Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 25, 2012

Neocon WaPo Editors Endorse Obama

The neoconned editorial board of the Washington Post, famous for always calling for more wars, endorse Barack Obama as president for another four years.

The first reason they give is Obama's plan to cut Social Security:

He did not end, as he promised he would, “our chronic avoidance of tough decisions” on fiscal matters. But Mr. Obama is committed to the only approach that can succeed: a balance of entitlement reform and revenue increases.
The second reasons are more wars.

Obama has not yet delivered all the wars the WaPo editors want, but he has waged enough, he introduced "kill lists" and a "disposition matrix" to eliminate whoever is though to be a "terrorist" including all the bystanders and he has shown no consciences. The editors hope for more of that.

While Mitt Romney has lots of neocon foreign policy advisers he himself is not one and there are concerns that he might actually turn out to be a realist:

The sad answer is there is no way to know what Mr. Romney really believes. [..] At times he has advocated a muscular, John McCain-style foreign policy, but in the final presidential debate he positioned himself as a dove.
Imagine that. A possible dove in the oval office. There is no way the WaPo editors would allow for that.

Posted by b on October 25, 2012 at 18:09 UTC | Permalink


Jon Stewart makes good fun of the Foreign Policy Debate
"We learned Mitt Romney has basically come around to Barack Obama’s position on foreign policy, and Barack Obama’s come around to the Bush administration’s policy on aggression overseas."

Unemployment figures are conveniently down. US voters have no incentive to switch horses.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 25 2012 21:04 utc | 1

Obama serves many useful purposes for the elites. He attracts hatred from male whites (and female whites) which spurs them to greater racism, which, in turn, causes greater divisiveness in middle-class society.

He keeps middle-class blacks and other middle-class people of color quieter while the elites strip them of what modest wealth they have managed to accumulate.

He has done the bidding of Wall Street and the Pentagon to a tee.

He is able to accomplish awful things (such as continuing the Patriot Act and Bush's torture program, enacting Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), launching drone attacks on all sorts of innocent brown people, conducting vicious attacks on whistleblowers etc etc) that a Republican would be hard pressed to accomplish. If Obama were a Republican, the Left would take up arms against him for these and other blatant acts of fascism. Instead, they give Obama a pass just because he is a Democrat, and especially because he is a minority.

I think from a DESIRED RESULTS perspective, Obama is the guy for TPTB.

This horror show ticket looks steady
It's GOP Herman and Eddie
These Munsters are scary
But no match for Barry
They've lost the election already

The Limerick King

Posted by: Cynthia | Oct 25 2012 21:04 utc | 2

I hope THIS is the fly in the ointment.

Posted by: Maracatu | Oct 25 2012 21:47 utc | 3

And that rattling sound in the background is Nobel spinning around in his grave. Follow the links behind who owns & runs the NYT, WaPO and LAT and a lot becomes quite clearer pretty darn quickly.

Posted by: Daniel Rich | Oct 25 2012 22:26 utc | 4

"Follow the links behind who owns & runs the NYT, WaPO and LAT and a lot becomes quite clearer pretty darn quickly."

Come on, stop being so coy - out with it.

You tease.

Posted by: Juicy | Oct 25 2012 22:32 utc | 5

Alfred Nobel was a Swedish arms manufacturer who invented dynamite. He is resting in peace.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 25 2012 22:35 utc | 6

"Imagine that. A possible dove in the oval office. There is no way the WaPo editors would allow for that."

I don't think so. The same people own both Obama and Romney, just like they owned previous WH occupants. Any American prez who turns "dove" only does so because outside, foreign forces force that change upon them. Irregardless "dove" in American political parlance means covert wars and war by proxy, that is all. it's a meaningless term. Look up "The Great Game", every American prez at the latest from bully midget Theo Roosevelt on has been an avid player. The current American wars are all part of that "game".

Posted by: вот так | Oct 25 2012 23:26 utc | 7


MUCH OF THE 2012 presidential campaign has dwelt on the past, but the key questions are who could better lead the country during the next four years — and, most urgently, who is likelier to put the government on a more sound financial footing.

That second question will come rushing at the winner as soon as the votes are tallied. Absent any action, a series of tax hikes and spending cuts will take effect Jan. 1 that might well knock the country back into recession. This will be a moment of peril but also of opportunity. How the president-elect navigates it will go a long way toward determining the success of his presidency and the health of the nation.

President Barack Obama is better positioned to be that navigator than is his Republican challenger, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

The Post says let's not look at the past, what Obama has actually done -- let's look at the future. The practice, if adopted by others, may revolutionize job performance evaluations.

a future job evaluation using the WaPo "eyes wide open" strategy--
***Okay, we're disappointed in John Smith. He did a lousy job. Nothing he did turned out right; quite the opposite, it was a series of disasters. But let's not dwell on the past. Smith is well positioned to navigate through future performance challenges. Call my crazy, but I say Smith is liklier to perform well than anyone else we might select. With eyes wide open I say let's renew his job contract.***

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 25 2012 23:41 utc | 8

Maracatu no3: The rediscovery of international law Part II

Posted by: somebody | Oct 25 2012 23:44 utc | 9

@Maracatu #3
Your comment lacks context. It might be a different fly than you envision, I don't know. Ben Emmerson has some thoughts--

TORONTO - The possibility that Mitt Romney will be elected president of the United States next month has raised the "alarming" prospect of an unprecedented public endorsement of torture, a prominent international expert said Friday.

Speaking out on the issue for the first time, Ben Emmerson, UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, took fierce aim at the Republican candidate's refusal to condemn waterboarding.

"There is no doubt that the Romney administration would be able to claim — in the event of a Romney presidency — a democratic mandate for torture," Emmerson told The Canadian Press.

"That would put Romney as the first world leader in history to be able to claim a democratic mandate for torture."

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 26 2012 0:15 utc | 10

Mitt Romney will say any thing, at any time, in agreement with, tangential to, clearly without any import, or completely opposite to what he said earlier or in the same breath, if he believes it will help him close the sale

He is a consummate salesman.

Someone (Gawker?) wrote during the third debate that he had a "What's it going to take to put you in this Camry" tone to most of his replies. Right now he's trying to do total Etch-A-Sketch lifts of the plastic to obliterate his earlier Ultra Conservative Version of the primaries. But, what he says, has absolutely no relation to what he intends or will actually do.

Obama tends to give signals, or off the record interviews, to show exactly what dire things he has in mind for the American public.

I have no idea what Romney will do, other than cut taxes for his economic class.

The Dove Look? Don't believe for any longer than the end of the campaign.

Posted by: jawbone | Oct 26 2012 2:22 utc | 11

It's a good thing that they aren't deciders, actually. It's not an easy position when most indicators are headed south, except the deficit is skying. Three billion per day, every day, in the hole! Perhaps the next congress will perceive how weak the president is, whoever he is, and get some backbone. Get away from "The generals told me . . ."

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 26 2012 3:44 utc | 12

"He is a consummate salesman"

No, he's not. As it takes a complete fuckin' moron to buy into his obvious bullshit, he is a dismal failure as a "salesman". The transparency of his lack of conviction is as plain as day. His demeanor, his facial expressions, his wildly fluctuating stands on issues, all paint a picture of a malleable and dishonest piece of characterless shit. He'd sell his own mother to slime his way into the Oval Office.

The fact that this asshole is paraded in front of us as actually being "Presidential" is a sad sad statement about the state of the union. And the fact that we have a huge segment of our population that are buying into and participating in this shameful dog and pony show that our "electoral process" has become, tells me that the whole house of cards is about to collapse in in a heap. And, really, thats probably not such a bad thing, because we have become a loathsome example of what "one nation under God" should NEVER aspire to become. These fuckers in DC are despicable. Romney epitomizes that premise. Fuck 'em.

And please, here's hopin' that someone pulls this Mourdock nutjob into the bushes and rapes his sorry ass. Gads, what did we do to deserve these scumbags?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Oct 26 2012 3:52 utc | 13

meet ur real boss....the mic

Posted by: denk | Oct 26 2012 5:23 utc | 14

Liberals here in the UK were virtually sucking each other off when Obomber got in in 08. Predictably, it was business as usual.

More spent on arms and wars, the folks that laid the foundations for the financial collapse back as advisors, Gitmo, rendition, Libya, Drone wars, proxy wars, Iran......

The thought of what this guy will do with another 4 years is pretty scary.

Posted by: Billyboy | Oct 26 2012 12:03 utc | 15

the idea that DC's finances will be fixed by eliminating deductions and raising taxes a touch is laughable.

Posted by: heath | Oct 26 2012 12:16 utc | 16

As is the custom, in this day and age, this "election" is more Kabuki. Oh, I'll vote alright, but, as usual, the Patrician class will decide America's future "leaders". Figure heads and puppets who will do the bidding of the Patrician elites. Not to worry though, they have a good plan in mind. Ever increasing austerity for the working classes, while they skim off the cream to increase their lifestyle at the workers expense. Romney and Obama are just the latest sock puppets in this charade, which, by the way, is trying to go global.

Posted by: ben | Oct 26 2012 13:50 utc | 17

‘There really isn’t democracy anymore in the US’ - US Green Party Vice Presidential Candidate

Part 2

"That’s the larger question that we have to ask ourselves. There really isn’t a democracy anymore in the United States, especially when it comes to elections. Right now the СPD is financed by 10 corporate sponsors and accommodation of those corporate sponsors and the one-party system which is actually Democrats and Republicans that take money from corporations. They pretty much decide who gets to be a part of the process and who doesn’t. So most of the folks that are watching on television have no idea that this is actually theatre that’s taking place, and we’re really in trouble in terms of our civil liberties when Homeland Security can take money and rent warehouses and take people that are on ballots across the country and hide them in secret locations. I think that that should send an alarm, not just to people here in this country, but around the world, because it’s definitely not being covered on the media. And I think that the world has just as much to gain from our democracy in terms of the elections that are taking place here, because we’re always so busy in other countries saying they need to bring democracy there."

Transcript and video of the interview.

It is indicative of the lack of democracy in the USA and how despicably absurd things have got in that banana republic that to find news about candidates outside the corporate sponsored prostitutes, one has to go to the foreign media. They are invisible in the American media. Something which facilitates the jackboots in their behaviour as described by Honkala in the interview above.

Posted by: вот так | Oct 26 2012 14:38 utc | 18

meet the real boss

Posted by: denk | Oct 26 2012 15:16 utc | 19

For those with an hour or so to kill, third party Presidential debate here:

Posted by: ben | Oct 26 2012 15:18 utc | 20

Romney is a consummate salesman, says jawbone @ 11.

He is a *bizniss* man, out for profit, control, admiration, adulation, in circles and circuits he himself does not understand or control. (Unlike the local Mafia boss in Naples. Or for a higher ex., Putin.)

Just grandstand and go for the profit. In that sense, he might hold any stance, following the day’s briefings:

> a dove: war, not enough return, too expensive, wasteful, detrimental to trade, collaboration, bad for US image, needlessly destructive, not good for biz (e.g. selling T shirts and meds and tech to Iran) etc.

> a hawk: feed the military, dominate commerce, keep red states quiet with defense contracts, act tough on China and other BS, defend corporations - their hold on resources - with bombs, up the aggro, the US is tops and must stay so, attack Iran - oops no! - some other place?

On a social issue:

> for abortion: better family life, less social service expenditure, better education for all, easier schooling, women’s rights, family choice (as his children have done)

> against, as per religious grounds or even personal conviction, or vote trolling, plus keeping those minorities chained to multiple children as the upper class has always done as a method of control, to amongst others, feed the security and prison industries...

and so on.

Mitt’s flip-flops are kinda normal when the State or more generally political-social-economic direction is lost in the wilderness and captive to corporate, faction, lobby interests, and barely surviving on symbolic vestiges of common-good respectability. All is presented as in yo face pop contests by the media, as that is how they make *their* money..

Posted by: Noirette | Oct 26 2012 18:04 utc | 21

Obama is the most effective evil, as activist, Glen Ford, has said. And this is really dangerous because this president oozes the language of liberal concerns, while betraying those concerns and backstabbing the constituents who care about those things; and many of them frankly refuse to confront the pure evil and duplicity he represents. And yet for those who are no longer beguiled, Obama is the most demoralizing political leader in our history. He is another sanctimonious vessel of empire, a serial killer who prattles about "maintaining our values".

Mitt Romney is far less adept in the arts of political hypnotism, and he will become another ham-handed republican president; and thus, though odious and plutocratic in the extreme, will at least provoke more focused opposition and outrage, in the event of his election.

I'm not voting for either of these men because they are repulsive beyond words.

Posted by: Copeland | Oct 26 2012 21:14 utc | 22

"I'm not voting for either of these men because they are repulsive beyond words."
Your words serve quite well.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 26 2012 21:20 utc | 23

well said Copeland. it's a disgusting spectacle, for sure.

we may see the players backing Mitt try to steal Ohio like Bush did in '04---at least the groundwork is still there for something like that to happen.

but why risk that with Mitt when so much more can be accomplished by keeping Obama? if Mitt gets "elected" then suddenly lots of people recall how our escalating global war is bad and destroying civil liberties at home is also bad.

Posted by: lizard | Oct 26 2012 22:48 utc | 24

As lizard says, or implies, one advantage of Romney is that Dems wouldn't give the president a free pass any longer, as they are now doing.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 26 2012 23:05 utc | 25


Riiiiight . . . . . cos that made SUCH a big difference under Bush.

How many wars did they prevent back then?

Posted by: Obombney | Oct 26 2012 23:09 utc | 26

That was then. This is now.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 27 2012 0:11 utc | 27

don, 27 well if there any trouble, the social security administration has plenty of ways of dealing with problems.

Posted by: heath | Oct 27 2012 0:24 utc | 28

The great Determiner of the Drone Matrices, takes aim at Hezbollah...

Brennan urges EU to name Hezbollah 'terrorists'...

Senior White House terrorism advisor Brennan says EU omission makes it harder to combat Lebanese group's activities.

...Brennan said that without greater international recognition and action against Hezbollah’s terrorism, “the group will continue to operate with impunity and it will be able to raise funds that enable its terrorist activity.”

He called on the international community to assume a “more proactive posture” against Hezbollah and to work with the United States to uncover its infrastructure and disrupt its networks...

I'm sure that will be well-received...! 8-(

Posted by: CTuttle | Oct 27 2012 7:46 utc | 29

The US designated Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists in 1997, long before they got into politics. Israel went through a similar process, as I recall.

Hezbollah, like Syria, is about Iran and Israel. The US routinely refers to Iran as the world's greatest state sponsor of terrorism not because Iran sponsors terrorists but because Iran supports Hezbollah, which the US claims is a terrorist organization even though they haven't done anything violent (except defeat the IDF invasion) in years. Hezbollah is a political party, a mainstay of the Lebanon government.

A “more proactive posture” = drones, probably, as Brennan is the high priest of dronage. The EU with its Nobel Peace Prize will probably coming around, but Brennan's starting with Ireland is probably a tactical error. The Irish won't be easily pushed to support war.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 27 2012 14:31 utc | 30

There even seems to be some reluctance in Britain....

"Britain has rejected US requests to station troops at strategic military bases, citing secret legal advice which states that complicity in any pre-emptive strike on Iran could breach international law."

Nothing that can't be overcome I'm sure.

Posted by: dh | Oct 27 2012 14:52 utc | 31

"Nothing that can't be overcome I'm sure."
So any report that the UK is suddenly going legal on us regarding elective warfare is not to be seriously regarded.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 27 2012 14:59 utc | 32

Just a minor glitch.

Posted by: dh | Oct 27 2012 15:03 utc | 33

The Brits like to offer the pretense of reluctance when in fact they are in it to the gills. Too weak to do imperialism on their own, they like to live it vicariously through the US.

Posted by: Lysander | Oct 27 2012 15:47 utc | 34


"Who" guitarist Pete Townshend appeared in "Child-porn"-related headlines immediately prior to the Iraq war. In the end he was given a mere slap on the wrist, and let go.

Mr Townshend has recently been in the headlines once again, with the release of his new Auto-biography, wherein he discusses some of those Child-Porn-related events, all of which occurred just prior to the Iraq War.

One UK newspaper in particular gave great prominence to articles relating to some of the content of MR Townshend's recent auto-biography.

The name of the UK newspaper ? The Guardian

"Pete Townshend: 'I can get a bit self-righteous now'"

Ohhh I'm sure you can, Pete.

Posted by: Star69 | Oct 27 2012 15:57 utc | 35

'liberal' american director Ben Affleck endorses war on Iran and supports Israel...and his latest film, Argo, looks to be a means to push americans further in that direction: it shows americans as courageous victims..iranians as crazed.
why this movie is more than just another historical film:
1.Affleck also demonstrated a dizzying fealty to alarmist misinformation over the Iranian nuclear program. If the "Islamist regime," he warned, "got a bomb, I think everybody thinks that would be trouble." Affleck then proceeded to opine that "Israel is not entirely capable of whacking them to the extent in which they need to be whacked." Read that again

2.It didn't take much for O'Reilly to draw out what his Fox News audience most wanted to hear. "I wouldn't oppose military action," Affleck obliged.
Note: photo shows sign saying 'camel jockeys go home'(dumb americanis: as iranians arent arabs) 1979, iranians had had enough of US occupation an d wanted them to go home.

Posted by: brian | Oct 30 2012 6:02 utc | 36

The comments to this entry are closed.