How can we hold presidents accountable if they can wage wars anywhere at anytime in secret?

[rug]

June 3, 2012 12:08 am
By Andrew J. Bacevich

As he campaigns for reelection, President Barack Obama periodically reminds audiences of his success in terminating the deeply unpopular Iraq War. With fingers crossed for luck, he vows to do the same with the equally unpopular war in Afghanistan. If not exactly a peacemaker, our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president can (with some justification) at least claim credit for being a war-ender.

Yet when it comes to military policy, the Obama administration's success in shutting down wars conducted in plain sight tells only half the story. More significant has been this president's enthusiasm for instigating or expanding secret wars, those conducted out of sight and by commandos.

President Franklin Roosevelt may not have invented the airplane, but during World War II he transformed strategic bombing into one of the principal emblems of the reigning American way of war. General Dwight D. Eisenhower had nothing to do with the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. Yet, as president, Ike's strategy of massive retaliation made nukes the centerpiece of U.S. national security policy.

So, too, with Barack Obama and special operations forces. The U.S. Special Operations Command with its constituent operating forces -- Green Berets, Army Rangers, Navy SEALs and the like -- predated his presidency by decades. Yet it is only on Mr. Obama's watch that these secret warriors have reached the pinnacle of the U.S. military's hierarchy of prestige.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/global-war-without-end-how-can-we-hold-presidents-accountable-if-they-can-wage-wars-anywhere-at-anytime-in-secret-638701/

Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University and a regular contributor to TomDispatch.com -- where this article first appeared. Distributed by Agence Global.

[treestar]

1. Not doing a great job of keeping them secret

Since we seem to know about them.

[rug]

2. You sure?

[treestar]

9. What are you objecting to, exactly?

Didn't Navy SEALS take out bin Laden?

How do we know these operations are undesirable and what would happen without them?

[rug]

29. Yes they did. Do you recall who else they killed that day?

And are you making note of the many civilans and children killed while scratching out names on the kill list?

[treestar]

31. Well it's better than Hiroshima

A war is a war. It's possible to be against the war but still realize that if it's happening, it's going to be war-like. At least in modern times it is more focused on the bad guys as individuals rather than a group "bad guy" like "the Japanese."

[SGMRTDARMY]

6. Can't say what I did in Vietnam

but suffice to say in 69 I was attached to an LRRP team, so some things are still classified, even 43 years later.

[treestar]

10. Vietnam was not a secret

Whatever was done there would be out, even if in general terms.

[SGMRTDARMY]

12. Exactly

General terms, some of our missions are still classified, even 43 years later. Why? Beats the shit out of me.

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. A whole lot more went on in and around Vietnam than few outside

Last edited Sun Jun 3, 2012, 02:44 PM - Edit history (1)

of the Brass and participants knows. The Cambodian and Laotian adventures were just a couple that were discovered, many times that number were never exposed.

[treestar]

39. If it was all a secret, then how come anyone knows?

Someone who knows should write a book.

[Egalitarian Thug]

47. Perhaps they will when they are old enough that spending the rest of their life in Kansas

isn't such a big deal.

You can choose to ignore it or pretend it's all made up if that lets you sleep at night, just don't go around accusing people of lying about what they've done and lived through.

[treestar]

67. It's not like you've really proven anything by your vague assertions

Why should I sleep badly at night? Do you have ill will toward people in general? They're supposed to sleep badly because of unknown things?

[Egalitarian Thug]

69. Lack of proof is rather the point isn't it?

Are you simply amazed every time something like this finally comes out? Do you live in a state of perpetual acceptance of your proper place?

have a wonderful day.

[treestar]

72. I try for a happy medium

There have been CIA ops in the past and they've come out, but then, I don't think I have to assume there are "secret wars" going on at this point. Times are different. It is harder for any government to keep secrets. Look at the SS prostitution fiasco. I'm of the school this was always happening and only now is no longer possible to let slip under the radar.

[tabasco]

33. Attached?

Not organic to the team? Weird.

[SGMRTDARMY]

51. No.

Replacement. Whats weird about that?

[morningfog]

63. You have no idea how many covert wars are being waged. Nor does COngress.

The POTUS and CIA are their own sovereignty, it seems.

[SGMRTDARMY]

66. I agree

whatever happened to Congress' role of oversight? I blame both parties for not doing their duties of keeping the executive branch in check. It started with Bush and has continued to Pres. Obama.

[treestar]

68. How is it that you know

It's starting to sound like conspiracy theory.

[morningfog]

71. I only know that they deny it or refuse to comment until the evidence is too overwhelming.

No conspiracy about it.

[lunatica]

3. The last President that actually was held accountable was Nixon

and he could have beaten the charges if he'd just stayed put and refused to resign.

[BlueIris]

5. He could have "beaten the charges"?

You really believe that.

[lunatica]

8. Yes. Bush and Cheney are surely doing so by just refusing to

admit any wrongdoing. The Supreme Court Justices are getting away with crimes against the Constitution because they just stay stubborn and never deviate from their agenda. Hell even Obama is breaking the law in some of the things he's doing, from refusing to hold Bush accountable to using drones. I believe this even though I support President Obama. Would he do this if President's before him hadn't been conveniently let off the hook?

Yes. They are beating any charges just by continuing to do what they do. I believe there's a very good chance Nixon would have beaten the charges. Or he could have continued to be President, all the time doing as much harm as he chose to do until they were forced to actually kick him out of office and that could have taken his entire last term.

But needless to say, this is just an opinion of mine since we'll never know. It could have gone the other way for all I know.

[coalition_unwilling]

15. I was just coming into political consciousness during that long, hot summer of 1974. My

memory of the time, reinforced by readings in history since, is that Nixon's 'impeachment' by the House was a forgone conclusion once the tape release cooroborated John Dean's accusations that Nixon had obstructed justice. Senator Barry Goldwater delivered the news to Nixon that there were no longer sufficient votes in the Senate to prevent his removal from office during the Senate 'trial'. The clear feeling is that it would all be over no later than the end of August, 1974. (Nixon's second term would have run through January, 1977).

Nixon resigned, I believe, precisely because he knew he was going to be impeached and removed and would lose pension and benefits plus become increasingly liable to criminal prosecution.

His resignation and Ford's subsequent blanket pardon render the discussion hypothetical. But I'm confident the historical record backs my interpretation.

[Egalitarian Thug]

35. So many revisionists ignore these facts when spinning their fantasies.

They want people to believe that America has always been like it is now, craven to the point that blatant corruption is not even on anybody's radar. They want us to forget that, by today's standard, what Nixon did barely rates shenanigans, really more like politics as usual, but at that time it was earth shattering. It was a betrayal of trust on par with Benedict Arnold.

American's used to demand integrity above all from their President. He was the symbol of what is right and good about us and Nixon wrecked that.

[Vidar]

60. Well argued and thought provoking.

[coalition_unwilling]

14. No way. Barry Goldwater himself delivered the news to Nixon that

he lacked enough Repig votes in the Senate to survive trial, following the House's certain impeachment.

Had Nixon tried to 'stay put' and subsequently been removed from office by Senate trial, he would have forfeited pension and benefits and left himself far more open to criminal prosecution to boot.

[L. Coyote]

54. and he got a full pardon for any actions he ever undertook, no matter how henious.

Yeah, that's accountability under the Constitution as written!

[SGMRTDARMY]

55. Can you say

Payoff?
I was so pissed off when Pres. Gerald Ford pardoned him. If it had been you or me, we would have been toast with no butter.

[Ilsa]

4. A dear friend says she will vote

against Obama for this and what she considers to be other abuses of power (privacy issues, etc). I asked her if she thought the Republican opposition won't do the same thing and continue abuses set into practice by previous Republican Executives. No response to that one.

[KharmaTrain]

7. Hope She Enjoys A Rmoney NeoCon Utopia...

That's who Mittens is surrounding himself with...the same folks who not only brought all of us the Iraq invasion but are chomping at the bit to do the same in Iran and Syria.

Want to trim the sails of the Executive...elect House and Senate candidates who will do what people like Frank Church did in the 70s. Be assured a Rmoney regime will be a visit to the "good old days" of booooosh junior...

[HiPointDem]

43. So what you said to her was, "Both parties do it & there's nothing we can do about it." OK.

[msanthrope]

58. What are you going to do? Who are you voting for? nt

[treestar]

11. They may have "reached the pinnacle" due to technology

And the emphasis on taking out specific people rather than just bombing a country.

The article admits it predates Obama. So not sure they the emphasis on him rather than the government in general. Or the usual obsession with the President some journalists/people seem to have.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Keeping the people in the dark about what their government does isn't democracy.

Could it possibly be that their adoration of secrecy is to cover up criminal/immoral/corrupt behavior?

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians.  Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise." Mark Twain

[Magoo48]

18. So true...

They like to keep secret the nasty bits even though their actions are in "our" name.

[SGMRTDARMY]

20. Kinda makes ya wonder about what we don't know.

[coalition_unwilling]

16. They can only wage such secret wars with the active connivance of

Congress and its budgeting and appropriations process.

In other words, if Congress refuses to exercise appropriate oversight, the people can hold Congress accountable.

Checks and balances 101.

[SGMRTDARMY]

17. While I agree with you,

It seems that our Congresscritters are too busy trying to make each other look bad that they are not doing their jobs of oversight.
BTW, throughly enjoy reading your posts.

[coalition_unwilling]

21. The feeling is mutual. Ultimately, blame must attach to the people themselves, who

fail to hold Congress accountable and perpetually re-elect incumbents who do not exercise adequate and appropriate oversight.

BTW, there was an interesting thread on Friday about Vietnam and the reactions returning Vets faced:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002752058

Wasn't sure if you had seen it. (I ended up calling myself 'shit' compared to vets of your generation

[SGMRTDARMY]

26. Sent you a PM

[bvar22]

38. There are "Balck Budgets" for which Congress writes a Check made out to "Cash".

A different version of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The Pentagon and CIA is also very good at the Shell Game of moving money appropriated for ONE thing to another completely different thing.

[bvar22]

40. You seem to believe that American voters are given a free choice in elections.

We aren't.
The desirable outcome of important elections is decided before the first Primary.

In 2008, America was given a "choice" between:

1)a Pro-Military Expansion/Pro-WarWar, Pro-Unitary Executive, Anti-Medicare for All, Pro-Privatization of Commons, Anti-LABOR, Pro-FreeTrade, Pro-Wall Street Democrat,

OR

2)a Pro-WAR, Pro-Unitary Executive, Anti-Medicare for All, Pro-Privatization of Commons,
Anti-LABOR, Pro-FreeTrade, Pro-Wall Street Republican

Are you familiar with a technique used by Marketeers, Magicians, Politicians, and Scam Artists (redundant) called the "Forced Choice"?
Same thing.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[coalition_unwilling]

49. Shit, I guess all those hours I spent walking precincts for Jesse Jackson ('84),

Last edited Mon Jun 4, 2012, 02:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Mike Dukakis ('88) and, yes, Barack Obama (no precinct-walking in '08, but sign-holding in BHO's case) was just so much pissing in the wind.

Without active citizen involvement in our democratic republic, we get the kind of imperial Praetorian Guard stuff the OP was warning us about.

There's something that bothers me about your logic here, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Suffice it to say that you make us all passive victims of powerful forces beyond our power to comprehend, much less control. That may be the flip side of what I am arguing, that our passivity makes us the enablers of the bullshit that passes for contemporary politics.

[bvar22]

52. Go study the Arkansas Democratic Primary 2010, and get back to me.

Organized LABOR, the Democratic Grass Roots, and supporters of Universal Health Care
formed a coalition to unseat the virulently Anti-LABOR/ Anti-Health Care
Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln who openly crowed about derailing the "Big Government Take Over of Health Care".
We found out all about "Powerful Forces' you allude to,
and it came from a direction few expected.
Guess where these "powerful forces" came from to stop a Pro-LABOR/ Pro-HealthCare/Pro-Working Class very popular Democrat.

Jesse Jackson has always been on the Party Establishment Approved List,
and when called on, he did as he was told.

Be careful touting your Party bonafides on DU.
You will find many loyal Democrats here who have been in the trenches a lot longer than you have,
fought harder battles than you have,
and sacrificed more than you have.
Most of the true Democratic Party soldiers don't brag about it on Internet Boards.
They pray quietly in the back of the Party church,
and can be counted on to carry the load year after year.

[coalition_unwilling]

59. Can you please point me to a link that would fill me in on the Blanche Lincoln

episode, either from DU or somewhere else? For some reason, this was an episode I did not follow very closely and it sounds like maybe I should have.

I did not mean to tout my own Party bona fides in a vain and boastful manner and I apologize if it came across that way. I was merely suggesting that, if I accepted your analysis, all that time I had spent in years past had been wasted. Thought I was doing so in a humorous manner, but maybe only I was getting the joke. (Trust me, ny wife frequently accuses me of this, so it won't hurt my feelings if such is the case here

It may sound impolite and declasse to say this, but you sound so burned out on the Democratic Party and on politics in general that I wonder why you still post here. I would never deny you the right to post here but if it's truly such a lost cause, then why waste time posting? What do you hope to accomplish?

[bvar22]

61. My goal today is the same as it was 46 years ago...

...when I joined the Democratic Party.
My goal is to advance THIS set of Traditional Democratic Party Values that made our Party GREAT,
and built the largest, wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Middle/Working Class the World has seen.:

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be [font size=3]established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.--FDR, Economic Bill of Rights

Note that FDR listed the above as Basic Human Rights to be protected by our government,
and NOT listed as Commodities to be sold to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

When the Democratic party moves TOWARD the above traditional Democratic party Values, I will cheer, applaud, and march in the parade.
When they betray the above values, I am going to let them and everyone who claims to be a "Democrat" know about it.

Sadly, I haven't been able to cheer very much over the last 20 years.

The very popular Democratic Party Lt Gov Bill Halter entered the Arkansas Democratic Primary
to challenge Blue Dog Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln for her Senate seat.
Bil Halter had the support of Organized LABOR, the Grass Roots, the Pro-Public Option/Medicare Democrats.

Bill Halter was polling as good as/or better than Blanche Lincoln in the upcoming election against the Republican, and was running neck & neck with Blanche in the Democratic Primary.
As the Primary neared, Halter was overcoming the incumbent's name recognition thanks to funding from The Unions.

....until the "Powers" stepped in and began actively campaigning for the woman who was openly campaigning as "I'm the one who wrecked Obama's Big Government Health Care."

Can you figure out WHO "The Powers" are and WHAT they did?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.



It was the Obama White House beginning with a Public Endorsement from the Oval Office of "The Woman who wrecked Health Care", the directing of Party Funds to Blanche's failing campaign,
and even sent the Old Dog (Bill Clinton) back to Arkansas to hold fund raisers and campaign Rallys to help the struggling Blue Dog.

Adding insult to injury, a "Whitehouse Spokesperson" publicly ridiculed Organized LABOR for
"wasting 10 Million Dollars" supporting a Pro-LABOR challenger.

We did everything right,
but we NEVER expected to find ourselves fighting the Democratic Party Leadership to get a Pro-LABOR/Pro-Working Class/Pro-Health Care Primary candidate on the Democratic Party ticket.
After all, THEY are the ones who keep saying, "Its not OUR fault. Give us a Progressive Congress".

With the help of the White House and some "closed" voting stations in Halter areas, Blanche went on to win the Democratic Primary.
She also went on to lose badly against the Republican in the General Election,
which EVERYBODY knew she has ZERO chance of winning. Lt Gov. Bill Halter is much more popular that Blanche in local politics.

If the 2010 Democratic Primary were an anomaly, I might be willing to write it off as a party leadership Fuck Up. Maybe they just weren't paying attention, but that same pattern of supporting conservatives (even a Republican in Pennsylvania) was repeated too many times in Democratic Primaries in 2010.

I've give you enough names and information for you to verify my story.
You might have to dig a little because the major Corporate Outlets and Party Spokespeople would prefer that you don't know what happened in Arkansas Primary 2010.
I am a Pro-LABOR/Pro-Medicare Democrat here in Arkansas. I KNOW what happened,
and WHO made it happen.
"They" got exactly what "they" wanted.

The White House, The Democratic Party leadership, The DNC, The DCCC, The DSCC
and ANY National Organization that use donations to the Democratic Party
have absolutely NO BUSINESS interfering in local Democratic Primaries.
When they do so, it IS to disrupt the democratic process, obstruct the will of the people,
and torpedo any real Grass Roots candidates who are not beholding to "The Powers".

This is NOT the first time:
DCCC King Making?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=160&topic_id=14207





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[coalition_unwilling]

62. I understand your frustration and alienation. I remember feeling exactly the same way

when Howard Dean got the shiv a few years back.

Seems to me like a logical next step would be for the pro-Halter forces in Arkansas to struggle for control of the Arkansas Democratic machine. Someone told me a long time ago that real lasting change begins at the precinct level and works its way upward, a statement I have largely come to agree with as I grow older. The problem is that few of us (myself most definitely included) have the interest, the patience or, frankly, the stamina to work at the precinct level. And yet I think that's where much of the real work gets done.

If I have time later this week, I will definitely review in more detail the events you relate here and I thank you for giving me a thumbnail to get me started.

Kudos also to you for trying to keep the Dem Party true to its New Deal heritage. (Sounds like you have about 10 years on me in terms of your active involvement in politics. Voted proudly for Jimmy Carter in my first election in 1980

[Honeycombe8]

19. Interesting argument. Talking about secret wars that no one knows about,...

so no one can agree or disagree with the statements. And the statements in teh article can't be proven.

But one thing is certain: Presidents don't and can't do anything alone.

Besides, in a bad economy, what I mainly care about is jobs. This is a non-issue for me.

[Octafish]

22. Secret government is un-democratic.

Sad to see that it means so little to so many.

[SGMRTDARMY]

24. It seems most sheeple just want to go through life

and don't give a shit about what our govt. is doing in our name. One way or the other, things have to change but I'm not holding my breath.

[Dokkie]

41. So true

My idiot brothers no 1 issue is campaign financing and he seems not to care about anything else. Only god knows how he will vote in Nov. Why waste your time on an issue that both candidates are not going to change and everyone paying attention knows the real bribes come after the elections in form of speaking fees.

[SGMRTDARMY]

56. Its like, Psssst, look over here, not over there.

[WriteWrong]

23. We can't. Why would anyone but a traitor want to? Are you supporting our enemies over his judgment?

Anyone the alpha male says is bad, is bad. You don't question, you obey. And kill. Or die.

[rug]

30. Whose judgment? This is a power accreting to any person who holds the odffice of President>

So hell, no. I don't support having any President making these secret decisions to assassinate the enemy of the day, along with anyone in the vicinity.

[Dokkie]

42. I think hes being sarcastic

[sabrina 1]

45. Ah, a 'have you stopped beating your wife yet'

question.

In the same vein, let me ask you, do you support Bush policies?

[Karmadillo]

25. When presidents are held accountable, the terrorists win.

[Jamaal510]

27. Patriotism

[IMG][/IMG]

[MannyGoldstein]

28. "Make No Mistake: it is only by ignoring the law that we can save the law"

"Some of my friends on the Left believe that laws should be followed. That the Constitution applies to all Americans. That thinking may have once been true. But just as we traded covered wagons for airplanes when the time came, we must similarly move forward from the rule of law.

God bless you, God bless America."

(for the parody-challenged: the above quote is not real.)

[bhikkhu]

32. Authorization was in the Senate Joint Resolution 73, on Spetember 14, 2011

...authorizing military force against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. That's the only ongoing war(s), and its not secret or arbitrary, and it wasn't a matter of choice for the president either. The manner of the fighting has to do with there being virtually no workable solution to fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, and virtually no practical way to defeat a non-governmental dispersed ideological group. Other than target the leaders, which has been a pretty miserable business...I don't think you'll find anyone in or out of the military or government who is not looking forward to the end of it.

[rug]

36. That authorization does not address tactics, as most blank checks don't.

The choices being made are not mandatory and are entirely voluntary.

[treestar]

44. When has it ever?

We didn't supervise Eisenhower.

[freshwest]

37. I argue that Obama is performing the job he was elected to do. And some of the job, I don't approve.

We have treaties with countries and groups all over the world. We have not invaded all of those countries, but found allies who want certain things done that are unsavory and hateful (these are the mildest terms I can use) and that don't promote my idea of peace in the world. We don't have a 'Department of Peace,' for example.

Business interests claim their way of getting into countries to conduct business, which every single one of these actions can be accused as enriching them, is a peacetime activity. And they have their allies, no matter how much we may hate them, in every single nation. Were the men who lead their countries in peaceful ways that denied the profit of the business interests, that we killed or run out of their countries, always done by invasion?

No, there were collaborators. This is a continuing human problem, where greed fails to respect the wishes of the people, the environment and even nationhood. I say that here is no real peace in poverty, reorganizing societies in our image or as slaves, destroying their culture and their environment.

But the truth is, we don't do any of this unilaterally. We have allies who might be termed 'partners in crime' but this is nothing new. It's not even considered to be war. And it has been approved by every Congress since the Cold War due to manipulation of the public to fight 'enemies.'

We had groups both political and religious, including some Kennedy's to shut down what was once called the School of the Americas for what they were doing. Our Congress funded that, and when enough public pressure had been exerted, it came to a vote and was nearly de-funded. But the peace activists lost that vote.

Not everyone wanted it closed. And we still pay to run the CIA and others in government that the left hates, and should hate. EFarrari had a signature line once, something like 'liberals, getting shown the finger for 38 years' we have not won at home. The problem is here, and it's a deep one.

These acts are supported by millions of our fellow Americans, although we may not feel too chummy with them. The MIC is bigger than any President, has even been accused with killing some and people running for the office. The Founders warned against corporations getting more power than government; Abraham Lincoln also felt it was possible the Union had won the war saying that he feared for the nation due to the profits that had been funneled into private hands to make the war; FDR and Eisenhower also made their warning about the growing threats from the MICC.

We commonly call it the MIC, but should call it by its real name, the Military Industrial Congressional Complex. The Congressional part was stricken early on as divisive, but it was the truth. The American people, either in ignorance or wisdom, have elected people that vote for the 'war of the day' by business and the 'war of the night' by our armed forces, and call it what is necessary to peace and more importantly, prosperity.

The POTUS is acting on the will of the Congress in almost all cases, no matter what they say. Events happen such as 911 that make things go the way of the Industrial part of the MICC. The banking industry cannot be left out of the equation, either, as they finance the corporations.

George Washington said, wars are not paid for by the generation that fought them, but their children. That payment is taken in more ways than just a tax burden, because priorities shape a nation. We have been at war most of the life of this nation, just not in the way that we think of war today.

We started with a war against a nation across an ocean. Then moved the war westward until the continent belonged to the USA. In between or in the midst of these actions, every robber baron committed war on the citizenry of his day. And our children have grown up with one form of war or another, willing, or so they think.

Not the will of those of us who can honestly claim we gain nothing by these actions. I don't believe that I do but I confess I may be deluded. What do I have in my life, that did not come from some form of warfare, be it the war of the day or night, which I hate or so I tell myself I do.

I know plenty of people reap benefits from business or government jobs that depend on this system. There is no magic wand, no one man can overcome the will of about half of the American voting public and the tacit agreement of the rest of them who refuse to get involved or even vote.

I am aware this point of view is not popular, but it is where I've come to feel that the problem lies. We cannot deny that a vast amount of money is changing hands as we argue the point and those getting it are not saying No. I won't argue the prejudices, and am not using that word in a negative way, about folks who feel justified in going along by upbringing, economics, what they learned at school or in life. It is what is it.

How to change the minds of millions of Americans, to put this country on a true peace basis is the question that underlies many of our news stories. We don't like the war of the night, the abrupt and heinous acts of war, but millions may even benefit from it, directly or indirectly. Certainly many who are closer feel they did a good thing and deserve benefits, and you will not take it from them without a fight at home.

I think change must begin with our business model, and I believe that capitalism is a religion. Many people benefit, and many don't. Those who don't will complain, but have little power to change things. Naturally, those who have full bellies, health care, housing to their liking, and enough money to enjoy their lives, will not vote for fundamental change. But might be persuaded to go against wars and other things that offend their sensibilities. Some people I know who are well off, the fact is that none of what the OP says offends them in the least. But they are the ones who have the most power to change things.

As far as gifting Obama with the power to wage secret wars, I contend they are not secret, and that these actions are not the work of one man and it could never be. There is a lot going on in this nation that we hate to look at on any given day. The Congress, like it or not, acts on behalf of those who vote them in, not those who sit on the sidelines, or don't see how pervasive the problem is and then stare in wonder and disgust. And those are just a few thoughts on a rather difficult Sunday morning. N/T

[sabrina 1]

46. We are all complicit, you are right, and I too have come to the same conclusion, it is definitely

not one man. We live under a system, and so long as the people close their eyes, which every election cycle one half or the other half of the country is willing to do, the system will only grow stronger. It may be that the system is too embedded now, with both sides either supporting it or turning a blind eye to it, depending on each election cycle, that it cannot be changed.

It would take a huge awakening of the population, which some of us have experienced over the past decade, for the people to do THEIR part. But from what I have observed, neither side, and the country is divided into two sides, is going to remain consistent about their 'values' when their side is in power. That is what keeps the system in place. We, the people.

Very good post, very thoughtful, thank you.

[freshwest]

50. Who did you vote for before? Every POTUS since this country was founded, by modern standards, was a

Last edited Sun Jun 3, 2012, 10:28 PM - Edit history (1)

War criminal and have killed untold numbers of innocents. It is not new. All the way back to the Founding Fathers. No exceptions, when you look at it from a global and historical perspective. And mind you, what I am saying to you is not accusing you anymore than I have done to myself, and you can feel free to only consider what you feel is current. I have had the luxury of years of involvement, and want to find the true solutions, as I believe you do. So, here are the questions for you, as I asked myself:

Do you make, buy, sell or use anything produced by the corporations that instigate these wars? Do you have any advantage in life from the conquest of the Americans, the genocide of the natives, the enslavement of people from Africa, and the daily abuse of immigrants and people abroad who keep our cost of living down and our quality of life up above those robbed? Did the American Empire never benefit you in any way?

If you cannot prove you (or I) never did, that you are the first of your kind in America, I am sad to say, that you, as am I, are complicit, and the world sees us that way. I know I have had advantages from the conquest of America, the keeping down of people as slaves or with cheap labor, with people in the world being robbed of land, work, and their environment so our industrial base could flourish. I live as frugally and simply as I can, my income is very low. And I help all I can. But in the eyes of the world, I am very rich and privileged.

I spoke on this over 40 years ago when I presented a report on the ratio of our population and material wealth versus the resources flooding into this country by these unsavory business practices that we have sent troops to maintain our connections.

If you believe that the world or future generations will find your refusal to vote for Obama as washing your hands, I hope you will reconsider.

So as an American, you will be held liable in the imaginary world tribunal some think is coming. I've advocated for the trying of Bush and Cheney on war crimes, angry it didn't happen, but when I thought about it in depth and reviewing history, I realized every administration has not only committed crimes in times of war, but also in peace.

The only way this dream of bringing the Bush Crime Family and Friends to trial, is to go for a situation such as existed after WW2 in Germany. They didn't try the Kaiser for WW1, no country does, since it requires the presence of a conquering army to do it. Those tribunals set the standards that in modern times we judge people for doing, but these acts that we want to sweep under the rug for recent new crimes, has always been a part of America.

To have the kind of justice you may feel will acquit you of being an American, requires an invading army to come in and hold show trials. To be under the boot of someone else, who does not care about your ideals of wrong and right, but has come to judge and subjugate and divide. To tell you where to live, what work you will do, to write your laws for you. This was what was done in Germany and Japan. Is that what you or anyone wants?

Because the Constitution will be gone, and all those Rights we assume to be civil and human rights would not be decided by America, the conquered. At that point, we might not be satisfied with the results then, either. We can mitigate the crimes of this nation by working toward more equality in the world, which begins at home. But if a throne of international judgment is what the universe requires of us, that will happen. And would the nation to come, also be peaceful or would all that we have tried to do and be an example on, be gone?

And as far as Obama, he is not the same as Bush or Mittens. They wanted full out war on Iran, and other places, and Obama is simply doing what is the American business model as it extends abroad. As the BE did at one time, as China is doing. Obama has been anti-war, but he does not lead an all-anti-war nation. He has said we need to do soul searching about many issues. He is not McCain singing 'bomb-bomb, etc.', you know the tune. Are we willing to truly have the discussion Obama has said we need to have with each other in a manner that will get this resolved and make this country live up to our ideals?

I'm not dissing anyone who wants peace or is anti-war, as I've always been such. But I was younger and looked to see the blame outside myself, to find a name for the pain, and blamed world leaders and bogeymen. Now I know the source of the problem is sadly, what it always was.

Us. JMHO.

Peace Out.

[sabrina 1]

57. I always read your posts, knowing they will be worth reading.

There is little you have said, that anyone can honestly disagree with. What I would have said to Hawlowl had his post not been hidden, would have been along the same lines, although not nearly as well stated.

I understand not wanting to be complicit, but as you pointed out so clearly, we are, even those who do not want to be.

I agree with what you said also about the difference between Obama and Romney or any other Republican president. I'm not sure if you agree with me, but I wonder even if we elected a President like Kucinich eg, what he could do given the system that is in place. I have to admit I was not aware of how bad it was until relatively recently.

It would require a majority of the people agreeing, and I think this is happening, that these wars must end, and even more so, acknowledging how wrong they are, rather than trying, futilely because no one can justify them.

For now, though we have to use the tools we have, and the only one we have, is the Democratic Party. Where I disagree with many in the Dem Party is not letting them know how we feel about policies like these, because it's election season. This is exactly the time for the people to speak to their elected officials. It doesn't help a President who has good intentions, but is under so many constraints because of the system itself and so many who are controlling it, if the people who want him to do what is right, to remain silent. He needs the support of the people to do what is right, that gives him more strength to push back against the many forces presidents have to deal with.

It took a long time to get to this point and it will probably take a long time to change course. I am a lot less naively hopeful than I was in 2008, but I do believe we can do it.

[raouldukelives]

65. I think in the end the best one can do

is to hold to the beliefs and values they cherish. Do the best you can do individually. Don't want to lose trees? Don't be a logger. Don't want to kill people for money? Don't enlist. Don't want to profit from destroying the planet and causing massive famine from climate change but actually want to create a better world for future children? Stop investing or working for Wall St.
All small steps that can be done individually that add up to a lot. We have to become the change we want to see in the world before we can demand the change.

[L. Coyote]

53. We can NOT!

[xchrom]

64. Du rec. nt

[woo me with science]

70. Kick