[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: Anti-War Conservatives for Obama Anti-war conservatives are rallying around ultra-liberal Barack Obama. He promises to “get out of Iraq as carefully as we went in carelessly,” and that’s enough for Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University. Bacevich, writing in The American Conservative, says: “Barack Obama is no conservative. Yet if he wins the Democratic nomination, come November principled conservatives may well find themselves voting for the senator from Illinois. Given the alternatives—and the state of the conservative movement—they could do worse. “Granted, when it comes to defining exactly what authentic conservatism entails, considerable disagreement exists even (or especially) among conservatives themselves. My own definition emphasizes the following: “Accept that definition and it quickly becomes apparent that the Republican Party does not represent conservative principles. The conservative ascendancy that began with the election of Ronald Reagan has been largely an illusion. During the period since 1980, certain faux conservatives—especially those in the service of Big Business and Big Empire—have prospered. But conservatism as such has not.” Bacevich, a Vietnam vet and a gold star father, whose beloved son and namesake was killed in Iraq is our generation’s Charles Beard. The Obama movement swells daily with traditional political figures of the first rank. Kevin Phillips, an old rightist, says he expects to vote for Obama. Another likely Obama supporter may be retired General Bill Odom, the leading anti-war strategist. In 2005, General Odom, former head of the National Security Agency under Reagan, called the Iraq War “the greatest single strategic mistake in our nation’s history.” A younger Reagan-era colleague, Doug Bandow and many of The American Conservative’s writers and editors are also leaning toward Obama. Are anti-war conservatives “disloyal” to the good old GOP? I think the endless War Party deserted them long ago. The conservative cause was the life’s work of the late Bill Buckley. And he, too, at the end, concluded that Iraq would destroy it all. Anti-war conservatives feel John McCain is the eternal warrior incarnate. Bacevich writes: “Above all, conservatives who think that a McCain presidency would restore a sense of realism and prudence to U.S. foreign policy are setting themselves up for disappointment. On this score, we should take the senator at his word: his commitment to continuing the most disastrous of President Bush’s misadventures is irrevocable. McCain is determined to remain in Iraq as long as it takes. He is the candidate of the War Party. The election of John McCain would provide a new lease on life to American militarism, while perpetuating the U.S. penchant for global interventionism marketed under the guise of liberation.” At the opposite moral pole of prophecy stands Osama bin Laden. He is confirmed in his belief that Iraq will become the open grave of America’s tottering financial economy. Iraq is the three trillion dollar war and we are still counting and borrowing from our nation’s rivals and enemies. Bacevich concludes: “But this much we can say for certain: electing John McCain guarantees the perpetuation of war. The nation’s heedless march toward empire will continue. So, too, inevitably, will its embrace of Leviathan. Whether snoozing in front of their TVs or cheering on the troops, the American people will remain oblivious to the fate that awaits them. “So why consider Obama?” Bacevich asks. “For one reason only: because the liberal Democrat has promised to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq. Contained within that promise, if fulfilled, lies some modest prospect of a conservative renewal.” I believe that for the U.S., the Iraq war has no attainable political or strategic objective and our combat role should cease within a year of the 2008 election.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#1. To: robin (#0)
Not this one. Especially not after reading through Obama's tax policy on Small Business where entrepreneurs will be paying a marginal tax rate of 60%. Way to go, right-wingers. Kill the economy and destroy jobs. Hope you like paying for more welfare.
You would rather pay for McCain's 100 years of warfare?
No offense intended, but 100 years of warfare would at least keep Americans employed and fed while 60% marginal *Federal* tax rates (not counting state, county, and other) would bring the unemployment rate to something stratospheric. Do we want to see Obamavilles popping up? Looking at things from a *purely financial* side, we buy weapons from ourselves and our military guys spend the money here in the US. We also employ our own people. Besides, so long as an opposition Congress is in place, McCain cannot pull off 100 years of warfare. He can only have two terms after all. That's eight years. The man is 72 years old. Unless someone has invented the Immortality Pill, there won't be 100 years of war. Even Obama has said he'll keep 60k+ troops in Iraq indefinitely. Are people so sure they understand what the Obama has up his sleeve? Like rolling over Pakistan if they don't hand over Bin Laden? Let's face facts. NONE of the front-runners are acceptable.
No, someone named Mr. Kahl, who works on his campaign said that, and he said quite clearly that this was his personal opinion.
There are no replies to Comment # 4. End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||