Thursday, October 30, 2008

Life on Murderer's Row

It certainly is a three ring circus as our “serious” presidential candidates seek to position themselves to become the next murderer in chief. I believe one of the greatest misconceptions is that at one time the Democratic Party was the peace loving and good party as conceived by today’s so-called liberals which leads our “moderate” libs to believe that all that is needed is a Democrat in office and the day will be saved.

Ask yourself this: Why is one of the main criteria for having a “serious” candidate be they Republican or Democrat that they be strong on, and trusted with, defense. As I have said before when we say the word “defense” what we really mean is war, after all, what we now call the Department of Defense was at one time more truthfully called the War Department. America has been involved in invading other nations, knocking off foreign leaders, and other manipulations all in the name of American interests for quite some time now. Just how can you construe this as defense? Our leaders construe it this way in order to turn the world upside-down in order to portray their murderous pastimes as noble and good which is a funny way to look at murder and thievery.

So just how different are the Democrats and Republicans?

On October 1, 1979 Jimmy Carter announced the existence of the Rapid Deployment Force (RDF) whose job was essentially to project American military violence anywhere in the world in the cause of those good old American interests. More specifically because of increases in the price of oil due to events in the Middle East the aim of the RDF was to protect American interests in the Middle East, oil.

In 1973 and '74, and again in 1979, political upheavals in the Middle East led to huge spikes in oil prices, which rose fifteenfold over the decade and focused new attention on the Persian Gulf. In January 1980, President Carter effectively declared the Gulf a zone of U.S. influence, especially against encroachment from the Soviet Union. "Let our position be absolutely clear," he said, announcing what came to be known as the Carter Doctrine. "An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force." To back up this doctrine, Carter created the Rapid Deployment Force, an "over-the-horizon" military unit capable of rushing several thousand U.S. troops to the Gulf in a crisis.


And thus was the groundwork laid for the first Gulf War, Desert Storm, under George Bush the elder and of course which Bush the younger carried even further, fully aided by the Democratic Party, to the savagery America has unleashed in Iraq today.

In this speech by George W. Bush we can hear echoes of the Carter Doctrine.

We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.


The main difference between Carter and Bush is that Carter made no bones about clearly stating that oil was the focus of American intervention in the Middle East while with Bush it is portrayed as a battle between good and evil, a war of ideals. While Carter was more honest about the cause of intervention than Bush it hardly excuses the U.S. in its willingness to use murderous force to protect those hallowed American interests. Indeed few Americans question our right to use force in the name of our interests even when it requires the deaths of innocent people in other lands. This hardly makes America unique in the history of nations yet many Americans are convinced of our special role as saviors of the world, the last great hope.

During the build up to war with Iraq the lies that the Bush administration, and which the “liberal” news media accepted without question, told America that Saddam Hussein was pursuing WMD as in nuclear bombs which would assuredly be used against American cities are hardly original in their concept for it was a Democratic president, one Bill Clinton, that paved the way for this type of propaganda and scare tactics at least concerning Iraq.

An excerpt from a Bill Clinton State of the Union Speech:

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire gulf war. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission. I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again.


Shades of George Bush, this quote from Clinton sounds like it could have been a part of any one of Bush’s speeches as does the speech by Carter which became known as the Carter Doctrine when carter said:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.


There has been a consistent policy towards the Middle East that has been carried out by every American president from Jimmy Carter to today. It is a policy of American intervention where it has been made abundantly clear America has the right to the use of unbridled violence brought to a head today with our present member of murderer’s row. Of course Bush is less gentlemanly about doing so, hides behind a rhetoric of ideals and good versus evil but is quite willing to now simply steal the oil per legislation in Iraq that would give foreign oil companies 25 to 30 year contracts, see my previous post here.

And of course this is why when candidates run for office it is the first and foremost prerequisite that they be seen as strong on defense (war) because after all we are merely electing a new murderer in chief who shall carry on that fine American tradition of violence against other nations who are unlucky enough to be found guilty of standing in the way of American interests.

4 Comments:

At October 31, 2008 10:39 AM, Blogger Mimi said...

You are ABSOLUTELY right. For all the reasons you so clearly advance, I am disgusted by the democratic party. Don't think I'm not saddened to withhold my vote from Obama--I am--but war and peace is a deal-breaker for me. I'll vote for Ralph Nader next week.

 
At October 31, 2008 2:21 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Thanks Mimi, I think Ralph Nader is a good choice and I feel the same about war and peace, for me other issues are a distant second place.

 
At November 02, 2008 11:15 AM, Blogger Bob In Pacifica said...

A problem with your analysis is to presume that the President is really in charge of the federal government, specifically the military and the intelligence agencies. If he were in fact in control, why did elements of it sabotage his Presidency with the October Surprise?

If Carter was not in charge of the military and the intelligence services, as it appeared in 1980, and they worked to push him out of office, then there is at least a difference between Democrats and Republicans as far as the military and the intelligence services see things. In fact, reactionary forces within the ruling class see a difference between what is generally Republican and Democrat. There have been repeated incidents created by these elements to promote Republican administrations and deflate Democrats. What do they see that you don't?

Carter's foreign policy was conservative, but Reagan's was worse.

Presuming that an Obama foreign policy will be equally as bad as a McCain one based on what happened during the Carter Presidency isn't terribly convincing. Looking at his advisors isn't promising, but that's not the same as equivalent.

I guess the question here is whether voting for someone who will lose this election necessarily serves any useful purpose. At least voting for McKinney would go towards keeping the Green Party on state ballots.

(By the way, in 1980 I voted for Benjamin Spock on the Peace and Freedom Party ticket, but that was because Carter had already conceded by the time I cast my vote in California.)

 
At November 02, 2008 1:00 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

A problem with your analysis is to presume that the President is really in charge of the federal government, specifically the military and the intelligence agencies. If he were in fact in control, why did elements of it sabotage his Presidency with the October Surprise?

You are assuming that intelligence agencies are somehow above partisan views. Carter was viewed (erroneously) by the right as a wimp and a traitor which is why elements would sabotage his presidency.

There have been repeated incidents created by these elements to promote Republican administrations and deflate Democrats. What do they see that you don't?

Basically the same thing, the right wing views Democrats as socialists, traitors, etc. when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. The Democrats are proven warmongers and one only has to consider WWI, WWII, Vietnam War, and the Korean War all begun, or entered into (WWII) by the Democrats not to mention one of the most heinous crimes against humanity, the needless dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Truman.

Also the point of my post (which I wrote a year ago) was to illustrate how it was the policies of presidents of both parties which has led us to where we are today not to compare Carter with Reagan or Obama with McCain. But let’s take a look at some of Carter’s achievements.

Carter gave money and arms to the Salvadorian security forces who were responsible for most of the bloodshed in Salvador. Carter sent weapons to Indonesia while the Indonesian army was committing genocide in East Timor. Carter backed General Chun Doo Hwan’s South Korean military regime in 1980 even after 2,000 pro-democracy students were slaughtered by South Korean special forces. When Carter explained why the U.S. would give no repartitions to Vietnam for destroying their country and murdering millions of Vietnamese he said that “the destruction was mutual.” For more on this read Savage Mules by Dennis Perrin.

Presuming that an Obama foreign policy will be equally as bad as a McCain one based on what happened during the Carter Presidency isn't terribly convincing. Looking at his advisors isn't promising, but that's not the same as equivalent.

I never once said that my criticism of Obama is based on the Carter Presidency, again, that was not the purpose of this post. I base it on Obama’s own words and hawkish stance toward Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Don’t you believe Obama? I do.

I guess the question here is whether voting for someone who will lose this election necessarily serves any useful purpose. At least voting for McKinney would go towards keeping the Green Party on state ballots.

I agree that voting for McKinney is fine. However I do feel that what Nader is doing is worthwhile as well for at least he brings up topics that are taboo in political discussions and makes at least a segment of the population aware of things that they might otherwise be. I find that useful.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home