Why It Matters

There are many reasons why the presidential choice in November matters. Here's one:

As of Friday, Aug. 29, 2008, at least 4,151 members of the U.S. military have died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

< Non-Palin Open Thread 2 | Thank You, John McCain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    But that's far too Big Picture (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Dadler on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:51:01 PM EST
    The Dems are too busy chewing each other's leg hairs off.  Sniping about this, that, or the other.  Worrying that Palin is a trap.  Boo Hoo.  You're right, T-Chris, but will anyone listen?  Too many "liberals" are trying desperately to convince themselves that McCain really won't be that bad on the war, the judiciary, taxes for the rich, you name it.  Meanwhile, we occupy a nation that wants nothing more to do with our presence.  Make that two, sorry.

    Let's keep fighting about Palin and Obama and Experience and gender and traps and wathcing our words.  Heaven forbid we should actually speak loudly and clearly on matters of literal life and death.  And how many HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS have we murdered/help murder?

    Who cares, I guess.

    Dadler (none / 0) (#10)
    by BrianJ on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:14:24 PM EST
    Your complaints need to be addressed to the Obama campaign and its surrogates, not us.  If Obama cannot address those policies himself, it's not our fault.  If Obama's surrogates add to their long list of blatantly sexist statements, that too isn't our fault.

    One word (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ErnestoDelMundo on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:58:18 PM EST

    Are we going to continue to screw future generations or are we going to move away from a 19th century fuel?

    Today's veep pick made it as clear a choice as could be.

    BTW..I haven't posted on this blog in ages and I come back to find something that looks more like FreeRpublic or Little Green Footballs. What the hell??? TalkLEFT? I don't think so!

    Right on Ernesto! (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:18:06 PM EST
    Hopefully, after the election, TL will return to it's much-loved roots.

    BTD has said he'll be moving on after the election, let's hope he keeps his word...


    When did he say that? I think he needs a blog (none / 0) (#26)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:26:14 PM EST
    of his own anyway. He has a big following.

    Thats (none / 0) (#34)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:34:48 PM EST
    right!  Ernie likes Echo chambers.  don't have to think as much.

    If you're talking about the commenters (none / 0) (#40)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:50:48 PM EST
    is dissent passe?  The FPers are in favor of this ticket.  Many commenters are too.  Just sayin'.  

    Good to see you back Ernesto. (none / 0) (#49)
    by TChris on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:17:59 PM EST
    and you think Obama... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 06:58:47 PM EST
    ...will make a difference?

    Here's a clue Chris?  Remember Obama's commitment to withdraw from Iraq in 16 months.  Here is the full text of Obama's acceptance speech.


    find the words "16 months" in them.

    When you do, get back to me.  

    There is such a big difference (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:14:25 PM EST
    between someone as Pro-War, as unapologetically in favor of the war, as supportive of the surge, as McCain is, and Obama.  

    Obama may hedge on his promises and look to the political climate when choosing his words on the war, but it was repeated every night of the convention that he would get us out, or that he was always against it.  That's a hard promise to back away from.  Someone whispered in the ears of a lot of speakers to mention that he was against Iraq.  And they did.

    You will hear no such thing from the Republican Convention.  McCain simply doesn't think getting out in a timely manner is important.

    Unfortunately, our elections are like binary code.  0 and 1.  That is pretty much all we have to choose from, and if you want to get out of Iraq, the answer is Obama.  


    McCain is not pro-war.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:24:20 PM EST
    ...indeed, I think McCain will be much more reluctant to (and less likely to) commit troops than Obama.  

    McCain knows what its like to be in the military.  And he really does care about the troops -- he makes it a point to talk to veterans at least once a week.   For McCain, the sacrifices made by our military personal is a truly personal issue -- and I don't think he is going to ask them to sacrifice more unless its absolutely necessary.


    Paul (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:47:41 PM EST
    do you think the surge was right?  McCain wanted us to put more troops in the line of fire.  Hearing him say "Surge 2" is a really possibility...as is "Surge 3" and 4.  

    If he is truly in touch with what it is like to be in the military, then why does he support torture?  Why did he support this crazy war to begin with?

    I must respectfully disagree with you on this issue.  


    of course i disagreed with the surge... (none / 0) (#43)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:07:36 PM EST
    ...and I think that the only reason we've seen "progress" in Iraq has been because of the threat of a US withdrawal under a democratic president poses to Maliki.

    But Obama approved funding for the surge...so I don't see much difference in their positions.   Obama does not seem to have the kind of character that can sucessfully resist the inevitable pressure to "militarize" a crisis, nor does he have the background necessary to differentiate between when troops are necessary, and when they are not.

    I personally believe that McCain's sabre-rattling is just that.  Lets face it, George Bush is so weak right now that if I was an "evil dictator", I'd be thinking seriously about making some moves -- and I think I know why McCain is talking so tough.


    Then if we get a Republican president (none / 0) (#46)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:36:26 PM EST
    do you think progress would backslide?  That would be bad.

    I know Obama has approved funding.  Like many of our other Dems, taking chances is not his thing.  Personally I think the Dems were saving all their energy for the Nov election, which I find cowardly but will have to be dealt with nonetheless.  

    Still I feel confident that Obama is buoyed by the polling that suggests Americans don't like the conflict in Iraq.  I don't think the pressure to further militarize Iraq will be coming.  And he and the party have given their word...if they ever want to be elected again, they ought to begin keeping it within 2-4 years.

    McCain hasn't got the obligation to withdraw.  And his party won't care if he withdraws from Iraq or not.  He's given no indication he will.  So I think Obama is better on this issue.


    your being (none / 0) (#54)
    by pennypacker on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:57:48 PM EST
    irrational and must a McCain plant if you think that

    Depends on "conditions on the (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:03:34 PM EST
    ground" doesn't it?

    Over 5 years into this war... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:22:38 PM EST
    and yes, it's a horrific number of dead and maimed.

    To me, it's a sickening deja vu...Vietnam 2.0.

    I was in the streets nearly ten years before that one came to a frantic and miserable close...59,000 dead GIs, 300,000 maimed and wounded...uncounted Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, allies.

    It's somewhat relative, you see.  The numbers, I mean.  They have somehow lost their power to shake us out of our everyday lives of fateful acceptance.

    And time...time has lost its power too.  We are only 'halfway thru this occupation' if Vietnam is any guide...timewise.

    We seem not to have learned any of the lessons of that war...the war of my young adulthood.  I never thought that generation would allow a repeat after that insanity.  That reality stuns me still.

    It's not that people don't care...but they don't care enough.  Not enough to do anything about it.  Not really.  It's not a part of their daily reality...not unless you're a military family or a peace activist.

    It's not even at the top of the issues list anymore.

    "It's still the economy, stupid!"

    When Americans can't go shopping because their credit cards are maxed out, THEN there is trouble.  You remember...it was after 9-11 that George Bush advised Americans to "go shopping."  They reelected him -- several catastrophes and 2 wars later.

    And the Democrats?  MY Democrats?  Too busy eating their own to take on the Republicans.

    And now this fantastical primary and election.  So bizarre.  Unreal.  So old politics once again.

    I am horrified too, so (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by abfabdem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:35:36 PM EST
    let's see, how many times did Obama speak out against the war on the Senate floor?  And how many times did he vote against continuing to fund it? (that one, he did one time recently).  But to the first question, this very effective orator said . . . .nothing.  So let's just say I don't have a lot of confidence (and I am someone who wrote him repeatedly about it as he is one of my Senators--I was always horrified that he supported it with funding given he was supposedly anti-war).  Deeds, not just talk . . . .

    And let's just see (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by TChris on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:24:02 PM EST
    how many other of our favorite senators voted to fund the war.  Because Bush was going to leave them in Iraq, funded or not.

    But it was only Hillary (none / 0) (#55)
    by abfabdem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:09:38 PM EST
    who was crucified for it, not Edwards, not Kerry, not Biden, only her . . . .

    Right there with you (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:35:48 PM EST
    There are so many reasons why this country needs a democrat in office this election cycle. Listing those reasons over and over and over doesn't change them. We all know what we're looking at.

    We have a Democratic majority congress, and they've been in charge for 2 years. They bear the lowest approval rating ever. Lower even than the Republican president. And that group wants us to reward them with a Democratic president so they can do whatever they want.

    I'm not confident that the candidate has any fiscal responsibility genes. The decadent living he is doing on the money "the people" are giving him is way outside necessity for running an effective campaign. Considering the state of the economy, shouldn't he be encouraging those who have change to spare to help their neighbors? He had access to public funds, but he wouldn't be able to have these flashy events on that.

    I don't know that the Democratic party is necessarily the party of the working class, anymore. Speeches won't convince me. I need to see something that proves this candidate really can understand the people of this country.

    We've seen what he does with a fat checkbook. And, when he starts to run low, he just keeps telling people to give him more. He hasn't proven to me that he's the right mind to grasp what needs to happen to improve our economy.

    So, just rolling my eyes and trusting that one party is going to do better over the other in our near future won't happen. I'm going to watch, read, and listen carefully to these candidates. I won't be scared, bullied, or begged into doing anything.

    TChris, to suggest (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by cpinva on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:24:08 PM EST
    that will all change, on nov. 4th, or even shortly thereafter, should obama be elected, displays a scary level of naivte'.

    it won't stop anytime within the next year, regardless of who is elected, since that would most likely be the minimum time required for an orderly departure.

    so don't delude yourself, obama isn't going to save any lives any time soon.

    I don't think it will change in November. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by TChris on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:00:06 AM EST
    I think it will change much more quickly under Obama.  I don't think it will change at all, for years, under McCain.

    Another reason it matters. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:04:34 PM EST
    Last week there was an exchange of correspondence between Mukasey on behalf of the FBI and Conyers as to a change in procedure for the FBI. The FBI wants regulations which allow  them, in the United States and directed to legal US residents and citizens, to be able to search their homes and cars, tap their phons, surveille them, and take other steps without a warrant or even a belief on the part of the FBI that the surveilled and rifled person has committed any crime at all, all done internally and without warrants. Until now, the standard for doing a tap, a search or the like was 'probable cause' that is, the FBI had to have a good faith belief that the person had committed a crime or was doing so, and had to convince a judge of that in order to tap, search, etc. Their proposal now is that no probable cause should be required and no warrant from a judge need to be obtained  and they need not even have any belief or evidence that the person has committed any crime at all or is related to one, before they do it. this is Bush's guy and the R candidate has not proposed that he would not make this change, any more than he will do anything about torture and rendition.

    Another: The Constitution provides that both the allocation of Congressional seats, and the census which supports such, should count every 'free person' other than Indians not taxed and the slaves counted at three fifths of a person each. the Rs now propose that the census should only include 'citizens'. Won't count legal immigrants not yet citizens and others legally here who have not applied for citizenship. No constitutional amendment required.

    So where does Obama stand on (none / 0) (#15)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:19:02 PM EST
    warrants and searches. Really stand that is? And where's the congressional spine?

    Well I believe he stands at least closer (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:22:34 PM EST
    to what I believe than what McCain does.  That's a no brainer for me.

    did you ever imagine.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:26:08 PM EST
    ...that Obama would vote for a bill with telecom immunity?

    No I didn't (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:55:12 PM EST
    but I was 99% sure McCain would and he did.

    Obama was wrong on this.  I said so.  I hope he reverses things in office.  


    mcCain, your other choice, certainly voted (none / 0) (#29)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:29:42 PM EST
    for it and has said nothing about the rest, including torture and rendition.

    One of the things O said was that as soon as he got into office, he was going to go through and reverse and eliminate the executive orders and rulings which affected these matters, and rendition and torture, etc. The ones he could change without a Congressional bill. Not the FBI change, but that only came out last week and he said what he said some time ago, but I do suspect as a Con Law professor, he would consider that one as well. "Probable cause' was not until Mukasey acted something that anyone questioned.


    that's not what Obama said... (none / 0) (#44)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:18:29 PM EST
    ...you need to learn to parse Obama, because as we saw with the FISA debacle, he deliberately misleads people about his intentions.

    What Obama actually said was that he would review all executive orders and rescind those that are unconstitutional, btw.

    And if/when Obama continues to allow torture, and you say "but you promised", he'll say "no i didn't".... and he'll be right.


    "just trust me" (none / 0) (#52)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:40:42 PM EST
    I believe that is the phrase every parent warns their daughters about.

    McCain doesn't think there's anything wrong (none / 0) (#62)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 12:10:04 PM EST
    with them, Constitutional or otherwise. He would keep the lot, including torture and elimination of habeas corpus and put us in a permanent state of legal war which would allow him never to return any of them. Is that what you want for your country?

    Yes, but (none / 0) (#6)
    by koshembos on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:09:12 PM EST
    There absolutely no doubt that the Republicans and McCain are killing us, torturing us, spying on us, make us poor and will cause the country to go bankrupt. But is a hate monger, a guy who sold us a bill of goods in the form of poatpartisanship, hope and change, the one that will stop that? I doubt it.

    I will take my chances (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:11:11 PM EST
    That's not good enough. (none / 0) (#9)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:13:59 PM EST
    Stand for something or stand for nothing.

    I cannot believe you guys fail to get it.


    Sorry, I am not willing to make a point (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:16:45 PM EST
    at the expense of four more years like the last eight years.  Heard enough about that from the Nader folks in 2000.  I prefer living in the real world.  

    I live in the real world. (none / 0) (#16)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:19:47 PM EST
    I listen and watch and learn.

    I have a college degree, a BA and an MA.

    I can be taught.

    Obama hasn't done that.

    You guys are losing the war.


    If McCain/Palin trips your trigger (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:29:18 PM EST
    then go for it.  Again, I will very happily take my chances with Obama.

    I would rather be disappointed from time to time with Obama than have my expectations regularly met by John McCain.


    Absolutely (none / 0) (#33)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:34:22 PM EST

    The future is just that. McCain is full of surprises.

    If Obama would take positions that refelcted dem values, it would be easy to support him.

    Sorry.  He's no contrast to McCain.


    You're right on one count (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:39:20 PM EST
    McCain can surprise you.  He used to be an occasional independent voice in the GOP, and he surprised me by becoming just another neocon in order to get elected.  

    Obama is different (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by mbuchel on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:43:15 PM EST
    on the war, on foreign policy, on taxes, on the environment, on energy, on health care, on education, on the housing crisis, and on and on and on.

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by TChris on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:16:19 PM EST
    has taken position after position after position that reflect the values of Democrats.  McCain has taken position after position after position that reflect the values of George Bush and Dick Cheney.  I just don't understand why people who claim to be progressive find this so hard to understand.

    I do stand for something (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:21:36 PM EST
    I stand for being proud to have supported a woman who supported liberal causes for four decades, the same causes I worked for.  I stand for NOT BETRAYING WHAT SHE STOOD FOR by allowing a right winger to win the WH. I stand for not being duped into thinking any woman works......because I could no more support this woman Palin whom he chose, the woman who might end up having to take over the job, when she was a Buchanan supporter, when she is against the issues that I believe are important to women.  You may as well ask me to vote for Phyllis Schafley because she has ovaries.

    Obama flip flopped (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
    on FISA and picked for his VP a man who's in the pocket of lobbyists, voted for the AUMF, and is as entrenched in DC old politics as one can get.

    Do NOT talk to me about Palin.


    What I see from you (none / 0) (#23)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:24:20 PM EST
    is hype.  She can also flip flop on issues.  God knows the men always get away with it.

    Not going to work this time.

    Supposed dems blew it when they trashed Hillary.  

    Reap what you've sown.


    BULL (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:56:59 PM EST
    I don't buy it.
    Obama made some mistakes.  The DNC made bigger mistakes.  The right wing republicans have been making the biggest mistakes......in my lifetime.

    You want to betray what Hillary stands for...have at it.


    Anybody being "duped" by Palin (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:30:00 PM EST
    shouldn't be voting! That is one weak a** argument. It's no secret what her stand on issues is. They will be blasted from now till Nov. Most polls show the economy the main issue, abortion way down on the list. She won't single-handedly be over-turning RvW. Congress/Dems needs to grow a spine and quite letting the Repubs get away with whatever they want. Obama, are you listening?

    And you would rather take someone who is (none / 0) (#32)
    by Christy1947 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:32:40 PM EST
    guaranteed to  keep those provisions and do those things to you and yours, and never get back to the Constitution at all, the one he would be sworn to protect and defend, than one about whom you have doubts about what he will remove? Do I have that right?

    Yes, you have nicely captured their argument (none / 0) (#38)
    by DemForever on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:40:42 PM EST
    And it will teach the Dems a really good lesson to boot

    I agree, good thing Bush isn't running (none / 0) (#8)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:12:33 PM EST
    And yes, I know the strategy is to equate McCain with Bush. Which is the best thing they can do. But that's PR and Hype and politics. Sadly I'm not sure which of these two candidates will be best in that department.

    I have talked to several of (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:17:22 PM EST
    my friends, colleagues and relatives who were diehard Hillary supporters; who were angry as hell at some of the things the DNC did.  Not one of them is interested in the McCain ticket.  Most of them are letting go like Hillary is and moving forward and voting Obama/Biden.  McCain's slap in the face just makes it easier.

    It's not a slap in the face. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:21:48 PM EST
    It's not about them at all. I wish people could actually figure that out instead of howling how McCain's never gonna get their vote. He wasn't anyway.

    And as for Iraq, Obama seems to just want to move the war from Iraq to Afghanistan. I dont see how that makes the problem any better.


    My daughter, (none / 0) (#19)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:21:50 PM EST
    who's an Obama supporter, told me tonight that Palin takes this to a whole different level.

    She's 25 years old, and she gets it.


    Let's see, DNC and Obama repeatedly slapped (none / 0) (#20)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:22:28 PM EST
    them, but that's ok because McCain supposedly slapped them today even though they weren't interested in his ticket?

    Do I have that right?


    You do have that right and, yes (none / 0) (#31)
    by abfabdem on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 07:31:30 PM EST
    it makes no sense so why are people relating what McCain did on his ticket to what Obama did on his?  Not relevant.  Obama could have picked Hillary (or ideally she would have picked him), but he didn't.  The 25 year old a couple posts above has it right that it takes this to a whole other level.  One thing it is doing is continuing to expose the sexism of the Democratic Party.

    The "slap in the face to Democratic women" seems to be a talking point right now being repeated on Air America.  And also Palin's lack of experience. As BTD pointed out, they should be really careful with that one.


    She may not have a ton of experience (none / 0) (#45)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 08:20:44 PM EST
    but it looks like she has made good use of her offices. I don't agree with her on some major issues, but she seems like a gutsy, smart woman who can handle what life hands her. I like seeing that and think it's good for our younger women and girls to see also. Just because she's not a Democrat doesn't mean she doesn't bring some positives with her. For the record, I'm not voting for McCain, but if she ends up as VP, I'll be hoping that she does a bang up job. A Palin/Clinton face off in 2012 would be a blast from the women's standpoint.

    Palin/Clinton? (none / 0) (#50)
    by TChris on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:22:25 PM EST
    You're pretty sure McCain is planning to retire or die after 4 years?

    I thought he was talking one term? (none / 0) (#57)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:30:06 PM EST
    I don't see him running for 2, but maybe he will.

    I just think it would be a hoot to see the 2 face off in 2012 and there was a possibility. My gut feeling on her as a "worker" and perhaps "wonky", thinks it would be a good match up for America to see. While she may be conservative, I think she has traits that make a good match up against Hillary (but Hillary would win of course!). A couple of women sitting there laying out their platforms on issues and debating them. Both strong and smart with some good guts. Hey, a girl can dream, right?  ;) I like Palin's style from what I've seen/read and think it would be a hit for women.

    And no, I absolutely do not think he will die or want him too.


    I have no doubt that Hillary would beat her. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by TChris on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 11:57:04 PM EST
    War? (none / 0) (#53)
    by bayville on Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 10:51:36 PM EST
    There's a war going on? Haven't heard about it for awhile. Guess I just forgot about it?
    You're talking about Irak I take it?

    It definitely matters but ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Andreas on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 02:01:11 AM EST
    ... there is no essential difference between McCain and Obama.

    As the WSWS wrote:

    But his indictment of the Bush, McCain & Co. was notable for what it left out. There was no mention of Guantánamo, torture, secret CIA prisons, illegal wiretapping, or all the other violations of democratic rights carried out on the pretext of conducting a "war on terror." In a key Senate vote last month, Obama backed expanded wiretapping and surveillance powers for agencies like the National Security Agency and the FBI.

    Equally significant, Obama criticized the war in Iraq as a strategic blunder, not an act of aggression that has resulted in the slaughter of over one million innocent people. ...

    Even Obama's pledges of improved social conditions were linked to the growth of American militarism. Thus he called for a guarantee of an affordable college education to every young American "if you commit to serving your community or your country."

    While this language might appeal to young people facing skyrocketing tuition costs, it has a very definite, and very reactionary, subtext: Obama is planting the seeds for a new Democratic administration to reestablish the draft. Such an effort would certainly be accompanied not only by manufactured panic over some new foreign policy crisis or terrorist attack, but by claims that compulsory military service is needed in the name of "fairness" and "shared sacrifice." ...

    Even more ominously, he declared, "We need a president who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past." In other words, instead of continuing the stalemate in Iraq, Obama wants to extract US troops from that quagmire so they can be used in Afghanistan, against Iran, or in the struggle against more powerful antagonists like China and Russia.

    Obama's Denver speech:
    Populist demagogy in the service of militarism
    By Patrick Martin, 30 August 2008

    again, i think you're being naive. (none / 0) (#61)
    by cpinva on Sat Aug 30, 2008 at 09:04:20 AM EST
    I think it will change much more quickly under Obama.

    the only way it's going to change quickly, is with a departure based solely on how fast we can get transports loaded and moved out, not on the actual ground situation.

    iraq is a country in chaos, thanks to george bush. all that stands between taliban/al queda control is the US military. the iraqi military is light years away from being competent to establish countrywide security on its own. unless we can convince the UN to place a huge force (a huge force that would be primarily composed of US troops) in iraq, to replace us, we're stuck, for years. that is just a political and military fact.

    obama, et al can opine all they want, there's really almost no way of getting around this logisitical nightmare, unless we're willing to concede the country to the terrorists.

    should a president obama do this, consider it the public suicide of the democratic party.