Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Perfora Cariño, Perfora! (10 posts)

  1. Durruti
    Member

    Perfora Cariño, Perfora! By Dave Lindorff (There's Oil in Them Thar Cubans!)

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Perfora-Cari-o-Pe...

    It’s going to be interesting to see how much longer the vicious decades-long US embargo of Cuba lasts, whichever person wins the White House this November.

    The main reason the US has stubbornly refused to trade with Cuba, and has used sanctions to bully other nations into refusing to trade with Cuba, while enthusiastically trading with and investing in China, Vietnam and other communist regimes, is that Cuba has had little to offer the US, either in terms of products or markets. That’s all about to change dramatically, with word that the Communist island just 90 miles to the south of Florida may possess oil reserves equal to or greater than all the oil reserves left in the United States.

    According to a report in the British newspaper The Guardian, Cuba may be sitting on some 20 billion barrels of oil, located in Cuban territory under the Gulf of Mexico. If the reports from Cuban, Spanish and other geologists are correct, Cuba, which currently only produces 60,000 barrels of oil per day (about half the country’s domestic demand), is on the verge of joining the ranks of the world’s exporting nations. 20 billion barrels of reserves would place the little country in the top 20 nations in the world in terms of reserves.

    The Republican crowds who are greeting presidential candidate John McCain and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin with rowdy chants of “Drill Baby, Drill!” my have to start shouting “Perfora Cariño, Perfora!” while watching Raul Castro joining meetings of OPEC. After all, most experts say that a lot of the offshore drilling being planned in US coastal waters is likely to lead to dry holes, while drilling in Cuban waters by the country’s national oil company Cubapetroleo, or Cupet, and by a consortium led by Spain’s Repsol, which is set to begin with punching some test wells early next year, are likely to produce gushers. If the oil starts flowing, how long will it be before the US starts clamoring to buy it? How long will it be, for that matter, before US oil companies start using their lobbying clout to get the US embargo lifted, so they can get a chance to join the drilling party? After all, if the US companies are kept out by vestigial anti-Communist ideology, the investment opportunities will be left wide open for European, Middle Eastern and Venezuelan interests.

    For the long-suffering Cuban people, who have been forced to eke out a national economy virtually barred from the global marketplace, this oil find is an astonishingly lucky break, particularly coming at a time that existing oil reserves are beginning to run out, and that prices for crude are soaring. It’s going to be fun to watch the rationalizations coming out of Washington, particularly from the hard Right, for whom Fidel Castro’s Cuba has for several generations served as a prime bogeyman in the Cold War pantheon of villains. Just as Corporate America has since the 1970s been hypocritically singing the praises of Communist China, and has been justifying economic trade and investment with that nation on the grounds that “economic engagement” will bring democracy (all the while calling for a boycott of all things Cuban), we will soon be hearing such songs about virtues of economic engagement with Cuba.

    This new oil bonanza may not be great news for the environment—either the waters of the Gulf or for the carbon-sogged atmosphere of the earth—but for the Cuban people, at least for the short term, it’s an amazing turn of events.


    DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net

    Posted 16 years ago #
  2. Durruti
    Member

    Obama has urged continuation of the murderous embargo against Cuba. He has also condemned Chavez while getting cozy with the worst human rights violator in the hemisphere (next to the US), the US-backed Colombia. The weasel Obama may well change his tune in light of Cuba's windfall (assuming his puppet masters tell him to). Should be interesting to see how it pans out. In a better world, Cuba would tell Obama to go fuck himself.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  3. Durruti
    Member

    I disagree with Lindorff that:

    "The main reason the US has stubbornly refused to trade with Cuba, and has used sanctions to bully other nations into refusing to trade with Cuba, while enthusiastically trading with and investing in China, Vietnam and other communist regimes, is that Cuba has had little to offer the US, either in terms of products or markets."

    China is half-way around the globe. Location is important. China has also allowed virtually unimpeded access to its labor markets since Milton Friedman payed a visit. The main reason the US has insisted on the Cuba embargo is the danger of a good example. Good example as in lifting people out of poverty. Cuba is not a positive model in terms of a just society. But it contains some elements thereof (like universal health are).

    Kissinger was particularly frightened of Allende because he combined socialism with democracy. The concept threw a wrench into cold war propaganda. The puppet Obama and others are similarly frightened of Chavez.

    Anyway, I hope the Cuban people are able to establish a higher standard of living based on this discovery. If anyone deserves it -- they do.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  4. truthmod
    Administrator

    Castro has been a sophisticated world leader. He was able to maintain independence for his small country in the face of the most powerful opponent in the world. He did this for 50 years. He's made compromises like all leaders and politicians.

    Can you imagine having the resources of the most well-funded, devious imperialistic machine aimed at you? From all that I've read and heard, I would assume that Castro and the socialists in Cuba do want full democracy, but they have to be very careful about subterfuge and propaganda from the other side. Is it democracy if your population wants the US to invade and take over because they all want iPhones and McMansions? You may be allowed to say anything in the US, but does anybody hear when you're trying to compete with the ubiquitous drone of the establishment/corporate apparatus?

    I'd say Cuba is more democratic than the US, in some important ways.

    Look at Castro's speech to the country the day after the JFK assassination. Look how he respects the people's intelligence and ability to understand a complex topic, look at how he provides information to them...

    I can't find the full speech online, I suggest purchasing Martin Schotz's book for the full text ( http://www.amazon.com/History-Will-Not-Absolve-Orw... )

    There's an excerpt here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/lofiversion/inde...


    By Fidel Castro – Concerning the Facts and Consequences of the Tragic Death of President John F. Kennedy – November 23rd, 1963

    The following is the text of a speech/commentary delivered by Fidel Castro on Cuban radio and TV, Saturday evening, November 23, 1963. [From Appendix II, p.53-86 History Will Not Absolve Us – Orwellian Control, Public Denial ad the Murder of President Kennedy, By E. Martin Schotz (Kurtz, Ulmer & Deluca Books, Brookline, Mass. 1996). Obtained from a Cuban translated transcript distributed at the UN. ]

    PART II - CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS THREAD - BK

    It says here – now more things are beginning to come out: “Dallas, Texas, November 23rd, AP – All his live Lee Harvey Oswald has been a solitary, an introverted type with communist ideas, but he was not regarded as a troublemaker. Deep down, his introverted personality was imbued at an early age by an alien ideology enunciated a century ago by Karl Marx.”

    Dallas police chief Jesse Curry has said that Oswald readily admitted being a communist. How strange, what contradictions. He does not confess to committing the crime. It is supposed that if a fanatic commits a crime of this kind he says so or as someone said: fanatics fire their revolvers in front of everybody, they run out with a revolver as the car passes. The strange case of a fanatic who denies committing a murder, but on the other hand, readily confesses to being a communist – according to the cables.

    “ ‘Apparently he feels proud of being a communist,’ Curry added. ‘He does not try to conceal it.’”

    All these are new stories which did not appear yesterday. They are of today. “Although accused of the assassination of the President, Lee Harvey Oswald has resisted all efforts by the authorities to make him confess: Oswald has told newsmen: ‘I did not kill President Kennedy. I did not kill anyone.’”

    What sort of person was Oswald before his arrest? He was born in New Orleans on the 18th of October, 1939. “My father died before I was born,” Oswald said. “His widowed mother brought the family to Fort Worth. A Fort Worth police officer, who asked that his name not be revealed said he has known Oswald since both were in fifth grade, until he entered high school at Forth Worth. This police officer, Oswald’s former classmate, recalled the following: he always opposed any sort of discipline. He seemed to hold something against people there, against any authority; he was never like the rest of the kids. He rarely associated with them, but he was never a troublemaker.

    “At high school he talked a lot about how things should be. Oswald – he added – began to be interested in communism when he was 15 years old, when a Marxist pamphlet came t his hands. Later, he read Karl Marx’s Capital, the bible of communism. At 17, Oswald left school only 23 days after the high school term started, and soon joined the Marine Crops.

    83.“His military career was a failure. On two occasions he was court martialed for violating regulations. His specialty was s an operator of electronic equipment. He served in Japan but never got further than private first class.

    “Oswald’s career in the Marines concluded on September 11th, 1959, when he was given leave to support his mother. He was transferred to inactive reserve but later on was dishonorably discharged.

    “One month later, Oswald arrived in Moscow. On October 26th, 1959, he visited the American Embassy and announced his intention of giving up his citizenship. He told Embassy officials: ‘I am a Marxist.’

    “In February 1962, after a study of his case, the conclusion was reached that Oswald had not acquired Soviet citizenship and therefore at his request they gave him a U.S. passport and granted him a loan in order to return to the country.

    “Back in the United States, Oswald went to his native New Orleans. Last June, he requested a new passport to return to the Soviet Union. In the meantime he was involved in a dispute with an anti-Castro Cuban, Carlos Bringuier, who said: ‘I suspected him from the beginning. Frankly I thought he could be an agent of the FBI or CIA who tried to infiltrate us and see what we were doing.’”

    The rest is similar to what we already have read here, but there are new ingredients. In fact a whole series, a whole propaganda chain, distributed in doses.

    First that he is a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee which is false. Later a man who lives in the Soviet Union. Afterwards, a whole series of insinuations in several cables. Today, he is not only all that, he is also a communist and a very willing communist at that, he admits it. In fact all this is really very strange.

    Their deception is not that of a fanatic. But that of an individual with a number of characteristics that really fit what U.S. reaction wants like a ring on a finger, that fit the worst policy of the United States; a person who seems to have been expressly made for this purpose, expressly made for specific ends: to create hysteria, to unleash an anti-Soviet, anti-Cuban, anti-communist, anti-progressive, anti-liberal campaign in the United States; to eliminate a President whose policy collided head on with the policy promoted by the most reactionary circles in the country after the nuclear test ban treaty, after several speeches which were unanimously attacked for being weak towards Cuba.

    What can have been the motives for the assassination of President Kennedy? What can there be behind all this? We cannot affirm anything because we do not have other elements for judgment; both the personality of the individual and the propaganda being carried out are suspicious, everything is suspicious.

    We cannot categorically affirm what is behind all this, but we do affirm that it is suspicious; that we must be careful, that we must be vigilant, that we must be alert. Because this man may be innocent, a cat’s paw, in a plan very well prepared by people who knew how to prepare these plans; or he may be a sick man and if so, the only honest thing is to hand him over for a medical examination and not to be starting a campaign extremely dangerous to world peace; or he may be an instrument very well chosen and very well trained by the ultra-right, by ultra-conservative reaction of the United States with the deliberate aim of eliminating a President who, according to them, did not carry out the policy he should have – more warlike, more aggressive, more adventuresome policy. And it is necessary for all people of the United States themselves to demand that what is behind the Kennedy assassination be clarified.

    It is in the interests of the U.S. people and of the people of the world, that this be made known, that they demand to know what is really behind the assassination of Kennedy, that the facts be made clear: whether the man involved is innocent, sick or an instrument of the reactionaries, an agent of a macabre plan to carry forward a policy of war and aggression, to place the Government of the United States at the mercy of the most aggressive circles of monopoly, of militarism and of the worst agencies of the United States. It is in our interests, in the interests of all people and of the U.S. people that we demand this.

    We believe that intellectuals, lovers of peace, should understand the seriousness of policy of this nature, a campaign of this type. They should understand the trend of events and the danger that maneuvers of this kind could mean to world peace, and what a conspiracy of this type, what a Machiavellian policy of this nature could lead to.

    This is the analysis we wanted to make and the things we wanted to take into consideration; to express our opinion, the opinion or our Party and our Government; to make known the strong antagonisms between the governments of the United States and ourselves, to make known the more moderate side of their policy, that least warlike; the policy that is less aggressive than the policy advocated by others, or by the other U.S. sectors. So that we, as revolutionaries, as conscious men and women, may know how to analyze problems of this nature, difficult problems, delicate problems, complex problems; because policy making in a country like the United States is very complex. A countless number of factors are taken into consideration in the policy making of this country. Very often they are contradictory factors. But undoubtedly, these things that we have been pointing out about the campaign are some of the means – certainly the most immoral – by which policy is worked out.

    What are these right-wing circles trying to do? To impose on the new administration? What is the plan of these circles? To place the new administration in a de facto situation facing an inflamed public opinion, exacerbated by propaganda, by the campaign; a public opinion moved by profound hatred toward the Soviet Union, toward Cuba, toward progressive ideas, even toward liberal ideas. This is, this campaign tends to place the United States in the worst international position, in the most reactionary international position. And that surely is a serious threat to peace.

    We are not worried about ourselves. We are worried about the interests of mankind.

    We know that the fate of our country depends also on the fate of mankind; we do not fear for ourselves; we are and always will be calm. We are concerned about peace and about calling attention to these events.

    We are concerned to give warning of the dangers of these events. We want the people to be informed and calm, as they have always been, as staunch and as always, to defend the Revolution. That they be ready always to defend the fatherland, with a morale as high as ever, as high as the Turquino mountain – as Camilo used to say: that they be ready, alert, and vigilant as always, facing intrigues and dangers, whatever they may be!

    However contemptible, however infamous, however criminal these campaigns may be, let the enemies of our country know that they will always find us unwavering, that they will always find us alert, with are head held high, ready to fulfill our slogan, Homeland or Death! We will in win!

    Posted 16 years ago #
  5. NicholasLevis
    Member

    .

    Durutti: After 50 years of the blockade policy backed by both parties, Obama put out the most reformist approach to Cuba of any candidate in the Democratic primaries (except Kucinich) and was attacked by Clinton and the rest as well as the Republicans for wanting to start by easing the travel and money transfer restrictions.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-08-22-c...

    The Miami Cuban old guard has been absolutely rabid about the prospect of Obama winning. You can say they are exaggerating, but that's how they see it. The Cuban community is apparently going through a generational split on this and their three Congressional hardliners are actually facing challenges this year.

    Almost the only thing Obama said in the three debates that I could finally applaud (besides the stance on the judiciary and abortion) was in voicing opposition to the Colombia free-trade plan. He repeated the imperialist kauderwelch consensus on everything else (Pakistan, Georgia, etc.), with the possible exception of the stated willingness to negotiate with Iran (which is actually the new consensus, but McCain's totally against it). But incredibly to me, he did talk about the Uribe government sponsorship of the paramilitary death squads who are killing trade unionists as a reason not to make the deal with Colombia.

    In fact, the one place I can see the clearest difference between the stated foreign policy positions of McCain and Obama is wrt Latin America. That doesn't mean that mild campaign positions indicate an actual intent to go beyond them, and it won't necessarily translate into a change in policy if Obama is elected, but it's something as opposed to nothing.

    McCain has a very traditional Bay-of-Pigs hardliner stance on the region, and Otto Reich as an adviser - these guys never go away - and you can be certain one of the first things the spook departments will do if McCain wins is gear up for another crack at overthrowing Chavez. Again, that doesn't guarantee it won't be the case with Obama, but the potential for an opening would be there, and it absolutely would not be with McCain.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  6. Durruti
    Member

    "In fact, the one place I can see the clearest difference between the stated foreign policy positions of McCain and Obama is wrt Latin America. That doesn't mean that mild campaign positions indicate an actual intent to go beyond them, and it won't necessarily translate into a change in policy if Obama is elected, but it's something as opposed to nothing."

    From BAR:

    SUBJECT

    WHAT OBAMA'S SPEECH & DOCUMENTS SAY

    WHAT THEY MEAN

    On the brutal 46 year embargo of Cuba

    “I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice..."

    Traveling to, or doing business in or with Cuba will remain illegal under US law. Academics and artists from Cuba will be denied visas, no cultural exchange permitted.

    On US responsibility for deposing President Aristide and imposing the current regime poverty and terror upon Haiti

    Nothing

    The policy will not change

    On US funding of the brutal war and death squad regime of Colombia

    “When I am President, we will continue the Andean Counter-Drug Program, and update it to meet evolving challenges. We will fully support Colombia's fight against the FARC. We'll work with the government to end the reign of terror from right wing paramilitaries. We will support Colombia's right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders. And we will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. ”

    The policy will not change.

    The Colombian government has a blank check and a green light to murder and engage in cross-border provocations at will.

    On the US continuing low-intensity war against Venezuela

    In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader. But we also know that he does not govern democratically. He talks of the people, but his actions just serve his own power. Yet the Bush Administration's blustery condemnations and clumsy attempts to undermine Chavez have only strengthened his hand."

    Destabilization attempts under an Obama administration may be less blustery and clumsy.

    --

    I think the above is essentially correct. The rhetoric about "dialogue" is comforting, I suppose, but the main policy positions are more or less the same.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  7. Durruti
    Member

    "I'm not in favour of sticking my finger in the eye of Fidel Castro...in fact, I would favour a road map towards normalisation of relations such as we presented to the Vietnamese and led to a normalisation of relations between our two countries." - John McCain.

    That was many years ago. O-bomb-a has made similar comments in the past. Both have updated their views to reflect establishment opinion.

    "Among other Bush policies, Obama has endorsed the so-called Mérida Initiative, a more than 400-million-dollar aid package to assist security forces in Mexico and Central America in combating illicit drug traffickers and "narco-terrorists". Approved by the U.S. Senate in June, the plan has been strongly criticised by human rights groups, with critics noting that the Mexican military -- which is to receive the bulk of the funds under the initiative -- has a long record of torture and extrajudicial killings.

    In addition, Obama's running mate, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, is a vocal supporter of anti-drug efforts in Latin America who boasts of having been a strong advocate for "Plan Colombia". After more than 35 years in the U.S. Senate, Biden has also gained a reputation as an outspoken proponent of U.S. intervention in general, having supported both the Iraq war and the NATO bombing of Serbia.

    In keeping with the increasingly hawkish tone of his campaign, in March Obama joined the Bush administration and McCain in backing Colombia's controversial raid inside Ecuador that killed a top FARC official. Condemned by the Organisation of American States as a violation of international law, Obama declared that his administration would alwa "support Colombia's right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders."

    Obama has, however, broken with Bush and McCain on trade policy involving Latin America, opposing both the Central American Free Trade Agreement and a pending trade agreement with Colombia. Obama did support a controversial trade deal with Peru in 2007, but has promised to as president sign only agreements that contain strong protections for the environment and organised labour.

    Yet despite a number of high-profile differences with the Bush administration, Obama has reversed himself on several key issues facing Latin America, lending credence to the view that an Obama administration would lead more to continuity in U.S. policy than actual dramatic change."

    Sounds like more of the same to me.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  8. Durruti
    Member

    "Can you imagine having the resources of the most well-funded, devious imperialistic machine aimed at you? From all that I've read and heard, I would assume that Castro and the socialists in Cuba do want full democracy, but they have to be very careful about subterfuge and propaganda from the other side. Is it democracy if your population wants the US to invade and take over because they all want iPhones and McMansions? You may be allowed to say anything in the US, but does anybody hear when you're trying to compete with the ubiquitous drone of the establishment/corporate apparatus?

    I'd say Cuba is more democratic than the US, in some important ways."

    Agree that Cuba is more democratic than the US in some ways, but that's not really anything to brag about.

    Recommended reading:

    http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/brig...

    Includes many first hand accounts of the Cuban revolution and its unfolding from a libertarian socialist perspective.

    Posted 16 years ago #
  9. NicholasLevis
    Member

    .

    When I see you speak of libertarian socialism, I think we probably agree on the basics of the system of political economy we'd like to see. The question is how, if ever, is this likely to come about? Not very much would change for the better under Obama, except for the fact that the conditions we have known until now are about to end. Everything is about to change because of the global crisis, and this will be in unpredictable ways. As cynical or minor as it sounds, I'd rather go into that with Americans having legitimated even the false hope of the nominal Democrat, rather than a Republican party in the throes of explicit nazification.

    Change for the better will come the only way it has ever come, through effective mass action: things like the rise of one big union (if one may dream so big), tens of millions willing to take to the streets against imperialism and the corporate/banking power monopoly, people pulling their resources out of the system (banks and I won't mention another obvious thing but you can guess) and pooling the capital to create local self-sufficiency, the continued rise of alternative media, I hope the creation of a truly organizationally effective third party (unfortunately, no such party exists, even if I agree on the politics with Nader and McKinney they are organizationally a joke). Given indeed how powerless the mere act of voting is, how one votes shouldn't be a cause to block cooperation among progressives.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I do believe the potentials for any of this are much higher with the Democratic coalition in power and the Republican master narrative of the last 30 years smashed. I think the chance of pushing the Democrats into a genuinely alternative energy policy are much higher, again that's up to millions of people fighting for it, and not simply Obama being in power. You have to wonder, if there is no difference at least in the power constellation (as opposed to the official policy) when the Republicans lose power, why do they devote such enormous effort to stealing elections? Also, why are all the terms of MSM policy debate (for the last 30 years) so completely devoted into backing the Democrats away from the left, i.e. why are the D's the ones who have to go through all the patriotic doubts and litmus tests? I've come to believe the way to open up space for a real left alternative lies in the destruction of the Republican party and the discrediting of right-wing ideology as the first step. Note: first step.

    Finally, I should note I've swung back and forth on this through the years. There were times I would have simply applauded your posts. After seeing Reagan in power, I voted for Mondale and cried like a baby for several hours in 1984, went non-voter in 1988 because of the transparent unwillingness of Dukakis to call out the war criminal Bush. Never touched a Clinton, that game was too obvious and disgusting. Voted for Nader in 2000, tepidly endorsed Kerry in 2004 in the hope of ending immunity for the 9/11 criminals. This year, it's not Obama that's so different, it's the whole world situation, and for the reasons I lay out above, I'm not ashamed to vote for Obama. And I may feel later that this was the wrong guess.

    .

    Posted 16 years ago #
  10. Durruti
    Member

    When I see you speak of libertarian socialism, I think we probably agree on the basics of the system of political economy we'd like to see. The question is how, if ever, is this likely to come about? Not very much would change for the better under Obama, except for the fact that the conditions we have known until now are about to end. Everything is about to change because of the global crisis, and this will be in unpredictable ways. As cynical or minor as it sounds, I'd rather go into that with Americans having legitimated even the false hope of the nominal Democrat, rather than a Republican party in the throes of explicit nazification.

    Change for the better will come the only way it has ever come, through effective mass action: things like the rise of one big union (if one may dream so big), tens of millions willing to take to the streets against imperialism and the corporate/banking power monopoly, people pulling their resources out of the system (banks and I won't mention another obvious thing but you can guess) and pooling the capital to create local self-sufficiency, the continued rise of alternative media, I hope the creation of a truly organizationally effective third party (unfortunately, no such party exists, even if I agree on the politics with Nader and McKinney they are organizationally a joke). Given indeed how powerless the mere act of voting is, how one votes shouldn't be a cause to block cooperation among progressives.

    Maybe I'm wrong, but I do believe the potentials for any of this are much higher with the Democratic coalition in power and the Republican master narrative of the last 30 years smashed. I think the chance of pushing the Democrats into a genuinely alternative energy policy are much higher, again that's up to millions of people fighting for it, and not simply Obama being in power. You have to wonder, if there is no difference at least in the power constellation (as opposed to the official policy) when the Republicans lose power, why do they devote such enormous effort to stealing elections? Also, why are all the terms of MSM policy debate (for the last 30 years) so completely devoted into backing the Democrats away from the left, i.e. why are the D's the ones who have to go through all the patriotic doubts and litmus tests? I've come to believe the way to open up space for a real left alternative lies in the destruction of the Republican party and the discrediting of right-wing ideology as the first step. Note: first step.

    Finally, I should note I've swung back and forth on this through the years. There were times I would have simply applauded your posts. After seeing Reagan in power, I voted for Mondale and cried like a baby for several hours in 1984, went non-voter in 1988 because of the transparent unwillingness of Dukakis to call out the war criminal Bush. Never touched a Clinton, that game was too obvious and disgusting. Voted for Nader in 2000, tepidly endorsed Kerry in 2004 in the hope of ending immunity for the 9/11 criminals. This year, it's not Obama that's so different, it's the whole world situation, and for the reasons I lay out above, I'm not ashamed to vote for Obama. And I may feel later that this was the wrong guess.

    I don't really disagree with anything here. I post material critical of Obama to counter naive Obama-mania. I realize the people here aren't really privy to such illusions but it's useful to play devil's advocate. It goes without saying that I'd prefer Obama to McCain. But I do not believe he will radically change American policy without mass action. He'll just listen to his morally and intellectually bankrupt advisor's.

    Posted 16 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.