Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 21, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Truthdigger of the Week: Naomi Klein




A Chronicle of Echoes


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Obama on the Brink

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 22, 2008
Obama
AP photo / Ziv Koren, Pool

Air Obama: Presidential candidate and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama speaks to reporters after his arrival at Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv on Tuesday evening.

By Robert Scheer

Barack Obama is betraying his promise of change and is in danger of becoming just another political hack.

Yes, just like former maverick John McCain, who has refashioned himself as a mindless rubber stamp for the most inane policies of the miserably failed Bush administration. Both candidates are embracing, rather than challenging, the fundamental irrationality of Bush’s “war on terror,” which substitutes hysteria for rational analysis in appraising the dangers the country faces.

Terrorism is a social pathology that needs to be excised with the surgical precision of detective work, inspired by a high level of international cooperation, the very opposite of the unilateral war metaphor that recruits new generations of terrorists in the wake of the massive armies we dispatch. At a time when we desperately need a president to remind us we have nothing to fear but fear itself, we are increasingly being treated to a presidential campaign driven by fear.

Both candidates supported the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has everything to do with violating the basic freedoms of our citizens and nothing to do with making them safer. There was no shortage of alarming intelligence warning the Bush administration of the impending 9/11 attacks, but rather an utter lack of competency in evaluating the abundance of evidence.

To use the failure of the president to pay attention to his daily-briefing warning of an impending attack as an excuse for shredding the fundamental rights of our citizens is appallingly illogical. Providing legal protection to the government and the telecommunications giants for unfettered spying on the people does not represent the change we desperately need.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Nor does the battle of the warmongers that has dominated the discussion of foreign policy in the past week. Obama has one-upped McCain’s bluff to win in Iraq by raising the prospect of an even more deadly quagmire in Afghanistan. If his goal was to remind us that Democrats have been more often the party of irrational wars than the Republicans, he has succeeded all too well.

Whereas Dwight Eisenhower refused to wage war against Vietnam and Cuba, it was John Kennedy, that charmer of change, who launched both of those military disasters. And then there was that crafty “progressive” Lyndon Baines Johnson, who in order to defeat Barry Goldwater, the right-wing menace of his day, lied about a nonexistent attack in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify escalating a war that killed almost 59,000 Americans and 3.4 million Indochinese.

Even less noticed is the responsibility of Democrats for the mess in Afghanistan, which provided the incubator for the 9/11 attacks. It was under Jimmy Carter, highly admired as an ex-president, that the specter of modern Islamic fanaticism erupted, largely as a monster of our own creation when we supported Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, when asked in a January 1998 interview with the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur whether he regretted “having given arms and advice to future terrorists,” replied: “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

I was reminded of that horrid stain on the record of Democratic stewardship of our foreign policy while cleaning out my garage last week. I came across a 1996 press release from the publisher of “From the Shadows—The Ultimate Insider’s Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War,” written by current Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the ultimate insider, who was on Carter’s National Security Council staff. The publisher’s book promo boasts that thanks to Gates, who ran the CIA for many years, we learn of “Carter’s never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen—six months before the Soviets invaded.”

In short, the Democratic president baldly lied to us when he justified support for the Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan who were battling the secular government in Kabul as a necessary Cold War response to a Soviet invasion. That Gates’ account is accurate was affirmed in a blurb for the book by none other than Brzezinski, hailing it as “a most impressive achievement ... especially pertaining to the U.S. policy on Afghanistan.”

It is hardly reassuring that Brzezinski has resurfaced in presidential politics, this time as an occasional adviser to Barack Obama, or that there is talk that Obama, in a burst of bipartisan enthusiasm, might ask Gates to stay on as defense secretary.

At this point, I throw up my hands and plead with the candidate who I hoped would be that much-needed agent of change: Please prove me wrong.

Robert Scheer is author of a new book, “The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America.”

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: No Easy Out for Obama

Next item: Who’s Paying for the Conventions?



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 27, 2008 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment

By jersey girl, July 27 at 4:45 am #


For those who are unaware of just what globalization is and would like a very entertaining and instructional course on it I suggest you watch this nearly 2 hour presentation. Once you do, you will realize that the elections are just a puppet show aimed at the gullible and naive.

http://www.edgemediatv.com/article001_icke.html
—————————————————————————
Yup, I see this as a “conspiracy theory” all right. Yes, wealth is inherited since the dawn of what we are pleased to call civilization, and one can no doubt trace the bloodlines of some of the wealthy and powerful back hundreds of years. So what? The idea that there is some kind of master race that seeks the total enslavement of humanity is sheer paranoia. Of course we are heading toward a global society with global institutions. How democratic these will be remains to be seen. It will be very difficult for humanity to create an international structure that preserves human liberty. We may succeed, we may not.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 27, 2008 at 7:05 pm Link to this comment

The sky is falling, the sky is falling there you have it Saggy the chicken little of TD.  What should we do Saggy? You tell us.

Your Fetish perchance as anti Jewish, is nothing more than a rehash of the communists are coming find a new foe Saggy.

Sure APEC lobbies are doing their thing, and the opportunists take their money, it is as simple as that.  Seems the anti Israel countries should be lobbying harder, seems they have made a few bucks with the increased price of oil. Those sneaky Israelites.

Report this

By cyrena, July 27, 2008 at 6:40 pm Link to this comment

Reply to Tony Wicher, July 27 at 3:22 pm

Tony,
•  “…There is no doubt that a combination of imperialist and Zionist motivations were involved in the neocon policy to invade Iraq.”

Indeed. I have acknowledged and agreed with this on multiple occasions. I’m convinced that even a cursory examination of the history makes it pretty clear that the Zionist’s of Israel have long been committed to the elimination of Saddam Hussein, and I’ve sited some really concrete examples here. (the Israeli Air Force destruction of Iraq’s nuclear facilities (under construction at the time) in 1978. So of course there has been that combined motivation, which *came to fruition* with the neocon ingredient. And, it wasn’t accidental.

What you say here may unintentionally involve a slippery slope though,

•  However, as an Obama supporter, let me say that I am in complete agreement with Obama’s commitment to the security of the Israeli people, just as I am committed to human rights, equality and full citizenship for Palestinians.

I too am in agreement with the basic premise. I don’t think anybody has EVER suggested that Israel shouldn’t have the same ‘security’ that is a right to all human beings, or be able to live without fear of attack. We ALL have that right, at least in theory. But the reality of course is that no person or group can expect such ‘security’ if they are involved in a continuing process of inflicting harm and destruction on another person or group. Therein lie the devil and the tragedy of the dialectical details. (which is what you’ve already explained). To put it more simply: “NOBODY is free until EVERYBODY is free!”

Now I don’t know how much Obama (alone) can do about this so far intractable conflict, that NOBODY else has been able to change, and has been made far worse by the current regime in DC. My own careful ‘tracking’ of Obama’s opinions on this over the long term, convinces me that he is certainly aware, and very much in sympathy with the Palestinian cause, because the day-to-day realities of that situation cannot be ignored by anybody with even a smidgeon of political consciousness. And it is those very *same* day-to-day realities that take this far beyond the matter of full citizenship for Palestinians.

The political and physical infrastructure of apartheid in the occupied territories is even MORE entrenched than was the same system here in the times before desegregation, since there was at least here, some means for blacks to maintain a modicum of an infrastructure for themselves. Yeah, the bathrooms and the water faucets were separate, but at least black folks HAD bathrooms and water faucets, and even some educational and other institutions within the infrastructure. The judicial system was unfair, but it was still a SHARED judicial system that could be changed/amended from within, (ie Civil Rights Laws). Absolutely NO such thing exists in Israel or the Occupied Territories. Israel maintains a *completely separate* military tribunal-type court system specifically for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and it is a total sham, possibly even worse than the similar set-up the US has attempted to establish for those hundreds that have been illegally detained at Guantanamo and elsewhere. And it’s worse because it IS so totally and completely entrenched. I mean it’s one thing to have jillions of checkpoints established to imprison an entire group of people in the open spaces, while at the same time providing ‘special’ license plates to the Israeli settlers so they can conveniently navigate these very same obstacles that have been erected as part of the apartheid structure, and another thing besides, to maintain a sham of a judicial system that is exactly that.

Report this

By cyrena, July 27, 2008 at 6:39 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2

So no, it’s not so simple as providing for full citizenship for those Arabs who reside in ‘Israel proper”, (if there even is such a thing). And the apartheid infrastructure in the occupied territories is well entrenched way beyond the illegitimate boundaries marked by that illegal wall. It’s something that I fear far too many Americans are unaware of. If Barack Obama *is* as aware of this as I would hope, then he should know that any resolution must be managed by the international community, and not the US acting alone.

I can agree to Israel having a right to a “Jewish State”, but I can’t concede that the US needs to ‘support’ it, unless the US is willing to equally ‘support’ a Palestinian State. Now he ‘seems’ to support that, because he claims to support a two-state solution. It will be up to him to make sure that he has the backing of the International community in creating and maintaining that two-state structure.

Meantime, as callous as it may appear to those on both sides of that conflict, the components of that conflict simply CANNOT BE the *only* thing that US citizens consider in their selection of a president. Even foreign policy *alone* cannot be the only consideration. Yes, I overwhelmingly appreciate and support Barack Obama’s global awareness, and the need to recognize and accommodate what is the globalized condition of the 21st Century, because that is the REALITY of the present and the future, no matter how many millions choose to kick and scream about it. At the same time, our own house within that larger structure must be put in order first, or at least simultaneously. I’m relatively certain that ‘he’ gets that, so I just hope that more Americans will figure that out as well.

Israel needs to be far more self-reliant in any maintenance of a Zionist structure, and it needs to stay within the confines of the global neighborhood rules and regulations that have long been established, in the exercise of that maintenance. THAT’S where Israel’s security guarantee lies. There can never be any ‘security’ in maintaining possession of something that belongs to someone else.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 27, 2008 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment

jackpine savage,

I quite agree with you about the Cold War. The threat of the Soviet Union was greatly magnified by the propaganda of the U.S. miltary-industrial complex. Although the Soviet Union was hurt, I don’t think this is the primary reason the Soviet Union dissolved. It just became so corrupt and unwieldy that it pretty much collapsed of its own weight, and I give Gorbachev more credit than anyone else for helping the collapse be relatively bloodless.

I am hoping that Brzezinski will play a more constructive role at this point.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 27, 2008 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, July 27 at 3:27 pm #

Well, this is one reason I like Obama’s approach to problems - I find it practical and non-ideological, with as little finger-pointing and blaming as possible. I do expect to see some form of universal medical care and a serious program of energy independence under an Obama administration, and this will be done because society as a whole wants it, not because Obama is such a great leader but because the time has come. The time and the man go together.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 27, 2008 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment

By Tony Wicher, July 27 at 3:22 pm #
” My postition is that if Zionists insist on creating an apartheid state for Jews, the U.S. should support them.”

Sorry folks, that’s an obvious typo, although I suppose Saggy will use it to prove that I am after all a Zionist. I left out the “not”: My position is that if Zionists insist on creating an apartheid state for Jews, the U.S. should NOT support them.

I believe if the U.S. took this position, Israel would come around to a One Democratic State (ODS) solution, which I believe would be better for both Palestinians and Israelis than any two-state solution. But the only way this has even a chance of happening is with rock-solid guarantees of security for the Israeli people by the United States and the whole international community.

Report this

By george in Toronto, July 27, 2008 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Your vote means nothing in America—Get over it—you’d been taken by the frat club.Impeachment is off the table—even if 911 was proven to been a go ahead by Bush/chenny.Don’t bother voting—both parties are accomplises in 911 terroror acts and the mess America is in. Obama is just a zionist tool—a big mouth piece!  When the media likes Obama==something smells and no good waits for America.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 27, 2008 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

Why is it some folks need to have a communist around every corner, a Zionist in every window, a socialist in every debate about health care.  Capital supporters would have it no other way. Most people cannot assimilate information and think for themselves, so we have manipulators the opportunists and simpletons most of the people.  Who was it that said as long as their is man there will always be war?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 27, 2008 at 4:22 pm Link to this comment

cyrena,

There is no doubt that a combination of imperialist and Zionist motivations were involved in the neocon policy to invade Iraq. This is in fact why I started attacking Zionism so strongly. Zionism is a racial form of nationalism which is bound to generate endless conflict, and that conflict is used by U.S. imperialists to justify military intervention and oil imperialism in the Middle East. My postition is that if Zionists insist on creating an apartheid state for Jews, the U.S. should support them.

However, as an Obama supporter, let me say that I am in complete agreement with Obama’s commitment to the security of the Israeli people, just as I am committed to human rights, equality and full citizenship for Palestinians. I believe it is possible to be both, and in fact one cannot be for one and not the other, since ultimately Israel will not be secure until Palestinians have justice, and Palestinians will not have justice until Israelis feel sufficiently secure that their security concerns do not override moral considerations. Obama has spent a lot of time since the campaign began in reassuring the Israelis, which is part of what he has to do. We will only know how much weight he gives to Palestinian human rights after the election.

Report this

By cyrena, July 27, 2008 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

Sorry about the typo Saggy, I just couldn’t resist. Needless to say, we ALL make typos, and surely I am not perfect in that or any other regard. I think you may have missed the point though. Is the typo possibly an indication of how fixated you are on the Israel-Zionist-Jew connection to EVERYTHING? You’re as obsessed in your hatred of everything Israel or Jewish as Troublesome is with her hatred of Obama. I expect her to soon report on a water spot located on the stitching where the upper portion of his left shoe connects to the sole.

As for my response to Tony’s comment…no apologies there. It was downright hilarious, and I’m still laughing.

As for the length and content of my response, it was not ‘inspired’ by the typo. Rather, it was an admitted repeat of some basic stuff. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld did not invade and occupy Iraq on behalf of Israel. Israel no doubt benefited, and specifically in the larger picture, since Israel doesn’t have the access to OIL that it wants and has always coveted. (didn’t come with the original package)

Saddam Hussein was ‘removed’ for the same reason that all nationalist dictators of resource rich states are removed. (by the US or Western Europe) He nationalized Iraq’s oil over 30 years ago. It’s that simple. It’s the same reason the current thugs have tried (twice) to assassinate Hugo Chavez. It’s the same reason Iran’s Mossadegh was overthrown over 5 decades ago. It’s the same reason the US has harassed and isolated Castro’s Cuba. It is US hegemony/free market capitalism via military force in action, and it damn sure ain’t a new phenomena.

And yes, the current thug regime in DC *is* joined at the hip to their twin regime in Tel Aviv. I can ‘em the “Terrorist Twins.” And now, thanks to Tony, they’re pole vaulting little fuckers to boot!!

Report this

By Sodium, July 27, 2008 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re:Saggy July 27 at 4:02 am

Saggy,

I must tell you that I do not care whether you hate Jews or love them.That is up to your conscience as a human being.Whether it is hatred or love,you and only you have to live with it.

The foregoing is not the real purpose of addressing this post to you.

The real purpose is to thank you for the Website of
James Petras,in which I read slowly the superb article entitled “Noam Chomsky and the Pro-Israel Lobby:Fourteen erroneous theses”.

I have been an admirer of the writings of Noam Chomsky,as far back as I can remember.I read every book he wrote and I could find in bookstores.

I have agreed with Chomsky’s views approximately 80
percent of what I read so far.However,I must confess that I have always felt that there is something,and somehow,missing in his writings(perhaps,because I inclined too much for wanting to believe him)until I
read James Petras’ detailed and outstanding article.

I feel I must call your attention to the fact that the tycoons of Big Oil used to operate independently
and were pro-Arab,prior to 1967 six-day-war.After the
1967 war the Israel’s lobby has developed in political power so rapidly,in Washington DC,to a point at which the Big Oil’s tycoons were overwhelmed
by the ominous and nefarious political activities of the Zionists who were relentless.Big Oil has become, as a group,totally dependent on the Zionist Israel’s
lobby,known as AIPAC.The Big Oil’s tycoons have just been unable to compete with the influence of AIPAC in
the halls of Congress.Thus,Big Oil has become the tail of the Zionist dog.AIPAC dictates the terms of
American policy in the Middle East and Big Oil just
provides the Israel’s lobby with its acquiescence,
regardless of the harm that such a dirty and unwritten accord may produce to America,the American
people and the people of the Middle East.A solid example is the invasion,destruction and occupation of
Iraq and the resulting bankrupting quagmire we find ourselves,as a nation.in.Yes,in the expensive mud of Iraq.

Saggy,again,thank you for an outstanding and persuasive link.I highly recommend reading it.It certainly is worth every minute of my time spent slowly reading it.A superb article.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 27, 2008 at 2:15 pm Link to this comment

Troublesome,

We have been told many times impeachment is off the table, why must you be so insistent? So this means accountability is off the table, we saw accountability being used when they hung the guy from Iraq.  Congress is supposed to represent the people, the slob on the street, but we only see a few doing their job for the people, vote the bums out, now that would be real accountability.

Report this

By troublesum, July 27, 2008 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment

Obama says that Bush?Cheney have not committed impeachable offenses.  Wonder if he or anybody on his staff has read Meyer’s book.  http://www.thinkprogress.org  Scroll down to Myer DOJ Lawyers   Will Obama protect them if elected?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 27, 2008 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment

Side Note:

My email says four people posted comments on this thread.  Did they just access to keep in tune, or is their a delay in posting?  Maybe it could be the new FISA program taking action? 

How do we know anything is true?

Report this

By mrmb, July 27, 2008 at 1:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

http://www.voltairenet.org/en

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 27, 2008 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

Michael Shaw and Tony Witcher

As one steps back and looks at Obama and lobbies, you could hear the successful telecom lobbies scampering through Congress before the FISA and must have impressed Obama.  Add Obama’s and his medical insurance plan with no teeth toward the insurance lobbies.  Seeing the APEC speech, one can only conclude from these decisions, Obama only sleeps with the good and rightous lobbies.  The pattern is laid out,  you decide.

Yes lobbies represent special interests, but depends on the decider’s idea of the good the bad and the ugly?  Dost it have anything to do with money and corporations having the same rights as individuals?

Report this

By jackpine savage, July 27, 2008 at 6:08 am Link to this comment

Tony,

I maintain that Ziggy’s visceral hatred (understandable for a Pole) was a very big weak spot.  The USSR never posed the threat that they were portrayed to pose to the United States.

For example, the USSR never had a first strike policy…while the US retained the right to strike first (where we got that right, i have no idea).  Soviet military strength (offensively) was overstated by US politicians from beginning to end.  When Kennedy campaigned on the “missile gap”, he knew full well (because he was privy to the U2 photos) that the USSR had only four missiles.  At the time we had 160.

The “threat” of the USSR was used by the MIC to basically take control of the US government.  So in that regard, Ziggy’s irrational fear and hatred of the Russians (and for a Pole it had nothing to do with Communism and everything to do with Russians) made him willing to advise things that reason would have suggested were not in the best, long-term, interests of the United States.

I was living in Russia at the time of Putin’s rise, and i can tell you one thing for sure.  Had we not embarked upon a program of economic rape and the backing of the very crooked Yeltsin during the Clinton administration, i doubt seriously that Putin would have risen as he did.

V.V. Putin is far from a saint.  But he’s done very little that the Bush administration hasn’t done in the States.  He has managed to actually make life livable for Russians again and he got the country out from under debt to the West (a method of imperial control).  Don’t believe the media hype.  He’s only hated here because Russia was supposed to be a poor, weak country forever.

But back to Ziggy.  His hatred helped the US overextend itself in pursuit of defeating the USSR, and that overextension - according to the likes of Sun Tzu - is deadly.

Jersey Girl, stopping the game is done at the political level.  Foreign policy people give input, but mostly work towards the end that the politicians give them.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 27, 2008 at 5:45 am Link to this comment

For those who are unaware of just what globalization is and would like a very entertaining and instructional course on it I suggest you watch this nearly 2 hour presentation. Once you do, you will realize that the elections are just a puppet show aimed at the gullible and naive.


http://www.edgemediatv.com/article001_icke.html

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, July 27, 2008 at 5:15 am Link to this comment

Mr Scheer’s article begins with the statement that «Barack Obama is betraying his promise of change and is in danger of becoming just another political hack». Would not we readers, to the degree we are concerned for the future of H sapiens sapiens on this little globe of ours, be advised to concentrate upon this matter - who and what in US political life Barack Hussein Obama really represents - rather than focusing upon each other ?...

Henri

Report this

By cyrena, July 27, 2008 at 1:04 am Link to this comment

Saggy, Tony’s right…You’re hopeless.

Let’s look at this one little thing here:

•  “..First Israel was destroyed only on Israel’s behalf.  Fritz Hollings said it this way “Iraq was invaded to secure Israel”.  Pure and simple.  Hollings continued “and everyone knows it”.  Now, why don’t you know it?..”

ISRAEL was destroyed only on ISRAEL’S behalf???? (You wrote it, not me.)

So I guess Tony’s right about this as well:

•  “…It’s possible because Saggy has Jews on the brain, coming out of the woodwork and surfacing in his toilet. Watch out, Saggy - the little fuckers can pole vault, too….”

Besides giving me my best laugh of the day, (and I’ve had several) it really does pretty much seem like you’ve got Jews on the brain, and that it is a massive torment for you.

I know that Tony is not a Zionist, any more than I am. As for Hollings assertion of how ‘everyone knows it’ and you wondering why I don’t know it as well, it’s because there’s no proof or other logic that confirms it.

For the record Saggy, (and I’ve said this before, and but I’ll say it again) I am an *anti-Zionist*, in that the whole premise of Zionism is built on a racist ideology. I believe Israel to be a rogue state that has (under the leadership apparently chosen by its citizens) perpetrated untold Crimes Against Humanity, and has engaged in genocide and other atrocities too numerous to mention. Israel is in violation of every accepted premise on how nations and people are expected to behave in a civilized global structure. They are in violation of more international laws than I can site here. That has been the behavior of Israel ‘as a state’, for as long as it’s BEEN a ‘state’.

That said, I am NOT an anti-Semite, and I do not hate Jews as individuals, unless one or more specific Jewish individuals gives me a reason to feel that animosity. And, it wouldn’t be because they were Jewish, but rather because they were just hateful and despicable human beings. In other words, I don’t hold every single Jew responsible for the actions of the Zionists in Israel, or the Zionists in the US.

I don’t buy your (or anyone else’s) argument that Iraq was destroyed by the US *only* on behalf of Israel. Yes, I understand that the dual-agent US-Israelis of the PNAC have attempted to force the invasion and occupation since at least as far back as 1997, and probably sooner. (we could go further back to the Clean Break doctrine) I specifically understand that they tried to get Slick Willey Clinton to attack Iraq back in 1997, and he wasn’t going for it, and even Mad Dog Cheney had been opposed to it in the earlier part of the same decade.

So again, that is NOT to dispute the fact that there was certainly an interest for Israel (and the dual-agent US Zionists of the PNAC) to attack Iraq, and I agree that it was part of the PNAC doctrine; BECAUSE OF shared ideological interests, primary among them being the goal of global hegemony, and specifically CONTROL of the ENTIRE REGION, based on the resources there. OIL. Now if you want to say that this CURRENT REGIME, (specifically the shadow regime) invaded and occupied Iraq on behalf of Israel, you can only suggest that by also accepting that this current regime is joined at the hip to Israel, based on common goals; geopolitical control of the region based on its resources and strategic location to the rest of the region. Iraq was to be ONLY THE BEGINNING of that plan. 

So, there it is.

Report this

By cyrena, July 27, 2008 at 1:03 am Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2 reply to Saggy

Meantime, I’m with Tony on the subject of Zbigniew Brzezinski. He is who and what he is, and I believe him to be a smart and honest character. (very smart) What I find so incredibly ironic, (and on an almost daily basis) is how so many (uninformed) people have ‘accused’ him of both ends of the spectrum. A year ago, everybody was hollering about how he was ‘anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic.” Now all of a sudden a whole different bunch of haters, (Obama haters) are accusing him of being a Zionist.

It’s like, would you people PLEASE make up your minds?

But, they can’t, and the reason they can’t is because too many people don’t wanna take the time to investigate stuff, and think for themselves. They don’t want to, (or can’t) accept that *not* EVERYONE has a partisan or political agenda, based on nothing more than biased emotional BS.

So they devolve into this, “well, if he likes him, then I don’t like him” like kindergarteners. “If you’re her friend, then you can’t be my friend”. I swear, it makes a person weary.

And now, I think I’m gonna take Tony’s advice. You might not be the ‘most hopeless’ among us Saggy, and I don’t detect any inherent ‘evil’ in you, as I do with JBlack. But I do think you’re pretty overwhelmed in you hatred for anything Jewish or Israeli. And, it just ain’t that simple bro’. Sometimes I wish it was. But, yahoodi didn’t plan it that way. We actually have to take time to sort through everything in the box, because it’s all mixed up in there. It’s only when you do that, that you can stay clear of the little fuckers that know how to pole vault.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 26, 2008 at 10:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I dont understand what in the hell people who are “TOTALLT OBAMA” are doing on this site—were you the same way about Backstreet Boys vs N’Sync—-or Rolling Stones vs. Aerosmith? There are SO many “Obama” sites (including his—where people are actually allowed to disagree—he seems to have alot more respect for people who disagree with him than his minions)—you must have ALOT of time on your hand…does he pay you for this? He should, being a multi-millionire who “took so much from Wall St”, but in a “different” way—he took more than anyone before?!

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

Oh I forgot the Palestinian sympathizers, such as Fadel Abdallah and Robert. Try asking them if I’m a Zionist. No, Saggy, I am not a Zionist, I have been arguing against the idea of a Jewish state for years, but you are indeed an anti-Semite of the purest ray serene, as everyone here can see.

Cyrena, Saggy is a lost cause. I wouldn’t give him a forum here on TD by responding to him. Let him go over to the web site of Dr. David Duke, Ph.D., sit at his feet, learn of his wisdom and rub shoulders with others of his ilk.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 8:34 pm Link to this comment

By Saggy, July 26 at 5:57 pm #

Tony is a Zionist, pure and simple.  Their favorite games are name calling and profanity, anything to drag any critic of Israel into the gutter with them.
——————————————————————————
Well, Saggy, there sure are a lot of Zionists who post here regularly that will be surprised to hear that! What do you say, Lefty, Righty, Howard, lilmamzer, ITW and the rest of you Zionists? Am I a Zionist? I ask you.

Report this

By Sodium, July 26, 2008 at 7:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Obama:A Candidate For All Seasons…

As I watched Senator Obama on TV and listened to his
responses to reporters’ questions raised in his press
conferences,held respectively in Amman,Jordan and in
Paris,France;and the monumental reception showered him by more than 200,000 German people of Berlin,just to see him and listen to his speech,and the way he handled himself and the situations,had convinced me that his international trip was a success by any measurement,an objective political analyst may decide to use as a measurement.

However,there was a flaw in his trip.

Before touching that flaw,it is only fair to outline
the positive aspects of Obama’s trip which covered Afghanistan,Iraq,Jordan,Israel,Palestine,Germany,
France and United Kingdom.The positive aspects are:

(1)He certainly looked and acted presidential in every step of the way.

(2)The monumental reception he received from more than 200,000 people in Berlin,Germany can be compared to a similar reception showered with affection to
President John Kennedy when he assured the German people through the huge crowd of residents of Berlin
that he was one of them when he said to them in their
own language:“Ich ben ein Berliner” which meant/means
“I am A Berliner”.The crowd went wild in a roaring
jubilation.I watched all of that then on my Black and
White TV.The similarity between Kennedy’s reception and Obama reception is,indeed,striking.The main difference is the fact that Kennedy was already elected President,Obama was/is only Presidential
candidate.One may wonder as to the magnitude of the crowd Obama might have drawn if he was President!!!
Most Likely Larger.All this is a definite plus for the U.S. and the American people and for Obama.
 
(3)His response to a question raised by a reporter in his press conference held in Amman,Jordan,about his obvious contention with the Commanding General in Iraq about withdrawal of American troops from Iraq was/is compatible with the letter and spirit of the Constitution of the U.S.That is to say that the President may wish to listen to the opinions of his military Generals but only the President makes the final decision.

(4)One of his statements in Amman,Jordan’s press
conference was clear:the U.S.military presence in Iraq was/is unsustainable.He stopped short of explicitly saying it would lead to our bankruptcy
as a nation and as individuals.He was,here,so honest and transparent,indeed.

(5)Again,in Jordan’s press conference,his intention to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months had shined in living colors,once more,on the TV screen.

All of the foregoings are plus for Obama and will certainly enhance his standing in the eyes of objective voters.

What then is the flaw? The flaw has to do with his strategy for Afghanistan.It is basically HAWKISH.
I do not believe it will serve our best interest.
Reasons:

(A)Afghanistan is a very poor country and it needs
peace to build it.Hearts and minds are not won over by wars.To defeat Al-Qaida,intelligence cooperation and Interpole are the best instruments.
 
(B)Whatever Obama saves in blood and treasures from his REALISM in Iraq will be wasted in his HAWKISH strategy for Afghanistan.

(C)Great Britain invaded Afghanistan in 1830 and occupied it for a while,but found their occupation
was unworthy of their investment in men and materials.So,they withdrew and in the process they lost about 15,000 soldiers as dead.

(D)The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and occupied it till 1989.They were forced to leave.It bankrupted the SU and accelerated its collapse,as a superpower.

(E)The topographical terrains of Afghanistan are most difficult to hold militarily,if the indigenous natives are hostile to the invaders and occupiers.

In short,Obama has exhibited ADMIRABLE REALISM for
Iraq but a basically HAWKISH strategy for Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

Re jackpine savage, July 26 at 3:18 pm #


Tony,

You make solid points about Brezenski.  The mess left in Afghanistan springs from two wells.  First, our desire to keep our hands clean…which meant that we pooled the funds with the Saudis and gave it to the ISI to distribute.  Second, after the Soviets left, the whole world just stopped giving a flying funk about what happened to the country.

And it’s important to note that foreign policy is not the same as politics.  Foreign policy people shouldn’t be partisan (and the best ones - while they may work for only one party’s administrations - never are). 
——————————————————————————-
jackpine,

This is why I like people like Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie. Great diplomats and non-partisan patriotic Americans.
——————————————————————————
Ziggy’s Polish heritage gave him a weak spot.  Hatred clouds reason, and he had the former for the USSR.  Still he knows how to play the game quite well…and like they say, “Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.”
——————————————————————————
Yes, Zbig was the finest of our cold warriors. His Polish heritage did give him a lot of motivation. He would have done anything to beat the Soviets and he has succeeded. He is still around and the Soviet Union isn’t. That is nothing to lament, in my view. Things haven’t changed that much, though - now we have Putin’s Russia, which is not that different from the Soviet Union, minus the phony Communist ideology. Putin is a tough customer, but rational as far as I can see, in spite of his apparent penchant for poisoning political opponents. Probably we need to be tough and rational in dealing with him, advice which Zbig no doubt would be happy to provide.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 26, 2008 at 4:42 pm Link to this comment

Tony: I would love to be proven wrong. My god, why wouldn’t I?  I don’t like the feeling that the powerful “others” control our destiny. I don’t like knowing that the two party system is all staged and we don’t really have a choice. I don’t like the premonition I have of a very bleak future.

However, I don’t see anything that points to a change in the status quo and only an escalation in war and the police state. Please oh please, let me be wrong.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 26, 2008 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment

jack: “Still he knows how to play the game quite well…and like they say, “Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.”

If the “playa” didn’t play, there would be no “game”.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment

Re jersey girl, July 26 at 2:18 pm #


Tony: It’s funny how you can read about a person and get a totally different perspective about him. I see Brezinski in the same light as the PNAC crowd. He just has his imperialistic sights set on a different prize.  I’m sorry Tony but I truly believe Obama’s reign won’t be much different than the current commander in chimp’s.  Aside from the fact that the screwing we will get by Obama and his crowd will be accomplished with more eloquence and slickness.
——————————————————————————
jersey,

You are entitled to your view and you may be right. Unlike many others posting here, you also sound like a reasonable person whose mind can be changed by evidence. So let’s see what happens after November. The way I look at it, the seed is planted, but we won’t know how we did until we see how it flowers. If by the accounts of most people, including serious people, the country does take a turn for the better, then perhaps you will admit I was right.

Report this

By jackpine savage, July 26, 2008 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

Tony,

You make solid points about Brezenski.  The mess left in Afghanistan springs from two wells.  First, our desire to keep our hands clean…which meant that we pooled the funds with the Saudis and gave it to the ISI to distribute.  Second, after the Soviets left, the whole world just stopped giving a flying funk about what happened to the country.

And it’s important to note that foreign policy is not the same as politics.  Foreign policy people shouldn’t be partisan (and the best ones - while they may work for only one party’s administrations - never are). 

Ziggy’s Polish heritage gave him a weak spot.  Hatred clouds reason, and he had the former for the USSR.  Still he knows how to play the game quite well…and like they say, “Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.”

Report this

By cyrena, July 26, 2008 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment

By Saggy, July 26 at 12:51 pm

Saggy,

I’m with ya on a large portion of this, all of the papers, the PNAC, the whole kit and caboodle. I only think that it’s incomplete. In other words, (and I’ve said this bunch of times, just because it’s a basic sort of working theory to begin with) it’s not an ‘either/or’ thing, but rather both or all. It’s multi-faceted, with multiple players, some of which play all positions.

For instance..at the head of the heap is Dick Cheney. Dick Cheney is *not* by accepted definition, a neo-con. He, Rumsfeld, the Bushes, (remember, Jeb Bush is a signatory to the PNAC as well) are NOT neo-cons like Perle, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Elliot, Libby, etc.

The ‘goal’ of the PNAC, (which obviously includes all of the neo-cons, and some from the old regime)  was simple enough, since it’s the goal of most Totalitarian movements…it’s an ideology of global domination or hegemony, and the very nature of that geopolitical control ALWAYS include controlling the natural resources. That part of it, INCLUDING the invasion/occupation of Iraq, and the planned take over of both Iran and eventually Syria, have everything to do with oil. Mossadegh was overthrown in 1954, for that very same reason. It is ALWAYS about that, and the US has been involved in the overthrow of multiple countries over the past 100 years or more. And, there is no way to separate the OIL resources of the Middle East, from that plan. It’s a given. That’s not to say that it’s ONLY about OIL, and that’s not what I’m suggesting. It’s also the perpetration of a global ideology via military force. The ideology is capitalism and the unrestrained and unrestricted free market has been a tool, hand-in-hand with the deregulation that was embraced by both the neo-cons and the neo-liberals.

The primary significance of the Israel connection (which was peripheral until say about 3 or so decades ago) is that Israel shares this same goal! Global hegemony and specifically the acquisition and control of the resources. And to accomplish that, they are determined to be the only NUCLEAR power in the region, which they have been, for over 30 years.

So yes, the Israelis have ALWAYS wanted Saddam gone. Thirty years ago they attacked Iraq’s nuclear power facility that was under construction at the time, and basically wiped it out. But in the 1980’s, the US was STILL doing business with Saddam, (surely you’ve seen the photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam nice and chummy) and even as late recently as the first Gulf War, Dick Cheney was quoted for all of the reasons that it would NOT have been a good idea to unseat Saddam at the time. In fact, he complained more than a few times about the sanctions that prevented him and the OIL/energy industry of reaping more profits.

So, have a look at that. Compare some statistics on the value of Halliburton pre-1990, to the value of Halliburton today. Check out the ‘new’ Dubai, (which is where Halliburton is now located) compared to the old Dubai of 2002, which was just another dusty desert spot in the ME. (I have a power point presentation of it’s ‘development’ with is quite awesome, and stomach turning at the same time, as we sift through the kids’ piggy banks to borrow gas money until the next pay day that may or may not come)..

So no, Iraq wasn’t destroyed *only* on behalf of Israel, despite the fact that it certainly suited Israel’s plans.

And, just as an aside, the 4 biggies of the industry have now been allowed back in, after 30 plus years. Oh yes, it had everything to do with oil, and the greater goal of US hegemony in the region. Call in neo-colonization if you like.

And yes, if you can find the articles, that would be great. No hurry, but I’m always interested.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment

By cyrena, July 26 at 12:36 pm #

I’m not sure how you can possibly figure that they don’t have anything to do with the oil industry.
—————————————————————————-
cyrena,

It’s possible because Saggy has Jews on the brain, coming out of the woodwork and surfacing in his toilet. Watch out, Saggy - the little fuckers can pole vault, too.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 3:59 pm Link to this comment

By Leefeller, July 26 at 12:32 pm

Obama’s main inconsistency about lobbies is that if he is trying to get rid of lobbies, then why has he spent so much time getting his nose as far up AIPAC as he can get it? Apart from that, what is a “lobby”? It just means people representing various interests who talk to elected officials. They can just as well be representing progressive causes as reactionary ones. In that sense lobbies are an indispensable part of any democracy. It’s a matter of which lobbies, and whether these lobbies are able to buy influence with Congress to the detriment of decisions that affect the country as a whole.

Obama does not represent the oil lobby. Obama does not represent the weapons lobby. He represents other lobbies, other interest groups, generally more progressive ones.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment

Re Michael Shaw, July 26 at 11:31 am #

Nice to hear from you, fellow PDA member. Yes, we are the real progressives, not these pseudoradicals we are hearing so much from at Truthdig, who are only serving the purposes of the reactionaries whether they know it or not.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 26, 2008 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment

Saggy: Actually it’s about both.. the oil and the zionists. The people behind the shadow government are the wealthiest in the world.  They don’t really need money but of course are quite greedy.

However, in the end, what they care most about is the power and control it gives them over the proles - all of us.

Tony: It’s funny how you can read about a person and get a totally different perspective about him. I see Brezinski in the same light as the PNAC crowd. He just has his imperialistic sights set on a different prize.  I’m sorry Tony but I truly believe Obama’s reign won’t be much different than the current commander in chimp’s.  Aside from the fact that the screwing we will get by Obama and his crowd will be accomplished with more eloquence and slickness.

Report this

By george in Toronto, July 26, 2008 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena said-“Not all of them Saggy, nope. Not all of them are neo-cons, and not all of them are Jews, and most are very connected to the oil industry.”
Then, tell us one that is not an off-springs from the ashkenazi or the zealot tribes of Eastern Russia.Just because you fake religions and last names does not instantly convert you from your original roots.By the way, Judism is actually a stolen faithe.why is Obama sucking up tp AIPAC and Israel,could it be that his mother is-O’my god—not moslum or Christian but of Jewish blood?
Good example is this one
http://judicial-inc.biz/pelosi.htm

Report this

By cyrena, July 26, 2008 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment

y Saggy, July 26 at 11:45 am

•  “..The powerful political movement behind Bush is the neocons, their names well known and their activities well documented.  They have little to do with the oil companies..”.

~~~

Not all of them Saggy, nope. Not all of them are neo-cons, and not all of them are Jews, and most are very connected to the oil industry.

The political movement (and the power behind the fascist coup and the take over or ‘changeover’ to a totalitarian structure) are NOT ‘well known’ to most Americans, and that’s intentional. Dick Cheney runs this country with a very powerful group of mostly secret operatives, but the primary one is David Addington, and of course we know Scooter Libby (used to be Liebowitz) the rest of the Cheney staff remains secret to this day. Yeah, yeah, we know about Perle and Wolfie and all of the others that are the ‘known’ neo-cons and the PNAC that has guided them. Again, they are *not* the only or even the most powerful. They are just the face of the criminal ring that the public sees. Some are Jews, and boldly retain dual citizenship. Not all of them are.

I’m not sure how you can possibly figure that they don’t have anything to do with the oil industry.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 26, 2008 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment

What ever happened to ridding Washington of the lobbies, like rats running the halls of Congress at a Taco Bell?  Obama used to call attention to lobbies undue influence’s in the nations direction and didn’t he call attention to one of the oil companies big profits?  Guess those days are long gone, soon as Hillary was out of the picture we have the Clintons, in the picture.  You have to love it.

Report this

By Jim H. 7/26/08, July 26, 2008 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

———————-Why does Obama NEED a

——————-FORGED BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

————————-IS HE REALLY A KENYAN?
I would wager not one, in one hundred citizens know, or care, anything about the “Constitutional requirements”; nor do ‘they’ even care if Barack Obama was ‘really’ ‘born’ in Kenya, Africa, and owes Allegiance to ‘that’ Country as a citizen there-of!
‘They’ seem to vision Obama as they would, some sort of sweet-talking Rock Star, or Movie Idol!
They are bewitched by his ‘charisma’, and promises of so many changes, that none but a Dictator could ever deliver!

And, they appear to lack totally, the discernment needed, and our US Constitution is meant to help provide; to guard against the infiltration of a ‘foreign’ or adverse entity seizing the ‘reins’ of Government of our United States of America!

Muslims, are doing just this; in other parts of the World!

There must be a better way!

Hillary would be a much better choice!

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment

Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, when asked in a January 1998 interview with the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur whether he regretted “having given arms and advice to future terrorists,” replied: “What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”
——————————————————————————-
Why am a I a Zbig groupie? Let me count the ways.  I find his brusque bluntness charming. I admire him as a brilliant geopolitical chess player. I appreciate the fact that he like his boss Jimmy Carter have been called anti-Semitic by the American Zionist establishment, a charge which is a smear. It does mean that he is not particularly partial to Israel, but observes a neutrality toward Israel with respect to what is good for the United States that is found disturbing by the Zionists. That seems to me a good thing.

Zbig is an old cold warrior and you could argue the most successful one, the one whose strategy gave the Soviet Union its final blow. Oh, yes, he made a huge mess of Afghanistan in the process, which has led to a lot more geopolitical trouble than I’m sure he anticipated. Which is why he ought to make ammends by advocating a policy of going back to Afghanistan (as Obama is going to do) and helping its people restore a functioning economy. At least that’s what I’m hoping for.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, July 26, 2008 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment

Tony the most notable progressive thing any of the democrats have done in the last two years is to open preliminary impeachment hearings. I would also remind everyone that the PDA has been one of the leading forces behind these hearings and in getting Obama the presidential nomination. But the idea in Obama himself being a progressive was shattered the moment he capitulated to Bush with his FISA vote. If the democrats do not affectively and full heartedly attempt impeachment they will lose the progressive vote.

As for your comments about the ruling class, I agree with you. Not every captain of industry is behind this current debacle though no one can say they haven’t all benefited greatly by Bush and the immense tax breaks they enjoy. I would even go further to say that the way the system is operated the politicians have little to no time to do any legislation because most of their time is spent campaigning and fund raising from day one, rather than legislating anything meaningful beyond positive programs for their biggest financial supporters. Why did it come to this? How was this allowed to get so out of hand? Everything is money to the politicians who know little(and apparently care less) about the real plights of their constituents and the major networks who tell us nothing make the bulk of the profits. The longer this campaign goes on, which is now forever, the more money they make and the more money candidates need to go after to get reelected. In other words meaningful legislation is non existent, let alone any ability of government to actually function.

I would also like to add to some who are blaming the Jewish lobbies for all of our woes, it’s not just them but rather every damn lobby in the nation that compels politicians to give up most of their time and efforts to us and devote all of their time to them. This will go on forever until campaign finance is completely banned and only supported with tax dollars, giving free and equal air time for all the candidate involved. Then politicians would not have to waste our time raising funds and might, just might get down to the actual business in running this country.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment

By jersey girl, July 26 at 10:16 am #

BUT as I’ve said before.  It doesn’t matter. He’s just a puppet for the nwo and those that really rule.
——————————————————————————
jersey,

One way your judgment differs from mine is this last statement. Bush is, indeed, a puppet. He’s a complete moron who was picked as a reliable puppet by the oil companies and the weapons makers which is what the Bush family has been into for many generations. You could see that from the beginning.  But not Obama. I don’t think his combination of intelligence and high self-esteem will permit him to be a puppet. I think he will exercise independent judgment within what he considers to be the limits of his power.

But yes, Obama wants power and is ready to compromise to get it. That is inevitable for any politician because power is the substance of politics, and compromises are necessary to build the coalitions that generate power that makes coherent social action possible - such as really implementing an energy independence policy, or really providing decent medical care for all citizens.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 11:35 am Link to this comment

By webbedouin, July 26 at 8:12 am #


Tony:  “ One thing for sure is that this imperialist alliance will run rampant if McCain gets in.”

Tony you don’t get to run for any electable post for a major party without the approval of the “imperialist alliance”.  Obama has already been co-opted. 
——————————————————————————-
Perhaps webbedouin has fled to another thread, but I will answer this for the benefit of anyone following the conversation: Again this fails to understand the nature of the ruling class, which is not monolithic, but consists in many different interests, some competing and some cooperating. You can’t just say they’re all “imperialists” and let it go at that. Oil companies have a specific economic interest in the Middle East. Weapons makers have a specific economic interest in keeping up the level of war and conflict everywhere on Earth. These are the most reactionary forces within the ruling class. We are not going to overthrow the ruling class and establish a classless society by November, 2008, but what we can do by voting for Obama is to is join forces with those more peaceful and progressive elements within the ruling class to arrest this decline of our society and move it in a more progressive direction.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 26, 2008 at 11:16 am Link to this comment

Tony:  “I do believe that however much he sways in the political winds, compromises, votes for FISA or panders to AIPAC, these core values will remain and inform his presidency.”

I think those things show me who he really is. We are left with one of two choices.  He is either a man who will do anything to obtain power, which includes trampling civil liberties, pandering and lying.  Or this is truly his political mindset.  Either way, his character leaves a lot to be desired.

BUT as I’ve said before.  It doesn’t matter. He’s just a puppet for the nwo and those that really rule.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 10:11 am Link to this comment

By webbedouin, July 26 at 8:12 am

webbedouin,

Your lack of political acumen is matched by your rudeness.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 9:45 am Link to this comment

jg,

It is not that Obama is “charismatic” but that I judge him to have many of the abilities that a good political leader needs. That includes intelligence, organizational ability and the ability to speak well. Now you might say that those attributes, as well as “charisma”, were all qualities Hitler had too, and I would have to admit it. What we haven’t said in this assessment is what Obama’s moral compass is, which will ultimately determine where he is going to lead us, within the limits of his power, in the face of all the political pressures and geopolitical circumstances he will encounter.

I can only give you my best judgment about Obama’s moral character and values. Obviously I could be wrong. I have no personal contact with the man; all I know is what I see and hear and read. But here goes:

Obama’s genetic and cultural heritage is multiracial. His father is a black African but his mother is white, and it is his mother and grandmother who raised him. For this reason he could be said to be more “white” than “black”, and some have called him an “Oreo” for that, black on the outside and white on the inside. Yet he re-established contact with his father and his African roots after he was grown and began his career as an organizer in Chicago on Chicago’s south side. community. He was highly successful in this activity, which was also notable for the way in which he repaired bad relations between the black and Jewish communities. This is to me strong indication that he will adopt a multicultural and multinational approach to politics, that this actually is, as he says “part of his DNA”. I do believe that however much he sways in the political winds, compromises, votes for FISA or panders to AIPAC, these core values will remain and inform his presidency.

Report this

By webbedouin, July 26, 2008 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

Tony:  ” One thing for sure is that this imperialist alliance will run rampant if McCain gets in.”

Tony you don’t get to run for any electable post for a major party without the approval of the “imperialist alliance”.  Obama has already been co-opted. 

Anyway this thread is getting to be so very incredibly boring.  Yawn!  Two Obamalama ding dong shills take on the world.  Do you both work for the Obama campaign?  Or is just one of you a true believer?

Hasta later, over & out…

Report this

By jersey girl, July 26, 2008 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

Tony: Obama is very charismatic to many.  And yes, he’s very intelligent.  But Ronald Reagan was charismatic and so were Hitler and Jim Jones and there are many intelligent neocons. So, that doesn’t give me a good enough reason to vote for him.

If he was saying the things he’s been saying about the “terrorists”, war and voting the way he did on civil liberties and running as a republican, I can guarantee you that you’d be energetically criticizing him just as those of us who are not supporting him are.

Yes his 2004 speech was amazing. I remember saying at that time that he’d be a great candidate running for president in the future.  Little did I know that his presidential campaign would happen this soon or be this disappointing.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 8:54 am Link to this comment

By webbedouin, July 26 at 7:37 am #


Tony: “Getting the neocon fascist reactionaries out of power is my main priority now. If Obama wins by a landslide and Democrats get a filibuster-proof majority, there will be no more excuses.”

Ah Tony apparently you don’t get it yet

neocon = Israel

You’re Obamalama is drinking the Israeli cool aid.  That’s why Iran is such a problem for him.

http://www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html
—————————————————————————-
I understand very well that there is an alliance between Zionism and U.S. imperialism. If you would like to Google my name, Tony Wicher, together with the word “Zionism”, you will get an idea of how much time I have spent posting on this issue. It is an alliance, you understand. Israel does not control U.S. foreign policy, U.S. imperialists do, and Israel is indeed their most useful ally and client in their quest for complete dominance of Middle East oil supplies. One thing for sure is that this imperialist alliance will run rampant if McCain gets in. I continue to nourish the hope, in spite of Obama’s AIPAC speech, that this policy will change under an Obama administration.

Report this

By george in Toronto, July 26, 2008 at 8:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Can anyone name a USi president that cared more for it’s citizens than for Israel?
The democrats have always been rabidly zionist controlled.These zionist can beat us to pulp and we Americans don’t do squat. Having a new name (neo-Coons) and solid infiltration of the Republician party,come 2009,head for the hills and cover. Don’t think neocon’s WWIII with Russia is a joke.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 8:40 am Link to this comment

By jersey girl, July 26 at 7:15 am #

Where’s the change?  What’s to love here except for pretty speeches ?  I don’t have a clue.  I hope Obama’s people will step up to the plate and reveal what they see in him that we don’t other than he’s got a D next to his name.
——————————————————————————-
jg,

OK, I’ll say some positive things about Obama, but first the negatives. You know I agree with you about FISA and AIPAC. But that is nowhere near enough reason for me to throw away my vote on some 3rd party candidate and risk a continuation of Republican rule. So, yes, the fact that he has a D before his name is already good enough for me.

Now the positives. I consider myself a good judge of talent, and the first time I laid eyes on Obama (in the 2004 Democratic convention) I said to myself, “this guy’s got it”. I watched his campaign kickoff speech and it did take me back to 1960 and the Kennedy campaign, and that was when I decided to back him. The least you can say about him is that he is a highly intelligent, has a political touch that is superior even to Bill Clinton’s, is a great speaker, and that he must be a great organizer to have run such a flawless campaign. Bush is a ignorant, sadistic moron. McCain is a senile old fart who understands nothing but war. Bush should be running a gas station at best and McCain belongs in a rest home. To me the choice is beyond obvious.

Report this

By webbedouin, July 26, 2008 at 8:37 am Link to this comment

Tony: “Getting the neocon fascist reactionaries out of power is my main priority now. If Obama wins by a landslide and Democrats get a filibuster-proof majority, there will be no more excuses.”

Ah Tony apparently you don’t get it yet

neocon = Israel

You’re Obamalama is drinking the Israeli cool aid.  That’s why Iran is such a problem for him.

http://www.viewzone.com/dualcitizen.html

Report this

By jersey girl, July 26, 2008 at 8:24 am Link to this comment

Tony: “Getting the neocon fascist reactionaries out of power is my main priority now. If Obama wins by a landslide and Democrats get a filibuster-proof majority, there will be no more excuses.”

And being replaced by the neoliberal fascists. Obama voting for that FISA bill told me everything.  He expects to become president and keep the power for himself. As for a landslide?  I don’t think so.  If you believe the polls, and I don’t, than it’s very close.  Obama is losing his base rapidly with every inch more he moves to the right.  If he doesn’t have them, he’s goin nowhere.

As for the congress? Gimme a break. I’m sure you saw the “unimpeachment” hearings or clips of them.  The dems have the power and what do they do with it? NOTHING but continue to kowtow to the fascists. Including Conyers throwing Cindy Sheehan out very rudely as well. That tells me one thing. That except for the few on that panel who fought like tigers for their cause of impeachment, that the dems & reps are all working for the same team.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 8:19 am Link to this comment

Re M Henri Day, July 26 at 6:37 am #

I hope that Obama will have those qualities you mention - wisdom, prudence, integrity and awareness of the limitations of one’s own power. I think he may, and that is why I support him. However, he is still young and untested, and we cannot possibly know what he will do under the pressures of the Presidency. I don’t see what people of good will can rationally do at this point other than put our faith in him and hope for the best, and that is what I am doing.

Report this

By tommot, July 26, 2008 at 8:19 am Link to this comment

Does anyone care about the designation COMMANDER IN CHIEF which precedes and sometimes replaces PRESIDENT? Soon we will be asked to march to the voting booths. The current USA seems to yearn to be an army more than a republic.
Another phrase is WAR ON TERROR. In fact WAR ON ANYTHING. Often these matters are police activities or should be so seen, but by making them WAR ON WEEDS we raise citizen fears and turn off some degree of observation. Civil rights erode in direct relation to the raised level of PATRIOTISM. I think we are being manipulated with evident success, and should be aware of it.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 26, 2008 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

Jblack & Henri Day:  Of course I was being facetious.
Not being an Obama supporter I just know that seems to be the way it goes.


After all, they can’t say he’s anti war.  He’s keeping us in Iraq for god knows how long and escalating the violence in Afghanistan. To say nothing of his plans for Pakistan and Iran that he’s already spoken about.  And since Brezinski is his adviser, you can bet that he will be starting trouble with the soviets and china as well.

His civil liberties record is atrocious having voted for the renewal of the patriot act and the fisa bill.  This from a constitutional scholar?

Aipac? Panders to them with more gusto than any politician I’ve seen yet. That speech was very troubling.

Environment? Nuclear power is not a safe, clean or inexpensive alternative but he advocates it and has received campaign funds from the nuke industry..thank you very much.

Health care plan..favors insurance companies over consumers.

Where’s the change?  What’s to love here except for pretty speeches ?  I don’t have a clue.  I hope Obama’s people will step up to the plate and reveal what they see in him that we don’t other than he’s got a D next to his name.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 26, 2008 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

Re Leefeller, July 26 at 6:47 am #

Leefeller,

Although I continue to be a strong Obama supporter, I have certainly felt the same way you do about him. My first disappointment was also with his treatement of Rev. Wright, with whom I sympathized, the second was his speech to AIPAC and the third was his FISA vote, which expecially outraged me as an ACLU member. I can’t understand it. I am reluctantly willing to chalk up these three to political expediency, and give him the benefit of the doubt until November.  Getting the neocon fascist reactionaries out of power is my main priority now. If Obama wins by a landslide and Democrats get a filibuster-proof majority, there will be no more excuses.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 26, 2008 at 8:02 am Link to this comment

M Henri Day,

Wisdom and prudence, two things absent from the present administration, good points. Integrity and accountability can come under those, but would only be known after some time.

Wisdom and prudence can be seen in the running great points.

Report this

By tommot, July 26, 2008 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

From a practical point of view, we will have two candidates to choose from. One will be Democratic and the other Republican. McCain or Obama. Of course I am a Democrat and will vote for Obama. Were I richer I would vote for him twice.
Those liberals, or Democrats or whatever their designation, should be aware that most probably at least one Supreme Court vacancy will be filled in the next President’s term. If that President is McCain, he has promised a proLife conservative judge and you can kiss goodbye to all the civil and gender rights attained in the last 30-40 years. There are innumerable arguments, but the essence remains that the choice is clear - a milder less obtuse George Bush or a somewhat unknown but probably liberal in the mid-Democrat view Obama. Personally I would prefer Adlai Stevensen, but Adlai isn’t here and proved unelectable in his two attempts.
Please, just vote for Obama and as many Democrats as you can stomach for Congress and whatever candidates you actually know and trust for local offices which actually impact your daily lives. As one poster said, by filling local offices with good people, there could be a bottom up movement of positive change, so that we could support people who really reflect our lives and dreams.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 26, 2008 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

Jackpine Savage,

Even Obama said we must take care of things at the local level.  Having been their, my findings are we have less control over the lobbies locally than at the national level.  Relentles and with deep pockets they attack at the state and fed level, making local laws and the will of people inane even over ride them. 

My first disappointment with Obama was when he dumped Rev. Wright, especially when I happen to agree with most of what Wright really was calling attention to. Let’s face it most people in the good old USA found Wrights truths to be unpalatable. So Obama dumped him.  For me this was Obama’s first lapse into pandering?

Interesting how some of you find cyrena so threating,  you have been bating her and she seemed to fall for it.  Now you dissed her,  forming clicks must be the way our society works, create a caucus and run over those who disagree.

Politics and religion two topics most people are expert in.

JBalck, you waiting for an Obama fan to bite your hook.

Report this

By troublesum, July 26, 2008 at 7:37 am Link to this comment

“This is our moment - this is our time.”  Does anybody have a clue about what he means?  It cannot be that he means that this is the time for the powerless and the have-nots who have been completely marginalized by the corporate controlled states to step up and take political power.  Every position he’s taken on the important issues has been carefully tailored to demonstrate his allegiance to the powerful.  So what does he mean?

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, July 26, 2008 at 7:37 am Link to this comment

Snappy reply, jersey girl ! But perhaps JBlack’s query - «what makes the man qualified to be the next Commander in Chief and President» - deserves to be taken more seriously. The US constitution, perhaps wisely, provides little guidance, with only three requirements dealing with 1) origins - that the US president be a «natural born Citizen», 2) age - has attained «to the age of thirty-five Years», and 3= residency - «been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States», respectively. What, indeed, are the qualifications above and beyond these three (which Barack Hussein Obama certainly meets) that JBlack and other posters to this thread regard as indispensable in the next US president ? While neither a US Citizen nor a Resident in that country, as one whose life will certainly be affected by the official results - whether due to the popular vote or US Supreme Court fiat - of this fall’s election, I take the liberty of putting forward my own candidate for the qualification, sine qua non : the ancient Greek concept of «σωφροσύνη», sophrosyne, Latin «prudentia», which has much to do with a knowledge of the limitations of one’s power. Appropriate English translations are «wisdom» and «prudence». What are the chances that you in the United States and we in the wider world will get a person embodying this essential quality ?...

Henri

Report this

By jersey girl, July 26, 2008 at 7:03 am Link to this comment

JTBlack:  You already know the answer. He gives pretty speeches and he’s not John McCain.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 26, 2008 at 5:41 am Link to this comment

JBlack’s comments on the Obama Berlin speech are superb. It is that messianic part mentioned I find quite disturbing. Do we need another POTUS with a God complex? Yet another egotistical flail of the Lord, using the 101st Airborne as an instrument of Divine command? Of course Obama apologists will not see this murderous folly. The idea of this country being a peaceful, mercantile republic is not good enough. Not when the golden candidate announces an escalation of troops to Afghanistan, with the rhetorical flourish: “this is our time.”

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 26, 2008 at 5:28 am Link to this comment

re: jackpine savage, jersey girl
My experience with banks is nearly non-existent, I do not even own a credit card. But you are right about small things being important. Talking about this pageant election is essentially a meaningless occupation which consumes some the way sports does for others.
jersey girl, the only real coverage of Rep. Kucinich’s impeachment proceedings was on Friday morning on C-SPAN. But since the Speaker of the House has said impeachment is off the table, it is falling on deaf ears. The democrats in charge, including Obama, refuse to do what the constitution requires. The strong do what they will, the weak bear they must…an axiom I find utterly repulsive.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 26, 2008 at 4:51 am Link to this comment

beerdoctor:  re: Cyrena, good idea. I don’t usually report people and instead prefer to ignore their comments.  But enough is enough with her.  Who does she think she is anyway?

Report this

By jackpine savage, July 26, 2008 at 4:51 am Link to this comment

Perhaps i’m beating a dead horse, but here goes anyhow.

Show of hands: how many Truthdig progressives use a commercial bank?  How many hold a commercial bank credit card?  How many have a mortgage through a commercial bank?  If you don’t like the way the Money Masters of the Universe run it, but you support them…where do you get off bitching about it?  Put your money under the mattress or into a credit union.

If you spend time worrying about your 401(k) or your portfolio, do you worry about how you’re supporting the whole system financially? (And if you have a 401(k) you’re probably an owner in everyone’s favorite oil companies.) I use money as an example because it’s easy and powerful; it is not what you spend but where and how.

Take control of your local politics…it may not change very much, but it’s better than bitching.

There are innumerable things that we can do every day (small and large) to make “change”.  But we don’t, for the most part, do them.  It is apparently far more satisfying to complain about national level politics…without connecting the dots in order to realize that national level politics are nothing more than a reflection of the nation.

In other words: if you don’t like the effect, don’t produce the cause.

And if you’re going to put all your faith in a presidential candidate “fixing” things, then i will guarantee your disappointment.  The same goes for constantly bemoaning the fact that a candidate won’t fix things.

It’s supposed to be a government of the people, for the people and by the people.  But it doesn’t work when the people think that voting every four years is the extent of their responsibility.  We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Change that and you we won’t have to worry about Presidents because they will reflect what is good rather than what is bad in us.

Report this

By jersey girl, July 26, 2008 at 4:48 am Link to this comment

Ok, this is totally off topic.  But why is there NO mention of Dennis Kucinich and the “un-impeachment”(f*** u conyers) hearing yesterday on this forum?  I mean, it’s like the rest of the msm media.  Being totally ignored like it never took place. Oh, wait I take that back, wolf blitzer mentioned it briefly in a derogatory way insinuating it might hurt the democrats. 

So what’s up with truthdig? Or maybe I missed it?

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, July 26, 2008 at 4:25 am Link to this comment

What Mr Scheer is telling us - and which should come as no great surprise - is that both the major US parties are parties of the US Empire, deeply beholden to the interests of those who profit from its existence and not least, the monies that can be extracted from US taxpayers to defray the costs of maintaining it. There seem to be a few real (not mock, á la John Sidney McCain) «mavericks» among party members at the national level - Dennis John Kucinich on the Democratic side and Ronald Ernest Paul on the Republican - who wish to restore the Republic, but their support among their respective party leaders is, to put it mildly, less than overwhelming. In these circumstances, the best we can hope for is that the next United States president be someone who will not attempt to bring the whole temple down with him when the sun sets, as it inevitably will, on the US Empire. I do not think the world can afford four or eight more years with a Bush/Cheney clone….

Henri

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 26, 2008 at 3:48 am Link to this comment

It is troubling to write this, but it needs to be said. People who support Obama such as Bert, think he has a realistic world view. I do not see it that way but that does not mean I have license to verbally abuse another Truthdig participant just because we disagree. Which comes to this matter of cyrena. You, who claim “ignorant people are brave enough to allow themselves to look like fools.“Well this little fool is brave enough to point out what a cowardly vicious piece of business your postings have become. You have no respect for anyone who does not buy into your Obama-logic. Posters such as rybo, tg, JBlack have intelligent observations that you dismiss, not with logic, but personal attack. What gives you the god damn right to say “as pathetic as Max Shields and the other trolls”? Who died and put you in charge (heaven help us)? And do you really think it serves an adult well to say to troublesum: “you need a roto-rooter operation on your brain troublesum.”
This pathetic troll fool has had enough of this. You can call me any name you want, because I have become immune to your nonsense. But for the sake of so many others on this site, who I value for their opinions, whether I agree with them or not, I will continue to report your abuse of members until something is done about it. That’s how DENSE I am.

Report this

By troublesum, July 26, 2008 at 3:35 am Link to this comment

cyrena shares Obama’s attitude that anyone who disagrees with him (or her) is just ignorant trash.  That attitude probably explains why he hasn’t been able to pull ahead of McCain to any significant degree.  Did anyone notice how carefully the queen bee of TD chose her words in responding to Robert Sheer’s criticism of Obama?  Sheer said many of the same things as the people who comment here have said and got his information from the same sources but wasn’t showered with the same epithets and doesn’t require any alterations to his brain with the use of household plumbing instraments.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 25, 2008 at 11:44 pm Link to this comment

I dont know when cyrena, and other blind Obama suporters, will realize that calling people that you want to support your candidate “stupid”, “dense”, “uneducated”, and worse, is NOT a good way to win them over! Are you…really smart..or something, or an emotional idiot??It’s people like yu that created the groups like pUMA by insulting everyone who disagres with you. Obama did not mention the wall in Jerusalem—I would think in Germanay he meant the Berlin Wall, and a metaphor for “ALL” walls…but you dont need to get your panties in such a wad about it. If you dont watch it—your candidate might lose. You know, when Clinton won Ohio, I askeed peopel at the polls why they voted as they did—at the time, I was still hoping Obama would be more progreessive, so I spent alot of time hearing people say , “Well, I heard he said that we were stupid and white trash amd ...a” and i wouldo say, “Did you hear HIM say it”, “Well, no..”. “Listen to HIM—not the obamaniacs. Then, his supporters made it very plain that Ohio, Pa. etc. could all just go piss up a rope!Dems have ALWAYS taken Liberals for granted and then blame them when they cant win on their own. When I think back about what makes me angry about his ethereal campaign—its not usually what HE said (alot of time , its what he didnt say!), but what the “disloyal lack of opposition"says, and MSNBC and and Randi Rhodes. The worst thing you can call a liberal Dem is a racist. And, man, it went wild.To the point of ridiculousness—some things were just NOT racist! I know there has been some—there is everywhere—but do you really think the appropriate place to put that anger was with other Dems?? I think that “cutting off your own nose” with most Dems.Obama supporters seem to do that alot and them cry foul—he shoudl be MILES ahead of McSame—if he’;s not, I say its his too strident defenders that wont even let anyone disagree with him about anything and , if all else fails, scream “RACIST!”

Report this

By cyrena, July 25, 2008 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment

The Israel wall is the most egregious example of a wall in the world.
It’s the first thing you think of.

~~~~

Tony, it’s only the first thing that sane people think of. If a guy stands there and says, ALL WALLS MUST COME DOWN, (and even repeats it in varying forms) and somebody doesn’t ‘get’ that he must be talking about ‘that’ wall, outlawed by the world community, then there is obviously a serious monkey wrench in the cognitive comprehension scheme.

Or…more likely, just another desperate attempt to grasp at any STRAW they think they can whip Obama with.

It’s actually as pathetic as Max Sheilds and the other trolls who come up with all of their creative and hysterical rantings about bombs exploding in neighborhoods, to pair up with a discussion on a selection of presidential candidates.

It’s all straw, and too weak for anything more than feeding hungry horses. It guess it’s better than nothing for hungry horses, but horse shit is still the only ultimate product.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 25, 2008 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

By cyrena, July 25 at 3:29 pm #

Now again I ask you, what makes you or any other hate monger think that Barack Obama must somehow *not* have been including that ILLEGAL wall when he said, ALL WALLS MUST COME DOWN?
—————————————————————————-
Well put, cyrena. The Israel wall is the most egregious example of a wall in the world.
It’s the first thing you think of.

Report this

By Max Shields, July 25, 2008 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment

By Tony “Obama Apologist” Wicher, July 25 at 8:08 pm #

There’s nothing simplistic if you when you become acquainted with a little US history. You might even start with the Scheer article here.

You’re simplistic notion that a “progressive” tag (a tag which Obama has pretty well corrupted) somehow is less offensive on the ground where US bombs are dropped is arrogant.

So, Mr. Wicker, name a President in the last 60 years who hasn’t been guilty of military intervention. Come on just one.

When those bombs blow up your neighborhood and destroy the lives of those around you you might not be so damn cavalier.

Again, I laid out the differences but when your an Obama apologist critical thinking is only meant for the faux opposition party.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 25, 2008 at 9:15 pm Link to this comment

By Pacrat, July 25 at 3:57 pm #

So what’s your point?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 25, 2008 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

By Max Shields, July 25 at 7:41 pm #


By tommot, July 25 at 1:39 am #

“In 2000 the purists on the left said there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Bush and Gore.”

The problem with this “logic” is that nothing Bush (as ugly and incompetant as he is) has done has not already been done by either other Repubs or Dems. This is a duopoly of war and empire.

——————————————————————————
The problem with this theory is that it’s too simplistic and insufficiently dialectical. the “ruling class” is not monolithic, but consists of a whole spectrum of interests that sometimes compete and sometimes cooperate, and those interests sometimes coincide with those of the people and sometimes they don’t. The “ruling class” consists of a whole spectrum of forces and individuals from the reactionary to the progressive. The Bush administration is the worst in history by common consent. The reactionary oilmen and arms makers who have been in power have destabilized and hurt the economy as a whole, and the more progressive elements of the ruling class don’t like it any more than the people. Obama represents the progressive end of the ruling class - like Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. He has more in common with the people than Bush. He is less imperialist, more democratic. In this concrete situation, he represents progress. All real progressives of understanding should be supporting him, while remaining realistic in their expectations.

Report this

By Max Shields, July 25, 2008 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment

By tommot, July 25 at 1:39 am #


“In 2000 the purists on the left said there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Bush and Gore. Vote for change. We got Bush and damn close to the end of this experiment in democracy.”

===============================================

The problem with this “logic” is that nothing Bush (as ugly and incompetant as he is) has done has not already been done by either other Repubs or Dems. This is a duopoly of war and empire.

The coolaid that the Dem liberals drink when they fall in line with whoever the corporatists and DLCers give them, is that military intervention is ok, as long as it either doesn’t make the front page/headlines and/or is done through air strikes at 10,000 feet (ala Bill Clinton - Bosnia Somalia, and Iraq - thousand upon thousands were murdered as a result).

Gore in 2000 was fully supportive during and before his tenure with Clinton of American military intervensionism (that’s when the US is not under direct threat but sees the world as one big property of the US of A and so everything is a National Interest/Security risk). So, we have no evidence that he would not have used full military intervention per 911. And if not than certainly a continuation of Iraq bombing and elsewhere.

This is the fundamental problem that neither Party provides a solution to because they ARE an integral part of the PROBLEM.

The rest of this bull shit about “relativity” and Politicians all have to do this or that to get elected is simply beyond the point and gets us exactly where we are TODAY - an empire in decline wrecking havoc thoughout the world in the name of Wilsonian exceptionalism and national interests.

Report this

By george in Toronto, July 25, 2008 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

That concrete prison wall is never going down until it is moved,in increments to the shoreline. That wall was paid for by Americans in the Billion$. Uncle Samual ain’t going to like it,ever tobe torn down!

Report this

By Pacrat, July 25, 2008 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Who is this guy? What are his credentials? Why should anyone believe him about politics?

Aren’t we all tired of the statements made by these “wise” pundits who should know more than the rest of us, but don’t.

Obama and McCain are both politicians - politicians are by nature flip-floppers and liars - especially in campaigns.

Report this

By cyrena, July 25, 2008 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment

No troublesum,

YOU should give it a rest, or get back to your recycling schedule.

I’m going to employ the KISS method for you.

First, what part of Obama’s speech was confusing to you, when he said that ALL WALLS MUST COME DOWN? Do I need to go back and find those portions in the transcript for you? Are you REALLY that dense?

What part of the jurist opinion do you not understand? The so-called security wall that Israel has constructed is ILLEGAL. It is WRONG. That has been ACKNOWLEDGED by those in the highest authority to do so.

Obama is a smart guy. Smart enough to know (especially since the decision was rendered as far back as 2004) that the wall is ILLEGAL, WRONG, and that the Israelis have been condemned for it by the world community. That was a WIN for the Palestinians.

Now again I ask you, what makes you or any other hate monger think that Barack Obama must somehow *not* have been including that ILLEGAL wall when he said, ALL WALLS MUST COME DOWN?

You need a roto-rooter operation on your brain troublesum.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 25, 2008 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment

As far as the wall goes,  politics demands never mention anything unless it may win votes.  Why mention something that is wrong and is already done and of course,  integrity may be something not useful for the way the wind is blowing especially regarding the wall.

Pandering requires not to mention the wall, integrity would mean mentioning things that are morally wrong, most of the ass holes on the other side would, if Obama mentioned the wall would, bring up the Osama horse and pony show again.

How about that war?

Report this

By troublesum, July 25, 2008 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

There was “no need” for Kennedy and Reagan to mention the Berlin Wall.  They did it anyway.  Give it a rest cyrena.  Don’t try to defend the indefensible.  You sound like the neo-cons defending Bush.  Jimmy Carter had “no need” to mention the Israeli built wall.  He did it anyway.

Report this

By cyrena, July 25, 2008 at 2:47 pm Link to this comment

Re: By troublesum, July 25 at 11:41 am #
•  “..The wall he didn’t have the guts to mention:”..
I’ll say this again. BEYOND Barack Obama, and BEYOND ‘democracy now’, the highest court of authority has issued the highest ruling of authority on the so-called security wall the Israelis have attempted to build. That opinion is above and beyond ANYTHING that Barack Obama or anyone else says or doesn’t say about it.

So, here’s why there was no NEED for Obama to mention this wall. It’s already been done, by those in the highest positions of authority to make the highest call.

•  Toward Authoritativeness: The ICJ Ruling on Israel’s Security Wall

•  Richard A. Falk
•  The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 99, No. 1 (Jan., 2005), pp. 42-52
•  Published by: American Society of International Law
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3246088.pdf

~~~~

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF JURISTS
Commission internationale de juristes - Comisión Internacional de Juristas

LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL
IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY
(REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION)

Position paper presented by
the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the International Commission of Jurists


http://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/il2302a.pdf

~~~~

Meantime, I guess it’s a good thing that gutless isn’t necessarily the same as ignorant. Ignorant people are brave enough to allow themselves to look like fools. Does that mean they have ‘guts’?

Report this

By Mary Ann McNeely, July 25, 2008 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Name me a presidential candidate who, once elected, didn’t wind up being a disappointment?  You can’t, because there are none.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 25, 2008 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment

The Beerdoctor,

You talking to me, you talking to me.  democratic republic? No way jose.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, July 25, 2008 at 1:04 pm Link to this comment

Before everyone gets all bent out of shape over which clown they choose or not choose to vote for, it might be helpful to take a careful look at the Electoral College and see if you think this is truly a democratic republic.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

Report this

By troublesum, July 25, 2008 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

The wall he didn’t have the guts to mention: http://www.democracynow.org/

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 25, 2008 at 12:16 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller, July 25 at 10:17 am #


Tony Witcher,

Holding our noeses and voting is quite the joke on us, look at our selected choices.  McCain Bush in drag and Obama closing in fast.
—————————————————————————-
Leefeller,

I’m not holding my nose. The real world is smelly, and this administration is the smelliest of all time. Comparatively speaking, Obama is a breath of fresh air, and I’m gulping down oxygen. 

I hope you’re wrong too!

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 25, 2008 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

re mrmb, July 25 at 9:06 am #

Everything is relative as you may know but then again I am not so sure.
——————————————————————————-
mrb,

Everything is relative in politics in the sense that politics is always a choice between real alternatives. Neither “Obama is good” or “McCain is bad” make sense, but “Obama is better than McCain” does make sense.  We all have our ideal of the Good. All of the characteristics you mention - grasp of history, intelligence, integrity, anti-Zionism, anti-imperialism are parts of it. Of course neither McCain nor Obama is going to measure up to that ideal. What we should use the ideal for is to measure or compare McCain with Obama, determine that Obama is closer to our ideal, and conclude that we should support Obama. If we say we won’t support anyone who does not live up to our ideal, all the real alternatives look alike to us and we wind up supporting nobody. As you say, Obama beats Bush or McCain hands down. The choice has never been clearer.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 25, 2008 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

Hey Bert,

Always suspected you were a Republican Democrat, now that Obama sounds like a Military Complex supporter, sorry they are the same thing? Even so I will hold my nose and vote for Obama.  Thought you were for Hillary, now that she has coupled with Obama, one would suspect you would be happy, but alas, you were never for Hillary, were you?

Report this

By george in Toronto, July 25, 2008 at 11:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9649
Notice something about USi politicks—P & VP are rarely seen in congress or senate. But the chair is addressed as Mr. President. What do these goof-offs do during the day ?
Obama is surrounded by hard core Israelites. This new black house servant owes and owes and owes.
No “Goy’um need apply”-jobs are full.
I can’t wait when America has a Jewish President—then the cover will be blown.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 25, 2008 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

Tony Witcher,

Holding our noeses and voting is quite the joke on us, look at our selected choices.  McCain Bush in drag and Obama closing in fast. 

Liberal left, conservative right, Democrat Republican, you say tomato and I say tomato.  Peace is not an option, integrity absent, accountability non existent and forget the truth, we may never see it. I have become quite the cynic, I see the world in deep shit and nothing has changed. 

Change and hope, hope and change, what I see is a change for the worse as we have seen for the past 8 years and hope is something I have seen in deaths eye.

Let’s hope (hope) I am wrong!

Report this

By KDelphi, July 25, 2008 at 10:37 am Link to this comment

Not cynics—just “left wing”—and I believe just as sincerely, and, most profoundly, that LEFT is the direc. this country meeds to go in! To continue voting for lame nominees who give us more of the same. Betrays my bliefs. I have a right not to do that without being accused of causing the prob. of this country, I think ALOT of people feel this way—they just wont do it—think if enough people did?? We might have a just and liveable country. I wont hold my breath—but i wont give up. My vote wil NOT make or break (bama0—if it did—the Dems deserve it. We dont deserve ( the people) eitherof these candidates..

Report this

By Bert, July 25, 2008 at 10:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bob,

You surely didn’t think that Obama thinks he can win the general election without moving away from the far left peace-at-any-price sentiments you so eloquently have advocated for a lifetime.

But those of us who welcome Obama’s newly found realistic view of the world we live in and the need for a strong and assertive U.S., though pleased to hear his words, are not sure he really means them.

He still come across as a very smart con-man and opportunist. So Mr. Scheer, if you can push a few fence sitters away from Obama please keep it up.

Report this

By mrmb, July 25, 2008 at 10:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

JBlack,

Everything is relative as you may know but then again I am not so sure.

Obama’s qualifications to become president are by far higher than little george’s when he first ran. Even today I am certain that Obama’s intellectual verasity and his grasp of various issues is by far superior to the criminal in the white house and his collective neo crazy cabal.

Having said that, it doesnt mean that Obama is perfect or there are not other men and women out there who are not better qualified.

However at this juncture in our history i would like to see a candidate that has the following attributes:

1- Grasp of history, economics, and some level of appreciation and understanding for sciences

2- Moral character (not of the duplicitous evangelical zionist type)

3- Adherance to the letter and spirit of the constitution

4- Anti zionist

5- Decency and human kindness

6- Firm beleiver in shedding the imperial cloak and dismantling the empire

5- Someone who will remember the plight of the poor and disenfranchised while in high offcie and understands his or her moral obligation to better their lot

The list can get longer but on some of the above he beats king george hands down.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 25, 2008 at 9:42 am Link to this comment

Re tommot, July 25 at 1:39 am #

You and I are on the same page, my friend. I learned my lesson back in 1968, which was the first time I voted. Humphrey won the Democratic nomination after Robert Kennedy was assassinated. I couldn’t vote for Humphrey because he had not come out against the Vietnam War. So I went third party. Who did I vote for? Eldridge Cleaver. How’s that for “purity”? Who did I get? Nixon. Now we have people with the same mentality who are going to get McCain elected. As you say, some people never learn.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 25, 2008 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

Re JBlack, July 25 at 7:23 am #

Sounds like a McCain talking point.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 25, 2008 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

cyrena,

As a matter of fact, I hold “left-wing” cynics like the ones posting here responsible for Nixon, Reagan and both Bushes. Everything thing they say and do puts a smile on the faces of the reactionaries, whose operatives are posting here right along with these pseudo-leftists and nobody can tell the difference.

Report this

Page 2 of 4 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook