Thursday, February 28, 2008

Am I wrong about Obama?

Probably not.

Even if I am, Nader is still WEIGH better.

you know it's POSSIBLE obama hasn't been fully corrupted by washington and is toeing the line to get elected...

but he did vote to fund a war he didn't support EVERY TIME

here's an interesting take

although i never trusted this guy Raimando either

i tossed obama a heartfelt prayer regardless, we can all hope he's gonna pull a kennedy so if that's the case, may allah be his protector...

http://www.etherzone.com/2008/raim021508.shtml

the part that stuck out to me which i did NOT know about was this:


The Clintons are desperately trying to spin this away, with President Priapus denouncing Obama's antiwar record as "a fairy tale" and The New Republic rather more subtly suggesting "Obama himself may understand that the issue is more complicated than his condemnations of Hillary Clinton's judgment." That's the last line of a rather curious piece by Michael Crowley, whose microscopic examination of Obama's public pronouncements on the war question might have been published by Antiwar.com – except for that last line.

It is a piece that starts out by chronicling Obama's memorable performance at a 2002 antiwar rally in Chicago – when very few mainstream politicians were showing up at antiwar events – and charts his subsequent equivocations, wobbles, and doubts, slyly implying that he's not really all that far away from being a calculating Clintonian himself. Crowly cites the Clintonites' contention that the liberal district he hailed from in Chicago meant he wasn't really going out on a limb in opposing the war early on, an argument that makes no sense when one remembers he was getting ready to run for US Senate. Statewide, support for the war, while not as fervent as in some other regions of the country, was generally reflective of the post-9/11 hysteria that made warmongering such a lucrative profession for so many. As Thomas B. Edsall pointed out in the Huffington Post:

"Among all Illinois voters, 17 percent said the U.S. should attack Iraq with or without allied support, 51 percent said an attack should be initiated only with the backing of allies, and 18 percent said the U.S. should not attack at all. Among Democrats, only 8 percent backed a unilateral invasion of Iraq, 59 percent said the US should attack only with broad allied support and 23 percent opposed any military action."

People wanted more evidence that an attack was necessary – 52 percent – but, in general, the good people of Illinois went along with the national zeitgeist, which was all about "taking out" Saddam Hussein and showing those Ay-rabs who's in charge. After all, a mere 23 percent opposed going to war at all, and that's where Obama was. The only reason he avoided paying the political price was due to extraordinary luck: his principal opponent in the Democratic primary was hit with a major scandal and effectively knocked out of the race. The same fate befell his putative Republican opponent – and the eventual GOP nominee, Alan Keyes, was never a credible opponent to begin with.

So, yes, it took courage to come out against the war at that point. Remember, the post-9/11 Bizarro Effect still had most of the country in its hallucinatory grip, and the War Party and the "mainstream" media were collaborating on a propaganda campaign of unprecedented ferocity, broadcasting brazen lies as if they were fact and trying to bully anyone who defied them, e.g. Democrats Mike Thompson, Jim McDermott and David Bonior.

Yet there was more than courage on display at that rally. There was also Obama's prescience. It's odd that Crowley opens his piece with the scene from that rally, but somehow neglects to report what Obama said:

"What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne....

"I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." (Obama, 2002)

With most of the rest of the country swept up in an emotional rush of belligerence-in-search-of-a-target, Obama kept his cool and clearly perceived the facts as most of us would later come to see them. This is called judgement – another name for it is leadership.

That's why he's winning, beating Hillary and her much-vaunted "machine," and why the Clintonites have half-unveiled their ultimate weapon: the dreaded "super-delegates," primed to snatch the nomination away from Obama and his majority of pledged (i.e. elected) delegates at the last moment. Furthermore, he looks, acts, and sounds like a president, whereas Hillary merely reminds one of a high school class president (and Edwards the prom king).


he's apparently scarin some hardcore pro-war Yahudis.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/953566.html

I'm not gonna "support" someone who will bend over backward for ashkeNAZIs but I will say that there is an outside chance he hasn't been sufficiently blackmailed and he's just toeing the line. I don't wanna hold optimism in the process though, as I've thought myself that Clinton was the choice long ago.

we'll see what happens...

The rapid spread of factual information is the only true solution at this point other than Allah

2 comments:

Justin Boland said...

To me the most signifigant thing about Obama is his choice for a foreign policy advisor: none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Khanverse said...

yea, which is really interesting because he's the self-proclaimed architect of "al-qaeda" while at the same time, people are saying he's anti-semitic which shouldn't be surprising since the "neo-cons" aren't monolithic and have been fighting with one another. now you have the jews all on one side and the others all on the other side (fukuyama, brzezinksi, etc)

It's all an elaborate drama though.