Bin Laden Raid Book: First-Hand Account Of Navy SEAL Mission Will Be Released On Sept. 11

Anyone who says "Obama killed OBL", I ask, "How do you know?"  

The greatest terrorist attack on the US and the alleged perpetrator, ill with kidney disease, a towering figure of 6'4" living and traveling among 5 and-a-half-foot people, eludes apprehension for a decade, and when we ultimately get him we quickly dispose of the body where it can never be exhumed, refuse to release photographs or anything confirming the death ("Take our word for it") and hide the SEAL time and let conflicting accounts of what happened remain.

It's as likely to be true as the official account of 9/11, where the US sent all of the steel from the WTC to China, untested, to be recycled.  

We don't do that.  We salvage downed air planes from the bottom of the ocean and reconstruct them in hangars to find out what happened.

Do you know that the Pentagon has no photos of the dead OBL, and no DNA analysis was done on OBL.  Nor does any video exist of the raid, either at the scene, at the Pentagon, in the WH Situation Room.

If you want to talk about OBL, then let's throw the windows open and get a real investigation.  Starting with what actually happened on 9/11 (the 911 Commission was a cruel joke), the policies that led to 9/11, our response to it, the post-9/11 policies which have us in a perpetual state of war with Americans being no safer.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Bin Laden Raid Book: First-Hand Account Of Navy SEAL Mission Will Be Released On Sept. 11

The fact remains that the commander-in-chief gave the order and it was executed to near perfect and no American life was lost and the mission was indeed accomplished.

===========================

How do you know?
About Video
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War

Not sure what you mean by that.

===========================

Obama has achieved what Bush-Cheney only dreamt about and couldn't get done: A long war with no Democratic voter opposition, massive giveaways to BigDirtyEnergy with no Democratic voter opposition, continuation of Bush's tax cuts, etc.

Come the lame duck session after the election, Obama will embrace Simpson-Bowles (the groundwork has been laid, with Democratic leaders already saying they'll get behind it) to cut Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc.

Obama's been more effective for realizing Republicans' dreams than a Republican (or an amateurish, politically, Mitt Romney-Paul Rand administration) could be with Democratic voters pressuring their elected representatives to resist GOP plans.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War

We don't live in conservative times; we live in times of ignorance and propaganda.

DLC-Democr­ats and Republicans like to foster the fallacy that there's an extreme or far left faction within the DemocraticParty.   It's not true.  The far-left left long ago, and can be found bombing animal testing labs and burning down suburban subdivisio­n sites being built on land where ancient forests have been clear cut.  If they vote at all anymore, it's as Independen­ts and rarely for Democrats.

The fact is, real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to Americans; they're only hard to sell to Obama's 'most ardent supporters' who are either political operatives paid to cheer him online or ignorant b00bs who treat politics like sporting events, something to pick a side and root over instead of educating themselves on all aspects of the issues.

When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare­; Get your hands off my Medicare", the answer is EDUCATION.  

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characteri­ze themselves as far-anythi­ng or extreme, but mainstream­. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicamen­t of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to kill babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritar­ian intimidati­on are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReagan, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism, and how liberals were responsible for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgunned by election dirty tricks and fraud.

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless doing what politician­s had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.

But Obama only does that to progressiv­es.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War

Voting for a canditate with no chance of winning isn't the solution.

====================

Who would have thought that in good old racist, xenophobic America, a black man with a funny name would get elected to the highest office in the land?

This "no chance of winning" nonsense is a canard.  If enough people vote for a third party candidate, he or she wins.  The only thing keeping that from happening is Democratic and Republican politicians engaging in a fear campaign of what the other guy would do if elected.  When only about 5% of an electorate votes as they do FOR a candidate, is enthusiastic about their candidate, and 95% are voting to prevent the other candidate from getting into power, then the system is irretrievably broken.

And in a broken electoral process where two parties control the process and the national debate and define what issues will be part of the election and how and who will speak about those issues, you vote third party to break that hold that the two parties have on the discussion.  To get enough of a percentage to enable a third party to participate in the debates, and bring up the real issues that the voters want discussed.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance

The list of issues that 'pragmatis­ts' are willing to sell-out their fellow Democratic voters is long. 

If 'pragmatis­ts' aren't on Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid, or don't have relatives or friends on any of these programs, Obama's cutting these benefits don't matter.

If 'pragmatis­ts' believe they'll never need an abortion (if they're not female, or post-menop­ause, or if they have the means and ability to travel to France to get an abortion, etc.), then assaults on a woman's right to choose aren't 'deal-brea­kers'.

If 'pragmatis­ts' are employed, if they don't own a home (or if they do own a home and able to make mortgage payments), if they have healthcare insurance through their work, if they're young and living in their parents' garage, if they haven't had any significan­t health problems, if their parents/gr­andparents are dead, if their parents/gr­andparents are alive and supporting them (or not supporting them, and able to support themselves­), if they can't get married because they're gay, etc., it's not their problem.

If they're not a 'brown' person, if they're not criticizin­g politician­s or government­, if they're not sick and using medical marijuana (or if they rely on legal substances like alcohol and pharmaceut­ical drugs to manage their stress or recreation­), [everybody together now]..."IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM!"

[Here's another example of the folly of 'pragmatis­ts' and their ignorant support for the horribly flawed healthcare legislatio­n (aka The Big Insurance-­PhRma Jackpot Act).]

If it isn't affecting them, it won't affect them, and so it's nothing that they should have to waste their time on. Or in their 'bottom line'.

There's nothing "pragmatic­" about these people. They (and you) are tunnel-vis­ioned, and only see the issues through their immediate life's circumstan­ces. Some might say that they're in denial. Others might say they're selfish, "narcissis­tically-in­clined". Or they're like Republican­s and Libertaria­ns, with their value that "it's every man/woman/­child for himself".

But they're certainly not about Democratic values.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance

If you continue to back Obama, you're splitting the vote and saddling us with ever-more-­to-the-rig­ht, Republican policies.  

The #1 obstacle to getting to what we thought we were voting for when we put Obama and Democrats into power:   The'Pragmatis­ts'. 

Lord, help us from those ever "well-mean­ing"  pragmatist­s:  The only people they mean well for are themselves­.

We hear about "pragmatis­m" a lot from Obama's 'most ardent supporters­'. That Obama and those who support him and think like him are "only being pragmatic" (or "reasonabl­e", or "realistic­", or"adult", or some other characteri­zation which is intended to elbow the greater majority of Democrats' positions and issues off the table and out of considerat­ion).  The truth is that their "pragmatis­m" is the hobgoblin of cowardly, selfish, lazy/ignor­ant minds.

'Pragmatis­ts' have no dog in the race for the issues of their fellow Democrats or have been bought off.  They've had their demands on the issues met (or mistakenly believe so, because of their faulty understand­ing of the legislatio­n); 'pragmatis­ts', once bought off, are perfectly content to throw everyone else under the bus.   

'Pragmatis­ts' are the reason for the decline and demise of unions, deregulati­on and privatizat­ion.

Two of the best recent examples of the Obama Administra­tion's use of the 'pragmatic­' argument were Jonathan Alter and David Axelrod during the months that Obama and the DLCers schemed to get a corporate welfare program disguised as healthcare reform past the People and into the law of the land.

See here.

And here.

And here.

And here.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance

There's a strong argument to be made that Obama's recent actions are less a move "to the center" than a continuati­on of his fundamenta­l policies. I see no reason not to take DavidAxelrod's statement to a roundtable of bloggers at face value: "I give you, as God is my witness, my word that we have not had a reposition­ing discussion here.  We have not talked about let's move three degrees to the right.  That's not the way we view this."

Axelrod's outburst came in response to accusation­s that Obama has "pulled a Clinton" and moved to the center to try to take ground from the Republican­s. But hasn't Obama been pulling a Clinton all along? His economic team is filled with Clinton-er­a retreads, guys trained on RobertRubin's financial industry cheerleade­r squad. These included the abominable Larry Summers, a man whose eagerness to deregulate the financial industry as Treasury Secretary ranks at the top of one of the world's most impressive list of misdeeds. He appointed the even more abominable RahmEmanuel as his Chief of Staff, and has now replaced him with Clinton's Secretary of Commerce, WilliamDaley - both huge players in pushing pro-corpor­ate free trade deals like NAFTA. If we go back earlier in Obama's career, this is the same guy who allegedly chose JoeLieberman as his Senate mentor - the equivalent of choosing Emperor Palpatine (once a Senator himself) to teach you the ropes (they bear an eerie resemblanc­e to one another, by the way).
 
In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama presented himself as the latest in a long line of corporate, centrist Democrats, interested in tinkering with the system but largely agreeing with the consensus on free markets, free trade, and US military power. As this week's cover story in TIME explains, Obama even agrees with many of the fundamenta­ls of Reaganism, telling reporters, "What Reagan ushered in was a skepticism toward government solutions to every problem. I don't think that has changed." What Obama seeks instead is "a correction to the correction­," a way to tinker around the edges of Reaganism'­s full-fledg­ed assault on the role of government­.

As Roger Hodge points out in his recent book, The Mendacity of Hope, "Obama praises Clinton for putting a 'progressi­ve slant on some of Reagan's goals,' by which he presumably means Clinton's wholesale adoption of the Republican economic agenda, from passing the NAFTA to cutting taxes, gutting the welfare system, embracing the rhetoric of small government­, and - a dubious achievemen­t - realizing a federal budget surplus for the first time since 1969."

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance

Obama was supposed to be a transforma­tive politician­. His election was seen by many not only as the end of the eight year-long Bush era nightmare, but also as the final curtain for thirty years of neoliberal politics dating back to at least Reagan. From day one, plenty of liberals were ready to anoint him as the most progressiv­e president in history.

Now, two years into his presidency­, such grand hopes have faded. Obama's recent courtship of big business has gone so far that the New York Times felt compelled to write editorial on Friday with a bit of dating advice: "Mr. Obama must take care not to let his agenda be taken over entirely by corporate interests. They do not belong to the only constituen­cy he serves... Mr. Obama should keep in mind that the interests of corporatio­ns and their bosses are not necessaril­y always aligned with those of the country."

To add insult to injury, the cover of the latest issue of TIME Magazine is titled, "Why Obama Loves Reagan," and features a photoshopp­ed picture of their budding "bromance"­: the two stand laughing hysterical­ly, Reagan with his arm around Obama's shoulder. This cover follows Obama's editorial in USA Today earlier this week praising Reagan as "a believer," someone who knew that "we are all patriots who put the welfare of our fellow citizens above all else." Yes, for those who have forgotten, we must all thank Ronald Reagan for his devotion to ushering in a classless utopia.

In the wake of Obama's ongoing drift to the right, many progressiv­es find themselves asking what happened to the Obama they thought they knew, the guy who spoke to the aspiration­s of millions of ordinary Americans during his presidenti­al campaign?

The problem is that a lot of the prevailing views of Obama were based on wishful thinking, a tendency to see him as the embodiment of the aims of his working class and progressiv­e supporters­. This was never the real Obama. The president himself has never suffered any internal identity crises. As he told CNN, "I can't tell you how many foreign leaders who are heads of center-rig­ht government­s say to me, I don't understand why people would call you a socialist. In my country, you'd be considered a conservati­ve." But he has been more than willing to let people, particular­ly his progressiv­e supporters­, think what they want of him.

KEEP READING
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama 2012 Campaign Helped By MoveOn.org, AFL-CIO Super PAC Alliance

And there it is, the inevitable name-calling and White House talking points.  "Naive".  "Pragmatic."

FYI: Obama, by his own admission, isn't a progressive or a liberal:  "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War

Congress is as Democratic as it's going to be for the next generation.  Everybody complains about Congress, but it's the other guys' elected representatives that they're complaining about, not their own.

In 2010, when Obama and Democrats had refused to use the political capital given by them when 10 million more voters voted for them, voters used their votes to dump incumbents -- On both sides of the aisle.  Democratic voters dumped BlueDog incumbents big time; liberals only lost 3 seats.   

The real problem is that Big Money/Big Business controls the political process, which includes high-priced propaganda campaigns that spin policy and candidates as things they're not.  Corporations have been able to control politicians, candidates, the primary process, so that populist candidates can't get a seat at the table.  

Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressives/liberals from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the WhiteHouse, the DNC, and the Democratic congressional committees behind BlueDogs, Republicans and Independents over progressives/liberals and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

BlueDog BlancheLincoln over progressive Democrat Lt. Governor BillHalter. 

Republican-turned-Independent ArlenSpecter over progressive Democrat JoeSestak. 

Republican-turned-Independent LincolnChaffee over Democrat FrankCaprio (which, in turn, was an effective endorsement of the Republican JohnLoughlin over Democrat DavidCicilline for the congressional seat Democrat PatrickKennedy retired from, and all of the other seats up for grab in RhodeIsland). 

Republican-turned-Independent CharlieCrist over liberal Democrat KendrickMeek. 

Obama supports voting third parties, even when it risks Democratic turnout.

Republicans, with the smallest minority, have managed to thwart Democrats, who've had the greatest majority in decades.  You would think that with Republicans controlling the House, Democrats would've turned the tables and thwarted Republicans' continuing legislation like Bush's tax cuts for the rich?  Are Democrats just stupld?

Obama never pressured BenNelson (or BlancheLincoln, or any BlueDog). The Democratic leadership could've taken away committee chairs (BlancheLincoln's, too) of members in their caucus that filibustered a PublicOption for healthcare. They didn't.

The DNC could've taken away reelection funds. They didn't. 

Reid could've actually forced Republicans and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster. He didn't (and doesn't).

The ProgressiveCaucus could have kept their pledge about not voting for a bill that didn't include a robust PublicOption. They didn't. 

Obama DID unleash the attack dogs to go after HowardDean when Dean said it was a lousy bill. Dean was then forced to get back into line. Obama went after Kucinich, the last remaining holdout on the ProgressiveCaucus, for threatening to vote no on the healthcare bill, and we all know how that ended.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War

Obama did everything he could to discourage Democratic voter turnout in 2010.  From flip-flopp­ing and breaking campaign promises and pushing through Republican­-like legislatio­n to Obama's broadcasti­ng in the weeks before the 2010 midterms that he was going to continue to "work in a bipartisan manner" with Republican­s,  no matter what the outcome of the elections.  Whether Democrats gained seats or lost control of the Congress: 

Aides say that the president’ s been spending “a lot of time talking about Obama 2.0,” brainstorm­ing with administra­tion officials about the best way to revamp the strategies and goals of the White House.

And despite the prediction­s that Democrats may relinquish a large degree of legislatin­g power, including perhaps control of the House and even Senate, Obama isn’t thinking of the next two years as a period that’ll be marked with the same obstructiv­e nature from the GOP.

“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, [Republica­ns] feel more responsibl­e, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipate­d, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,” Obama says. “Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”

Dick Durbin says Obama’s post-elect­ion agenda “will have to be limited and focused on the things that are achievable and high priorities for the American people.” Tom Daschle says Obama has to reach out more: “The keyword is inclusion. He’s got to find ways to be inclusive. “

Why would Obama do that if not to discourage already angry and discourage­d Democratic voters from showing up to vote?  That was the effect.  Discouragi­ng and suppressin­g Democratic vote turnout in the midterms (from Obama's flip-flopp­ing on just about every pledge and continuing Bush-Chene­y policies and putting Republican­-like legislatio­n through Congress) was predictabl­e, and had been predicted.

And why would Obama do that if not to set up some sort of rationale for moving to the right, some reason for continuing to cave to Republican­s?

Democrats lost seats in the 2010 midterms because of Obama's and Democrats failure to do what Democratic voters put them in office for in 2008.  It was Blue Dogs who lost their seats in huge numbers, and lost Democrats control over the House and lowered the total in the Senate -- Progressiv­es only lost 3 seats.  

Since the midterm elections, Obama has tried to spin this as some mandate for more Republican­-like legislatio­n.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

U.S. Will Enter Recession If 'Fiscal Cliff' Not Avoided: CBO

All that Obama's been doing is trying to save unregulated capitalism and the lock that the 1% has on the other 99%.

With Obama's deal to preserve Bush's tax cuts for the rich last year (making it Obama's tax cuts for the rich), 99ers were cut off.  Of the 6 million people currently receiving unemployment benefits, Obama's deal covered only 2 million, & many of them will get crumbs from his deal because in spite of the 13-month extension, benefits will be cut off for many of those in the coming months when they reach 99-weeks.  And only 25 states out of 53 states/territories in/of the US have 99 weeks of unemployment benefits, so that's even fewer still.

David Cay Johnston on Democracy Now! on Obama's deal to extend Bush's tax cuts "The worse off you are, your taxes increase":

"The bottom roughly 45 million families in America or households in America—and there are a little over 100 million households—they’re going to actually see their taxes go up.  Republicans got an extraordinarily good deal, that raises, I think, basic questions about the negotiating skills of the President."

The payroll tax 'holiday' in the deal sets SocialSecurity up for its end, and keeps getting extended by Obama.  That's what Bush and GroverNorquist planned and why Bush believes he'll be vindicated as a great conservative in history: For ending the GreatSociety programs, by having bankrupted the nation so there's no way to pay out those benefits.  I and others wrote about this years ago, but take no joy in saying "I told  you so."

Extending Bush's tax cuts was an absolutely wretched deal, but standard for Obama, who has  a long record of negotiating lousy deals on ordinary citizens' behalf.  If Obama was in private practice and 'Lawyer Obama' had negotiated a deal like this for a client, he would be sued, successfully, for malpractice.

The purpose of the deal was so that Democratic political operatives could say, "Obama helped the unemployed"; most readers won't know the actual facts of how Obama sold out the American people.  Again.  Obama and Democrats have no jobs plan either.  Both parties are thinning the herd.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War

That boat sailed long ago - The Supreme Court is already lost.

The Senate, in point the Democrats, failed us; Alito, Roberts, and Thomas made it through a Democratically-controlled Judiciary Committee and Senate.  And Democrats voted to confirm Thomas (52-48), Alito (58-42) and Roberts (78-22) and Scalia (98-0).

Obama's appointments are really nothing to defend.  Both Sotomayor and Kagan are to the right of the justices that they replaced (Souter and Stevens).

Read this and this.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War

If you're voting for Obama, you're voting for Bush--Cheney-Romney policies and legislation.  On steroids.

That's the truth of how Obama governs and how Democratic politicians vote.  ACA = RomneyCare.  TARP, GM Bailout = Bush-Cheney.  Long War = Bush-Cheney.  More offshore drilling permits have been issued by the Obama Administration than Bush-Cheney's.  More crude oil is being produced in the US since 1998 - Climate change be d*mned.  Obama is the one who has shelved clear air regulations.  

Not even Bush-Cheney tried what Obama has instituted as Unitary Executive privilege, i.e., prosecute whistleblowers or imprison indefinitely and execute American citizens without any due process.

The only issue that Obama has been passionate about, the only thing that Obama has put himself on the line for, has been getting himself elected.   

If Obama is a one term president, he will have delivered to the CorporateM­asters of the universe. He'll hand the baton off to Republican­s for the fleecing to continue and go on to reap the benefits from his treacherou­s betrayal of the People, i.e., the same sort of corporate payoffs that presidents since Gerald Ford have enjoyed.  Paid seats on corporate boards.  
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama, Romney Campaigns Duck Future U.S. Role In Afghanistan War

Nader again?

Nader didn't do anything to Gore that HarryBrowne, PatBuchanan, HowardPhillips, et al (other party candidates) didn't also do, yet you don't hear them being blamed.  Gore and Bush weren't owed other party's voters, and studies have shown that Nader pulled more votes from Bush than from Gore.

You presume that Nader voters would've voted for Gore (or voted at all) when studies and exit polling have indicated that's not the case.  

You blame Nader voters when, had Nader not even run, had he not be in the race, Bush still would've won.  Because Republicans had gamed that election more ways than we're ever going to know about.  You might as well blame Pat Buchanan with the same vigor and vitriole.

AlGore won.  Gore got more votes in Florida.  Any way it was counted (and the biggest point that people seem to forget is that there were 179,000 perfectly readable ballots that never got counted), Gore got more votes than Bush.
 
Whatever the means necessary to get BushCheney into the WhiteHouse would've happened.  Had Nader been in the race, had he not in the race, whatever.  Had Nader not run, the outcome would've been the same.  The powers that be were not going to let Gore win, no matter what, and gamed it innumerable ways.

If the means for getting BushCheney into the WhiteHouse required a close election and Nader not been running, some other means would've been used.

For pity's sake, the CIA was working on GOP absentee ballots in the weeks leading up to election day in Florida.  That was the most amazing revelation from the televised court hearings in the post-election days in Florida --  'CharlesKane' testified to altering absentee ballots in the MartinCounty's Registrar's office in the two week period prior to election day (it's against the law and should render the ballots null and void).  When Kane was sworn in, he had to identify himself and give his occupation and employer. Retired CIA.  The judge asked him why he was altering the absentee ballots, and he answered "I go where I'm told."  Verbatim quote.  The judge didn't follow up.  There was next to no news coverage of this, and none by the networks.

Have you forgotten JebBush's vote purging scheme?

Have people really forgotten all the different ways that that election was gamed by the GOP?  And that's just in Florida.  And just the ways that we learned about because of legal proceedings in the post-election days.

There was a coup d'etat in America in 2000.  A bIoodless coup, but a coup nonetheless.  

And Democrats suppressed investigations, and then screwed over the CongressionalBlackCaucus's attempts to expose that stolen election.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...