SOUR KOOL-AID

A Proud Liberal · **Posted:** Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:10 am

SOUR KOOL-AID

I admit freely that I drank from the Democratic/Obama Kool-Aid punch bowl. The taste of that Kool-Aid has now soured beyond the point of drinkability. Make no mistake; the Bush/McCain/Republican punch bowl was much more than soured, it was pure poison. Two things since Obama took office have totally soured my taste for the Democratic/Obama Kool-Aid. The first and most damaging is the commitment of the administration to send an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. The second is the watered down and probably ineffective "Stimulus Package." I will now examine each of these in detail and why I think the "Glimmer of Hope" that was Obama is now a "Candle in the Wind."

The "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan are myth, public relations fabrications. They are NOT wars. They are invasions and occupations of over matched sovereign countries. The war mongering Right has been allowed to define these illegal and immoral actions in terms that sound patriotic and reasonable. The talking pinheads of the Right abuse the term "Liberal" constantly by characterizing Obama has being a radical Liberal. They have skewed the perceived middle point so far to the right, that traditional Conservatives like Barry Goldwater seem to be radical Liberals. President Obama is no Liberal and the sending of additional troops to Afghanistan is the most obvious proof.

He claims to have been against the Iraqi invasion from the beginning and I take him at his word so far, watching to see if the withdrawals from Iraq happen in a timely fashion. The continuation of construction of permanent bases within Iraq however has raised my level of skepticism. My first active participation in a presidential race was in 1972, with George McGovern running against Tricky Dick Nixon. I abhorred the killing and dying in Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia. Today I abhor the killing and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan even more, if that is possible. The best and most patriotic of our young people have died and are dying for no good reason. We as a country have enough blood of innocents, in all three countries, on our hands to rival the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. We have failed to learn from history and the death toll keeps rising. We have seen the face of evil and it stares back from our mirrors.

When Bush/Cheney took office, the country had a surplus and there was a lot of talk of what to do with the "Peace Dividend." Tax cuts were the favorite of the Right because they no longer wanted the "free loading poor" putting their hands out. Never mind the radical overhaul to the Welfare System that took place under Clinton. Then 9/11/2001 occurred. All talk of a Peace Dividend disappeared and the drums of war began to beat loudly. Strangely though, the tax cuts for the rich and corporations stayed with us. The Right proceeded to tax less and spend more. They proved to have no basic arithmetic skills except lining their own bank accounts. The recipe for the ultimate distraction was put into place. We are now faced with economic troubles that may rival the Great Depression of 1920's and 1930's.

We have had tax cuts since Reagan took office in 1981. There is some evidence that for the short term they might help but in the long term they have failed to stave off longer and deeper recessions. Despite being elected with a firm mandate, Obama proposed a Stimulus Package that was flawed through compromise from the beginning. The results of making a third of his package tax cuts were the votes of three Republican Senators and NO Republican Representatives. Comparable money spent to bail out bankers and stockbrokers passed Congress without the same need to compromise. The rich were protected while the poor and middle class were screwed again.

People are worried about their homes, their next paycheck and even their next meal. They don't want to be bothered by the killing, dying and waste of Iraq and Afghanistan. The sleight of hand of keeping the economy in the forefront while the killing and dying continue is despicable. We are in this economic meltdown because of the military spending. Spending on Iraq and Afghanistan will need to stop before real recovery can start at home.

My hope today is that Obama can resist the wind and keep the candle lit. To do that, he must become the radical Liberal that the pinheads accuse him of being. He must embrace the light. Then and only then can the sourness of the Kool-Aid be alleviated.

Permanent Backlink to Post

Purple Tang · **Posted:** Fri Feb 20, 2009 6:56 pm

I believe we will find that it is much worse than that. I believe this hawkish administration will actually expand the fronts and venture, like Captain Kirk and the Enterprise, where "no man has been before".

They will pull troops ouf of Iraq for window dressing. Then open new fronts in both Iran and Pakistan. This has an excellent chance of ushering in III and his advisors would appear to be excited about the prospect.

Israel can unveil a few of those hundreds of nukes we purchased/gave/over looked/made possible. Along with the assortment of other state of the art WMD's that Uncle Sam sagely gave away. I say gave away because billions/year in aid will purchase them quite handily.

Did you know that we also donate the gasoline that fuels Israel's jets? Gosh.

The Bushbarians will be remembered as exercising 'saint like' restraint by comparison. Remember they required 9/11 as a pretext for releasing the dogs of war. Obamarama waited just four days before accelerating carnage into areas that even the Bushbarians shied away from.

The Irgun terrorist group turned ruling Likud war party could not be more pleased with Obama's choices. That is why they backed him. He could be counted on. He even chose the son of an Irgun terrorist to be his Chief of Staff. Coud you be more accomodating?

Enjoy the 4th of July much? Stock up on popcorn and watch the fireworks. The depression will meld much of the world into the compliant state of mind that they seek. Much like the eve of II.

I bet Obama even ushers in the draft for them. What else would you call required "National Service"?

Blaming the right for his moves? Okie dokie.

We knew it was coming as he lined up his foreign policy staff last fall. Gates? Biden? Please.

Purple Tang · **Posted:** Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:43 pm

Have you noticed that the stock market tanks every time they ''try to stimulate' the economy?

The bankster bail-out is what really got this crash going.

Catherine · **Posted:** Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:58 pm

If we'd get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, our economic problems would be minimized. Think of the cost of those wars to the taxpayer...and then compare it to what has been injected into the economy via the ERP. The taxpayer is paying for ALL of that. :evil:

I'm not giving up on Obama yet...not by a long shot. Personally, I think he'd like to find a way to bring all of the troops home, but just imagine the backlash if we were suddenly "attacked" again. AND the Repubs dislike him so much, they'd be so happy if that happened...and I think they'd contribute to such an event if they thought they could get away with it...again.

lefty · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:09 am

I have to agree with you Catherine. I am not giving up on Obama yet either. To insinuate that he's worse than Bush by imagining what he may do is pretty far-fetched, in my opinion.

Sadly, I think because Bush fucked this country up so bad many have placed far too high expectations on ANYONE'S ability to rectify all of these wrongs in 4 years. Much less the MONTH that Obama has been in office. I disagree with war, especially peremptory war. Obama didn't start these wars. He's not magic. I think we have got to give the dude a freaking fair chance here. Seriously, with all that is already been expected of him to complete/correct, when the hell would he even have time to sleep or eat or breathe?

I'm of the mindset that I will never agree with anyone 100% of the time. I adore my husband and I barely agree with him 15% of the time. That doesn't make him a bad person though, it just makes him different than me and capable of free thought. Its not possible for Obama to please everyone. But I do believe he's making a very good and concerted effort at trying to change things for the better.

CrimsonEagle · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:16 am

It is all the same poison, the kool aid is just a different color.

A Proud Liberal · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:18 am

Friends—

I didn't think it was my intention to say I had given up on Obama but to keep up the pressure from the Left. I am quickly becoming a one-issue person; that issue is anti-war or pro-peace. I remember my heady days of college when we marched and protested then were arrested for our troubles. Things seemed very black and white in those days—I knew Tricky Dick was the problem and anything else just had to be better. Thirty-six years later, I felt the same about the War Chimp. Obama was and is our best hope BUT I must speak out against the dying and killing. Not to speak out is to give tacit approval and that is evil. I considered changing my "handle" to A Proud Liberal Pacifist but I believe that would be redundant.

Strangely the most vehement responses are coming from Daily Kos where Kool-Aid drinking seems to be obligatory and the "if you're not for us then you must be against us" attitude dominates. I have been accused of racism in one comment—even though in my mind's eye Kool-Aid seems to be the whitest of a white person's drink. Many read without discernment accusing me of being a winger parrot and sympathizer. (I feel you all can testify that is just not me.) I cannot condone the killing and dying. I cannot condone people in this country going to sleep hungry and without shelter.

Here are the three links where I also posted this piece:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/20 ... 798/699933

http://www.neverinournames.com/showDiar ... aryId=2811

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/20393

Purple Tang · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:05 pm

Left wing of the same bird of prey is accelerating the carnage.

I have tried many times to determine the special elixir that allows people to overlook the obvious.

Congress has been hi-jacked and some of you folks still blame that on those rascally right wingers. Standing up to these hi-jackers has been a uniquely right wing characteristic that has cost many elections to the profiles in courage. If you still do not know who the hi-jackers are, then the corporate jewspeak has worked very, very well.

There has still been more blood shed under dems than reps over the past 100 years...by far. No change in sight.

In fact, I would bet what very little money I have that the body count will be higher under this "left wing".

The hi-jackers are not jews or Israelis. It is their ultra hawkish lobby that pretends to speak for them while providing a great dis service that is not in their moral or strategic self-interest. Nor in ours.

Sorry but dems have proven to be more likely to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

Wilson=WWI
Roosevelt/Truman=WWII
Truman=Korean War
Eisenhower ended it
Johnson=Vietnam War (APL & like minded people helped end it)
Bush Sr=Iraq I
Bush Jr=Iraq II

Bad luck played a predominate role at times but dems have no room to talk about going abroad to destroy monsters. They have been quite eager.

Catherine · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2009 4:15 pm

Quote:

BUT I must speak out against the dying and killing.

...And I agree with you, APL. I HATE the killing, It's all so unnecessary except for the extremism of the Taliban. That organization cannot be allowed to overrun the Middle East like it would like to do. Indeed, I see the Taliban as a threat to all civilization. I see it as being as dangerous as Nazism. The Taliban take religious extremism to echolons we can hardly imagine.

Obama has so much on his plate...and I cannot fault him with the way he's doing things right now. I believe he will try to stop both wars, as I said before, but he can't do either one just yet.

CrimsonEagle · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:25 pm

Catherine wrote:

Quote:

BUT I must speak out against the dying and killing.

...And I agree with you, APL. I HATE the killing, It's all so unnecessary except for the extremism of the Taliban. That organization cannot be allowed to overrun the Middle East like it would like to do. Indeed, I see the Taliban as a threat to all civilization. I see it as being as dangerous as Nazism. The Taliban take religious extremism to echolons we can hardly imagine.

Obama has so much on his plate...and I cannot fault him with the way he's doing things right now. I believe he will try to stop both wars, as I said before, but he can't do either one just yet.

But should we also ask ourselves just what role the constant slaughter of these people over the century's has played in the very acceptance of this extremism?

Will more killing reduce this extremism or further fuel it?

How many are we willing to kill in order to "prevent" this extremism?

And last but not least, what gives us the right of moral authority? When one looks at the history of this nation we can not ignore that it is drenched in the blood of hundreds of millions. All because we have felt it was morally justified.

Another thing. How can we maintain our supposed moral justification in regards to our actions in the middle east while at the same time either supporting or ignoring the slaughter of say Rwanda? How can we claim moral justification while at the same time supporting some of the most brutal regimes on the planet?

Of course, these are just questions I ask myself. I have come to understand that we will all continue to see what we want to see, believe what we want to believe, and continue down this same path as long as we do.

The Matrix is real and all that we see is an illusion created by the masters.

Sleep now.

Purple Tang · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:26 pm

Somebody here is a mouth piece for the corporate media. They take in everything they are told ... apparently without question.

Things that make you go hmmm.

The irony is a bit ... thick.

Bush/Cheney were also "chasing terrorisism". I guess its only OK when the left wing does it.

A Proud Liberal · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:58 pm

Catherine wrote:

Quote:

BUT I must speak out against the dying and killing.

...And I agree with you, APL. I HATE the killing, It's all so unnecessary except for the extremism of the Taliban. That organization cannot be allowed to overrun the Middle East like it would like to do. Indeed, I see the Taliban as a threat to all civilization. I see it as being as dangerous as Nazism. The Taliban take religious extremism to echolons we can hardly imagine.

Obama has so much on his plate...and I cannot fault him with the way he's doing things right now. I believe he will try to stop both wars, as I said before, but he can't do either one just yet.

I remember 9/12/2001 when the Afghan ambassador to the UN condemned the attacks and said they felt the pain of the children. Since Al Qaeda was not in power in any country, we then metamorphosized the bad guys into the Taliban. We ignored the supposed facts that 19 of the 21 hijackers were Saudis, none were Afghanis. We bombed them essentially into the Middle Ages. We have failed to learn from history that no one has ever successfully occupied and ruled Afghanistan. The more killing that happens there, the more recruitment for the Taliban. Money spent in rebuilding, construction and education has far better returns than military operations. We should have learned this from the Marshall Plan.

Meanwhile we support the Saudis and their extreme religious views. They cut off the hands of thieves, albeit only the lower class ones that steal food and such; the white-collar embezzler never receives this punishment. They have beheaded one of the Royal family's princesses for adultery; she had dared to have sex before she was married. Bin Laden stated one of the goals of the attack was to get US bases out of holy places in Saudi Arabia, and we complied with barely a whimper; isn't this giving in to terrorists? Is tolerance of religious extremism only okay when they hold you by a spigot to oil?

I note the Israelis got their latest round of killing in the Gaza Strip finished before Obama took office but also note it took no moral courage to say only one administration is in power at a time. The rest of the world was condemning this killing while we actively supported it. This gives us the moral low ground. There is unholy alliance between the extreme Zionists and our religious fundies. Our fundies wish to hasten the end times and see fanning the flames of war in the Middle East as a way to do that. Shouldn't we as Americans be pushing back against this as much as we push back against the Taliban? Obama and the Dems are never going to get the votes or support of the fundies, so why is there so much accommodation to their views? If we are going to speak out and/or fight against religious extremism, why only one particular brand of Islam?

Just as I won't fault Obama for things getting worse because of things he may or may not do in the future, I can't give him credit for things he may or may not do in future that might make things better.

lefty · **Posted:** Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:02 am

Purple Tang wrote:

Somebody here is a mouth piece for the corporate media. They take in everything they are told ... apparently without question.

Things that make you go hmmm.

The irony is a bit ... thick.

Bush/Cheney were also "chasing terrorisism". I guess its only OK when the left wing does it.

Please enlighten us. Who is it? Me? APL? Catherine?

Catherine · **Posted:** Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:29 am

What lefty said... :?:

Catherine · **Posted:** Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:51 am

APL wrote:

Quote:

Since Al Qaeda was not in power in any country, we then metamorphosized the bad guys into the Taliban.

Everything has a root cause, whether it's good or bad. Here's a short Taliban Timeline: LINK

Actually, the Taliban has had a rise, a fall, and a rise again....:

Quote:

The Taliban seek to establish a puritanical caliphate that neither recognizes nor tolerates forms of Islam divergent from their own. They scorn democracy or any secular or pluralistic political process as an offense against Islam. The Taliban’s Islam, however, a close kin of Saudi Arabian Wahhabism, is far more perversion than interpretation. The Taliban’s version of Islamic law, or Sharia, is historically inaccurate, contradictory, self-serving and fundamentally deviant from prevailing interpretations of Islamic law and practice.

...

Quote:

There was no such thing as a Taliban until the Afghanistan’s civil war in the wake of Soviet troops’ withdrawal in 1989, after a decade-long occupation. But by the time their last troops withdrew in February 1989, they’d left a nation in social and economic shards, 1.5 million dead, millions of refugees and orphans in Iran and Pakistan, and gaping political vacuum that warlords attempted to fill. Afghan mujahideen warlords replaced their war with the Soviets with a civil war.
Thousands of Afghan orphans grew up never knowing Afghanistan or their parents, especially their mothers. They were schooled in Pakistan’s madrassas, religious schools which, in this case, were encouraged and financed by Pakistani and Saudi authorities to develop militantly inclined Islamists. Pakistan nurtured that corps of militants as proxy fighters in Pakistan’s ongoing conflict with over Muslim-dominated (and disputed) Kashmir. But Pakistan consciously intended to use the madrassas’ militants as leverage in its attempt to control Afghanistan as well.

As Jeri Laber of Human Rights Watch wrote in the New York Review of Books of the origins of the Taliban in refugee camps (recalling an article he’d written in 1986),

Hundreds of thousands of youths, who knew nothing of life but the bombings that destroyed their homes and drove them to seek refuge over the border, were being raised to hate and to fight, “in the spirit of Jihad,” a “holy war” that would restore Afghanistan to its people. “New kinds of Afghans are being born in the struggle,” I reported. “Caught in the midst of a grownups’ war, the young Afghans are under intense political pressure from one side or another, almost from birth." [...] The children that I interviewed and wrote about in 1986 are now young adults. Many are now with the Taliban.

LINK

Quote:

The Taliban were overthrown in the 2001 American-backed invasion of Afghanistan. The Taliban were never defeated, however. They retreated, regrouped, especially in Pakistan, and by 2006 were again controlling vast swaths of southern and western Afghanistan while inflicting heavy casualties on NATO and American forces.
The Pakistani Taliban is just as powerful. It now controls Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, virtually immune from Pakistani law and authority. Mullah Omar and bin laden are believed to be hiding in those tribal areas—and planning strategy against the NATO-American presence in Afghanistan, against Pakistan’s secular rulers, as well as tactically directing al-Qaeda attacks elsewhere in the world. In 2007, al-Qaeda was responsible for close to 30 attacks, the most, for a single year, in its history

.

Would Bin Ladin have been captured if American focus had remained on Afghanistan instead of Iraq? Maybe...

Would his arrest have led to more scrutiny of the Saudi link to the 9/11 attacks? Maybe...but not likely.

IMO, Bush's invasion of Iraq was one of the best things to happen for the Taliban...and for the Saudis.

SOUR KOOL-AID

Who is online