Imagine if they hadn't lied

An addiction to Oil has come to undue this nation in more ways than one.

Over a Trillion wasted on Iraq and Afghanistan, over 5000 dead Americans, hundreds of thousands of others dead too.

That's $1,000,000,000,000 toward war. And now, as promised they wouldn't, its time for another supplemental war bill to fund the appetite for war.

Alan Grayson:

On May 30, 2010, at 10:06 a.m, the direct cost of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan will hit $1 trillion. And in a few weeks, the House of Representatives will be asked to vote for $33 billion of additional "emergency" supplemental spending to continue the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. There will be the pretense of debate - speeches on the floor of both chambers, stern requests for timetables or metrics or benchmarks - but this war money will get tossed in the wood chipper without difficulty, requested by a President who ran on an anti-war platform. Passing this legislation will mark the breaking of another promise to America, the promise that all war spending would be done through the regular budget process. Not through an off-budget swipe of our Chinese credit card.

The war money could be used for schools, bridges, or paying everyone's mortgage payments for a whole year. It could be used to end federal income taxes on every American's first $35,000 of income, as my bill, the War Is Making You Poor Act, does. It could be used to close the yawning deficit, supply health care to the unemployed, or for any other human and humane purpose.

Instead, it will be used for war. Because, as Orwell predicted in 1984, we've reached the point where everyone thinks that we've always been at war with Eastasia. Why?

Not because Al Qaeda was sheltered in Iraq. It wasn't. And not because Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan. It isn't. Bush could never explain why we went to war in Iraq, and Obama can't explain why we are 'escalating' in Afghanistan.

So, why? Why spend $1 trillion on a long, bloody nine-year campaign with no justifiable purpose?

Remember 9/11, the day that changed everything? That was almost a decade ago. Bush's response was to mire us in two bloody wars, wars in which we are still stuck today. Why?

Betrayal of principle.

Now, the Obama defenders will jump in here to defend him, saying that Obama actually ran on escalating the war in Afghanistan. They will ignore the fact that Obama ran on an escalation of about 10,000 troops at one time, and not the bait and switch of the equivalent of moving 100,000 troops from Iraq into Afghanistan.

The Obama-led strategy of the Democrats on the wars has been nothing short of an entire failrure of principle for the Democratic Party. What became of the Party, led by Reid, to cut funding off of the war in 2007?

That was clearly the Democratic opinion in 2007. Its what led to all of the 2008 primary candidates to endorse pulling out of Iraq with some sort of timetable. Obama's going into Afghanistan was mentioned a couple of times, and always in the context of "two brigades" of troops "and some helicopters" or the like. Never as a war the equivalent of the disaster that became of the invastion of Iraq.

I thought it cynical politics at the time, not believing that Obama was a  really a believer in Bush's military solution of nation-building through billions of dollars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. But, it's clearly a continuation of policy.

This is not the first betrayal, that came in 2009 already, the War Funding off the books. So we have another vote of principle upcoming. We'll see who shows up.

Tags: Iraq, Afghanistan (all tags)

Comments

24 Comments

missing a few zeroes

in your third paragraph: should be $1,000,000,000,000 for war.

by desmoinesdem 2010-05-30 12:22PM | 0 recs
RE: missing a few zeroes

Unfortunately; edited.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-30 12:57PM | 0 recs
RE: "unfortunately"

luv it

by QTG 2010-05-30 03:57PM | 1 recs
Well

we have a national security state. It's not just Afghanistan and Iraq, let's talk drug war. He drops the rhetoric and says no more 'war on drugs' and then forces seven bases on Colombia.

It's ridiculous.

A trillion dollar war, a complete waste of money. But it's corporate welfare for Lockheed and Boeing and Halliburton and Xe and the list goes on an on.

We need to wake up to the fact that we live in a predatory state where corporate elites raid the public treasury for their benefit.

by Charles Lemos 2010-05-30 02:56PM | 3 recs
RE: Well

I thnk there's also a factor here that of beng the buy-in to using war as an economic engine. Jobs, money printing and being spent on contracts, and the like. I wouldn't underestimate that part of the persuasion to the Democrats, especially Obama.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-30 03:02PM | 1 recs
RE: Lifting fingers

especially Obama

 

luv it

by QTG 2010-05-30 03:58PM | 0 recs
RE: Well

according to Nestor Kirchner (the ex-President of Argentina), GWBush told him point blank that war is the engine of the economy.

by Charles Lemos 2010-05-30 03:59PM | 1 recs
RE: Well

Its not that big of a surprise. Its one of those given things that politicians know, but will scarcely admit; and would feign shock with pointing it out. With unemployment at 10% already, its no surprise to see the bait and switch for 100,000 troops by Obama from Iran into Afghanistan. Jobs and Oil.... and a whole lot of money to the patrons.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-30 08:16PM | 0 recs
It answers itself

One Trillion Dollars. It's the question and the answer. The money isn't stuffed into a cannon and shot off. Someone collects all those dollars. Corporate someones, including Blackwater!

 

Meet the news boss, same as the old boss.

by antiHyde 2010-05-30 06:17PM | 0 recs
Wow

"betrayal of pinciple"

Bullshit. 

There has been a significant reduction in the number of troops in Iraq - something that Obama promised and thus far is on target to deliver.

Grayson didn't mention that, and you don't.  Why would you fail to mention such a material fact?

By August of this year all combat forces in Iraq are supposed to be out - leaving 50,000 in non-combat roles - which is what Obama promised in February of 2009. This is three months later than the 16 months he promised in Iowa. By mid-2011 the non-combat forces are supposed to out as well.

Given these facts your article makes no sense.

If significant combat forces are still in Iraq next summer, you will be able to argue that Obama has broken a core promise of the campaign. 

You can't make that argument now.

I don't support the escalation in Afgahnistan - though I did support the war at first.  He said he was going to escalate there, though in the campaign, though this is bigger than what he suggested during the campaign.

I am sure, though, you can right this down to another Obamabot post.

 

 

by fladem 2010-05-30 10:36PM | 1 recs
"Obama's promises", lol' thats a funny

Yea, pretty much, or at the least a betrayal of any sense of rationality. You connect all the dots then try to pretend that a line doesn't exist.

 

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-31 12:18AM | 0 recs
We get it

you're bitter.

by DTOzone 2010-06-04 08:09PM | 0 recs
Shocking

Yet another Obama attack.

 

What I would like to see from Jerome is a post about why he hates Obama.  It's been pretty clear since he brought Gibbs abord that Jerome detested Obama, but why I don't know.

by Socks The Cat 2010-05-30 11:19PM | 0 recs
not really

Really, don't stoop to the level of some of the others here with a revisionist history of this blog; you'll just wind up being silenced when I point out the truth.

Gibbs is a snake, but so what. Obama has been a big massive failure. That's all. If he were successful, I'd be very thankful, but he's not been, so why pretend.

Just look at this crap-sandwich of a failure around the oil spill in the Gulf. A gigantic opportunity for a real change to occur, moving away from carbon fuels, and we've got nothing from him, nada, he's nothing but hopola, with the real payola in the pockets of GS and BP; which without coincidence, line Obama's pocket's more than anyone elses. That's what's real. Deal with it.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-31 12:24AM | 2 recs
RE: not really

I totally disagree that he's a massive failure, I don't even think Bowers would go that far.

But even if you think that, It's your opinion and I respect that.

What I'm trying to find out is why you have disliked/hated/not trusted him since Early 2007, what caused that?  Just make a post addressing it and we can all move on.

by Socks The Cat 2010-05-31 09:51AM | 0 recs
yea, really

A post, heh, this is something we have to live with for too long.

And you can go back to late 2006 and early 2007, when he first was being mentioned to run, and then got in, and I was pretty much aboard and enthusiastic. He sounded terrific, progressive, and new.

I then looked at his record of voting, and realized he was no different than Clinton, whom I did not support until it was last resort and purely as tactical.

My disappointment now is realizing how right I was about Obama. I really hoped I was wrong, but he's just not taking the opportunity at hand and radically changing the direction of this country. He's not up to the task.

Obama would have been a great SoS, building relationships, or a terrific SCOTUS, thinking about it all the time, and making laws to move us all along. As a President, he is too consumed with himself, his own standing. These politicians all have ego's, but Obama is in a whole different universe that's full of himself; and those around him are useless as anything other than a gauge on figuring out how to do the re-elect.

Unfortunately, it gets lost in the clutter of the prism that only sees this as a continuation of Clinton vs Obama, whom I always said were the same exact vote when it came down to the big issues of military and finances. At least with her, the netroots would have been in opposition, and not rooted in a co-opted neutered state of being like what you find on so many blogs. There is no opposition to Obama in the Democratic Party establishment; and yet, strong progressive opposition is the only thing that is going to force the change.

 

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-05-31 11:35AM | 2 recs
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Blogosphere

I then looked at his record of voting, and realized he was no different than Clinton, whom I did not support until it was last resort and purely as tactical.

You see, that's your problem: either now or then, you were, or are, being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

And so I have to ask: who is the real Jerome Armstrong?

Is the real Jerome Armstrong the same author of the post above, making an impassioned plea against the war in Afghanistan? If so, I would respectfully disagree, but at least saulute your intellectual consistency and encourage you to keep up the fight.

Or is the real Jerome Armstrong the same blogger who hacked awfully hard for the unarguably more moderate, more pro-war alternative to Barack Obama two years ago (e.g., using the front page of his diary to count the delegates that didn't count and discount those that did)?

Claiming two weeks ago that a politician's position on the 2003 Iraq War vote was of such importance that they would be held accoutnable...

coulda shoulda woulda. There was a vote, and those who voted for it will be held accountable, in both parties. It's as big as an albatross as the vote to invade Iraq.

...and then turning around and excusing such a vote is a dance on the head of the pin you are not making succesfully. I know, you claim your partisan attitude was necessary for "tactical" reasons.

I'm not saying there would be one inch of daylight between the positions of a President Clinton and a President Obama. In my opinion, there wouldn't.

But I also have to wonder if your writing today is also for "tactical" reasons, or if it is really what you believe. After reviewing the record of the show you put on in 2007, it is impossible to tell the difference.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-06-01 02:26AM | 2 recs
RE: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Blogosphere

I guess you're implying (hard to tell sorta with this nonsensical rant) that I didn't hold Clinton accountable for her vote?  Why do you think I supported Edwards instead of her?

You're problem is that you don't read through the end of the comment to learn what tactical means, and the fact that I was up front at the time with the same reasoning.

Unfortunately, it gets lost in the clutter of the prism that only sees this as a continuation of Clinton vs Obama, whom I always said were the same exact vote when it came down to the big issues of military and finances. At least with her, the netroots would have been in opposition, and not rooted in a co-opted neutered state of being like what you find on so many blogs. There is no opposition to Obama in the Democratic Party establishment; and yet, strong progressive opposition is the only thing that is going to force the change.

Being tactical, while being transparent about it. Its bizzare, how you find that revolting, all the while are a pure Obamabot in the face of Gibbs/Axlerod/Rahm and the non-transparent cynical politics this administration has come to represent. You're sense of accountability is unfathomable.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-01 08:25AM | 1 recs
So this was all some grand scheme?

To nominate the more moderate, more pro-war primary candidate less favored by the netroots under the unwarranted assumption that such a move would somehow ensure greater opposition from the left once elected?

...all the while are a pure Obamabot in the face of Gibbs/Axlerod/Rahm and the non-transparent cynical politics this administration has come to represent.

So you are saying it is okay to "tactically" hack for a candidate you don't believe in as long as it is later transparent? And you accuse the Obama Administration of cynical politics?

My disappointment now is realizing how right I was about Obama

These politicians all have ego's, but Obama is in a whole different universe that's full of himself

Do you realize that your complaints about Obama are projections of your own actions?

by NoFortunateSon 2010-06-01 09:53AM | 1 recs
RE: So this was all some grand scheme?

Try and stop being a troll, if you'd like to remain around. Look, you have no credibility talking about 2008, you won't even own up to your alias back then, whatever it was here.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-06 01:01AM | 0 recs
You've really lost your fucking marbles Jerome

you pinned Obama as a failure before he was even elected. I mean really, who the hell do you think you're fooling?

by DTOzone 2010-06-04 08:11PM | 0 recs
RE: You've really lost your fucking marbles Jerome

Well, if I did, then I guess I was right!  But what do you know, you still haven't found yourself available to the last time I shut you up. Later troll.

by Jerome Armstrong 2010-06-06 01:00AM | 0 recs
I agree with Jerome

 

 I agree that the PUMA accusations are wrong in this context, since US Foreign Policy is in the hands of Ms. Clinton herself. She did an excellent job of keeping Okinawa under our control, and is handling the Pakistanis, Indians, Israel, Iran, Russia, and most especially North Korea for our heartbroken President who is watching his failed Presidency sink in a Oil Slick of his own design.  Best of all, she is doing it with precisely the same amount of military experience as her avid supporters. SHE ROCKS.  I agree that the PUMA accusations are particularly wrong in this context, since US Foreign Policy is in the hands of Ms. Clinton herself. She did an excellent job of keeping Okinawa under our control, and is handling the Pakistanis, Indians, Israel, Iran, Russia, and most especially North Korea while our "heartbroken" President watches his failed Presidency sink in a Oil Slick of his own inevitable failre.  Best of all, Hilary is doing all of this with precisely the same amount of military experience as her avid and rabid supporters. SHE ROCKS.

 

by QTG 2010-05-31 08:49AM | 0 recs
RE: But I repeat myself

click click

by QTG 2010-05-31 08:51AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads