dagblog - Comments for "Laura Flanders on SOTU"

Unfourthed. It's always

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:25:10 +0000

In reply to Thirded.

Unfourthed.

It's always considered crass and unclassy to say something negative when we're praising our troops. That's why we trot out our military when we want to guarantee approval - we get our Oprah Winfrey everyone-nod-their-head moment.

Whether it's troops urinating on the dead or drones that seem to keep missing their mark and killing civilians (kinda like our famous "smart bombs"), or that our heralded capture of bin Laden seems to have ended in a bullet through the head and dump into the sea, or that our 2nd "success" was an assassination of a non-military figure with no indictment and still no specific details allowed on his "crime". [Not cooperating with the war on terruh, one presumes, in that undeclared war in Yemen.]

Or that we've spent a trillion dollars in Mideast wars and $500 billion a year base pay for these guys to "outperform expectations" - give me a fucking trillion and I'll learn how to do quadruple back flips and kill people like Jackie Chan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Angelina Jolie combined.

*MY* expectation was that Obama would try to end these futile wars, that a military approach to world peace and nation building would drag on and on because you can't nation build at the point of a gun and you can't weed out anti-American sentiment by putting troops and drones in to kill people and force them to behave the way you want.

(not that "liberal democracy" is leading on the curriculum)

Our military budget has gone from $310 billion in 2001 to Obama's proposed $646 billion. Who has the codpiece in his flight suit now?

If it would do any good, I'd vote for Ron Paul on this issue alone - end the war, bring our troops and money home.

[and please don't bring up the end of the Iraq War - that was on W's time schedule, agreed before he left office. We would still have more troops there if the Iraqis had given us complete immunity as we tried to push.]

That's what I meant, but my

erica20 — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 05:12:13 +0000

In reply to I don't think we're ever

That's what I meant, but my daughter really likes the Jonas Brothers so I threw that in.

I think it's actually a tripartisanship in a weird way. He's willing to call in a few types who are real conservative on certain issues if he can get 'em.

I don't know why I am

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:54:23 +0000

In reply to Laura Flanders on SOTU

I don't know why I am surprised by the reaction to that article.

"The grades for the president’s State of the Union are in and the critics have been kind. In fact, it's chilling to see just how few hits the president takes for couching his entire address in unqualified celebration of the US military".

I take that as Flanders thesis sentence for this opinion piece, one of the very many about Obama's speech. She finds it chilling to see just how few hits the president takes for couching his entire address in *unqualified* celebration of the US military.

"The president chose to celebrate the US military; the press chose not to raise a peep about the spread of US militarism."

Flanders points out, including with a disgusting example, that all this glory has a dark side. She thinks that dark side is an important part of the story of the *state of our Union*.

"The president chose to celebrate the US military; the press chose not to raise a peep about the spread of US militarism."

I think that is worth noting and I think that there is nothing sacred about Obama's speech that makes Flanders comments relating to it out of line.

"There are indeed things we can learn; things that many US troops have begged us to learn. That war dehumanizes the killer and the killed, and that war tactics have a habit of spreading from the war zone to the home. Successive generations have told us that military recruiters lie, and that “rules of war” exist only in legal minds. (Ninety percent of casualties in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were civilians). Troops have begged us to learn just what we are celebrating when we celebrate “winning” and war."

Is that bullshit? Any part of it?

Came back to make a possible

artappraiser — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:50:12 +0000

In reply to Good comments. I didn't see

Came back to make a possible addition to the "package" you mentioned as regards Somalia operation, etc. I can buy 2 rescues of Iranians at sea as happenstance within a short span of time, but not 3. Especially with news coverage following each in short order. I can't help it, I am visualizing an order to the US Navy to use all intelligence and scour all seas looking for Iranians in distress, and be ready with full PR after you find some and rescue them.

I don't think we're ever

Elusive Trope — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:42:08 +0000

In reply to the military

I don't think we're ever going to see the bipartisany hopey author Obama again, probably never again, he is a goner.

Actually I think we will see the bipartisan Obama, but what he has learned is that it is challenge enough to get bipartisanship between the moderates and liberals. If he can do that, then some things might actually get accomplished.

He was cute in a Jonas

erica20 — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:41:30 +0000

In reply to the military

He was cute in a Jonas brothers kind of way, but this new guy works on more levels.

He's not perfect, and maybe further back on the curve than we'd like him to be, but he knows what he's doing, eh?

the military

artappraiser — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:19:22 +0000

In reply to It was glaringly obvious that

the military personell--unlike Congress--seem to respect his office and do what he says

I'm sure he would rather have talked about successful efforts at bipartisanship, but you go with what you have, you know?

So funny and true! Makes me realize one thing wrong in my original comment above, there is change here: I don't think we're ever going to see the bipartisany hopey author Obama again, probably never again, he is a goner.

But your comments are waaay

artappraiser — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:13:00 +0000

In reply to Good comments. I didn't see

But your comments are waaay better than my self-centered ones; very insightful analysis, especially about the tying together and the media response. I feel like slapping myself and saying doh.

It was glaringly obvious that

erica20 — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:05:16 +0000

In reply to Laura Flanders on SOTU

It was glaringly obvious that the Pres had to say that stuff if he was also going to say anything even faintly librul. It was a tradeoff.

Plus, the military personell--unlike Congress--seem to respect his office and do what he says. (It's pretty sad when a relatively liberal president has to look to the military as an example of people who follow his lead.)

And, as Oxy points out above, we're back to a smaller, more mobile military, and that can't look like what it looked like when Don Rumsfeld was in charge of the concept. So he had to paint a new picture.

I'm sure he would rather have talked about successful efforts at bipartisanship, but you go with what you have, you know?

Good comments. I didn't see

Oxy Mora — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 03:54:25 +0000

In reply to What I heard in the speech is

Good comments. I didn't see warmongering. But I did see the intent to have a smaller, more mobile and smarter military. I served in the military following college. A career officer, stuck in his rank, said to me once, "Give me a war, any war."

I thought using the military model of mutual respect and dependency as it applies to the country as a whole was a master stroke. Which militant Republicans are going to disagree with it?

What's been interesting to me about the speech and the aftermath are the visuals, the body language, the understatement of the Somalia operation, the tying of all of it into a package. This is a juggernaut, messaging at every level. It's about time. And it leaves journalists with very little to criticize, hence this unfortunate article.