Wednesday July 23, 2008, 3:15 am
2-faced ass!

Wednesday July 23, 2008, 6:51 am
Noted with disgust. Thanks Michael.

Wednesday July 23, 2008, 9:21 am
noted,with disgust and a heavy heart.....

Wednesday July 23, 2008, 6:05 pm
And I'd had such grand hopes for
Senator Obama.......until I found
out how he's sucked-up to AIPAC.
He's no different from any other D.C.
politician. He's sworn his loyalty to
Tel Aviv, and he's almost as militaristic
as John McSame. What a disappointment!

Thanks, Michael.
noted.

Wednesday July 23, 2008, 6:39 pm
Obama is doing exactly what Bush & McCain are & would be doing.......

Don't we know by now the two parties are the same with different speeches!!!!!!!!

“A person however learned and qualified
in his life's work in whom gratitude is absent,
is devoid of that beauty of character which makes
personality fragrant”
Hazrat Inayat Khan

PLANT TREES FOR LIFE.................

Wednesday July 23, 2008, 6:50 pm
Massive Brzezinski
Control Of Obama
The real power behind the throne-to-be...
7-23-8
http://www.rense.com/general82/dedfy.htm

It is hard to sort through the hype and heat of Obamania, but one thing is clear: who's pulling the strings, argues Eric Walberg

As the United States election race enters the final stretch, Barack Obama as the candidate promising change is revealing his true colours, much to the despair of anyone actually expecting any change. His recent call to declare Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel, his denial of Palestinians' right of return, and his support for a Bantustan Palestinian "state" which poses no threat to Israel show how completely he has caved in to the Zionist establishment on that issue.

As President George W Bush calls for early reductions in combat troops in Iraq, Obama's position on Iraq - a vow to bring troops home within 16 months, excepting a "residual force" - looks less and less of a defining moment in his foreign policy. Whatever happens to troop levels, there is no explicit talk of overriding the plans for 14 permanent bases.

Obama is toeing the line in Afghanistan, too. As NATO casualties continue to mount, surpassing monthly Iraqi causalities as of June this year, he is proposing - now seconded by McCain - that the United States shift up to 15,000 more troops there from Iraq. Just prior to his trip to Afghanistan, he wrote in a New York Times Op Ed, "We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence- gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there." Please, will someone show me the silver lining in an Obama victory in November?

But then none of the above should come as any surprise to those familiar with his chief promoter and foreign policy adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who, along with current (and likely future) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, has already entered history as helping "suck the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire". These are the words of President Jimmy Carter's Under-Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe in March 1979, eight months before the Soviets were successfully "sucked in", when Gates was CIA chief. The changing of the guard, come November, will change nothing. US foreign policy has a logic which transcends who sleeps in the White House.

What's especially ghoulish about all this is that there are five Brzezinski offspring who are all onboard the Obama wagon: Mark (director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton, and one of the prime movers of the 2004 color revolution in Ukraine), Ian (currently the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and NATO affairs and a backer of Kosovan independence, NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia and US ABM missiles in Poland), Mika (political commentator on MSNBC whose interview with Michele Obama contributed to the general media Obamania) and finally, Matthew (a friend of Ilyas Akhmadov, "foreign minister" and US envoy of the Chechen opposition).

Brzezinski's brand of anti-Russian, anti-Muslim geopolitics will dominate a future Obama administration. In Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, published last year, he lays out his New World Order agenda without so much as a blush. Apparently, there is a global political awakening going on, the goal of which is "dignity". Not economic development, not the alleviation of poverty, not national sovereignty against the IMF and World Bank. Just plain old dignity, though Zbig's brand of dignity is the kind attained through secession, balkanisation, and the creation of weak statelets for each ethnic minority subservient to the US. Think: Kosovo and - if he has his way - Chechenia. Neo- Wilsonian demagogy in the service not of peace but of US world domination, encirclement of Russia and control of the Arab world.

Zbig said in endorsing Obama: "What makes Obama attractive to me is that he understands that we live in a very different world where we have to relate to a variety of cultures and peoples." Obama's alleged global approach and trans-ethnic, trans-racial allure are right out of Zbig's university textbook, or rather Second Chance, which will be the manual for the Obama campaign and presidency.

Obama is literally a second chance for Brzezinski: having destroyed the Soviet Union and shattered the Warsaw Pact, he now wants to dismember the Russian Federation itself and put the finishing touches on Afghanistan as an impregnable US military base against China, Russia... the list is endless. Perhaps Zbig is dreaming of restoring Greater Poland circa 1600 - from the Black Sea to the Baltic, all controlled by petty szlachta aristocrats like... the Brzezinskis?

The Economist blog put it best: "A new brain for Barack Obama! It's 78 years old and it still works perfectly. It belongs to Zbigniew Brzezinski, the peppery ex-national security adviser to Jimmy Carter."

The messianic idealism of the Obama campaign has not been seen since the days of another Brzezinski creation - Jimmy Carter, who made him national security adviser with disastrous results. Brzezinski's anti- Russian obsession back in 1976 prompted him to foment the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, which he touted as the greatest single bulwark against Soviet communism. Tarpley argues that Brzezinski was even a prime behind-the-scenes mover in the overthrow of the Shah of Iran and installing Ayatollah Khomeini in power in Tehran. Brzezinski cared less about the Middle East and its oil than he did about the need for a centre from which Islamic fundamentalism of the most retrograde type could penetrate the soft southern underbelly of the USSR. For Brzezinski, the space between the southern frontier of the Soviet and the Indian Ocean littoral became an "arc of crisis", and we have his handiwork to thank for the horrors taking place there to this day.

The 1980 Carter Doctrine - that the US was determined to dominate the Persian Gulf - is at the root of the first Gulf War, of the present Iraq war, and of the possible war on Iran. Brzezinski's grandiose schemes of world transformation caused a renewal of the Cold War and gave birth to Al-Qaeda, and without Soviet restraint the results could easily have been far more tragic than they turned out to be. By 1980, disillusionment with Carter led to the nightmare of the Reagan regime. But this was of little concern to Brzezinski - a mere blip on his radar screen.

In 2008, we have an obscure Illinois senator, a neophyte with no legislative achievements to speak of, but with a raft of utopian promises, including solving the race problem once and for all. Recession, unemployment and an alarming rise in poverty are of no consequence; a golden age is at hand thanks to his magnetic personality. Since he knows nothing of foreign policy, these matters will be competently managed by the Brzezinski cabal.

But there seems to be one slight hitch. Despite Obama's slavish pro- Israeli genuflections of late, he is still not trusted by the Jewish lobby. Quite possibly because they know who the power behind the throne-to-be is, and they can't stomach him, nor he them. Addressing the AIPAC crew in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, he said, "They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonising. They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism. There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel."

But then Brzezinski was a key player in Carter's 1978 Camp David Accords, much loathed by the Zionists as giving up Sinai in exchange for a cold peace with Egypt. Brzezinski is definitely not a hardcore Zionist, though he's happy to allow the destruction of Palestine. Perhaps he is, under his suave exterior, still the quintessential Polish anti-Semite, with a vision of the New World Order without Israel at the centre.

If he can keep up the momentum, however, he may be able to outflank the Zionists in Washington and bringing his horse first past the finish line. They are on the defensive these days, what with spy trials, even J Street Project, a Jewish lobby group that - gasp - dares to criticise Israel. Is this, then, the silver lining in an Obama victory?

***

Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at www.geocities.com/walberg2002/

Wednesday July 23, 2008, 8:01 pm
Blah blah blah.
I'm as guilty as anyone of noting things without reading them, so I'll take this one on.

The article is by a socialist with a clear committment to pure socialist ideology. Of course this is the article such a person would write. But it doesn't change anything, because this nation is not ready for open socialism. Doesn't make socialism bad, cuz we could use a dose. But right now, in this nation at this time, socialism is not helpful.

If anyhting this article's widespread distribution is something that would help Obama's cause in November. It has little grasp on Obama's intentions or actions upon assuming office, and little to offer in practical terms.

As the effective activist Saul Alinsky put it in Rules for Radicals, activists must accept the world as it is in order to work effectively in it. Wishing things were different does not make them so. It behooves ideologically pure, politically useless socialist author to keep the sick reality of the state of the nation in mind when casting aspersions at those who represent steps up and out of our dark pit.

Wednesday July 23, 2008, 8:39 pm
Blue, I'd like to see you actually comment on a news story versus attack someone for posting a news story.

Wednesday July 23, 2008, 8:42 pm
Joe, the article is about Obama and not socialism.

Wednesday July 23, 2008, 10:01 pm
I never liked or agreed with obama anyway.

Wednesday July 23, 2008, 11:19 pm
YES i do agree with mccain

Thursday July 24, 2008, 11:30 am
So what else is new??? Meet the "new boss"... Same as the old boss...We will be fooled againnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...............

Friday July 25, 2008, 1:45 am
Joe.., you can't be serious. Everything you rallied of this candidate has been flipped flopped and you still are defending him....All I can guess is that you are letting your Democratic party loyalties control your mind and decisions, instead of accepting the "real" truth, which many of us are working to choke down...This is all about Obama's new outlined positions that he seems to think many of us have memory lose on what he just said a few months ago. His zest for unification within the party, and the people seems to have taken a back seat...Noted and thank you Michael.

Saturday July 26, 2008, 6:45 am
Joe, there have been many articles since Obama has declared himself the candidate that say pretty much the same things this article says. Obama is NOT a peace candidate and never was. His own website has his policy statements and last I read, right on his website it says he will keep "residual forces" in Iraq and "redeploy" troops from there to Afghanistan. He is using you and his other supporters who continue to be blind to this man's obscene grasping for power and his unrelenting compulsion to further his political career no matter the cost to the American people and the world.

Sunday July 27, 2008, 7:39 am
What a surprise that Darlene and Kathleen responded. Still going to write in McClintain?

There is nothing different about any of Obama's positions on Iraq and Afghanistan. The only ones saying so are Republicans critics on the right, who are trying to paint him as a flip-flopper to distract from McCain's flip-flopping, and critics on the left whose positions are good but are unrealistic. I have a problem with how Obama handled FISA but little else, and I do understand much of why FISA happened the way it did. I am plenty clear-eyed about political realities facing not only Obama but the Democrats and the USA as well.

Obama has stated many times that he is not a pacifist; he is not against all war, but dumb wars, and the mindset that goes into war. It's true that some people project their own desire for peace onto Obama and mistakenly see him as completely anti-war, but that is their mistake, not Obama's. Obama has long talked about redeploying to Afghanistan to finish what Iraq distracted us from doing. Similarly, the "residual" force in Iraq has always been part of his plan. In any case, it's lame and insulting to claim I or anyone is being "used" by Obama's campaign, especially when Clinton hyperpartisans are being used by the GOP.

The author of this article is someone arguing from an ideologically pure perspective, not a practical one. It's safe to say that no one espousing the stances outlined in the article could possibly win an election in THE USA today. That is why I do not consider it useful. The time to push Obama to the left is AFTER he wins, not BEFORE. Before does not work on a national scale at this time, as evidenced by the number of people who are still willing to believe lies spread by the corporate media.

Sunday July 27, 2008, 7:44 am
From the article:
"The Illinois senator used the trip to make clear his commitment to the indefinite occupation of Iraq"

See, this is flat wrong. A residual force is not an occupying force. It's going to be a training and anti-terror unit, not a full brigade. This is an author with an ideological ax to grind. He can go ahead, but it demonstrates that he's more inteested in the unattainable perfect than the attainable good.

Sunday July 27, 2008, 10:50 am
Joe Z writes:

"What a surprise that Darlene and Kathleen responded. Still going to write in Clinton?"

It's a perfectly reasonable option Joe. Only nine states don't allow write ins and many do and of those that do, quite a few only allow them if the candidate has register in that state as a candidate.

Not only that, Obama is the presumptive candidate. We technically won't be the official candidate until the convention.

"Obama has stated many times that he is not a pacifist; he is not against all war, but dumb wars, and the mindset that goes into war."

So wouldn't you agree that Iraq and Afghanistan are stupid wars? It o0nly stands to reason....

Sunday July 27, 2008, 10:52 am
Correction: That last statement should read:

Not only that, Obama is the presumptive candidate. Official candidate nominations aren't official until the convention. Hillary could still receive the nomination.

Sunday July 27, 2008, 11:56 am
No Michael, it is not a reasonable option. She has no chance to win. The choices are Obama and McCain. In any case she is an inferior candidate to Obama. She proved her dishonesty in the primary campaign by lying about Michigan and Florida. And while Obama is technically the presumptive nominee, the only way he won't be is if something very bad happens, as Clinton suggested in a despicable moment.

And we can debate Afghanistan, but there we had just cause and global support. It was a legal war unlike Iraq. It made sense to go in there to pursue bin Laden, altho if we'd had a different administration (say, Gore) we might've done that differently. But Iraq is NOT Afghanistan. We are not there to occupy the country like we are in Iraq.

Sunday July 27, 2008, 12:14 pm
The DNC is a few weeks away. If the Michigan & Florida delegates are seated and Hillary wins the nomination I want to see the look on Obama's face when he loses.

Sunday July 27, 2008, 10:07 pm
Joe, I love ya.., but your silly. You know darn well.., you hailed that NAFTA stance, which he has flopped on, you hailed his stance on "bringing Iran to the table" (NObama's words, not mine) and now NObama says, "Iran's a threat." He SWORE, PROMISED, ASOLUTELY, on protecting our privacy rights, BUT HE SIGNED FISA. Ohhh, the list goes on....I could hold it all up in bold print, validatedm and confirmed, in front of your face..., but YOU still wouldn't believe it...

Because you CAN'T FACE THE ALTERNATIVE, and that is okay. You are too weak in soul to do it, and there are others like you, but NOT as many as there was......
However, please many of us see through the illusion, especially when there are over 30 levels above top secret, which is above the President in our Intelligence Division. The ones who are really running the show, and producing "the reports and intelligence" to keep the President updated....
WAKE UP

See...., America is on shakey grounds with either candidate, as President. My military family is soo outraged over the primaries that they are out of their minds and now voting for McCain, because they are consumed in anger. I can't be around them too much, because I refuse to vote for McCain. See I get it both ways..heh. They were loyal Democrats too, but not after this year. I know they won't become permanent Republicans, and they are just acting from their misguided feelings, right now. Something many are doing, although they think they aren't....

I had to vote for Jimmy Carter, back in the day. And I wasn't happy voting for Bill Clinton, but I was a loyal Democrat and they were the best candidate, during those times. The choices were still yucky, but the DNC didn't stomp on any Democrats in fear of losing a voting base, in the general election. The people let the media manipulate them and so went the story. I can't believe you can't see through NObama's same agenda as the rest, with surface make-up. The DNC showed they were like the rest, they would cast aside our votes to suit their needs, period. The "party for the American people" went out the window, for me. The DNC and NObama SPLIT the party, and it will never be the same....

Joe, I really don't care who you vote for, I am praying for this nation's people to UNITE and take the power back by demanding from our leaders CHANGE to include, clean water, clean air, clean soil, stop deforestation, full humane and civil rights and freedoms. I pray that the President now, and the President of the future..., to have the strength to DO WHAT IS FOR THE GREATER GOOD OF THIS NATION AND ITS PEOPLE.

Monday July 28, 2008, 7:50 am
Obama went for the military vote.

Dar D.: You voted for Carter? I'll forgive you, but please, NO MORE revelations like that...I almost fell off my chair.

Friday August 8, 2008, 12:59 am
Aww there is my favorite dog, you know you LOVE my revelations...Namaste (yeah, I voted for Carter, I WAS a partyline gal, I had to forgive myself..heh, heh)