Prominent Liberals Criticize Obama's Afghanistan Strategy

In a previous posting, I stated the Democrats and the mainstream media do not speak out against Obama when he continues to expand the empire through war and implored the "legitimate pro-peace Democrats and media" to prove me wrong.

Over the past week, some prominent liberals have come out against the supposed "president of peace" and his continued warmongering in Afghanistan. I am pleasantly surprised and want to give credit to those members of the Left who are showing some principle.

Here is Jon Stewart's humorous critique:


Here is Rachel Maddow's critique on her MSNBC show: (hat tip to Phil)


Michael Moore also wrote an open letter on his website where he asks Obama if he really wants to be the next war president.

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

Problem: US Military Required to be out of Iraqi cities by June 30

Solution: just redraw the city boundaries.

On a map of Baghdad, the US Army's Forward Operating Base Falcon is clearly within city limits.

Except that Iraqi and American military officials have decided it's not. As the June 30 deadline for US soldiers to be out of Iraqi cities approaches, there are no plans to relocate the roughly 3,000 American troops who help maintain security in south Baghdad along what were the fault lines in the sectarian war.

"We and the Iraqis decided it wasn't in the city," says a US military official.

"We consider the security agreement a living document," says a senior US commander.

This kind of creative manuevering and backdooring is expected from the Neoconservatives/Republicans/Dick Cheney, but not from the "party of peace". Say it isn't so, Barack!

Where is the outrage from the supposed peace lovers? Where is the frontpage story on the Huffington Post? Could it be that the peace movement only acts when in its best interest, which is when a Republican is in office? Nary a word when the Dems are in control. What a lousy bunch of posers.

In-Vitro Fertilization Legislation

This is the CNN.com poll from this morning due to legislation proposed (by a Republican state senator) in response to the walking California tax revenue siphon who just gave birth to octuplets. Nearly 3 out of every 4 who voted believe the government should regulate the number of embryos that a woman can be implanted with during in-vitro fertilization. Now I know this isn't a scientific poll but the numbers are staggering regardless. Where are the pro-choicers shouting "keep your laws off my body!"?

The problem isn't a lack of regulation in the embryo fertilization industry. This is the predictable product of a healthcare and welfare system in which irresponsibility is encouraged and rewarded by the transfer of financial liability to the tax payers. The answer is not more legislation but the complete abolishment of the welfare state.

DEAR REPUBLICANS:
STOP MASQUERADING AS THE PARTY OF LIMITED GOVERNMENT. YOU HAVE ABOUT AS MUCH CREDIBILITY AS DEMOCRATS PRETENDING TO BE THE ANTI-WAR PARTY.

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery." --Thomas Jefferson

Republicans vs Democrats

There is a very public battle occurring between the ideologues on the left and the right, and each camp has its set of designated talking heads whose sole purpose is to propel its own agenda. It seemingly need not matter that the size and scope of the federal government has been expanding exponentially regardless of who was at the helm. If you ask the Democrats, the latest economic crisis can be blamed solely on President Bush and his policies. That same question posed to the Republicans returns a predictable answer of the Democratically lead Congress.

It is a never-ending cycle that plays an essential role in the transfer of power from the people to the state. The state only increases in size - it never shrinks. It never cedes power once taken. It is a unilateral movement toward despotism that is only enabled by the people looking for more security. We have become a nation that turns to the government to solve our every problem and give us that feeling of sanctuary.

How many times in the past year have we heard the talking media heads use the phrase "consumer confidence" and then look to grade our leaders on their ability to convey and inspire this confidence? Why is it the government's responsibility to inspire consumer confidence? The best way to inspire confidence is to get the government out of the business of centrally planning the economy - the market is too vast and complex to be positively manipulated by any collection of arrogant politicians and bankers.

We must stop falling for the same tricks that have distracted us for so long. The war between Republicans and Democrats must be ended and the true enemy must be identified: the state.