So you think the above headline says that I’m mad? Wait…
I must declare my position.
Since I do not have a vote in America (I’m British), why do I write such a provocative headline?
Am I trying to influence the Democratic vote?
Yes I am, and here’s why.
I have been studying the political scene in America for some time now, ever since I became aware, after 9/11, of what was going on with the Bush Administration. I became more and more alarmed in the period of the ‘run-up to the war on Iraq’, particularly since my Prime Minister, (the poodle) seemed to have lost his mind in backing George Bush’s pathological rush to war in Iraq.
I’ve since made efforts to find out what has been the driving force behind all this jingoism that has brought such chaos in the Middle East, embracing all kinds of theories, including Israel, the AIPAC lobby, The PNAC policy of ‘The New World Order’ to the ‘Birth Pangs of a New Middle East’ from Ms Rice, and Tony Blair NOT calling for a cease fire in Lebanon by Israel, with the rest of the world, except George Bush and Micronesia. All of which has been covered in various ways by very intelligent writers, from wishing to commit Bush to an institution, to historical articles, published some time ago about the ‘great chess game’ and ‘peak oil’ scenarios as the reasons for this seemingly chaotic activity.Politics
On a different level to the reasons for the wars, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, there is the upcoming election of a new president in 2008, of course providing Bush doesn’t declare marshal law, and cancel them. There are also the anti-war ‘bring the troops home now’ movements and Code Pink’s campaign, along with Cindy Sheenan, to name just a few. The Democratic candidates, apart from Kucinich all seem to be Bush lites, not taking all options off the table regarding Iran, and kowtowing to the Israel lobby in voting to remove anything from bills that smacks of pandering to the plight of the Palestinians.
Having seen the numerous comments on various progressive sites, including OPEDNEWS, (of course), advocating all manner of fixes to the present situation - and some say that this has been building for at least 30 years – and trying to asses the pros and cons of every dismal, depressive or optimistic solution to the problem of changing the course of American politics, I have come to a conclusion. The third party advocates are usually brushed aside with giving the election to the other side, just like Ralph Nader is accused of, with the additional proviso that a third part will just not get enough traction to make any real difference, as the system is rigged against third parties, and even if someone showed a surge of support, apart from the ‘anointed’ candidates, they would be swift boated, brought down by a counter attack using anything and everything that the right wing are sooo good at.
Every time Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich or ‘saviour’ Al Gore’s name is mentioned with fervent admonitions to ‘save America’ by voting for same, there are counter arguments, some of which are downright depressing to contemplate.
The callers for impeachment see that the Democrats, who were voted in to do something about the war in Iraq, steadfastly obfuscate or refuse to impeach quoting the favourite reason that ‘we don’t have the votes’ and want to get on with business. So that avenue seems blocked, even though the Kucinich bill has had a new lease of life recently, but probably will languish in the committee rooms for quite a while.
Some advocating something like a Ghandi- like approach to a regime change, or worse, have also been commented on, and it seems the consensus is that it will not work, simply because the American public have not had to sacrifice anything, have been spoon fed the lies by the MSM and would rather watch American Idol than anything political.
Each and every ‘solution’ I’ve seen talked about has its detractors and one of the overriding reasons is the idea that nothing can be done because the ‘powers that be’ behind the politicians, will never allow it – and there is some point to that.
1 | 2