All true, but of course the debating principle that he who mentions Hitler (or the Nazis) first in internet conversations... loses the argument.

Unfortunately, in this case you can't talk about the Bush family without talking about Prescott Bush and the Nazis... and the international corporate system, including IBM, that did business on both sides.

Nor can you neglect the way in which the US OSS/CIA rolled up Nazi intelligence networks, scooped up Nazi scientists, and deeply incorporated Nazis and Germans into various establishments.

Nor can you neglect the somewhat more nebulous ways in which both Nazi Germany and the U.S. perfected machinery of genocide (death camps and gas, and atomic bombs), and deployed those instruments of genocide during WWII.

Nor can you neglect the way the Bush administration has now committed the kind of war crimes (for example torture and launching wars of aggression) for which Nazis were hung at Nuremberg.

Add up the picture and we can see that the Nazi disease is deep inside our political and power structure... some of it imported... some of it homegrown.

Bush isn't even really the problem at all... he's just a factotum... a straw man. The question is one of how power is gained, how it is maintained, how totalitarian/"Nazi" power structures maintain themselves in the U.S. regardless of whether they have successfully placed a President in the oval office.

Kicking Bush out is only the most minor success. Gaining control over and defunding and reigning in the institutions that will place the next Bush in power if they are not prevented from doing so, should be the real goal of politics.

Even an Obama victory will mean nothing if the supporting structures of political power are not changed... defense contractors, unaccountable corporations, privatized intelligence organizations and armies, and all the apparatus of empire. Sure it's "Nazi" in nature.. but it is also emperial in nature, totalitarian in nature, authoritarian in nature and anti-democratic in nature. In fact what we are is perhaps more archetypal than what the Nazis were. They are just an early precursor of a much more powerful and resilient "evil empire."

You say we don't commit genocide? Friend, you only think that because our techniques are much more subtle and we put many more layers between the commanders and victims.

Posted at May 15, 2008 11:47 AM in response to Obama Camp Hits Back At Bush's Claim That Dems Favor "Appeasement"

Oops.. meant to say
"Anyone who lived through the Kerry campaign cringes at a candidate who does NOT defend, and defend FAST with a counter attack. "

Posted at April 26, 2008 10:10 PM in response to McCain Campaign: Associating Obama With Terrorists Is Fair Game

A lot of people are wondering the same thing.

Maybe Obama has decided to take the high road as a path to victory, and I'm of mixed mind. Anyone who lived through the Kerry campaign cringes at a candidate who does defend, and defend with a counter attack.

On the other hand Obama's apparent idea is that you can organize yourself to power... string together networks of people in communities who will be impervious to the high level propaganda.

That may be possible in some populations (younger, more urban). To folks out in rural and small town America that sounds pretty fancy pants, and many just listen to reality as presented on Fox news and leave it at that. But then again, THOSE folks aren't going to hear you counter propaganda anyway, so maybe you ARE better off running a "different" kind of campaign.

And then I think of Kerry again, and cringe.

Or maybe Obama is doing a Kerry at the high propaganda level, but trying to change the game at the community level?

Well I don't know what his strategy is, but it worrisome.

Posted at April 26, 2008 10:09 PM in response to McCain Campaign: Associating Obama With Terrorists Is Fair Game

All great truths are possessed of a great simplicity. :-)

Posted at April 26, 2008 1:36 PM in response to McCain Campaign: Associating Obama With Terrorists Is Fair Game

Yes a reverse is likely, no a double reverse is improbable and really doesn't make sense. First of Wright is an obvious sincere supporter, and has Ayers even endorsed Obama? Hagee, I don't even know what he has said.

Hamas cannot reasonably surmise that the average 'merican will understand the possibility of an intended reverse... and so has no reason to expect that they will reason their way to a double reverse.

Proof of my point is that you are unable to comprehend the possibility of a reverse, or to distinguish that reasonable possibility of a reverse from the improbability of a double reverse. Thank you for making my point.

Posted at April 26, 2008 1:34 PM in response to McCain Campaign: Associating Obama With Terrorists Is Fair Game

I think McCain has outlined a serious threat to Obama. Expect him to use it.

I'm interested in the Hamas angle. They are smart people. When they lightly endorsed Obama, they without a doubt knew that would be bad for Obama, and good for either Hillary or McCain or both.

That tells us that the real candidates of Hamas are Hillary (probably) and McCain (surely).

If Hamas really wants to support Obama they will come out with an even stronger endorsement of McCain and Hillary, and express their strong opposition to Obama. This is of course very unlikely because what they (and their Iranian funders) really want is to see McCain double down on Iraq and continue to create world wide outrage against the U.S. and by extension Israel.

The quesiton is, can Obama explain how a Hamas endorsement of Obama is really an effort to support McCain? I'll bet he just runs from it, because my argument is, although obviously truer than true, simply too hard to explain to the public.

Posted at April 26, 2008 12:41 PM in response to McCain Campaign: Associating Obama With Terrorists Is Fair Game

Well of course she doesn't like MO... it defended her husband when she would have preferred to see him hanged by his genitals AND impeached.

After all, she could still be making a comeback... maybe an even better one... if her husband had been impeached and was a martyr to the Republicans.

So, you see, it all makes sense. Move On is always getting in her way... sometimes by supporting her husband, sometimes by supporting her opponents.

heh heh

Posted at April 19, 2008 5:30 PM in response to Obama Wins Vast Majority Of Pennsylvania Newspaper Endorsements

I have never seen Obama portrayed as infallible or a demigod. I can't imagine where you got that impression. That sounds more like an accusation or PR talking point.

The biggest thing either of them has ever run is a Presidential campaign, and I don't see how you can argue that Obama is not doing a better job of that executive task than Clinton.

I agreed with you that Obama's presentation was on this occasion and others not all one might desire in terms of sharpness and focus.

On the other hand, he conveys a likable personality and a sense of leadership that I find largely missing in Clinton.

Clinton may be preferable on this or that policy position, but only Presidents get to try to pursue policy goals, and she can't get elected.

Obama probably can.

Posted at April 8, 2008 11:58 PM in response to Obama: We Have to Apply "Measured, But Increased Pressure" on the Iraqis

CROCKER: And that's because, Senator, is a -- I mean, I don't like to sound like a broken record, but this is hard and this is complicated.

I think that when Iraq gets to the point that it can carry forward its further development without a major commitment of U.S. forces, with still a lot of problems out there but where they and we would have a fair certitude that, again, they can drive it forward themselves without significant danger of having the whole thing slip away from them again, then, clearly, our profile, our presence diminishes markedly.

But that's not where we are now.

Barack is asking "what level of violence" is acceptable for a withdrawal. Crocker is replying that it's not just the level of violence but the ability to maintain that level of control into the future. That's a reasonable response, but implies an indefinite American commitment, because it basically makes withdrawal contingent not just on the present but on possible futures... and assuring the future is MUCH harder than measuring the present.

Sounds like Obama is asking for a point measure and Crocker is giving a linear (trend) measure.

Obama is searching for a way to leave and have things hold together for a year or 3... long enough that it doesn't look like a miserable defeat for the U.S., and so the collapse doesn't lie directly at our feet. But it will lie at our feet when it inevitably comes, even if Iraq holds together for a year or 2 after we leave.

Bush/Cheney have got us by the balls and nipples... the only way to forestall the collapse of Iraq is to stay there for a long long time. When we withdraw there WILL be a disaster there. We still have to do it. We can't let proto-fascists like Bush and Cheney trap us in foreign wars and occupations just because we have humanitarian feelings toward people in occupied countries. Because if they can trap us in Iraq they can trap us again and again in other countries.

We have to show that the empire can and does retreat.... It is a terrible tragedy for some of the countries we will retreat from. Weep for the Iraqis and others who will die when we leave. But we must leave in order to begin a new approach to the world that is not based on imperial conquest.

Obama and the Democrats will have to find a way to withdraw but stave off the collapse long enough for Americans to forget that we could have prevented it by staying indefinitely. Might be doable.

Withdraw now.

Posted at April 8, 2008 7:38 PM in response to Obama: We Have to Apply "Measured, But Increased Pressure" on the Iraqis

I support Obama but...

I was not impressed by his performance here. I'd give him a B plus.

In particular I fault him for failing to define and pin down his excellent question about "would the current situation equal success if it was being maintained by the Iraqi forces with a low level of support from the U.S.?"

That was an EXCELLENT question... but he let the ambassador slither out of it, first by saying it is complicated (duh!) and then by giving a vague and nonresponsive response.

Barack! I expect better of you. You dropped the ball dude. That was an excellent talking point/question. You should have demanded that they give a clear answer.

Fogu2 says:
Obama does not sound presidential.

He's a little weak there, but he'll do.

Fogu2 says:
He doesn't speak well off script.

Unfortunately I agree.

Fogu2 says:
His thoughts are jumbled.

Yeah, I know what you mean, but I'm not convinced he's not speaking extemporaneously where others are speaking from prepared notes. And when you think out loud, you don't always get perfect order or clarity... but it is a sign of confidence when someone is willing to do it. So I'm not really worried... but you do notice it.

Fogu2 says:
His ability to clearly explain his POV requires him to repeat over and over the same disjointed language.

There is something of that, but that could be a show of confidence in his own intellect...

Fogu2 says:
His body language looks timid and subservient.

I think that is nonesense.

Fogu2 says:
He has no gravitas.

At first no... then when he got warmed up he gained it. So no, I don't think that is true.

Fogu2 says:
I had the feeling these generals had little respect for his shallow insights.

Yeah, that's a given, but it is not about his insights but his policy positions and the fact that they are aligned with the Republicans.

Fogu2 says:
I don't have the feeling he can think on his feet.

That's silly.. but he could be better at it.

Fogu2 says:
I almost feel like a stiff wind would blow him right out of his chair.

That's how you felt. I felt I saw an adequate performance, AND I thought Hillary Clinton did NOT have many of these problems that he did.

However Barack was good enough, and Barack can defeat John McCain, and Hillary Clinton cannot do so, so all this is immaterial. Clinton's policy positions, such as Universal Health Care are better than Obama's too.

Doesn't matter, in this cruel cruel world. I support the one who can realistically move into the White House. That is Obama. Hillary cannot win. Too much history. Too much desire for change. Too much ned for change. Obama is plenty good enough... and he'll get better.

Posted at April 8, 2008 7:14 PM in response to Obama: We Have to Apply "Measured, But Increased Pressure" on the Iraqis