Comments on: Bush’s Legacy Leads to Iran: Will Clinton or Obama Make Any Difference? Will You?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:33:45 +0000

Random either didn’t see the question left or was just one more fluffer spreading “Barack Joy” around the net. The ‘embassy’ in the Green Zone is a base. NYT, Nov. 2nd, he said he wants the bases in Kuwait. If you google, go past the write up by Michael Gordon and someone else. The transcript of the interview is online as well and it’s more in depth. Barack wants bases. The left needs to reject the lie that Obama equals peace.

By: Jerry D. Rose

Jerry D. Rose — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:04:40 +0000

Alex, precisely how do we “constrain poor governance” if we don’t hold potential “governors” to account during political campaigns? My question isn’t rhetorical, I literally want to know from you or anyone else how this is possible.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:15:59 +0000

Jerry, regarding presidential candidates or their advisors reading about defense budget issues and bloating, I think we need to ask different questions. I’m no political expert. But, I think the presidential candidates don’t care about defense budget control when challenging these powers that be (military industrial complex, war hawks, zionists/necons) means that they will be tossed out of office faster than Elliot Spitzer after the hooker scandle.

Seriously, though I think Obama has the stronger moral fiber, he nor anyone can challange the war party. It is up to the American people and informed citizens to constrain poor governance.

By: Jerry D. Rose

Jerry D. Rose — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:51:57 +0000

And just to follow up on my proposed question for the candidates (first comment in this string), see another excellent analysis by Winston Wheeler of the “bloated” military budget, featuring the F-22 fighter plane, which is 273 times the cost of a World War II fighter plane, but is unable to “deliver” what the U.S. military needs in its present or contemplated conflicts. Could McCain, Obama or Clinton spend 5 minutes reading this article and still fail to see a single word about the need to control our defense budget.? Read, did, I say, excuse me, have one of their “advisors” brief them on it. http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler04012008.html

By: hp

hp — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:23:54 +0000

All the systems are go.

1) General, no attack on Iran on my watch, Fallon is recently ‘resigned’.
2) A flurry of American activity on Iran’s border, according to the Russians, who are watching closely.
3) Another carrier group and nuclear submarine in the gulf, along with Aegis missile defense ships.
4) Last week, ONE DAY after Cheney’s visit to Saudi Arabia, the Saudis implemented “national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom after an attack on Iran’s reactors.”
5) The recent/ongoing attempt to eliminate the threat of Al Sadr’s militia who threaten the southern supply lines and a rebellion if Iran is attacked.
6) The total apathy of the Americans. Both public and the MSM.
7) Failure of the Democrat Congress to even pretend to stand in Bush-Cheney’s way at all.
8) The recent trips to Israel by Cheney, Rice and McCain to get their orders straight.
9) All the flag making shops in China are working overtime, getting ready for the patriotic response of the God fearing Americans.
10) Anyone feel a draft?

By: Binh

Binh — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 23:21:58 +0000

Random writes: Obama is at least promising that there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq.

Source?

By: Random

Random — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:54:17 +0000

You’re analysis may ultimately be correct but what is with all the Obama bashing? Obama is at least promising that there will be no permanent military bases in Iraq — not his opening position and not Hillary’s current position. The point is to influence the candidates in an antiwar direction; it does little good if we ignore it when it happens.

Another option: If the Dem’s go with Clinton, run with Bill Bradley.

By: hp

hp — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:28:30 +0000

It is very possible that this will all be irrelevant in as little as a couple of weeks, or days.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:33:36 +0000

William M. Arkin, The Washington Post, March 20, 2008.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2008/03/iraq_is_all_about_iran_not.html?nav=rss_blog

We throw the word “enemy” around way too much these days. Is that what Obama thinks Iran is? The same country he has pledged to negotiate with?
In his five-year anniversary speech about Iraq yesterday, Obama said Iran “poses the greatest challenge to American interests in the Middle East in a generation, continuing its nuclear program and threatening our ally, Israel.” It is time to present Iran “with a clear choice,” Obama said, to abandon its nuclear program, its support for terrorism and its threats to Israel.
“Make no mistake,” Obama bellowed about Iran, “if and when we ever have to use military force against any country, we must exert the power of American diplomacy first.”
Gee, I’m no Republican and have no confidence in the Bush administration. But that sounds like current White House policy.

By: Jerry D. Rose

Jerry D. Rose — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:07:12 +0000

I would add the following to Heather’s useful list of basic questions of the candidates:

Will you veto any defense appropriation for which a demonstrable military need is not established by independent expert analysis as being in fact essential to the national defense?

(There are others, but the need to recapture our financial resources for crying domestic needs suggests the special relevance in this time of economic hardship to spend no money on defense items that benefit no one except those in the defense industry.)