Remember when we all voted for change, because we felt the country was going down a dangerous path towards dictatorship,and someone needed to put a stop to it? Then we all hoped that by putting the Democratic Party in charge that they would do what they were elected to do?
Boy, were we suckers.
Because, once again, as we did seven years ago, we have FBI agents raiding the homes of antiwar activists. You know, the protesters the media completely ignored? Someone was listening, Big Brother.
Speaking of change, wasn't President Obama going to bring an end to the war in Iraq? Yeah, right. And antiwar activists are giving material support to the enemy. Sounds like something out of the Bush administration, but no, it's an ongoing policy.
The Democratic Party is concerned of losing seats in congress to the G-O-Tea Party. Instead of standing up for real progressive issues, and ending the insanity that is the War Party, they choose instead to continue on with it, lest they be seen as weak. But by doing so, they are weak, afraid to stand up to the minority party, and not doing a lot to compel those people who might vote for them to leave their houses and, well, vote for them. Sure, losing the House may help Obama in 2012, but what about helping us, now? Be the Change. It why you were elected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I want both wars over with and the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan ASAP. They never should've been sent to Iraq to begin with.
I understand some of the reasons Obama didn't order a rapid withdrawal as soon as he became president. There are ramifications of doing that. People in both countries who have helped our troops can end up dead. Lots of innocent civilians can also.
Other nations watch what we do. They gauge whether the U.S.'s word is good, whether it will see something through.
Then there are our enemies. The formula for success against the U.S. becomes clear: keep America's military bogged down in a guerrilla war for up to 10 years and you can win because they won't fight longer than that. I'm not sure I want that so easily understood as a truism backed by history.
Were the FBI raids just attempts at intimidation, or did it have credible reason to be suspicious? The linked stories give only one side of it. I'd like more information.
I can accept (begrudgingly) that Obama is more centrist and less liberal than I am. FBI raids on activist groups, the endless quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, being caught in the stranglehold of Big Business -- there are too many powerful behind-the-scenes groups who pretty much run the show. Anyone who has even a remote chance of getting elected president is already bought and paid for by these interests, and probably won't make much difference if they get elected.
Gore Vidal said something to that effect back in the '70s. I didn't believe it then, but I do now.
My biggest complaint about Obama is that he's such a weak leader. Rightwads accuse him of "apologizing for America." I think he's apologizing to the Right for being a Democrat.
Alas, there's more than a little reason for your suspicions and your conclusion about Obama's apologetic tendencies. We need and want a fighting reformer, we've got a conciliatory compromiser wannabe, at least domestically.
Post a Comment