February 27, 2009
The Silence of the Liberals
As Obama launches "war on terrorism" II
by Justin Raimondo
I see that the Pentagon has reversed its old policy of refusing to allow photographs of those flag-draped coffins as our dead soldiers return from the battlefield. One wonders, however, how much interest there will be in taking and publishing such photos now that President Barack Obama is in office. One also wonders how long it will take the media to acknowledge the new quagmire we're sinking into if and when the numbers of casualties start increasing – as they are sure to do.


After all, Obama's war is going to be taking place on a much larger, more difficult canvas than that of his predecessor's, which was confined in large part to Iraq. All of Afghanistan will soon be teeming with newly-arrived US soldiers, sent there – direct from Iraq – to fulfill the President's pledge to start fighting the "right war" in the right way, a "smart" way. Oh, these guys (and gals) are the Best and the Brightest, aren't they?


The smarty-pants tone and style of this administration is already beginning to grate on my nerves, as they pander to their base on the symbolic issues – like the coffin question – in hopes no one will notice as they backtrack on more important matters. So far, it doesn't seem to be working out all that well.


Glenn Greenwald isn't cutting them any slack on the torture brouhaha – he's already pointed out that they'll still be torturing people, albeit not with their own hands in some instances, and that if Guantanamo is closed, Bagram – where similar activities are known to take place – is going to be open for "business."


Most of the Obama-zoids are happy, however, because, after all, Keith Olbermann assures them we've entered the new millennium, the Dear Leader is in the White House, and all's right with the world. But is it?


Not by a long shot. Has anyone noticed Obama's vaunted 16-month withdrawal-from-Iraq plan has already stretched into 19 months – and the "residual force" he kept talking about during the campaign, as if it were a mere afterthought, turns out to be 50,000 strong?


Originally, none of those "residuals" were supposed to be combat troops – yet now we are told "some would still be serving in combat as they conducted counterterrorism missions." You have to go all the way to the very end of this New York Times report before you discover that, according to Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell, "A limited number of those that remain will conduct combat operations against terrorists, assisting Iraqi security forces."


In short: we aren't leaving.


I don't care what the status of forces agreement says: that document has more loopholes than the bank bailout bill's provisions for paying back the American taxpayers. Those 50,000 "residual" occupiers will simply pull back into their permanent bases, which are even now being constructed throughout Iraq, to be called on when our sock-puppets find themselves unable to tamp down the growing spirit of rebellion.


What kind of a "withdrawal" is this? It is one so burdened with contingencies, conditional footnotes, and amendatory clauses, that it falls beneath its own weight and collapses into a fair approximation of the status quo.


Antiwar voters who cast their ballots for Obama have succeeded in rolling the stone all the way up a rather steep hill, only to see it fall down the other side – and we are right back where we started. The next hill is called Afghanistan, and beyond that is yet another: Pakistan.


Not even Bush tried to fight a two-front war: Obama, however, is leaping into Afghanistan with alarming speed. Sending those 17,000 troops was one of the first acts of his administration, announced well before any of the economic measures. The economy may be crumbling, but the empire cannot be allowed to go the same way – that's the lunatic mentality of our rulers, whose priorities reflect a Washington mindset still stuck in the glory days of American hegemony.


Under Obama, the military budget will rise by 4 percent, and this isn't counting the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan. As Cato Institute research fellow Benjamin H. Friedman puts it: "Many Americans believe that Barack Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress will lower defense spending and restrain the militaristic foreign policy it underwrites. The coming years should destroy that myth."


Yes, but myths die hard. It will take a couple of shiploads of flag-draped coffins – and perhaps a couple of alarming incidents in Afghanistan and environs – to wake up Obama's liberal supporters to what they're presently enabling with their silent complicity. In the meantime, the creaking wheels of empire are turning as we gather our forces for another even more perilous mission that will take us straight into the fabled graveyard of would-be world-conquerors otherwise known as Afghanistan. Why? How? To what purpose? A thousand questions raise themselves up, like the first crocuses of spring – but the Obama administration isn't answering, because no one of any importance is asking. Just little old me – and, maybe you. And maybe Rachel Maddow, now and then: and that's pretty much it. Surely the alleged "antiwar movement" isn't interested – they're too busy hailing Obama's election.


The President's budget requests for Iraq and Afghanistan total $75 billion through the fall, and $130 billion for next year. That means we'll be spending nearly $11 billion per month for at least the next year and a half.


This bothers exactly no one in Washington, and especially not in the White House or the Democratic caucus chamber: after all, these people believe that government spending – any sort of spending – is what will fix our ailing economy right now. So why not increase the mis-named "defense" budget, anyway – don't you want an economic recovery, or are you, like Rush Limbaugh, hoping the President will fail?


Yes, you know we've entered a new era when I start citing Limbaugh favorably, and yet that's the sad part about all this: it is now left to Limbaugh and his talk radio confreres to point out the backsliding and howling hypocrisy in this administration's policies, both foreign and domestic, because the liberals – with a few exceptions – have been struck dumb by their "victory."


--------------------------------------------------------------------
It's kinda sick to be amused by ObamaZombies, but I hate to tell you that "Change you can believe in" turns out to be all that will be left of your paycheck (if you even still have a job) once Uncle Sam gets done.

Might as well finish it and not leave ourselves open to attack, and where ever it takes us. Our men have fought to keep us free from rule of other, and if we don't one day you could be ruled by the jahad yourself. Hope you enjoy the thought cause I don't!!

Not that I'm the bubble bursting type, but I have good news and bad news. Good News is that we'll never have to worry about living under sharia law, Bad News is thats because we're already under the boot of an authoritarian Globalist cartel.

I agree to that as person not keen on politicians no matter republican independent or democratic, they should all be thrown out for not doing their job anyways

You won't hear me argue against that point.

If you have the time, you should watch Washington, You're Fired, I'm sure you could find it on the Google Video website.

Details all the reasons why and who should be fired from our Government.

i feel if we have the power to vote them in then we should be allowed to fire them too. Just like in Austrailia. Our government the most aggrieved bunch of idiots and a'holes I have ever seen

CT response;
By using war. Would killing off a whole generation of kids, military eligible, 18 to 28 years old, help the economy?
On the other end of the scale. Cutting back on Medicare and Medicaid, killing off a large number of, prescription dependent Elderly and Disabled, help the economy?

I personally believe our Leaders have very little regard for life and I wouldn't put it past them.
Just a thought.

seakolony, i hate to say this, but, only the electoral votes count. there's been a couple of times where a president has gotten the popular vote but not the electoral vote, so the president that was popular with the people didn't become president. it's been evident too many times, that our vote doesn't trump the electoral vote period.

a candidate could actually lose the people's vote and win the electoral,that candidate would be president and the people's choice would loose.

Incorrect.

Your personal vote counts to determine who your states electorial vote goes to.

gore won the popular vote, lost the electoral vote. people's vote didn't count.


"It may surprise you to know that Russia has a more direct presidential election process than the United States. In the United States, a system called the Electoral College periodically allows a candidate who receives fewer popular votes to win an election. In fact, there have been several presidential candidates who won the popular vote, but lost the election because they received fewer electoral votes. In Russia, where no such system exists, the candidate who r­eceives a majority of popular votes wins the election."


"Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. Some states have laws that require electors to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote, while other electors are bound by pledges to a specific political party. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, and there is no federal law or Constitutional provision against it."

more info on this is on the 'how stuff works' website

http://people.howstuffworks.com/question472.htm


more people should understand how their election process runs.

I agree people should understand, but you obviously dont.
Your vote counted. It determined which candidate would receive your states electoral votes.
Without the electoral count you might as well allow NY and Calif determine the outcome of the vote and Fed matters that concern your state.

fanta, did you even read the post? or are you just going to disagree with everything i post?

correct popular vote by state determines the electorial vote of the state. The electorial votes allotted to a state are determined by the amount of people living in that state. That is how the electorial college works

ok, i see i'm not getting anyone to go look and see. i guess everyone on this post are the smartest people in the world and knows everything and can't be taught a thing. no problem.

see?

now you're catching on

Yeah, I read it.

Deciding the COUNTRY'S President would not be a fair process without the electoral college count.

i guess those countless hours of research that i've done was all for nothing. i must not have learned a thing. maybe i should sit here and learn from you guys who get all your information from the news anchors and talkshow hosts.

Actually its called political science in college

there is nothing in the Constitution calling for a popular vote

it only says "states will select electors in a manner of their choosing"

the popular vote is just a tradition to make the masses feel good