AIN'T COMING HOME

Hillary Clinton is sending clear signals to the power elite that she is in it for the duration.

In an NPR story Ted Koppel points out that in a recent debate Senator Hillary Clinton said that her first priority if elected would be to "bring our troops home." She did not say ALL our troops, Koppel points out, and she does not mean ALL our troops. She told the New York Times three months ago that some forces would have to remain. And Koppel adds that he spoke with someone from the Pentagon who briefs Clinton, and that she had told this person that if she is elected and reelected, she expects to have troops in Iraq at the end of her second term. Koppel notes that that's 10 years away. He adds that he thinks she's "right" and that the other Democratic candidates agree with her.

Like most Dems, Hillary is playing two cards at once.

We are now being publicly prepared for the bad news. Secretary of War Gates is saying the same thing - we'll be in Iraq for another ten years. The oligarchy is sending a message to the American people that it won't matter who you elect - Republican or Democrat - we are going to stay in Iraq either way. They are trying to release the air from our anti-war balloon.

Just to make sure things stay chaotic enough in Iraq to justify this 10-year (and more) plan the U.S. is now arming the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.

The New York Times reports, "But critics of the strategy, including some American officers, say it could amount to the Americans’ arming both sides in a future civil war. The United States has spent more than $15 billion in building up Iraq’s army and police force, whose manpower of 350,000 is heavily Shiite. With an American troop draw down increasingly likely in the next year, and little sign of a political accommodation between Shiite and Sunni politicians in Baghdad, the critics say, there is a risk that any weapons given to Sunni groups will eventually be used against Shiites. There is also the possibility the weapons could be used against the Americans themselves."

This is how it goes when you want to justify a permanent occupation. You need a permanent enemy in order to sell the enormous cost to the public. So if you have to, you arm the "enemy" and then sit back and watch the fireworks spread.

It's pretty damn cynical and sad but this is what the U.S. has become. An out of control purveyor of endless war.

Keep your eye on the ball - or should I say, keep your eye on the oil and weapons contracts? It's all about money in the end, isn't it?

Ask yourself this simple question. Which of your children or grandchildren do you want to "sacrifice" to this insanity 5 or 10 years from now?

The way things are going today with outsourcing of jobs in America, the only work 10 years down the road might be in the Army or making beds at Motel 6.

When do we start to get serious about all of this? If we don't, who do you think will put a stop to this madness?