq's alleged pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Even though Iraq had eliminated its chemical weapons arsenal by the mid-1990s, Biden insisted categorically in the weeks leading up to the Iraq war resolution that Saddam Hussein still had chemical weapons. Even though there is no evidence that Iraq had ever developed deployable biological weapons and its biological weapons program had been eliminated some years earlier, Biden insisted that Saddam had biological weapons, including anthrax and that "he may have a strain" of small pox. And, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency had reported as far back as 1998 that there was no evidence whatsoever that Iraq had any ongoing nuclear program, Biden insisted Saddam was "seeking nuclear weapons." Said Biden, "One thing is clear: These weapons must be dislodged from Saddam, or Saddam must be dislodged from power." He did not believe proof of the existence of any actual weapons to dislodge was necessary, however, insisting that "If we wait for the danger from Saddam to become clear, it could be too late." He further defended President Bush by falsely claiming that "He did not snub the U.N. or our allies. He did not dismiss a new inspection regime. He did not ignore the Congress. At each pivotal moment, he has chosen a course of moderation and deliberation."
In an Orwellian twist of language designed to justify the war resolution, which gave President Bush the unprecedented authority to invade a country on the far side of the world at the time and circumstances of his own choosing, Biden claimed that "I do not believe this is a rush to war. I believe it is a march to peace and security. I believe that failure to overwhelmingly support this resolution is likely to enhance the prospects that war will occur."
It is also important to note that Biden supported an invasion in the full knowledge that it would not be quick and easy and that the United States would have to occupy Iraq for an extended period, declaring, "We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after."
Biden's Current Position
In response to the tragic consequences of the U.S. invasion and the resulting weakening of popular support for the war, Biden has more recently joined the chorus of Democratic members of Congress criticizing the administration's handling of the conflict and calling for the withdrawal of most combat forces. He opposed President Bush's escalation ("surge") of troop strength early last year and has called for greater involvement by the United Nations and other countries in resolving the ongoing conflicts within Iraq.
However, Biden has been the principal congressional backer of a de facto partition of the country between Kurdish, Sunni Arab, and Shia Arab segments, a proposal opposed by a solid majority of Iraqis and strongly denounced by the leading Sunni, Shia, and secular blocs in the Iraqi parliament. Even the U.S. State Department has criticized Biden's plan as too extreme. A cynical and dangerous attempt at divide-and-rule, Biden's ambitious effort to redraw the borders of the Middle East would likely make a violent and tragic situation all the worse.
Yet it is Biden's key role in making possible the congressional authorization of the 2003 U.S. invasion that elicits the greatest concern among Obama's supporters. While more recently expressing regrets over his vote, he has not formally apologized and has stressed the Bush administration's mishandling of the post-invasion occupation rather than the illegitimacy of the invasion itself.
Biden's support for the resolution was not simply poor judgment, but a calculated rejection of principles codified in the UN Charter and other international legal documents prohibiting aggressive wars. According to Article VI of the Constitution, such a rejection also constitutes a violation of U.S. law as well. Biden even voted against an amendment sponsored by fellow Democratic senator Carl Levin that would have authorized U.S. military action against Iraq if the UN Security Council approved the use of force and instead voted for the Republican-backed resolution authorizing the United States to go to war unilaterally. In effect, Biden has embraced the neo-conservative view that the United States, as the world's sole remaining superpower, somehow has the right to invade other countries at will, even if they currently pose no strategic threat.
Given the dangerous precedent set by the Iraq war resolution, naming one of its principal supporters as potentially the next vice president of the United States has raised serious questions regarding Senator Obama's commitment to international law. This comes at a time when the global community is so desperately hoping for a more responsible U.S. foreign policy following eight years of Bush. Early in his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to not only end the war in Iraq, but to challenge the mindset that got the United States into Iraq in the first place. Choosing Biden as his running mate, however, raises doubts regarding Obama's actual commitment to "change we can believe in."
Stephen Zunes is a professor of politics and chair of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco and serves as a senior analyst for Foreign Policy in Focus.
Stephen Zunes is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Stephen Zunes
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.30
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:High Anxiety in the Mile High City
« Reply #9 on: 2008-09-05 01:58:36 » |
|
[Blunderov] Lenin turns his gaze to the gathering cadenza across the pond. I love the way this man writes. Enjoy!
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2008/09/no-we-cant.html
Thursday, September 04, 2008
No, we can't.
posted by lenin
Contrary to what you may have read or heard, Sarah Palin is not remotely interesting. Let me give you a sample of her political wit: "In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers. And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change." Forget that it involves a fairly typical speech writer's combination of symmetry, pun and piety, and that there is nothing witty about it. Political pundits develop a taste for this kind of thing over the years, rather as a sociologist researching coprophilia might acquire a passion for the Guinness pebbledash. They should be pitied rather than despised. But their lack of intellectual hygiene should not prevent us from noticing that it is a marketing slogan based on a pun based on another marketing slogan that is itself almost entirely devoid of meaning. The reason why Sarah Palin is suddenly the object of ceaseless irrelevant droning is that the Republican party's campaign team carefully directed attention to her, and to various qualities they expected her to exhibit, and the assorted hacks did exactly as they were told and duly noted the sparkling wit, the 'off-the-cuff' remark about the 'home-made' placard about hockey moms, and the ebullient attacks on Obama. In the same way, when it was the DNC, the reporters were informed that Biden would bring passion and humanity to the campaign and, what do you know, they duly detected these qualities in Biden's vainglorious acceptance speech.
Much as people may decry the 'dumbing down' of politics, it was ever thus. A US election campaign is, if successful, invariably a mystifying charade of 'personalities' without personality, depoliticised politics, humourless wit, value-free values... And all of this histrionic display, all of this theatre, all of these gladiatorial trappings, can only sustain a slender pretense that something other than a gentleman's duel between different sectors of capital is taking place. A pretense that is rendered ever more slender by the habitual carping for 'bipartisanship'. It is like a professional wrestling promotion in which the two sides that supposedly hate one other are always calling for more cooperation in the squared circle, and a bit more sharing with the title belts please. This is not to say that Election Idol 2008 has nothing to distinguish it. It is supposedly a contest about 'hope' (as well as 'change'), mainly because it offers the important symbolic watershed of getting a black man into the White House, and that is hardly to be dismissed This isn't like the phoney 'buzz' over Howard Dean or that yuppy asshole Ned Lamont, either. Nor is it equivalent to the soul-destroying, craven liberal support for the uninspiring centre-right warmonger John Kerry. The Obama campaign has channeled a dynamic that one can only hope it will be unable to fully control before the inevitable post-November cull.
But honestly. The real source of urgency in this campaign has nothing to do with Obama's lacklustre policies, or the (Small) Change You Can Believe In. It is the threat of another four years of elephantine extremists and pachydermic psychos in the White House. On that index, the election is fundamentally, structurally about despair, and panic. The least worst option in the choice between Obama and McCain is a return to 'normal' after years of giddy ruling class plunder. A plunder which was accomplished largely by terrorising the public with one crisis after another, by megaphoning selected portions of bin Laden's cavebound ramblings, by persuading a majority of the American public that a threat from Saddam was imminent and that he had something to do with 9/11, by arresting tupperware terrorists on spurious charges of conspiracy, and so on. Obama, with his modest reform package and his soothing bromides, personifies that desired sense of normality, and I suspect he understands this perfectly well. To be sure, he is conventional and conformist, and he is more socially conservative than most liberals would like. He is aligned to the interests of Wall Street, whose luminaries are bankrolling his campaign, and he will almost certainly be on the case of privatising social security in part or whole at some point. He is an American imperialist, and will be up to his knees in blood in no time at all if elected.
But Obama is not shrill, his rhetoric isn't completely irrational, he doesn't seem to be an overgrown child, and he isn't forever trying to alarm people with the 3am phone call chatter. By contrast, McCain's campaign is blithering endlessly about the need to be even more bellicose, to 'win' the war in Iraq, to remember 9/11, etc. Their campaign slogan, 'Country First', recalls the basic message that America is threatened by these brown terrorists and the liberals might be about to elect one as president. US columnists have picked up, approvingly, on Obama's efforts at cultivating paternal projection, as if this whole political style wasn't dubious in itself. But there are lots of different ways to be the Daddy, and Obama is opting to play the responsible daddy who reads to the kiddies at bedtime, maintains discipline, and keeps away burglars. Forget his actual policies for a second. Set aside the sabre-rattling over Iran and Pakistan. The most consistent impression that his campaign generates is one of near serenity, of gently gliding away from the Bush era's permanent state of emergency. And after eight nerve-racking years, people aren't going to the polling booths to vote for the best possible programme, any more than they're going to vote for the candidate with the best speech writer. They, those who vote for BHO, are going to vote for the candidate most likely to beat McCain, and thwart another term of grand theft auto from the Grand Old Party. This is crime prevention.
One encouraging sign that the election campaign can be about something more than that is that, while Obama leads McCain by 7 percentage points, Nader is getting up to 6% in the polls. This is despite the fact that the left-wing vote is split several ways between various candidates, and despite the fact that his campaign is rarely mentioned in the reporting. His surprisingly strong poll standing is hardly ever discussed, and nor is the fact that campaign is drawing out big crowds, with 4,000 attending a rally in Denver, right in the middle of the Democratic national conference. Nader has his flaws, but I should think that sustaining a serious radical campaign, that is miles away from the main candidates in terms of tone and substance, and attracting this level of support is a remarkable achievement, given that in 2004 his support was at a miserable 0.38%. It says a lot about how the times are changing. I think it unlikely that Nader's 6 percentage points in the polls will translate into 6% of the votes come November. And the polls vary, with some putting his support closer to 3%. But a respectable vote that surpasses his previous high of 2.7% will at least leave a space open for those inevitable refugees from the Obama campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
Fritz
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 1746
Reputation: 7.93
Rate Fritz
|
|
Re:High Anxiety in the Mile High City
« Reply #10 on: 2008-09-05 19:54:34 » |
|
Quote from: Blunderov on 2008-09-05 01:58:36
[Blunderov] Lenin turns his gaze to the gathering cadenza across the pond. I love the way this man writes. Enjoy! |
[Fritz]loved it ..thx , and back at you .... Cheers
Source: Slate
Date: 2008.09.01
Author: Christopher Hitchens
Let Them Count Houses
Can't we escape this tiresome demagoguery about candidates' income and property
Sen. John McCain's now-notorious answer to the question of how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own was first repeated to me as if he had been deliberately joking. And I must say that I thought his reported response—that he'd have to ask his staff to check and "get to you" with a full count—was really quite funny. But then everybody began a! cting as if he'd just told all the poor and unemployed to eat cake, so I thought I ought to check the original. It was an audio recording, so one couldn't see his face or decide whether he was deadpanning (which he's been known to do). But even on the audio from Politico, it was fairly plain that McCain was either laughing off the question and/or taking it too seriously as a literal matter of how many condominium units were in his and Cindy's property portfolio. The full reply runs: "I think—I'll have my staff get to you. It's condominiums where—I'll have them get to you." Big deal.
I count myself as something of an expert on what writer Joyce Cary once called "tumbrel remarks." A tumbrel remark is an unguarded comment by an uncontrollably rich person, of such crass insensitivity that it makes the workers and peasants think of lampposts and guillotines. I can give you a few for flavor. The late queen mother, being driven in a Rolls-Royce throu! gh a stricken district of Manchester, England, said as she winced at the view, "I see no point at all in being poor." The Duke of St. Albans once told an interviewer that an ancestor of his had lost about 50 million pounds in a foolish speculation in South African goldfields, adding after a pause, "That was a lot of money in those days." The Duke of Devonshire, having been criticized in the London Times, announced in an annoyed and plaintive tone that he would no longer have the newspaper "in any of my houses."
See what I mean? It's easier for some reason to imagine this in the tones of the English upper class, though you do get examples of it in American accents as well. A Bostonian donor to my old college at Oxford was named Coolidge, and when I asked him if he was related to the president of the same name, he acted offended, and said: "Why, no. I believe he was one of the working Coolidges." Barbara Bush, acting the gracious hostess to re! fugees from New Orleans after the ravages of Hurricane Katrina, manage d to say that since many of them were underprivileged, life in a Texas sports stadium was "working very well for them." One sees what she was perhaps attempting to say.
But this is the time, which boringly occurs every four years, when every politician in the country tries to act as if he or she went barefoot to school. Thank heaven that this year neither of the nominees comes from a small town (though Bill Clinton in Denver managed a reprise of the Arkansas hamlet called "Hope" where he spent about a nanosecond of his life). The sleek Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., righteously told Politico that he had it on good authority that John McCain "wears $500 shoes, has six houses and comes from one of the richest families in his state." One can so easily see him indignantly turning down a campaign donation from a family that, like Cindy McCain's (not John McCain's), has a large beer concession. And one can so easily see him attacking a Democratic nominee who has a ve! ry wealthy wife. Just recall how he went after Teresa Heinz Kerry. … In 2004, the fact that she and Sen. John Kerry had five homes was a big element in the GOP's pseudosocialist propaganda.
Alas, the Republicans this year could do no better than to reply in kind, drawing attention to Sen. Barack Obama's large income and big house (the latter acquired with the help of a rather dubious Chicago speculator). In other words, they accepted the logic of the Democratic attack and sought only to say, "You, too." How childish this is, and how few people one hopes are taken in by it. And how insulting it is, and how condescending to those who truly do have to struggle.
Every four years, we suddenly discover that the only people worth noticing or mentioning in the United States are those who are ill, or unemployed, or uninsured, or underpaid, or homeless, or some combination of the above. Bill an! d Hillary Clinton went on about these unprotected and wretched million s on two successive nights last week, apparently never reflecting that some of them at least must have been alive and suffering under the two Clinton administrations. How can a thinking person sit still and listen to such piffle, let alone get up and wave their arms about when they hear it again and again?
I mention this mainly because Barack Obama has repeatedly advertised himself as a new type of candidate and as a stranger to the usual idiocy of the partisan cheap shot. Yet he and his chosen running mate have now made a series of demagogic references to the income and property, not just of their rival for the White House, but to that of his wife. Nice going. It didn't even occur to them that John McCain might actually not know the full extent of his joint property and that this could conceivably have been for the decent reason that he didn't care that much. I think I can tell the difference between a true tumbrel remark and a false one, and I hope the exam! ples I have provided will help you all to do so, as well. Now good night, and God bless America.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a media fellow at the Hoover Institution
|
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains -anon-
|
|
|
|
Logged
