Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Obama to Send 30,000 More Troops to Afghanistan

As Obama continues in the exact foot steps of the warmonger Bush, how is it that he gets a free pass from the mainstream media and the so-called peace activists?

Is the desire to eradicate thousands of brown people in a foreign land exclusively a Republican stance? Could it be that Obama and the rest of his Democrat buddies simply share the same insatiable desire to wield their power over others and continue to reward their connected coherts in the military industrial complex?

When will people realize that there is NO DIFFERENCE between Republicans and Democrats? Sure, they toss around the political footballs of abortion, capital punishment, health care, etc. But when it comes to spreading the empire, they are all cut from the same cloth.

Legitimate pro-peace Democrats and media, prove me wrong. I've lost all hope for the Republicans and neoconservatives.

UPDATE 12/6/09


  1. See Rachel Maddow's analysis.

    She notes that Obama is sticking with the Bush Doctrine, with war justified not by current threat but by the guess that a future threat will exist. He's drastically escalating our military actions in Afghanistan (just before he takes off to Oslo to accept his... Nobel Peace Prize). We're going to have 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan under the guise of war with Afghanis, but really to keep things in Pakistan contained. The CIA has become a fifth wing of the U.S. military, even operating its own air force (she shows clips of Secretary of State Clinton refusing to answer Pakistani reporters' questions about continued drone attacks there), and doing it all in a covert and deniable manner.

    Arrested at ABQ airport TSA checkpoint November 2009
    No comment at this time. Fight back: donate to my legal defense fund

  2. Phil,
    Thanks for pointing out Maddow's critique of Obama. Admittedly I have a hard time stomaching anything spewed from the major networks and thus saved from the exposure to general state worship.

    I believe you may have mistakenly linked to the wrong video. There is a video on the MSNBC page entitled "Obama: War President" where Maddow does a good job of criticizing the troop buildup in Afghanistan and includes the information you've listed above. However, the bulk of the video seems like a hit piece on Bush and his policies (a critique that is very accurate, BTW).

    I will give her the benefit of the doubt, though, and stipulate that it was necessary to set up her point - that Obama is continuing the Bush policy - by showing how bad the Bush policy is/was which includes several telling videos of Bush's speeches. There was even a drive-by bashing of Palin, admittedly warranted, but seemed unnecessary in the context of her argument. It was gratuitous, nothing else, given her target audience.

    But the video that you actually linked to was 7 1/2 minutes of Maddow kissing the feet of John Nogle, some apparently pretty important guy who killed Middle-Easterners for 20 years before now heading up some DC bureaucratic thinktank named "The Center for a New American Security". Maddow interviewed Nogle in the wake of Obama's declaration of the troop increase, and here are some of the gems that Nogle had to say:

    "We may have to increase the size of the army in order to make this happen. The good news is that's a quick way to reduce unemployment in this country." AND "I don't see any reason to limit the growth of the military."

    Just how principled is Rachel Maddow? She stuck her little toe in the water to see what it would feel like to push back against Obama's war mongering policies and then returned to her home base of fanning the king.

    I want to give credit where credit is due. My goal is not to silence someone who makes a principled point just because they are unprincipled the majority of the time. But Rachel Maddow is to Obama and the Democrats what Sean Hannity is to Bush and the Republicans.

    PS: good luck with your issue with the TSA, or more accurately, their issue with you.

  3. Jake:

    You're right; I did link to the wrong video. I actually came across it via Boing Boing, so let's try it this way: Boing Boing: "Obama's Afghanistan escalation speech: now *here's* a response video".

    For the most part, I'm with you regarding the major networks. I don't have a working television, so anything they produce that I see comes from the Internet, and I don't go looking for much of it; certainly not their news reporting. Maddow was brought to my attention a few months ago with Boing Boing: "Rachel Maddow interviews Tom Ridge on politicizing terror threat alerts". My reaction at that time: "Who is this Rachel Maddow woman? Showing some spine on cable TV in the face of one of Bush's and Cheney's guys? How'd she get on there?"

    What Maddow said to Ridge that caught my attention: "I think that is an eloquent argument and I have to tell you: I think you making that argument right now is why Republicans after the Bush and Cheney administration are not going to get... back the country's trust on national security. To look back at that decision and say, `We got it wrong, but it was in good faith,' and not acknowledge the *foregone conclusion* that we were going to invade Iraq that pervaded every decision that was made about intelligence. The problem-- Looking back at that decision making process, it sounds like you're making the argument you would have made the same decision again. Americans need to believe that our government would not make that wrong a decision that would not make such a-- take such a foregone conclusion to such an important issue that the intelligence that proved the opposite point was all discounted. That the intelligence was combed through for any bit that would support the foregone conclusion of the policy makers. They system was broken, and if you don't see that the system was broken and you think it was just that the intel was wrong... I think that you're one of the most trusted voices on national security for the ... See MoreRepublican party and I think that's the elephant in the room. I don't think you guys can get back your credibility on national security until you realize that was a wrong decision made by policy makers. It wasn't the spies' fault."

    Regarding your comment that "Rachel Maddow is to Obama and the Democrats what Sean Hannity is to Bush and the Republicans": That's a disappointing thought. Is she really that bad? I can't agree or disagree, as I've only seen a couple clips of her show. I'll surely look at future ones with a more skeptical eye.

    Thanks for the wishing of good luck. I've brought attention to related issues in the past. This time, I hope that my efforts will result in some change.

    Arrested at ABQ airport TSA checkpoint November 2009
    No comment at this time. Fight back: donate to my legal defense fund

  4. Phil,

    To be honest, I really hope that I'm wrong about Maddow. I really hope that she increases her critique of Obama and continues to expose him for his continuation of the warmongering and empire expanding policies of the previous administration.

    I watched her show a lot more when Bush was in office and she delivered a healthy dose of criticism of his policies. One didn't need to search hard to find such critique of Bush.

    Perhaps I need to be more patient, but I'm basing my comments regarding Maddow on the sheer volumn, or lack thereof, of critique of Obama. I really hope that she will continue to speak out against Obama's foreign policy now that he has come out and officially made his announcement.

    I know that it's easy to lump someone in a group based on the company they keep, or in this case, the network on which they broadcast their show. I think it would not be a far stretch to say that MSNBC is to Obama and the Democrats what Fox News is to Bush and the Republicans.

    However, Fox News does have Judge Andrew Napolitano who doesn't simply placate the Republican Right. I hope that I'm wrong and that Maddow will be the Napolitano of MSNBC, if only with regard to matters of foreign policy.

    It looks like you are from the Pacific NW. I am encouraged by what you folks have done in the field of marijuana activism. Keep up the good work. (from a non-smoker)

  5. Drug policy reform, particularly with regards to marijuana, is moving pretty quickly up here. I do what I can, and am surrounded by amazing people. I grew up near Kansas City and moved to Seattle in 2001. I was introduced to your blog by our mutual friend Will.