Obama To Establish A Civilian National Security Force

ninakat · Post by **ninakat** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 3:59 pm

professorpan wrote:I'm regularly amazed by the shallow understanding of the U.S. political process shown by many RI posters.

pan, your posting is condescending and patronizing, and you presume to KNOW that Obama is the lesser of the evils. You still haven't convinced me of that, and if you really want to succeed, please start with less insults and more facts.

Could Anyone be "Worse" Than Bush?
by Alexander Cockburn

~snip~

Having defined himself as the candidate of change and inspirational hope, Obama’s been busy making it clear that when it comes to serious issues like the American Empire, change is parsed as running the planet with greater efficiency. A real candidate of change would announce that by the end of his first term America would have withdraw from at least half the roughly 1,000 overseas bases it occupies, quitting the rest at the end of eight years.

Wishful thinkers comfort themselves with the thought that deep in the undergrowth, biding his time, is the “real” Obama, a progressive, even radical fellow. They’re like Pascal, pondering his bet:

“If I saw no signs of a divinity, I would fix myself in denial. If I saw everywhere the marks of a Creator,I would repose peacefully in faith. But seeing too much to deny Him, and too little to assure me, I am in a pitiful state, and I would wish a hundred times that if a God sustains nature, It would reveal Him without ambiguity.”There have plenty of articles recently, some in this site, with headlines such “Obama’s Lunge to the Right”. I find these odd. Never for one moment has Obama ever struck me as someone anchored, or even loosely moored to the left, or even displaying the slightest appetite for radical notions, aside from a few taglines tossed from the campaign bus. In economics and foreign policy he has swaddled himself with right-wing orthodoxy to a degree that trangresses on the grotesque. He released the list of his “senior working group on national security” the other day. Not since Jimmy Carter entered the White House and promptly chose Cyrus Vance as his secretary of state and Zbibniev Brzezinski as his national security adviser has there been so dreary a news release.

Here’s a crew ripe marinated in orthodoxy, running the gamut of inspirational rhetoric from Madam Albright’s “We think the price is worth it” (killing half a million Iraqi kids through sanctions in Clintontime) to Dr Rice, now of the Brookings Institution and formerly in charge of the African desk at the State Department in the Clinton years. A souvenir of Rice in 2002 or 2003? Here are a couple of pearls:

Where’s the “real” Barack Obama in all this? There isn’t one. It’s like looking for the “real” Cressida in Shakespeare’s play, whereas in fact there are only successive Cressidas, as she refashions herself amid new circumstances. In the end Pascal said it made sense just to bet that there is a God. Democrats, despite the bleak testimony of the form sheet, make the same wager decade after decade.

+ + +

Worse than McCain
By Mike Whitney

11/07/08 "ICH" --- - Every four years, liberals and progressives are expected to set aside their beliefs and stand foursquare behind the Democratic Party candidate. This ritual is invariably performed in the name of party unity. It doesn't matter if the candidate is a smooth-talking politician who's willing to toss his Pastor of 20 years overboard for a few awkward comments, or whether he refuses to defend basic civil liberties like the 4th amendment's right to privacy. All that matters is that there's a big "D" following his name and that he shows he's willing to engage in some meaningless verbal jousting with his Republican opponent.

For nearly a year now, the public has been treated to regular doses of Mr. Obama's grandiloquent oratory and his sweeping "Follow me to Shangri-la" promises. These flourishes are usually followed by "clarifications" on the central issues which identify Obama as a center-right conservative with no intention of disrupting the status quo. Political analyst Alexander Cockburn summed it up like this in a recent article on counterpunch:

"There have plenty of articles recently with headlines such “Obama’s Lunge to the Right”. I find these odd. Never for one moment has Obama ever struck me as someone anchored, or even loosely moored to the left, or even displaying the slightest appetite for radical notions, aside from a few taglines tossed from the campaign bus." (Alexander Cockburn, "Could Anyone be Worse than Bush?")

Cockburn is right and most people know it. They simply ignore the facts because the thought of the unstable John McCain in the Oval Office with his stubby fingers just inches from the Big Red Switch is too much to bear. So, they throw their support behind Obama and hope for the best. But Obama has done nothing to earn their vote and there's nothing to indicate that he has any interest in restoring the republic or putting and end to US adventurism. He's just a one-term senator with zero foreign policy experience who doesn't want to rock the boat. That's it. He'd rather keep his position on the issues blurry and rattle off lofty-sounding platitudes than state plainly how he feels. Unfortunately, when he's pinned down and has to give a straight answer, he quickly swerves to the right where he feels most at home.

(continues at the link)

professorpan · Post by **professorpan** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:43 pm

pan, your posting is condescending and patronizing, and you presume to KNOW that Obama is the lesser of the evils. You still haven't convinced me of that, and if you really want to succeed, please start with less insults and more facts.

Sorry you found it patronizing and condescending, ninakat. But I very clearly asked for facts from those of you continuously harping that Obama is as bad, or worse, than McCain.

Let's concede for argument's sake (though I don't believe it), that Obama is as bad, or worse, than McCain on foreign policy issues.

How about the environment -- an issues I think is of equal importance to *all humans* as U.S. foreign policy?

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/07/30 ... factsheet/

Obama received an 86 percent rating from the League of Conservation voters. Introduced the Health Care for Hybrids Act. Supports raising fuel economy standards for cars to 40mpg by 2020. Opposed the "summer gas holiday" put forward by McCain. Opposes drilling in ANWR. Cosponsor of the Boxer-Sanders Global Warming Pollution Production Act. Wants to increase funding to help farmers transition to organic and reform USDA policies so they don't penalize organic farmers. Calls for tougher pollution regulation on factory farms. Primary cosponsor of the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act. Primary cosponsor of the Fuel Economy Reform Act.

The Sierra Club endorsed him, too.

Oh, he's also pimped nuclear power and cosponsored bills promoting biofuels and ethanol, which I happen to think were wrong-headed. So he's not perfect -- but let's take a quick look at McCain's environmental record, shall we?

Obama got an 86 rating from the League of Conservation Voters. Let's see... McCain got a...

Zero.

http://www.grist.org/news/2008/02/21/LC ... index.html

For the 15 Senate votes the organization tallied for its scorecard, he didn't show up. HE DIDN'T EVEN SHOW UP. His lifetime score is 24%.

Yeah, that Obama -- just as bad as McCain.

How about women's issues, ninakat (I assume you are female).

Obama was endorsed by Planned Parenthood. NARAL Pro-Choice America. EMILY's List.

Maybe you're in a labor union. Go here and check out the unions that have given him their endorsement, then show me how many have endorsed McCain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ba ... ents,_2008

But let's just look at a few more differences in their voting records.

Obama voted against Alito and Roberts -- McCain voted yes.

Obama voted to increase Pell Grants -- McCain voted no.

Obama voted for a congressional investigation into how contracts were handed out in Iraq and Afghanistan -- McCain voted no.

Oh, and don't let this fact keep you from believing that Obama is as bad, or worse, than McCain:

McCain voted with Bush 95% of the time:

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/i ... _with.html

Okay, ninakat -- ball's in your court.

justdrew · Post by **justdrew** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 4:58 pm

Cockburn is a damned revolutionary and following his pipe dreams and policy fantasies will NEVER get ANYONE elected to ANYTHING in America - EVER. Hell, I _agree_ with him on a lot of stuff, but we must be pragmatic or we'll all wind up dead.

If Obama turns out to be crap, pounce on him AFTER he's elected, don't engage in ideological purity tests now. That isn't how politics ever works. EVER. ANYWHERE. If no one will vote for anyone but a perfect for them candidate, how would anyone ever be elected president? We'd have to switch to a parliamentary system, which might be good, but it's not in the cards right now.

vanlose kid · Post by **vanlose kid** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:02 pm

deleted

8bitagent · Post by **8bitagent** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:16 pm

professorpan wrote:If nothing else, realize that it aids the fascist agenda to deflate and neutralize its opponents. You're doing the work of Bush/McCain by spouting nonsense like "Obama is no better than McCain." Yes, he most certainly is much better, demonstrably, in word and deed.

So the powers that be just decided to allow Obama to rise to stardom, going so far as to slant all the media against Mccain and make it pro Obama? What, are they waiting for October to really hammer Obama?

Why is Wallstreet and other globalist mainstains firmly behind Obama? One would thing they'd be hedging their bets by putting their money behind Mccain, but so much of their money is going into Obama.

I like Obama, the person, the man. I get good vibes from him, he seems like a real person unlike so many in DC or Hollywood. I think he means well. Hell I love Jimmy Carter.

But deep down, I can't help but worry if Obama is *meant* for a special purpose, even if he doesn't know it. My gut tells me that Diebold will be pointing to Barry, not "Mcinsane"...that is, if there is even an election.

professorpan · Post by **professorpan** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:20 pm

Amen, justdrew.

We're handed a choice every 4 years. This year, it's a particularly stark choice between a flagrant and in-your-face evil who talks war and jokes about bombing countries, and a far lesser evil who has shown by his votes that he is more in line with many of the ideals we share (though far from our ideal).

The choices:

1. Abstain. Feel unsullied and bow out completely. Cast a protest vote that leaves your conscience clear. Result? Who knows. But it could mean that McCain ascends to the throne, and if any of you think that is a good thing, I don't want to know.

2. Vote for Obama, holding your nose, repressing your gag reflex as you recall the FISA vote, knowing that you may be holding back the Republican assault on the planet and your liberties... at least by a bit. Maybe more. Hold the bastard's feet to the fire. If he fails, kick him out and try someone else.

Voting, to repeat myself, can be a pragmatic, defensive strategy. I've voted defensively my entire life because no candidate matches my socially libertarian/fiscally socialist/anti-Empire foreign policy beliefs -- and it's likely none ever will. But fuck if I'm gonna let a bunch of fascist Republican knuckleheads put their *proven* Earth-raping, torture-endorsing fascist zombie lord in office if I can help it.

FUCK McCain. I'll do anything legally in my power to keep that fucking ghoul from getting his fingers on the reigns of my country.

Like justdrew said -- PRAGMATISM.

professorpan · Post by **professorpan** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:26 pm

let's grant that yours is the real, in-depth, non-shallow, reality-based parsing of the moves and machinations of the obama phenomenon - where's the guarantee that he won't back down on the other issues, say the one closest to your heart: the environment? nowhere.

Where's the possibility that McCain *won't* continue the nightmare we've seen under Bush/Cheney?

He's a proven beast who talks the language of the beast. Obama at least says good things sometimes. Because I am given a chance by the flawed political system to choose one or the other, I'll take the guy who talks about the things I care about and I will hope (yeah, hope) for the best.

Otherwise, why not just jump off the bridge?

vanlose kid · Post by **vanlose kid** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:29 pm

deleted

professorpan · Post by **professorpan** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:29 pm

So the powers that be just decided to allow Obama to rise to stardom, going so far as to slant all the media against Mccain and make it pro Obama? What, are they waiting for October to really hammer Obama?

Why is Wallstreet and other globalist mainstains firmly behind Obama? One would thing they'd be hedging their bets by putting their money behind Mccain, but so much of their money is going into Obama.

Maybe because even Wall Streeters and globalists would rather not risk global incineration? After all, they'd prefer to continue making their money over losing it all while the world economy collapses and the planet is reduced to a smoking, dry ball of ashes.

You've got to remember that not all of the guys at the top of the pyramid are cackling, evil cigar-chomping nihilists. They have kids and grandkids, too. Some of them would prefer some stability and a possible future.

vanlose kid · Post by **vanlose kid** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:36 pm

deleted

8bitagent · Post by **8bitagent** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 5:37 pm

professorpan wrote:
So the powers that be just decided to allow Obama to rise to stardom, going so far as to slant all the media against Mccain and make it pro Obama? What, are they waiting for October to really hammer Obama?

Why is Wallstreet and other globalist mainstains firmly behind Obama? One would thing they'd be hedging their bets by putting their money behind Mccain, but so much of their money is going into Obama.

Maybe because even Wall Streeters and globalists would rather not risk global incineration? After all, they'd prefer to continue making their money over losing it all while the world economy collapses and the planet is reduced to a smoking, dry ball of ashes.

You've got to remember that not all of the guys at the top of the pyramid are cackling, evil cigar-chomping nihilists. They have kids and grandkids, too. Some of them would prefer some stability and a possible future.

Well some clearly prefer stealth and sustained creeping implementable soft fascism as opposed to the few who support commie China and Nazi German styled totalitarianism. . If those are the "good globalists"...

I don't know if I can trust Alex Jone's "reports" on Bilderberg, but clearly the globalists are split. Some CLEARLY want to attack Iran, others are clearly against it. These are the Brzezinski, Rockefeller sorts.

Like I said, I genuinely do like Obama the person. Anyone can see he's a very special and unique person, and it's surreal demeanor and persona that I can see be very appealing to the highest of the globalists.

The Dulles-Bush family-Iran Contra-Nixon-Kissinger-neo Con-Cheney
era may be coming to an end, being replaced with something more deceptive and dangerous.

vigilant · Post by **vigilant** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:37 pm

Professorpan wrote:

Point 1. Obama is a politician involved in *the* highest stakes game played on this planet. Which means he and his advisors are constantly calculating their next moves, weighing them against common wisdom, poll data, the predicted moves of their opposition, rallying cries and protestations from the grassroots, etc. etc. etc. THAT IS HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED. Stick to your principles -- until you must deviate in order to win. Keep your promises -- unless breaking a promise is the only way to win. Honor your party's base -- until polling suggests that it might lead to defeat.

A Plus... I don't think you could have possibly said it any better than that. That was a dead on accurate bullseye if I ever saw one.

Given that Obama represents a *chance* of turning the corporatist/fascist tide around, even slightly, even minutely, that seems to me to make voting for the guy of vital importance.

Digresses from point 1 too far for me to put any faith in it. Turning around the tide of fascism would take a set of guts, honest passion, and bravery that he has demonstrated he does not have. In point one I think you clearly demonstrated that he is a person that blows in the political wind that is willing to compromise his principles anytime it enhances his political future. He doesn't have the conviction it would take to make any major changes and I think you demonstrated that very well in Point 1. I think Obama clearly illustrated it too by selling his soul like he already has. He isn't willing to stand up for what he "may" believe.

Or keep trying to convince others to avoid voting, or to believe the worst rumors about Obama's intent, and also bring the planet closer to ruin.

I think point one is so valid that it demonstrates the fact that the only INTENT of his that has any PASSION behind it is the passion to enhance his political career. Trying to turn the tide around on fascism would alienate the current powers in control and he has already demonstrated that his passion for his intentions is weak at best. He won't try anything of substance in that department according to Point 1, as he has handily demonstrated, and I firmly believe Point 1 is "right on the money".

Or admit that there is a tremendous and meaningful difference between the two men, their words, their philosophies, and their proposed policies, regardless of how similar SOME of the policy proposals are, or how repugnant some of Obama's votes or statements have been.

Yes he absolutely does speak differently, and about different subject matter than McInsane does. That is where it ends for me. Its different, and not much more. Different brand of bullshit. This one rings very hollow with me too. Again Point 1 makes his "words" meaningless campaign rhetoric of the same exact variety as any other candidate. Campaign rhetoric means nothing at all and he has proven beyond all doubt that his means nothing. He has demonstrated that his words mean nothing, and that he is willing to ditch them in a heart beat if it is beneficial in his rise to power. Since I believe in Point 1 wholeheartedly I don't believe, that he believes......any of his own words. His voting record is diferent but his recent actions make it appear as if he has thrown "conviction" to the wind and traded it for power and blessings from the current regime.

How about the environment -- an issues I think is of equal importance to *all humans* as U.S. foreign policy?

Obviously negated by point one...again...in my opinion. He may genuinely care more about the environment than McInsane, but I think he has proven he will ditch that concern if it means a bump up the power ladder. I think he will ditch that concern if he fears it will rattle the cage of the current regime.

Point 1 was so brilliantly and accurately stated in my opinion, that it negates all others stated afterwards, and as far as I can tell, any that might come later...

Having said the above, I would still rather have Obama as President than McInsane. Why? Following old habits I suppose. Not that I think he will make any difference, or that he is serious about his own bullshit, but I just can't stomach pulling the lever for the other side because.....well.....just because.....

I guess because I am ready for another puppet to run the show, because I'm sick and tired of the ones we have. Also because I "like" what he says more than I like what McInsane says, not that I think that really matters either.

Also he is just in general a more likeable fellow, and appears kinder by his voting record. McInsane, in my opinion, has demonstrated a certain degree of cool cruelty in his basic nature. None of these are very sound reasons to vote for a candidate, but I can't find any sound reasons to vote for anybody that is running, so these hollow meaningless reasons will have to suffice I suppose.

Its like putting sugar on chitlins I suppose, its still hog guts but it taste better. And as Justdrew alluded to above, in a weird and backhanded way, perhaps its somehow more pragmatic...

(Holds nose and pulls the lever for Obama.)

Wilbur Whatley · Post by **Wilbur Whatley** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:08 pm

professorpan is completely correct in all of this.

We have had so much evil in the past 10 years that many of us have abandoned hope, descending into paranoia and irrational cynicism.

But hope springs. God acts. Silly me, but I really believe that Obama is God's gift to the world. I've been telling my wife since January that I think he has "God's hand" on him. I'm a fairly hard-boiled lawyer. I regularly destroy bureaucrats who stand in my way. I've never, ever said anything like that before.

My intuition in this area is mainly based on a careful read of Obama's two books, which he wrote himself, unlike 99 percent of presidential candidates.

If you haven't carefully read both of his books, you don't know SHIT, and you shouldn't be posting on a discussion like this. So many assholes just react on TV images and internal paranoia. Grow up. Learn the facts.

This was a pretty good post, up until that last angry paragraph. But I'll let it stick for awhile. Some of the anti-Obama posters on this forum are so full of shit it really infuriates me, because it is so unfair, and so damaging to hopes for healing and progress.

vigilant · Post by **vigilant** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:34 pm

wilbur whatley wrote:

If you haven't carefully read both of his books, you don't know SHIT, and you shouldn't be posting on a discussion like this. So many assholes just react on TV images and internal paranoia. Grow up. Learn the facts.

I respect your stance on the issue. I really do. Everybody is entitled to feel however they like. Your methods are a little jerky, but I respect your right to have an opposing opinion.

You and I have decided to judge him in opposite ways. I could care less what he writes in a book. Just like his campaign speeches, they are just words. I am accustomed to politicians using an inordinate amount of words and experience has taught me not to put any faith in what they say. I am also accustomed to them breaking their "word". Breaking their word seems to be business as usual.

I haven't seen television in a little over two months, thank goodness. I'm judging the man on his actions. I think actions define an individial in tangible ways that words can't hope to match. I don't like his actions. I don't like the fact that his words and actions don't match up. It is a serious matter when words and actions don't match.

But for the reasons I alluded to above, i'll vote for him anyway whether I like it or not.

Its like putting sugar on chitlins I suppose, its still hog guts but it taste better. And as Justdrew alluded to above, in a weird and backhanded way, perhaps its somehow more pragmatic...

(Holds nose and pulls the lever for Obama.)

KarmaMatters · Post by **KarmaMatters** » Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:20 pm

On the topic of Alex Jones.......

You have to weight the justice of it. I view Hugh Manatee in a similar fashion. Jones is trying to expose injustice and fascism. Is Obama trying to expose fascism? Or, is he actually part of the machine that HAS CREATED FASCISM?

Think about that...did Alex Jones lobby and call for the Patriot Act? Obama actually voted for that piece fascist crap the Congress calls "law." He also voted for a bunch of other crap to keep our military grossly over funded.

So, Jeff, who is more evil? Alex Jones or Barrack Obama?

Fear mongering is pathetic by everybody, but that doesn't mean you should dismiss the people who are trying to expose the fascists corporate dictators in our midst. And no, I don't like Jones' tactics, his website is ham-fisted and grossly obvious. But nonetheless, I'd rather sit down and have a cup of coffee with Alex Jones any day than that fascist wolf in sheep's clothing know as "Barrack Obama."

rigorousintuition.ca

Obama To Establish A Civilian National Security Force

points

words