As Todd Beamer never said: “Let’s Roll…”

P.S. And their little doggie Obama, too.

Kim, how ever, his main slogan and thrust was “Change”! [It made some of the papers, I remember seeing it more than once!]

The only “change” [Dumbankie at Treasury, Gates at DoD, and a wide spread paradigm akin to George W's third term] Citizens For A Better Veterans Home has been able to find is rifling thru the sofa cushions ……….

Don Lake, don’t blame me:

Perot Perot Nader Nader Nader

You ever hear of the 1990 three bladed wind mill electric generator as the 21st Century Peace Symbol ??????

donlake@ymail.com

619.420.0209

263 Eucalyptus Court
Chula Vista
CAlifornia
91910-3030

Those fuckers killed 3,000 of our compatriots. Revenge their deaths!!!

As Todd Beamer said: “Let’s Roll…”

Sure, there’s been change. Obama added two letters to the description of the sitting president -
- from “half-wit” to “half-white.”

Thank you all for this.

The Green Party is applauded for prompting it with the thoughtful press release.

Well done.

Armando, thanks for your message. Obama is indeed doing a great job. It doesn’t matter if he doesn’t bring all the changes we want within a year. All that matters is that he is better than Bush, and has slowed the damage that Bush has done. Most people live in reality; they don’t care if people will really keep their promises or will give people the reforms that they really want. They just care if things are slightly better than they would have been. No amount of ballot access reform will change that. The country is divided between roughly 35% conservatives, 30% liberals, 20% moderates, 5% radical left, 5% radical right and 5% libertarian. The numbers will shift, but radical change is not expected. It’s all about who can maneuver for power.

What exactly is Obama doing well?

Obama has:

Increased Bush’s military budget

Tripled Bush’s deficit

Expanded “nation-building” plans in the Middle East (AKA imperialism)

Continued medical marijuana raids

Expanded the corporate ripoffs (“bailouts, stimulus”) upon the taxvictims

Continues (and justifies) Bush policies like torture, unauthorized wiretapping, indefinite detention without charges, etc, etc.

Change? It’s like W went to Cabo and got a tan.

Almost entirely, same here, although I would not call the Democrats corporate liberals – I still tend to use ‘liberal’ in the original, “classical” sense.

I may be naive, but is non-aggression the same as “non-violence”?

One of the main values of the international green movement, and the Green Party is non-violence.

Under your logic, could we have used the admissions and evidence of the Africa embassy bombings to present to the Taliban government in an effort to bring al Queda leaders to justice? We also could use the USS Cole if there was direct evidence or admissions at that time too.

Yes, absolutely. Any evidence that would have pointed to the guilt in international crimes of people under the protection of the Taliban regime should have been presented to them with a demand for extradition. Instead, the Bush gang decides to flaunt the superior firepower of the US military and demanded that the suspects be handed over without evidence – something that I hardly imagine the US would do if the Taliban, the Chinese, or any other nation demanded the US hand over people who are living here. Even accused nazi war criminals get an appeals process in the US before they are sent to Israel or Europe for trial.

But I suspect the Taliban would not have granted permission to enter their house. I do remember they used the Christian missionary women as negotiating leverage, saying they would release them if we agreed not to attack.

You may or may not be correct. If at that point the evidence was flat out rejected, the invasion would have been more justifiable. Although, if I had my way, it would be legal to have sent in a strike team and assassinate the Taliban leadership – instead of a protracted war and occupation that has killed many thousands of Afghanis, Americans, and others, maimed and made homeless many more, created additional ill will that may lead to future terrorist attacks, and shows no signs of ending any time soon.

i just love you alot armando

muuuaa

I think Ralph Nader’s response was reasonable – go after Osama Bin Laden and bring him and his minions to justice. Sort of makes more sense than launching two aggressive wars at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, and the American Constitution.

“This being so, many “progressives” will balance their condemnation of a Republican war (Iraq) by bashing some other Muslim or Arab nation. This way, they’re hinting to the American people: “See, we’re not anti-American. We support war too! We bash Arabs too! We only oppose the way Bush is fighting the war, or the specific Arabs he’s attacking. But we’re not crazy, extremist peaceniks. We can be trusted with power. Please elect Democrats and we promise to bomb some Arab nation somewhere.”

“Progressives,” and certain “libertarians,” need to stop worrying about being called anti-American, they need to stop caring what voters think, and just speak what’s in their peacenik hearts and let the chips fall where they may.”

That is how Democrats behave, not progressives. Did the Green Party ever try to act tough by saying we should bomb some other Arab nation? No, it did not. But Democrats, and their fake anti-war organizations like MoveOn, always try to appease the military-industrial complex while convincing anti-war voters to stay in the tent. Pretty easy for them, actually – talk peace, and make war. MoveOn gets what they want, and so do Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

(By the way, progressive does not equal Democrat. Democrats recently moved to steal the label, because they made ‘liberal’ seem pretty bad. But that doesn’t make Democrats any more progressive than Bush was conservative. Democrats are corporatist liberals.)

Anyway, we still haven’t talked about the root of anti-American terrorism.
*warning, close page now to avoid CIA entanglement*
The US’s unquestioning support for Israel’s military action against Palestine, including the recent slaughter in Gaza and the introduction of apartheid, has made a lot of Muslims very unhappy. In countries like Saudi Arabia, they have a difficult time expressing their unhappiness, since the United States is propping up a military dictatorship to ensure that the oil keeps flowing.

In this situation, you create lots of desperate, angry people. How can we deal with it? Either use military force to keep the Arab world in the constant grip of the US. Or support democracy everywhere and resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict in a fair, mutually acceptable way. The latter approach is what we call peace with justice.