http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/oct20 ... -o01.shtml

Stupid.

Good God, Ghandi, the World Socialist Web Site....not much of a beacon of truth.

If you haven't seen it, here is the Chicago Tribune interview that the WSWS is going so far out of their way to spin. That shit reads like the Washington Times (another wack job pub. that spins shit harder than Fox has the balls to, and LGF'ers like to turn to in their more desperate moments.)

the orig. interview--


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/prin ... 5304.story


It's far left hack jobs like this group that kept Gore from winning in 2000....among other things, of course. Take away the 'fuck you, imperialist swine' Nader vote, and this country would look a lot different today, regardless of how the world socialist website would like to bundle Obama and Bush and Gore and McCain in the same shitbag.

I'm all for progressive change and even revolution, but not at the expense of 8 fucking years of GWB, and the damage done around the world.

WSWS's take on Obama--

"Obama’s statements underscore the Democratic Party’s acceptance in principle of the “Bush Doctrine” of preventive war—a doctrine that contravenes international law and provides a rationale for US military interventions against any country deemed an obstacle to US imperialist interests around the world."

Say what you want about Obama, but he hardly underscores acceptance of the Bush Doctrine. And no human can or should be elected President of the US if they are not willing to publicly state that all options are on the table regarding Iran, rogue nukes (coup in Pakistan), etc.

I haven't decided yet who to back in 2008. I'm kind of hoping Gore takes the plunge. A Gore/Obama ticket would be A-OK.

Miss you all, specially sweet-tard. whatever happened to him?

Does the word 'socialist' still ring like a commie bell over there in America?

Far leftists fucking things up? If anything the leftist Netroots is what has been creating the most clear change politically since 2000!

It's not really a dirty word here in Europe you know... in fact the Socialist Party made the greatest gains in the last elections in Holland. Not to mention the overtly social democrats in Canada vis a vis the NDP.

So - no, I don't write off the work of 'socialist' writers merely because the word is tarnished in America - much like 'conspiracy theorist' or whatever.

The WSWS is hardly 'rense.com' or 'whatreallyhappened.com' - it more or less the publication for an international movement.

The gist of the article and the one that makes me go "WTF" is their quote...



If he favours nuclear surgical strikes against Iran he's an idiot and represents no sort of change - here's not showing any integrity and trying to play both by backing up his ass to both pro-war and anti-war supporters.

Give me Gore any day. At least he doesn't support having a go at Iran. Call him what you want - He does not support the war in Iraq or Iran. Nor do most Americans so what are you worried about? A few end-day Dominionist bible-thumpers that you think you need to appease in order to win? Most fiscal conservatives and RINO's realize that Bush is not a fiscal conservative at this point. I don't there's any question of losing. But I honestly don't feel that a black guy who's first name rhymes with Osama and whose middle name is Hussein is not going anywhere - despite all the press play he's been getting (did you ever wonder why?).

Maybe as VP to Gore. But Fox is already eating him alive. Even lying about him being in a Madrasa.

If Gore even runs that is...

[video width=400 height=350]http://www.youtube.com/v/jk7AfHTtj-c[/video]


Sweetie? Not sure - he's been awol for some time...

DMT and I are publishing http://www.atlanticfreepress.com and http://www.pacificfreepress.com (who's writers range from Libertarians, to 'Socialists' to Anarchists to Lefties of all flavours).

Hope alles goed!
R>

i got no problem with the word 'socialist'. but i do rank World Socialist Website with the Washington times.

no candidate, short of a nader or kucinich, could ever, ever categorically dismiss the option of surgical strikes against Iran. doesn't mean that it is top on the list of options.

obv., even bush would rather a negotiated end to Iran's nuke program. not so far from the UN, europe, etc. obama does say in the same interview, and stress, that step one would be working through the UN, economic sanctions, etc.

i just think it is disengenuous of the left (the far left, of course) to suggest that a candidate like Obama is cut from the same cloth as Bush. There is a world of difference, and these same people did all they could to torpedo Gore in 2000, for the same fucking reasons.

Obama may be shit, but he is very, very different shit than Bush. And to suggest that his take on geopolitics is 'racist' is laughable.

not worth arguing about. i just think if you are going to get all upset about something Obama said in an interview three years ago while running against a fascist idiot, it would have more gravitas if it wasn't filtered through such a hack source. no biggee.

i guess living in the heart of this clusterfuck that is US politics, i have kind of lost my patience with the far left. it is not so much that i disagree with their principles, just that there is too much to lose by actively working against the lesser of two evils, and succeeding. painting the first truly fresh presidential candidate since Carter with the same brush as Bush is just fucking ridiculous. there may be lots of reasons to cut him down and pave the way for a, say, giuliani or McCain, but toeing the Bush Doctrine is not one of them.

good luck with the publishing endeavors. I wish you both the best. wish i could visit and have a nice evening around a poker table with you both.

Hey Demoman. I understand your logic about slamming Repug. opponents (assuming the 2 party system isn't a sham), but I don't think the U.S. should be making "surgical strikes" anywhere, anytime, again, in our lifetimes - period. If Obama said that, then he was talking out of his ass. Destroy Pakistan's nuclear facilities if Musharref loses power? How insane is that? Do you think he gave a seconds thought about the environmental effects of that? He was parroting, Demo, that's obvious. But that was then, this is now.

Anyway, I think everyone is aware that if Gore ran, he'd win by a landslide. But he probably won't because either a. he can't regress and be a 'player' again, and/or b. he doesn't believe he can effect a real change. That's my
depressing take on the state of Union.

Always room at the poker table for you Portlanders.

PS- I think Suite-ness is working again.

Another thought..

Don't you wish we had shown a fraction the restraint, discipline the Russians showed when they were faced with economic implosion? THEY TOOK IT ON THE CHIN.

Our reaction was to go manufacture 'endless war'- on puny nations.

What about Afghanistan? Seems like the USSR was well into it's implosion for that war. Maybe Iraq is the beginning of the end for the US? Doubtful. I guess a new war is possible, but this current war is pretty fucking unpopular here, finally, and getting more so. I am guessing that by 'endless war' you include the threat of war, the securing of borders, the rooting out of terrorism, and continued state induced paranoia. I cannot imagine that the US will ever, or not soon, turn the corner on the need to feel 'secure'. 9/11 was so successful (whatever group you feel was truly behind it).

But the Bush doctrine of establishing a beachhead in Iraq and moving on to Iran and Syria looks completely doomed from my perspective. That there will soon be a meeting in Baghdad with all of the above parties sitting down with US representatives on regional security is noteworthy. But the main thing of course is that Bush's plans have failed miserably. Even those in his party supporting his plan for more troops do so while also acknowledging the war was a mistake from the beginning.


I'm not really trying to defend Obama so much as point out that no man or woman who hopes to lead the US (or any nation with a modern military machine) can ever take military options off the table. Would China ever agree to stay hands off with North Korea no matter what? Would Japan? My take on obama's mention of pakistan was that strikes could happen should musharref be toppled by coup, not simply 'lose power', and presumably Pakistan's nukes fall into rogue hands. I would imagine that military strikes would always be an option in such a situation. And of course, it is just as likely that the strikes would come from another country than the US. The US isn't the only power that has an interest in maintaining 'control' of nuclear weapons and their dispersal. The former USSR....seems like their wide spread and far flung arsenal has been reasonably secure (though doubtfully perfectly) since the break up--it didn't take surgical military strikes, but it has been an international effort.

Should Musharref fall to, say, a radical group who is sworn enemies with the west, it will not be just the US taking action to somehow secure their nuclear arsenal. Israel, of course, but also european nations would likely be far more proactive than what we saw in Bush's coalition of the willing.

I guess the bottom line is that Obama seems maybe the least likely to act in a Bush-like way in the event of a real nuclear threat than any of the other candidates who have any sort of real shot of being elected.

Or maybe the bottom line is that this country is so far past it's expiration date that the sooner it crumbles, the better.

I don't think Gore will run. Not unless Hillary gets out of the way. I hope he does, he would get my vote.

I'm going to Las Vegas tomorrow to play poker tournements for 5 or 6 days. I need to get lucky before the economy completely collapses.

Hey Demo it's good to see you again.

Enjoy Vegas.

There once was a man named Obama
Who had a lily-white mama.
He laid claim to a life
Full of racism and strife
Now wishes his dad was Osama!