NP; looks like the Dem Primary is kinda like Iceland Sparring.....

[Michael Bailey]

On 3/6/08, Ray Easton wrote:
>
>  On Thursday, Mar 6, 2008, at 15:15 US/Central, Thomas Eckhardt wrote:
>
>  > If Democratic voters in the US choose to sit this presidency out...
>  > ... they are IMHO as complicit in the ongoing war crimes as their
>  > leadership has been from the beginning.
>

ouch.  That's the same kind of thinking that BushCheney use
towards the collaterally damaged in Iraq et al.

I'm an inhabitant of this land mass (gotta
live somewhere, was born here, it's expensive to move), not a willing
participant in the bloodthirsty kleptocracy...

Normally I vote Democrat because
they're marginally less war-mongery, but sheesh, really not much.

Hypothesis: Any American representing anything like a serious threat to
American militarism faces Pyrrhic victories, marginalization,
prison or worse.
Test this against as large a sample of current events as you like.

Hard to get excited about the process -- but if by not voting
I'm gonna be a war criminal,
I guess I'll drag my cynical butt to the polls and
vote against "bomb-bomb-Iran" McCain.  It'll be a pleasure.

As Greg Palast says, we'll need about 5 or 10 million extra
votes to make up for all the fraud, rigged machines, and partisan
election officials.  I'll be one of those extra votes...

It's hard not to heave a sigh, though, and say:
"it's all theatre"

Ms Clinton & Mr Obama are campaigning hard, but quite honestly
neither of them embodies much real change --
who would dare to do so?

the spectre of a motorcade in Dallas, a motel in Memphis, a kitchen
in San Francisco, the sidewalk in front of the Dakota,
and many less famous incidents before and since,
no doubt rise up frequently in any public figure's mind

Bill Clinton (who I'm sorry but both he and the Missus make
my skin crawl) won because of Perot.  Interestingly, Perot withdrew
because of supposed threats to his daughter from Republicans
(later, in a convoluted story, this was "revealed to be a hoax")
but anyway, his personal bravery held Bush 41 to one term yet
we were still stuck with Tweedledee, who starved a bunch of Iraqis,
blew up half of Eastern Europe, ignored Kissinger's Rwanda bloodbath...
not to mention Vince Foster and Ron Brown and the secrets buried with them

Hilary's already voted war powers vis a vis Iran - yeah, big
effing difference there,
and Obama's doing surgical strikes on Al Qaeda in his mind...
they're both baby Bushes

Hard to get excited about either choice.  I like Kucinich...even Edwards
had some good pts... fuckin A Ron Paul, too, damit!  (took an online
poll and apparently the candidate most similar to my views  -
or at least, what I thought that day - was Mike Gravel
- wtf? haven't seen anything about him at all in the news)

The winnowing has tossed the best out first, it seems.
(with the exception of Giuliani and Huckabee, thank goodness they're
out of the picture... kinda liked Romney tho)

>
>  No candidate who adopts the view that the leadership of this ongoing
>  fiasco should be subjected to criminal prosecution --  a view I happen
>  to share with you -- could possibly be elected President.

One of Nader's planks in 2004 anyway was supporting the ICCJ -
but he has become the poster boy of marginalization.  His site
had a video of him debating action figures of Bush and Kerry.
Kinda cool, kinda sad...But he deserves it.
If he wasn't such a dick in 2000, Bush's EVIL cheating in Florida
would've been for naught.


risking eternal soul discussing filthy politics this way!

Mike Bailey

"Come on," Kit said, "let a trivial fellow buy you a beer.":