Some Thought’s On Obama’s Afghanistan Speech
Why even bother dissecting Obama’s speech?
I’ve read a wide variety of blogs today that have been taking it apart, analyzing it line by line. But there were no big surprises. The Obama Administration continues to blur the differences between the Taliban, a nationalist movement in Afghanistan that just wants foreign troops out of the country, and al Qaeda, a worldwide terrorist organization that’s barely found in Afghanistan anymore. The White House continues to talk about the importance of a stable Pakistan, not seeming to comprehend that its policy in the region and the ongoing bombing by the CIA in Pakistan is only contributing to the destabilization of Pakistan’s government. Our President took three months to think about his decision, and he came to the conclusion that the answer was continued military occupation of Afghanistan. And so 30,000 more troops are being sent to the meat grinder. Nothing new. He campaigned on it, we expected it (I might even venture to say that we’re to blame…we did vote for the guy, after all), and that’s that. The only thing we can do now is yell and scream – and push our legislators not to fund the war. But there’s no sense in reviewing tired arguments that are being reviewed everywhere else in the progressive blogosphere, because they’re obviously falling on deaf ears.
President Obama has made it abundantly clear that no amount of common sense, that no number of facts, that no level of reality is going to get in the way of “winning” in Afghanistan. Assuming “winning” means a full-blown occupation of Afghanistan’s cities and countryside, it still remains to be explained how “winning” will actually meet our alleged goal, which is the destabilization and defeat of al Qaeda, which is not an organization located just in Afghanistan. We’re pouring buckets upon buckets of blood and billions of dollars into this quagmire, and when it’s all said and done, we’re not going to be any closer to “victory” in the “War on Terror” than when we started. President Obama explained in his speech the differences between Afghanistan and Vietnam; perhaps he should have instead explained the differences between the Taliban and al Qaeda, or the differences between fighting terrorism and occupying a country during an ongoing civil war. Maybe he should have been honest with the American people by letting them know that even if we successfully defeat the Taliban insurgency, the costs – not just in terms of dollars and lives, but also in terms of an invigorated enemy and the possibility of a hostile, nuclear Pakistan – will far outweigh any gain.
But he didn’t. Instead, he announced to the American people that we’re about to embark on another mission that we can’t accomplish, another lesson in history that probably won’t be learned by future generations – and he dressed the announcement up in a suit stitched out of deception and fear (“it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan”).
Not to be completely discouraged, though. Like Vietnam, this war, too, will come to an end. But, as demonstrated by Vietnam, it’s not up to the government to end the war – it’s up to us to end the war. Because, in the end, the White House is going to do what the White House is going to do when it comes to foreign policy. The burden of ending this war really lies upon our shoulders. If we fail to raise our voices until our elected officials can’t stand it anymore, then we haven’t done our job.
The blogger, Kristofer Paul, can be reached at bottomleftpolitics@yahoo.com.
Conservatives Win, Democracy Loses In Honduras
Latin American countries are divided as to whether or not they should recognize Sunday’s “election” in Honduras of conservative coup supporter Porfirio Lobo, but it seems that the Obama Administration has already made up its mind. Calling the sham election a “necessary and important step forward,” the U.S. is doing what the U.S. always does – it’s following the green and supporting the pro-Western, pro-corporate regime over the legitimate Zelaya administration, and it’s not even demanding that Zelaya be returned to power before the new regime takes over in January. Given a choice between true democratic values and caving in to right-wing coup supporters like Senator Jim DeMint (to get him to stop obstructing the nominations to key Latin American posts, no doubt), the Obama Administration has chosen the latter. And democracy in Latin America, once again, is mocked.
To call what happened Sunday in Honduras an exercise in democracy is almost laughable. The two candidates were both pro-coup, the only anti-coup candidate backing out and saying that the election was illegitimate. “Cash discounts” have literally been offered to voters by the pro-coup big business federation. Anyone advocating for a boycott of the sham election has been blacklisted and now faces a myriad of possible consequences – including arrest (the regime has already arrested over 4,000 since assuming power), beating and murder. This is the opposite of democracy.
So, naturally, the United States is on board. I mean, come on…this is what the U.S. does. It spouts off rhetoric about democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a tyrannical military dictatorship and a sham election between two non-threatening, pro-corporate candidates (sound familiar?). What was supposed to be a “new chapter” in U.S.-Latin American relations has turned out to be the same old policy that has propped up dictators in Latin America for generations. The Obama Administration, in recognizing the outcome of Sunday’s “election,” has taken all pressure off of the regime in Honduras to return Zelaya to power, and any “deal” that was in the works is now dead.
But everything is okay now. The people have spoken, right? Over 60% voted (no figures are out on how many got their cash discounts). The U.S. government will just sweep this little incident under the rug and smile to itself that the Honduran people chose the right guy.
The blogger, Kristofer Paul, can be reached at bottomleftpolitics@yahoo.com.
More Child Abuse Cover-Ups Found In Anti-Gay Catholic Church
I have something to say to the Catholic Church and anyone who espouses its anti-gay, anti-woman teaching. I want to be very clear about this, so please read carefully
FUCK YOU.
I am so sick of these robed, self-righteous pieces of shit doing everything they can to thwart gay equality and a woman’s right to choose, while they ignore the real moral travesties taking place in their own goddamn Church. A commission report into Dublin’s Catholic Archdiocese has found “no doubt”…let me repeat that…”NO DOUBT“…that the archdiocese and other Church authorities have a long, hideous track record of deliberately covering up the sexual abuse of children by priests between 1975 and 2004.
…the welfare of children, which should have been the first priority, was not even a factor to be considered in the early stages…Instead the focus was on the avoidance of scandal and the preservation of the good name, status and assets of the institution and of what the institution regarded as its most important members – the priests.
And, as we all know, this isn’t some isolated freak case in Dublin. This is a systemic problem within the Catholic Church. Children have been victimized by predators in robes within the Church, their cases covered up, lives ruined – for what? For “the avoidance of scandal.” For “the preservation of the good name, status and assets of the institution.”
In the meantime, these right-wing freaks within the Catholic Church have conducted a never-ending assault on gay equality here in the United States. Just earlier this month, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington issued an ultimatum; the Church will actually shut down its social services for the poor within the District of Columbia if the city legalizes same-sex marriage. These rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth zealots will actually simultaneously screw every single poor person in D.C. receiving services from the Catholic Church if marriage equality becomes a reality in Washington. These services include services relating to homelessness, health care, and adoption.
And what about the Catholic Church’s war on women? The Church played a key role in adding the draconian, anti-woman Stupak Amendment to the House health care bill, which threatens to effectively ban abortion for low- and middle-income women. If the United States of America returns to the Dark Ages of back-alley abortions, the Catholic Church will be the primary reason.
All of this, while the Catholic Church has a proven record of covering up the sexual abuse of children. All of this, while Church authorities have disregarded the safety of defenseless children in an effort to save the Church’s “good name.”
A little Scripture may be appropriate:
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
The blogger, Kristofer Paul, can be reached at bottomleftpolitics@yahoo.com.
U.S. Lags behind Rest of the World, Refuses To Join Ban on Landmines
Some more Change We Can Believe In coming from the Obama Administration: The administration has decided not to join the rest of the world (literally – 156 countries, or about three-fourths of the world, have joined) in banning the production and use of landmines.
If this seems like a no-brainer to you, that’s because it is. 156 countries have signed this treaty because it’s a no-brainer. Recognizing the uselessly destructive nature of landmines is as simple as recognizing the law of gravity. Up to 20,000 people per year are either killed or maimed for life because of landmines, many of which have been made in the United States and exported to poor countries like Afghanistan, Rwanda, and Somalia. Between 30 and 40 percent of the victims of landmines are children under the age of 15. The rest of the world understands this; in fact, the rest of the world understood this back in 1997 when the Mine Ban Treaty was formed. The Clinton Administration promised that the U.S. would join in 2006, as long as “alternatives” to landmines (whatever that means) were found. Then, in 2004, the Bush Administration rescinded Clinton’s promise and indefinitely allowed the U.S. to use landmines around the world.
And, despite the hopes of humanitarian organizations and the urging of NGOs, the Obama Administration will not change this sickening landmine “policy.” Why? What could the reasoning possibly be? Well, according to State Department spokesman Ian Kelly:
We made our policy review and we determined that we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we sign this convention.
Son of a bitch. ”National defense needs.” ”Security commitments.” In effect, President Obama is saying to the thousands upon thousands of children who either lose their lives or have their lives ruined by U.S.-made landmines: ”I’m sorry. But take heart – you’re helping the U.S. meet its national defense needs and security commitments to its friends and allies.” I’m sure the families that are destroyed as a direct result of the United States’ unwillingness to take a leading role in banning landmines are happy that they can at least contribute to the national defense needs of the United States.
Read more about the campaign to ban landmines. The Obama Administration refuses to budge on this, but this isn’t something we can afford to give up on.
The blogger, Kristofer Paul, can be reached at bottomleftpolitics@yahoo.com.
Not Even Ronald Reagan Would Pass RNC’s Purity Standards
You really can’t blame the withering right-wing base of the Republican Party (as if anything but the withering right-wing base exists within the GOP) for feeling powerless and backed into a corner. These conservative purists are completely inconsequential in the House, and as proven over the weekend with the landmark vote to move forward on the health care debate, they’re really quite weak in the Senate as well. If they hadn’t overseen the destruction of this country’s middle class, economy, and international reputation, one would almost be inclined to feel sorry for these poor bastards. Now, any decent political strategist within the Republican Party would undoubtedly want to focus on ways to grow the party, to bring in those moderates who agree on some but not all of the GOP’s platform (which has really been the key to establishing the Democratic Party’s supermajority status). That’s the rational approach. But people – especially Republicans – are not rational.
Instead, conservatives’ idea to make the party more successful is to make the party…well, even more conservative. In a strategy almost as senseless and backasswards as trickle-down economics, the RNC is actually considering adopting a purity resolution. In other words, fewer members = more members (which is just as logical as lower taxes = higher revenue). If you thought the Salem-esque burning at the stake of Dede Scozzafava was entertaining, just you wait. The Great Republican Purge has just begun.
The resolution is an eerie document that manages to include virtually every Republican wet dream, all in one place (talk about “big tent” conservatism). It establishes ten planks of conservatism, ranging from opposition to “Obama-style government run health care” to support for “the retention of the Defense of Marriage Act,” and it makes clear that any GOP candidate straying from three or more of these core “conservative principles” will be denied funding by the RNC. If that doesn’t scream “big tent,” I don’t know what does! The resolution does this while at the same time decrying “Obama’s socialist agenda” and (intentionally, I’m sure) never once using the title “President” when referring to President Obama (though “President” preceded Ronald Reagan’s name without fail).
One must wonder, though, where these conservative principles came from. Presumably, since the resolution is sprinkled with glorified references to Ronald Reagan, they came from him. But when one actually looks back into the annals of history and researches the Reagan Administration (which conservative ideologues who masturbate to the “Tear Down This Wall” clip never do), one finds that the Gipper himself would not be considered a true Republican. The RNC would actually have to deny funding to the very deity that conservatives cite as the one true voice of conservatism. Let’s break it down:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill.
On Ronald Reagan’s watch, despite the “small government” rhetoric spewing from his mouth, the federal government actually grew. The myth that states otherwise is false. Federal spending increased (mainly in the “defense” sector), and an entire new department was added to the executive branch. Reagan’s illogical policies led to a fiscal nightmare. Nobody can make the serious claim that Ronald Reagan shrank government or decreased spending.
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Ronald Reagan was a proponent of amnesty for illegal immigrants.
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing, denial of health care and government funding of abortion.
If one believes that a zygote is a “vulnerable person” (as conservative wingnuts do), Ronald Reagan’s record on the issue is not exactly stellar. As the Governor of California, he signed the Therapeutic Abortion Act of 1967 (even Free Republic admits it); as President, (again) despite rhetoric, he was not a champion for the anti-choice movement and really did nothing to advance the cause.
Way to go, RNC – you’re about to adopt purity standards that your purest conservative can’t even meet. And, just as trickle-down theory decimated the economy, these purges of moderates will continue to keep the Republicans in a permanent fringe minority.
Not that I’m complaining.
The blogger, Kristofer Paul, can be reached at bottomleftpolitics@yahoo.com.
Opt-Out Madness
I wasn’t that thrilled with the health care reform bill that came out of the House, so you can imagine how I feel about this turd that might be coming out of the Senate. It’s an absolute disaster. For all that we complain about Democrats, they’ve certainly done a bang-up job fucking up health care reform.
Not only is the public option weaker than would be preferable in the Senate, but – in order to comply with President Obama’s almost draconian $900-billion-over-10-years ceiling – preexisting condition exclusions won’t be banned until 2014. Nevermind the hundreds of billions of dollars we continue to spend, without question, on “defense”; let’s make sacrifices in health care. Sounds good.
But the absence of a really good public option and immediate preexisting condition language aren’t all that’s wrong with the bill. Perhaps the most troubling aspect is the “opt-out” language, which allows states to opt out of the public option. The opt-out is a ludicrous compromise, considering more Americans are uncomfortable with the opt-out provision than are uncomfortable with the public option. But opt-out it is, and Reid picked the worst possible opt-out scenario to include in the bill. If Reid’s version of the opt-out provision passes, states will be allowed to opt out of the public option any time before the public option is implemented (2014). So that means that, assuming we get something like this in the conference report that the President signs into law, for the next four years the public option will be a political football to be kicked around by right-wing zealots in state legislatures all over the country. The public will not have a chance to experience the public option before legislatures potentially rip it from their hands, and the result could be a vast patchwork quilt of states participating in the public option and states leaving their citizens to the claws of the private insurance industry. Not only will this leave millions of Americans uninsured, but it will also raise costs for the rest of us.
This isn’t health care reform. This is an offense on the average American.
The blogger, Kristofer Paul, can be reached at bottomleftpolitics@yahoo.com.
WTF: Dana Perino?
Obama’s pandering to the right wing is really starting to get old. I can understand trying to appear bipartisan here and there, I can even understand appointing a non-controversial Republican every now and then to an inconsequential post. But Dana Perino? Really?
Following the recommendation of House Minority Leader and first-rate thug Mitch McConnell (God in heaven knows why), the Obama Administration has decided to appoint Dana “I Don’t Know About The Cuban Missile Crisis” Perino to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which oversees non-military government sponsored media outlets. And who better to put on the BBG than a Fox “News” contributor and former Bush Administration dumbass who has described Obama’s criticism of the Fox propaganda machine as being akin to “Hugo Chavez shut[ting] down television stations”? Who better to appoint than a torture apologist and a perpetual right-wing liar? Go Team Obama!
One has to wonder why the Obama Administration felt compelled to choose Perino, of all people, to sit on the BBG. The BBG is not bipartisan. The BBG is nonpartisan. Mitch McConnell’s recommendation is meaningless; it’s offensive, it’s inflammatory. When you appoint members to nonpartisan board, the decision is supposed to be…how you say…nonpartisan. That’s the point. There is no balancing act, there is no divvying up of seats like there is on a bipartisan board. But even if the administration wanted to choose a Republican, why did it have to go with the most controversial Republican outside of Joe Wilson? Why Perino? Why the extremist? Why the former pet liar of the Bush White House who covered up torture with the worst of ‘em?
Another “WTF” moment to add to the list.
The blogger, Kristofer Paul, can be reached at bottomleftpolitics@yahoo.com.
KSM’s New York Trial Is Not Enough
Pardon me if I don’t break out the party hats over the decision of the Obama Administration (as if there was any other acceptable option) to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the federal court system in New York. This was the right decision, of course, and I’m certainly not arguing against it. But, like just about everything else the Obama Administration has done in the Constitution department, the KSM trial is symbolic, half-assed, and only the tip of the proverbial iceberg of what needs to be done. Like the closing of Guantanamo, it’s a great decision – it’s just too bad that the system itself isn’t fixed. Instead, these symbolic gestures in the right direction are made, and the overall unjust, unconstitutional system remains, untouched.
While KSM and four others will be tried under the legal system prescribed in the Constitution, five others, including U.S.S. Cole mastermind Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, will be “tried” in the unconstitutional military commission system. Is that everyone’s idea of justice? I’m more than willing to commend the Obama Administration for doing what the Bush Administration certainly wouldn’t have done. But it’s not enough. Not even close. Until we end the military commission system and try every detainee under American law in the court system, justice will continue to be mocked in America. The KSM trial is a step in the right direction, and despite objections from rabid right-wingers who would rather get off on seeing KSM tortured on Showtime (and, unfortunately/embarrassingly, two-thirds of the American people), it will shed light on the roots of terrorism. It will be a healthy process for us as a nation. But it will not be enough.
The Obama Administration needs to get beyond the symbolism and tackle a deeper problem every once in a while.
The blogger, Kristofer Paul, can be reached at bottomleftpolitics@yahoo.com.
Rhode Island Gov Vetoes Gay Burial Rights
Yep, it’s true. It doesn’t get any more heartless than this. Governor Don Carcieri believes that the right of a partner (not just a same-sex partner, either – the bill he so coldly vetoed would have applied to straight partners as well) to make the funeral arrangements of a deceased loved one is representative of (and I quote):
a disturbing trend over the past few years of the incremental erosion of the principles surrounding traditional marriage
And we’re supposed to believe that right-wingers like Carcieri don’t hate gay people?
The blogger, Kristofer Paul, can be reached at bottomleftpolitics@yahoo.com.
-
Recent
- Some Thought’s On Obama’s Afghanistan Speech
- Orwellian Much?: Nobel Peace Prize Winner to Explain Decision to Escalate Deadly, Unwinnable War
- Conservatives Win, Democracy Loses In Honduras
- More Child Abuse Cover-Ups Found In Anti-Gay Catholic Church
- U.S. Lags behind Rest of the World, Refuses To Join Ban on Landmines
- Not Even Ronald Reagan Would Pass RNC’s Purity Standards
- Opt-Out Madness
- WTF: Dana Perino?
- KSM’s New York Trial Is Not Enough
- Rhode Island Gov Vetoes Gay Burial Rights
- Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish – Lou Dobbs Leaves CNN
- Obama Can Learn From Governor Paterson
-
Links
-
Archives
- December 2009 (2)
- November 2009 (17)
- October 2009 (18)
- September 2009 (22)
- August 2009 (13)
- July 2009 (12)
- June 2009 (16)
- May 2009 (11)
- April 2009 (14)
- March 2009 (12)
- February 2009 (12)
- January 2009 (14)
-
Categories
- 9/11
- Barack Obama
- Church-State Separation
- CIA/Torture/Terrorism
- Corporate America
- Criminal Justice
- Economic Issues
- Elections
- Environmental Issues
- Foreign Affairs
- George W. Bush
- GOP/Right Wing
- Health Care System
- Immigration
- Iraq/Afghanistan
- Israel/Palestine
- LGBT Issues
- Media/Journalism
- Racial Issues
- Religious Right
- Reproductive Rights
- Supreme Court
- Uncategorized
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
