[insert preachy title here]

U.S. Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama said today that it's okay for the U.S. to attack targets in Pakistan if Musharraf doesn't and the U.S. government decides to. This is not news--U.S. foreign policy has been conducted on a bipartisan basis for a long time. This is one of the reasons that Bush is so hated by the elite...he didn't follow the line but tried to radically change it. This is also why it would be appropriate to call some of the neocons idealists, though of a truly fucked up variety.

What's more distressing, and also probably not news for a lot of the readers of this blog, is that American people who call themselves progressives are often too ignorant of their own country's history to notice much of this. Even if Obama's statement is just campaign bluster compounded by sensationalist news coverage (the news headlines don't talk about some of the other things he says regarding aid for secular education and democracy in Pakistan), I still find it distressing as an American what the bounds of political debate in the United States are today.

Update: sepoy has a long post about this at the chapati.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.passtheroti.com/trackback/522

Comments

Americans and their

Americans and their airstrikes. When will we stop kidding ourselves about airstrikes and the strategic aims they actually serve and practically fail to?

What the hell is new?

What the hell is new? :)

Personally, I've kept a distance from all the mindless Obama loving. Every non neo-conservative around here thinks he is an actual alternative, that he's actually progressive, and that he's the nation's great hope.

As I've said before, there is really no fundamental difference between the Repubs and Demos.

It's times like this where I really don't feel like exercising my right to vote. Which of course plays perfectly into maintaining the status quo.

I think Cindy Sheehan's

I think Cindy Sheehan's announcement that she will challenge Nancy Pelosi as an independent candidate is a glimmer of hope. Not to say that she will somehow single-handedly dismantle the two-party system, or even that she stands a chance of winning (she just might) but that she represents a growing minority of voters who are open to the idea of a third party today, more so than, say, in 2004. But yes, I too feel the ugh factor in this torturously long election season.

I think Cindy Sheehan’s

I think Cindy Sheehan’s announcement that she will challenge Nancy Pelosi as an independent candidate is a glimmer of hope. Not to say that she will somehow single-handedly dismantle the two-party system, or even that she stands a chance of winning (she just might) but that she represents a growing minority of voters who are open to the idea of a third party today, more so than, say, in 2004. But yes, I too feel the ugh factor in this torturously long election season.

It seems clear that the 2-party system (which occasionally slides into 1 party or 3 parties but then reverts) is pretty deeply ingrained--whether historically or, in my opinion, structurally.. I think a different political structure than the separation of powers, king-like executive, winner take all elections is necessary. How come everyone else gets to have a parliament? :)

Please. Take OUR parliament.

Please. Take OUR parliament. ;)

Please. Take OUR

Please. Take OUR parliament.

I'll give you our presidency and a draft pick.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.