portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary oregon & cascadia

imperialism & war

Preparing for the Traditional Season of Campaigning?

Mitch McConnell, a man who would at least tacitly threaten government closure over a nickel in the welfare budget proposing the fast-tracking bestowal of authorization for the use of military force upon an oppposition lame-duck president. How convenient.
Oh...I'm not speaking of Presidential Campaigns. What Hitler didn't learn from Napoleon, I'm sure they think they learned from Stalingrad. Third time's the charm. The heightened economic skirmishes of the winter will continue, and have only been laying the groundwork of which neither previous invader might dream. Walk, not fight, through Ukraine and...

From the National Journal:

Neither Republicans nor Democrats knew the majority leader planned to set up a possible debate on authorizing the use of force against ISIS.

Sarah Mimms, Alex Rogers
Jan. 21, 2016, 11 p.m.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell offered members a snow-weekend surprise late Wednesday night: Quietly teeing up a potential debate on the legal underpinning for the fight against ISIS.

After months of worrying that such a resolution—known as an authorization for the use of military force—would tie the next president's hands, McConnell's move to fast-track the measure surprised even his top deputy, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, who was unaware that McConnell had set up the authorization.

"He did?" Cornyn asked National Journal on Thursday morning.

The AUMF put forward by McConnell would not restrict the president's use of ground troops, nor have any limits related to time or geography...


Lots of interesting things going on here, don't you think? I'm not speaking of the Majority Whip so glaringly out of the loop. Who cares? That's obviously only important to those who follow the game, not those who run it.

As much more as I have to say, I guess that 'much more' might be summarized by one question:

Are we watching the purely political fight over which wing of the national authoritarian party will run WWIII (and over its concomitant powers)?

*Have a whack at an answer...

I'll answer in discussion, though I'm sure mine can be discerned simply from my framing and wording of the question itself.

*Those answers that include some form of 'for the good of the country' will not be considered.

shaker, you worried about this / determined it somehow of interest? 23.Jan.2016 10:46


honestly this just seems like politicking-fedgov business as usual for the post-9/11 years.

Nothing to see here.

valid question 23.Jan.2016 11:17


You've a valid question, _. Though you made no effort to actually address the post, I'll answer your question.

Well, I do believe it matters, if nothing else but simply "What else is there?"

Now, for the sake of rhetoric, I've a question for you...Is the nihilism you exhibit the product of some faith in any idea of something less painful and wasteful, be it revolution or some expected great spiritual revelation from the heavens?

RE: " nihilism you exhibit " 23.Jan.2016 14:37


what made you think / perceive, that anything I posted 23.Jan.2016 10:46 was "nihilistic"?

if anything, I merely attempted to call with clarity one's attention to the post-911 state of (electoral-otherwise) contemporary U.S. politics.

i.e. [what else would you expect...]
everything (no matter what topic or issue) revolves totally around the illusory and elusive 'War On Terror'.

What do I mean by "revolves around"? All of our political, and some (to most?) of our economic, realities are subjugated entirely to the glorious War.
( Even if particular politicians/speakers within established political structures-pathways may downplay or up-play it to one degree or another, at various opportune times... serves them as a headline-banner or subtext, depending on context )

whether or not the "War" means 1) actual/formal 'Declarations Of War' (as in official acts of Congress) on other nations, 2) bombardment of other nations/regions, 3) military occupations (of whatever duration), 4) Curtailed civil liberties and death/torture camps + 'black sites, 5) Rhetoric directed against "terrorism" and "persons who have physical appearance-skin color of terrorists", 6) General fearmongering "terrorists are just about to / could attack at any moment!" etc.

After the singular and defining events of 11 September 2001, all of 'civilized' industrial society, political structure, corporate mass media, and general way of life has been and is now fully under the thumb / in the shadow of / secondary in priority to above.

( whether you're advocating for purported "social justice", "LGBT", "anti war", social services, womyn etc. )

Therefore, it should be all activists-for-change objective, whatever their particular political orientation or theoretical underpinning, to not only fully understand and comprehend but also expose the true circumstances of that event, 9/11, for whatever it was worth (to the overlording elite-system).

we're at war (even though activists would claim it's just a "struggle", "movement" or whatever).
Time for activists to conduct actual warfare vs. their identified "oppressors" / nemesis, just as they inflict upon the activists 24/7... if in fact their plan (?) is to obtain/achieve any "progress" whatever that might mean.

take this for what you will 25.Jan.2016 08:33


First, _, I would say that you're correct in your original assessment. I should not be so emotionally reactive, in particular with posts such as this. I apologize, and, except to stay posted long enough that you see this comment, the workerbees should compost this. I apologize, also, for the emotional response of my comment. It was undeserved. I meant to get to this statement to you earlier, but had no chance (not football).

Second, though, if you'd like me to recognize some previous post of yours you might come up with some other handle than what you use. It's not any sort of identifier at all to me (and to how many others?). We've seen 'yours' so many times over the years and with so much disparity that though my assumption may not have been fair, I couldn't personally make a connection.

The above is no suggestion you take some different approach to your name/handle than you do. Your strategy works for you and that's enough. It's my (and others) problem to work through your personal preference.

The '9/11' reference is some standard that is 'old' hat'. Myself and my assumptions long before 9/11 have had me thinking along a very solid line with a longer history. (And, please, don't mistake that statement as some claim that I'm unique in my thinking or am party to some specific information regarding the surveillance state as Snowden.) Taken from what might be your point of view, it's natural that you use it and it's relative in that regard in being so common. I shouldn't forget that fact.