http://musliminsuffer.wordpress.com/
bismi-lLahi-rRahmani-rRahiem
In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful
=== News Update ===
Come 2008, Will Kucinich and the “New Democrats” Fool Us Again?
Kurt Nimmo, Another Day In the Empire
December 15, 2006
It’s the old same old in Washington.
Democrats, worried about not appearing "hawkish" enough—that is willing
to invade small countries and slaughter large numbers of innocents—are
attempting to out-neocon the perfidious neocons.
"If you think a new wind is blowing in Washington in terms of security
issues because the Democrats are going to take over Congress, you
probably have another think coming," Christopher Hellman of the
Washington, D.C.-based Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation told
OneWorld, according to Aaron Glantz.
Of course, "security issues" translates into more war and more money
squandered on antiquated defense systems, not needed since the fall of
the Soviet Union, or rather not needed by the American people but
certainly needed by the likes of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Science
Applications International Corp., General Dynamics, and last but not
least, Halliburton.
"Escalating conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the all-
volunteer force to the breaking point," declares an October report by
Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute, the policy arm of the
"centrist" (read: neocon lite) Democratic Leadership Council. "Democrats
should step forward with a plan to repair the damage, by adding more
troops, replenishing depleted stocks of equipment, and reorganizing the
force around the new missions of unconventional warfare,
counterinsurgency, and civil reconstruction."
Out of this murk steps, once again—call it a yawn-inspiring re-run—Ohio
Democrat Congress critter Dennis Kucinich, who tells us he will seek the
presidential nomination come 2008.
"In announcing his candidacy, Kucinich voiced concern that the
Democratic leadership’s continued support for the occupation of Iraq was
discrediting the party and placing it on a collision course with tens of
millions of voters who repudiated the war in the elections," writes
Jerry White.
Of course, the Democrat leadership, aforementioned as neocon lite, care
not they are on "a collision course with tens of millions of voters who
repudiated the war in the elections."
Since when do Democrats and Republicans care about what the American
people want?
Poor Dennis. He actually believes, or expects us to believe, that
pressure from below, from the Democrat rank and file, will force change
upon Hillary and the War Party, neocon lite faction. Fat chance.
As White notes, the "Democratic Party is committed to continuing the
criminal occupation of Iraq and the escalation of violence against those
who oppose US domination of the Middle Eastern country. While sharp
tactical divisions exist within the US political establishment, the
Democrats are just as committed as the Republicans to the use of
military force to secure US domination over the oil resources of the
Middle East and to prevent a Vietnam-style defeat in Iraq…. That is why
any talk of a rapid withdrawal of US troops and ending the war has been
taken off the table in the month after the US elections. The terms of
debate set by both the Bush administration and the Democratic leadership
concern the best means to crush the popular insurgency against the
occupation and secure the interests of US imperialism in the region."
Kucinich represents a feeble attempt to reform the Democrats and turn
them back to their supposed "people’s party" roots. He is joined by a
predictable cadre of so-called progressives, including "left-liberal
forces such as the Nation magazine and the 'World Can’t Wait’ and
'United For Peace & Justice’ coalitions, which promote the conception
that protests and pressure will move the Democrats to the left," a
flight of fancy if there ever was one.
You’d think these folks would have learned their lesson back in 2004.
Recall the "New Democrats" sabotaging the candidacy of Howard Dean, who
served as a rallying point for desperate antiwar Democrats. New Dems
made damn sure Dean went down—he was characterized as some kind of
grunting and howling neanderthal by a complaisant media—and the
nomination went to Bush’s distant cousin and fellow bonesman, John
Kerry, who presented himself as a neocon lite on steroids. In response,
Kucinich closed down his antiwar campaign and called for Dems far and
wide, high and low, to support Kerry. At the Democrat convention,
Kucinich called on delegates and voters to "blaze a new path with John
Kerry and John Edwards."
"Thus, Kucinich’s 'anti-war’ candidacy provided a political cover for
the right-wing policies of the Democratic leadership and helped contain
the mass opposition to the war within the confines this big business
party," explains White. "Although he was exposed as an apologist for the
selection of a pro-war Democratic candidate during the last presidential
election, this is not stopping Kucinich from offering to play the same
role once again."
Question is, as the pre-election games commence this coming year, will
rank and file Democrats, the grist of the party, be fooled again? Or
will they tolerate another parade of neocon lite warmongers, as they did
last time around?
Does a trained dog fail to jump for the biscuit every time, to the
satisfaction of his master?
In preparation for a new year chock full of political swagger, the usual
suspects are talking the talk and walking the same old walk, ready to
fool us again, or those of us who manifest signs of insanity, as Albert
Einstein would have it, by doing the same things over and over and
expecting different results.
Consider Gen. Wesley Clark, the mad bomber of Serbia, "presidential
hopeful," who informs us "you can" in Iraq, according to the New York
Observer. "General Clark specifically warned against the idea of a
timeline for troop withdrawal, because it would mean a loss of American
leverage in fostering a potential political solution," thus breaking
with the "phased redeployment" scheme offered up by the likes of Harry
Reid and Carl Levin.
Clark’s basic adaptation of the Bush neocon line is billed as an
"alternative" by the New York Observer. But, we are told, he is not
alone. "Hillary Clinton, despite the maddeningly deliberate pace of her
evolution on the issue, seems genuinely to be searching for a position
on Iraq that will allow for eventual withdrawal but doesn’t leave the
Iraqis entirely at the mercy of local militias and foreign terrorists."
In other words, as a whole lot of Americans, some of them Democrats, are
really and sincerely pissed about the "war," actually phase one of the
Zionist and neocon plan to decimate the Arab and Muslim Middle East,
Hillary is taking a wait and see approach, although it is obvious she is
yet a "New Democrat," like her husband, who killed around a million
Iraqis during his tenure.
Despite "criticism from anti-war liberals within the party, she has been
consistently reluctant to talk about specific timetables for
withdrawal," that is to say she is reluctant to talk about what she and
the neocon lite faction of the Dem party have in mind for average Iraqis
—an influx of more troops, increasingly of the murderous and criminal
yahoo variety, as all the good guys were long ago used up, as they are
basically "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy,"
as Henry Kissinger would have it.
Once again, the average American, far too bovine and politically
incurious, will follow in peripheral and distracted manner the circus,
as presented by the likes of Fox News and CNN, and come election day
2008 he or she will dutifully march off to the polls and vote for the
selected candidate, never mind the unpalatable stench emanating from the
entire process as it offers up Candidate A, Hillary Clinton, and
Candidate B, John McCain, or whomever is selected by the ruling elite.
Of course, most will not bother to vote, and this is fine and dandy for
our rulers, as they call the shots anyway.
Kucinich will be there, pulling off the scam once again, a flimflam
gulped, as usual, hook, line, and sinker by "progressive" (shorthand for
easily hornswoggled) Democrats.
"Concern about the war runs deeper now than in 2004, but there is no
guarantee that will improve Kucinich’s chances this time," writes John
Nichols for the Nation. "There may be another candidate—Barack Obama—
who, while not as pure or precise on the issue as Kucinich, has a record
of opposing the war from the start and supporting a redeployment
timeline. If the media frenzy that greeted Obama’s recent trip to New
Hampshire was any indication, it’s a good bet that the Illinois Senator
will be given many more opportunities to deliver his message than
Kucinich. If Obama does not run, former North Carolina Senator John
Edwards is likely to position himself as the candidate with a plan to
bring the troops home."
Oh, lordy, we are in serious trouble. Barack Obama and John Edwards are
antiwar candidates?
Obama, the rising star of the neocon lites, excuse me the Democratic
Party, told the Chicago Tribune back in 2004 that "the United States one
day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan
to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs."
Does anybody remember John Edwards back in 2002, as the neocons plotted
the invasion of Iraq, writing in the Washington Post the small and
sanctions-enfeebled nation was "a grave and growing threat" and thus
Congress should "endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the
threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction"?
Or, as the unitary decider so eloquently said, "Fool me once, shame on—
shame on you. Fool me—you can’t get fooled again."
source:
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=696
===
-muslim voice-
______________________________________
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW
_______________________________________________
is-lam mailing list
[email protected]
http://milis.isnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/is-lam
