What I didn't do, however, was really look at that decision. And ask myself, "why"?
The majority of Americans do not support the effort in Afghanistan. Obama didn't put troops there, the easy thing would seem to cast blame towards George W. Bush for a misguided effort, to pull troops out, and to convert the "war" to an ongoing surgical effort to seek out terrorists and to attack and kill them on an "as needed" basis.
He would look wise and still hard on terrorism, and the U.S., in the midst of an economic crisis and deficit that makes Canada's government look like Warren Buffet, would let out a collective *sigh*.
So, then, why?
Well, I think I alluded to the answer yesterday. Commenting on Carl Berstein's notion that money has infected Washington, making it sick.
AIG is still operating, the same greedy pigs who pushed the U.S. to the brink of bankruptcy, are, more or less, still working making good money, and again, we can ask "why"?
I think the answer to both questions are the same.
Back during the election, I suggested Obama was getting as much AIG money as McCain. It turns out, more or less, the money wasn't going so much to him as to Democrats, and, they actually received more than the Republicans. I guess AIG can read political wind better than they can read falling real estate prices.
From "Opensecrets.org":
Over time, AIG hasn't shown an especially partisan streak, splitting evenly the $9.3 million it has contributed since 1989. In the last election cycle, though, 68 percent of contributions associated with the company went to Democrats. Two senators who chair committees charged with overseeing AIG and the insurance industry, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), are among the top recipients of AIG contributions. Baucus chairs the Senate Finance Committee and has collected more money from AIG in his congressional career than from any other company--$91,000. And with more than $280,000, AIG has been the fourth largest contributor to Dodd, who chairs the Senate's banking committee. President Obama and his rival in last year's election, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), are also high on the list of top recipients.
AIG has been a personal investment for lawmakers, too. Twenty-eight current members of Congress reported owning stock in AIG in 2007, worth between $2.5 million and $3.3 million. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one of the richest members of Congress, was by far the biggest investor in AIG, with stock valued around $2 million.So.
What does this have to do with Afghanistan? Well, just as AIG was, apparently, "too big to fail", perhaps the war effort, and the defence companies supporting it, are "too big to fail", if you get my drift.
Also from Opensecrets.org:
2008 Election Cycle Contributions by the Defence Industry:
Total Contributions: $23,716,058What do we make of this? Well, one thing about a corporation, it has no soul. No emotion. It is an artificial "person", whose sole purpose, truly, is to make profit for it's shareholders. And, so, with that in mind, some pretty significant reality is disclosed by these numbers:
From Individuals: $9,945,166
From PAC's: $13,770,892
Donations to Democrats: $12,169,983 (51%)
Donations to Republicans: $11,514,710 (49% )
a) The large corporations, from the Investment Industry to the Defence Industry are spending significant money on political contributions;
b) They don't seem to show a preference for what "ideology" is receiving the benefit of those contributions. The same industries are supporting the Democrats and Republicans, more or less equally. In fact, the two industries that would most clearly, at first blush, seem to align with the "right", actually gave more money to the Democrats;
c) This money is flowing, clearly, not because of any political leanings of the CEO's, but because that money being paid creates real value to those industries. They earn money because of those contributions. Otherwise, they wouldn't make them.
So. AIG is still running, and the War in Afghanistan is still going.
Any questions?
There is a "them" and "us", and it isnt' the "left" and "right". Those are just convenient labels to distract us, like rubes at a three card monte game. We cheer for our "team" and jeer the other "team", and get complicit in the game by pretending that ideology and party politics actually means something, when, really, it's all about who has the money to pull the strings.
Think about THAT for a moment.




