5 Comments

1. LavrentiBeria says:

   14 December 2009 at 04:32

   The LA Times article about Obama’s reported agonizing over his outrageous decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan has all the authenticity of the agonizing supposedly undergone by elitist professional women as they deliberately choose to dispatch their unwanted, unborn children. The moral vacuity in both instances is cut from the same basic cloth. Murder is murder whether the victim is a child droned to death in Pakistan at some rural wedding celebration or a not quite full term baby whose mother has consented to have its brains sucked out by some latter day Dr. Mengele.

   The hypocricy of Barak Obama would seem to have no bounds while a witless establishment media and its commentators from Pat Buchanan to Eleanor Clift call it greatness. But the people have caught up, particularly those who might otherwise have placed trust in the man:

   http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12112009.html

   The verdict on this prevaricating con and his associated scum in the Democratic Party is less than a year away. And although they’ll likely be replaced by some Republican or other’s associated scum, it seem clearer now that, in fact, they will be replaced. Maybe if we can just keep the exposure down to one or other of them each two years we’ll somehow limit the damage.
   • Edward Harrison says:

     14 December 2009 at 13:15

     I thought Buchanan was anti-War. He even has clips from leftist anti-War types on his site.
     • LavrentiBeria says:

       14 December 2009 at 18:17

       It would be perhaps more accurate to describe Buchanan as more fundamentally anti-imperial or anti-intervention than anti-war. These are the impulses that informed his objection to the Iraq aggression, certainly, not the moral or human considerations that motivated Pope Benedict XVI, for example. To be sure, Buchanan griped like hell about our being involved in Iraq, but when the opportunity came in 2004 to vote for someone reliably opposed to the war, say Nader or the candidate of the Constitution Party, Buchanan publically endorsed Bush! A very strange and contradictory combination of factors appear to guide Buchanan. In the case at hand, Buchanan was questioned on PBS’s the McLaughlin Group last Friday about Obama’s speech when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. His take: that it was heroic, articulate, well-reasoned, etc. He gave it a 10 if I recall. And so did Eleanor Clift. Here’s a link that considers this relationship at depth:

       http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/11/obama/index.html
       • Edward Harrison says:

         15 December 2009 at 12:45

         Buchanan is a political animal as well. But, he is willing to break with his party (except during elections apparently where the need for loyalty is too much for him to bear). I suspect, having not seen the show, that he rated it ten on delivery as opposed to substance.
       • Edward Harrison says:

         15 December 2009 at 12:55

         This update by Greenwald seems on the money to me:

         Andrew Sullivan praises Obama’s speech and Obama himself as a shining example of Niebuhrian complexity. Again, I think the speech, like Obama himself, was intellectually skillful — even more so politically — though, personally, I think Chris Hayes is much closer when he says the speech was Obama’s typical “wearying,” too-clever “on the one hand on the other, I reject false choices, needle-threading ‘pragmatism,’” which Hayes said worked well for Obama’s campaign speech on race (I agreed) but does not work in matters of war and peace or for much else with Obama any longer.