Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Iraq War

Ex-professional wrestler and ex-governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura, appeared on the Larry King Live show on CNN last week. He appeared just yesterday with Wolf Blitzer in The Situation Room, also on CNN. Ventura is not one to mince his words when it comes to the current state of American politics. His opinions will certainly not find favor between the ears of any well behaved establishmentarian.

To put it mildly, let’s just say that the man who used to go by the nickname “the body” offered a scathing indictment of the entire body of American politics. I have to admit that most of what he said was like sweet music to my ears. He slammed the “two party dictatorship ” of the Democrats and the Republicans. He actually said that he would like to see political parties disappear altogether, as a matter of fact! And all I can say to that one is AMEN! I love his description of the two major parties:

“You know, as I would get in trouble with before, I used to call them the Democrips and the Rebloodlicans. They’re the same as the street gangs, only these guys wear Brooks Brothers suits.”

Ventura even mentioned the enormous debt that’s been racked up by our government since Nixon dealt the final blow to the gold standard! Oh no! Not the gold standard! Could it be? Is Ventura one of those crazed “Ron Paulians?”

He might just be. Turning to the topic of the Iraq War, and specifically ending it, Ventura says:

“Look it, OK, 2006 — the voters clearly sent a mandate to the spineless Democrats. They sent a mandate to them saying get us out of Iraq.
Have they done it? No. Are they even close to doing it? No. All we’re getting is cheap talk from them.”

So how does Ventura think the war should be ended:

“I agree with Ron Paul, we marched in there, we can march out.”

I don’t even know Jesse Ventura that well. I certainly have not followed his political career. And I am not saying that if he ran for president, I would vote for him. BUT, it is so refreshing to hear anyone lambaste the entire American political system on national television when most politicians and commentators are only too willing to glorify it.

Ventura even suggested that voters should have a “none of the above” option when they go to their polling places on election day. Yikes! Talk about heresy! How can he even suggest something so preposterous? Doesn’t this guy know the rules? Trash one party or the other. But never speak ill of the sacrosanct institution that is American democratic elections. Even if all of the candidates are awful, every voter must fulfill their obligation to select the “lesser of the evils.”

I even heard one CNN pundit refer to a vote for “none of the above” as a “populist copout.” Strange, but the “copout,” if you ask me, is in voting for a candidate you don’t like, just because you have been told that you must vote for someone.

Thank you, Jesse Ventura, not only for not worshiping the State but, for your unflinching denouncement of its corrupt elections.

Today I had the misfortune of hearing part of a speech by that indefatigable terror warrior, John McCain. Although, it’s not really significant that McCain, in particular, was doing the speaking. The tripe that was spewing forth from his mouth could have been, and has been uttered by numerous neoconservatives who are just as enthralled by the warfare state as Mr. McCain. The annihilation of a foreign enemy is number one on their priority lists. These are the people who were inspired and influenced by the recently departed William F. Buckley, the father of “modern conservatism.” Hear more about Buckley as antiwar.com’s Scott Horton interviews Lew Rockwell.

Now, as we all know, the neocon war propaganda mill has been working overtime since their beloved war to remake the Middle East hasn’t been going quite as swimmingly as they had hoped it would. We hear plenty of reasons why the U.S. simply cannot leave Iraq now. We are told that chaos would ensue. The terrorists will follow us home. We need to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here. On and on it goes. But, in his speech McCain pulled out another one about which I had briefly forgotten. And here it is. We know that over 4,000 American troops have been killed in Iraq. If the U.S. leaves before achieving “victory” those deaths will be in vain. So we must stay until we have “won,” even though none of the neocons, including McCain explains how we will know what victory looks like.

So let’s see. We don’t want all of those deaths to be in vain. Well, tragically those fallen soldiers were fighting because of the disinformation provided by the State. We know that they were fighting for lies. How are those deaths not already in vain? And how do we improve the situation by committing even more troops to a protracted war in which victory can never be defined? As thousands more troops die people like McCain will just keep sending more troops into battle to make sure those deaths were not in vain. And when those troops are killed, the cycle repeats itself. This is not a strategy. This is madness!

But what about all of the Iraqis who have been killed? Estimates range from tens of thousands to around a million people. We can argue all we want about which data is correct. But just think about this for a moment. What difference does it make? If the war has killed ANY innocent Iraqis that is simply murder. To quibble over “thousands” of deaths should give any reasonable human being pause for thought. It’s never suggested that not a single innocent Iraqi has been killed in this war. Everyone knows some innocents have died. But, hey, as long as that number is relatively low, the war has been a roaring success, right? Once again this is madness! Talk about deaths being in vain! Can anyone honestly believe that any Iraqi who has lost friends and relatives because of the war will say it was worth it so they could be free from the rule of Hussein? Do we really expect them to say, “please America, don’t go before you achieve victory. For then the deaths of my loved ones will have been in vain?”

I say we tell it like it is. ALL deaths in this war are murder. However, in cases of murder by government, the murderers usually suffer no punishment for their crimes. It seems like this time it will be no different. But, if people like John McCain really want to stop people from dying in vain, there is only one morally permissible course of action to take: END THE WAR!

All of us out here in the land of the sheep have been hearing for months about this great agent of political change named Barack Obama. Especially on matters of war and peace, Obama has been portrayed as the “real” anti-war candidate of the “real” anti-war party. Sure we know he is opposed to the war in Iraq, but let’s remember that he is, after all, a Democrat. The war being waged in Iraq is a Republican war. And we must not forget about loyalty to “the Party.” I mean, war and peace are important, but Party unity trumps all other concerns when it comes to politics. Think back to the 1990’s and Clinton’s incursion into Kosovo. Which party was critical of war then? Remember, it was war making controlled by Democrats so naturally the Republicans opposed it. In Washington D.C. there is hardly any opposition to war that is rooted in true anti-war principles. Instead we have politicians being anti-war when it’s convenient. If they believe taking up a pro-war position will help to secure votes and advance their dreams of increased political power and stature, then, by all means, they will adopt a suitably pro-war position. Likewise, if the political winds are indicating that a politician who espouses an anti-war position will see his or her level of political clout rise more expeditiously than that of the pro-war politician, then strike up the band and start singing “give peace a chance.”

Unfortunately, the two candidates in this year’s presidential contest who maintain a principled aversion to war, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, are relegated to the sidelines while the poseurs duke it out on center stage.

Alright, so we know about Obama’s position on Iraq. But, what’s his approach to Pakistan? In this excellent you tube clip we see and hear that Obama is not quite the anti-war candidate he’s cracked up to be. He more or less states that our troops are just in the wrong place. According to him they don’t necessarily need to come home. They just need to be shifted to other places in the Middle East, like Pakistan. And when Obama speaks about terrorists plotting to strike America again, we are subjected to a level of fearmongering that’s worthy of the most bellicose neocons.

In short, the anointed prince of change does not really oppose the war on terror. He just doesn’t approve of the way the Bush administration is fighting it. He, on the other hand, is going to do whatever it takes. He’ll get tough with those towel heads in the right places!

And if he receives his party’s nomination, and goes on to become president, I can’t wait to see all of the anti-Iraq war Democrats stop on a dime and support whatever military adventure Mr. Obama has up his sleeve. After all, we must remember that loyalty to “the Party” is priority number one.