Rachel Maddow and Michael Moore Say Barack Obama Is Just Like George Bush (click here)
By John Cook
10:00 AM on Sat Mar 28 2009, 5,966 views
The attack from Obama's left flank began in earnest yesterday, as two reliably liberal forces openly compared Barack Obama's plan for escalating the war in Afghanistan to Bush's fiasco in Iraq.
Obama fangirl Rachel Maddow put together an Obama-Bush mashup on last night's show, playing Obama's speech announcing his Afghanistan plan next to clips of Bush talking about Iraq, and pointing out the eerie similarities. She hesitantly defended Obama—or at least seemed like she was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt—but it was clearly a shot across the bow.
It is somewhat alarming the "eerie similarities" of the 'vocabulary' that surrounds war. I am confident it appears to be 'the same war in the same way.' Is it? Some are saying Afghanistan is Obama's Vietnam. Is it? Are we following NATO into hell no different than Johnson's USA followed SEATO? Possibly.
However, there are MARKED differences in the rhetoric that some are NOT identifying or addressing and I have to alarmed at THAT reality as well.
In the years of Vietnam we were chancing a ghost called, The Domino Theory. Certainly if South Vietnam were to fall the rest of the nations and ultimately the USA would fall to a Cold War enemy called Communism. In FEAR of that reality, Nixon's USA built a faux government in Saigon and called it a progressive democracy when all it consisted of was a similar circumstance behind concrete walls such as Baghdad.
Some say CURRENTLY, Kabul is Obama's Saigon. The sad truth is that it isn't Obama's Saigon, it is a BUSH and RUMSFELD Siagon. One of the sad realities we all touted in opposition of the 'war agenda' was that Afghanistan was abandoned by Bush for an oil war in Iraq. Is that not true? I believe it is. Certainly, if the last five and a half years of Iraq and Baghdad were concentrated on Afghanistan the global community would be far safer than today and Afghanistan, Pakistan, Cashmir, India and Iran may already have a workable solution for a peaceful economy that ENHANCES the region of Arab Nations ALREADY conducting peaceful societies with benevolent agendas for their people. Jordan is not a peace based economy and nation? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Hello?
The 'rhetoric' is really quite amazing. I was astounded to realize how the 'sameness in vocabulary' pervaded both administration when it comes to 'the choice' of addressing 'the enemy' and other 'aspects' of war. After all, it is Obama that never voted for war funding for Iraq and has demanded the return of troops from Iraq, regardless of the long drawn out reduction of forces now currently planned. Was promising a sixteen month troop reduction simply a way of saying to the American people sceptical at all of any withdrawal that, 'it was okay to vote for Barak, because he is the man of reason?' Hm?
To simply state, in terms not stated but expressed, our new President is as much a puppet to the military as perhaps Bush due to 'dictation' would be to say the USA has a Military Industrial Complex that is out of the rhelm of control by its people and we are subject to its demands. That my friends is NOT a deomcracy, it is a 'managed' political state whereby the military is in control. I see. Is the USA actually a Pakistan in disguise or in denial with a faux President that might be better called General? I don't think so.
Why then is there not a Gerald Ford solution to Iraq? Why do we have to RETURN to the 'theater' of Afghanistan? Haven't we suffered enough in the death of our children and can't this President simply bring home the troops and close the borders so we are safe? Would we settle for that? Is it realistic? Could NATO be the real issue and all the struggle in Afghanistan and Pakistan is simply an illusion like Vietnam where INDEED The Military Industrial Complex sincerely did have control of the USA's '? peace ?' agenda.
To begin, this is NOT the 1960s or The Silent Majority. We did learn from those idiotic and meaningless warring years. The troops from Vietnam were brought home and we enjoyed a 'peace time economy' for decades that followed. So, to say we as Americans are doomed to be dominated by our military isn't realisitic, it is reactionary.
Civilized societies do feel pain. They do not advocate torture or seek to war. Troop loses are profoundly felt and in the case of "W"rongful wars it is direly felt by all those that 'realize the truth' with every death like Chinese Water Torture. There goes those 'Chinese' implications again. Hm?
So. Like. What is it with the rhetoric? Did the military Psy-Ops actually kidnap the President in his sleep and 'do a number on him?' Nah, that is too sci-fi. Not to make light of an issue that has brevity, so like what's up?
It is the same military with Generals that have been around for decades. It is the same vocabulary because it is THE SAME military. Charlie, Baker, Einstein. It is also the same Secretary of Defense, oops, back in the day it was Rumfeld. But, sincerely, the military is regimented so in a 'sad' way there is a lot of 'sameness' in its mechanisms and 'cultural' implications. AND. What do you call a terrorist, except, a terrorist? How do you say there are known threats to the USA by terrorists, except to say, "There are known threats to the USA by terrorists." I remind, it was the days BEFORE September 11th that the Bush/Cheney White House completely dropped the ball. It was the "Bin Laden Known to Strike the USA" that Condi Rice could never explain away. It was the reports from Germany that was never given brevity. Remember? The 911 Commission and all that.
I mean there was a September 11, 2001. Certainly THAT is real enough to classify as THE TRUTH.
The profound difference, that rhetoric ignores and seeks to desanctify, is the enemy. In Vietnam it was a 'concept' of world domination. The enemy in Afghanistan and that has exploited Pakistan and probably Kashmir is real. We aren't fighting a 'concept,' we are fighting to defeat 'an entity' that is KNOWN to kill innocent people from within the borders of their country by using their own infrastructure. The 'enemies' in Vietnam AND Iraq were contrived. They were based in 'fear' and elements of 'possibility.' The USA does have enemies. Only. This time. It isn't a nation that can be invaded. It is THE LACK of a sincere government in countries sadly ignored and controlled by more powerful nations to keep war from the borders of powerful players and instead played out in regions such as Afghanistan.
I refuse to put blinders on to the dangers of terrorist networks allowed to grow in the last eight years, inspired by victories of al Qaeda and the weakening of civilization. I didn't expect, nor do I think, President Obama expect the sincere reality of the 'vigor' of The Taliban and its affiliations with al Qaeda that actually allows Mullah Omar to entertain a return to Kandahar. That is completely bizarre.
I am impressed by the prowess of Secretary Clinton and her 'rigorous' agenda with all the nations of region of Afghanistan. I am impressed by her ability to draw the attention of Russia to an agenda of peace and 'inclusion' of a NATO activity. I am impressed by a Karzai I witnessed yesterday with renewed consent to battle an enemy the world sincerely regards in 'unison' as an enemy worth defeating.
Karzai Says US War Strategy 'Better Than Expected' (click here)
By Barry Newhouse Islamabad
28 March 2009
The presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan welcomed the Obama administration's new plan for the conflict in the region on Saturday, with each highlighting key parts of the strategy for praise....
If I thought for one minute, I was reacting to fear, willing to endanger civilian lives or disregard the pain I feel for every military soldier facing a fate in battle for some irrational exchange of ideation or domination by the USA Military Complex, I won't entertain for one minute 'the idea' that a continued war in Afghanistan that also includes regions of Pakistan. I would be stating as I have always stated regarding Iraq. We don't belong in Iraq. We never did. I can sincerely say, there is UNFINISHED and ABANDONED business. It is NOT 'local' issues of civil war. It is not a matter of uniting Pakistan and Afghanistan as if it were a Kurdistan. It is about actual events, actual dangers and the desire for civlization to 'victor' its potential and win its safety.
This is about towers crashed to the ground, civilians dead, airplanes used as bombs and a Pennsylvania farm field evidenced to the struggle of our people against an invading force.
There is no one a bigger BELIEVER of the talent and insight of Michael Moore. There is no one that would seek to engage his ability to 'police' the government and its depersonalized ability to control the fate of its citizens more than I. The 'LEFT' as it is called has talent beyond anyone's willingness to say. It has insight that is disregarded for its potential to change the dynamics of business and wealth. It is characterized all too often as socialist when in fact it is conservative with an ability to 'realize' shortcomings of what any democracy is rightfully responsible. "The Left" in politics doesn't believe in causing pain. It believes in 'resulting' justice that a democracy, of...by...and for the people...is supposed to be responsible for. The Left believes in 'the promises' of our forefathers. It believes in a responsible society with 'realistic' platforms that work for its citizens. It isn't about postponing human issues, it is about addressing them in a timely and forthright manner that is dictated by compassion and human rights.
I don't seek to ridicule any of those I would consider as peers. I would seek to elevate their concern while advocating for reason and potential for shortsightedness, while indeed, I will examine any that I am guilty of.
I trust Barak Obama. At. Least. For now.
