Tuesday, February 16, 2010

The Adoration

Almost without fail when I go to a liberal pro-democrat website everything is viewed through how it might possibly affect Obama’s presidency or how the republicans are bad-mouthing Obama unfairly. If a high-ranking Taliban leader is captured or killed by our military then this is automatically seen as how the democrats are better than the republican party, how much smarter Obama is than Dick Cheney. Amidst this hubris the vital facts that the Afghan War is illegal, morally wrong, and self-destructive are erased from the discussion. What is also lost to the conversation is that Obama is pursuing the identical course that Bush and Cheney followed. To hold up evidence that Obama is more efficient than his republican counterpart is to unwittingly, or wittingly, support American imperialism in all of its murderous aspects.

Plainly put, I don’t care about Obama or his presidency. I don’t care if he goes down in history as a good, bad, or mediocre monster. If you had a portrait gallery of all the presidents that ever were you could call it Murderer’s Row so what care I if one more is added to the list? What I care about is ending the rape of the Mid-East. What I care about is jobs and health care reform. But as long as Americans worship power and those who represent it whether it’s Obama or Reagan we’re never going to get anywhere.

As liberals complain about the unfairness of it all, that bad Dick Cheney dares to criticize the Obama, I wonder if they wonder why Cheney is criticizing Obama for doing the exact same things Bush and Cheney did albeit in a more cuddly manner. One luminary speaks of how Obama’s drone war drove Taliban leaders to another place yet there is little thought and no mention of the hundreds of civilian deaths caused by Obama’s drone war. All that matters is that the Obama has shown his mettle and that he is truly worthy of being a full-fledged member of Murderer’s Row. Obama murdered children the first week he was in office and he murdered children during the first day of the cowardly and despicable attack against Marjah and likely has murdered children as well as men and women almost every day in between. If there is something admirable about these dead Afghans I fail to see what it might be. Yet the adoration of the Obama continues unabated and from this I draw the conclusion that many liberals just don’t care about the growing piles of corpses heaped upon the sacrificial table of the Obama’s place in history as a great and noble leader.

The ugly truth that cannot stand the light of day is that this attack against Marjah where they are now collecting body parts of those we are “protecting” is being played out on the world stage to improve Obama’s and the democrat's sagging ratings. It’s pure politics and its purely disgusting because I cannot think of anything more disgusting than watching people, innocent people, people who are not and never have been a threat to America and have never done anything against America, being murdered so that a few politicians with hearts blacker than the inside of a black hole can gain an ephemeral blip in a popularity contest.


At February 16, 2010 7:14 PM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

I've wondered if the assault on Marjah was timed to coincide with the Vancouver Olympics, so as to draw less coverage. I also hate thinking like that, although so often that kind of cynicism seems justified.

At February 16, 2010 8:00 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Sorry I had to fix the last paragraph, hey what you want, professional writing? Me no pro.

Well perhaps it was timed for the Olympics yet this attack has been a fairly high profile sporting event itself. If they had really planned it well they could have made the attack part of the Olympics, maybe under freestyle.

The thing is, they are losing the war, probably quite badly at this point and there is nothing that makes a war unpopular like losing one. Am I being too cynical? Like you say it’s often justified. At any rate in light of the fact that the war is going badly and the unpopularity of the war and the fact that this has been a media circus I see this as PR to gain points for both Obama and his war.

At February 17, 2010 3:44 AM, Blogger Mimi said...

I wonder if there are ordinary people (not the jackels in Washington) who follow the present wars the way they used to be followed. During WW II, some men used to have a large wall map and, getting news over the radio, would track it with different-colored pins representing the different forces. (Yes, just the way the high command did.) This turns it into a game, especially if the dead are tallied to keep score.

At February 17, 2010 7:33 AM, Blogger Bob In Pacifica said...

I for one don't think that what happens in Afghanistan has much to do with Democratic Party politics. After all, the generals can tell off the President without retribution by him. Despite his election year talk for the Afghan war or his talk about ending the Iraq war, hObama was only saying what had already been planned by the military.

Any politician knows that the biggest drag on the economy is the endless hole of military spending but no one in the government has the power to do anything about it. Arguments about pork barrel spending for this or that military project misses the greater point. No one in DC can say that Afghanistan has nothing to do with the defense of America. And no one can say "let's get out" until the military and their allies say so.

All the anger and blame against Obama is missing the bigger point. Would H. Clinton have done any better, especially since Zbigniew Brzezinski was negotiating for that pipeline in Afghanistan at least fifteen years ago during Bill's time in the WH? Would Edwards have had the power to be bold and get out of Afghanistan, or would his dossier have been produced and his VP (Bayh?) have announced full-steam ahead? Would McCain have had the power to turn around the military juggernaut? Or if his VP replaced him after a heart attack, would Palin have changed the military's goals?

Having lived through America's wars since Vietnam I have seen each war go ahead with seemingly its own volition with less and less political oversight. Traditional labeling of who is good or bad doesn't produce anything positive in this constellaton.

At February 17, 2010 7:37 AM, Blogger Bob In Pacifica said...

"hObama" was a misprint, although I understand if anyone in politics is mistaken for someone working in prostitution.

At February 17, 2010 8:59 AM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

Bob, and here I was thinking you were calling them "Herr Obama" and "Herr Clinton," obliquely suggesting they were being good Germans.

At February 17, 2010 6:45 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

My power has been off all day and just came back on a little while ago. I was just getting into having candles and a leaky oil lamp. However, a real cup of strong black coffee makes up for it all, ahh.

I’m afraid there will always be people who are into the blood and guts thing that are enthusiastic about war, as long as they don’t have to participate that is.

I don’t agree that the Afghan War has nothing to do with dem politics because foreign policy is really driven by domestic policies and concerns like getting re-elected, the military-industrial-electro-magneto complex, etc.

Also I don’t buy into the oil line reason for causality, nobody spends the kind of money we are on a war for an oil line, it’s absurd. I used to believe that but on further thought… At any rate that pretty much leaves politics as the driving force behind the Afghan War. We already have military bases in a much closer proximity to the Caspian Basin than Afghanistan so that doesn’t really wash either. Again, that leaves politics. Just my opinion and I don’t insist on it but that’s how I see it for what it’s worth.

At February 18, 2010 8:00 AM, Blogger Bob In Pacifica said...

Rob, here's the problem with the rationality or irrationality of the cost of a war, say, in Afghanistan.

A majority of Americans want out of both wars. Who wants the wars to continue? The media who make the illogical pronouncement that this has something to do with a war or terror (talk about Owellian). So the media doesn't represent the public, they represent something else.

A scan of the Asian Times website produces all sorts of information on the various competing pipelines running out of what they call "Pipelineistan". You get none of this in the America news. (For ex, a Russian pipeline terminal was supposed to be in Greece. Does anyone think that their sudden liquidity problems might have been connected to their cozying up to the Ruskies?)

As far as the wars not being worth the money, there are any number of places that America could have invaded that would have gotten the blood of patriots flowing that would not have involved oil and probably could have been done more cheaply).

But here is economic rationale: When they spend money on THEIR wars they spend OUR money. When they spend billions in spying on American citizens and 99% of the emails they intercept are Grandmas swapping cookie recipes etc., the cost is not an issue because it's not coming out of THEIR pockets. It's coming out of the pockets of the people being spied on. If Unocal were taxed to pay for Afghanistan the war would never have happened. But WE are taxed to pay for Afghanistan.

And when America is bankrupt the oil companies will move on to other national entities who can supply them military might to further enrich themselves.

At February 18, 2010 8:08 AM, Blogger Bob In Pacifica said...

Also, it's true that we have military bases in the Caspian Basin. For what purpose?

It's the oil, and there has to be a means of getting it out. Through Russia? Hell no, they're building their own pipelines and setting up their toll booths for the stuff flowing west. Through China? No, they're building their pipeline.

(By the way, you wonder why the US keeps poking that hornet's nest Tibet? It's not for the religion or the deity Obama's meeting today. Guess where the pipeline goes through?)

Where were we? Oh yeah, Iran is building a pipeline to move some of that oil. That pipeline would run parallel in direct competition to the Unocal one in Afghanistan. If the US or Israel bomb Iran I presume those pipelines will be near the top of the list of targets to take out. And what about those rebels in Iran being funded by the CIA?

So it seems that everyone is trying to get a straw into the oil in the Caspian region. It's just that if you read the American press you wouldn't know it.

At February 18, 2010 4:38 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

You’re kind of changing the topic here. My point is that the attack on Marjah is a PR moment to help make the war more palatable and to help the dems including Obama. You are talking about the war as a whole while I’m discussing a specific occurrence of the war and it’s not the same thing.

As far as the whole idea of the Afghan War there is as usual more than one reason for pursuing them. The profits for the defense and related industries I’m sure are quite lucrative. Wars often make leaders more popular for a time. And the oil, oil is certainly a consideration but if you look at what happened in Iraq we see that it was China and Britain I believe who received the contracts for stealing, er, I mean helping Iraq pump their oil. It wasn’t the American oil companies so that’s something to consider because it doesn’t fit in with war for oil theory. It seems obvious that this was a reward to China for footing the bill and to Britain for helping sell the war to the American public.

The bigger picture of course is world domination, that’s the real name of the game. The game is played by invading various nations under falsehoods where we oust the local government and replace them with our own sock puppets. This is actually much bigger than controlling the oil; it’s about controlling the world economy. That’s the brass ring.


Post a Comment

<< Home