Pilger is spot on.

I found the Dem stalwarts comments here to be interesting precisely because they miss Pilger's main ideas. He's pointing to a pattern. You get the campaign buy-in with empty platitudes. Then, once Obama is elected, it's business as usual. Obama will have bills to pay, to Goldman-Sachs and others, and that means no change to the status quo, or something worse.

One person writing here called this prophesy. No, it's just a little memory work - also known as wisdom, based on experience and observation.

I hate to see self-deception practiced by Common Dreams posters, but the Dem Party loyalists and Obamamaniacs here seem to have this disease. The problem is that we've had the lull of the Clinton years in which the most right-wing regressive policies were passed (ending welfare, NAFTA, diminished environmental protections, etc.) and all of the "liberals" cheered and never said a word. They never pressured the Clinton administration. Pilger is wise to allude to this potential with Obama, who spouts the same Clintonian "real change" rhetoric.

Some write that people should be "realistic" about a two-party system that shuts out other parties and channels people into believing in a common corporatist agenda. However, being realistic doesn't mean that you have to participate in such a farce. If you are realistic about such a system, you seek alternatives to it. And there are alternatives! Want change? You won't get it voting for the two parties, and you don't have to be a seer to figure that out.

I hate call him Bush-in-Blackface, but honestly, wasn't Bill Clinton? That minstrel-singing pile of phony shit.

Just another flavor of Military-Corporate-Big Bankism.

It's a sad thing that the last flickering light of the great civil rights movement is this cipher of a fake of a fraud.

Thank you, John Pilger.

One can always count on you for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Obama is the figleaf Corporate America wants (and desperately needs) so as to continue the United States' imperialist/murderous foreign policy.

A foreign policy that's been in place for many, many decades.

It was from a John Pilger article that I discovered that Afghanistan was the 20th country the United States has bombed since the end of World War II.

*Twenty* different countries bombed by the United States since the end of World War II.

-- All 3rd world countries.

-- Many for several years.

-- Many without air forces.

-- And Iraq, at this point, without even a standing army.

*Twenty* different countries bombed by the United States since the end of World War II. Truly a unique, bloodthirsty ... accomplishment.

Of course, all this was done under Democratic as well as Republican administrations.

Quoting from the following article, "Tensions rise in Democratic contest as Obama nears nomination" --

"The Obama campaign has the support of those sections of the Democratic Party leadership and the ruling elite as a whole who have concluded that the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq, and more generally its unilateralism and injudicious application of military force, have produced a disaster for American imperialism, isolating the United States and weakening its global position.

"An Obama presidency, they believe, would give the US ruling elite the opportunity to present a different face to the world that could revive illusions in its democratic pretensions, not only internationally but within the United States as well. Clinton, linked as she is to the Bush administration's policy by her vote to authorize the war, cannot play such a role.

"Obama and the forces within the ruling elite who support him by no means oppose militarism as an instrument of US foreign policy. Indeed, Obama has called for a strengthening of the American military. However, they believe a more astute imperialist policy is necessary, one that combines military force with more far-sighted diplomacy and efforts to repair Washington's tattered international alliances.

"As Obama made clear in his interview last Sunday on "Meet the Press," and again Thursday in interviews with CNN and NBC, he opposes the war in Iraq as a waste of resources that should be redeployed to Afghanistan and other areas of vital concern to the American ruling class, not only in the Middle East but in the Far East, Africa and Latin America.

"Obama is particularly sensitive to suggestions — both from the Clinton campaign and from Republican candidate John McCain —that he would downgrade the close relationship between the United States and its principal client in the Middle East, Israel.

"The Democratic frontrunner visited the Israeli Embassy Thursday for a celebration of the 60th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, at which he was introduced by Sallai Meridor, Israel's ambassador to the US. Addressing the audience, he hailed the "bond between the people of Israel and the people of the United States," adding that "America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakeable."

Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/dems-m10.shtml

As John Pilger so aptly states in his article: points out:

"An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent."

If it hasn't done so already. Think about how strong the anti-war movement was just before the Iraq War started, and then think about where it is now. Just about dead!

This, needless to say, is good news for the ruling elite, afraid as they are of the ever-increasing social and political tensions here in the US and around the world.

The ruling elite --among them the Democratic leadership as well as the Republican leadership -- unquestionably, wants to maintain American imperialist dominance of the world. As Pilger states:

"America's war on Iran has already begun. In December, Bush secretly authorised support for two guerrilla armies inside Iran, one of which, the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, is described by the state department as terrorist. The US is also engaged in attacks or subversion against Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Bolivia and Venezuela."

And, make no mistake about it, Obama is right on board with those imperialist ambitions.

Alas, the "cruise missile liberals" -- they never learn, do they? (The founders and powers-that-be behind commondreams.org most certainly amongst them.)

... JFK was supposed to thier savior.

... Then it was his righthand man, Cold Warrior Bobby.

... Then Jimmy Carter made the scene: the "outsider."

... Then Jesse Jackson. (Now madly in love with Corporate America.)

... Then Gary Hart.

... Then the 1992 liberal version of Bill Clinton.

... Then Howard "Yipeeeeee" Dean. (Handsomely paid off, and quiet as a mouse in a paneled boardroom).

And now "Heeeeeeeeeere's Barack!"

He reminds me of Rodnery Dangerfield on The Tonight Show. "Change, change, that's the thing nowadays, Johnny, you gotta have change, I tell ya!"

Barack "E,pty Suit" Obama.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so deadly serious.

Oh, and let's not forget that other snake oil salesman, that other liberal savior -- Ron Paul!

(Note: I'm inclined, at this point, to start typing HAHAs, but I'm afraid I couldn't type quite enough for the notion of dear old "RON" as the liberals' present-day savior.)

Oh but Obama -- Corporate America's messenger boy. ... Who would dare call him an Uncle Tom? ... This empty, corporate-controlled suit.

I would be willing to bet that the majority of people who are so ga-ga over Barack Obama aren't even vaguely familiar with his voting record. See the following -- "The Obama Craze: Count Me out" http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez02292008.html

Barack Obama brings to mind something that the French philosopher Voltaire once said, and I'm paraphrasing: Sometimes the most difficult thing for a person to see is what's right in front of them.

Behold the figleaf!

Senator Obama has been likened to John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson (In my newspaper today). Who will be next? Jesus Christ I'm sure.

"...but meanwhile people like Obama will be doing what little they can to nudge things in the right direction. We have to pick our battles."

Nudge. Nudge. Like Monty Python said so long ago, "A nod's as good as a wink to a blind man." Enjoy the fucking Kool-Aid. When you wake up you'll have an implanted RDIF chip, you'll be wearing plastic handcuffs, on a truck to the camps in West Texas while the locals throw rocks at you, for fun.

Won't that be an adventure? You can join with the other slaves singing Obama campaign songs on your way to the end of your life. I know, even better, "We shall overcome..." Always a good one to raise a slave's spirits.

BUT BE SURE AND DO NOTHING BETWEEN NOW AND THEN except vote for BHO. That will prove you are a good American.

People who won't fight for their freedom, don't deserve it and NEVER keep it. You don't have any Freedoms, do you? Bill of Rights DEAD. Constitution DEAD. "You have no rights that any Richfilth Animal needs to consider" – Chief Justice John Roberts (Opus Dei) – Scalia (Opus Dei), Alito (Opus Dei?), and Thomas (the Nazi white Black Man) concurring.

Oh yeah, you ARE free to Vote for your Overseer (sort of kind of if the vote goes the right way). Master recycles his money through the candidates, to the Media, and back to him again as profits. Like shit through a goose. WHAT A WINNING SOLUTION FOR MASTER. Almost as good as taking a small % of what he has stolen from you to turn that wealth into chains, for you. Isn't he the clever boots. 300 million slaves, all for him. Tommy Jefferson would be green with envy. He only got 200 human slaves as his dowry with Sally Hemmings as the 14yo Cherry On Top.

Your America. Change it or die.

Prostitution is illegal in the US (except partially in Nevada).
Buying politicians, however, is legal (if somewhat regulated), and given the cash they'll do exactly as told. (Read Matt Taibbi's excellent new book: "The Great Derangement" which has chapters on how Congress really works.)

It's striking, especially when viewed from the outside.
How did it come to that?

The legal bribery counteracts the democratic structure which this state outwardly proclaims.
It would probably take being invaded and forced to rewrite basic laws to erase this glaring political fraud operation.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
- Michael Rivero

"If you obsess about conspiracy, what you'll fail to see is that we are held fast by a form of highly abstract thinking fully concretized in human institutions which has grown beyond the power of the managers of these institutions to control. If there is a way out of the trap we're in, it won't be by removing some bad guys and replacing them with good guys."
- John Taylor Gatto

"The people I distrust most are those who want to improve our lives but have only one course of action."
- Frank Herbert

mikep Says the following on May 31st, 2008 12:52 pm

Good to hear honest reporting about RFK. Kennedy type liberalism has done the US a lot of damage and it needs to be discredited.

But the remarks on Israel are bizarre, and, as always, blatantly anti-Semitic (deny it all you want). Israel isn't responsible for the war there, and they certainly aren't responsible for 'starving' Palestinians in Gaza. The Gazans elected a party that advocated war and now they have the war they chose. When and if they are ready to end it all they have to do is to recognize Israel, the way the rest of the world did long ago, and cease their attempts to steal Jewish land. There's absolutely nothing illegal about Israel's attempts to defend themselves. When people are attacked, as the Israelis have been repeatedly over the last 100 years, they have the right to wage war to defend themselves. The Arabs attacked Israel, not the other way around (as the historical record conclusively demonstrates), and the war will continue until they come to their senses.

WRONG..

mikep, seems to think he/she super right while really all wrong:

Ever heard of the Dir Yaseen Family?
They are the first Palestian ABORIGINALS that were KILLED by the first israeli settlers straight from Hitler's Camp (the same people who witnessed, grew into monsters from the Nazi escapade just like the Nazis themselves) back aprx. around 1948 which was a little over 60 years ago. They gave birth to a generation of people who first invented and still to this day practice the dictionary definition of the term "terrorism".

Palestinians are the native of the land and israel are really those uninvited europeans from Germany
Hurtsall was the man who wanted to a realization of isreal by any means, even at the expense such darkness without dept that exist today which mikep and alike are all part of.

mikep, So much for your nonsense posting and views. Maybe you're right about RFK reporting comments but you still need to come to your senses and really go read up on some real history before acting as if you did.

Damn children. Can't fool anybody anymore. What are we coming to? Well its ok. Pilger doesn't count. He reads books, and WRITES them. Has to be a commie. Or at least an anti-semitic self hater of some kind. Not like us good Americans. We have FAITH in the leaders the flat earth blood god Yahweh has chosen for us. If we obey, the sin is on them, not us. Right. I heard that somewhere before I think. Yeah, I remember, it was Slave School.

tailcap June 1st, 2008 2:15 pm

Thanks very much!!!!

DLeeA: You are right on target with this: "... change in American politics takes place within the margins. You can pine for a revolution all you want, but meanwhile people like Obama will be doing what little they can to nudge things in the right direction. We have to pick our battles."

O Common Dreams purists, listen up!

Dichterfreund June 1st, 2008 says:

"Obama will face the reality of a national economy which is too damaged to sustain the imperial troops in their global positions."

I hope that is true, but Bush has managed to stay the course despite economics.

"What Johnson couldn't do — sacrifice empire for the public good, reduce the guns & increase the butter — is not only something Obama is inclined to do, but something he'll be obliged to do."

Obama can only "recommend" - only Congress can decide, and I do not see Congress ready to sacrifice "empire" - ever!

"If he settles into the purusit of the investors' agenda rather than the agenda of the vast majority of Democratic voters,"

Unfortunately, the investor agenda is the more likely.

"then he'll simply complete the destruction of the Democratic Party, should Hilary not have beaten him to it."

Bill Clinton initiated the destruction of the Democratic Party, and from my view, it will be good riddance when it happens.
What we need is a revolutionary party, and a Sam Adams.

"Obama has won over any number of people deeply skeptical & suspicious of generalities & personalities;"

Such as he is peddling

"We aren't "the last best hope" on earth, and Obama's adoption of the phrase is bothersome."

It sure is bothersome, because it is the essence of "more of the same"

"But the enemy in this election is not so much McCain as it is our own very battered dislike of each other, caused by a multitude of betrayals & the culture of self-deceit."

It is more about "disgust" and "frustration" than dislike.

Quote from the article:

""That's what you say in your speech. Surely the question is: How?"

"How . . . by charting a new direction for America."

The vacuities are familiar. Obama is his echo. Like Kennedy, Obama may well "chart a new direction for America" in specious, media-honed language, but in reality he will secure, like every president, the best damned democracy money can buy."

I have come to that same conclusion about Obama. He is not the revolutionary that the nation desperately needs at this time. That person might have been Dennis Kucinich - but he was not given the time of day, despite all of the exposure he actually received.

This nation is a hopeless case.

Thomas More June 1st, 2008 1:54 pm
Here is a link Thomas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynthia_McKinney
Here is another. She is a former Democrat now a Green running for president.
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=666706

Obama's supporters are largely more advanced than he is. We don't have a tradition of social democracy, much less socialism, in the US, and the best to hope for in the presidential election is to have some who is capable of admitting personal responsibility, by saying "I made a mistake," not "mistakes were made," and Obama does so. He doesn't engage in personal destruction politics, even as the Clintonites were showing how thoroughly they'd been converted to Roveism.

While sharing the Kennedy rhetoric & élan, Obama will face the reality of a national economy which is too damaged to sustain the imperial troops in their global positions. What Johnson couldn't do -- sacrifice empire for the public good, reduce the guns & increase the butter -- is not only something Obama is inclined to do, but something he'll be obliged to do.

If he settles into the purusit of the investors' agenda rather than the agenda of the vast majority of Democratic voters, then he'll simply complete the destruction of the Democratic Party, should Hilary not have beaten him to it.

Obama has won over any number of people deeply skeptical & suspicious of generalities & personalities; energy & idealism & refusal to accept quarter-measures & non-measures will determine whether he & we can live up to the best impulses.

We aren't "the last best hope" on earth, and Obama's adoption of the phrase is bothersome. But the enemy in this election is not so much McCain as it is our own very battered dislike of each other, caused by a multitude of betrayals & the culture of self-deceit.

Would someone please tell me something about Cynthia McKinney. Many keep referring to her, but thats it.

"If you would read (for example) the short book I recommended to you,"
That I'll do.

But Gaza was given back, so the argument that the original aggression was taking the land doesn't hold water. Its returned, so then its OK to fire rockets into Israel?

Using that argument, then the Egyptians have to return the land they stole from the Jews (Israeli) in the first place. Do the Arab countries have to return all the lands they stole from other people or the lands they hold now that originally belonged to the Israeli??

Where did the Indians get the land? They were not indigenous to America. Which tribe are you referring to? The Apache took quite a bit of territory from other tribes and so did the Sioux. No deeds, but don't come into Apache territory unless you wanted to lose some hair. Ask the Nez Perce (?)if they liked what their neighbors did to them? So if Mexicans are stealing territory from the Apache that the Apache stole from the Cree and we steal it from them, who do we give it back to?

Historical arguments are tricky. And whose land was it before the Arabs occupied Palestine? Not a rhetorical question.

Obviously I need to study this problem more fully before I dip my oar in the water on it again. I'll start with your suggestion and a few others have made.

Thanks for your clarification.

Jim Glover,

While I'm wary of Barack Obama's competence, i.e., lack thereof, and much prefer Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, as well as Mike Gravel, while Dennis Kucinich removed himself from candidacy, no one can really speak for CommonDreams.org readers as if all are of the same view. We see some strong contrasts here, including pro-war (of aggression), pro-Israel, anti-Palestine and therefore anti-human rights and -law, some pro-Billary or simply -Clintons, and ... etcetera. We also do not all agree that the theory on global warming, that we're primarily or else solely to blame, is anything more than theory, which really is what the view is; instead of proven fact. A theory is stronger than a hypothesis, when the classification as theory has been competently arrived at anyway; but it's still not the same thing as proven fact and no one has yet proven precisely what the main cause(s) for global warming are, while GW's better stated as GCC, global climate change, (eg, Quebec, Canada, this past winter and this spring). We only have theories, while I only know of two, and the one claiming we're the primary cause is not really better than the other theory is, for that one has historical realities for reference.

You're not alone in making blanket claims about what CD'ers say though, so it's not unusual here.

As for Brzezinski, thanks for the OilEmpire.us link; I'll take some time over the coming weeks to read some of its contents. I already see that there's an article by Mike Ruppert posted there and I believe that he's a good resource person.

In that page for articles about him and the Carter administration, however, there's one for a transcript of a 1998 interview with him, and what the brief intro. provided by GlobalResearch.ca's editor, M.C., i.e., Michel Chossudovsky, says indicates that Brzezinski was certainly warmonger in his threats stated in the commonly called "Carter Doctrine".

" The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Posted at globalresearch.ca 15 October 2001"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html

M.C.'s intro.:

"According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction as a nation.

M.C."

What Brzezinksi wrote in the "Carter Doctrine" was apparently written in 1980, or else earlier, but while the "Doctrine" was (I guess) finalized in 1980; and M.C. describes what the 1998 interview reveals, it was clearly a war crime that the Carter administration committed in threatening Russia, or really all other countries, about the U.S. supposedly being owner of the Middle East's oil resources. The U.S. is not owner of anyone; just being military superpower and willing to command wars of aggression for the interests of the egotists who rule the U.S. govt.

But, it's good that Brzezinski's provided this sort of information about the true doings of the U.S. govt; it's certainly to be treated as welcome to have such people provide such revelations, which a good court would use as evidence of U.S. crimes against the rest of planet Earth's peoples.

Thomas More (10:27 am) writes, "But one thing I'm sure of. If someone is firing rockets into my city, I'm going to shoot back. So I am sure who's right here."

- You've already made a false assumption in that one little stanza. You have assumed that the initial act of aggression was "someone firing rockets into my city." If you would read (for example) the short book I recommended to you, you would understand that the initial act of aggression -- long, long any rockets were fired into any cities -- was Israel's theft of Palestinian land, and Israel's expulsion of Palestinians from their land.

To pick an easy analogy, your position is like saying that when white settlers of the American West drove the Indians off the Indians' land, that if some bands of militant Indians responded by attacking wagon trains, that THAT was the "initial act of aggression." Obviously, the militant Indians didn't attack wagon trains for no reason. They did it because the white settlers were stealing their land. It is dishonest to claim that the white wagon trains "had to defend themselves against Indian aggression" -- which is the same argument you're offering here.

In response to mikep
"Israel isn't responsible for the war there, and they certainly aren't responsible for 'starving' Palestinians in Gaza."

!?!?!? Israel has been in defiance of a UN resolution ordering Israel to RETURN to the Palestinians the territory Israel occupied in the 1967 war. Rather than return the fertile farm lands of the Palestinians, they have continually built new settlements on Palestinian soil as recognized by international governance.

"The Gazans elected a party that advocated war and now they have the war they chose." -- mikep

Hamas was not elected to office until year 36 of Israeli occupation.

The present conflict is an extension of 40 years of widespread Palestinian poverty enforced first by war, incidently initiated by Israel due Egyptian postering, then enforced by economic measures, that when challenged by militant means aimed at enablers of the Israeli state , met with determent by advanced military hardware. The Israelis have since the war been a nuisance to Palestinian freedom by military presence. When occupiers walk the streets of the occupied authorized to dole atrocity short repercussion for the mere feeling at risk, the occupied will strive to reject the occupiers and violence will build.

"When and if they are ready to end it all they have to do is to recognize Israel, the way the rest of the world did long ago, and cease their attempts to steal Jewish land." --mikep

Again, World governing bodies ordered Israel to return the occupied territories nearly 40 years ago. The common Palestinian has no aspiration to steal Jewish land. The reason Hamas was voted to office is because they are the only Palestinian Political Party to have expressed any concern for the common Palestinian. Hamas did this by collecting the trash and providing various services by way of their organizational structure. It's a sabotage of peace efforts by their leadership that they continue with the hardline that Israel is not to be recognized as having a right to exist. That the Palestinian leadership is betrothed to power interests is par for the course in national leadership. That the Palestinian people do not recognize their leadership is corrupt apart from organizing collecting the trash is a tragedy. Advanced military hardware is not the solution.

John Pilger: THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

This is by far the best unmasking of Obama published by CD that I am aware of. I can't believe it! Am I dreaming? Let me pinch myself.

The way Democrats (Obama-Clinton) protect themselves from Republican attacks is by becoming more like them. Obama's mentor was that darling of the Republicans, Dick Bush-kissed Joe Lieberman. That says a lot. Dick Morris, the former Clinton political adviser is now a supporter of Republican John McCain. No surprise here.

Who are the Democrats? They are not an opposition party that is for sure. Their mantra is bipartisanship, working with, not against Republicans. The Democrats have declared that Bush will be protected from any consequence for his crimes because they are complicit. They refuse to impeach. The Democrats just helped the Republicans (70-26) pass enough money to keep the killing going through 2009. They refuse to stop funding the war.

What have the Democrats, now lead by Obama done that would cause a progressive to vote for them except perhaps the fact they aren't Republicans? Nuthin. Might just as well be one. What's the difference?

Just say no to McObama, McClinton, and McSame. Check out the Greens. They are progressives!

(Of course they don't stand a chance now but when enough of us join and help build them they will.)

I yesterday posted a comment on this article that was published in Dissident Voice. I reprint it here by way of introducing my viewpoint to the commenters on this post and also by way of apology to Common Dreams, which I lumped among the several "progressive" websites that have frozen out articles with any degree of serious question about the Obama candidacy. Way to go, CD!
..........................................
John Pilger speaks a truth that needs to be spoken—and more than that HEARD —by every fearful "progressive" in America who believes that voters this November will have no choice but to vote for Obama as the "lesser evil." Actually he is probably the greater threat than McCain to any dim prospects for peace in the world. His ability to co-opt and placate the anti-war crowd is already seen in the inability of The Nation or Common Dreams or Democracy for America, among others, to raise a whisper of "evil" about Obama's hip-pocket relationship to Israel, his support of militarism and imperialism, and his financial backing by those not sympathetic to any kind of populist political agenda. The realization of this could be the open sesame for public consideration of "alternatives" to the two candidates of the corporate duopology, from which there will be a number of worthy bidders for public support.

Jim Glover: If McCain wins Progressives will keep blaiming each other for the McCain win just like the Greens get much of the blame for 2000.

Jim, if McKane wins and continues the wrecking ball enterprise, progressives hope that Demoks will finally see the colossal blunder of their triangulation, give it up, and move to the left where sanity prevails. If we're going to unify, it has to be over the progressive platform. The triangulation platform fails the people.

"Not one word exists in the Constitution about political parties. They were created after the creation of the country. Or nation.

Also, you seem entirely ignorant of the role of 'fringe' parties in American history. For example, in the economic crisis that got FDR elected, he ran to out-Hoover Hoover, but once elected ended up promoting many of the programs of those 'fringe' parties from the Left."

Why would a politician who was elected on a centrist platform, then adopt fringe policies after being elected? Did some monumental shift occur so that the fringe became mainstream? If not, your very unique interpretation of history doesn't stand up to reason.

The real role that fringe parties sometimes play in American politics is to siphon off votes from one of the main parties - or to threaten to do so, and thus force the main parties to address certain issues. It's a pretty minor role in the end.

"Meanwhile, that is pretty inflammatory language you use, comparing American Progressives with fundamentalist Wahabbists 'killing other sunni's [sic] for not being 'sunni' enough.'"

Oh get off it. You're focusing on the wrong part of the analogy. Obviously the poster wasn't comparing what you are doing to murder, but only offering an example of one part of a faction turning on another part. As the saying goes, "the perfect becomes the enemy of the good."

"Probably, most Progressives end up voting Democrat for purely pragmatic reasons (esp. in the context of Pilger's article), but we do not really consider ourselves Democrat in the context since Clinton the bloviator. The last 'real' Democrat in the White House was Carter and even he was borderline."

And we all know how successful Carter's presidency was.... The American people do not want to be told to adjust their lifestyle in any way. "The American way of life is not up for debate" to paraphrase Bush I.

And Carter on Israel? His book was quietly ignored or half-heartedly ridiculed by most. You can't compare the Israeli occupation to apartheid and be taken seriously in American politics (never mind how obviously appropriate the comparison.)

"And as recent polling ought to tell you, the great majority of Americans oppose both Washington DC Criminal Parties on most major issues, both domestic and geopolitical."

Yet third parties don't catch on. I wonder why that is. Voters are perfectly capable of holding conflicting beliefs about politics - and most do. They want lower taxes, plus better schools and an enormous military. They may say in polls we shouldn't funnel money into Israel, but in the end they don't care. It doesn't affect their vote. Half are so apathetic as to not bother voting, and the half that do? You can bet a good deal of them are barely cognizant of things like our policy on Israel.

"In my humble opinion you are what back in the Sixties we called a Provacateur, a person hired by others to learn just enough to disrupt the organization of people seeking their own best interest.

You need to stop writing and start reading. History."

Your condescending tone only contributes to stereotypes about "progressives". Too many progressives refuse to fully accept that their views are not "ready for prime time" in this country. I believe that as the U.S. economy shrinks - a process that will be hurried along by all the military spending - citizens will demand more social programs, and the U.S. will transition to a European-style social democracy. But the people who will facilitate that process are not the fringe. It will be the centrist Democrats who compromise with Republicans to actually pass legislation, rather than be perpetually marginalized.

Now, I'm not giving a free pass to the Clintons and their DLC ilk. There are factions of every stripe within the party, and certainly many Democrats would be satisfied with a status quo of corporatism hardly distinguishable from their centrist Republican colleagues. But the refrain that "there's no difference between the two parties" overstates the issue, and makes reasonable people tune out.

There ARE differences. Yes, they are marginal, but change in American politics takes place within the margins. You can pine for a revolution all you want, but meanwhile people like Obama will be doing what little they can to nudge things in the right direction. We have to pick our battles.

His senior advisers embrace McCain's proposal for an aggressive "league of democracies", led by the United States, to circumvent the United Nations.

Heil O'Bama! Heil O'Bama! Why couldn't O'Bama propose that the United Nations dump the US so the UN could actually get something positive accomplished?

The media demanded that Obama disown Wright and swear an oath of loyalty to the Bush lie that "terrorists attacked America because they hate our freedoms". So he did.

They hate our wehrmacht! But our wermacht loves O'Bama!

An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults.

Brown shirts in the streets! You didn't know who you were voting for, did you? Get in the bed of the truck!

I have learned a great deal from John Pilger over the years and very much admire his consistent weighing in on the side of the powerless in numerous conflicts around the world throughout his long career. Nonetheless, I do rather wish he would reserve further doubts about Barack Obama until after the man has been elected president, since there is no guarantee at the moment that such will be the outcome. When the reality staring us in the face is a choice between Obama and bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran McCain, then "liberalism's last fling" doesn't look all that bad – especially glimpsed from within the living nightmare of the past eight years.

Other Socialists out there get the desperate situation we're in and realize this is not a year to indulge in wishful thinking or imagine we can turn to any third force to save us. George Galloway, for example, has backed Obama from the beginning. Norman Finkelstein also gets it, making the point that, although the policies of the competing US presidential candidates hardly qualify as a two-party system, even a miniscule percentage of diversity could mean a world of difference to millions on this planet. Just as RFK and Gore would almost certainly have damaged fewer people than Nixon and Bush Jr., so Obama is likely to prove a saner leader than the alternative.

He might even turn out to be a pretty decent president, as US presidents go, whoever his corporate sponsors may be. Only time will tell, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of a doubt and a reasonable time in office before accusing him of 'same old-same old.'

"Democrats are what you have to work with. They are ALL you have to work with."

Very well put. In American politics it does no good to be OPENLY very far left of center. If your true feelings ARE very far left of center, your best bet is to toe the line when it comes to certain litmus-test issues (e.g. total support for Israel without conditions) or never get elected. People who don't get elected can't do anything.

It is possible, in theory, to slowly and gradually shift the narrow band of what is allowed in mainstream politics to the left. But trying to jump to a candidate like Nader, Kucinich, or even John Edwards when centrists like Gore can't be elected is just foolish. A Democratic administration needs to work within the boundaries to produce concrete change and gain respect as a party if they can hope to stop the pendulum swinging the other way after one or two terms.

I'm someone who has never given the Monica Lewinsky scandal much thought. But at this moment it seems to have been extremely important. Without that scandal reinforcing stereotypes about liberals with loose morals, "the country" probably wouldn't have switched parties in 2000. Maybe "changing the tone in Washington" was codespeak from Bush to the heartland: "I won't commit adultery in the White House."

His adviser on Iraq, Colin Kahl, says the US should maintain up to 80,000 troops in Iraq until 2010.

O'Bama finds plenty of fascists ready to help heave him into the oval orifice. He only has to look around for them, ehh? Probably not far outside the beltway. Heil O'Bama! Heil O'Bama!

Apologies for the typo:

"provocateur" not provacateur. Sorry. (I probably still haven't gotten it right!) Other similar nouns are disappearing, replaced by "terrorist" or was that "tourist"?)

I know three languages and none of them is French.

"Provocateure" anyone? Or have you skipped to the next article? EUR versus OUR?

Bertrand Russell said, in a TV interview after he turned 96, "Life is a river the banks of which keep receding." Pretty soon we will enter the ocean.

-30-

John Pilger is an excellent journalist and this article is great. But he should not perpetuate the misinformation that Eugene McCarthy won the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic Party. He nearly won it, but fell short by about 7% to Lyndon Johnson. He also said afterward that he had waited in vain for Bobby Kennedy to come to his support. It was after McCarthy's great "success" in coming this close to defeating Johnson,however, that the opportunistic Kennedy realized that he could oppose Johnson and pretend to be an anti-war candidate. Kucinich could have been the McCarthy of 2008, if the damned corporate media had been as open now as they were in 1968.

ubrew 12 wrote here:

"Our constitution specifies a WINNER TAKE ALL Democracy which allows only TWO parties of any REAL strength. Again, I wish that weren't true. But until modern progressives recognize their own complicity in Democratic failures in the last 10-15 years, they will continue to be the Wahabbists of modern American politics: killing other Sunni's for not being 'sunni' enough."

Not one word exists in the Constitution about political parties. They were created after the creation of the country. Or nation.

Also, you seem entirely ignorant of the role of "fringe" parties in American history. For example, in the economic crisis that got FDR elected, he ran to out-Hoover Hoover, but once elected ended up promoting many of the programs of those "fringe" parties from the Left.

Meanwhile, that is pretty inflammatory language you use, comparing American Progressives with fundamentalist Wahabbists "killing other sunni's [sic] for not being 'sunni' enough."

Probably, most Progressives end up voting Democrat for purely pragmatic reasons (esp. in the context of Pilger's article), but we do not really consider ourselves Democrat in the context since Clinton the bloviator. The last "real" Democrat in the White House was Carter and even he was borderline. And as recent polling ought to tell you, the great majority of Americans oppose both Washington DC Criminal Parties on most major issues, both domestic and geopolitical.

In my humble opinion you are what back in the Sixties we called a Provacateur, a person hired by others to learn just enough to disrupt the organization of people seeking their own best interest.

You need to stop writing and start reading. History.

Best to all
-30-

" mikep May 31st, 2008 12:52 pm

Good to hear honest reporting about RFK. Kennedy type liberalism has done the US a lot of damage and it needs to be discredited."

We only speculate on what RK might have done if elected, and given that you refused to provide any supporting details for your above words, they are therefore WORTHLESS and putrid, sewage.

However, I have my own order of questioning. Would he have reversed the criminal economic sanctions against Cuba that his brother Pres. JFK signed off on, f.e.? If not, then RK is not as great as his fans pretend, and I'm not fan of anyone; although Harry Belafonte, Jimmy Hendrix, ..., and musicians employing only primitive musical instruments, which I prefer above all, are enough of an exxception.

JFK also did not order full cessation of the criminal war on Vietnam (including the South, eventually, but also quickly enough) in prompt manner; only having taken years to decide that the U.S. should stop. He at least did come to do that, but why it took him that long to do this, while other national leaders of this world, including Canadian PM Lester B. Pearson said that this war was Wrong, well, I don't know why JFK wasn't as bright. Yet, he still came to say that the U.S. needed to stop and that's good, even if later than desirable.

"But the remarks on Israel are bizarre, and, as always, blatantly anti-Semitic (deny it all you want)."

NO, NOT always; sometimes, occasionally, but certainly not always.

"Israel isn't responsible for the war there, and they certainly aren't responsible for 'starving' Palestinians in Gaza."

Duh?! If 'there' is Iraq, then I agree, for while Israel wanted and called for the war on Iraq and does the same, perhaps more strongly with respect to Iran, it is NOT the real reason for the West's war on the Middle East.

It is, however, the superpower, and by far so, in the Middle East, as tiny as Israel is for population; and this military strength is strategically profitable for the West's elitists making these wars (of aggression). It provides them with not a stronger, but a quasi-superpower military basing [in] the Middle East, and, on wider scale, like much of all of Asia, I "figure".

Why? I'm not from textbook schoolbenching, let's say. We can find or already know of sufficient analogies from knowing how criminal organisations sometimes do inter-operate and therefore -relate, f.e. However, we don't need that for understanding that Israel strategically is militarily useful to the West's elites, who know that the USA can't take on the whole of Earth's countries alone, and the more psychopathically ready "allies" are, the more reassured these Western elites can believe to be.

"The Gazans elected a party that advocated war and now they have the war they chose."

Hamas NEVER did that; [LIAR]! By saying that of Hamas, which was fully and democratically elected by the Palestinians, as they [should] have done and greatly did, you prove that you are nothing but LIAR and damn moronically stupid hypocrite. Is that what you wish to prove of yourself?!

You want democracy in your own country, but refuse it to others whenever your hellbent insane biases kick in. For it to be blatantly obvious only requires, f.e., that people pretend that Hamas is wrong and Israel right; for the situation clearly is the complete reverse and anyone of truly sane nature and who's adequately informed knows that not only is Hamas right, but also are most other people of the whole Middle East with respect to HELL-bent Israeli leadership, sons, i.e., human fiends, of the father of lies and murder, NOT of God.

Before you choose to continue your false and easily debunkable pretenses, you should enlist and get your ass over to Iraq so that Iraq's Resistance forces can take some "pot-shots" at you, or become PTSD'd, because you betray our fooled soldiers and our trashed Constitution and international laws, ...; and such treason deserves some bullet holes asap, imo (although lynching would also be fitting). If we really had a country that seriously believes in defending against "enemies from within", the I'm sure you'd be either silent, or on the lynching list.

You're either a blatant liar, or else an unwitting propagator of lies, and neither is acceptable. And neither is acceptable!

People bitch about Hamas not accepting to treat Israel as a real and sovereign state, sure, and everyone or nearly everyone knows this by now. But Hamas is not alone among Palestinians and is RIGHT and guilty of either nothing, or else little, barely worthy of mention when we conduct a fully sound evaluation. The only reason why some, relatively few (very few) Palestinians have committed acts of violence in Israel is because of the Israeli leadership's and military crimes of aggression and genocidal they most definitely and clearly are.

It [is] Israel, that is, Israeli leadership, that refuses to acknowledge that Palestine is a real and long-existing state and sovereign; instead of the opposite. Hamas has NO reason whatsoever to provide to Israel what Israel clearly and hellbent refuses to provide to Palestine, NOT one single iota of whasoever! So that Hamas justifiably refuses to grant Israel the kind of recognition that Israel flagrantly refuses to provide is NO wrong; Hamas is right!

Etcetera.

The alternate view of "Israel being attacked" in each of the Arab israeli wars.

1948: Negotiations were still ongoing between the UN, The Palestinains, represented in part by the various Arab states, and The peoples advocating an independent Israel.

Those representing Israel unilaterally declared Israeli Independence and laid claim to lands Palestinians still lived on and claimed as their own. The Arab nations mobilized to defend Palstinian interests. This war was sparked by the Israeli unilateral declaration of the Israeli state.

Picture settlers on Americas frontiers unilaterally declaring Native American lands as theirs and indicating that the Native tribes should leave those territories. Would the Natives be the agressors if they tried to drive those settlers off?

1956

Nasser tried to nationalize the Suez canal. He closed it to Israeli shipping. The French, British and israelis did not like this and launched an attack against Egypt. Israel promised territories in the Suez. Israel sent its forces into the Suez. Egypt did not send its forces into Israel.

1967

The Israelis attacked first. This is a fact that is beyond dispute. they launched a sneak attack on Arab forces detroying the various Air Forces on the ground.

1973

The Yom Kippur war. This is the only one of the 4 wars where Arab forces acted first. Thjis to reclaim occupied territoires seized by the Israelis in the 1967 war.

Mike C,
I am not so sure Brezizinski is the rabid neo con he is often painted as here.
It seems He is more complex than that.

Check out http://www.oilempire.us/zbig.html

Although very conservative and realistically aware of the ways of emperialism and a Trilateral Commission founder, He was against the 1st Gulf War and Bush's Iraq war and critic the policies of Israel, the War on Terrorism, and the Israel lobby too.

and wikipedia:
"Post 9/11
After 9/11 Brzezinski was criticized for his role in the formation of the Afghan mujaheddin network, some of which would later form the Taliban and would shelter Al Qaeda camps. He asserted that blame rightfully ought to be laid at the feet of the Soviet Union, whose invasion he claimed radicalized the relatively stable Muslim society.
Brzezinski also became a leading critic of the Bush administration's "war on terror." Some painted him as a neoconservative because of his links to Paul Wolfowitz and his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard. Brzezinski wrote The Choice in 2004 which expanded upon The Grand Chessboard but sharply criticized the Bush administration's foreign policy. He has defended the paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. He has been outspoken in his criticism of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the subsequent conduct of the war.
Brzezinski currently lives in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. He is married to internationally recognized sculptor Emilie Anna Benes (grandniece of Czechoslovakia's former president Edvard Beneš) and has three children. Ian served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO and is now a Principal at Booz Allen Hamilton. Mark is a partner in McGuire Woods LLP, Washington, D.C., and a foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama. His daughter Mika is a reporter who is currently the co-host and news reader on Morning Joe on MSNBC.
[edit]United States presidential election 2008
Brzezinski is one of Senator Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers for the presidential campaign of 2008.[16]
Brzezinski stated on Morning Joe, May 22, 2008, that he has endorsed Barack Obama but is not an advisor."

I have a different take on things. Obama's instincts and philosophy are probably somewhat more progressive than his currently articulated positions, just as McCain's has abandoned whatever moderation may once have been in his soul. I trust Obama's instincts much more than Clinton's or McCain's, and among the choices on offer he is clearly the best. For us to bash him and dispirit progressive voters won't help our country.

Dickinseattle (8:40 pm) - Do you know who Pilger is? Have you read any of his work? It's a humorous conceit of yours, that you think Pilger is "missing" something about US politics that you're in some position to "point out" to him. He knew all about these things -- in depth -- before you were even born.

Ironically, you're calling for alternative media progressives to get a better grasp of our real history. It's people like Pilger that do precisely that -- and very few do it better than he does.

It sounds like you're an Obama hopeful. Obama may be a decent fellow personally -- but politically, he's just a fake, like all Democrats. If he weren't a complete fake, the media & Wall St wouldn't be so in love with him.

A couple things Pilger is missing are just how far the U.S. is from a functioning Democracy as opposed to a Plutocracy or worse, and, under these conditions, which also existed in l968, how important leadership and charisma are to political success. That's what the Kennedys provided along with pragmatic policies for more egalitarian progress. That is what Obama also may offer and why he get's so much support given the media defined alternatives. If we expect much more we will have to first replace our media or eventually wind up like Italy. Of course it would help if our alternative media "progressives" had a better grasp on our real history so we might actually learn from that rather than just have more corporate media influenced spin and agenda driven perspectives.

Thomas More (7:12) -

As I remember it, I believe that Isreal was attacked each time there was an Arab/Israeli war. Is that not correct?

- No, it's not correct. That's certainly the impression given in the US media, but as we should all realize by now, that hardly makes it true. Each of the wars requires its own explanation, and none can be summarized in one or two simple sentences.

There are many ways to learn the real story, but I'd recommend (among other things) an extremely readable book, only about 160 pages, called The Lemon Tree, published in 2006 by an American journalist named Sandy Tolan. It uses the device of the true story of an unusual friendship between a Palestinian man & an Israeli woman, to illuminate the I-P situation. In particular, it tells the story of the 1948 war (Israel's "War of Independence") and the 1967 Six Day War. The contrast between what really happened, and the way it's portrayed in the US media is as staggering as the contrast between, say, the "coverage" of the Iraq War that appears in the US media, and what has actually happened. The chapter about the Six Day War is online at the PBS website.

Here's an excerpt (referencing late May 1967, more than a week before the shooting war started):

"...The new (Israeli) cabinet dispatched Israel's intelligence chief, Mossad director Meir Amit, on another trip to Washington. He met with (Defense Sec. Robt) McNamara, who was increasingly preoccupied with Vietnam. The American defense secretary listened as the Israeli intelligence chief told him that "I, Meir Amit, am going to recommend that our government strike." Amit had come in large part to assess the American reaction to this statement. "There's no way out," he recalled telling McNamara. McNamara asked Amit how long a war would last. "Seven days," replied the Israeli...

.....(On) May 26, in a meeting in Washington with President Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, and Rostow, Abba Eban declared that the atmosphere in Israel had become "apocalyptic," and that Israel needed a show of support from the U.S. McNamara assured Eban that three different intelligence groups had in recent days determined that the Egyptian deployments in the Sinai were defensive. The president told Eban that American military experts had unanimously concluded that the Egyptians would not attack, and that if they did, "You will whip the hell out of them." As U.S. undersecretary of state Nicholas Katzenbach would recall, "The intelligence was absolutely flat on the fact that the Israelis could mop up the Arabs in no time at all...."

IOW, the Israelis told McNamara in advance that they were going to strike first. And LBJ told Eban that Egyptian deployments in the Sinai were defensive, & that US experts were sure Egypt would not attack.

It's acknowledged by everyone that Israel actually struck first in 1967 -- but the US media has consistently presented this as "justified and necessary" because the Arabs were poised to attack. Yet the truth is that the Arabs were NOT "poised to attack," and everyone knew this.

- One of your other questions was Why did the Isralei withdraw in the first place if they wanted to starve the people there? Why not just stay?

This can be handled in only a few sentences. Israel had only a few thousand settlers in Gaza, compared to a half-million in the West Bank. There are something like 1.3 million Palestinians in Gaza -- it's like a huge concentration camp, a very densely-packed poverty-stricken & helpless population. The territory is not very desirable. From Israeli's perspective, occupying it was too costly & difficult, & there was little reward for doing so. So a few years ago, the Israelis launched their highly publicized "withdrawal" from Gaza -- but this was no real sacrifice, because there were so few settlers. They weren't giving up much. The idea was to publicize the "withdrawal" from Gaza to gain PR points -- and meanwhile continue to expand settlements in the West Bank, which is far more desireable and where there are a thousand times more settlers.

When Israel withdrew in 2005, they hadn't yet decided to starve the Gazans. Hamas won the elections in January 2006 -- this helped push Israel to adopt a much harder line with Gaza.

"Get off it, mikep. You only spout lying Zionist propaganda. I for one, am tired of hearing the same mistruths whined over and over." -by curmudgeon99 May 31st, 1:17 pm (responding to mikep)

"The post is pure filth, entirely comparable to writings of apologists for white supremacists, Nazis, or apartheid." -by RichM May 31st, 6:22 pm (responding to mikep)
____________________________

I hate to admit it in public, but lately, at night when no one's watching, I've been hitting abcnews.com, together with other porn sites. Last night ABC posted an article on how Israel is refusing exit visas to Gazan Fulbright scholars. If the students leave without their visas, they become instant refugees with no right of return.

I looked at the comments and noticed that they were all similar to mikep's. Total, vicious, back-to-back lies. Huh? So I posted two responses to set the record straight. Haha.

No surprise that an ABC moderator immediately deleted my posts and banned me from the forums. Let's not pussyfoot around, the corporate MSM are promoting war crimes and crimes against humanity, just like Nazi sympathizers did before and during the Holocaust. Zionists rightly wanted to hold Nazis accountable for their crimes against humanity. Who will now hold the Zionists and their MSM sympathizers accountable for theirs?

Thomas More: The Israelis don't want Gaza, there's nothing but sand there--no aquifers like in the West Bank. So Israel turned Gaza into a huge concentration camp. Israel does not allow supplies to enter from Egypt. Both Arabs and Israelis have initiated battles in this ongoing war against Israeli ethnic cleansing and apartheid. Israel started the conflict by driving approximately 700,000 Palestinians off their own land, murdering thousands in the process, and then denying Palestinian refugees any right to return. See books by Walt and Mearsheimer, Illan Pappe, and Jonathan Cook.

And once again rabid zionist bitches vomit all over the board and hijack another thread that has nothing to do with zionist israel. The whole world could evaporate in a nuclear blast but these zionist cockroaches (like their southern baptist and al-qaeda brothers) will somehow survive.

By the way ... RichM is absolutely right.

RichM May 31st, 2008 6:22 pm

As I remember it, I believe that Isreal was attacked each time there was an Arab/Israeli war. Is that not correct?

Isn't Egypt on the other side of Gaza or is my geography wrong? If thats correct, why aren't supplies coming in from there.

Why did the Isralei withdraw in the first place if they wanted to starve the people there? Why not just stay?

As you can tell I haven't paid enough attention to this area.

RichM said: "mikep writes, '…Israel isn't responsible for... 'starving' Palestinians in Gaza. The Gazans elected a party that advocated war and now they have the war they chose'. [mikep's] post should be studied carefully for its utter contempt for truth & decency...Particularly vicious are the quotation marks in which mikep placed the word "starving," as though those people aren't starving, or as though it was amusing that they are in fact starving."

That's so true. I couldn't believe I was reading it. Where is such filth trained anyway? Hopefully not in MY America.

Daniel David said: "Nader's last four or five (futile) attempts....The reality is that a majority of Americans are as dumb as a concrete block (How the heck do you think you got Bush twice?)...Without Obama or Clinton (preferably teamed...), you get McCain by default, and you get him picking your judges and poised to veto every initiative that does not suit corporations...Stop buying into this self-serving crap that is dished up by "progressives" who enable everything except "progress"....Democrats are what you have to work with. They are ALL you have to work with."

I totally agree!!! Naderite Progressives must find a way to work WITHIN the Dem Party, or continue to be the cause of its failure to Repubs election AFTER election. This ISN'T Germany (though I wish it were). Our constitution specifies a WINNER TAKE ALL Democracy which allows only TWO parties of any REAL strength. Again, I wish that weren't true. But until modern progressives recognize their own complicity in Democratic failures in the last 10-15 years, they will continue to be the Wahabbists of modern American politics: killing other Sunni's for not being 'sunni' enough.

Maybe with a Dem majority we can change our Constitution to be more of a Parlimentary majority type of government. Until then, we're a winner-take-all society, and that means only two boxers in the ring.

What a great article!! Thank you!

mikep (12:52 pm) writes, "...But the remarks on Israel are bizarre, and... blatantly anti-Semitic .... Israel isn't responsible for the war there, and they certainly aren't responsible for 'starving' Palestinians in Gaza. The Gazans elected a party that advocated war and now they have the war they chose. ... The Arabs attacked Israel, not the other way around (as the historical record conclusively demonstrates), and the war will continue until they come to their senses. ".

- This post should be studied carefully for its utter contempt for truth & decency. There isn't a valid or honest sentence in the entire post; indeed, its every assertion turns reality on its head. The post is pure filth, entirely comparable to writings of apologists for white supremacists, Nazis, or apartheid.

Particularly vicious are the quotation marks in which mikep placed the word "starving," as though those people aren't starving, or as though it was amusing that they are in fact starving. Mikep writes that Israel "certainly" isn't responsible for starving the Palestinians -- even though Israel has total control of what is & is not permitted entry into Gaza. There a thousands of articles like this:

----------------
UN Relief Agency Suspends Food Aid in Gaza

The UN relief agency for Palestinian refugees is set to suspend its food aid distribution in Gaza today because of a lack of fuel caused by the Israeli blockade. UNWRA spokesperson Chris Gunness said, "We have exhausted our stocks of fuel and are therefore forced to stop our food distributions to 1.5 million inhabitants in the Gaza Strip." On Sunday, the Israeli military shut down two key border crossings through which Gaza receives most of its food, medical supplies, humanitarian aid and fuel...

----------------

-- but Zionist liars like mikep insist Israel "certainly" isn't responsible. What mikep's post really tells us is what shameless liars Zionist apologists really are.

"Moreover, none of the candidates represents so-called mainstream America."
___________________________

Will the real mainstream America please stand up? Sometimes Americans are actually motivated by morality, but more often by narrow self-interest. Hey, it's the nature of the beast. Still, we abolished feudalism, monarchy, slavery, adopted progressive income taxes, and gave women the vote. Two steps forward, one step back. That's the best we can realistically hope for. We just took one big step back; now we need a consensus, and leaders, for those two steps forward. Obama's no messiah, but he may stop the internal hemorrhaging.

My grandfather, who came west on the Oregon Trail and whom I loved deeply, was a member of the KKK. Oregon remains an almost lily-white state, but this month almost sixty percent of Oregon democrats voted for a black guy to lead our party.

No matter how phony President Obama may turn out to be, he's still black, and whites are voting for him in large numbers. Maybe mainstream America has finally overcome its viciously racist heritage. That would be a huge moral victory in its own right.

I knew Bobby Kennedy. And Barack Obama is NO Bobby Kennedy.

Dennis Kucinich 2012! Oh, that's right: He's too far left for "Liberals".

Also, and as I believe either most people already know about, or that many enough do, Brzezinski is "grand master" or "wizard" author of the book, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives" (1997); and he's most surely not given up on such plans, the U.S. basically conquering and dominating the whole world and with not Israel, but economic racketeering as the basis, while, and "of course", we know much of this modern-day Roman Empire expansionism is through military means.

"Grand master" he may be in his planning for his "chess games", but damn stupidly dumb animal he is. He's actually obvious when we known enough about his antics and notions of the role of the USA or any other single country here, on Earth. (Are there any countries on any planets not yet explored? I don't know; haven't been there, and there is not here, though we do have unnatural political borders.)

He's NO advisor; he's a damn war criminal as of when he threatened the world with military aggression if they threatened the USA's OIL "interests" (possessions in his mind and words) in the Middle East. And the same ... hell has been going on in Africa for quite some years now, albeit also for mining resources, natural gas, and vast fertile lands; only so-called "humanitarians", "liberals", "progressives", ... of the West contribute, sometimes wittingly (USAID, really US-MALADY or -DISEASE, -GANGSTERISM, ..., and some other parties or groups) to covering up what the real and underlying problem is and which is that the West refuses to do business [fairly] with other countries that are too weak to be able to oppose the U.S. or West. They cry for the worst criminal state in the world, the USA, and the UN, which is too often controlled, and otherwise is clobbered, by the USA to intervene in situations like in the Darfur region of Sudan, while hellishly ignoring or, worse, intentionally enough disregarding the fact that the USA and Western elites, i.e., pigs, are the biggest problem of all there; as they are across this planet, this one here, you know, the we call Earth (in case another dummy, here, at CD this time, questions again about what 'here' is when it's clear what the answer is).

Anyway, before even opening and starting to read Brzezinski's book, the title itself says a LOT when we truthfully know enough about the truth of the USA's conduct in this world, here (Earth, for the dummies who need further clarification).

Thank you Mr. Pilger for pairing Bill Clinton with Tony Blair. Too many Americans think Clinton was liberal, and was a democrat. Nooooooooo!!! He was, and is no different from GW Bush. Look at his wife's campaign. "Two for the price of one?" No thanks. How about ZERO for the price of none! The Clintons are AWFUL, and NAFTA killed THOUSANDS OF JOBS for Americans. I HATE Bill Clinton. What a corporate SLIMEBAG, just like his wife. Why don't they come clean and simply be what they are: neo-con corporate enabling REPUBLICRATS.

Also if anyone is interested in Progressives having more influence we will be able to unify much better if Obama wins and turns out badly than if McCain wins.

The reason is just logic from the past.

If McCain wins Progressives will keep blaiming each other for the McCain win just like the Greens get much of the blame for 2000.

If we do not unify we will remain pretty powerless but we can still be Gloomy.

Even the Sheeple know when they are gettin fleeced.

According to the Prophecy

I haven't yet read the article, so can't comment on what John Pilger says, but wonder if Robert Kennedy would've had people like Zbigniew Brzezinski as top foreign policy advisors in political campaigns for the presidency. If so, then my opinion would also apply with RK, and it's that one of the top elites who've been long working to criminally corrupt the U.S. govt and threaten the world about Iraq's or else the Middle East's OIL resources supposedly being owned by the USA and therefore ....

That's from what's known as the 'Carter Doctrine', on which I recently made a post here, and including links to a few resources, but searching CD doesn't turn it up, so I guess CD deleted it; perhaps because I was using this to say that Obama's campaign clearly is already infiltrated by an elitist who is said to have been threatening, in 1980, Russia, but sort of the whole world and with words that infer that he and his ilk treat the Middle East's resources, minimally those of Iraq, as if owned by the USA and its ruling elites. It wasn't a specific claim that Obama is aligned with such thinking that I stated, but that he's evidently not qualitatively selective about who he accepts for policy advisors and that, in itself, is to a characteristic to be aware and wary of.

After all, what Brzezinski specifically wrote is as per above when carefully read, instead of reading it with yet ever more U.S. egotism for starting point.

One of the links in my post was the No. 3 Award at ProjectCensored.org and for 2008. It's entitled, "AFRICOM: US Military Control of Africa's Resources", and the awarded article (and author) is for the part 1 page of a 3-part series; while only the first part is needed for a more extensive reference to this part of the Carter Doctrine, and subsequent applications; including under the Clinton administration; as far as the part 1 page of the article refers to, that is. According to PC, that article series is by Bryan Hunt, but the source article uses the author pseudo-name of 'b real', and is entitled, "Understanding AFRICOM: A Contextual Reading of Empire's New Combatant Command". It's at MoonOfAlabama.org.

I'm not going to include the links, since a CD search is not turning up the link to the page in which I made the post and I don't want that bs censorship bias to happen yet again. CD allows war criminals and supporters thereof to post all of their bs here, while censoring critical, warning, but still valid posts by citizens who truly do hold to the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Intl laws and conventions, human rights and dignity of ALL peoples, as well as dignity and sacredness of Nature. Obama's screwed up and inexcusably so too many times as a Senator, and he's provided a little improvement recently, when Bush Jr inferred that Obama is like an appeaser of Hitler, during Bush's recent visit in Israel; but Obama still has an otherwise awful voting record as a senator. No, not worse than most members of the Senate and the Congress, but that's still inexcusable for placing blatantly criminal votes in such high offices of U.S. politics.

Anyway, the above information should make it easy to do a Web search to find these resource articles, and the PC analysis is very good, even if short. I would've prefered that the reviewer provide more information on the whole of the 3-part series, at least to say that the whole of it is included for the award, as opposed to not saying this and only linking to part I. I haven't read the whole of any of the three parts, but looked them all over enough to see that these evidently are worth reading and are recommendable.

Neither article states that Brzezinski is the person who wrote this part of the "Carter Doctrine", but the Wikipedia page on that "doctrine" states that he was.

mrraven500 ,

According to the prophecy is a joke that apparently you don't get but if it makes you imply I am hearing voices that is cool with me .
The above article is full of predictions and most posts here are predictions of Doom. If you can't agree with my prediction, why not just give us yours if you have one and insult anyone who you don't agree with if you want since nobody can stop you. It is your choice to choose how you express yourself.

DanielDavid--"The reality is that a majority of Americans are as dumb as a concrete block on both economics and politics"

Wow ! talk about being elitist ... and you Daniel David, the all knowing wise sage in all your infinite wisdom, after making that ridiculous claim, continue to push us to vote Democrat ! How deeply deluded are you really ?

If power was not concentrated on top (Corporate Oligarchy, Republicans, Democrats, Media) and if Media did its job of educating the public we wouldnt have to choose between two equally hated alternatives.

You and your fellow democrat sleaze bags are clearly going to win the next election and continue to maintain the status quo while die-hard, marginalized progressives will continue to oppose your shit-for-brains-but-clever democratrepublicans.

Daniel David May 31st, 2008 2:23 pm -- "A campaign of platitudes fueled by contributions from people who actually have enough money to contribute is the campaign that wins. [...] Democrats are what you have to work with. They are ALL you have to work with."

Does anyone wonder why the peoples of other nations are willing put their lives on the line in order to oppose USA Incorporated's exportation by force of its system of "freedom and democracy"? Maybe the "terrorists" really do hate your freedom. How about you?

Remember boys and girls, Nazis are all you have to work with, remember to back the Ernest Roheme SA "good Nazis" and not the Hitler Gobbels SS bad Nazis. Together we can all win behind the lesser evil! This message has been brought to you by the ministry of truth.

@Jim Glover

"According to the prophecy."

Translation some wild eyed guy walking around with a sandwich board said it, therefor it must be true.

Whatever happened to the idea that we used to diagnose people hearing voices as paranoid schizophrenic? Now days I swear there is a competition between left and right as to who can come up with the most improbable, ungrounded fantasy.

The election is a reality game show for the international elite. It's produced out of the White House and brought to you like everything else in America, by Hollywood. and sponsored by Wall Street. Technical adviser the Pentagon. And of course it will be rigged and promoted into bringing the American agenda forward in a positive light. And no one gets into the game that would pose a threat to the status quo. As long as Obama stays mainstream he has a good chance of winning. Of course nothing will change, but that's what America is all about.
Hoa binh

John says:
"An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent."

I don't think so, We here on Common Dreams will not fall silent and if the Economy continues to go south and new wars break out, the pressure from all sides will increase on Obama for giving America and the world false Hope.

We cannot hope to form an effective and unified 3rd force in America before this Election, but if Obama double crosses the people like is being predicted, it will be our first opportunity.... why be Gloomy?
This is the chance we have all been waiting for, a force for us! Then we will see if the 3rd parties, the Greens and Nader can join together with those Dems and Repubs all who want real change and peaceful Revolution.

According to the prophecy

"We all deserve better", Pilger says, but declines to offer YOU even one word of concrete suggestion of how you're going to actually GET anything better, ever. It's all about slamming RFK and Obama as though this smarty-pants author could have waved a wand and elected Naderites for you anytime in Nader's last four or five (futile) attempts.

The reality is that a majority of Americans are as dumb as a concrete block on both economics and politics, and a campaign of platitudes fueled by contributions from people who actually have enough money to contribute is the campaign that wins. (How the heck do you think you got Bush twice?)

Without Obama or Clinton (preferably teamed even though she's half nuts), you get McCain by default, and you get him picking your judges and poised to veto every initiative that does not suit corporations for several years.

Stop buying into this self-serving crap that is dished up by "progressives" who enable everything except "progress".
Democrats are what you have to work with. They are ALL you have to work with.

Kennedy did a nice hit job for corporate america when he stifled the teamsters union then Reagan finished them off.
Were they both on the same team ?
Where is Obama on Unions ?
Edwards is the guy the fascists don't want.

"An Obama victory will bring intense pressure on the US anti-war and social justice movements to accept a Democratic administration for all its faults. If that happens, domestic resistance to rapacious America will fall silent."

Holier truth than this has never been uttered in these forums. Obama may be a tad better than Hillary and McCain but its marginal at best.

As for Jacob Freeze -- "Soldiers risking their lives for a lie in Iraq," ...
Get a grip .. these soldier mo__f__kers volunteered to commit murder .. they dont deserve any better. We are supposed to feel sorry for these scumbags as they slaughter innocent Iraqis and Afghans. Are they really that brain-dead or morally bankrupt that they cannot disseminate this war for what it is ?

Election, Incorporated. The sequel.

I agree with most of John Pilger's article, except the last sentence:

"We all deserve better."

Maybe a few of us deserve better... Soldiers risking their lives for a lie in Iraq, for example.

But most of us greedy little consumers don't even deserve the government we have, much less anything better.

Take a look at the audience of American Idol...

The right President for those absurd schlubs would be Idi Amin.

Pam Martens' excellent piece on Obama's money can be found here ...

http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05062008.html

...and Mr Green http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/25/9183/ your reply to Mr Pilger? Make it snappy!

Have you ever considered the possibility that "evil" is good? It sure seems the only realistic, effective options we have are evil to one large degree or another, and "good" is clearly dependent on it. Corruption thrives for a reason, as do insanity and stupidity.

Hail Satan?

I always love it when the people shooting the bullets, dropping the bombs, firing the missiles, stopping the food at checkpoints ..... says its all the victims fault.

Yes, you see the same crap out of the US government. Don't blame us, we were forced to kill those innocent civilians.

And as always, if you dig down deep enough the reason why these people just had to be murdered was that they dared to actually think for themselves and did something that the forces of evil didn't want.

Don't tell me about what happened a 100 years ago. When someone pulls the trigger on a gun, they are responsible for the death and the destruction that results. The killers will always try to obfuscate that, they'll always try to hide their responsibility behind a bunch of bs. But, there's now doubt that the person who pulls the trigger is responsible.

John Pilger is brilliant ... again.

Get off it, mikep. You only spout lying Zionist propaganda. I for one, am tired of hearing the same mistruths whined over and over.

Please look at this piece with less biased eyes and don't obfuscate the message. The piece IS NOT about Israel. It IS about the future(what's left) of United States.

John is just telling us the awful truth that many on these pages have been warning about - that the choice of candidates remaining in the race are all controlled by the same paymasters:

Former Bush donors now giving to Obama
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/39067.html

This is the same pattern that occurred in 2004 - Bush money backed Kerry.

Our corporate controllers of the economy are making too much money from the troubles now besetting us to let go.

Naderite Progressives must find a way to work WITHIN the Dem Party, or continue to be the cause of its failure to Repubs election AFTER election.

How are Naderite Progressives going to do that? Should they become more like the Repubs?

Maybe the cause of the Dem Party's failure to Repubs election AFTER election is WITHIN the Dem Party. Hey, it's something to think about, isn't it?

Two years ago when all this election nonsense started rolling out I saw a picture of HRC & BHO together and I was struck by the irony. In an unrepentant genocidal Aryan slave empire, the descendant of a gender slave and the descendant of racialized slavery vie against each other for the post of Head Overseer on Master's Slave Plantation. How Democratic of MAster. How trusting. And of course, they have earned his trust with their deeds.

HRC needed only to abandon her humanity. BHO needed only to pledge allegiance to Master and the White Race (not to those "angry black people"). That was the easy part.

The hard part will be when the "NEW" Head Overseer (whoever that is) says we can no longer afford any health care, medicare, social security, or a middle class. And they will be sooooo sooooorrrreee to have to tell. BUT they will have the troops in the streets when the announcement comes. Along with the closing of the banks. MASTER WANTS EVERYTHING.

Do not doubt it. Richfilth animals lack the gene for self-restraint.

Peace.

Thanks for all the information. Though I'm more confused now.

"Israel does not allow supplies to enter from Egypt."

How exactly does Isreal force Egypt to not allow supplies or leaving or entering Gaza?

"1948: Negotiations were still ongoing between the UN, The Palestinains, represented in part by the various Arab states, and The peoples advocating an independent Israel."

Now this is an historical fact. The United Nations voted and passed the resolution establishing the state of Isreal. No ongoing negotiations then.
The Arab nations immediately attacked.

I don't know whos right or wrong to tell the truth, I really need to look at this. But one thing I'm sure of. If someone is firing rockets into my city, I'm going to shoot back. So I am sure who's right here.

Good to hear honest reporting about RFK. Kennedy type liberalism has done the US a lot of damage and it needs to be discredited.

But the remarks on Israel are bizarre, and, as always, blatantly anti-Semitic (deny it all you want). Israel isn't responsible for the war there, and they certainly aren't responsible for 'starving' Palestinians in Gaza. The Gazans elected a party that advocated war and now they have the war they chose. When and if they are ready to end it all they have to do is to recognize Israel, the way the rest of the world did long ago, and cease their attempts to steal Jewish land. There's absolutely nothing illegal about Israel's attempts to defend themselves. When people are attacked, as the Israelis have been repeatedly over the last 100 years, they have the right to wage war to defend themselves. The Arabs attacked Israel, not the other way around (as the historical record conclusively demonstrates), and the war will continue until they come to their senses.

"Naderite Progressives must find a way to work WITHIN the Dem Party, or continue to be the cause of its failure to Repubs election AFTER election."

How are Naderite Progressives going to do that? Should they become more like the Repubs?

Maybe the cause of the Dem Party's failure to Repubs election AFTER election is WITHIN the Dem Party. Hey, it's something to think about, isn't it?

It seems to me the misunderstanding here is the confusion of voting and working. Voting for Democrats isn't really working within the party, is it? Perhaps Naderites should register as Democrats, become activists in pary meetings, move the platform to the left, and oust the Blue Dogs and the DLC.

Don't vote for conservative Democrats; run for office as progressive Democrats?