Obama marks anniversary of anti-war speech

I suppose Mr Fluff should celebrate his sole "achievement", coming out against the war. Exactly how that stance was brave -- since he was not in the US Senate at the time -- remains a mystery to me.

I also recall him saying almost 1 year ago that withdrawal from Iraq should be on a FLEXIBLE TIMETABLE, DETERMINED BY EVENTS ON THE GROUND. Sounded sensible back then. But now that he's all bumper sticker slogans all the time, he's backed away from that.

Of course he can't risk losing the only demographic he has, the antiwar activists.

The real issue people should be talking about is what is being done to America. A nation that has been -- and remains -- historically vastly more important to the future of our descendants, and humanity in general. A country and civilization that is steadily being diminished, crippled, robbed and distracted. Not by a party or a movement, but by a bona fide criminal gang.

We need to remember that the Iraq war is a horror, but its core effect has been to divide, corrupt, cheat, demoralize and steal from the people of the United States.

The number one accomplishment of the Bush Administration has been the partial-destruction of the United States military. Accompanied by (in some ways even worse) a near-complete demolition of its hardwon reputation for overwhelming invincibility.

This problem lies not only at the feet of the mad, neocon right, but also on some bad habits that Bush opponents have to break. It will be impossible for liberals to deal with the devastation of the Bush Era, if they nurse even a scintilla of simplistic hostility toward our men and women in uniform. That silly reflex is not only inaccurate and unjust -- picking on the wrong target -- but also self-defeating. We need these people. They are the Bushites’ worst victims.

Moreover, they are a large part of our hope, for the restoration of a lawful, constitutional and confident American Republic.

The Iraq incursion features vast amounts of contractor graft and corruption. So much that theft from the US taxpayer may plausibly have been one of the principal drivers of the entire misguided campaign.

Consider that our ongoing “Mess o’ Potamia” never followed the standard leftist scenario preached by Michael Moore and others, of being "about grabbing oil."

What oil? Do you see any Iraqi oil on the market? Standard left-wing excuses -- that the Bushites simply botched the oil grab -- look tired, after so many years. Especially since the FOBs (friends of Bush) have proved stunningly competent at getting rich off this war, by other means. (Indeed, keeping Iraqi oil OFF the market serves the desire of the world’s very top FOBs.)

No, the swindle is simple. In a "war" or "emergency," normal competitive contracting rules can be thrown away, enabling a Decider Presidency (look up "autarchy") to privatize anything it wants, any way it wants, and hand deals to its favorite, family friends.

Note that defenders of privatization do not even try any longer to justify it as "more efficient," since it takes four times as much (on average) to pay contractors in Iraq to accomplish nothing, as it took soldiers and civil servants.

This is one of a dozen issues that would let Democrats attack the Bushites from a conservative perspective, awakening “ostrich Republicans” and tearing apart Karl Rove's Big Tent coalition. That is, if any of the dems had enough savvy to look at the big picture.

Reiterating: even if you put aside all the unnecessary death and theft and incompetence and immorality of recent years, you would still be left with a Bush Administration that has squandered and spoiled something both pragmatic and precious -- an appearance of invincibility that helped to keep the peace, better than whole divisions.

Now that inestimable aura is gone. Ask anyone, around the world, what their perception is, of a US Army that flounders, mired up to its neck in a quagmire of confusion, sloppy waste, plummeting morale and blurry goals. Is our current reputation an effective deterrent? Or does it encourage others to restore a multipolar, militarily competitive world?

Even (especially) American conservatives should find this a case of utter - and possibly criminal - betrayal of leadership.

Lord love him for trying but it seems increasingly clear that the mood of the country is that while people don't like the war they aren't willing to end it. Or they aren't willing to end it any time soon. If a great majority of the electorate really wanted us out, we'd be out. The pols in Washington, including the Dems, have read the tea leaves correctly. It's their job, after all.

Even if it costs us trillions we could be using to invest in ourselves, Americans seem too scared of what they perceive as a global terrorist threat to demand a pull-out now. Dick Cheney (and Bill/Hill, who have been circumspect about a speedy drawdown of US forces in Iraq) have likely read the electorate correctly.

Interesting that Obama's highly touted policy staff have misread the electorate so thoroughly. A case of seeing what you want to see, I guess. Americans want to fight terrorism and Obama and Co have been unable to come up with a sellable vision in which we continue to do so (big time) without
a war in Iraq.

Anonymous,

If Obama had the anti-war vote locked up, that would be 71% of the American population.

No Logic Man, your diatribe of the usual loony left talking points is quite hysterical. Please tell us who all the Friends of Bush are that have profited mightily from the Iraq War?
I could just see it in the 1940s. Loons like No Logic Man would say that friends of FDR were profiting off the war with Germany and Japan.
Good grief!

Since Dem voters aren't warming to Obama (who's trailing badly in the polls), perhaps it's time to ask "WHY?"

Are the voters rejecting the message? Or the messenger?

We've been told a zillion times by our unbiased news media that Obama is the greatest messenger since Jesus Christ himself. I recall the words "charismatic" and "eloquent" being tossed around like confetti.

So if it can't be the messenger, it must therefore be the Obama message that Dem voters are rejecting.

Food for thought for Obama lovers.

Anonymous,

I don't think Obama's only demographic is anti war activists. A lot of people like him for a lot of different reasons. Have you ever seen his speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004? Amazing speech, my wife and I were on our feet cheering by the end of it.

I'm not totally in the Obama camp, but I am in the Anyone-but-Hillary camp.

I don't see any of the Republican Candidates standing a chance in the general election, they are all (except for Ron Paul) pro-war, and the country is anti war. So stick a fork in the Republicans, they are done.

That leaves us with the Democrats. Between Hillary, John and Obama I can quickly rule out Hillary, nasty hag that she is. Either Edwards or Obama would be okay, I guess, but I'd rather have Obama.

I may change my mind, it is early.

Logic Prisoner N379P,

For all of your unfocused rambling you managed to stumble upon a cogent point:

"'Mess o’ Potamia' never followed the standard leftist scenario preached by Michael Moore and others, of being 'about grabbing oil.'"

"Standard left-wing excuses -- that the Bushites simply botched the oil grab -- look tired, after so many years."

"No, the swindle is simple. In a "war" or "emergency," normal competitive contracting rules can be thrown away,enabling [an administration] to privatize anything it wants... and hand deals to its favorite, family friends."

The more important point that you didn't address is imperial hubris. The neocon fantasy was an American empire -- something that is both folly and antithetical to American principles.

If Obama had the anti-war vote locked up, that would be 71% of the American population.

Posted by: Doug Zook | September 25, 2007 9:05 AM

I said "antiwar ACTIVISTS". There's a difference between those who want to get out precipitously, and John and Mary Public who are against the war but know that withdrawal must be with some deliberate care.

helena nailed it.

Anonymous,

When did you lay claim to the definition of "anti-war activist?"

Because I missed it.

Poor little johnny,confined to Rush and Fox clowns.Here's just one of Bushies buds.Want more?

Is Bush Family Friend Undermining Iraqi Peace?
A Bush family friend may be undermining Iraqi peace.
By Richard Wolffe and Gretel C. Kovach
Newsweek
Oct. 1, 2007 issue - Ray Hunt isn't your typical Texas tycoon. Unlike other billionaire oilmen who hype their legends in the press, Hunt tries hard to keep his name out of the newspapers. The son of wildcatter H. L. Hunt, who lived his life in the spotlight, Ray Hunt rarely gives interviews and refuses to provide even mundane details about the workings of his private oil and real-estate ventures. He's given big sums to his alma mater, Southern Methodist University, in Dallas, but he will not allow his name to be affixed to any of the buildings his money helped pay for. Hunt's discretion may be one reason he has developed a close relationship with the Bush family, who greatly value privacy.

Hunt's money could also have something to do with it. Over the years, the oilman raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to elect both George W. Bush and his father. The son rewarded Hunt with a seat on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a panel of outside elders who oversee whether the commander in chief is getting good advice from the intel community. More recently Hunt has been especially generous about helping to plan—and pay for—Bush's postpresidential ambitions. He lobbied the president to build the Bush 43 presidential library at SMU—which is where Laura Bush studied—and since then he's given $35 million to the school to buy some of the land where part of the library complex could sit.

Hunt's generosity may help explain why the White House has been seemingly reluctant to question another of the oilman's projects—this one in Iraq. To the apparent surprise, and irritation, of officials in Washington and in Baghdad, Hunt Oil announced this month that, after secret negotiations, it had struck a deal with leaders in the country's Kurdish-controlled north to explore for oil in the Dahuk region near the Turkish border. News of the deal angered Iraqi Arab leaders, who saw it as a Kurdish power play for the country's oil resources, one that appeared to disrupt already fragile talks over a critical benchmark for peace: an agreement among the Sunni, Shiites and Kurds to share profits from the country's bountiful oil supply. The hope is that a national revenue-sharing law will help defuse tensions—and curtail violence—by getting the three groups to work toward a vital common goal. But the negotiations have stalled, largely because of a lack of trust. The Iraqi Oil minister denounced the Hunt agreement as illegal—though without a law in place it's hard to argue the Kurds have violated it. The Kurds refused to disclose the terms of the deal but insisted they will share the profits.

In the United States, word of the agreement inflamed Bush detractors, who accused the president of helping a big-time contributor line his pockets at the expense of Iraqi peace. White House officials say they had no knowledge of Hunt's negotiations, and did not help him. Hunt declined to comment, but Jeanne Phillips, a spokeswoman for the company, says it told no one about the negotiations. "We do not discuss potential business deals with the United States government," she says. After the agreement was made public, Phillips says, government officials called to ask for details, but even then the company refused. Kurdish officials also say they kept the negotiations secret from the United States.

White House officials may not have helped Hunt put together the deal, but that doesn't mean they're not doing their best to portray Hunt's project as a sign of progress. "It's positive that a firm would choose to invest in Iraq—whether an American firm or not," says spokesman Tony Fratto. He downplayed the notion that the Hunt deal could undermine already tense negotiations to reach a national oil-sharing agreement. "As for how it impacts reform of the oil law in Iraq, authorities there will have to work that out." The optimistic subtext to the White House line: the Hunt agreement will prompt the three groups to begin negotiating a national oil law in earnest to avoid future secret side deals.

At least one top White House official was willing to express some skepticism. Asked by NEWSWEEK about the controversy at last Thursday's news conference, President Bush said, "I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened. To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue-sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously if it undermines it, I'm concerned." There is one way the president can find out exactly how the deal happened. He can call his old friend Ray Hunt and ask him.

Doug, you're wasting your time. Anonymous is what is known as a 'concern troll'. He's so, so concerned about us poor Democrats and our candidates. A common refrain is, "If only candidate X did so and so..." Of course, this is just a scam. He's a Republic through and through. As soon as Limpbaugh weighs in who to support, Anon will be right behind.

weinerdog43,

Right you are.

But when I've got the time I'm going to push back against every bit of garbage that he & the like spew.

The occasional moderate or independent may stop by for a read and I don't want them thinking the dead-ender lemming are going unchallenged.

"...you managed to stumble upon a cogent point..."

Posted by: Anonymous | September 25, 2007 9:24 AM

Hmmm Juanito and Leo T like to use the word "cogent" quite frequently before he/she cut and run from the Swamp like a crybaby.

nisleib,

Sorr, as the numbers are parsed Obama trails among all the groups he needs to win -- women, blacks, the elderly, labor, the econmic underclass. Anti war activists seem to love him.

wiener and doug zook,

You 2 pathetic lumps have never effectively challenged anybody here, so I'm not exactly worried.

wow, an ad hominem attack. What do you expect from a Republic puke like Anon.

See, I can play too!

Anonymous,

You are now, were before, and will always remain a dead-ender.

Keep up that winning strategy you employed in '06 and it'll get you even better results in '08.

Americans (other than you dead-enders) have seen the losers and fools for what you are.

Even the current crop of Republican candidates (and wannabes like Gingrich) are running as fast as they can from the failed policies of Dubya and his lord-master Darth.

So, tell me again when you defined anti-war activist?

Anonymous

I know things don't look good for anybody but Hillary right now, but this is the Democratic Party we are talking about. They tend to choose late in the cycle. Will Rodgers once said: I am not a member of any organized political party, I am a Democrat.

I don't believe the national polls, especially this far out. For one thing they are polling everybody, and most people don't vote in the primaries. For another thing the way this country does primaries muddies the water and makes forecasting troublesome.

My hope is that the Dems will take a close look at Hillary as the time grows closer and realize she is not much different than Bush and Cheney. That she is a calculating political machine, that she will say anything to get elected and that she doesn't deserve the job.

As far as that goes you should be hoping the same thing. Do you really want President Hillary Clinton? My guess is that idea bugs you as much as it bugs me.

Loon, your article proves nothing. Bush even said he is not happy with the deal with the Kurds and this administration is looking into it.

Doogie, what is an anti-war activist? And what is a lemming?

I'll answer for you before you ask John E to send you answers.
1. An anti-war activist is someone who is against any war and goes out and protests or organizes other such activities. That does not equate to most of the Americans who are tired of the war and want us out of Iraq within some point of time. We don't see tens of millions of people protesting the war, do we?
2. Lemming. Well, you for one. As an alleged Vet, you seem very happy to see your new Comrades like John E., weinerlessbrain and moveon.org just denigrate the folks in the military as well as their wives and children. Did you not see the vile and pure garbage your bed weinerlessbrain spewed at the spouse of military man yesterday? You see, Doogie, you put your ideology over the country and put your ideology over the military you once belonged to. Now, that is a lemming.

Johnny D:

Bush is looking into the Hunt oil deal?? Expect the results of that investigation to be released on January 20, 2009.

nislieb,

You're right, I'm not a fan of HC. Both the Clintons have have some pretty disturbing skeletons in the closet.

However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that any of the Dems, however corrupt, are in quite the same league as Bush and Cheney -- not even HC.

And I take your point that overall polling numbers can be (not necessariy will be) skewed by the fact that most people don't vote in primaries. So yes, BO is not necessarily out of it, even with the poor numbers.

John D.,

Anonymous is in charge of the anti-war activist definition department.

The following is the link to definition of lemming:

Enjoy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemming

Hmmm Juanito and Leo T like to use the word "cogent" quite frequently before he/she cut and run from the Swamp like a crybaby.

Posted by: Janitor Joe | September 25, 2007 10:16 AM

"COGENT"?!

By god, you're right! The one and only Anonymous must be Juanito Leo, just as surely as 2x0=1!

obama is a wrong guy who make a speech anti war- hew asnt at the senate at that time- wrong guy- all maericn was a victim of bush lies.why oabam a black guy take this opporutnity. wrong wrong wrong.
made mistake who pick obama
he also make a commnet about jena6- sound worst- seems like eh take side of a black who beat the white boy.he sounsd like hilter and sadam. of cousnd theyre the same birthyear zodiac sign; ox year born; sadam /hitler and oabam.
this si a phsychic comment.

Regardless of what Barack Obama was doing ( officialy) at this time he is on record as opposing this mindless bloodbath in Iraq. Thats the point.He has consistantly voiced his opinion on major issues and has been found to be accurate in his estimates and in agreement with many experts not recruiteed by him and who have traditionally supported "conservatives"

Doogie, I find it curious that you have yet to comment on the Gen. Betraysu ad, the hateful comments your bud weinerlessbrain makes towards the military and its spouses. But then I am not surprised. Your ideology comes before the troops and the country.

Wow, look at you people tear each other to pieces like rats in a cage. No wonder your democracy is being stolen from you by richer, more clever men.

Doogie, I find it curious that you have yet to comment on the Gen. Betraysu ad, the hateful comments your bud weinerlessbrain makes towards the military and its spouses. But then I am not surprised. Your ideology comes before the troops and the country.
Posted by: John D | September 25, 2007 2:42 PM

Do you support extending the rest periods before troops can be redeployed, John? THAT is really supporting the troops, yet almost no Republicants voted for it. Why don't they support the troops, Dyslin?

I got news for you, "the troops" would prefer to have a little time at home much more than they would for you and your ilk to wage war on the First Amendment and turn a mountain into a molehill. But alas, your sorry allies have absolutely nothing to contribute besides this inane "Betrayus" 'controversy,' so they'll milk this non-issue for absolutely everything its worth.

You do know the that term "General Betrayus" was first used by an actual soldier several years ago? Does HE hate America and not "support the troops?"

Please tell us who all the Friends of Bush are that have profited mightily from the Iraq War?
I could just see it in the 1940s. Loons like No Logic Man would say that friends of FDR were profiting off the war with Germany and Japan.
Good grief!

Posted by: John D | September 25, 2007 9:15 AM

Your the rocket scientist, figure it out for yourself.

John D = lost cause.

"No, the swindle is simple. In a "war" or "emergency," normal competitive contracting rules can be thrown away,enabling [an administration] to privatize anything it wants... and hand deals to its favorite, family friends."

The more important point that you didn't address is imperial hubris. The neocon fantasy was an American empire -- something that is both folly and antithetical to American principles.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 25, 2007 9:24 AM

I apologize for my "unfocused rambling." Maybe I'll work in the word cogent next time to ease your pain. I most certainly would love to address imperial hubris. The book is highly critical of the Bush Administration's handling and characterization of the War on Terrorism, and of its simplistic portrayal of Bin Laden as "evil" and "hating freedom." The book is notable in criticizing the idea that Islamist terrorists are attacking Western societies because of what they are rather than for their foreign policies. Scheuer writes:

"The fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do." Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's American foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society."

Imperial Hubris argues that Osama bin Laden's war against the U.S. is a classical example of defensive jihad waged against an enemy occupier rather than an apocalyptic attack on "freedom." Scheuer is particularly critical of the U.S.-led war on Iraq, which he characterizes as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages." For Scheuer, the war in Iraq was like a "Christmas gift" to bin Laden not just because it distracted the U.S. military from the war against al Qaeda, but more importantly because it has provided global jihadists a failed state from which to operate that is even more conducive to terrorism than Afghanistan. By attacking and occupying the second holiest place in Shi'a Islam, the U.S. has turned Iraq into a lightning rod for jihadists from around the globe to come attack the occupying armies. The invasion, he argues, has provided credibility and substance to bin Laden's assertion that terrorists are waging a defensive jihad against foreign occupier bent on destroying Islam.

http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Hubris-West-Losing-Terror/dp/1574888498

Speaking of contracts, how about starting back with Harken winning a contract in the Persian Gulf. From there as you rightly point out the FOBs (friends of Bush) have lines they're pockets with no bid contracts. Sorry John D. The truth hurts!

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a121694salemarrest

John D.,

The value you place on my opinion is such that I hope you never tell anyone. That is a load of humiliation I could never live down.

At any rate, to answer your question:

Please tell us who all the Friends of Bush are that have profited mightily from the Iraq War?
I could just see it in the 1940s. Loons like No Logic Man would say that friends of FDR were profiting off the war with Germany and Japan.
Good grief!
Posted by: John D | September 25, 2007 9:15 AM

Actually, it was still "Friends of Bush" profiteering back then, you knob:

BUSH-NAZI LINK CONFIRMED
Documents in National Archives Prove George W. Bush's Grandfather Traded with Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor
http://www.geocities.com/bushfamilynazis/
by John Buchanan (Exclusive to the New Hampshire Gazette)

WASHINGTON - After 60 years of inattention and even denial
by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in
The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that
Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush,
served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative
for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926
until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush
and his "enemy national" partners.

The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according
to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, tried to
conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz
Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s,
personally funded Adolf Hitler's rise to power by the subversion
of democratic principle and German law.

Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush
and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger
brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George
Herbert Walker, President Bush's maternal great-grandfather,
continued their dealings with the German industrial tycoon for
nearly a year after the U.S. entered the war...

Anonymous,

You are SO wrong! Obama has EVERY demographic, if he has me - Anglo-Asian, with 40 years in North-America!!! So, let's see, that's the over-50's (I'm DEFINITELY over 50), the Anglos (as in British), the Asians (as in Indian), basically, the Heinz 57's. If he can reach me, and represent me, I think he can reach and represent most!! He is the only one who has the breadth and depth I could trust, who is American yet has lived overseas, who has some roots in Africa and Asia, and who has pedigree more than all the other candidates (any kind you want to discuss but we'll start with his formal background - very necessary, I should think, for the leader of a country. We DO need smarts, every kind, but certainly the kind you have to bury your head in the books for at least 6 or 7 years, THEN go out into the trenches and work for THREE YEARS for $10,000 a year (what? I was earning more than twice that as a mere secretary in Chicago a year later). I think he knows how to be content with less or more, how to seek the greater good (not his own good), and singlemindedly reach the goal of being prepared to serve the American public.

My calendar has been circled this entire time!

Here's to another 5 years!

Is anyone else growing tired of Obama gloating about that so-called audacious anti-war speech? Has anyone compared his to Al Gore's antiwar speech of 2003. Gore's was truly prophetic and analytical a la Churchill. Obama--well he could afford to make his little speech because he was a minor, insignificant state senator to whom nobody listened about foreign policy.