Will the trick work? I give it maybe a seven percent chance of success. I give all other ideas a two percent chance. More than likely, hell will continue to be in session in Iraq after a U.S. pullout.
Iraq funding: David Obey (rhymes with Moby), the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, has said that he will hold up funding for the Iraq war until Bush agrees to a pullout before the end of his term. The Republicans are on board -- to an extent: They too want the Pentagon to come up with pullout plans, although they haven't tied the $$ to a withdrawal date.
Unquestionably, insisting on a pullout is the only morally acceptable position. (Personally, I favor the fastest possible withdrawal of our forces.) It's also the right move for the Democrats tactically, if it is permissible to speak of tactics in this context. If RagnIraq strikes after our soldiers leave, let it occur on W's watch. He let slip the dogs of war; he's the one who should choke on the dogshit.
Does reality matter anymore? From the same story...
The House has voted several times this year to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, but the Senate -- where the Democratic majority is narrower -- is gridlocked over the issue.The "purist" Dem-haters refuse to understand this fact. They also refuse to understand that the Senate voted for a resolution that would have started the pullout two days ago. Unfortunately, it did not pass by a filibuster-proof majority.
And yet the prevaricating (and perhaps purchased) "purist" propagandists continue to insist that the Democrats have done nothing to end the war!
Iran: I hope you've all been reading Jeff Huber's Neo-connecting the Dots to Iran. He's up to part III right now.
Where did all the Russians go? From DEBKA (yes, I know, I know...):
...the entire staff of Russian nuclear engineers and experts employed in building the nuclear reactor at Bushehr had abruptly packed their bags Friday, Sept. 28, and flew back to Russia.Counterstrike: Iran has threatened to hit 170 U.S. targets if attacked -- or so says the Jerusalem Post. (Yes, I know, I know...) (And thanks, incidentally, to Covert History.)
Take a step back and ask yourself: Why isn't Iran doing more to dampen or delay a crisis which now seems inevitable? In other words, why won't the Iranians say or do whatever is necessary to stall for time?
The Bush presidency does not have that many more months of existence. As Paul Begala recently pointed out, we're getting out of Iraq no matter which Democrat steps into the Oval Office (presuming the Dems win). Yes, even if Hillary prevails.
Iran does not want war with the United States -- and they would be utterly insane to want war while we still have soldiers stationed on their border. The Iranians have every reason to delay.
But they're not trying to buy time. Why?
I will develop my thoughts on this subject at greater length soon. In brief: I believe that the neocons have fed Iran false information which has convinced them that Bush has neither the ability nor the intention to strike Iran -- and that any such strike will occur during the next president's term.
Here's another (seemingly unrelated) data nugget to consider: In 2003, when Valerie Plame's name first came up in the Veep's office, they were annoyed by her work on counter-proliferation in Iran, not Iraq. She had tried to stop the A.Q. Khan network -- a network which, many would argue, the neocons protected.
This scheme was hatched a long time ago.
Vote note: Looks like Rudy Giuliani was behind that effort to split up the California electors -- a clever trick which might well have given him the presidency.
John Edwards: Yes, a while back I came out, very tentatively, for Obama. He'd make a fine candidate. But I now have an Edwards link at the top of this page, mostly because I like his health care stance, but also because he gives a damn good speech. And I just like the guy, okay?
Today's polls reveal that Hillary is a full 40 points ahead of John Edwards. I guess my attitude parallels Rhett's in Gone With the Wind -- the lost cause seems the most attractive. But is it truly lost?
8 comments:
The only reason Hillary is so far ahead in the polls is that she and Obama are the only two candidates that get any legitimate airtime in our corporate media.
This should immediately tell you which candidates are the least trustworthy: Hillary and Obama.
John Edwards seems like a good candidate to me, too.
I think that's a tad over-the-top. I still could switch back to Obama -- and a Hillary presidency would NOT be a bad thing.
"Today's polls reveal that Hillary is a full 40 points ahead of John Edwards."
You remind me of that beer company's advertisers who touted the company's "full half-quart" size bottles, although your phrasing is more alliterative.
In 1972 Gary Hart learned how to win a presidential nomination when he managed McGovern's campaign -- the party had 'democratized' the primary election system, essentially removing the party bosses and their cigar-smoke omnipotence. That new 'grass roots' system made Jimmy Carter's nomination possible in 1976. Hart parlayed his electoral savvy into winning the New Hampshire primary in 1984 by placing 2nd in the Iowa caucus a week earlier -- his tactics relied on 'running against expectations'. Placing 2nd in Iowa (some 30 points behind the winning Mondale!) gave him very positive news headlines and lots of TV-time blather. At this hour, the Edwards strategy is relying on winning the Iowa caucus. But unless the Clintons decide to try to win in Iowa with a last-minute saturation campaign there, Edwards will nonetheless show that he's an electable contender. It's still in the hands of the big media and how they cover things. Eugene McCarthy lost the New Hampshire primary in 1968, but LBJ was the bigger loser. Bill Clinton 'lost' the New Hampshire primary in 1992, but Paul Tsongas (the winner) was the bigger loser. My sense is that BigMedia likes John Edwards too; my sense is that BigMedia dislikes the Clintons when they are powerful -- from Hillary's perspective, BigMedia engendered and sustained the "vast right-wing conspiracy" she knew about in her bones and had to wear around her neck. BigMedia is wary of Clinton blowback. BigMedia, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out in 1996, need a "front runner" and they will annoint one because a front runner will get $$ from supporters to pay for advertising in the BigMedia outlets. Now, most campaign news tells about how much $$ each candidate is raising; BigMedia no longer hide or play down their horse-race coverage.
Back to Iowa/New Hampshire. Hart won NH -- like Buster Douglas beat Mike Tyson and Appalacian State beat Michigan -- but Mondale eventually won the full primary campaign because BigMedia force-fed us on Mondale's "Where's the beef?" jibe, capping on the Lowest Common Denominator's fast-food/couch potato appetites. John Edwards will score well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but he doesn't have to win those against the Clintons. He needs to do well there and then win the Southern primaries. If I were king, I'd send everyone DVDs of Primary Colors and The Rainmaker, making everyone watch Emma Thompson and Matt Damon in their wonderful impersonations. If Marshall McLuhan is to be believed (and he's usually right), Edwards's accent, being regional, is very personalizing; whereas Hillary's levelled, indistinct accent is impersonal and considered a negative quality in the on-TV context. Their charisma effect is nearly equal, but Bill Clinton's appearances are always worth many, many points.
Iran. During the 2002 drumbeating, CNN employed the phrase "War on Iraq" on its TV screen (along with its martial sound track). Of course, CNN (and nearly everyone) depended on everyone's way-old acceptance of the phrases "war on poverty" and "war on drugs", and especially the newer "war on terror". But it's too late for lessons in semiotics, probably too late to make distinctions between 'warfare' and 'war'.
I have a good friend whose father had been one of the Shah's finance ministers. He was educated in England's (private) public schools, immigrated to the US, and got a university degree in engineering (he's a building contractor and US citizen). He's fluent in Farsi, English, and Arabic and keeps in touch with events. After Sy Hersh's 2003 pieces about Iran's nuclear threat were published, I asked my friend about it. He said Iran wants nukes to scare its own populace, to hold its own people hostage, to "use against them" is how he put it. That sounded like an elitist patrician's take on things, but it's not off the table. True or not, who cares? It was clear in 2003 that the strategic issue in the Middle East was about 'security' for US forces and others there. Congress approves funding because the troops are in harm's way, approves 'surge' forces for the same reason of security, and now we are told that Iran has been actively threatening the security of US troops. It makes you wonder if the "body armor" and armored Humvee issues of 2003-2004, issues about protection and security, weren't lethal metaphors for inevitable expansion in the name of 'security'.
--
Since 9/11, the Bush dynasty's early, September, Christmas present, (that someone gave him on a bloody and battered silver platter, controlled demolition or not remains to be proven), Bush and his Nazi henchmen have studiously and brazenly whittled away nearly all the constitutional safeguards we have enjoyed for two hundred plus tears.
Domestic, Hitlerite Nazis, hate our Constitution and our form of government, and our recent history,since we defeated them in World War ll, (temporarily), and they hate our freedoms, right? Well, in case you have not noticed, they have been very busy as we have been bled dry financially, morally,politically, spiritually, and have slipped from the freest, richest and most successful and creative nation in the world with the strongest currency and the strongest military might, to a very questionable, bloodthirsty and savage nation hell bent on conquest,employing the most sophisticated wearonry, (and expensive, with the proud acclaim and deep;y enriched satisfaction of our forewarned ( by Eisenhower), "military industrial complex.
Let’s begin the conversation anew with facts instead of opinions..so we can rebuild this hammered nation before it is turned to dust and blown away forever
Even though the Democrats have a narrow majority in the Senate, they nevertheless control the agenda of what bills and resolutions come up for a vote. All the majority leader Reid needs to do is refuse to entertain any measure that does not suit him/them, including additional war funding. If the majority of the American people are behind it, he has the moral and legitimate high ground. John Edwards has been advocating the same for months.
The resolution that just passed concerned funding for all non-Iraq military expenses. If that were held up, the American people would rise up in outrage.
Hillary Clinton is box office poison. Her negatives are huge, although the media has been underplaying them since she's begun running for the Dem nomination. When news reports do mention voter hostility toward Hillary, they generally make it sound as if those with an antipathy to her are exclusively Republican social conservatives. I think that's a misreading of the case. And because of that, of all the front-running Democratic candidates, she's the one with the least chance of winning the election. (Which will feature reactionary culture warrior Rudy "911 photo op" Giuliani as the Republican nominee, I predict.)
Hillary is also the only Democrat the "power elite" (per C. Wright Mills) of this country would feel comfortable with as president.
Watch her get the nomination.
For what it's worth, I've heard all of the following men offer praise for Hillary Clinton's leadership abilities and political acumen: Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, George W. Bush.
I just hope that Obama doesn't tie the millstone around his neck by agreeing to be her VP nominee.
Conversely, I think a Obama-Clinton ticket would probably be a strong combination, although I doubt that Tribune Hillary would ever go along with it. Too much ego.
Incidentally, I think it should be acknowledged that Barack Obama is the American politician who is presently most at risk of assassination, and that risk is likely to increase in line with his political successes.
That's a terrifying statement, and one that I don't like making. But I don't consider it to be alarmist. I hope Obama has good, trustworthy security protection.
With respect to Iran.
The wild-card and the common thread that binds G.W. and Ahmadenijad lie in an Apocalyptic world view and the strength of the power majority that enables them to live in this fantasy world.
Far removed from the daily trials and tribulations of joe and jane dime bag; or Lance Corporal Food Stamp who is trying to slam an MRE between IED's.
If there is a God, and Jesus is to make a second appearance and if both share the power of omnipotence, then I'm pretty sure they know when they are gonna make their move. And, if you buy the premise of the argument. they will make their move when they make their move, regardless of whether the stage is set in the Mid-East.
On Edwards.
While I've sworn off voting for a d or an r (I'll be the bloke toting a paper-shredder into Elections Central), John Edwards comes across as the candidate running a clean campaign. He is sincere and wouldn't need to win the election as the "first this" or "first that" candidate for he is not distracted by his pale complexion nor products used for the care and maintenance of his vagina...pant-suits, patriotic pins, nor ex-Presidential baggage who might want to poke the pages and interns.
Edwards brings an optimistic attitude to a very bleak looking future. Personally, I cannot understand why the Presidential race has so many runners.
Post a Comment