Dumbest 9/11 Commentary

Leave it to that puke funnel Krugman. He calls out the neo-cons for the post-9/11 response. I could get on board with that on a different day, and without the glaring omissions. From the NY Times:

What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. Te atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

I’m not going to allow comments on this post, for obvious reasons.

Obvious reasons? What? That Krugman's a big pussy? Or, because he failed to call out the neo-cons on the other side of the aisle that voted to authorize the war, and the Patriot Act, and who continue the wars to this day? Which is to say... he's a big pussy.

Yes, call out the neo-cons, but call them all out. I know, this is Krugman, and the best anyone could expect from such a partisan. The Times should really re-name his column 'The Half-Functioning Conscience Of A Partisan Liberal'... although I understand that 'partisan' is redundant of 'half-functioning'.

Next, Yemen

It appears that the table is being set for the next theatre in the Bush-Obama wars, Yemen. From a CNN report:

The United States' decision to close its embassy in Yemen came after intelligence suggested that four al Qaeda operatives may be planning an attack on the compound, a senior administration official said Monday.

The United States had information that a group of eight terrorists had been planning an attack, the official said. Three were killed by Yemeni forces in recent days and another was captured wearing a suicide vest, but the other four were believed to be at large, the official said.

Earlier Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the situation in Yemen a possible threat to regional and global security. However, Clinton commended Yemen for taking action against al Qaeda networks and added: "We are reiterating our commitment to assist in those efforts."

The United States and Britain closed their embassies Sunday. Britain's Foreign Office also cited security concerns.

If policy remains consistent, that terrorists are to be rooted out for the potential threat they pose, the next pre-emptive war looks like it will be in Yemen. From CNN:

"The weakness of al Qaeda in Pakistan has forced them out of Pakistan and into Yemen and Somalia," British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told a BBC interviewer over the weekend.

As they move into Yemen, terrorists find a nation with dwindling economic fortunes -- oil output will drop to zero in seven years, according to one estimate; a rapidly growing population with rampant unemployment; and limited fresh water to support that growing population.

So, the fly in the ointment is that attacking terrorists wherever they are just doesn't work. they cannot be eliminated. Attack them in Iraq, they go to Pakistan. Attack them in Pakistan, they go to Somalia or Yemen. Endless war.

Time to evoke George Washington again, regarding foreign adventures and peaceful commerce.

Lying Liar

As far as I'm concerned, John McCain, Dick Cheney, or Barack Obama could be president right now, and the war results would be about the same. Bush's 3rd term. As 2009 ends, we're supposed to see an end to the war in Iraq. Today. Per, Barack Obama. Via Cato at Liberty:

This is not the change we hoped for. President Obama rose to power on the basis of his early opposition to the Iraq war and his promise to end it. But after a year in the White House he has made both of George Bush’s wars his wars.

Speaking of Iraq in February 2008, candidate Barack Obama said, “I opposed this war in 2002. I will bring this war to an end in 2009. It is time to bring our troops home.” The following month, under fire from Hillary Clinton, he reiterated, ”I was opposed to this war in 2002….I have been against it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 5, 6, 7, 8 and I will bring this war to an end in 2009. So don’t be confused.”

Indeed, in his famous “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow” speech on the night he clinched the Democratic nomination, he also proclaimed, “I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that . . . this was the moment when we ended a war.”

Now he has doubled down on the war in Afghanistan and has promised to keep the war in Iraq going for another 19 months, after which we will have 50,000 American troops in Iraq for as far as the eye can see. If McCain had proposed this sort of minor tweaking of the Bush policy, I think we’d see antiwar rallies in 300 cities. Calling the antiwar movement!

Calling all Democrats! Calling the left! Where art thou? Only the libertarians left standing against the war? Don't want to ruffle your seat at the table? What good is having power for change if you aren't going to use it?

I'm not confused. Obama lied. People die. Sound familiar?

Pro-War Senate Democrats Pass Defense Budget

Let's see... The Dems have roughly a 60-40 majority in the Senate. Republicans hold the reputation for being hawks. Can't wage two wars without big money. $628 Billion in the bill. Will the Dems oppose their Administration? From Politico:

Coming in at dawn Saturday in the middle of a snowstorm, the Senate finally caught up with its budget calendar, approving a $626 billion bill to fund the Defense Department for the fiscal year that began nearly three months ago.

The lopsided 88—10 vote followed a 63-35 roll call in which most Republicans stood back and again forced Democrats to come up with the super-majority needed to waive budget rules before passage. The measure now goes to the White House where President Barack Obama is expected to quickly sign the bill into law to end the impasse.

So, only 10 Democrats voted against? I guess it's fair to call bullshit whenever a Democrat claims the desire to hem in 'the military-industrial complex'.

Nice, how the media buried this story. Almost like it didn't happen. Must be nice to have a complicit media so as not to upset the Democratic base that would largely like to see us out of Iraq (esp) & Afghanistan, and to curb the military budget. They can't count on the people they elected to do their will. But, if there's one thing we can count on with a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, it's gigantic spending at every turn.

Human Nature Never Changes

One thing that irks me is to hear someone say, "Non-interventionist foreign policy may have been fine 200 years ago, but this is a different day and age.

Horsefeathers. I was reading Doug Masson's latest blog entry, called "War is a Racket". It featured a couple of lengthy citations about war, and the motive to transfer wealth from the Treasury to the businesses making war materiel.

This war in Iraq is foolish. Iraq was a threat to the USA? Iraq was hardly a threat to Iran, let alone the USA. It certainly wasn't planning to do anything to us, which is why we should have left Iraq alone. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a nasty, brutal dictator. That's our problem? Not a chance.

The longer this drags on, the more I begin to wonder why we're there.

Anyhow, Masson's quotables are from WWI, and Mark Twain. The idea of cashing in on war is not new. Human nature doesn't change. That's why ideology can be applied across eras, and why pragmatism is more like sticking your finger up in the air to see which way the wind blows.

I was also reminded of the great Dead Kennedys bit "Kinky Sex Makes the World Go Round".