Tweet
It’s clear that Obama will soon escalate the Afghanistan war for a second time (our ‘antiwar’ movement is all over it; first ever national demo against Obamascalation scheduled for March, 2010!), and last night on Charlie Rose Hillary Clinton helpfully explained Obama’s imperial policy and the role ‘we the people’ play in it. Our duty, in this democracy, is to believe in whatever they tell us this time is the mission, and all of us in this democracy must support the troops no matter what they’re doing to the restless natives. Though Hillary and Barack are more polished and big ‘D’ Democratic than Cheney and Bush, otherwise their approach differs how from Bush era martial philosophy?
Hillary also offered a preview of Obama’s next big speech, his re-rationale for the occupation and assorted war criminality we’re doing to Afghanistan. Yeah, so get with it already party loyalists, looks like the War on Terrah phrase is again safe for Democrats; Hillary and Barack have to revive it when the nation-building pretense is now so publicly and obviously a joke/tragedy. Also, note that the ‘War on Terror’ is not just good for killing al Qaeda but can be applied with lethal effect to all groups or nations we say are inspired by their extremism. Yes, that’ll make war anywhere/anytime easy, we now distinguish ally from enemy by saying ‘enemy’ is extremist (so be careful never to apply that term to ally Saudi Arabia). Emphasis added.
Charlie Rose: Beyond that, is the Taliban in control in Afghanistan a threat to the United States?
Hillary Clinton: I believe it is. I believe it is a threat because I believe that it once again provides a safe haven, because what we have seen is that al-Qaeda is now part of a syndicated terror. It inspires, it directs, it trains, equips, funds other groups within this syndicate.
((fairleft: Hillary is referring to the Taliban that in October 2001 offered to turn Osama Bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial?))
Charlie Rose: Like they did to Africa.
Hillary Clinton: Yes and to many of us, the principle objective is still to defeat, capture, kill the al-Qaeda leadership. We do think that is important. It’s not a marginal issue. It’s a core issue for us. But we also realize that there are many aspects to the threat from extremism that have to be addressed. It is imperative that there not be safe haven for al-Qaeda and its syndicate, its allies in Afghanistan.
Charlie Rose: And that’s what the Taliban would deliver if they were in control.
Hillary Clinton: They would, in parts of Afghanistan if not to — if they couldn’t take over the entire country, because of resistance from the Afghans themselves, and allies like us, they would certainly establish a beachhead and would have a broader area of operation.
Charlie Rose: So what do you say to mothers and fathers as you know the question we were saying: “Are you asking me to send my son or my daughter to Afghanistan where I am essentially fighting for a corrupt or fraudulent government?”
Hillary Clinton: No, but you’re not; you’re fighting for the United States. You are fighting to protect our homeland and our people. . . . given the failures of the last eight years to capture and kill the al-Qaeda leadership [and] to try to stabilize Afghanistan, we have to recommit ourselves, because we do think it’s in our interests. We do think it’s in our security interest. And I feel very strongly that the young men and women who are stationed in Afghanistan, are really doing what has to be done on the front lines of the war against terrorism.
Charlie Rose: And they understand and believe in the mission?
Hillary Clinton: Yes, well, and it’s important that the entire American public understand and believe in the mission because, as a democracy, we have to support those that we send to the battlefield.
Okay, just me speaking here, but "as a democracy" I don’t think that means that requires that "the entire American public understand and believe in" whatever mission the government now tells us is ‘the’ mission over in Afghanistan. I also don’t think that, "as a democracy, we have to support those that we send to the battlefield." No, I’d say we need to support all of our soldiers who are not war criminals, and provide court martials and defense attorneys for those of our soldiers (and policymakers) who are war criminals. Hey, I’m a Geneva Conventions, Nuremberg Principles kind of guy, what can I say?
Finally, doesn’t the PBobSequious Charlie Rose serve up his ‘questions’ like pritty little cupcakes?
9 Comments
I guess it’ll be interesting to see how the hacks explain how this is not only not Bush’s policy but not Bush’s very words.
I guess at least where it comes to war funding we’ll be spared the charade that there’s anything other than various levels of the right wing in the Congress, so that’s something.
It’s something if there were an antiwar movement in the U.S. Depressingly there ain’t much of one, the commanding heights having been coopted by heavyweight ‘Democrats first, antiwar way down on our list of priorities’ groups.
You want an anti-war movement?
Support a draft.
That would generate an anti-draft movement posing as an antiwar movement.
You don’t pursue the moral by enacting the immoral.
Talked with an orthopedic doc yesterday. Strong Obama fan. Typical doc. Smart, knowledgeable, opinionated.
He’s an example why we have Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
They know he won’t challenge them and will defer to them.
They know he’s smarter but won’t enter the political arena.
I’m sick and tired of Hillary, Obama, the whole political structure.
I’m ready to drop out.
But I say to you, if you want change, don’t vote for more of the same.
War on terror? It always was about politics, and guess who fell for it hook line and sinker. The American people. To this day they are still using the talking points about we have to get them or thay will come back and get us. Not the government but many of the people.
We haven’t gotten them, and absolutely nothing would stop them from coming back to get us again.
Their over there laughing at us because our own greed on Wall Street hurt us more economically, than several big attacks could.
One should wonder if between people losing their houses, jobs, and ability to support their families, that suicides from this will kill more than 911 did.
We are becoming a country of fools who can’t take care of ourselves, run a financial system, keep control over our Government, use our Military wisely, and follow our own laws and rules.
About 2/3rds of Democratic Party want us to leave Afghanistan as soon as possible, and yet there is no pressure at all on Democratic Party Congresspeople from any sort of antiwar movement. There was a big antiwar vote that helped the Democrats in 2006, so why can’t there be a big antiwar vote in 2010? In 1968 and 1970 there were antiwar Democrats running everywhere in primaries and general elections, defeating pro-war politicians. Frustrating.
Well to be fair Pelosi said she would end the war if the Dems won in 2006.