Joe Kelley
Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt301.html
Here's the strange thing: As we all know, the Washington Consensus – Democrats as well as Republicans, in Congress as in the Oval Office – has been settling ever deeper into the Iraqi imperial project. As a town, official Washington, it seems, has come to terms with a post-surge occupation strategy that will give new meaning to what, in the days after the 2003 invasion, quickly came to be known as the Q-word (for the Vietnam-era "quagmire"). The President has made it all too clear that he will fight his war in Iraq to the last second of his administration – and, if he has anything to say about it (as indeed he might), well beyond. In their "classified campaign strategy for the country," our ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, and the President's surge commander, Gen. David Petraeus, are reportedly already planning their war-fighting and occupation policy through the summer of 2009, and so into the next presidency. The three leading Democratic candidates for president, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, have refused to guarantee that American troops will even be totally out of Iraq by 2013, the end of a first term in office – as essentially has every Republican candidate except Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas. In fact, in Washington, the ongoing war is now such a given that it's hardly being discussed at the moment (as the one in Afghanistan has never been). The focus has instead shifted to the next possible administration monstrosity – a possible air assault on Iran that would essentially guarantee a global recession or depression.
Note: Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are in the same Presidential Election cycle as is Ron Paul. The failure to mention their names is exactly the type of omission that causes candidates like Ron Paul to fail in gaining accurate currency.
This type of intentional omission is political. When I omit references to the candidates who apologize for torture and mass murder I express that omission as often as possible because that ‘goes without saying’ after a long string of abuses.
Intentionally omitting Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich as legitimate presidential candidates is a pre-meditated political act. To suggest that the author is incapable of foreseeing the long term consequences of that omission is stretching the boundaries of probability.
Why would someone purposefully omit the mention of legitimate presidential candidates?
As Mike Gravel says: “Follow the Money”
|
