Cynthia McKinney will, or any of the Green Party candidates. So would Nader, or for that matter whoever runs as a Libertarian.

Incidentally, the Clinton/Obama position is even more deceptive than Josh indicates: leaving a small contingent of troops in Iraq would invite a massacre. The military would never agree to it. So either Hillary & Barack are much dumber than they appear, or they're just plain conning us. The REAL plan is to announce, after the election, that "Oh, sorry, that plan I campaigned on isn't really possible, so we'll just keep them all there."

Sort of like Nixon on Vietnam (if anyone else actually remembers that one): his "plan" was to stall as long as possible.

I don't quite understand why so many lefties and peace activists are lining up behind Obama. As Josh points out here, all you have to do is read his detailed positions or look at his record to know it's a con. The only explanations I can come up with are too condescending to publish. In politics, a bandwagon is a lot like the old time Juggernaut: get out of the way or get crushed. But we're supposed to be dissidents, independent thinkers.

Well, we have until November to catch on. It's going to be a long, hot summer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How surprised can anyone be that none of the candidates for the presidency has any intention of ending the "invasion/war/occupation?" This project never had anything to do with the Iraqi people. At the risk of stating the obvious for the umpteenth time, this entire operation was for the purposes of controlling a major world oil resource and establishing a Middle East base for the Free Market idealogues (Bremmer and the Coalition) that followed immediately on
the heels of the military invasion. The very first things they began to do was take the steps necessary to dismantle the Iraqi system of safety nets, publicly owned industry, particularly but not by any means limited to the petroleum sector, and open the country to unlimited, unregulated foreign investment. In other words set up shop to issue licenses to steal. In the beginning the deal was less about restoring electricity and more about opening the country to unrestricted free market capitalism. Priorities are, after all, priorities.

It is my suspicion that this was the reason Bremmer decided to dissolve the Iraqi Army. He had to know that there would be resistance to his destruction of the Iraqi way of life, which they (the Iraqi people) certainly expected to continue sans Saddam. With the Iraqi Army intact the leverage by Iraqis to oppose the changes that Bremmer and cohorts planned to impose could have been much stronger than it would be without a real Iraqi army in place. The difficulties caused by a resistance force of 30-40 thousand certainly seems to underscore that point.

In a sense, the Free Market Neocons and the Bush-Cheneyites win either way. Had the conversion of Iraq into a free market wild west gone over without too many hitches, they would have won. Because of the calamity and chaos they have created even in their abject failure (and they have not accepted that as a done deal) they almost surely guarantee a continuing American military presence in the Middle East for a very long time to come. Evidence: the candidates of the "opposition party" that were able to hold sway in the nomination process. The candidates who were for immediate withdrawal have been long gone from the contest.

American presence serves the interests of the Neocon/Bush-Cheney constituency: the Defense Industry, the congressional-military-industrial complex, the war profiteers, the oil interests, and the client state of Israel. That the American citizenry is totally screwed is of no more importance to this craven pack of Straussian elitists than the fate of some serf might have been to King Richard III.

Our Democratic candidates are to some extent boxed in. Clinton, of course has never disagreed with the war, but rather only the execution of it. There needs nothing more to be said concerning the Senator from New York. Obama's position is a little more complicated. As president if he began an immediate and total withdrawal, he would be responsible for any potential conflagration, of which there are no shortage of probable ones to pick from. Bush, incredibly, would be virtually off the hook for all the stupidity, horror, and disaster he is responsible for. To engage in ending the occupation and begin total withdrawal would require immense political courage, and that doesn't win presidential elections in America anymore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr Holland.

"Kabuki" means "off-beat"
and
"perverse" leads away from the norm

so "perverse kabuki" would mean "on-beat."

I hardly think that you think that Mrs. Clinton's position on the Iraqi war/occupation is not an obstinate persistence in an initially faulty judgment.

In any event, it's truly difficult to figure out any Clinton position.

She sings and dances kabuki very skillfully.

But, on the other hand, it seems that she can actually play her own role
(Bill Clinton is not her "onnogate," the male actor who plays the female role in a kabuki drama.)
For example, while in Pennsylvania Mrs. Clinton is opposing the Columbia “free” trade deal while Bill Clinton has fostered it.

She keeps appearing and disappearing through the “seri” trap door on the stage, with respect to our venture in Iraq.

In the kubaki “Yoshitsune and the Thousand Cherry Trees” three clan generals figure prominently. Their deaths would ensure the end of war and the arrival of peace.

Perhaps only if Generals
McCain,
Clinton, and
Obama

die, will there ever be an end to the Iraq war/occupation.

Don't yo New Yokkers eva go to yor theaters?

(I've never been to a kabuki in my life.
And my New York dialect stinks.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The United States should stay in Iraq.

April 9, 2008, 8:00 pm
Posted on YourThreeCents.com by Kozlo in Election2008

The United States should stay in Iraq and accomplish our mission. I support General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. They are doing a fine job in bringing home to America the realities of what's going on in Iraq and what's at stake in any future decisions we make as a country in regards to Iraq.

We can't and must not leave Iraq for several reasons.

1. Al Qaeda is not fully been destroyed. We cannot allow them to reconstitute themselves and try to undermine the people of Iraq and its government. Al Qaeda has made it clear that they want to push us out of Iraq; then, they want to undermine moderate Arab Countries in the region. Don't forget they also want to destroy Israel, too.

2. If we leave Iraq too soon, Iran will move in to fill the void. That's what was said by...

[To read the rest of this post, and all the reasons, please go to YourThreeCents.com and click on "The United States should stay in Iraq"]



This could POSSIBLY BE one of the WORST presidential candidate pools ever. See what America’s Youth is saying about each of the candidates, what they have done for the campaigns and for OUR future at YourThreeCents.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary apparently isn't the one. If she had a dick she'd be stepping on it for the last 6 months at least. Too bad, but Bill ain't all he's cracked up to be either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and she'll deny she ever said it.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am so tired of hearing the word "War" in connection with our invasion and forced occupation. the only "war" is the intra-national skirmish between rival Moslem and Secular factions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]