A week back I drafted a post saying that MSNBC should take Chris Matthews off air unless he says he's not running for Senate in '08 then never posted it because Matthews is such a political genius that I almost forgive him. Last night he had another crushing insight. At about midnight, as he and Buchanan and Russert were agreeing that the Dems' race is over, he said that the only reason Barack got his foot in the door in the first place and was now in a position to shut off the feeding tube was because of Hillary's vote in 2002 to authorize the war. That's why he got to run as a believable change candidate; and she didn't: She had made a terrible mistake in judgment on the most important decision of the last 40 years.
Not Obama. As an Illinois state senator in October 2002, Obama, with a real sense of the moment, and some courage too, opposed the war and took on the neocons.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
Supporters of the decision to invade a country that did not attack us have tried to argue these facts away for a long time. They say that Obama would have made the same decision as Hillary if he had been holding statewide office (highly unlikely) or that Hillary's vote was really not that meaningful because the whole establishment was sliding off the edge (exactly; the brave tried to stop the insanity). Or, yielding to Packerism, they say that George Bush and Rumsfeld just fought it the wrong way. These are all self-serving claims, so that war supporters don't suffer in position for having blown the call. Eric Alterman used to wonder when we who opposed this war were finally going to get our dividend. It occurred to me after Matthews's comment that the birds may finally be coming home to roost, six years on...
If opposition to Iraq gives one credibility then why donot Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan have more?
They were 1000x more clear about Iraq, the source of Islamic antagonism towards the US.
Ron Paul has credibility about the war. He just doesn't have credibility as far as tax policy, fiscal policy, role of government in a modern society, failings of libertarianism, general foreign policy orientation, even constitutionalism.
Nearly everything about the war was both wrong and managed incompetently.
The fraud (a LARGE part of the of known misrepresentation to Congress and the UN, should have resulted in Bush and Cheney's impeachment.
Having both mediocre decision and implementation creates the odd competition of "the decision was wrong" vs "the implementation was wrong".
Its one of the virtues of total incompetence, that the diagnosis of cause is impossible to conclude where so much goes wrong.
I wish there had been more debate on the authorization to war on Afghanistan as well.
I expect that one fantasy that convinced many that the US military would be welcomed as saviors in Iraq, was the relative ease (deceptive, now 7 years later and still 1/2 of the country in Taliban hands) of the "society building" effort in Afghanistan.
Afghanistan had far less means to implement a parliamentary democracy. Few roads, telephones, mass communications. Iraq did have a modern economy and infrastructure, at least in the large cities.
They got cocky from the Powell doctrine of "convincing force" (previously called "overwhelming force")
And the chickens should come home to roost, Phil. The U.S. needs to purge itself of the malevolent and/or ignorant elements that allowed Iraq to occur.
Thank you for this post.
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
P.S. For the record, my friends and colleagues and I were vociferously opposed to invading Iraq as soon as we got wind of the hare-brained idea.
I was thinking the same thing before I read your post, John.
And let's not forget that both Paul and Buchanan have pointed to the Consitution as providing clarity in opposing the lawlessness of the past two administrations. The values of our Founding Fathers have been debased by those who ignore the great documents upon which our government is predicated. No wonder we continue our slide toward banana republic status.
not just dumb, meaning not winnable?, wars but unjustified, illegal, immoral, aggressive wars.
The "war on terror" is a perfect front for continued spending and invasions; there will never be a clear victory and that will allow the "war" to continue indefinitely. Big business, the most profitable business of all and in the interest of the federal reserve cartel, arm suppliers, oil companies etc.
Whoever controls the money controls the relationship. The president must worry about his funding and the interests of those providers first before the welfare of the average person.
This unbalanced relationship is the foundation of Ron Paul's campaign.
Educate yourself on the federal reserve, you will be amazed.
bondo's right re "dumb" adjective, which was in my headline. I changed the headline.
The reason Ron Paul lacks credibility is that he's been sidelined by the MSM. He doesn't kiss babies in public (or drink beer or go bowling), just delivers them in droll fact without condescion, and has done so for a long time. He addresses the deep root causes of America's continued Downfall, which is not in the interests of our basically one party system.
Here's a link to a short summary of his view, as contained in his new book manifesto:
http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:AopIKBlDewQJ:thestressblog.com/2008/04/19/the-revolution-a-manifesto-by-rep-ron-paul-md/+ron+paul+manifesto&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=20&gl=us&client=safari
"They say that Obama would have made the same decision as Hillary if he had been holding statewide office"
What was significant about Obama's words at the time he said them was that he was about to announce his run for US Senator, which he did in January 2003. Remember the climate then? The incredible hit you took if you said anything vaguely unpatriotic?
Sorry for the typo; I mean "condescension." I was in a hurry.
Ron Paul's campaign should have used the usual campaign tactics to reach public awareness. For example, he could've run a tv ad showing some cartoon icon image of the average American strolling along. He/she is suddenly being simultaneously blinded, handcuffed and pick-pocketed. The thug's face morphs
through mask faces, Hillary, Obama, McCain, etc. Close up of
terrified victim. Word scroll: "You're being had. I am Ron Paul and I approve of this message."
"The reason Ron Paul lacks credibility is that he's been sidelined by the MSM."
Its because his ideas don't make sense, except to the converted.
I don't see much long term sense in what is basically a monetary ponzi scheme. And what it funds is not in the best interests of
the majority of Americans. Fiat money is for insider interests (except for tossing out a few bones to the dogs under the table).
Robust leverage only benefits the usual suspects. The little guy ends up bailing them out. An average US wage taxpayer or US soldier is just meat for the grinding. Call me converted. You've made it clear on this blog you know which side your bread is buttered on. I'd just like to see some butter on the other side.
The truly scary thing is that Bush/Cheney might have gotten precisely the outcome they wanted.
I don't understand the infatuation with Chris Matthews….a mencsh? Maybe just a higher quality schmuck. Check the references in Media Matters. link to mediamatters.org
Jim Byers, I'm thinking Matthews is just a higher quality schmuck. My guess is predicated by a pattern of just how far he will go with his follow-up questions over a period of years I've watched him. Granted, he only has so much time each "Hard Ball " episode, but there's a definite pattern.
How else could he ride the gravy train of the status quo? Still, he does push the envelope at bit now and then, and I guess we have to be grateful for that. My G-D, look at his peers.
There is no non-fiat money.
Metals are speculated and relative, same as any other.
Fine, Witty, my point is that metals (& metal futures) can be more closely audited than paper figures, relatively speaking.
If I write you a check, manufactured by my self, or I give you some gold or silver I found. Which would you rather have?
Six of one.
Gold is just a relative commodity that increases and decreases in value relative to other commodities, same as euros, same as oat futures.
As far as a basis of money supply, I consider it MORE of a distorter and less helpful in facilitating the gamut of exchanges at differing scales than dollars.
Gold has and would continue to be cornered, even relatively, leaving some communities with excess basis of legal tender (thereby inflating relative to real commodities – grain, etc) and others with insufficient (thereby creating hardship and stifling economy).
To the extent that the money supply matches the value of transactions that occur in the world, a fiat currency is superior.
Witty, just answer my question. Quit farting. We are all watching.
"To the extent that the money supply matches the value of transactions that occur in the world, a fiat currency is superior."–Witty
LOL. HA-HA. So, speculation rules. That's a great assurance for everyday Americans. Thanks Witty.
"It's because [Ron Paul's] ideas don't make sense, except to the converted."
I ardently support Paul's views on Iraq and the "War on Drugs" — these alone are sufficient for a serious presidential candidacy.
Michael Blaine
www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
"If I write you a check, manufactured by my self, or I give you some gold or silver I found. Which would you rather have?"
If most other people accept your check, it really doesn't matter.
C.K. checks not accepted here!
Then again, we might have use for some g-ld.
As a regular reader of Counterpunch I am rather puzzled by the level of hostility to Obama I have found there.
I recall an article that held up his voting record as basically conservative.
A recent article by Pam Martens wonders why selectively white Wall Street seems to be so enamoured of the prospect to have the first black President.
Martens wrote:
"We are asked to believe that those kindly white executives at all the biggest Wall Street firms, which rank in the top 20 donors to the Obama presidential campaign, after failing to achieve more than 3.5 per cent black stockbrokers over 30 years, now want a black populist president because they crave a level playing field for the American people."
It also attacks Obama's claim that he doesn't take money from federal lobbyists:
"Senator Obama’s premise and credibility of not taking money from federal lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists."
And it finally it provides a reason for Wall Street's friendliness referring to one particular bit of his voting record:
"Why do Wall Street and the corporate law firms think they will find a President Obama to be accommodating? As the Black Agenda Report notes, “Evidently, the giant insurance companies, the airlines, oil companies, Wall Street, military contractors and others had closely examined and vetted Barack Obama and found him pleasing.”
That vetting included his remarkable “yes” vote on the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, a five-year effort by 475 lobbyists, despite appeals from the NAACP and every other major civil rights group. Thanks to the passage of that legislation, when defrauded homeowners of the housing bubble and defrauded investors of the bundled mortgages try to fight back through the class-action vehicle, they will find a new layer of corporate-friendly hurdles."
Can anyone who has followed this more closely come up with a 'balanced' judgment here? Or are we, in Martens' view, already dealing with one?
RE: "If most other people accept your check, it really doesn't matter."
Yes, IF. The whole point of fiat money is its great so long as
most people will accept it. Then comes the run on the bank, A ponzi scheme, no different than a fllipper and subprime mortgage bubble. Hope you can get in and out in profit time next time around. The usual blokes will pay.
RE Class Action Act
Obama sided with the status quo power.
You are repeating, not proving anything Charles.
How would you KNOW whether dollars are viable and representative means of exchange or gold?
The only real non-fiat money would be in calories, or maybe water.
And that too would be a horror for poor people, same as gold-backed money.
Read some history on the historical distortions of economies from gold-backed currency.
Its a horror show.
Better to print or issue credits to one's own money and agree that it has value, like they do in Ithaca.
Witty, you should read some history on the historical distortions from the fractional reserve fiat currency system. If you want a partial analogy, try the current mortgage crisis. It's always great until depositors/investors make a run for the bank.
Runs of the bank happen with gold as monetary basis MORE often.
The federal reserve AVERTED the banking crisis of runs on the bank.
The gold standard 30's experienced it.
Its regulation and INVOLVEMENT that gets to avert crises. Ron Paul opposes regulation and involvement of the central bank in the way that fed recently intervened.
I agree that there are elements of the fed that are confusing, but they pale to the discomfort created by a gold-backed currency.
I'm sorry that you can only repeat, and never inquire into your assumptions. Its not religion you know.
Witty, many people with much higher qualifications than you
have addressed the scam and albatross that is "our" Federal Reserve system and monetary policies. Anyone who wants to see what many famous names had/have to say about it, just go here: link to trueworldhistory.info
Witty, you're the religious zealot, not me.