On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:43:19 -0500 SA <s11131978 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The US sponsored the
> fundamentalists - again because Afghanistan is relevant for *Russia*.
It would appear that Russia is still regarded as a problem in Washington, wouldn't you agree? Do you think that the US' adventures in the Balkans, back in the happy Clinton days (which are here again, hooray) might possibly have had something to do with Russia as well?
> The second time - you'll never believe this - Afghanistan happened to be
> harboring terrorists who attacked New York and Washington.
So the official explanation is the right one. That *would* be a first.
> As for the British,
> Afghanistan was definitely relevant to them because they really cared
> about India.
India seems to loom rather large in American policymakers' minds as well, though on more favorable terms (for India) than in the days of John Company or the Raj. It's pretty striking, actually, how themes keep recurring that go back to the days of Palmerston, mutato nomine (for the United Kingdom read the United States).
> Why is he blundering into a multi-billion dollar
> stimulus package? Tax cuts? Bank bailout? Health care overhaul? Why is
> he blundering into not recognizing gay marriage or requiring hedge fund
> registration?
"Blundering" begs the question. He doesn't actually strike one as the blundering type. So far, he seems to be doing the things that the most powerful elites want, on the financial matters you mention. As for gay marriage, that's a classic Democratic party bait-and-switch: raise the hopes of some activist constituency and then sell 'em out once you're in office. Pushing for gay marriage would damage him and his party with voters who *do* have somewhere else to go -- to wit, the Republicans. But backing off on it, he calculates -- correctly, based on past experience -- won't do any harm among the enlightened liberals who support gay marriage. O & Co. assume, and are probably right to assume, that the lesser-evil argument will continue to mesmerize these highly intelligent people, who fall for the same shabby transparent trick year after tiresome year.
> Would John McCain have done all of them identically
Answering "what-if" questions is ill-advised, but I'll take a flyer on this one. I would have expected McCain to do, on all the topics you raised, substantially what Ba-ba-Barack has done. Very likely you will tell me I'm mistaken, and it's hard to know how we might resolve *that* question, without traveling to some parallel universe.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org