Obama/Paul Ticket?

I would vote for Obama if he picked Ron Paul as his VP. Why? I'm not sure I trust Obama. He hasn't been around long, and as far as one can tell he may just be pulling wool a la Kerry (as I considered in my last post). But if he brought in Paul as his running mate, now, that would be enough to sway me. It would prove he was in fact sincere about "Change". Andit would show that he is willing to cross the aisle to get things done, and, most importantly, that he actually has a clue about the serious situation our country is facing.

Is Obama the new Kerry?

No doubt, there are some obvious similarities between Barack Obama and John Kerry. They are both tall lanky men with character features every American readily associates to Abraham Lincoln. As benefiting as this association by stature is, it is very likely not the most important similarity.

Over the last four years I've become increasingly convinced that Kerry sold his supporters out; that his campaign in the previous election was mere show in order to maintain the status quo. The first clue to this deception was his amazingly underwhelming response to the swift boat attacks. Kerry has never given a decent answer to that failure. Indeed, the last person to broach the important question to him was carried away yelling the now infamous "Don't tase me bro!". The next clue was his lack of contention with the election results themselves. There was clear indications of vote tampering in Ohio, one of the pivotal states in deciding the election. If you recall, Fox News (and ultimately the rest of the news outlets) found it necessary to repeatedly inform us that the exit polls were flawed. Which is ironic since in other countries the exit polls are what our monitoring teams use to ensure fair elections. You will also recall, that Kerry promised every vote would be counted regardless of outcome. It never happened. Some months later, a mathematically rigorous statistical analysis of the results vs. exit polls conclusively demonstrated the likelihood of Bush winning the Ohio election was on the order of being struck by lighting...twice. But did Kerry raise any further objection? No. In fact, what is even more disturbing is to learn that Kerry was one of the Senators that refused to authorize a congressional investigation into the Floridian voter disenfranchisement of the Al Gore's election four years prior (a scene clearly highlighted in Fahrenheit 9/11) And if all this weren't enough, the final blow came when I ran across an old interview of Kerry in which he admonished Ronald Regan for the Iran-contra affair. One would think that would reinforce him as a true Democrat, but the thing about it, he lacked all signs of conviction. It was as if Regan's selling arms to the Iranians was merely impolite. It became clear, Kerry was just playing the old game of "good cop, bad cop". He actually couldn't care less what Regan did. The important thing was that he could use it to maintain his senate seat.

So what does this have to do with Obama? Look carefully and you will see History repeating itself. Remember Kerry came out of nowhere to supplant Dean, just as Obama suddenly overturned Clinton last week in Iowa. Is it a coincidence? Or was this in fact the same play from the same playbook? You also might want to ask where Obama has been getting all his early financial support and media attention. He had millions well before the sweep of popularity came along and even Fox news showed an odd tendency of favor for him. Furthermore, if you study his positions on the issues, they really stands out as larely uninspired regurgitation of the common refrains. There is little originality, nor any deep significance --they are all "safe" answers. Worse yet, much of it sound like it came right from a Republican talking point. A reoccurring theme is yet-another-tax-cut. Who does that remind you of? In the end, there is about as much change here as a pet rock. Go to his web page and see or yourself. He's all shine and no spit.

So is it possible Obama is a setup? A ploy to unseat the Democrats once again? Given the Kerry fiasco of four years ago it certainly seems plausible. It would be quite a crafty tactic, and interestingly, unlike Kerry, Obama himself might not be fully aware of his situation --a gambit move for larger political players.

Now, I will readily admit, my worries may be unfounded. Such things are all but impossible to truly nail down. It's a gut feeling really. But I've learned to trust my gut over the years --especially when it starts to wrench this hard. And if it is true, I point out the worst thing of all is that the powers that be are using race to further their dubious agendas --as if a black man in the white house is change enough. You can't get any lower than that. I hope Barack is sincere; that he's not just an opportunist, or being used knowingly or not by pre-established powers. Unfortunately I'm just not seeing contrary evidence below the surface. That's too bad. What our country so desperately needs is someone to dismantle the current power structure, so new and honest blood can take over Washington and real change can take root.

Who helps who?

If Rush Limbaugh can auction off a congressional smear letter for over $2 million to benefit the Marine Corps, surely this auction can raise a similar amount to help our citizens in greatest need. Can it not? Or have we become so myopic in our way of thinking that we support the troops at the expense of the very people they are meant to defend?

Well, I suppose we'll find out in 10 days.

Israel's Nuclear Surge

Why a surge? The Iraq Study group recently put out it's list of recommendations, included among them a phased withdraw. So why is Bush taking us in the opposite direction? Might there be another reason?

Even if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, it remains doubtful that Iran would risk an all out war. But we can be certain they'll turn up the heat in Iraq. I can already hear Bush pushing for a "final push" to backup the "surge".

Whatever happened to good old Mutually Assured Destruction?

When did actions stop speaking louder than words?

Why does it appear as if the Administration is purposefully allowing Iraq to go straight to hell? One would think they wanted a Civil War. Certainly refusing to call it as much prevents them from reacting appropriately. Is that the intention?

President Bush keeps touting the "success story", but his actions speak far louder than his words. He's not doing anything to ensure success. Few people, other than radical Republicans, take him seriously any longer. If he truly intended to obtain victory in Iraq he would have paid heed to his military advisors and sent the 400,000 soldiers they old him it would take. All this "lighter, meaner, modern" rhetoric Rumsfeld was forcing down the Generals throats was clearly naive at best, more likely it was derelict. Effectively having our soldiers fight with a hand tied behind their back. Why in the world would they do that? And lets not even mention equipment shortfalls. Even if it were an honest "experiment" at the beginning, it's been an obvious disaster for well over a year now. "Staying the course" becomes code speak for "taking the road to Hell".

In the mean time this war the camel's hair taking our nation into bankruptcy. Ignoring reciprocal costs such as higher energy prices, we've already spent nearly a half trillion dollars directly on the war. It's hardly possible to fathom such amounts. Perhaps some relative perspective can help. That kind of money could have bankrolled NASA for over 20 years. It's enough money to pay off every outstanding student loan in the U.S. 10 times over. Before the war there were an estimated 22 million Iraqis. We could have given each man, woman and child, more than $20,000 each. Does that help?

All that money, and what do we have to show for it? 3,000 dead soldiers and another 10,000 maimed beyond normalcy. Plus innumerable lives and wounds of innocent Iraqis. And a new world reputation of repugnance and disrespect. Money well spent?

And now here we are in the miserable end-game. The President won't commit the man power needed to win. And honestly, the situation is so bad now that on its own it would no longer be enough. Nor would he have the backing of the people --he's long spent his so-called "mandate". Nor will he commit to the only sensible plan still left to us. As presented by Senator Biden, to split the country into provinces and adjust the mission to one of border control. (Yes, I know. What do we know about maintaining borders?) And it's a shame. Right now we desperately need some leverage with Iran and Syria. Putting out an opportunity of participation in a divided Iraq, with Syria involvement in the Sunni province and Iranian involvement with the Shia province, could make an immeasurable difference in our regional and world relations.

Unfortunately, the powers that be, have no such plans. Actual solutions seem beyond them. Which is really quite amazing. Why would anyone continue down a course of ensured failure? Almost any course of action is better than no course in such circumstances. Dismissing alternative courses out of hand is pointless, even reckless.

Then again maybe it's not so amazing after all. Maybe it's actually "the plan". On retrospect, the whole thing starts to add up to one nasty con-job. Oil and War industries make out big. Economic pressures on the U.S. will ultimately lead to a collapse in social programs (a Republican wet-dream) and Israel will be stronger and safer as all her enemy neighbors are busy fighting civil strifes among themselves. Iran might seem the kink in the plan, but Israel's already planning to bomb them with our backing. All the present huff is just lead up to that. Clearly such a plan can work in the short run, but they are playing a very dangerous game for the long haul.

Sound crazy? I'll tell you what's crazy. A President who says one thing and does another. And a citizenry that takes his word for it. When did actions stop speaking louder than words?

Death Plan

From the Daily KOS a thread on contigency plans for Civil War in Iraq. In the depths of the coorepsondence this message:

I finally heard from my son in Iraq (I hadn't for two weeks - I learned the true meaning of anxiety over this period of time) and what he told me mirrors very closely what the soldiers you've covered had to say.

He tells me the Iraqis fighting with our troops often have only a few bullets for their guns - when they run out, they die. They're also fighting in homemade sandals, because no one has actual boots. And that they mean well, they really do wish to defeat their enemies, but they really don't understand why they have to get up early in the morning to do it, or when they're tired, or when there's a soccer game shaping up. They say to our men, "Won't the enemy still be there when we're ready to get up?" If they are, then there's no hurry. And if not, we don't need to go at all."

I guess it's simply a cultural thing.

Also, morale is taking a sharp dip amongst our soldiers. They don't know who they're fighting, and it's like a huge game of whack-a-mole.
--sherlyle

Recall the 40 Iraqi soldiers who recently were executed when they ran out of ammo? One of the longer discussions in this thread is about resupply issues. How many more problems can we withstand?

Given all the mayhem, what can the REAL plan possibly be? Sickening and sad as it is, maybe Joe Weismann is closest to the truth when he jokes, "Stay the corpse. We're turning the Coroner."

Women in Iran, Before and After the Shah

A question was posted on Chicago indymedia.

Under shah women had all the rights.
When Islam radicals took over they lost them.
How is that US imperialism?

Women4Peace.org had a very insighful answer: Women’s Rights in Iran If you don't have time to read it (although it is rather short) it ends with a very STRONG statement.

This is what Imperialism does. It supports the fundamentalist rule in Saudi Arabia, builds and arms the Taliban to overthrow a government friendly to the Soviet Union, arms and helps Saddam Hussein against the Iranian people for 8 years, supports the Turkish military massacre of the Kurdish people, assassinates democratically elected leaders in Latin America, and on and on. That is why US Imperialism has been and is the main impediment of peace and justice for people all over the world.

Gung-ho American's should really think about that.