Monday, July 21, 2014

Israel Slaughters Palestinians, Obama And Democrats Support The Genocide

In Israel’s latest affirmation of its bloody, generations-long, occupation of Palestine, little Palestinian children are ground up and spat out like vermin by the Israeli military. The child pictured above was wounded by Israeli attacks in Rafah, on July 21, 2014. No doubt the survivors of Auschwitz would be proud to see what Israel has come to, slaughtering babies in the name of vengeance and Lebensraum.
Mass-murdering monsters are having a great July!

Putin
is shooting down airplanes full of children in Ukraine, and Netanyahu is slaughtering babies in Gaza.

In both cases, the United States is, as Sonny Corleone once warned against, standing around with its dick in its hand.

In fact, it’s worse than that. In both cases, the United States, which is to say the hopeless, helpless Barack Obama, is aiding and abetting the slaughter.

In the case of Russia, while Obama postures like he’s concerned to do something about Putin’s gradual but determined efforts to destabilize Ukraine (resulting in last week’s horrific downing by Russian-backed separatists of a Malaysian jet carrying 295 passengers), the US president has repeatedly made it clear he won’t stand up to Putin militarily, and that he considers Putin’s and Russia’s partnership with the US more important than Russia’s piratical behavior.

In the case of Israel, the American backing of Israel’s war crimes is even more explicit, with the United States Senate, including every single member, recently voting to affirm Israel’s latest invasion and slaughter in Gaza. What this means, with respect to the political process in the United States, is that when any of these Senators, for example the much-loved and much-unexamined Elizabeth Warren, chooses to run for higher office, they cannot honestly dispute the charge that they are big fans of genocide.

The Senate Resolution 498, introduced by Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC), has some interesting claims. For example:
“Hamas has killed hundreds of Israelis and dozens of Americans in rocket attacks and suicide bombings.”
Is that true?

In fact, the numbers of deaths from suicide bombings in Israel are in the hundreds over many years. But, the number of deaths from rocket attacks by Hamas in Israel are relatively few.

Meanwhile, the Senate resolution does not point out how many Palestinians have been killed in numerous Israeli attacks over the years—the numbers are many times the Israeli losses, and no one (except the Israeli government) accepts the idea that the majority of these Palestinian deaths represent Israel acting in self defense.

So deranged is the Israeli government on the issue of the huge numbers of Palestinians being slaughtered by Israel, that one Israeli government minister, Naftali Bennett, claimed the Palestinians in Gaza were committing “self-genocide”, by “sending their women and children to stand next to missile launchers in order for them to get killed”.

Of course, if Israel knows there are women and children standing next to missile launchers, why would the Israeli military deliberately murder those people by attacking the launchers? If the answer is that Israel counts achieving a military objective as more important than the lives of hundreds and thousands of Palestinians, that sounds a great deal like an attempt at justifying mass-murder terrorist attacks by Israel.

The American government is complicit in those terrorists attacks by Israel, and in the genocide perpetrated by the Israeli government against the Palestinian people. That has always been the case.

And that is a big reason why the United States is, understandably, so widely despised throughout the Muslim world. If that weren’t enough to make Muslims hate America, add to this the Bush and Obama anti-Muslim terror wars, and the question is not why do “they” hate us?—but why the hell wouldn’t they?

In Obama's "Complicated" World Mass Murder Is Not As Important As Money

Question: who is the mass murderer in this picture? At least the fellow on the left knows what he's doing when he hands out deadly air-defense weapons to a bunch of pirates. The fellow on the right also knows what he's doing when the world is crumbling into crises—he's golfing and fundraising, as if everything is copacetic. And that is a big reason the American people increasingly despise Barack Obama. 
Nope, nobody is going to drone-strike Vladimir Putin just because he murdered almost 300 people, including 85 children. That would be uncivilized. And you know, could start a nuclear war or something.

In fact, Vladimir Putin could invade Ukraine (even more than he has), slaughter its people (more than he has), and take control of the whole country, and Europe and its senile American daddy would sit watching it, as if it were a cheaply made reality program on YouTube.

The deep, increasingly deadly, cowardice that is paralyzingly any effective response to Putin is enabling the Russian leader to slaughter people like cattle, to further destabilize Ukraine, hoping to weaken it prior to a full-scale Russian invasion, and increasingly Putin's madness is provoked by Europe's and America's impotence (manifested by an endless run of "last chance" threats), with Putin supplying one rogue group after another with weapons to further destabilize the world.

Despite Putin's clearly dangerous behavior and designs, his foolish, greedy, and spineless opponents in the West still (disgustingly) want to be Putin's business partners, in working out "solutions", instead of his sworn enemies.

And all of that comes down to Obama-doctrine distancing, which seeks to deescalate—despite the increasing global body count of Obama’s foreign policies.

Yesterday, explaining once again why only silly little children any longer believe in nations standing up for truth, justice, and the American way, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Meet the Press that the world isn't about fighting enemies—it's about the complex job of working with sometimes unruly partners:
"The fact is we live in an extremely complicated world right now, where everybody is working on ten different things simultaneously. Russia is working with us  in a cooperative way on the P5+1. We just had important meetings in Vienna, in order to try to deal with Iran's nuclear program. Russia was constructive and helpful and worked at that effort. Russia has been constructive in helping to remove 100% of the declared chemical weapons from Syria. In fact, that was an agreement we made months ago, and it never faltered, even during these moments of conflict. So this is more complicated than just throwing names at each other and making declarations. There has to be a continued effort to find a way forward. And that's what we're trying to do but we made it clear even as we do that there is no naïveté with respect to what President Obama has done with these very tough sanctions."
So, it is not naïveté that blinds and binds Obama to what Putin is doing. What is it then? That Obama is in fact a silent, but mostly cooperative partner in Putin's piracy? Effectively, that is in fact the case.

At the very least, an unmitigated denunciation of Putin and Russia, seems to be the least he West could do to stand up to the Russian thug. Yet, Kerry says that is useless name-calling. Meanwhile, sending troops (Marines, NATO, NYPD?) to secure the crash site—immediately—would have been the correct and presidential thing to do. Obama did not do that and now the Russian proxy army ("separatists") occupying eastern Ukraine are looting the site and the bodies like the pirates they are.

People in the West live under the control of bloodthirsty maniacs, whose courage knows no bounds—so long as the people the courage is inflicted upon are poor and brown and barely capable of fighting back. Ask the USA and NATO to actually do their jobs and stop Russian thugs from slaughtering and plundering innocent people and these brave defenders of capitalism suddenly have a busy schedule of golfing and fundraising to attend to and cannot be expected to get confrontational with partners working on ten different things simultaneously who also have lots of nuclear weapons.

In fact, as Obama made clear on Friday, the United States is only prepared to go so far in using sanctions against Russia. After all, some Western capitalist might get hurt or something:
"With respect to the effect of sanctions on the [US] economy, we have consistently tried to tailor these sanctions in ways that would have an impact on Russia, on their economy, on their institutions or individuals that are aiding and abetting in the activities that are taking place in eastern Ukraine, while minimizing the impacts on not only the U.S. economy but the global economy. It is a relevant consideration that we have to keep in mind. The world economy is integrated; Russia is a large economy; there’s a lot of financial flows between Russia and the rest of the world...It is something that we have to obviously pay close attention to."
Not truth. Not justice. Money is the deciding factor in determining the role the US will play in the world.

Precisely.

Wednesday, July 16, 2014

A System That Fundamentally Opposes Interests Of Labor And Capitalists Must Fail

This 1920 political cartoon pretty much sums up the relationship between working people and the United States government (the protector of rich people). Uncle Sam, who likes to see everyone working, and not causing "trouble" (for rich people), uncovers the socialist IWW (International Workers of the World) leading workers in a rail strike. Uncle is having none of that, as his number one job is to protect American business from labor. As the National Archives explains this cartoon: "The I.W.W. leadership was viewed with great disdain and fear by company owners and by many government leaders, and the country was already gripped by the "red scare" about socialist/communist ideas." By the time the capitalists had wrecked the world, once again, in 1933, and Americans were suffering horribly in the Great Depression, the "socialist/communist ideas" no longer seemed so worrisome, even to Uncle, who tried out a child's menu portion of socialism in the New Deal. Of course, it wouldn't last.
We are told, constantly by the fascist MSM, that while there are obviously downsides to unrestrained or laissez-faire capitalism (like massively increasing poverty, severe economic and social instability—and the resulting political and military chaos), it is the system most likely to benefit the most people, and especially the people that have always mattered in society—the rich people.

We are told, constantly by the fascist MSM, that America is the model of the world when it comes to the freedom to choose what you want to do—if that is defined to mean “what you want to do—within the narrow scope of choices offered by a capitalist economy and its defects”.

People chant: jobs! jobs! jobs! as if having the opportunity to make somebody else wealthy in return for getting crumbs on the dollar of your labor is better than starving on the street, or as if a system where that’s the choice for the vast majority of people is worth keeping.

The capitalist system deranges people’s thinking, from the nitwitted president currently in charge of the maniacs and monsters of the United States government (the Congress is completely despised and trusted only by crony capitalists, who own it), to the poor workers, who (we are told again and again by the "liberal" side of the fake debate) just want a chance to work hard—to stay poor.

The few people who speak up to say: but this is nuts!, at the least let’s raise the minimum wage, are denounced as “socialists”—like that’s a bad thing—and America haters. Again, that derangement comes down to how you define things. And if America is, as it always was, made by and for rich white men (sardonically referred to as "the people"), it will be defined in such a way that the interests and values of the rich are the only ones given respect and authority and power.

That is where the myths of the American dream and working hard to succeed come into play in the terrible, cynical game. For a while, after the much-hated labor unions had finally won a few concessions from business, many workers (not most, but many) had better chances than before to give their families, their kids, better lives. The capitalist apologists who tell you that was all about "the system" working are lying.

It was about the rich people being afraid. For a while, they were afraid—and they were taxed, regulated, and looked upon with justifiable suspicion by most Americans. That all changed when the Republicans managed to convince the stupid white people in the nation—i.e. half-educated rubes down South and in the West—that voting for rich people was a way to insure that the "right" to be a racist, woman-hating, gun-loving fool would be protected.

Off came the regulatory protections against unrestrained capitalism. On came the war against labor unions, and against worker rights and at least a modest share of the wealth unions had obtained in the first half of the 20th century. On came the war against minorities, against poor people, against women (the majority demographic), and most recently and repulsively, against immigrants.

Clear Evidence Of The War Against Working People

So, we now learn that in Seattle, an alleged socialist worker’s haven, where the city leaders had the compassion and supposed wisdom to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour, the city’s business community, viewing itself as the chump in the city’s plan, is fighting back. As Reuters reports this week:
“A Seattle business group has submitted signatures to try to force a public vote to repeal a municipal measure that would raise the city's minimum wage to $15 an hour, a leader of the organization said on Thursday…The proposal would ask Seattle voters to repeal a $15 minimum wage increase that was approved by a unanimous vote of the City Council last month and signed by Mayor Ed Murray.”
Why would voters do such a thing?

Oh, how about these two reasons:

1. The business community is well organized and obviously well funded to dominate any media campaign informing people before the public vote. The opposition, made up of the many workers who actually need to have their measly paychecks increased to a minimum of $15/hour, certainly have no financial resources to oppose the businesses.

2. The business community is using a heinous (and usual) form of coercion, threatening that whatever is in the interests of workers—given that this must automatically be opposed to the interests of businesses (since it represents higher costs) will force many companies to leave Seattle altogether, and this will ultimately harm workers by sending them from low-wage to no-wage.

That the debate should be carried on in these terms, without the business community being deemed domestic terrorists, is a sign of the essential absurdity and hopelessness of the capitalist system gasping its last.

For one thing, the business community, always seeking lower and lower costs, has a plan: and that is to drive wages down to the lowest point possible—not lowest point a decent human being would allow himself to pay to poor fellow human beings, but lowest possible. And that is why so many undocumented workers are preferred to legal workers in the USA.

Given the first priority of business, to make money, eliminating the human worker from the system, first by impoverishing workers to the point of slavery, and second by automating all operations so that no humans are required—thus even making slavery economically more costly than automation—the position of the American worker is doomed.

What that means is that no matter how cheaply a business can be made to run, by impoverishing and eliminating workers, a key component of the alleged benefit business is supposed to supply to society, has gone missing. The market is not filling up with more and more workers making more and more money. Quite the opposite. So where will the demand to sustain business growth come from?

Millions of American workers have simply dropped out of the work force over the past six years. That is a key reason the unemployment rate has dropped. The “recovery”, which is true for businesses and rich Americans, has never happened for everyone else.

But that's OK.

Why?

Because in this age of globalization, rich people can simply sell things to people—all over the world. And if that doesn't make them enough money, the rich (and the very soulless smart beasts on Wall Street) have an even better idea—running stock market scams on the aspiring rich.

All of this comes down to a simple, ancient, truth: if you allow someone to dominate you, to tell you what to do (because they claim it is good for you), to tell you what is right and wrong (because their definitions of morality and justice really work out great—for them), to tell you your life has value only insofar as it serves the wealth-building (stealing) schemes of capitalist monsters, you deserve what you're getting.

There are alternatives to being a fool.

Wolf Up!—or sheep out!

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Is The World Falling Apart?—Again That Is?—Pundits Are Debating The Question

An imperial solution: Irish troops serving the British Empire, slaughter Chinese troops serving the Qing Dynasty, in the Battle of Amoy, August 26, 1841, one of a number of terrible and humiliating defeats suffered by China in the First Opium War. What is the First Opium War, and what has it got to do with you and your world in 2014? Good questions. And you need to know the answers to get this very complicated 2014 version of the world falling apart. Because, always, the world is also falling into some kind of context-driven place as well—and sometimes even some kind of peace—after the slaughter.
Exactly 100 summers ago, the world voted with its marching armies to tear itself apart. Empires fell. Millions died. In the months leading up to and just after the start of World War I, called at the time the “Great War”, pundits tried to sort out what was happening and why.

The same thing happened in the months prior to September 1, 1939, when the Nazis invaded Poland to begin World War II. The pundits and the pols tried to figure out what would happen next.

In both cases, both wars, while (most) everyone agreed war was a bad idea, most also agreed that the march towards it seemed inevitable, as if believing in a certain outcome helped cement the conditions and actions that would fulfill that prediction.

And once again, in 2014, the pundits are asking if the march towards global war—or global chaos anyway—is happening with inevitable certainty.

In Politico yesterday, Mike Allen noted and linked to different sources, including financial advisors, politicians, and foreign affairs experts, who were viewing the world right now as being particularly, dangerously, unstable.

Allen quoted Mark Grant, an investment manager, from a recent email sent out to clients:
“The level of concern for our safety has certainly intensified. If Damascus and Baghdad were to fall then the extremists controlling some new country may begin to look past their borders to inflict punishment on the rest of us that do not share their views.”
While calling Grant "notoriously alarmist", Allen noted that Grant's concerning analysis of the world "dovetails with [the] memorable analysis that’s the second story on The Wall Street Journal’s front page, 'An Arc of Instability Unseen Since the ’70s'. That WSJ story put things in blunt terms:
"The breadth of global instability now unfolding hasn't been seen since the late 1970s, U.S. security strategists say, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, revolutionary Islamists took power in Iran, and Southeast Asia was reeling in the wake of the U.S. exit from Vietnam."
The WSJ article even offers this extraordinary opinion, that the United States has been so weakened and strained by over a decade of chasing terrorists—and in many cases manufacturing them wholesale by stupid blunders—that fundamentally important treaty obligations might be beyond America's ability to honor:
"There is a growing skepticism in Asia about whether the U.S. would abide by its commitment to defend Japan, Taiwan and other Asian countries if their territorial disputes with China escalate into conflict, according to Asian diplomats."
When you're hearing words like Vietnam and Munich (as in Chamberlain's 1938 Munich sellout), you know that despite the enormous military power of the United States, the perception is of the USA empire in decline, not ascending.

Are things really as bad as the pundits, and some pols (like John McCain) are claiming?

Or is this a brand of anti-Obama hype, mainly pushed by the right wing to suggest the President is an incompetent manager of America’s world? Just that way of thinking, that the world is America’s to manage, is incredibly outrageous to most other nations, who understandably find a range of ways to push back against that kind of arrogance.

As in 1914, as in 1939, as in 1989 (when the Soviet empire collapsed), in 2014 the world is adapting to a host of changed conditions, not the least of which are represented in the eternal struggle between reason and hysteria on the parts of leaders and their peoples.

In some cases, such as in the Islamic world, faith is being used to whip up hatred and to encourage the belief in a spiritually-directed realignment of the global power structure. While nations in the West fear this movement, and view it as dangerously destabilizing, the fact is that groups such as ISIL (or now IS, the Islamic State), have revealed the rusted bonds that are holding together the remnants of a Middle East drawn by Europeans, to secure cheap oil supplies, at the end of World War I.

That indigenous peoples are motivated to throw off the shackles of a century of capitalist, imperialist, exploitation by the West should not be surprising.

Meanwhile, in Asia, the problem is China, which is seemingly playing the bully in the South China Sea and elsewhere, pushing around a host of its neighbors, including US allies, in order to establish its dominance in the region. While the United States naturally opposes China’s aggressive stance in the region, and has treaty obligations, especially to Japan, that could threaten a regional or global war if things got militarily out of hand, the desire of China to establish a dominant position is not difficult to understand.

Not so long ago, well within Chinese memory, the power relationships were much different than they are today, and China could not stop European nations from treating Asia and especially China like a conquered territory. For example, in one of the most heinous acts of the 19th century, Great Britain decided to deal with what it viewed as an unfair trade balance (or imbalance) with China, by addicting the Chinese nation to opium.

The Chinese government was politically and militarily weak, and Great Britain forced China to give away huge trade concessions, and even the port of Hong Kong (which Great Britain kept as a colony until 1997).

Eventually all the major European powers and the United States would use military force to coerce China into doing what the imperialist Westerners demanded. While most Americans have no idea what the Opium Wars were about, and certainly do not care to know, the humiliation suffered by the Chinese nation at the hands of the West is not forgotten in China.

Also not forgotten is one bloody consequence of that humiliation, a political destabilization, that led to the disastrous Taiping Rebellion, which cost 20 million Chinese killed in one of the deadliest wars in history.

Again, Americans particularly are educationally vacant when it comes to China, and its seemingly quite good reasons for feeling paranoid about the intentions of—pretty much everyone else in the world.

While that is an attitude not exactly inclined to win friends, China's size and wealth mean that it most definitely can exert considerable influence.

Whether that influence takes the world to war, or takes China to a new role as political and military power chief in Asia, we shall have to see.

Ultimately, all the pundits and the pols can do is hypothesize and hope and plan—for what exactly is what should concern all the rest of us.

Monday, July 14, 2014

“New Riverdale’” Code For Anti-Conservative USA As Archie Dies Defending Gay Friend

The bloody end of Archie Andrews, an appropriate exit for America's whitest comicbook character, in an America increasingly drenched in the blood of violence. Archie reportedly dies trying to save his gay friend "Kevin"—a politician fighting to pass more restrictive gun-control laws.
AP reports today on the news that will no doubt dominate the political discussion this week—and it’s not about Iraq, Ukraine, or immigration.

It’s about Archie! And the political subtext is that Archie Comics has obviously decided the future of America is liberal Democrat—not Republican.

On Wednesday, Archie Comics will kill off their main character, Archie Andrews, and, according to Archie Comics CEO Jon Goldwater, who apparently used the AP story as a glorified press release, Archie will die “heroically”, taking the Jesus shot for his best friend, Kevin Keller, the gay guy.

The cover of the issue (of “Life With Archie”, #36) does not show an appreciative Keller hovering over the blood-covered body of Archie—rather Betty and Veronica kneel, horrified, beside their fallen friend. According to Goldwater, Keller is the victim of an attempted assassination, presumably perpetrated against Keller (a senator) because of his pro-gay and pro-gun-control political agendas.

Andrews, according to Goldwater, dies trying to save Keller, and Goldwater points out that this “heroic” and “selfless” act is a way of cleansing the sins of the old, presumably conservative and wrongheaded Riverdale:
“We wanted to do something that was impactful that would really resonate with the world and bring home just how important Archie is to everyone. That's how we came up with the storyline of saving Kevin. He could have saved Betty. He could have saved Veronica. We get that, but metaphorically, by saving Kevin, a new Riverdale is born.”
The political subtext in that is hard to miss. Riverdale has always been a metaphor for white America. Now its shining star has been cut down by gun violence, while Archie was standing up for, in the most dramatic way, equality and inclusion. The political message seems clear: Riverdale, and America, need to grow up—painfully if necessary—and include all its citizens.

And that means, necessarily, turning away from the hateful, violent politics of the Republican Party, and its dominant (and often deranged) message makers, like the NRA.

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

Obama Surges More Americans To Fight And Die In Collapsing Iraq

That wise policy, seemingly the only prudent course based on the outcome of the horrific quarter-century of American wars in Iraq, is being abandoned by America’s new, most-disliked, president, Barack Obama.
Having the support of just about nobody in America for reengaging in Iraq, and of course, once again just flat out lying to the American people about sending ground troops to Iraq (Obama promised not to), the President announced hundreds more US troops to Iraq on Tuesday, the same day the Iraqi parliament failed in its efforts to give emergency concessions to the Sunni and Kurdish minorities to keep Iraq from falling apart.

Acting like Democrats and Republicans in the United States, another failed democracy, the Kurds and Sunnis rightly pointed out the refusal of the Shia-majority government, led by interim steward, Nouri al-Maliki, to make the Iraqi government inclusive of the other two major ethnic groups. The Shia offered no new concessions, and refused to replace Maliki, so the Kurds and Sunnis walked out of the meeting.

As Reuters put it this morning: “Iraq on the Brink of Collapse”

Today's cheery headline from Reuters. Combined with new information regarding stability and military assessments from the JCS (see below), the parliamentary collapse may turn out to be fatal in terms of the US commitment to holding Iraq together. Although, exactly what "fatal" means, and to whom (and how many) is not entirely clear at this point.
In light of this, we should note that today, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, told reporters that he is waiting on Special Ops assessments to determine what further support (e.g., US troops) the Iraqi government will require from the US Iraq force.

Dempsey also pointed out:
"As I’ve said repeatedly, their ability to find political reconciliation among groups and to present an inclusive face to the people of Iraq -- who are counting on them to lead -- will be an important factor in determining what we do going forward."
This implies an inability to come to a reconciliation on the part of the Iraqi government may limit the US response.

Obama, having already sent what amounted to an Alamo battalion of US embassy guards and military advisors, has surged the troop presence in Iraq, moving rapidly in the direction of preparing the final getaway of US embassy personnel and other Americans, such as US citizen contractors working in Iraq.

On the other hand, if Obama is sneaking up on that other possibility—putting into Iraq the permanent "residual" force neocons had argued would be required indefinitely to keep Iraq from collapsing—it is understandable Obama is acting so far in dribs and drabs, instead of announcing what would be a most unpopular policy, and one that would likely be the final nail in the coffin of Obama's credibility as a competent world leader.

In that event, even if one might argue that American troops forcing Iraq to hold together—just like Saddam Hussein and his military did—is in America's interest, the reaction at home is likely to be harshly, brutally, opposed to a policy of reoccupying a failed state just to keep from admitting America lost the Iraq War—which it obviously did.

Americans Give Up On Obama—“Worse Than Bush” Is The Verdict

Barack Obama reacts with understandable horror at the news he just lost to George W. Bush in a popularity poll amongst Americans. That doesn't mean people suddenly love Bush—nope, they still hate him. But Obama has now fallen down to that level of negative feelings amongst Americans. Maybe Barry should start learning how to paint. Instead of course—he's reinvading Iraq.
A new Quinnipiac University poll shows that Americans are fed up with President Obama, now viewing him as “worse than Bush”, in other words Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. While Bush is still widely viewed in negative terms by most respondents to the poll, now "Dubya" must be relieved to know that, for the moment, the American people hate Obama even more.

While there is a good and serious debate to be had about whether that is a fair—or sane—conclusion on the part of the American people (60% of whom actually said Obama was worse or about the same as Bush), it follows from the fact, also revealed in the poll, that the American people have given up on their government as well.

Only 14% of Americans, according to the poll, say they can trust their government to do what is right most or almost all of the time. And a large number of Americans, 37%, say they “hardly ever” trust the government to do the right thing.

With intense skepticism or outright hatred of the US government so high amongst all Americans, across the political spectrum, it is no wonder the head of the government, whose job is in part to inspire trust, is now widely viewed as a failure. But, Obama has made too many promises, later broken, to stand much realistic chance of keeping the trust of the people.

Ironically, it is the collapse of the ghastly Iraq adventure, which was George W. Bush’s monster, that has finally done in Barack Obama’s presidency. While Obama actually did what most Americans believe was the right thing—pulling all US troops out back in 2011—the evident incalculable waste in lives and trillions of dollars the Iraq War now represents, is too much for many Americans to stomach.

They need to blame someone. And Bush is safely painting pictures in Dallas. So Barack Obama takes the heat. And that is especially so since in the last week we have learned the unbelievably bad news that Obama is once again sending US military forces back to fight and die in Iraq.

If Obama was hoping to start digging his way out of his approval deficit with the American people, reinvading Iraq is hardly the way to do it. But, Obama, who in the poll was actually rated the worst president of all since the end of WWII (and that includes Nixon and Bush the younger!), may have decided America is going to hate him and there is nothing he can do about it.