Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign is airing its first TV ad on YouTube. The theme of the ad is "No More Blood for Oil", a popular slogan of the movement against the war in Iraq.
Check it out here and then come back for discussion!:
Bully for Kucinich, but I wonder - when will Kucinich cosponsor H.R. 1415, the Restoring the Constitution Act, which would overturn most of the worst aspects of the Military Commissions Act?
As one who does political marketing for a living, however, I can tell you that it is a very well done and powerful ad. However, my cynical remark, like it or not, stands on its original merit.
You haven't heard of the agreement to "privatize" Iraq's abundant oil reserve..(I believe Cheney calls in the "treasure".) Where have you been? If we pull out, the deal might fall through before it is finalized.
The great thing about Democracy is that you can support anyone you want, even if the guy is a dead beat. To all you who support this guy, good luck. You are really going to need it.
The fringe candidates on both sides offer the most compelling policies and issues, because they've little to lose by "rocking the boat." Unfortunately, it is still the corporate masters that decide who becomes the nation's figurehead.
"Can someone tell me where is all of this oil we're supposedly getting for blood"
The intent was not to flood the market with cheap oil. It was the exact opposite. Keep the oil from the market, create chaos in the middle east, and prices skyrocket. Why is it that people assume that just because this is an oil war, that's supposed to automatically translate into comfort and cheap fuel for them? The oil industry and military industrial complex oligarchs launched this war, and they didn't do it so that you could get a bargain at the pump.
" Let me know when we see some of this oil, Olga."
Again, the intent was not to offer you endless cheap fuel. It was to lock up oil profits. The two scenarios are not congruent.
The slogan "No Blood for Oil" can be traced back to protests prior to the invasion of Iraq (at least). From the start, President Bush has maintained that oil had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. But administrations have contradicted themselves by explaining the lack of progress in Iraq in terms of lower than expected oil revenues. The administration had expected to pay for the rebuilding of Iraq with profits from oil. The oil is still their, but the chaos prevents us from getting to it.
Okay, I can get behind this Kucinich guy. But how do we get him out front? Hilary is firmly planted in center stage, and she's all for this war and making it bigger.
This war has been an extravaganza for the wealthy, and a disaster for the middle and lower castes.
Anne Weaver Hart - This early in the campaign there is still plenty of time to help Kucinich make a difference. Tell your friends why you support him, make a small (or large) contribution to his campaign, write a letter to the editor of your local paper (and organize others to do the same). In 2004, Kucinich did surprisingly well in districts where his followers were not afraid to be out in public organizing. Plan an event. Find several volunteers. Call as many names in the phone book as you can and invite them to the event. It is that simple.
Kucinich, like always, is about 4 years behind the curve. No one is using that tired old slogan "no more blood for oil" any more. The Iraqis own all the means of production now...........since we gave it back to them after toppling Saddam. Even the picketers in Left Wing Chicago don't use that term.............and haven't for a long while. I think those "blood for oil" picket signs are being sold on Ebay for nostalgia collectors.....lol.
I think they were using this same slogan back in 1993, when the US went into Somalia. At the time US oil companies had just been given unlimited rights to explore and exploit any oil they found in Somalia. Some say thats why we went into Somalia, since it was of little strategic value until then. Or so they say. "No blood for oil" is an old, tired, anti-war battle cry. It really gets annoying after a few years, especially when there is no ground to support it.
But many on the extreme Left yearn for the good ole days......lol.
Kucinich is irrelevant. His only base is from the bombthrowing, obnoxious left of the Democratic party...............and even that's less than 20% of the total of all Democrats. He just couldn't possibly stand up to the intense scrutiny of all the American voters.
Yes, we semi turned things over to the current Iraq government but before we did we extracted a 40 year contract on the Iraqi oil! If they ever get enough "peace" there to get the oil pumped American oil companies will be very delighted as it money in the bank for them!
We only agreed to buy Iraqi oil at market prices. Hardly a stunning agreement. If "Blood for oil" were actually true, we'd have kept it all and told the Iraqis that their oil was payment for the freedom we brought to their country. However, we didn't do that. We gave it all back to them back in 2003. Now their parliament is arguing how the oil revenue will be shared with all Iraqi citizens. Once this is done, there will be no reason for ordinary poor Iraqis to want war. They'll want peace and oil money more.
"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world."
- William Kristol, Chairman
Jerry –
This is the mission statement taken directly from the Project for a New American Century website. I don't see anything too revolutionary here. It looks like a Conservative think tank. Besides, I don't see William Kristol putting his name on anything too unreasonable or nutty.
What is it that you think these guys are doing that's so horrible?
Bret W - "Bomb-throwers"? Here is a catch phrase even more worn out than "No blood for oil"...and even more baseless within the context of this discussion! That phrase was originally used to defame union and leftist activist back in the late 19th, early 20th century. This was a period when some leftists engaged in violent protest but most did not. But their critics - namely big money capitalists who made tons of money off of child and low wage labor - exploited these violent tendencies, often by orchestrating violent acts and then blaming them on peaceful protesters. I hardly think that most Democrats who oppose the war are violent anarchists (or that most anarchists are violent for that matter).
Kucinich is a strong advocate of pacifism - but he also has stated on numerous times that he believes that the U.S. should continue to have the most powerful military in the world.
Bret - re: PNAC -- Google "Bush Doctrine" and read the beginning chapters of "The Assassin's Gate" by George Packer for more. Also check the bios of some of the PNAC founders listed on their website.
Bret, I appreciate your at least looking into PNAC for the purpose of a reply ... This 'new' PNAC now presented is a much 'cleaned up' (PR, public relations) site which is now far more PC (politically correct) than some years ago when their intentions for the middle east in the form of an internal document was inadvertently released and some in the true 'leftist' media (not MSM which is NOT LEFT) got ahold of it, putting it out to the world.
It was their plan that they (the neocons) through Wolfowitz and others, had been planning since the Reagan years ... very militaristic and nefarious by 'most' accounts ... it very much forecast just what has been transpiring there and planned further ... (say Iran ?).
The public outcry by those concerned has been tightly controlled by the media and the website has been much sanitized to present a better 'picture' as 'damage control' ...
If you want the 'true' story you will have to look deeper, maybe such as Dave A. has suggested. The real trouble with getting the truth out, is that the 'apologists' for the view of 'their side', will only look for and accept the view that supports ONLY their side ... so we have in effect this game of 'loyalty' to the 'party' going on.
Truth is not a 'game' of my facts against your facts ... facts that are often 'contrived' ... the real truth is a whole 'other' thing entirely.
Let us quit seeking polarized 'facts' of contention and find the common ground of truth. It will be much assisted via our intuition when we are 'ready' ... truth is always a 'good' thing in the final analysis.
'Bombthrowers' is a generic term. It can be used to describe those on the Right or the Left. However, the Left tends to act in an irrational way much more than the right, so the label has stuck.
Kucinich's "Peace at all costs" platform doesn't play well in Middle America. Maybe in NYC, but not out in the Heartland. And it isn't a strong foreign policy platform either. That's why Kucinich will always be a marginal candidate.
Bret - re: PNAC -- Google "Bush Doctrine" and read the beginning chapters of "The Assassin's Gate" by George Packer for more. Also check the bios of some of the PNAC founders listed on their website.
I don't lay awake at night and worry about PNAC taking over the world, like it appears you do……..lol. PNAC is a think tank with some Conservatives in it. I worry about them about as much as I worry about a piece of Skylab falling to Earth and hitting me on my way to work.
First of all, PNAC has been around for a while. They put their beliefs out there for the whole world to see. I've not seen a lot of subterfuge. Think tanks are like that – you can either be for them, or against them, and it doesn't really matter that much to the think tank. They go on to promote their platform, and you can join in or opt out. They are not these nefarious, dark organizations you make them out to be.
Dig deeper? Where? At the Daily Kos or Media Matters? LOL, yea riiiiiiiiight!
I really think that you, and others like you, do not seek true common ground. You view your way of thinking as the only true and righteous way of thinking, and you see us Conservatives as wrong and duplicitous. I read what you say, Jerry. The evidence is there in plain English. Its doubtful you and I will see eye to eye. I'm Center-Right, and you're Left-to-sometimes-Center. We may come together occasionally on one topic………..like Illegal Immigration, for instance…………but it will be for wildly different reasons.
Bret - you asked a question and I offered some sources for you. Period.
Skylab fell to Earth on 7/11/1979. Nobody worries about that anymore.
The PNAC has suffered some serious setbacks as their policy initiatives have produced disastrous results and key members have either resigned in disgrace or, in the case of Libby, become a convicted felon. All this appears not to have reduced the rate of pontification by Kristol or Perle, who retain a cool analytic demeanor in the face of senseless dismemberment, murder and mayhem that they have helped create.
Well then, thanks I guess. However, what if I don't see the threat that you obviously do? Knowing that, do you think I'd go and research it deeply, analyzing all the probabilities available? If these guys in PNAC were such a threat, and had done half the absurd things they've been accused of, this would be national news. Until some Centrist media sites devote serious airtime to this, it isn't even a blip on the radar screen.
Thanks for the update on Skylab.....lol. Nobody worries about it, and nobody worries about PNAC either.
Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. are not in a popularity contest. They're willing to do their research with little fanfare. Most have been public servants, so fame isn't on their menu. They just believe that their form of American leadership in this new century is best. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. However, I'd rather have American leadership than any other. Our model is successful.............most of the other political models haven't been.
Bret, before you try to put words in people's mouths, perhaps you should reread the thread to see what was said. You are certainly free to ignore of the activities of the PNAC, their champions--and their critics, for that matter. No pressure. Have a great weekend.
Others on this site have already said what they want to say. I watched and absorbed. No one can be accused of being a wallflower here. And I have not put any words in anyone's mouth. The guilty have spoken.
I just see a lot of 'Chicken Littles' here on Gather - and apparently they think that PNAC is causing the sky to fall. I look outside and see a beautiful Summer day, and the sky is exactly where it should be.
Also, I was unaware that Scooter Libby was a member of PNAC. Is he listed on the PNAC site somewhere? Or is he just a member of the Bush administration that you've lumped into the PNAC category?
PNAC's detractors are everywhere on Gather. I read how evil PNAC is on many Left Wing threads, and yet, not much evidence of wrongdoing has been on display..........mainly just fears and name-calling.
In addition, I have no problem with this New Century being headed by Americans. Actually, I hope we do end up being the leaders in the next 92+ years. Conservative American values, especially in business, would be a wonderful thing to promote around the globe.
It is you, so far in this thread, that have accused others of assumptions and statements not on record. And this from someone, who by his own account, is not well-read on the subject. I'll provide this link to undo another of your errant little "assumptions" (Libby's association with PNAC) and that will be it. Enjoy your sunshine.
I read your link and I have no problem with anything that was said at the PNAC site. Maybe Kristol should update it (it's from 1997), but other than that, the principles seem pretty solid. And yes, Scooter Libby is there at the bottom as a signatory!
Is there something wrong with this new century being an American century? Do we want leadership from other countries before our own?
Dave, the sky really isn't falling. Not sure if you heard the news yet...........
Bret, when the sky does fall ... you will have no problem with it because by your actions and beliefs you will have asked for it ... and your head is way too dense to be impacted by such hitting it anyway ... you may well not even know it has happened to you ... just more of 'your' kind of 'sunshine' provided from your favorite think tanks. Quite typical of 'your' peoples views that you are so proud of; 'I get mine, screw the rest of the world'.
The probability is pretty slim. The sky's been around for billions of years, and even though man has tried to affect it, man has not succeeded. I speak figuratively of course, but the reality of the world changing in an instant is also quite slim............unless you're Ahmedinejad and you've invested billions in nukes..........
Bret - The reason people get all riled up about PNAC is that members of the organization provided the theoretical framework for the foreign policies of the Bush administration. Think tanks do matter when politicians take them seriously and make their suggestions a reality. Think tanks are also often just a place where politicians go to propogate their ideas when they are not in power. At PNAC, members of the administration created a vision of the future which was more or less realized by the Bush administration thanks to the 9/11 attacks. Of course the plan failed ultimately.
I've read the PNAC site many times. Once again, I see nothing wrong in their goals. And you are correct, this is where Conservative thinkers went into hiding when the Clintons were in power. Their thinking was pretty good, however, the Bush administration's execution was poor. Hopefully, PNAC's ideals will continue on, and will be picked up by another Conservative President who can implement and execute much more efficiently.
I've monitored the PNAC web site for many years and can assure you that their agenda is much more subtle today than it was. The site has been sanitized severely! some of their goals sound pretty good but the devil is in the details and implementation If you honestly believe that the best way to do things is for America to take over the world and to implement the great American empire (Pax Americana) then by all means, support them!
The site was never clandestine and spelled it out very directly in earlier years, that the goal is to insure that no nation can ever achieve the power necessary to challenge the US in the foreseeable future and beyond. They believe in supporting and conducting many minor wars throughout the world and keeping our military spending as high as possible. This means dealing effectively with their enemies or those who don't agree and that is the reason for the Patriot Act and the devolution of our freedoms and rights!
I was raised in a free America and I want to die in the same! There is no earthly reason that the United States should be spending more money on military than all the other countries of the world combined!
The so called "conservative thinkers" didn't go into hiding, the PNAC was busy communicating their desires to the president during those years, as they had every right to do.
Most of our president have been neither liberal or conservative but rather middle of the road and pragmatic. We've never had a truly liberal president and Bush is the first conservative. If this is the results of a conservative president then it is time for a true liberal to undo the damage that has been done. If it's not too late!
No nation can achieve the power necessary to challenge the U.S.............and many of us see that as a great thing!
Our military spending has been between 3 and 6% of GDP for years and years, James. That won't change anytime soon, no matter what wars we wage.
Are you trying to tell me that PNAC members were trying to communicate their ideas to Bill Clinton during his years in the White House? Maybe he was just busy playing with his cigar..........
President Bush was the first Conservative President? Now THAT is revisionist history if I've ever heard it. What do you think Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Lincoln, etc., etc. were? What do you think Ronald Reagan was?
How liberal does Jimmy Carter have to be for your to consider him a Liberal President? Do you not remember stagflation? 21% interest rates? The Iranian hostage crisis? The oil shocks? All failed Liberal policies gone crazy by a guy who didn't understand simple economics. Sadly, most Libs don't. That's why they're Libs.
That is exactly what I am telling you! The PNAC was communicating with Bill Clinton! There are letters on their web site addressed to Mr. Clinton!
Jefferson, Adams, Madison and especially Lincoln were not "conservative" presidents. Washington was a liberal radical! That's why we have this country! As far as Regan goes, I know what he was! He was a populist, not a conservative as he didn't understand either liberal or conservative, let alone being one! He was a "nice guy" and a republican and as such had to have the party lead him by the hand to the White House bathroom! He came to the office equipped with a great smile, a wonderful personality, a pretty good acting ability and Alzheimer's! That is the full story on St. Regan, the Teflon president.
Jimmy Carter presided over 14% mortgage interest, he didn't create it. Talk to the very conservative Federal Reserve about that! On other interest we have 24% interest today for what that's worth! Bush didn't create that and neither did Jimmy Carter and you know that! And I don't suppose you remember that the Iranians did the hostage taking, not Carter. And I hope you notice that we got them all back alive thanks to Jimmy Carter! He sent a note to the Ayatollah, right after the hostages were taken that if one hostage was harmed or put on trial we would invade Iran. Period. They believed him!
It's true that Carter was not buddy buddy with the oil Sheiks like the Bush family but the oil embargo was not started by Carter, he just had to live with it! What is conservative or liberal about this!
No, Carter was not as liberal as Kennedy or Johnson. For an actual real liberal we would have needed to have elected Hubert Humphrey or McGovern! We've never had a true liberal president! Carter was and is a businessman and thoroughly understand economics. No neo-conservative understands economics, that's their problem! Trickle down doesn't work for the nation! Yes, for the elite. But destructive to the nation.
Not being a "lib" or buying into their so called movement I can't say, like you do, what libs know or think. I'll leave that expertise to you, thanks! Nor can I claim to understand the thinking of a Neo-Con for the same reason! I'll stick with middle of the road and reasonableness in most things where governance of this country is concerned. We need reasonable people in Washington, not "isms, cons, or libs!"
You've been looking at things from the extreme radical right and it has colored and distorted you view of all. From that stance, "reasonable" looks the same as left wing due to the warping but that is were most of this nation is! If you can bring yourself to say it a few times, moderate and reasonable aren't bad terms, Bret!
No nation on earth can effectively challenge the United States and we should try to keep being a strong nation. We don't need to outspend the rest of the world put together to accomplish this, would you think? Just what are we that afraid of? We really don't have the moral right to tell other nations that they cannot be strong also!
Oh yes, I know, the radical Muslims are going to be beating down our gates next year. Or next month. And we're going to beat them up with Nukes, B59s and smart bombs? I don't think so. We need to bring our troops home to protect this country, find better sources of energy, and try minding some of our own business and problems for a change!
That is one thing I will definitely fault Carter, Regan, Bush the greater, Clinton and Bush the lesser so far on, that none of them could see beyond their noses that the Mideast petroleum came with problems and strings attached and they should have started a "Manhattan project" to replace Mideast oil. including drilling in the ANWR, drilling off coast, using nuclear power, hydroelectric, liquefied coal, wind power, higher fuel efficiency, tides, hydrogen or any other source possible rather than risk our economy and security to Mideast oil. I guess that sounds like a "liberal" statement to you?
I'd rather buy from Chavez than continue depending on the Mideast Muslim oil! And none of these presidents acted like there was a problem! It's not a matter of conservative or liberal as today's vernacular would seem to indicate. It's a matter of common sense and protecting ourselves here in America! How can you eke liberal or conservative out of that? I'm concerned about our nation and economy and people!
First of all, refrain from punching that exclamation point so often. It loses its effectiveness after the 20th time.
Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison were REVOLUTIONARIES who had very Conservative values. The form of government they dreamed up was unusual and controversial, but their own personal beliefs where very Conservative, and it showed when they were in office. They didn't have the money to be Liberal.
Are you saying that Ronald Reagan wasn't a Conservative, James? That's like saying blue is green. Where do you get these ideas from? Reagan was the most Conservative President since Eisenhower.
In April of 1979, the Federal Reserve's discount rate (the interest that the Fed charges member banks) reached 19% for the first time in history. Since banks typically charged 2% more than prime, that made the effective prime rate 21%. The prime rate today, in comparison, is 8.25%. There is no comparison to the Carter years. Those were a financial disaster because of his misunderstanding of economics.
Where do you get your information from? Within 24 hours of new President Reagan's inauguration, all of the Iranian hostages were released. The Iranians were terrified that Reagan would invade, so they let the hostages go. Carter had NOTHING to do with it. Are you one of those history revisionists?
Carter was not only a Liberal back when he was President, but he's even more of one now.
When we bring home the troops, it won't be to protect us. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids that. The troops may be located in military bases, but that's it. We have interests all over the globe, that's why we have bases all over the world. Morality doesn't even enter into the equation, James. We do it because we can, and because we realize the necessity of having assets outside the country.
As far as your statements on increasing power generation here in the U.S., I have no problem with us using every possible alternative to Venezuelan or Middle Eastern oil. However, we've not built even one single American nuclear plant since 1979. No wonder we're running out of electrical grid capacity. Personally, I'd love to render Hugo Chavez completely impotent by inventing some form of battery power that cuts him and his country out of operating his petro-business in America.
The reason I'm concerned with the terms "Liberal" or "Conservative", James, is because those aren't merely words. They have platforms and policies behind them. The Liberal platform has been completely disproven in the past 25+ years, whereas the Conservative platform has been confirmed as highly effective, year after year. I'd much rather have a Conservative in power, no matter which political party he represents. It's a much safer proposition for the country.
Bret, you just go on and on with the nonsense don't you ? Admit it, you really like the divisiveness, it gives you something to 'laugh' (scoff) at. You are still in a very small constrictive 'box' that is the 'problem' rather than the solution.
I appreciate your response! You've stated some truths with which I agree. We are doing things with no moral justification simply because we can. You're the first neo-con I've ever had agree with that. But it is wrong! And if we continue to do things which are wrong simply because we can, there will come a time it will reach out to bite us, really bad! And the time is not far off.
The parties have platforms, liberal and conservative don't. And today it seems to be radical this and radical that which is even worse. It is time for reason, ethics and sound leadership from either party, but not from radicals on either side!
We can bring home the troops as much as possible as their continued presence in Iraq is causing more problems than it is solving! If the Posse Comitatus act is a problem with the troops protecting us here then repeal the damned thing as that is just plain wrong!
Washington and Jefferson were rich men but they were not even close to being "conservatives" as we know that term today! And Eisenhower a conservative? You've made my laugh for the day! I've never heard him referred to as a conservative before. And I was one of his supporters when he ran for president! He was a good, solid, middle of the road Republican.
I now better understand some of your radical positions but most of the nation does not share your history or viewpoints. We are common people and have had to work hard all our lives and not had rich parents! Money does free the mind to wander into strange territory! Enjoy it.
Jerry and I have had the Neo-Con argument before. I believe in a balanced budget, so on that one topic alone, I don't qualify. However, some of their ideas have merit.
Posse Comitatus was put into law to protect idiot usurpers from themselves. After the Civil War, the troops were called out to handle every kind of nonsensical land dispute known to mankind. Military commanders wanted a unified command, so they, and many others saw the need to have a command structure that only has one leader, ultimately..............and that is the Commander-in-Chief. Today, the troops don't need to protect us. We have police for that. The troops are for FOREIGN intervention.
ALL of the Founding Fathers were extremely Conservative. A Liberal, back then, was someone who believed in the crazy notion of a currency backed only by the promise of the government, and not by gold or silver..............pure insanity back then! These guys believed in balanced budgets, minimal or no trade deficits, a strong defense, low unemployment, hard work, small government, no professional politicians...............and welfare as we know it, would have been their worst nightmare. Yes, they were definitely Conservative.
Eisenhower was a former General. He had a solid Conservative economic background, and implemented policies during the 50's that helped the nation prosper after WWII. No doubt about it - Conservative values.
James, my positions are about as radical as free trade, hard money, a strong currency, and low unemployment.
Bret,. to argue (you folks like to call it debate) certain selected points which you alone see as 'facts' only because you choose to prove a point to yourselves ... does not convince the rest of us as to any validity on your side ... you receive from your think tanks all of those so called 'facts' then blindly repeat them ad infinitum until you even come to believe them yourselves.
So to do so would just go in circles as you would never be convinced otherwise anyway ... you rely so much on those 'facts' that truth completely escapes you.
As for the office of the president of the nation ... what a joke. If you really believe, like you seem so willing to do, that all matters rest in the mind and the hand of that one individual, that they are the best and fairest that a nation could come up with ... that they are not just puppets from day one, probably even in ignorance in most cases, that there are not more powerful 'others' pulling their strings from behind the veil of shadows for materialistic world domination of long range plans ... then you head is still in the sand.
There IS ample information available that could make this a fact ... but not for those that refuse to open their minds to the truth.
I am not a 'gambler', do not even know what your triple dog dare is ... neither do I involve myself in national 'sports' like most 'normal' people seem to do ... there are far more important matters pressing on this world than such 'entertainments'.
Whatever Ike was, his parting words to us all was to not be fooled by the Military-Industrial Complex ... we sure never paid enough attention to that warning.
As far as all of the 'qualities' or character traits attributed to our founding fathers and the like ... each 'side' of this argument claims just what they want to believe ... the Evangelicals would have them all being that rather than Deists etc ... and so it goes ... whatever supports ones cause.
Like I said, the OFFICE of President should be respected.........even if you don't like the person in it at the time. I respected the office of President when Clinton was President, even though I had to grit my teeth. I don't imagine Lefties will give anyone who doesn't agree with them the same respect. And that's what separates us from them.
I, for one, do respect the office of the presidency, even when inhabited by a person dedicated to the destruction of true democracy as is the incumbent! You are not separated from the "lefties" as they are simply extremists and so are you!
I understand now, your confusion over what our founding fathers were. You don't understand conservatism! Conservatism does not mean a total loss of our moral compass as you would seem to indicate. And yes, a balanced budget would be nice. The current incumbent doesn't care about that. In fact, the only president since Carter to have a balanced budget was Clinton and that was only because Social Security contributions were going into the general fund!
Actually Bret, it's the neo-cons who are having the current "run." This nation has been run by middle of the roaders for two hundred years until the shrub took office! We'll see how his run continues.
Conservativism has always been about personal responsibility, restraint, and following principles that have proven true for thousands of years.
Liberalism is about trashing the traditional, and doing the opposite..........not because that's the correct route to take, but because it's rebellious and sexy.
That's why I often say that Liberals are like the children in a family, and the Conservatives are like the parents.
Al Gore has a new book just come out ... it explains this 'problem' that we all share ... but as long as the one side listens only to their handlers on what to think ... they will honour their responsibility to their 'side' and just badmouth the book because they they have already chosen to believe what they have been told ... AG far left liberal loony ready to sell the country down the drain ... the 'recommended' reading list is such as Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Bortz, et. al.
Is it any wonder this country is headed to it's demise ... Bret, your words are examples of what I say ... divisive exaggeration about extremes that if existent, are there only for more polarization ... why add to the problems ?
Bret truly doesn't understand either liberalism or conservatism. He will never be capable of grasping the critical picture. Grandiose plans for a Pax Americana and to hell with the world in which we life or the others with which we share it! His hart, I am sure, is in the right place but the comprehension isn't there!
Bret, There are of course different ways to look at things. Some ways have the ability via experience to know of both views, and the other only sees it one way because they have never experienced anything else.
So when you say this ... " That's why I often say that Liberals are like the children in a family, and the Conservatives are like the parents. " ... you are partially right ... except like the conservative you are so 'proud' to call yourself as an extreme opposite of the liberal that so scares you ... as in all extremes, like the 'child' that they are, resembling a headstrong stubborn teenager that thinks they know everything, ... needed is the 'centrist' parent that has had enough of life's balanced experiences to have actually learned the truth of the whole picture ... with time, maybe, you will realize just what I mean.
I know that James C. gets the picture ... you Bret should have such a parent. :-)
I'm amused by the Liberal point of view. Minimal logic mixed with tons of emotion. Dennis Kucinich, the object of this article, is a prime example of my observation. When he and Maxine Waters hooked up for a press conference the other day, I had to roll my eyes and say Hmmmmmmmmm...............
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
Please select the part of the post you are reporting.
Please select why you are reporting this content.
Please enter a description.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 64
"Can someone tell me where is all of this oil we're supposedly getting for blood"
The intent was not to flood the market with cheap oil. It was the exact opposite. Keep the oil from the market, create chaos in the middle east, and prices skyrocket. Why is it that people assume that just because this is an oil war, that's supposed to automatically translate into comfort and cheap fuel for them? The oil industry and military industrial complex oligarchs launched this war, and they didn't do it so that you could get a bargain at the pump.
" Let me know when we see some of this oil, Olga."
Again, the intent was not to offer you endless cheap fuel. It was to lock up oil profits. The two scenarios are not congruent.
This war has been an extravaganza for the wealthy, and a disaster for the middle and lower castes.
The Iraqis own all the means of production now...........since we gave it back to them after toppling Saddam.
Even the picketers in Left Wing Chicago don't use that term.............and haven't for a long while. I think those "blood for oil" picket signs are being sold on Ebay for nostalgia collectors.....lol.
But many on the extreme Left yearn for the good ole days......lol.
Kucinich is irrelevant. His only base is from the bombthrowing, obnoxious left of the Democratic party...............and even that's less than 20% of the total of all Democrats. He just couldn't possibly stand up to the intense scrutiny of all the American voters.
Yes, we semi turned things over to the current Iraq government but before we did we extracted a 40 year contract on the Iraqi oil! If they ever get enough "peace" there to get the oil pumped American oil companies will be very delighted as it money in the bank for them!
We only agreed to buy Iraqi oil at market prices. Hardly a stunning agreement. If "Blood for oil" were actually true, we'd have kept it all and told the Iraqis that their oil was payment for the freedom we brought to their country. However, we didn't do that. We gave it all back to them back in 2003. Now their parliament is arguing how the oil revenue will be shared with all Iraqi citizens. Once this is done, there will be no reason for ordinary poor Iraqis to want war. They'll want peace and oil money more.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world."
- William Kristol, Chairman
Jerry –
This is the mission statement taken directly from the Project for a New American Century website. I don't see anything too revolutionary here. It looks like a Conservative think tank. Besides, I don't see William Kristol putting his name on anything too unreasonable or nutty.
What is it that you think these guys are doing that's so horrible?
Kucinich is a strong advocate of pacifism - but he also has stated on numerous times that he believes that the U.S. should continue to have the most powerful military in the world.
It was their plan that they (the neocons) through Wolfowitz and others, had been planning since the Reagan years ... very militaristic and nefarious by 'most' accounts ... it very much forecast just what has been transpiring there and planned further ... (say Iran ?).
The public outcry by those concerned has been tightly controlled by the media and the website has been much sanitized to present a better 'picture' as 'damage control' ...
If you want the 'true' story you will have to look deeper, maybe such as Dave A. has suggested. The real trouble with getting the truth out, is that the 'apologists' for the view of 'their side', will only look for and accept the view that supports ONLY their side ... so we have in effect this game of 'loyalty' to the 'party' going on.
Truth is not a 'game' of my facts against your facts ... facts that are often 'contrived' ... the real truth is a whole 'other' thing entirely.
Let us quit seeking polarized 'facts' of contention and find the common ground of truth. It will be much assisted via our intuition when we are 'ready' ... truth is always a 'good' thing in the final analysis.
'Bombthrowers' is a generic term. It can be used to describe those on the Right or the Left. However, the Left tends to act in an irrational way much more than the right, so the label has stuck.
Kucinich's "Peace at all costs" platform doesn't play well in Middle America. Maybe in NYC, but not out in the Heartland. And it isn't a strong foreign policy platform either. That's why Kucinich will always be a marginal candidate.
Bret - re: PNAC -- Google "Bush Doctrine" and read the beginning chapters of "The Assassin's Gate" by George Packer for more. Also check the bios of some of the PNAC founders listed on their website.
I don't lay awake at night and worry about PNAC taking over the world, like it appears you do……..lol.
PNAC is a think tank with some Conservatives in it. I worry about them about as much as I worry about a piece of Skylab falling to Earth and hitting me on my way to work.
First of all, PNAC has been around for a while. They put their beliefs out there for the whole world to see. I've not seen a lot of subterfuge. Think tanks are like that – you can either be for them, or against them, and it doesn't really matter that much to the think tank. They go on to promote their platform, and you can join in or opt out. They are not these nefarious, dark organizations you make them out to be.
Dig deeper? Where? At the Daily Kos or Media Matters? LOL, yea riiiiiiiiight!
I really think that you, and others like you, do not seek true common ground. You view your way of thinking as the only true and righteous way of thinking, and you see us Conservatives as wrong and duplicitous. I read what you say, Jerry. The evidence is there in plain English.
Its doubtful you and I will see eye to eye. I'm Center-Right, and you're Left-to-sometimes-Center. We may come together occasionally on one topic………..like Illegal Immigration, for instance…………but it will be for wildly different reasons.
Skylab fell to Earth on 7/11/1979. Nobody worries about that anymore.
The PNAC has suffered some serious setbacks as their policy initiatives have produced disastrous results and key members have either resigned in disgrace or, in the case of Libby, become a convicted felon. All this appears not to have reduced the rate of pontification by Kristol or Perle, who retain a cool analytic demeanor in the face of senseless dismemberment, murder and mayhem that they have helped create.
Well then, thanks I guess. However, what if I don't see the threat that you obviously do? Knowing that, do you think I'd go and research it deeply, analyzing all the probabilities available?
If these guys in PNAC were such a threat, and had done half the absurd things they've been accused of, this would be national news. Until some Centrist media sites devote serious airtime to this, it isn't even a blip on the radar screen.
Thanks for the update on Skylab.....lol. Nobody worries about it, and nobody worries about PNAC either.
Kristol, Perle, Wolfowitz, etc. are not in a popularity contest. They're willing to do their research with little fanfare. Most have been public servants, so fame isn't on their menu. They just believe that their form of American leadership in this new century is best. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
However, I'd rather have American leadership than any other. Our model is successful.............most of the other political models haven't been.
Others on this site have already said what they want to say. I watched and absorbed. No one can be accused of being a wallflower here. And I have not put any words in anyone's mouth. The guilty have spoken.
I just see a lot of 'Chicken Littles' here on Gather - and apparently they think that PNAC is causing the sky to fall. I look outside and see a beautiful Summer day, and the sky is exactly where it should be.
Also, I was unaware that Scooter Libby was a member of PNAC. Is he listed on the PNAC site somewhere? Or is he just a member of the Bush administration that you've lumped into the PNAC category?
PNAC's detractors are everywhere on Gather. I read how evil PNAC is on many Left Wing threads, and yet, not much evidence of wrongdoing has been on display..........mainly just fears and name-calling.
In addition, I have no problem with this New Century being headed by Americans. Actually, I hope we do end up being the leaders in the next 92+ years. Conservative American values, especially in business, would be a wonderful thing to promote around the globe.
www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
I read your link and I have no problem with anything that was said at the PNAC site. Maybe Kristol should update it (it's from 1997), but other than that, the principles seem pretty solid. And yes, Scooter Libby is there at the bottom as a signatory!
Is there something wrong with this new century being an American century? Do we want leadership from other countries before our own?
Dave, the sky really isn't falling. Not sure if you heard the news yet...........
The probability is pretty slim. The sky's been around for billions of years, and even though man has tried to affect it, man has not succeeded. I speak figuratively of course, but the reality of the world changing in an instant is also quite slim............unless you're Ahmedinejad and you've invested billions in nukes..........
" PS ... of course, do not take my words seriously, they are only provided for 'your entertainment' ..."
..........and you never cease to deliver that entertainment......lol.
I've read the PNAC site many times. Once again, I see nothing wrong in their goals. And you are correct, this is where Conservative thinkers went into hiding when the Clintons were in power. Their thinking was pretty good, however, the Bush administration's execution was poor. Hopefully, PNAC's ideals will continue on, and will be picked up by another Conservative President who can implement and execute much more efficiently.
I've monitored the PNAC web site for many years and can assure you that their agenda is much more subtle today than it was. The site has been sanitized severely! some of their goals sound pretty good but the devil is in the details and implementation If you honestly believe that the best way to do things is for America to take over the world and to implement the great American empire (Pax Americana) then by all means, support them!
The site was never clandestine and spelled it out very directly in earlier years, that the goal is to insure that no nation can ever achieve the power necessary to challenge the US in the foreseeable future and beyond. They believe in supporting and conducting many minor wars throughout the world and keeping our military spending as high as possible. This means dealing effectively with their enemies or those who don't agree and that is the reason for the Patriot Act and the devolution of our freedoms and rights!
I was raised in a free America and I want to die in the same! There is no earthly reason that the United States should be spending more money on military than all the other countries of the world combined!
The so called "conservative thinkers" didn't go into hiding, the PNAC was busy communicating their desires to the president during those years, as they had every right to do.
Most of our president have been neither liberal or conservative but rather middle of the road and pragmatic. We've never had a truly liberal president and Bush is the first conservative. If this is the results of a conservative president then it is time for a true liberal to undo the damage that has been done. If it's not too late!
No nation can achieve the power necessary to challenge the U.S.............and many of us see that as a great thing!
Our military spending has been between 3 and 6% of GDP for years and years, James. That won't change anytime soon, no matter what wars we wage.
Are you trying to tell me that PNAC members were trying to communicate their ideas to Bill Clinton during his years in the White House? Maybe he was just busy playing with his cigar..........
President Bush was the first Conservative President?
Now THAT is revisionist history if I've ever heard it. What do you think Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Lincoln, etc., etc. were? What do you think Ronald Reagan was?
How liberal does Jimmy Carter have to be for your to consider him a Liberal President? Do you not remember stagflation? 21% interest rates? The Iranian hostage crisis? The oil shocks? All failed Liberal policies gone crazy by a guy who didn't understand simple economics. Sadly, most Libs don't. That's why they're Libs.
That is exactly what I am telling you! The PNAC was communicating with Bill Clinton! There are letters on their web site addressed to Mr. Clinton!
Jefferson, Adams, Madison and especially Lincoln were not "conservative" presidents. Washington was a liberal radical! That's why we have this country!
As far as Regan goes, I know what he was! He was a populist, not a conservative as he didn't understand either liberal or conservative, let alone being one! He was a "nice guy" and a republican and as such had to have the party lead him by the hand to the White House bathroom! He came to the office equipped with a great smile, a wonderful personality, a pretty good acting ability and Alzheimer's! That is the full story on St. Regan, the Teflon president.
Jimmy Carter presided over 14% mortgage interest, he didn't create it. Talk to the very conservative Federal Reserve about that! On other interest we have 24% interest today for what that's worth! Bush didn't create that and neither did Jimmy Carter and you know that! And I don't suppose you remember that the Iranians did the hostage taking, not Carter. And I hope you notice that we got them all back alive thanks to Jimmy Carter! He sent a note to the Ayatollah, right after the hostages were taken that if one hostage was harmed or put on trial we would invade Iran. Period. They believed him!
It's true that Carter was not buddy buddy with the oil Sheiks like the Bush family but the oil embargo was not started by Carter, he just had to live with it! What is conservative or liberal about this!
No, Carter was not as liberal as Kennedy or Johnson. For an actual real liberal we would have needed to have elected Hubert Humphrey or McGovern! We've never had a true liberal president! Carter was and is a businessman and thoroughly understand economics. No neo-conservative understands economics, that's their problem! Trickle down doesn't work for the nation! Yes, for the elite. But destructive to the nation.
Not being a "lib" or buying into their so called movement I can't say, like you do, what libs know or think. I'll leave that expertise to you, thanks! Nor can I claim to understand the thinking of a Neo-Con for the same reason! I'll stick with middle of the road and reasonableness in most things where governance of this country is concerned. We need reasonable people in Washington, not "isms, cons, or libs!"
You've been looking at things from the extreme radical right and it has colored and distorted you view of all. From that stance, "reasonable" looks the same as left wing due to the warping but that is were most of this nation is! If you can bring yourself to say it a few times, moderate and reasonable aren't bad terms, Bret!
No nation on earth can effectively challenge the United States and we should try to keep being a strong nation. We don't need to outspend the rest of the world put together to accomplish this, would you think? Just what are we that afraid of? We really don't have the moral right to tell other nations that they cannot be strong also!
Oh yes, I know, the radical Muslims are going to be beating down our gates next year. Or next month. And we're going to beat them up with Nukes, B59s and smart bombs? I don't think so. We need to bring our troops home to protect this country, find better sources of energy, and try minding some of our own business and problems for a change!
That is one thing I will definitely fault Carter, Regan, Bush the greater, Clinton and Bush the lesser so far on, that none of them could see beyond their noses that the Mideast petroleum came with problems and strings attached and they should have started a "Manhattan project" to replace Mideast oil. including drilling in the ANWR, drilling off coast, using nuclear power, hydroelectric, liquefied coal, wind power, higher fuel efficiency, tides, hydrogen or any other source possible rather than risk our economy and security to Mideast oil. I guess that sounds like a "liberal" statement to you?
I'd rather buy from Chavez than continue depending on the Mideast Muslim oil! And none of these presidents acted like there was a problem! It's not a matter of conservative or liberal as today's vernacular would seem to indicate. It's a matter of common sense and protecting ourselves here in America! How can you eke liberal or conservative out of that? I'm concerned about our nation and economy and people!
First of all, refrain from punching that exclamation point so often. It loses its effectiveness after the 20th time.
Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison were REVOLUTIONARIES who had very Conservative values. The form of government they dreamed up was unusual and controversial, but their own personal beliefs where very Conservative, and it showed when they were in office. They didn't have the money to be Liberal.
Are you saying that Ronald Reagan wasn't a Conservative, James? That's like saying blue is green. Where do you get these ideas from? Reagan was the most Conservative President since Eisenhower.
In April of 1979, the Federal Reserve's discount rate (the interest that the Fed charges member banks) reached 19% for the first time in history. Since banks typically charged 2% more than prime, that made the effective prime rate 21%. The prime rate today, in comparison, is 8.25%.
There is no comparison to the Carter years. Those were a financial disaster because of his misunderstanding of economics.
Where do you get your information from?
Within 24 hours of new President Reagan's inauguration, all of the Iranian hostages were released. The Iranians were terrified that Reagan would invade, so they let the hostages go. Carter had NOTHING to do with it. Are you one of those history revisionists?
Carter was not only a Liberal back when he was President, but he's even more of one now.
When we bring home the troops, it won't be to protect us. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids that. The troops may be located in military bases, but that's it.
We have interests all over the globe, that's why we have bases all over the world. Morality doesn't even enter into the equation, James. We do it because we can, and because we realize the necessity of having assets outside the country.
As far as your statements on increasing power generation here in the U.S., I have no problem with us using every possible alternative to Venezuelan or Middle Eastern oil. However, we've not built even one single American nuclear plant since 1979. No wonder we're running out of electrical grid capacity. Personally, I'd love to render Hugo Chavez completely impotent by inventing some form of battery power that cuts him and his country out of operating his petro-business in America.
The reason I'm concerned with the terms "Liberal" or "Conservative", James, is because those aren't merely words. They have platforms and policies behind them. The Liberal platform has been completely disproven in the past 25+ years, whereas the Conservative platform has been confirmed as highly effective, year after year. I'd much rather have a Conservative in power, no matter which political party he represents. It's a much safer proposition for the country.
James C. ... well said, right on !
I appreciate your response! You've stated some truths with which I agree. We are doing things with no moral justification simply because we can. You're the first neo-con I've ever had agree with that. But it is wrong! And if we continue to do things which are wrong simply because we can, there will come a time it will reach out to bite us, really bad! And the time is not far off.
The parties have platforms, liberal and conservative don't. And today it seems to be radical this and radical that which is even worse. It is time for reason, ethics and sound leadership from either party, but not from radicals on either side!
We can bring home the troops as much as possible as their continued presence in Iraq is causing more problems than it is solving! If the Posse Comitatus act is a problem with the troops protecting us here then repeal the damned thing as that is just plain wrong!
Washington and Jefferson were rich men but they were not even close to being "conservatives" as we know that term today! And Eisenhower a conservative? You've made my laugh for the day! I've never heard him referred to as a conservative before. And I was one of his supporters when he ran for president! He was a good, solid, middle of the road Republican.
I now better understand some of your radical positions but most of the nation does not share your history or viewpoints. We are common people and have had to work hard all our lives and not had rich parents! Money does free the mind to wander into strange territory! Enjoy it.
Argue any point I made 3 boxes up..........I triple dog dare you.
Jerry and I have had the Neo-Con argument before. I believe in a balanced budget, so on that one topic alone, I don't qualify. However, some of their ideas have merit.
Posse Comitatus was put into law to protect idiot usurpers from themselves. After the Civil War, the troops were called out to handle every kind of nonsensical land dispute known to mankind. Military commanders wanted a unified command, so they, and many others saw the need to have a command structure that only has one leader, ultimately..............and that is the Commander-in-Chief.
Today, the troops don't need to protect us. We have police for that. The troops are for FOREIGN intervention.
ALL of the Founding Fathers were extremely Conservative. A Liberal, back then, was someone who believed in the crazy notion of a currency backed only by the promise of the government, and not by gold or silver..............pure insanity back then!
These guys believed in balanced budgets, minimal or no trade deficits, a strong defense, low unemployment, hard work, small government, no professional politicians...............and welfare as we know it, would have been their worst nightmare.
Yes, they were definitely Conservative.
Eisenhower was a former General. He had a solid Conservative economic background, and implemented policies during the 50's that helped the nation prosper after WWII. No doubt about it - Conservative values.
James, my positions are about as radical as free trade, hard money, a strong currency, and low unemployment.
So to do so would just go in circles as you would never be convinced otherwise anyway ... you rely so much on those 'facts' that truth completely escapes you.
As for the office of the president of the nation ... what a joke. If you really believe, like you seem so willing to do, that all matters rest in the mind and the hand of that one individual, that they are the best and fairest that a nation could come up with ... that they are not just puppets from day one, probably even in ignorance in most cases, that there are not more powerful 'others' pulling their strings from behind the veil of shadows for materialistic world domination of long range plans ... then you head is still in the sand.
There IS ample information available that could make this a fact ... but not for those that refuse to open their minds to the truth.
I am not a 'gambler', do not even know what your triple dog dare is ... neither do I involve myself in national 'sports' like most 'normal' people seem to do ... there are far more important matters pressing on this world than such 'entertainments'.
As far as all of the 'qualities' or character traits attributed to our founding fathers and the like ... each 'side' of this argument claims just what they want to believe ... the Evangelicals would have them all being that rather than Deists etc ... and so it goes ... whatever supports ones cause.
Like I said, the OFFICE of President should be respected.........even if you don't like the person in it at the time. I respected the office of President when Clinton was President, even though I had to grit my teeth.
I don't imagine Lefties will give anyone who doesn't agree with them the same respect. And that's what separates us from them.
We had our 200 year run, now you're having your 30 year run. Time's almost up, and the Lib revolt is fizzling..........
I, for one, do respect the office of the presidency, even when inhabited by a person dedicated to the destruction of true democracy as is the incumbent! You are not separated from the "lefties" as they are simply extremists and so are you!
I understand now, your confusion over what our founding fathers were. You don't understand conservatism! Conservatism does not mean a total loss of our moral compass as you would seem to indicate. And yes, a balanced budget would be nice. The current incumbent doesn't care about that. In fact, the only president since Carter to have a balanced budget was Clinton and that was only because Social Security contributions were going into the general fund!
Actually Bret, it's the neo-cons who are having the current "run." This nation has been run by middle of the roaders for two hundred years until the shrub took office! We'll see how his run continues.
Conservativism has always been about personal responsibility, restraint, and following principles that have proven true for thousands of years.
Liberalism is about trashing the traditional, and doing the opposite..........not because that's the correct route to take, but because it's rebellious and sexy.
That's why I often say that Liberals are like the children in a family, and the Conservatives are like the parents.
Is it any wonder this country is headed to it's demise ... Bret, your words are examples of what I say ... divisive exaggeration about extremes that if existent, are there only for more polarization ... why add to the problems ?
Bret truly doesn't understand either liberalism or conservatism. He will never be capable of grasping the critical picture. Grandiose plans for a Pax Americana and to hell with the world in which we life or the others with which we share it! His hart, I am sure, is in the right place but the comprehension isn't there!
You misunderstand what we Conservatives know : Liberalism IS the problem.
So when you say this ... " That's why I often say that Liberals are like the children in a family, and the Conservatives are like the parents. " ... you are partially right ... except like the conservative you are so 'proud' to call yourself as an extreme opposite of the liberal that so scares you ... as in all extremes, like the 'child' that they are, resembling a headstrong stubborn teenager that thinks they know everything, ... needed is the 'centrist' parent that has had enough of life's balanced experiences to have actually learned the truth of the whole picture ... with time, maybe, you will realize just what I mean.
I know that James C. gets the picture ... you Bret should have such a parent. :-)