![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
MIM was just talking about the Republicans and Gonzales. Then presidential candidate Barack Obama came out for attacking Pakistan. The Republican candidates in general are for possibly nuking Iran. Obama and Clinton have not ruled out carpet-bombing Pakistan. Obama's comments and those of Tancredo calling for attacks on Mecca and Medina if terrorists hit Amerikans, have touched off anti-U.$. demonstrations.(1) Thank you comrade Obama.
There is an underlying point. From the proletariat's point of view, it is as MIM said in the 2006 elections: "Republocrats will keep on prosecuting the 'war on terror' fraud and maybe shift around which Third World nations they bomb."(2)
From the imperialists' point of view, the question of Pakistan is connected to the situation of repression and war generally. In response to Obama, Mitt Romney took the real Bush line, and we can now name him the true carrier of the Bush faith:
"'We want as a civilized world to participate with other nations in this civilized effort to help those nations reject the extreme within them,' Romney said. 'That doesn't mean that our troops are going to go all over the world.'"Mr.-Double-Guantanamo-Bay-Carry-Cheney's-Water sounds all peaceful for once and there is a reason. His references to "moderate" Islamics is aimed with particular members of the national bourgeoisie in mind.
The international proletariat is not intimidated by this situation. Now if we have to guess about the national bourgeoisie, it sees that in addition to the mess in Iraq and the dollar slide, it sees Clinton and Obama on one side, with Romney and Bush on the other. Right now polls show the Democrats winning the 2008 election. That's not to mention Giuliani:
"Today Giuliani, 63, says the administration's fixation on Iraq has been a distraction in the war against global jihadism. In a July 19 interview with USA Today, he said efforts to battle al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters in Pakistan and Afghanistan are suffering because 'America is too consumed by Iraq.'"(4)In other words, even if the Republicans win, if it's Giuliani, the line may be both anti-Iran and anti-Pakistan--an important message for the national bourgeoisie trying to decide who to line up with.
The situation for the Islamic national bourgeoisie should also include Palestine, where Bush openly stymied his Secretary of State. We heard that Bush came calling with $20 billion in arms trinkets for the Arab states, but the Saudis were apparently not so impressed beyond delivering an embassy to Iraq. Hey, we know our street readers can figure out that if I$rael approved the $20 billion in sales for Saudi Arabia, something major must be up.(5) Partly that something major is Iran, partly something else. Oddly enough, the stance of Obama on Pakistan may slightly aid chances for a Palestine deal, because it brings a serious struggle to the fore. If not, change may be in the air after all.
Notes:
1. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2141839,00.html
2. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/elections/elections2006.html
3. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/03/america/NA-POL-US-White-
House-Romney-Pakistan.php
4. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aW.f2K5CE.s8&refer=home
5. http://www.jewishexponent.com/article/13665/