The Iraq War and the Presidential Election

[John Simkin]

I suspect the Iraq War was also a factor in Tuesday’s primary results. Clinton and McCain, who both voted for the war, both did well whereas Obama suffered a serious set-back.

In February 2007, only 30% of US voters thought the military effort in Iraq was going well. The latest poll suggests this figure has now increased to 48%. A majority now believe the US effort in Iraq will succeed.

Although the US is no nearer winning the war in Iraq than it was from the initial invasion, perception is everything. Psychologically, the American people want to believe that success is near, while this is the case, Obama will struggle to be elected as president.

[Ron Ecker]

Hillary will be the Democratic nominee one way or another. What I wonder about is who the powers that be would rather have as president, Hillary or McCain. It could be a tossup and they may actually let the voters decide. Or, they may feel obliged to give the Clintons one more turn in the White House (before Jeb Bush gets his turn), in which case Hillary wins. Or, the idea of a president who has said that the U.S. could be in Iraq for 100 years may be too good to pass up.

If the powers that be go with McCain (even if it means breaking any promises to the Clintons), I can now predict what will be a deciding factor in a McCain victory in November. A few weeks before the election, "Osama Bin Laden" will issue a new videotape, telling all Americans that they should vote Democratic.

[Mark Stapleton]

Although the US is no nearer winning the war in Iraq than it was from the initial invasion, perception is everything. Psychologically, the American people want to believe that success is near, while this is the case, Obama will struggle to be elected as president.

The one area of the campaign which, predictably, is not being seriously analysed is US Middle East relations. Considering the financial and human cost of Iraq, coupled with America's poor image in the region, one might consider it an important campaign issue but acting tough is easier than sense and reason, writes Rami Khouri:

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/78552/

Edited March 11, 2008 by Mark Stapleton

[Guest David Guyatt]

Hillary will be the Democratic nominee one way or another. What I wonder about is who the powers that be would rather have as president, Hillary or McCain. It could be a tossup and they may actually let the voters decide. Or, they may feel obliged to give the Clintons one more turn in the White House (before Jeb Bush gets his turn), in which case Hillary wins. Or, the idea of a president who has said that the U.S. could be in Iraq for 100 years may be too good to pass up.

If the powers that be go with McCain (even if it means breaking any promises to the Clintons), I can now predict what will be a deciding factor in a McCain victory in November. A few weeks before the election, "Osama Bin Laden" will issue a new videotape, telling all Americans that they should vote Democratic.

My best Guess Ron, is that the system will produce the two main presidential candidates acceptable to the system and after that they don't care who wins. he have whatever leverage they need in either case, and are content to allow either to jiggle policy so long as this doesn't conflict with the Elite's long term plans.

[Michael Hogan]

I suspect the Iraq War was also a factor in Tuesday’s primary results. Clinton and McCain, who both voted for the war, both did well whereas Obama suffered a serious set-back.

In February 2007, only 30% of US voters thought the military effort in Iraq was going well. The latest poll suggests this figure has now increased to 48%. A majority now believe the US effort in Iraq will succeed.

Although the US is no nearer winning the war in Iraq than it was from the initial invasion, perception is everything. Psychologically, the American people want to believe that success is near, while this is the case, Obama will struggle to be elected as president.

Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

Retired officers have been used to shape terrorism coverage from inside the TV and radio networks.

By DAVID BARSTOW

The New York Times, April 20, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washingt...amp;oref=slogin

[Maggie Hansen]

Maybe they'll have set of 'Survivor' or 'Mad Max' or 'Apocalypse Now' that way they'll save on having to build anything and still get to charge people an entrance fee. Freedom and Democracy Inc.

[Guest David Guyatt]

The mind boggles...

When I stop laughing at the ridiculousness of it, I'll offer some themed ideas for the park.

There. Stopped. That's better.

How about:

Indiana Jones and the Land of Boom and Doom - featuring a real life whip-cracking foray into an RPG infested cave following by a high intensity snake-crawling shinny through AK47 alley. If you get hit and die, don't worry. Mickey and Minnie will race to re-animate you in Fantasyland and Donald Duck will defuse any improvised explosive devices you might meet along the way.

Or:

A fully digitalized camel ride with Buzz Lightyear through the ziggurats of ancient Mesopotamia.

Yeah, Disneyland Babylon really rocks:

BUT, it will need protecting by US Special Forces. I nominate US SEALS - the toughest sons around:

[Evan Burton]

If any further proof that we're truly living in lala land was needed, I see that instead of providing the Iraqi people with food, water, electricity and the rule of law, the neocons have approved the building of a Disney theme park adjacent to the Green Zone.

I'd be tempted to say psyop & pork barrel if it wasn't for the whole situation in Iraq already being one giant totally out-of-control psyop and pig-feeding extravaganza....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8837

Teaser quote (the actual article is longer):

Disneyland goes to war-torn Iraq, with a multi-million dollar entertainment complex, to be built on a 50 acre lot adjacent to the Green Zone.

The American-style amusement park will feature a skateboard park, rides, a concert theatre and a museum.

The occupation forces are of the opinion that Baghdad is "lacking in entertainment". General David Petraeus, is said to be a “big supporter” of bringing Disneyland to Baghdad.

Supported by the Pentagon, an unknown Los Angeles based holding company C3 of private equity investors, will be developing the "Baghdad Zoo and Entertainment Experience". The park will be designed by Ride and Show Engineering (RSE)

Is there a source for the article? That is, where Global Research got their info from? I didn't see any links to a press release, etc.

It sounds absolutely ridiculous - but is something that could possibly happen with those crazy Yanks!

[Evan Burton]

Thanks Jan.

Wow. I can see the need for renovating the zoo, and providing entertainment for children and adults alike... but a theme park? No. Give them a zoo and park - then spend the rest raising infrastructure and living standards, giving them food, housing, water, electricity, and an income... all whilst making the place safe for them to enjoy all those things. I would have thought that was a no-brainer.