When will we get the truth about Iraq from ANY of them?

[RestoreGore]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2907504&mesg_id=2907504

My thread from GD that I think is very important considering that Bush and his cabal still have ten months to do GREAT damage to this country. With Turkey invading Iraq and NOT ONE candidate standing up to call for Bush's impeachment even in light of the news that he agreed to sell Turkey nuclear secrets (which I believe could well have facilitated this attack,) when will we get some REAL TRUTH about what is going on in Iraq? When will any of them pledge publically that they will take troops out of Iraq or even be ABLE to now and actually BRING THEM HOME without redeploying them to Iran, Pakistan, Syria, or some other God forsaken place? How can they then promise those of us with teenage children who love them dearly that we will not see them shipped off to some hot desert to die for a corporate profit sheet or to do the bidding of one of our allies, preferably one that sees Iran as its mortal enemy? Why are so many spending so much time talking about who got what lines from who in their speeches or in what passes for debates in this country when people out here are literally struggling to LIVE? I WILL NOT GIVE UP MY SON TO THIS. And Clinton, Obama, AND McCain better get that message LOUD AND CLEAR. NONE of them get a free ride on this. NONE of them. And I am so angry and frustrated that while Bush and his minions have been working from behind the scenes to screw this country royally, all they can do is think of their egos. I will state it one more time because it is so important. IMPEACH THESE BASTARDS NOW. If you can't bring yourself as a representative of the people to say that, then in my view you are for this war.

[balantz]

1. What the hell is going on?

This sham is a popularity contest. These people should be debating loudly and with passion about dismantling the structure of our failed system. They should be in a wrestling match about which one of them will TAKE SHRUB AND ZANY DOWN the hardest! They should be debating about which one of them will best knock down the corporate empire that runs this country and return the government to the American people. They should be debating about the REAL story of the regime's manipulation of war as a tool for filling the pockets of the few who are in control of our government.

What a f**king disgrace!

[RestoreGore]

2. yes, a disgrace, and you see how fast this sunk here...

To me it would appear that many here wouldn't care if Obama led us into war, or if Clinton continued it. As long as it is "their" candidate it is OK.

[balantz]

3. This society has been indoctrinated to be one ruled by insanity

and utter stupidity!

We will all suffer from the mass willingness to accept this "American Idol" scheme. I just have a hard time believing after all we've been through that people can swallow this crap!

WAKE UP FOR THE SAKE OF DEMOCRACY!

These puppets offer NO change whatsoever!

[balantz]

4. And again it sinks.

WTF?!

[RestoreGore]

6. yes, seems people don't want hard questions answered ...

And now make excuses about impeachment. SOS. Since Obama and Clinton aren't for impeachment or accountability, their supporters who may once have been for it aren't now. Typical politics. And I agree with you. At debates they should be sparring over BUSH and what has been done to our CONSTITUTION. Not ONE question regarding repealing The Patriot Act... The Military Commissions Act... Real ID Act (which is truly an affront to civil liberties)... The Homegrown Terrorism Act...Executive Order 51 which basically WILL turn this country into a dictatorship if Bush is so inclined to invoke it ( and don't tell me these candidates don't know about that)... or any statements regarding holding Bush and his cabal accountable should they "win" ( whatever that means anymore.) Just more excuses as to why we can't hold those who are criminals, liars, thieves, murderers, and traitors to this country accountable. And some democrats wonder why others say there is no difference between us and republicans. I will say this again then... when it comes to this war, if ANY of them continue it in Iraq or elsewhere and it comes down to a draft, I will move from this country if I can before giving them my child. And any democrat who then stands up and says the war is justified is just as much a phony as they will have proven themselves to be.

[leftofthedial]

28. it is a sham--our privatized electoral system, that is.

the same people who own the war and its profits own the election process. they carefully selected only those candidates they knew would not rock the Iraq boat.

And we sit here flinging crap like a cage full of monkeys, Obama supporters flinging filth at Hillary supporters and Hillary supporters flinging it back at Obama supporters.

I sincerely doubt that 99% of the people here, much less the mainstream idiots who prowl the streets and shopping malls of America, want real change any more than they want to actually research the candidates or their positions. I doubt they (you? us?) would know real change if it bit them on the ass.

This country is owned by treasonous criminals. Nothing about 2008--NOTHING--will change that.

[RestoreGore]

30. It is all an illusion

Brought to you by the same people who brought you the war. But the rallies are just so exciting...

[AtomicKitten]

5. There's a bit of a sticky-wicket with impeachment.

Although no one would argue that BushCo is most deservedly impeachment-worthy, the problem is that the Democrats signed on by giving Junior a blank check with the Iraq War Resolution that enabled him to expand powers, powers that he expanded even further with signing statements and the like.

Democrats have their fingerprints all over this war and as a consequence all that has come afterwards. They obviously aren't interested in highlighting that complicity in this election cycle.

Funding is an arguably much different issue, but does not rise to the original egregious error of ceding power to the Bush Administration that the IWR inflicted on this country. I would oppose anyone that voted yes on that and, in this case, Hillary, vehemently. Obama opposed the "dumb" war from the start and will end it.

[RestoreGore]

7. Really? He will end it? Then why did he vote to fund it?

No ONE person can end this war. And sorry, if he doesn't call for justice for those who lied us into it, he is a hypocrite too.

[anigbrowl]

8. Actually, the president does have executive power to order the US out of Iraq.

Why did he vote to fund it? Because even if you're in it unwillingly, you still want the troops to have what they need while they're there.

[RestoreGore]

10. What rhetoric

And did the troops get what they needed? NO, it wound up going to Halliburton, Blackwater, and being wheeled out in barrels. There is NO excuse for someone who is so against this war to vote to fund it. Period. And again, that does not answer the question also as to why neither of them can pledge that they will take troops out of Iraq and NOT redeploy them elsewhere in the Middle East, or Pakistan. And just what we need... another "president" who is executive order happy.

[AtomicKitten]

9. No, it's not the same.

And as I said before, the IWR was the Golden Ticket to Junior's Big Adventure. It's unfortunate that you are unable to discern the very real and screaming difference between giving Junior a blank check to have his way with the planet and keeping our soldiers equipped and safe, the latter as a consequence of The Original Sin that was the Iraq War Resolution.

[RestoreGore]

12. Are you calling me unpatriotic?

Wasn't it not long ago that many on this site were actually CALLING to defund this war to end it? Now you only make excuses because "your" candidate voted the other way? Don't tell me that to vote against funding this ILLEGAL war is a vote against our troops. That is nothing more than Neocon Congressional BS propaganda. And I see VERY clearly what the difference is all about. I suppose then if Obama should take us into another war because he claims it must be done to protect us from terrorist attack (as he has stated that terrorists are planning to hit us again) that you will be OK with that? This isn't about OBAMA or sticking up for HIM. This is about protecting our CHILDREN from more of this shit and frankly, I have seen NOTHING that has convinced me anything will change in regards to doing anything differently to end this war. And again, we still do not know how far this will all go in ten months time, especially with Turkey added to the mix. So don't tell me Obama or anyone else WILL end this war without noting a PLAN. That means nothing to me.

[AtomicKitten]

14. No, I am calling you impervious to truthful and accurate critical analysis.

[RestoreGore]

15. Well, that's funny considering you haven't offered any of your own...

And you didn't answer my question. Should Obama lead us into another war because he claims he must to protect us from terrorist attack, would that be OK with you? Try to then give some critical analysis of that instead of diversionary answers.

[AtomicKitten]

16. I try not to engage in conversations with people that base their opinions on emotional rhetoric.

[RestoreGore]

18. Right. Because now we all know the answer to that question is yes.

And this OP is based on FACT. Turkey has attacked Iraq, and that means to me that this war is not over and may well escalate elsewhere. If you don't know how to discuss that or the implications of it for the next "president" and our children (which you bet your ass I'm emotional about) then don't bother responding in threads about it if all you come in them for is to shake your Obama pom poms.

[AtomicKitten]

20. Your crystal ball notwithstanding, your "sky is falling" routine at DU is renown.

With the experience of your bizarre finger-wagging about Gore already under our belts, your brow-beating incriminations and incessant goalpost moving fall on deaf ears.

[RestoreGore]

21. Same old MO

When you can't respond because you will look ignorant attack about something else totally unrelated to cover it up. But now, since you claimed you don't engage in conversations with people like me, why do you keep coming back to this thread? Go then... clean your rose colored glasses. The point of this entire thread was, that in ALL of the debates we have not ONCE heard either of these candidates pledge that there will be no more wars and that if troops are taken out of Iraq (which may not be as much a possibility it once was with this new development) that they would not be redeployed elsewhere... nor have we heard either of them claim they will call for justice for thse who lied us into this war. That is IMPORTANT to me and is a VALID concern. If you can't address it, then perhaps you need to go to a thread more suited to your mentality.

[cali]

23. "Only hypocrites cannot forgive hypocrisy"

the purity brigade strikes again.

[RestoreGore]

26. You fund it, the blood is on your hands as well

That isn't purity, that is fact. But since you put "your candidate" before principle, it isn't surprising you don't understand that.

[stillcool]

11. We know the truth...

what do 'we' do with it?

General Analysis on
US Military Expansion and Intervention

The United States has over 700 bases in 130 countries. As of April 2007, 146,000 US troops were actively serving in Iraq, and thousands of special forces were fighting in the "war on terrorism" in Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Africa and other regions. Back at home, the US government openly threatens Syria and Iran while covertly supporting coups, protests and uprisings in other countries, such as Venezuela and Kyrgyzstan. Washington defends its military expansion and interventions in the name of fighting terrorism and spreading democracy. However, as critics often point out, these interventions probably increase the threat of terrorism. The pattern of US interventions does not show support for democracy either. Instead, as a prominent study by the Library of Congress has shown, US interventions tend to have undemocratic results. Often they install tough military regimes that pay little heed to their people, privileging cozy relations with Washington and support for its economic and geostrategic interests.

The American Empire: 1992 to present
from the book
Killing Hope
by William Blum
2004 edition


Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that is the way the empire grows-a base in every neighborhood, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-eight years after world War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty ears after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.
"America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before," US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in February 2002. Later that year, the US Defense Department announced: "The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations then it has been throughout history."
Equally unsubtle are the announcements beginning in the early 1990s-coinciding with he pivotal demise of the Soviet Union-and continuing to the present, trumpeting Washington's desire, means, and intention for world domination, while assuring the world of the noble purposes behind this crusade. These declarations have been regularly put forth in policy papers emanating from the White House and the Pentagon, as well as from government-appointed commissions and think tanks closely associated with the national security establishment.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.html

America's Empire of Bases
By Chalmers Johnson
TomDispatch.com
January 2004

As distinct from other peoples, most Americans do not recognize -- or do not want to recognize -- that the United States dominates the world through its military power. Due to government secrecy, our citizens are often ignorant of the fact that our garrisons encircle the planet. This vast network of American bases on every continent except Antarctica actually constitutes a new form of empire -- an empire of bases with its own geography not likely to be taught in any high school geography class. Without grasping the dimensions of this globe-girdling Baseworld, one can't begin to understand the size and nature of our imperial aspirations or the degree to which a new kind of militarism is undermining our constitutional order.

Our military deploys well over half a million soldiers, spies, technicians, teachers, dependents, and civilian contractors in other nations. To dominate the oceans and seas of the world, we are creating some thirteen naval task forces built around aircraft carriers whose names sum up our martial heritage -- Kitty Hawk, Constellation, Enterprise, John F. Kennedy, Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Carl Vinson, Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John C. Stennis, Harry S. Truman, and Ronald Reagan. We operate numerous secret bases outside our territory to monitor what the people of the world, including our own citizens, are saying, faxing, or e-mailing to one another.

Our installations abroad bring profits to civilian industries, which design and manufacture weapons for the armed forces or, like the now well-publicized Kellogg, Brown & Root company, a subsidiary of the Halliburton Corporation of Houston, undertake contract services to build and maintain our far-flung outposts. One task of such contractors is to keep uniformed members of the imperium housed in comfortable quarters, well fed, amused, and supplied with enjoyable, affordable vacation facilities. Whole sectors of the American economy have come to rely on the military for sales. On the eve of our second war on Iraq, for example, while the Defense Department was ordering up an extra ration of cruise missiles and depleted-uranium armor-piercing tank shells, it also acquired 273,000 bottles of Native Tan sunblock, almost triple its 1999 order and undoubtedly a boon to the supplier, Control Supply Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and its subcontractor, Sun Fun Products of Daytona Beach, Florida.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/01bases.htm

[RestoreGore]

13. I wish I had the answer to that question

[balantz]

17. These two candidates are clearly a part of the existing system.

They will uphold the power structure of the elite and merely sugar-coat it with goodies like health-care. We will not exit Iraq with either of the two. I see us getting involved more deeply in the region, and situations getting much more volitile to the point that they will not be able to extract us. They are fully aware tof this and are lying to us. If you want to know what Obama has in mind about the Middle East, just ask his advisor, Brezinski. The corporations who are robbing us of our children, our wealth, and robbing the world of peace own our government, and the politicians that are groomed and propped upon the stage. These two are ready to manage this country for the elite as the depression hits and makes suckers out of us all. Woe to America, once the great leader of Democracy in the world.

[RestoreGore]

19. I figured that too..

PNAC is not about to just walk away from its agenda...

[balantz]

22. Kick!

For wiping mud off the windshield.

[rasputin1952]

24. You bring up impeachment, which wold mean a trial, which

would take a lot of time...it is not feasible.

The best hope we have is a Congress that puts the brakes on these nasty individuals. If the small spine that Congress is slowly growing comes to maturity, they will be effectively neutered.

I suspect that Congress will go overwhelmingly D in the GE, and McCain will not be the winner, in fact, if he gets more than 20% of the vote, I'd be surprised.

in any case, Whomever the D is that gets into the WH and those in Congress, need to be told in no uncertain terms that they work for us, and they do not have free hand in he destruction of this nation.

Until the candidates begin seriously discussing the problems this nation is facing, and how they plan to deal with those problems, we are stuck in speculation mode.

[RestoreGore]

25. Yes, I know. Democracy is so inconvenient in this country all of sudden

I already know Bush, Cheney, and their entire group of criminals will be allowed to walk free. And to me that does not speak well for Democrats OR Republicans who claim to uphold the Constitution.

[rasputin1952]

27. If, by some very odd way, I became president and were being

inaugurated, my first sentence would be:

"My fellow Americans, I am ordering the US Marshall's to arrest former president bush, and former president cheney immediately: a list of charges will follow tomorrow".

I would have already had a team of Federal Atty's draw up charges, on virtually anything they could find, from treason to stealing pencils, and prosecute them to the full extent of the law. If convicted of treason, as I could not bring myself to actually have them hanged as I am anti-DP, I would wait to announce a reduction to life in prison right up until about 30 seconds before they would swing. I would want those miserable bastards to know what it feels like to be treated like those they so gleefully sent to their deaths.

[RestoreGore]

29. Well, that makes two of us n/t

[Forkboy]

31. We have two choices: The staus quo or the status quo.

Have fun voting.