Tag Archives: election 2012

I ask again, “What ‘post-war’ period?”

When it was announced that the United States will be withdrawing from Iraq by the end of Dec. 31, commentators began propagating the disgusting meme that this is the beginning of a “post-war” period for both Americans and Iraqis.

In response, I asked “What ‘post-war’ period?”

This “post-war period” is a disgusting meme that will gain traction after Dec. 31 when the United States will withdraw its combat troops from Iraq (and leave behind thousands of private military thugs to continue the violence there). It must be noted that these departing American troops will not enjoy a “post-war period.” They will be redeployed into new theaters of combat to die in any one of our dozens of senseless wars in Afghanistan, Uganda, or the Philippines.

Not to mention Iraq itself, which will experience years of violence regardless of American presence. The bombings, the checkpoints, the sectarian strife, all of these will continue after “withdrawal.” There will be no “post-war period” for Iraqis.

That the end of Iraq War will bring about a “post-war period” is a nice fantasy, but it is an outright lie.

And about it gaining traction? A quick scan of headlines after the withdrawal announcement reveal that this meme is now the standard corporate media narrative.

From Politico:

Then last week at Huffington Post:

Then as recently as today from the Washington Post:

This is all part of a broader campaign strategy on the part of Obama reelection campaign to spread the lie that his wars are ending. And it is working.

Forgotten in the inevitable media corporate media circlejerk are the Iraqis who will continue to die while war profiteers continue to profit. How about American military personnel? The troops are not coming home anytime soon.

That our involvement in Iraq is drastically being reduced (involuntarily, by the way) is a great thing. However, it is not enough to pull combat troops out; Americans must press its government to also eliminate the State Department’s growing private army.

And there are these words of wisdom from the president himself in the Associated Press:

Speaking after a morning of meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Obama said other nations must not interfere with Iraq’s sovereignty. While he stopped short of mentioning any countries by name, U.S. officials are closely watching how neighboring Iran may seek to influence Baghdad after U.S. troops withdraw.

President Obama will do well do heed his own advice.

Ron Paul the rabble-rouser

Jerry Paul on his brother Ron Paul:

His brother Jerry says Ronnie was no goodie two-shoes. In fact, he was kicked out of school — twice. The first time was for allegedly bribing a grade school chum “two bits” to throw a baseball through a window. The second was for bringing firecrackers to Dormont High — and that time he ratted on himself.

“He couldn’t stand the principals who were dictatorial,” Jerry says. “He would call them fascists.”

Even then, Paul would not mince words.

Herman Cain quoted Pokémon again in concession speech

Words of wisdom from the likes of Pikachu and Ash Ketchum? Why not?

“I believe these words came from the Pokemon movie,” Cain said. “Life can be a challenge. Life can seem impossible. It’s never easy when there’s so much on the line. But you and I can make a difference. There’s a mission just for you and me.”

In other news, embarrassing and clown-like reality television star to moderate the next Republican debates.

Newt Gingrich recently received an endorsement from the Manchester Union-Leader

Newt Gingrich will fit perfectly right in, according to Charles Burris:

Endorsing the arrogant warmongering neocon Newt Gingrich is perfectly consistent for the Manchester Union-Leader, the biggest embarrassment of the Granite State… No one will forget his scurrilous front page editorials, “Kissinger the Kike,” attacking Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, or “Jerry the Jerk,” slandering President Gerald Ford. The paper hasn’t changed its tabloid attack journalism under publisher Joseph McQuaid. Newt will fit in perfectly with this crew of Muslim-hating, un-American fascists.


Though, honestly, this just further proves that partisan Republicans fear Muslims more than they fear the country-collapsing debt spurred by this country’s obsession with freedom-destroying, death-spreading “War on Everything.”

In which case, you could argue that partisan Republicans hate Muslims more than they love America.

Ron Paul and liberals’ moral dilemma

A self-labeled liberal at Reddit watched last night’s GOP debate (read my recap and thoughts) in Iowa and he found himself convinced that he might vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama.

Many of the other responders reminded him than Paul is against a lot of things that progressives hold dear. Obama, they reminded him, is a progressive; Paul’s views regarding Social Security, welfare, and abortion are too extreme.

Myself, I asked him a fair question:

Can you look at yourself in the mirror and honestly say that the fat chance that Ron Paul would single-handedly gut Social Security and all of entitlement spending is morally equivalent to Ron Paul unilaterally stopping the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people who are victims of all our wars?

People forget that Social Security and Medicare are laws that Congress (not the president) decides whereas our illegal, unconstitutional wars are unilaterally waged by the president.

Ron Paul cannot end Social Security or Medicare alone, but he can and will end the wars.

I am tired of the argument that the potential of someone’s welfare check being cut is more important than immediately stopping the murders occurring everyday in our name.

We wonder why people in the rest of the world hate us. We are selfish; and we hold welfare checks more important than the lives of those we kill.

Romney campaign’s $1 million loot from mystery firm

Mitt Romney, the corporate media-sanctioned front-runner, has been the recipient of one the largest political donations ever this election season. Except how his campaign received some of these money is raising some serious legal questions.

A mystery company that pumped $1 million into a political committee backing Mitt Romney has been dissolved just months after it was formed, leaving few clues as to who was behind one of the biggest contributions yet of the 2012 presidential campaign.

A former FEC counsel describes it as “subterfuge” while Dave Weigel calls it money laundering.

Who are these people donating such large sums to Romney anyway? According to Politico, Romney’s donor list includes a billionaire who profited off the housing bubble’s collapse, bankers, and a few wealthy people.

This campaign revelation has come at a bad time for Romney. With the debt ceiling brouhaha over and no major news going on in the next few weeks, all eyes are will be on him.1 His prolonged silence in the debt ceiling debate, Sarah Palin’s salvo, fellow Mormon John Huntsman’s imploding campaign, his non-participation in the Ames Straw Poll, and now this mysterious campaign donation will ensure that he will suffer the brunt of unwelcome media scrutiny in the next few days.

Though, it is doubtful that this controversy would seriously hurt Romney’s presidential campaign in any significant way. If his ideological flip-flops have not hurt his lead in the polls, then why would illegal contributions? If anything, this would be seen as yet another media-led witch-hunt against the wealthy and their expensive political speech. Romney would only benefit from such “attack.”

1 Except the deepening famine crisis in Somalia, the increased violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the continued violence in Libya, the stock market’s free-fall, the weakening dollar, and so on. But I digress.

Iowa a Test of Ron Paul as Mainstream Candidate

Mr. Paul’s libertarian views have moved from the fringe toward the mainstream of conservative thinking in the past several years, with his warnings about fiscal meltdown gaining new resonance and the 2008 financial crisis allowing him to press his longstanding critiques of the Federal Reserve.

Now, as he again seeks the Republican presidential nomination, he is hoping to show that he can translate the new attention into votes. And his first test is the straw poll next month, where he is hoping he can organize his band of followers into a political machine capable of beating some or all of his brand-name rivals.

It has been very interesting (and illuminating) to watch how corporate media treats the Ames Straw Poll in their reporting. It is at once both: a “political bell-weather” or a “test” that would make or break a presidential run, and utterly inconsequential with the corporate media-sanctioned front-runners (i.e., Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and inexplicably Gov. Rick Perry of Texas) not participating in the straw poll.

Regardless of the outcome of the straw poll in Iowa, one thing is for sure: Ron Paul would never be mainstream enough for corporate media. His consistent antiwar views has all but precluded him from that.

Rasmussen: Ron Paul is electable after all

Ron Paul polls 37% versus Obama’s 41% if he were to be the Republican nominee, according to the latest data released by Rasmussen.

It is a mere four-point gap compared to the corporate media-sanctioned “serious candidates” like Huntsman’s 16-point gap or Pawlenty’s anemic 12-point gap.

Whether or not the Paul campaign can find its momentum and win the Republican nomination is still in question, one thing is clear from the polls: Obama is vulnerable.