Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Obama’s War on Terror
"""No longer can the blame for the turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan rest at the feet of George W. Bush alone. This is now Obama’s War on Terror, fully funded and operated by the Democratic Party.

The bill that passed the House on Monday, once approved by the Senate, will not be part of the regular defense budget as it’s off the books entirely. Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress has passed similar emergency spending bills to finance US military ventures in the Middle East. The combined “supplementals” are fast approaching $1 trillion, with 30% going to fund the war in Afghanistan.

In addition to the latest increase in war funds, Obama is also asking for an additional $130 billion to be added on to the defense budget for the new fiscal year starting on October 1. The president is upholding his campaign promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan, which also means increasing the use of remote controlled drone planes in neighboring Pakistan that are to blame for hundreds of civilian deaths since Obama took office last January.

Despite Obama’s historic (albeit rhetoric filled) speech in Cairo, the new Commander in Chief is still not about to radically change, let alone reform, the US’s long-standing role in the Middle East. A master of his craft, Obama is simply candy coating the delivery of US imperialism in the region. Given the lack of opposition to Obama’s policies back home, it is becoming clear that he may well be more dangerous than his predecessor when it comes to the US’s motivations internationally."""""

Counterpunchers such as Frank (who has written some decent stuff on the California oil business) remind us that the authentic progressive should not be mistaken for a card-carrying, union-worshipping LBJ-democrat. Instead of napalm--invented by nazis, prohibited by Geneva conventions, yet approved by both LBJ, and Nixon-Kissinger--the Demopublican masters of war now wield Drones.


J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jazzbumpa said...

I'm not sure what your point is.

Obama was a centrist conservative, and has moved right since the election. I'm shocked, but not surprised.

Anyone who ever thought Obama was a liberal was listening to McCain.

Irrespective of who is president or what party is in power, the great arc of American history, at least since WW 1, has been drawn by American Imperialism and a belief in American Exceptionalism.

This aint gonna change any time soon.

Pass me a goat flank, OK?


J said...

Lo siento for delay, j-b, and BDK. I have had to implement moderation due to regular threats from a psychotic mormon-nazi (and Google and authori-tays have been informed).

That said, I agree it's not that surprising that Obama has affirmed centrist policies. The Bailout was a good indication of his affiliations--as was Hillary, Biden as well. Let's not forget that David Brooks, neo-con pundit, and pro-AIPAC all the way blessed Obama when it appeared he would win in Oct or so.

That said, the regs on the Big Lib. sites such as DailyKOS, or DU, or even at Brutha Berube's pad don't seem particularly troubled by Obama's DINOcratness. I'm not either, really-- but we should at least recognize it, however cynical we may be.

I'm from California, which features many powerful DINOcrats, especially of fem. variety: consider Dames Feinstein, Pelosi, Harman

J said...

And of course, Joshua Frank wrote the essay for Counterpunch, and was operating the hypocrisy-meter. Most liberals --even DNC I have heard--don't care for Cockburn's gang. Really, I find much Counterpunch writing too leftist, even radically marxist, but there are a few writers at CP who I respect, Frank being one (Fidel Castro, not so much)---he understands to some degree that effective progressive prose sticks to the facts, and avoids the moral or ideological lessons.

Jazzbumpa said...

I thought my comment had disappeared into the ether. But I understand caution. This is why I blog pseudonymously:

I haven't read Counterpunch, and don't know Frank.


J said...

Really, I'm opposed to moderation, and OK with most trolls, even some obscenity, or right-wing rants. But in the particular case, we're dealing with a 260 lbs, steroids-and crack-binging, schizo queer-mormon businessman--sort of Ahhhnold Schwarzenegger meets Brigham Young. So extra precautions are called for.

Counterpunchers provide an interesting spin on the daily news. That centrist-liberal partay boy Berube hates Alex Cockburn, so I figure Alex cain't be all bad (j-k). Mike Whitney's writing also worthwhile, as is the CP writing on CA issues--which is to say, police state issues.

(scroll through some older Berube stuff, and note his diss of Chomsky as ultra-leftist or something. I don't worship the Noamster--tho' respect his work, politically, and in language/philosophy--but he's no parisian red).

J said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Custom Search

Blog Archive