Hillary & Barack: 'War on Terror' back on!


It's clear that Obama will soon escalate the Afghanistan war for a second time (our 'antiwar' movement is all over it; first ever national demo against Obamascalation scheduled for March, 2010!), and last night on Charlie Rose Hillary Clinton helpfully explained Obama's imperial policy and the role 'we the people' play in it. Our duty, in this democracy, is to believe in whatever they tell us this time is the mission, and all of us in this democracy must support the troops no matter what they're doing to the restless natives. Though Hillary and Barack are more polished and big 'D' Democratic than Cheney and Bush, otherwise their approach differs how from Bush era martial philosophy?

Hillary also offered a preview of Obama's next big speech, his re-rationale for the occupation and assorted war criminality we're doing to Afghanistan. Yeah, so get with it already party loyalists, looks like the War on Terrah phrase is again safe for Democrats; Hillary and Barack have to revive it when the nation-building pretense is now so publicly and obviously a joke/tragedy. Also, note that the 'War on Terror' is not just good for killing al Qaeda but can be applied with lethal effect to all groups or nations we say are inspired by their extremism. Yes, that'll make war anywhere/anytime easy, we now distinguish ally from enemy by saying 'enemy' is extremist (so be careful never to apply that term to ally Saudi Arabia). Emphasis added.

Charlie Rose: Beyond that, is the Taliban in control in Afghanistan a threat to the United States?

Hillary Clinton: I believe it is. I believe it is a threat because I believe that it once again provides a safe haven, because what we have seen is that al-Qaeda is now part of a syndicated terror. It inspires, it directs, it trains, equips, funds other groups within this syndicate.

((fairleft: Hillary is referring to the Taliban that in October 2001 offered to turn Osama Bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial?))

Charlie Rose: Like they did to Africa.

Hillary Clinton: Yes and to many of us, the principle objective is still to defeat, capture, kill the al-Qaeda leadership. We do think that is important. It's not a marginal issue. It's a core issue for us. But we also realize that there are many aspects to the threat from extremism that have to be addressed. It is imperative that there not be safe haven for al-Qaeda and its syndicate, its allies in Afghanistan.

Charlie Rose: And that's what the Taliban would deliver if they were in control.

Hillary Clinton: They would, in parts of Afghanistan if not to -- if they couldn't take over the entire country, because of resistance from the Afghans themselves, and allies like us, they would certainly establish a beachhead and would have a broader area of operation.

Charlie Rose: So what do you say to mothers and fathers as you know the question we were saying: "Are you asking me to send my son or my daughter to Afghanistan where I am essentially fighting for a corrupt or fraudulent government?"

Hillary Clinton: No, but you're not; you're fighting for the United States. You are fighting to protect our homeland and our people. . . . given the failures of the last eight years to capture and kill the al-Qaeda leadership [and] to try to stabilize Afghanistan, we have to recommit ourselves, because we do think it's in our interests. We do think it's in our security interest. And I feel very strongly that the young men and women who are stationed in Afghanistan, are really doing what has to be done on the front lines of the war against terrorism.

Charlie Rose: And they understand and believe in the mission?

Hillary Clinton: Yes, well, and it's important that the entire American public understand and believe in the mission because, as a democracy, we have to support those that we send to the battlefield.

Okay, just me speaking here, but "as a democracy" I don't think that means that requires that "the entire American public understand and believe in" whatever mission the government now tells us is 'the' mission over in Afghanistan. I also don't think that, "as a democracy, we have to support those that we send to the battlefield." No, I'd say we need to support all of our soldiers who are not war criminals, and provide court martials and defense attorneys for those of our soldiers (and policymakers) who are war criminals. Hey, I'm a Geneva Conventions, Nuremberg Principles kind of guy, what can I say?

Finally, doesn't the PBobSequious Charlie Rose serve up his 'questions' like pritty little cupcakes?

Tags: Afghanistan, antiwar movement, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)



Go Fuck Yourself

Since that is clearly the response you were hoping to elicit by posting this piece on Veterans Day we might as well get it out of the way early.

Ya think you could have held this to tomorrow ya dimwit?

by Bruce Webb 2009-11-11 08:45AM | 0 recs
Attached to wrong thread

I clicked on your Veterans are War Criminals link and somehow got thrown back here.

Every time you throw a war soldiers end up deliberately carrying out acts that are by objective standards evil, there is no real way to morally justify blowing three year old girls to bits or burning them alive. To that degree war is itself a crime. But to blacken the names of all who are called to participate and even those who choose is not really a productive way to address the underlying issue and rather is just a move to start a flame war.

So don't expect any apologies.

by Bruce Webb 2009-11-11 08:53AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads