‹ 1978 versus 2008: An Afghan Parallel? •
From the Wall Street Journal [via David Boaz]: Barack Obama, campaigning in Wyoming, appeals to libertarians:
“Tailoring his message to the state’s antigovernment streak, Sen. Obama put new emphasis on his criticisms of the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretaps and other heightened law-enforcement activities implemented as antiterror measures. ‘You can be liberal and a libertarian, or a conservative libertarian,’ Sen. Obama told a crowd of about 1,200 at a recreation center here. But ‘there’s nothing conservative’ about President Bush’s antiterror policies. ‘There’s nothing Republican about that. Everybody should be outraged by that,’ he added.”
Boaz, a bigwig over at the ostensibly libertarian Cato Institute, qualifies his bouquet with a brickbat, claiming that Obama also said he wants to “undermine trade agreements” (i.e. NAFTA), but as the late Murray Rothbard and Paul pointed out, NAFTA isn’t “free trade,” it’s an exemplar of managed trade. As for all those “goodies from the Treasury” he says Obama wants to hand out — well, as I pointed out in my column, this morning, Obama is no Ron Paul. But, then again, Paul didn’t measure up to Boaz’s stratospheric standards, either ….
Brilliant and succinct analysis in your “A Strategy for Peace – and Survival”, Raimondo.
And you are right at the heart of the matter–I don’t think that many Americans really know how close to the brink the economy is because of the war in Iraq, or how quickly over the cliff the whole shebang will go with one misstep, such as an attack on Iran.
Obama ‘Frightens Me’. The Bible has warned us that ‘A man will come from
the East that will be charismatic in nature and have proposed solutions
for all our problems and his rhetoric will attract many supporters!’
When will our pathetic Nation quit turning their back on God and
understand that this man is ‘A Muslim’….First, Last and always….and
we are AT WAR with the Muslim Nation, whether our bleeding-heart,
secular, Liberal friends believe it or not. This man fits every
description from the Bible of the ‘Anti-Christ’!
Who is Barack Obama?
Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in
Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from
Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita ,
Kansas.
Obama’s parents met at the University of Hawaii.
When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned
to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from
Indonesia.
When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama
attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a
Catholic school.
Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is
quick to point out that, ‘He was once a Muslim, but that he also
attended Catholic school.’
Obama’s political handlers are attempting to make it appear that that he
is not a radical.
Obama’s introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this
influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned
to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct
influence over his son’s education.
Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham,
introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school
in Jakarta.
Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim
terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it
is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public
office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United
Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO,
keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT USE THE HOLY BIBLE, INSTEAD HE SWORE HIS OATH UPON THE KORAN.. THE MUSLIM BIBLE!!
Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will
he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over
their hearts, Obama TURNS HIS BACK to the flag and slouches. Do you want
someone like this as your PRESIDENT?
Let us all remain alert concerning Obama’s expected presidential
candidacy.
The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside
out, ONLY IF WE LET THEM!! And know that this something that no American wants after what happened on our homeland on 9/11. We Americans bleed RED, WHITE and BLUE!
The Koran speaks of the Muslim nation awakening a mighty Eagle………. Americans hold the Bald Eagle as one of our most treasured figures… so maybe they have awoke the WRONG EAGLE!
Which “Bible” is that? What text and edition? What language?
Or is it one of those Texas “Bibles” Ma Ferguson waved when she is reported to have declared, bless her little heart, “If English is good enough for Jesus Christ, it is good enough for Texas’?
warchild,
America is destroying itself with this crazy “War-on-Terror” bs. This bs is banrupting this country. Trillions of our money going to fight phantoms. Phantom Arabs with scimitars swimming the Atlantic as we converse, swimming to cut American throats. Phantom mullahs on flying carpets zooming toward Omaha, to destroy the heartland. This crap is nutso, but unfortuneately, you are not the only nut case buying this crap. And now you fools start on Obama - Obama secretly wears a turban at home, Michelle Obama helps him to conceal a harem of wives (most of them probably blonde). Obama wipes himself with the American flag in the privacy of his own bathroom. You may bleed RED, White, and Blue, but you have an effective IQ of 40. If this country is as dumb as people like you, we shouldn’t be allowed to play with scissors let alone nuclear weapons.
if u dont like the way our country is run then u are welcome leave anytime but apparently you cant make it out side the US…so quit ur bitching
1. What nonsense. First the bible BS and now leave if you don’t like it comment.
There is no evidence of any deity and you’re most likely a christian because of your birthplace, parents and society. Kind of like languange, not really a concious decision.
1.5: Ok, that what I see as reality doesn’t really go anywhere. People do not wish to have their faith questioned as it’s somehow any more in need of protection than peoples political views.
2; you’re in the minority now when it comes to the war. And the reality is that you really can’t afford this “war on terrorism” and it constantly keeps backfiring. Just like Operation Ajax back in 1953 still means you’re at “war” with Iran.
Terrorism is way up, and if you don’t understand that foreign troops and civilian casualties works to radicalize many of what would otherwise be moderate people then you have another blindspot for reality.
3; People should not leave their country unless its needed. People should fight for their ideas and in the end you will lose on this. Permanent warfare is not realistic, peace is the only real option.
If only politicians actually tried to work for peace then perhaps we wouldn’t need all this.
Lastly, I urge you to study PNAC. Should be a bit clearer on as to why you’re in the middle-east in the first place. The grand chessboard, modern imperialism.
And we all know how empires end up do we? Do you wish USA to end up the same way? Quit working against US and world interests.
Correction on 1.5, I typed too fast. Might be others as well, but I’ll only correct this part and add a little bit.
1.5: Ok, that what I see as reality is not really popular almost anywhere. People do not wish to have their faith questioned as it’s in somehow in need of protection moreso than political viewpoints. I disagree. People can’t know what the future brings, certainly not from old superstitious books written by no nothings in an age with more ignorance than ours.
Warchild,
I am certainly no fan of Obama. And I agree with you that radical Islam is a grave threat to our nation. However, Obama is NOT a Muslim. He goes to church every week and he has never practiced the Islamic faith. I think we kind of have to take him at his word on that. What I find more troubling, however, is that he attends a Church where the Pastor is a racist who has given awards to Louis Farakhan.
As if religion really is important. What matters is policy.
Oh hell yeah Warchild……….
Finally someone with the balls to find that kind of info and post it for the world to see. Hell will freeze over before i vote for a muslim while our men and women are fighting in a muslim war. If you aint American then you dont need to be and American President. Its up to Hillary and John now.
Boaz was on C Span last night. during the miniscule autograph signing for his new book one of the dopes in line said “this book is someting ron paul should have read” or something. this was from 2/13/08. Boaz made some lame remark about pauls immigration policy. If the book is anythign like his presentation it’s full of bad jokes
This is just a case of Obama being everything to everyone. He will end up the same as every other president from the war party, except he will be harder to oppose because he is more capable and will be able to fool more people.
Just like he is able to now. Tricking libertarians into supporting a social-democratic warmaker? I`m reminded of a saying, the one about those “who can make you belive absurdities”.
Justin, you forgot to mention that the revisions that Obama wants to make on NAFTA is not to reduce the degree of transnational management and regulation of trade, but to increase it. He wants stricter labor and environmental standards enforced upon Mexico. If you go back and look at Rothbard’s argument against NAFTA you’ll see that his opposition to it was based in large part on the fact that NAFTA imposed labor and environmental standards. So it is hardly valid to invoke Rothbard’s negative view of NAFTA to defend Obama when Obama wants more of what Rothbard thought was bad with NAFTA.
Yes, Mikael, but for alleged libertarians to go after the only major pro-peace candidate on the grounds that he’s “undermining” a very imperfect agreemen is … petty. The Beltway “libertarians” have functioned pretty much as adjuncts to the GOP, and it kills them to have to praise a Democrat.
Furthermore, the really significant objection to NAFTA is that it violates American sovereignty — an objection raised by Ron Paul. Naturally, Cato/Boaz et al could care less about that….
You meant of course “couldn’t care less.” Even Mark Levin is dropping the negative contraction, fer cry-yi’s sake. Jeff Cooper was right: precision in language matters.
Actually, “could care less” and “couldn’t care less” are idioms meaning essentially the same thing, that is “not caring”.
Spoken there is sometimes detectable a tonal element in the former that does not appear in the latter.
You are of course right that the two have taken on the same meaning in daily usage. Unfortunately they are total opposites of each other and, unlike say “less” and “fewer” which convey the same general idea, “could” and “couldn’t” have entirely discrete meanings. It’s not only sloppy to mix the two, but unnecessary and potentially misleading.
You have no idea what you are talking about, nor even the linguistic context, which includes not only English but ranges far into the past and covers many different languages.
At any rate, an idiomatic usage is not potentially misleading save, usually, to someone who is not a native speaker.
What is your first language then–Swahili?
Of course it can be misleading. What if Raimondo really meant he could care less? How would he put it–by saying he could care less when he already uses that term to mean that he couldn’t care less?
It’s nice that you bring up linguistic context and its history and different languages. Just what the hell do they have to do with topic at hand?
So what was your first thought then–infantile?
I agree with Justin Raimondo about Obama. These are crucial times and we need to choose somebody who, at a minimum, has the potential to stop the bleeding.
I understand that, for those who have only ideology to hold on to (be a libertarian, republican, democrat…) it must be very hard to think outside that particular box.
All I need to do is look at my job, my kids, our country and our future, to realize that ideologies are big part of the problem.
Obama´s merit lies not only in what he has said he will do, but whom he has attracted. Of course he can disappoint all of us, but that remains to be seen, at least for me. The other candidates are a sure disappointment to me already (and perhaps a danger).
Given the pool of candidates, and the times we live in, staying home or giving a vote to McCain or Hillary is a mistake of incredible proportions. But, of course, it is your prerogative.
McCain supports war in: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, probably more countries that I’m forgetting
Clinton supports war in: Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Iran
Obama supports war in: Afghanistan
They’re all war supporters, but Obama is by far the lesser of the three evils.
Mark said, “They’re all war supporters, but Obama is by far the lesser of the three evils.”
However, Obama has made it clear that he has no problem with US foreign interventionism in a general sense, using the US military to spread “goodness” around the world. He (supposedly) may not be a big fan of the Iraq War (despite his votes in favor of it) or going to war with Iran, but he has no problems with the principle of sending US troops to meddle, kill, and die in affairs elsewhere that have nothing to do with American security:
Make the World Safe for Hope
http://www.amconmag.com/2008/2008_02_25/cover.html
My guess is that if he is elected, it will be just more of the same of what we have gotten these past two decades (or past hundred years, depending on how you look at it).
Paul was the only candidate who was the least bit serious about ending US imperialism and bringing ALL the troops home from EVERYWHERE. Obama is just telling people what they want to hear in order to get elected; it just boggles my mind that some otherwise sharp writers at Antiwar.com are actually falling for it.
I’m with you on that one. Obama is a slick talking politician who will say anything to get elected, and everyone seems to be falling for it. Getting us out of Iraq some number of years from now is not going to stop the collapse of the US. Ending US imperialism is the only way, and ending it now by bringing all the troops home from everywhere.
Everyone can go ahead and vote for the lesser of three evils if they like. The conclusion is the same. The “first black president” personally has too much to lose if he fights too hard against the establishment. He won’t, and you are being naive if you think he will.
I personally will be staying home from this one. At least I will have peace of mind knowing that I didn’t support what this country is about to endure.
Mark writes:
McCain supports war in: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, probably more countries that I’m forgetting
Clinton supports war in: Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly Iran
“Obama supports war in: Afghanistan
They’re all war supporters, but Obama is by far the lesser of the three evils.”
And who would be your first choice? Mother Theresa?
As Ronald Reagan once said, ” Weakness only invites aggression.”
Neville Chamberlin and Obama are similar. Both good men with good intentions. If Chamberlin had insisted that the Germans uphold the Versailles treaty, millions of lives might have been saved. Instead he chose the road of appeasement and that is that same thing Obama will do with the Islamo Fascists.
And apparently the corollary to Reagan’s dictum is that strength only invites aggressive war against weaklings.
Given that even a year or so after Munich Britain was still helpless to do anything about German aggression, exactly what Chamberlain should have done at the time to rein Hitler in is pretty speculative. Chamberlain did in fact declare war on Germany after the latter invaded Poland (but spared the USSR, which also attacked Poland at the same time).
By the way, the ridiculously-termed “Islamo-fascist” threat to the U.S. is pathetically small beer compared to enemies we’ve had in the past. Explain to us again, Tim R., why we should crap on the Constitution now, give up rights mankind has fitfully fought for since Magna Carta, and pee in our pants over an enemy armed with obsolete rifles and garage bombs 10,000 miles away.
I only wish it were the case that we were dealing with people using only obsolete rifles and garage bombs. But these folks are trying to obtain ( and will have no qualms about using) weapons of mass destruction. In 2004, during a debate no less than Senator John Kerry was asked what he thought was the greatest danger facing our nation and he answered that is was the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the danger they will get into the wrong hands.
And if a frog had wings, he wouldn’t whomp his can every time he jumped. There’s only one proper WMD, and that’s a real nuke. The jihadists can hope and dream all they want to, but wanting something doesn’t make it so. Further, not only have our interventions honed and multiplied their passion to get a nuke, but those same wars have done nothing to protect us or hinder them from getting a nuke.
How killing a bunch of civilians in Iraq would in any way stop a handful of plotters in Pakistan from getting a WMD is beyond me. The big question is: how much cowering under your covers, how many hard-won liberties are you willing to give up, how much of Orwell’s boot stepping on a human face are you willing to accept, for a rather far-fetched hypothetical?
As Buchanan has pointed out, Japan got nuked twice but in just a few years was a premier industrial power with more freedom than before the war. We need to take every reasonable step there is to ensure no nuke ever falls into the wrong hands, but to embrace Big Brother to do so is not only unnecessary, but craven in the extreme. By gar, live free or die still works for me.
Two other Reagan quotes
“Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines’ safety that it should have. In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 Marines would be alive today.”
“People do not make wars; governments do.” Ronald Reagan
Even Nixon had his moments
War is an option whose time has passed. Peace is the only option for the future. At present we occupy a treacherous no-man’s-land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them. . . .
Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
–RICHARD M. NIXON, “REAL PEACE” (1983)
McCain also supported the bombing of Kosovo. I guess her royal highness may tell us that she was against that from the start as well (like she was supposedly opposed to NAFTA), but haven’t heard that from her yet. I would like to hear more from Obama on these matters. What was his position on the killing of Serbs in Kosovo? What was his position on the invasion of Haiti to put Aristide in power? Was Bill Clinton justified in bombing Iraq in December of 1998 or not? If he has spoken on these issues I haven’t heard about them. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
Oh yeah, don’t forget that Hillary wants to establish a no fly zone in Sudan as well. In other words, there will be American military action there also. Plus Obama has suggested military action in Pakistan.
I cannot tell you what is behind the mask. And I this point, even if I could, I probably wouldn’t.
Right now there is no point in Obama saying anything on these topics if he doesn’t have to.
Personally, I say this: I started out with a very low opinion of Obama because of speech he gave in Kenya.
He has since gone up step by step, and I now consider him extremely intelligent.
What that intelligence translates into is another question.
Clinton could easily have ended the whole Iraq mess through negotiation. He had eight years to do it, and did not even consider it during his second term.
Clinton’s intervention in Yugoslavia prepared the way for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
That anyone would call Clinton a “socialist”, in any meaning of the word is a bad joke. He was the most successful of the Democrat Neo-Fascists, and Bush is the first fully unveiled Theo-Fascist.
But those are my opinions. Obama–it is still behind the mask. And he can easily keep there for as long as he wishes.
Clinton was naturally intelligent, but also a pathological liar and the typos of the Good Old Boy picaro.
Obama is much more intelligent that Clinton, and also more honest.
He certainly inhaled and admits it, and much worse.
How a Libertarian could criticize on any of that is beyond me.
Corr: “can easily keep it there”.
In 2000 I voted for a candidate who said he believed in a “humble foreign policy.” I didn’t really like the guy all that much but thought he was the lesser of two evils. After all his main opponent had been the Vice President for the then incumbent President who had spent 8 years pursuing an interventionist foreign policy. So I voted for Mr. Lesser of Two Evils. Needless to say, I did not make that mistake in 2004 (voted Libertarian) nor will I make it this year either.
Hypothetical situation…
National amnesia! No one remembers anything about the presidential campaigns - not a single speach, not a single picture. Suddenly it is time for the general election and everyone has to base their decision on the candidates’ political histories instead of their carefully crafted (false) campaign personae.
What’s your opinion of Obama now? Come on, be honest.
So what does that mean other than he has a rudimentary knowledge of the Nolan chart? Sheesh! He still doesn’t get the non-intervention thing.
Unfortunately Justin is probably right about needing to support, or as he says “root for” Obama. bke123 has a good point, but in this case we know for certain Ms. Clinton and McCain would continue the failed war party agenda - Obama might, but there’s at least a chance he won’t.. Sometimes you just gotta hold your nose in the booth.
Not that I’ll bother voting for Obama. I live in a state where the electoral votes are preordained. So I’ll vote 3rd party on principle. It won’t make any difference either, but seems the lessor of two wastes of time.
Making a distinction between voting and rooting for Obama is valid for anyone with reservations of any kind about the “system” parties. Pro-lifers here could never embrace Obama yet given McCain on the war and stem-cell research there’s no affection there either. Nader would seem to resolve a lot of questions for those less concerned with life questions - and did for Raimondo last time if memory serves - only if Libertarian ideology isn’t so confining as to be a kind of straight jacket. Then there’s the Libertarian Party itself or the Constitutional Party, the former almost forbiddingly ideological and the latter pro-life and anti-war enough but at the price of imposing Old Testament Law on us a la John Rushdooney. I still say stay at home and hope that the inevitable economic crisis descending upon us will so crush the life out of the support the American people always seem to be able to give our disfigured system that it will be changed root and branch. A lot of variety in the milieu surrounding anti-war.com, but still no one full throatedly capable of representing it. In the circumstance, “cheering on” but not voting is the best many of us can do.
I think Obama has to go a lot farther than he has already if he wants to get the “libertarian vote.” So David Boaz has said nice things about him. So what? Has he made Boaz his advisor on international trade? Is there anyone on his staff other than Kennedy-Sargent network retreads and ideologists of a similar ilk? There’s no point in carefully weighing the words of politicians to divine their true intentions. Reading tea-leafs would be more sane! Its much more telling to see what sort of company they keep.
Sure Justin, I’ll vote for Obama…as soon as hires you on as a consultant on defence and foreign policy. Heck, I’d settle for an Obama who would seriously listen to Boaz and the Cato-types! But I don’t think it’s in the cards. They say that everybody sees in Obama what they want to see…but libertarianism? After the election I think he would become a JFK…and if the depression gets worse, possibly even an FDR. We would only find out after the first 100 days.
Obama doesn’t doesn’t need your vote.
Ah yes, those PATRIOT Act enhancements and extensions were so appealing to antiwar libertarians. As was “tort reform”. And the pledges to expand the military. I may swoon any minute now.
First of all, Obama is NOT a Muslim( but would it matter if he was- any more than John F.Kennedy’s Catholicism or whispers that Harry S. Truman was really Jewish because the S. allegedly stood for “Solomon”?).
If he (a) wins the nomination(b) and ultimately the Presidential election this November, Barack Obama will take the oath of office to governn according to the US Constitution and NOT according to the dictates of any foreign prelate, Pontiff,potentate or caliph as all of his forebears have done since George Washington. The whispering about Obama being some kind of Islamic “Manchurian Candidate” is beneath contempt!
I would like to point out that Obama attends a christian church. However, even if he was muslim, so what??? This is america and people have freedom of religion. Being a muslim does not make someone a bad person just as being a jew does not automatically make someone a good person.
Additionally, since the vast majority of americans are christian, I would also like to point out that islam reveres Jesus Christ as an important prophet of God, whereas judaism denies christ.
People who are concerned about a candidate simply because he or she has this religious background or that religious background are being foolish. We all bought into GW Bush being this wonderful christian and look, this guy advocates torture and lying about wars blowing up civilians and all kinds of crap not typically associated with decent christians.
Obama is our great hope. He reminds me somewhat of Frederick the 2nd in the middle ages who brought peace to the holy land through negotiation rather than warfare. Frederick also had a polyglot religious background. He was despised by the popes for his maverik ideas, but he is widely regarded as one of the greatest rulers in western history.
The israeli lobby has way too much power in this country. These wars are weakening the dollar. Every year since bush took office the dollar has declined against the euro and other major currencies. the decline since bush took office is over 50% which is shocking and dangerous to all of us.
Bush has done nothing to address thhe e economy; rather he has flushed trillions down toilet in the middle east pursuing unwinnable wars against israel’s enemies.
Obama will take on the israeli lobby and fight the traitors in the war party. Sure he’s not perfect but he is a hell of a lot better than the other two who will definitely continue the failed policies of the last 20 years. Hillary Clinton is surrounded by and funded by many prowar neocons who think of israel first before pondering any loyalties to america. One of her best friends in haim saban. Need I say more? A vote for hillary is a vote for likkud and a vote for trillions more flushed down the toilet in the middle east. Not to mention tens of thousands of dead soldiers and civilians.
Obama is not a Muslim, that is clear. However, if he were, I think Americans would have a right to be somewhat concerned. I’m not saying it should necessarily disqualify him; but when the vast majority of terrorist attacks over the last 30 years have been perpetrated by Muslims, it would certainly be a factor that reasonable people could consider. Also, when well over 80% of Americans are Christians, is it so wrong for them to want to elect someone that shares their values?
Well said Darwin..well said. Thank you.
Obama refused to commit to withdrawing all of the troops from Iraq by the end of his first term, refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in attacking Iran, and was eager to attack a nuclear armed Pakistan. He is no peace candidate unless one is satisfied with occasional empty rhetoric. Speaking of which, his “concerns” over these “Free Trade Agreements” and their devastation of American jobs is also just empty rhetoric.
I’ll vote for the candidate put forward by either the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party. I will NOT vote for the least of the three evils.
“if u dont like the way our country is run then u are welcome leave anytime but apparently you cant make it out side the US…so quit ur bitching”
Pronominal usage is interesting, isn’t it?
“OUR country”. Hmmm.
I would refer the usage to some of the Kindergarten and First Grade “Libertarian Cadres” educating the public in “self-ownership”, but the point, I suspect, is still way over their heads.
So too the hysteria, hallucination, and sense of utter enlightenment that often results when a child’s mind, educated by doublebind, first encounters metaphor and figure of speech.
Maybe it’s the Brzezinski foreign policy team that so appeals to antiwar libertarians. Or the Samantha Powers-ish interventionism. Let a thousand Balkans interventions bloom — on to Darfur! More war, better managed! Maybe the name of this site will be adjusted to reflect the new guiding philosophy: anti-badly-managed-war dot-com.
Lesser-weaselism has worked out SO well for antiwar, pro-liberty folks, doncha know.
If Obama wins and proceeds to go back on his core promises (a la anti-nation-building GWB), the mass disappointment might in itself push US politics in new and interesting directions. Maybe.
I have a lot of respect for Mr. Raimondo, but there is one thing I don’t understand (and I apologize if this has already been answered): how do we know Obama isn’t lying?
Or perhaps has an agenda different but equally odious. I read an interesting article in The American Conservative that says that Obama wants to end the Iraq war simply to enable the U.S. government to pursue interventionist policies elsewhere more to a liberal’s liking, such as Darfur.
I freely confess that my question comes from a lifetime of frustration with politicians that has left me unable to trust them. So for me they have a very high hurdle to jump.
I can’t believe some of the people on this post.
Just because you heard on your favorite hate radio show that Obama is a Muslim doesn’t make it so. Why don’t you back up your claims with some references?
Many of these postings have as much intellectual value as calling a store and asking if they have Prince Albert in a can.
I am considering a minimum IQ requirement for posting.
Eric Garris
Webmaster, Antiwar.com
Don’t make the I.Q. level too high, or I’m in trouble.
And Libertarians make up the majority of Americans or something?
O-bomb-a would likely send troops into Pakistan which would likely start a nice “little” regional war that would likely eventually involve Nuclear weapons.
Only Ron Paul seemed to not want to start new Wars and now that he is “winding down” there will only be a choice for Warmonger in Chief.
“The antiwar movement can have an effect on the course of events, and, God willing, head Bush off at the pass, but only if we hit key pressure points on the body politic – Congress, and Obama-for-President headquarters.”
May one, once more, also strongly suggest demanding that your Congressman move forward on Kucicnich’s motion to impeach Cheney–immediately.
That also includes those who happen to have Mr. Paul as their Congressman.
The connection is indirect but very potent structurally, and if war with Iran is to be headed off, this may be the strongest measure in the arsenal.
Pardon–the quotation is from Justin Raimondo’s latest piece naturally.
What is Admiral Fallon’s position on impeachment, and specifically on impeaching Cheney immediately?
Consultations between active, retired and resigned US military and Congress on the issue should be proceeding at an accelerated pace.
Is the Roman Senate preparing to meet at midnight?
Obama has been attending the same church for 20 years. The Pastor of his Church has gone on trips with Louis Farakhan and gave Farakhan a “Lifetime Achievement Award.” Farakhan has called Judaism a “gutter religion” and made many other anti-white and anti semetic remarks. Why is Obama even a member of a Church that is connected to a man like that? Why doesn’t the media go after Obama more about this? If this were a white candidate and the Pastor of his church had called Islam a “gutter religion” and made anti-black comments I’m sure the media would be all over him.
Obama wants to increase government spending by around $1 trillion.
Do you honestly like this white-hating kook?
He belongs to a black nationalist church, and his wife has said that she finds white people “reprehensible.”
No thank you. I’m proud of my race, the white race, and would never vote for someone who trashes it.
.
For any libertarians interested in learning more about Obama: libertarianobama.blogspot.com