<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div>From the Politico article below: "The divisions are far starker in the GOP, with competing libertarian [=anti-war] and national security [=pro-war] wings battling for the future direction of the Republican Party."<br><br>The Democrats' anti-war wing [e.g. Dennis Kucinich] was effectively purged by Obama's mendacious co-option of the anti-war movement, and the Republicans were almost as successful in suppressing their anti-war wing, the Ron Paulists - but not quite.<br><br>So the 2016 presidential election may pit a pro-war Democrat [Hillary Clinton? - the most bellicose member of the Obama administration] against an anti-war Republican [Rand Paul? - not so consistently anti-war as his father]. But that may not make much difference in whom our government kills (in our name, for the profit of the 1%).<br><br>Remember that the Democrats were given control of Congress in 2006 in order to bring the Mideast war to an end (as they recognized), and Congressional Democrats had to pretend that they were doing it - while continuing to vote for war in our name, for the profit of the 1%...<br><br>Many of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 thought they were voting for an anti-war candidate against the pro-war McCain. Obama was lying, but many Americans refused to believe that, even after he expanded the war - and made it even more vicious with drones and US death squads (SOCOM - see Jeremy Scahill's 'Dirty Wars').<br><br>Defense Secretary Robert Gates' new book shows both Clinton and Obama pretending to be anti-war during the 2008 primaries (specifically, opposing the Bush/Petraeus "surge" of killing in Iraq) because they knew the public was becoming increasingly anti-war. Gates makes clear that they were both lying (or, as he says, "being political"). <br><br>We forget that Republican candidates have frequently run (and won) by opposing the wars of an incumbent Democratic administration - always a popular position, which they then betrayed:<br><br>~2000: GWBush runs against the Clinton/Gore war in Serbia, saying he opposed foreign 'nation building';<br><br>~1968: Richard Nixon runs against the Johnson/Humphrey war in Vietnam, saying that he had a 'secret plan' to end the war;<br><br>~1952: Dwight Eisenhower runs against Truman's war in Korea, saying, "I will go to Korea!" <br><br>Still, the possible emergence of an anti-war, anti-Wall Street Republican party has got to worry the Democrats - pro-war and pro-Wall Street as they are - because they know that Obama and Clinton, minions of the 1%, are on the wrong side of popular sentiment. They may have trouble lying their way out of it.</div><div><br></div><div>--CGE</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><h1>Candidates of both parties run vs. NSA</h1>
<div class="story-toolbar">
<ul class="toolbar-main">
<li class="social-sharing">
<div class="addthis_toolbox addthis_default_style addthis_width" addthis:title="Candidates of both parties run vs. NSA" addthis:url="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/candidates-of-both-parties-run-vs-nsa-102628.html">
<a class="addthis_button_facebook_like at300b" fb:like:layout="button_count"></a><div fb-xfbml-state="rendered" data-send="false" data-href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/candidates-of-both-parties-run-vs-nsa-102628.html" data-font="arial" data-width="90" data-action="like" data-show_faces="false" data-layout="button_count" class="fb-like fb_edge_widget_with_comment fb_iframe_widget" data-ref=".UuZl4H1F_Vs.like"><a class="addthis_button_facebook_like at300b" fb:like:layout="button_count">By </a><a href="http://www.politico.com/reporters/ManuRaju.html">MANU RAJU</a> | 1/26/14 11:22 PM EST
<span class="updated"> Updated: 1/27/14 6:56 AM EST</span></div></div></li></ul></div>
<div class="story-wrapper">
<div class="story-text p-content resize"><p>Edward Snowden’s leaks didn’t just cause turmoil in the U.S.
intelligence community, prompt international backlash toward President
Barack Obama and revive a debate in Congress over civil liberties.</p><p>They spawned a whole new breed on the 2014 campaign trail: The anti-National Security Agency candidate...</p></div></div><div style="overflow: hidden; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: medium none;">Read more: <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/candidates-of-both-parties-run-vs-nsa-102628.html#ixzz2rbhtBlNf" style="color: rgb(0, 51, 153);">http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/candidates-of-both-parties-run-vs-nsa-102628.html#ixzz2rbhtBlNf</a></div></div><div><br></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br></body></html>