Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Barack W. Obama

by The Reverend on December 1, 2009

in 2008 election,9-11,Afghanistan,Barack Obama,Bush White House,Iraq,neo-conservatives,state secrets

In his scheduled speech tonight at West Point, President Obama will make one of the biggest mistakes of his short presidency. Obama has accepted General McChrystal's recommendations on Afghanistan in their entirety. Those recommendations are unrealistic and have more to do with military testosterone, ego, and the Empire's military industrial complex than the interests of the American people…or reality.

Briefly….Obama is going to imitate George W. Bush tonight. He will send over 30,000 new American troops into an 8+ year directionless quagmire inside a country whose leaders are totally untrustworthy. Obama is doing this to create a perception of strength back home. Ironically, it will be seen in restrospect as just the opposite.

After having thrown most of his foreign policy campaign promises in the trash in less than a year, President Obama will add insult to injury tonight by sounding exactly like the guys we threw out last November. Bush/Cheney told us that by wasting troops and money in the middle eastern "theater", they were keeping America "safe." Obama will tell us the same thing tonight. The former Terror Twins constantly insisted that their reckless, foolish and sometimes fraudulent military strategies were for the purpose of reinforcing American national security. Obama will tell us the same thing tonight.

The evidence proves just the opposite. In brewing even more Islamic extremism and hatred for America during Bush/Cheney, we were told America was more secure. Obama will tell us that by sending even more U.S. soldiers into a corruptly-governed Muslim country, he is making us safer. It wasn't true under Bush….it won't be true under Obama.

The very reason Osama Bin Laden raised up his group of suicide-bombing Islamic extremists was because western powers interfered with and militarily occupied Muslim countries. That dynamic plus the U.S failure to help bring about a fair two-state solution in the Palestinian-Israeli situation led directly to the 9-11 attacks.

Bush often told us he was deferring to the "commanders on the ground" as he foolishly dithered in Iraq and Afghanistan, running out the clock on his own presidency with no resolution of either multi-year quagmire. Obama, tonight, will follow in W's footsteps. General McChrystal, the man who purposely covered up the truth about Pat Tillman's death, has requested 30,000-40,000 new U.S. troops for Afghanistan. Radical American neo-cons have been banging their unquenchable bloodthirsty drums for Obama to do what the "commanders on the ground" requested. Obama has decided to send some 35,000 new U.S. troops into Afghanistan. Trusting McChrystal and the neo-con nuts at this point is indefensible. Indeed, it's reprehensible.

Obama will not set any "timetables" for leaving Afghanistan. Where have we heard that before? Obama will insist on "benchmarks" as he announces his own escalation of an already-incoherent Afghanistan "plan." "Benchmarks" was a favorite term of our former "war president." Same old.

This new Obama-directed escalation will cost $30-50 billion. More of America's future pissed away for no identifiable purpose. Money that will undoubtedly be borrowed……because in America, we can't borrow money to benefit Americans' lives directly, like with health care reform….but we can always borrow money for the purpose of killing Muslims in foreign countries. It's all so disgusting.

I have given Barack Obama almost a year to prove his leadership. I did the same with George W. Bush. I don't think it is fair, or realistic, as fools like Limbaugh, Beck and FOX have done, to attack a new president right out of the box. Obama's first year is almost up.

When it comes to state secrets, military commissions, the Bagram gulag, holding obvious war criminals accountable, and now, escalating a military conflict in a foreign country that we occupy…..Obama is proving himself to be the furthest thing from change we can believe in.

He is simply a Bush/Cheney retread. A reluctant neo-con, perhaps….but still a neo-con.

  • Da King

    Rev says, "After having thrown most of his foreign policy campaign promises in the trash in less than a year, President Obama will add insult to injury tonight by sounding exactly like the guys we threw out last November"

    Except that Obama campaigned on adding resources to the "good war," the "necessary war" in Afghanistan. If he devotes more resources to Afghanistan, that will be a rare example of Obama actually fulfilling a campaign promise. It was only the Iraq War that Obama said he was against. He promised he'd have us out of there within 16 months. THAT is a campaign promise he broke.

    Rev says, "Bush often told us he was deferring to the "commanders on the ground" as he foolishly dithered in Iraq and Afghanistan, running out the clock on his own presidency with no resolution of either multi-year quagmire."

    Except that Bush was the one who setup the timetable for withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

    You should keep up with the news more. Perhaps then you wouldn't make these types of glaring mistakes.

    I'll withhold further comment about Obama's Af-Pak strategy until after his speech tonight.

  • Martin

    NO such thing as a rev mistake!!! Victory is the plan if he is smart.Obama is no neocon just a happy puppet for his handlers.

  • Jeff

    Blog of Mass Disinformation:

    I enjoy how you make blanket assertions without proof.
    For example, what is your source and proof that there are more extremists being created because of the war, vs not being engaged in Iraq and AG.

    Just like the fool a few days ago that said Bush failed to defeat the Taliban, first it was not Bush, just like it was not FDR, it was the will and strength of this NATION, not the leader, next, the Taliban is no longer in control of the government, nobody claimed that the followers of the Taliban were all defeated and cowed, just removed from power in AG. Polio was defeated in the 60's but it still comes back, should we blame Johnson for Polio when a kid contracts it today?

    Liberalism is also another juvenile disease, one that most grow out of, we really should start a medical campaign to inoculate those who dont grow out of their petulant liberal years.

  • The Reverend

    Obama added 17,000 troops inside Afghanistan his first month in office.

    What Obama did not campaign on was building up a vast occupying force in Afghanistan that would remain there for the next decade. That's what he's committing us to tonight.

    "Victory" is a slogan having no connection to reality when we're speaking of the wars of choice that Bush started. What would "victory" look like? No one has any idea. If anyone believes the U.S. can afford to bring Afghanistan into the 21st century when 10% of the population is literate…..they will be sadly disappointed.
    There is nothing to "win" in Afghanistan….if there is, please tell me what it would be.

    The purpose of attacking Afghanistan was to "get" the perpetrators of 9-11. We can't even do that….and it's been 8 years. Neo-con pipe dreams are made of what Obama will tell us tonight.

    Jeff…I'll hand it to you…you have Rushbo and the Beckster down pat.

    "Just like the fool a few days ago that said Bush failed to defeat the Taliban…"

    If it is true that Bush defeated the Taliban…..why is the Taliban the reason Obama is sending 30,000 more troops there? Please explain that contradiction.

  • Andrea

    WHOA wait a minute Obama NEVER PROMISED to get us out of Afghanistan !
    In fact either did Hillary or Biden or Edwards.
    “There isn’t any doubt that Afghanistan has been neglected,” said now Secretary of State — Hillary Clinton at a debate in April 2008. “It has not gotten the resources that it needs.”
    Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan: Obama said in his Aug. 28 speech accepting the Democratic nomination, "I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan." So actually he's planning to live up to his promise one which many democrats agreed with him on back then .
    Having said this I do agree that we should leave now- It is too costly financially and in lives lost.
    I believe the only way to "win in Afghanistan is to convince the Afghani people to work with us. I am sure that's why Obama deliberated so long on it. But face it he's surrounded with people in the WAR business. I will listen to what he has to say before making rash JUDGEMENT. I hope Obama will present a exist strategy – I hope

  • averagejoe5

    Maybe he didn't promise to get out of Afghanistan. It just seems out of character for the UN Security Chairman and the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize to be sending troops in to…. you know, kill people.
    When Bush did this there was huge upheaval. We'll see how they spin this.

  • angry conserv

    Obama's decision to intensify the war by sending more troops to Afghanistan puzzles me. To follow this course would be perceived by Alinsky as the classic example of the colonial capitalists imposing their will upon the have nots in order to maintain their position of wealth and power. The only reason this can be justified is in order to futher the ultimate goal–an increase in power. Therefore the real question is how is this action going to increase Obama's political power?

  • You lie!

    Credit to you, Rev. Calling a spade a spade. Obama got this right. Obama got this wrong. Whatever. No denying: Obama = Bush.

  • http://www.cleveland.com bzzzzp

    It's better than that.
    Dick Cheney is pulling this guy's strings also!

  • Tbomb

    Jeff please keep posting …I need the laughs!

  • Jeff

    Tbomb if you think the truth is funny, you are truly deranged.

    BOMD, did you read what I posted, I think not, because you would not have made such a fool of yourself in commenting. Is the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan, or are they a fringe group fighting to regain control, study the word victory, and also study Sun Tzu, you will find that you can be victorious, without completely eradicating the enemy. The Taliban were defeated and run out of Kabul, does not mean that the demented ideology that created the evil Taliban was defeated nor does it eliminate them resurfacing.

    Dont you think, given the opportunity, the Nazi's would have resurfaced after WWII? Many fled to Argentina, but they decided not to try for a 4th Reich, at least not yet, the German people and government have made it clear that they will not tolerate a new Nazi party, but that could all change if and when the global economy collapses, (I am not saying it will, or where it will, but it is a possibility).
    Enemies and Allies are interchangeable, victory and peace are fragile and fleating in a world where hatred and disinformation hold sway.

    And you liberals are the king of both.

  • The Reverend

    When problem solving, it is essential to identify the source, the cause of the problem. The U.S. had no beef, really, with the Taliban before 9-11. The Taliban did not concoct the 9-11 scheme, nor carry it out. They were blamed by Bush/Cheney for harboring al-Qaeda, when in fact, the Soviets couldn't defeat al-Qaeda….how was a group of tribal lords going to do it? The Taliban couldn't have handed over al-Qaeda and Bin Laden if they wanted to……but it gave the neo-cons the excuse they needed to amass huge military assets in the region in preparation for what everyone in the White House was prepared to do on 9-11…attack and occupy Iraq.

    That's what happened. Bin Laden became an after thought because he was meant from the beginning to be an afterthought. It was ALL about Iraq.

    Biggest fraud ever perpaetrated on the U.S……and now Obama is continuing the scam.

  • The Reverend

    angry has it figured out on this one.

  • terje

    jeff, the taliban were NOT defeated. they are just as strong as they always were in parts in pakistan and afghanistan.

  • Andrea

    After listening to Obama speech last night I am sorry but I disagree with you Rev. I feel it all depends on what happens and whether he does start to bring the troops out as he said within 18 months. The most important thing about his speech was there is a end in sight. We can just pull all our troops out now having accomplished nothing and will go down as his legacy or we can help stabilize the region by training the Afghani forces. What you seem to not be hearing Rev is it is really about Pakistan. We cant go into Pakistan but we can be on their border by being in Afghanistan. In fact I thought his speech was rather brilliant not that I am a fan of war and I rather not be in war, but I saw his purpose of being there short term as proposed. And I do not see it as being the same as what Bush did in Iraq . Obama made it clear he has no intention of Nation building or toppling a regime. Afghanistan is not Iraq. Afganistan women are treated as second class citizens and the problem of Islamic extremism is centered in on the border with Pakistan. The objective of the strategy SHOULD be to neutralize Afghanistan/Pakistan as centers of organization of Islamic extremism. So there is a purpose which Bush did not have in Iraq. If Obama can bring some Peace to the region he will earned his Award . Now I know this is all very questionable but so far Obama been very good at keeping his word.

  • averagejoe5

    Who are the Afghani forces? Is there a government in charge other than the Taliban?

  • The Reverend

    Andrea…I hear ya'. And don't be sorry for disagreeing with me. I hope I'm wrong about this. I do.

    You restate Obama's stated objectives well….and if it all works out, it will be a good thing.

    My biggest problem with what Obama is saying is that it mirrors neo-conservative Empire talk..absent the war rah-rah wording. McChystal is not to be trusted…..and the surge plan seems widely optimistic to me…especially within an 18 month window. Let's watch for the caveats to start coming soon…..Gates is already stretching it to 18-24 months….and of course, "conditions on the ground" will determine everything.

    I did hear the Pakistan emphasis. I get that. I understand the dangers.

    What I needed to hear from Obama was how he was going to kill the 400, or so, al-Qaeda, who are still in the region. What I heard was talk of defeating the Taliban.

    average…yes, Afghan forces, such as they are,……are, at least theoretically, controlled by Karzai's "government." Performance reports, however, are less that praiseworthy.

    No denying it….this is a very difficult problem, and I certainly am in no position to know more than those in charge. Let's hope for the best. Unlike the Limbaugh Army…I don't want Obama to fail.

  • Andrea

    I do fear Rev we might be there longer than he said – but if things are not going well with election season coming up I betcha he pull out or atleast start to . If its going well that's another story and he shoudl be the one to get the credit although the other side hasn't given him any credit for anything – And guess what we havent been attacked since obama been in office ..how come the right isn't repeating this stupid mantra they gave us for 7 1/2 years ignoring the biggest attack ever came under their watch.

  • Da King

    Conservatives don't want Obama to fail in Afghanistan. Many liberals certainly do, just as they wanted Bush to fail in Iraq. Pulling out of Afghanistan would leave that country vulnerable to a return of a Taliban government, the worst scenario. I'm glad Andrea has changed her tune a bit on this. I liked Obama's speech for the most part, but his 18 month window seems unrealistic. We will have to be there longer than that. In mid-november, Karzai said it will take five years for his government to be able to secure the country, which is the goal, just as it was our goal in Iraq to replace Saddam with a stable government. It actually is nation-building, but there is no alternative when you overthrow an existing government. That's what "victory looks like."

  • Jeff

    As one of the Limbaugh Army, what we fear is Obama succeeding to take this nation to the economic collapse necessary for the left to make the Cloward Piven Strategy a reality, burden the economic system, with welfare, medicare, spend Social Security to hide the real deficit, add 1.2 Trillions for health care reform, toss in cap and trade taxes, 106 Trillion in unfunded liabilities, and when the government cant print enough money to meet their promises, what happens?

    So if an Obama failure means that none of this happens, then we are all for the failure of Barry the liar. NOBODY is for the failure of our men and women overseas fighting for our nation, well nobody except the traitor Harry Reid, Pelosi et al who said the Iraq war was lost, and those like you who think we can just walk away and everything will be alright, koom bye aaahhhh.

  • Jeff

    Andrea, you like all the left wants to ignore the fact the FT Hood shooter was a terrorist just like the hijackers.

    But then I dont blame Barry for the Ft Hood, I blame PC crap liberals who wont do anything to protect us, Flight 300, and just the other day, a group of potential terrorists were ignored on a flight from Atlanta to Houston because the airline was too afraid to look into it. Nothing happened, this time, but if it was a dry run, what happens next time.

    And I must remind you Clinton's intelligence policies were more to blame than any failure Bush's administration may have had, but then the truth gets lost in the cavernous bullshit of the liberal mind. But then Bush's attempt to correct the failures that led to 9/11 are under attack by the liberals, there is either a fundamental disconnect from reality or a need for punishment in the liberal mindset, either the USA needs punished for being exceptional in its wealth, or liberals just dont understand simple cause and effect.

  • larry d.

    There was also the fellow who returned from his terrorist training in Yemen and attacked an army recruiting station, killing an American soldier on U.S. soil. Barry broke the 7-1/2 year string in just two or three months, Andrea.

  • The Reverend

    Andrea….there is no sense in even recognizing the conservative forces in our country. That was Obama's original…and biggest mistake. Conservatives have had no ideas, no plans for advancing the American population. They only know wars and tax cuts….and lying. Today's conservatives will NEVER give Obama credit for anything…..witnessed in McCain's scolding of Obama's neo-conish plan.

    Democrats must go it alone…and even their ranks are filled with corporately-compromised and timid members. None of this is news.

    Playing into the hands of the anti-American neo-cons when it comes to Af-Pak…is not only a strategic mistake, but a huge political mistake as well.

    Glad to be wrong.

  • larry d.

    That last sentence might make a good title for the blog if you're thinking of shaking things up, Reverend.

  • Jeff

    Conservatives have no ideas??? What an ignorant statement that is, apparently you have been brainwashed to believe this, since if you actually studied history, and read something besides the pravda journalism you would know what ideas we have.

    1. You DO NOT need government to solve your personal problems. Nor should you want government to solve your problem, you know what is best for you.
    2. Lower TAXES DO, increase the amount of money an economy has to grow, Higher TAXES, penalize an economy and chokes the life blood out of it.
    3. Privatize Social Security, quit letting the government hacks steal our money and our retirement. Why do congress, city government workers, teachers all retire with more than your basic social security, why do they get that privilege and we who pay nearly the same amount into the SS Slush fund get screwed.
    Because liberals like you want government to control what individuals have, (except for the ruling elite)
    5. Fight Wars when you must, but fight them all out.
    6. People working in their own best interest is the best and only legitimate way to run a nation (this will fix health care, poverty, education every problem created by government can be solved by the individual, not government dictates, our constitution was based on this premise, and we want to return to it. Do you?

    The liberal plan, is the Cloward Piven Strategy, do you support that, the collapse of western economies and freedom, in order to replace it with a marxist central government? That is the plan we are fighting if it looks to your myopic view, that we bring nothing new to the table, maybe it is because what is new, is wrong, and what is right is the protection from government control our founders gave us.

  • The Reverend

    I've met a lot of people ….and I just don't believe that your #1 is accurate. People aren't looking to government to solve their problems. They just want government to be there as a net, so that we don't soon look like Somalia. I don't think that is asking too much.

    #2 is simply wrong. "Higher TAXES, penalize an economy and chokes the life blood out of it." America built up a prosperous middle class while income tax rates on the wealthiest were over 90%. Those were called the glory years. We were not a debtor nation then. Fiscally responsible while having a 90% plus tax rate……can you imagine that?

    Even during the term of the corporate-friendly Democratic president, Clinton, 20 million new jobs were created while income tax rates were 5% higher and capital gains tax rates were much higher than they are today.

    #3 Privatizing SS would cost, at least, $1 trillion….just to start it. The American public does not favor placing their SS funds in the hands of Wall Street sharks. Why would anyone?

    What happened to number 4? You're messing with my head.

    #5 Nuclear? That would be, like, all out, right?

    #6 The American people are looking out for their own interest….a firm majority favor having a public option in health insurance….something similar to Medicare. What the American people wanted, while looking out for their own interests….was lower health insurance costs, and universal accessibility without discrimination for risk.

    Republicans, not that they are important in any of this and I recognize that they don't do government, are trying to block what the American people want….as those same American people look out for their own interests.

    Finally, I don't know if you have noticed…..Democrats are so desperate for signs of intellectual life from cerebrally-flatlining GOP'ers, that they have resorted to arguing amonst themselves to even have an argument. So, you know, there's that.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).