Title: BREAKING HARD: RON PAUL SUPPORTS OBAMA Source:
CNN URL Source:[None] Published:May 2, 2008 Author:CNN Post Date:2008-05-02 18:28:55 by a vast rightwing conspirator Keywords:None Views:8564 Comments:534
First, he told Blitz that he can't endorse McCain.
Then, Blitz asked him which one he prefers, of the 2 Demos. RP said that he picks Obama because he's slightly better which is EXACTLY what I've been saying for quite a while.
W Bush is/was clearly in incompetent retard who can/could not function or 'lead' without handlers guiding him every step of the way. Anyone who trusts or trusted Bush now or then is/was either too naive or is/was not paying attention or makes/made a decision to trust him regardless of the abundant evidence. This is not uncommon. Most Americans bought the pre-war propaganda and supported the Iraq invasion. The evidence was clearly lacking and the scare campaign was so crude, most people should have saw it for what it was but they didn't.
Oh, but we were talking about 'trust'. Clearly, it's impossible to completely predict how much of one's promises will become one's future actions. However, I have little doubt that McCain's promises of more war are likely to translate into more war if he becomes the U.S. president. I believe that it will be less war than McCain dreams and promises because the country can't afford a lot more, but there will be more. I also have doubts that Hillary's promises of ending the Iraq involvement are likely to be fully kept because she promised not to talk with the local 'adversaries' and it's hard to reach some good and final outcome absent either some good negotiations or a complete victory and Hillary promises not to do either. In the case of Obama, I believe that he is likely to do more than he is promising, as far as the ME involvement is concerned. He is as intelligent as Hillary but he also appears to be more principled. He also must carry the black man's burden. He will only be judged good or satisfactory as a prez only if he performs way beyond expectations and he seems to be ambitious enough to actually give it a try.
Vast. After reading your post, the thought struck me we're debating the merits of professional American politicians based on 'hope', 'change' and 'trust.' Looking back at my life, in terms of America's foreign policy, it would be illogical for me to 'hope' that a selected politician could 'change' what has become an imperialistic nature, driven by the military industrial complex.
I was born at the end of WWII (FDR knew about PH in advance of the attack, but his desire shuck our isolationism won the day. American troops are still in Germany and Japan). Then Korea came ("The only reason I told the President to fight in Korea was to validate NATO." - Dean Acheson, US Secretary of State, but more importantly a CFR member. American troops are still there). Following Korea was Viet Nam (the Gulf of Tonkin was a lie, and that nation is now our low labor manufacturing colony). Scattered between Viet Nam and Iraq (WMDs my ass and 9-11 "a second Pearl Harbor"), were Desert Storm, Somalia, Serbia, and probably a half-dozen or so other little messes I've forgotten.
Given this fully developed, interventionist foreign policy of ours, are you honestly telling me you believe one man, Barack Obama, a lowly state senator three years ago, will be able to stop the the MIC and its lust for money and power?
There is a very small chance Obama would do something on that front.
Oh really?
His defined Middle East policy is to hold Israel "sacrosanct" and to move "some" troops from Iraq to Afghanistan so they can "hunt down" Al Qaeda, which is nothing more than creation of the US government.
To anyone who thinks we're leaving the Middle East, Santa is coming 12/25/08.
Afghanistan is not in the Middle East. Israel may care little whether we expand, maintain or end the war there. Israel is probably worried about the Paki nukes so, to the extent that the Paki gov't is kept on the leash, they don't really care who's in charge in Kabul.