you "dirty leftists" !

[mnaz]

in matters of foreign policy, especially war and peace, when exactly did the term "left" become equivalent to questioning the official government spin regurgitated by major media?

are we really that unaware of the long right-wing drift of our so-called "mainstream" government? i mean, some of the politicians elected from the "left" have been among the least forthcoming and most militaristic of the bunch.

? ....

[stilltrucking]

I suppose there is a difference between democrats and republicans. But it must be subtle.

Maybe they are stereoisomers? Just a difference in their spin.

[mnaz]

Though not gone entirely, the differences are shrinking as government becomes ever more privatized and corporate- controlled, especially domestically.

foreign policy-wise, it just strikes me as a bit of a joke that various sites and writers who question the endless spin and propaganda of said corporate- controlled government (and media) re: the long program of u.s. global militarism are labeled "far-left."

yes! "far left," if you will ----- only compared to the long-running right-wing drift of the two corporate capitalist parties locking down d.c. ---- the republicans and democrats(the erstwhile, mythical "left"). yes, "far left !" by all means !

[mnaz]

at times i read the articles on the "counterpunch" site--- these guys are called "leftists" for criticizing the global capitalist machine. sometimes they even call themselves "leftists."

but i think the point missed is that sometimes these guys are also, in effect, attacking corporate welfare (e.g., in the form of endless militarism for resources, as well as for the war industry's benefit--- an especially pointed subset of said welfare). so .... are they perhaps anti-corporatist domestic "leftists" and also anti-corporate welfare "rightists" at the same time?

we can have fun with political pigeonholing we want, but the fact that someone objects to wars being fought for oil and other resources, and to make bazillions for the likes of bechtel, halliburton , blackwater, lockheed-martin, raytheon and all the rest--- wars fought with literally trillions of dollars of confiscated public money--- does not make them a de facto "extreme leftist." and yes, oil and other resources are significant motivations for these foreign wars, if not the sole motivations. that's just common sense.

[silent woman]

at the risk of getting off topic

we need more feminists with bigger cajones Where is Red Emma when we need her?

When I think about Diane Feinstein head of the intelligence committee voting for the war on Iraq I have a hard time taking her serious on anything. Is she a lefty, a limousine lefty?

barbara Mikulski, now she's my girl.


I pretty much given up on male politicians. Kerry was on that intelligence committee too.


sorry if I wandered off topic
I don't know what this has to do with anything but
South America and the neo liberals is not a pretty picture
just as pernicious as the neo cons

only cool neo I know is neologism

[mnaz]

seems too many male (and female) politicians went a bit crazy after "the fall of communism"--- the assumption made that america now had some sort of opportunity, or "mandate" if you will, to take over control of the world (manifest destiny, anyone?)

but this idea that only "left-leaners" question foreign policy in matters of war-- especially the pattern of endless, fruitless, imperialistic militarism we've fallen into--- where does that come from? you can also find "rightists" who question this way of doing business in the world. consider:

"The Untold Story of Antiwar Conservatives--- how the truth about invading Iraq was suppressed by laptop bombardiers."
(By Jon Basil Utley • April 18, 2013)

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... ainst-war/

. . . there was widespread opposition inside the U.S. military and by former U.N. inspectors, which was given little publicity . . . Conservatives opposed to empire and war included Pat Buchanan, Scott McConnell, Charley Reese, Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Gottfried, myself, Doug Bandow, Bill Kauffman, Sheldon Richman, Leon Hadar, Allan Brownfeld, Martin Sieff, Phil Giraldi, as well as other respected leaders such as congressmen John Duncan and Ron Paul and future senator James Webb.

Neither Buchanan nor any other anti-war writer could get published by The Washington Times. The Wall Street Journal op-ed would not accept any article opposing the war until one by Brent Scowcroft, who was too big a name to block. National Review, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Enterprise Institute’s publications and conferences would only promote pro-war opinions and propaganda. Fox News was a solid barrage of war promotion and panic-mongering.

The seeds and theories of American empire-wishers were planted after the collapse of Communism. Well before 9/11, I had tried to get National Review to publish my article “America Is not Rome" . . . What America’s imperialists did not understand was that the collapse of Communism meant that Washington had less power to control world events . . . Remember the three reasons Osama bin Laden himself gave for the 9/11 attacks were 1) the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia during the first war, 2) the harm to Iraqi children resulting from nine years of American sanctions after the first war, and 3) the conditions of Palestinians under Israeli occupation on the West Bank.

yes, even quite a few "rightists" are against war too, or at least this sort of war.

[one of those jerks]

bill moyers is a dirty lefty

"The Puppeteers Of Dark Money"

David M Koch fund

The Memory Hole On PBS

sorry just paranoia

nothing to do with what you are saying I guess

The Ten Hardline Conservatives Pulling the Strings of the GOP Shutdown








published by socialistwebzine on Fri, 10/11/2013 - 21:43





Much of the coverage of the government showdown has focused on a relatively small group of hardline conservatives within the Republican caucus who have backed their party’s leaders into a fight they didn’t want.

As Ryan Lizza href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... raphy.html" target="_blank">noted in The New Yorker, these lawmakers mostly represent very safe, heavily Republican and disproportionately white districts that don’t look much like the rest of the country. Many of those on the front lines are recent arrivals to Capitol Hill, and they’re pushing a leadership they see as having been too willing to compromise with Democrats in the past.

It’s an important angle. Yet it also obscures what should be an obvious question: Since when do freshmen senators or one- or two-term reps push their congressional leadership around? Historically, it’s been the reverse. And since when does a newcomer to the Senate such as Ted Cruz (R-TX) have the right to tell House Republicans what to do? If there’s only a relatively small group of lawmakers who think defunding the law is a dandy idea, why has every budget resolution with such a provision won more than 200 Republican votes in the House of Representatives during the showdown? Why is this supposedly silent majority of Republicans so docile? Why don’t they push back?

id="attachment_45282" class="wp-caption alignright" style="width: 300px"> href="http://billmoyers.com/content/whos-pulling-the-strings/"> src="http://cdn.billmoyers.com/wp-content/up ... ney-sm.jpg" alt="illustrations by Joe Fournier" title="puppeteers-drk-money-sm" width="300" height="178" class="size-full wp-image-45282" />

class="wp-caption-text"> href='http://billmoyers.com/content/whos-pull ... ngs/'>View Interactive: Who's pulling the strings? Illustrations by Joe Fournier
The answer lies in the clout wielded by an extensive web of non-governmental conservative groups supported by mountains of dark money. Those groups see the law as an existential threat to their worldview and their party and have waged a multipronged campaign to kill it in its cradle. Theirs is the ultimate inside/ outside strategy: They fund primary challenges from the right by upstart candidates against incumbents they view as insufficiently pure. When those true believers get into office, these groups promote them relentlessly to the party’s activist base – filling their re-election coffers with donations by portraying them as courageous mavericks fighting against ossified “RINOS” (Republicans in Name Only). They mount “public education” campaigns and buy ad blitzes, and they coordinate messaging among friendly voices within the conservative media.

According to href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a- ... d=all&_r=0" target="_blank">a report by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Mike McIntire in href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a- ... &_r=0">The New York Times, a coalition of these groups has been plotting a budget crisis to shut down Obamacare for months.


Shortly after President Obama started his second term, a loose-knit coalition of conservative activists led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III gathered in the capital to plot strategy. Their push to repeal Mr. Obama’s href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/heal ... classifier" target="_blank">health care law was going nowhere, and they desperately needed a new plan.

Out of that session, held one morning in a location the members insist on keeping secret, came a little-noticed “ href="http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/ryanri ... er-savings" target="_blank">blueprint to defunding Obamacare,” signed by Mr. Meese and leaders of more than three dozen conservative groups.

It articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative circles: that Republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow Republicans — including their cautious leaders — into cutting off financing for the entire federal government.

With a broad, well-funded campaign, these groups have effectively shifted the balance of power in conservative Washington away from Republican leaders on the Hill and onto a cadre of true believers who will go to any length to destroy a modest set of health care reforms that, just 20 years ago, the very same conservative movement was itself advancing.

So just looking at the rank-and-file members of the “ href="http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/c ... raphy.html" target="_blank">suicide caucus” isn’t enough – it’s like focusing on the marionette rather than the puppet-master.

href="http://billmoyers.com/content/whos-pulling-the-strings/" target="_blank">Check out our interactive feature to meet some of the key people pulling the strings.
/> href="http://billmoyers.com/content/puppetry-of-the-party/"> src="http://cdn.billmoyers.com/wp-content/up ... -money.jpg" alt="" title="puppeteers-dark-money" width="620" height="222" class="size-full wp-image-45294" />

[Steve Plonk]

LEFT, RIGHT, LEFT...left, right, left...Better start out with your left, or you'll be left.
Hear that, teapublicans? Get left!