The people still have issues, still are apt to make continued bad choices. Discussion of "the obvious" is maybe not so obvious after all.

There is the chronic nebulousness of Bush, the misplaced urgency of McCain. His urgency is to wage war and win it, whatever that means-- most likely Armageddon.

He has absolutely no passion for peace or he would be at the forefront of those who want to remove all American presence from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.

I don't even believe McCain has passion to become president. If he did, he would say,
"Barack, you're not committed to getting Americans out, just some." He then might become president and with decency.

Instead he wants to play games. The surge is so wonderful. No, it was a knight's gambit involving the sacrifice of principle to bribery. Business types like Bush and McCain always exaggerate whatever is they are doing. They always think it more valuable than it ever is. THEY did it, right? Therefore it must be wonderful.

But, let them have their delusion. The surge was wonderful. Let the word "SURGE" replace the major religions of the world. "You won, John! The surge was successful! So bring all Americans home! Bush got the little w but you and Petraeus got the big W !"

H20, I'm going to criticize you, but I hope you won't consider me to be a member of the firing squadron. This is a family disagreement.

H20 writes,
"but if one of your heroes showed up today, you wouldn't vote for him/her."

Most of Zinn's heroes probably wouldn't run for president. Zinn's point is that average people make history in refusing to blindly assent to power and by standing up for themselves and their communities. Running for president isn't what Zinn most values in politics. It's probably closer to the bottom of his list of concerns.

I think Zinn would vote for the likes of Eugene Debs were he running today, but I don't think Ralph Nader 2008 really embodies Zinn's vision of a working class hero.

FrankFrank July 17th, 2008 4:16 pm

Now here is someone on the right track.

"you can have Peace or you can have Capitalism…."

"A good frame for discussion. But it's not the whole story.

We can have capitalism with strong regulation and a strong representative federal government that protects people.

Government is good, ideally it expresses the will of the people."

Sampson, Jerry D Rose, greenerthanthou - thank you for the information on Cynthia McKinney. I was a little too flip in my request, so I deserved the shots. And sometimes all you get is the MSM caricature, which I was suffering under.

As for Sharpton, I too was impressed with his answers in the Democratic debates of 2004 (of course, it is easier to be direct when you have nothing to lose.) Two anecdotes about those debates - I told a friend there was no chance I'd vote for Bush. He said what if Sharpton were nominated? I told him Sharpton represented far more of my views than Bush ever would. When a conservative, Bush-defending, ex-CIA friend heard that one, he was incredulous - you'd vote for Sharpton after that whole Tawana Brawly thing? I said I believe he had been acting on bad intelligence. Obama could use a little Sharpton in him right about now.

H20 and the rest: Don't get too upset about your vote or someone else's. It's all a meaningless farce to make us drones feel better. Vote McKinney, Nader, Paul as a protest or to feel better about yourself. Those votes won't change a damn thing. Vote Obama or McCain and get the same soul-sucking system we've always had. Those votes won't change a damn thing, with the caveat that President McCain kills you sooner.

HELLOOO! I just read a couple of articles at Infowars.com which report on a couple of speeches which Obama gave earlier this month, one in Chicago and another in Colorado. It seems that Obama is calling for a "civilian national security force". This "civilian force" would be as big or larger than the U.S. military forces--"just as powerful, just as strong,just as well-funded". One journalist reporting on this speech, Michael Silence, relates that this Obama statement was made in the context of "national youth service". I am guessing that this would be a massive expansion of Homeland Security, a very massive expansion!! Sieg Heil!!
The 4th of July parades are going to be really spectacular.

In about 2003, former KGB head Primakov and Former East German head, Marcus Wolfe, were brought in as consultants to Michael Chertoff and Homeland Security. Already, at least hundreds of police, paramedics, firefighters, utility workers, etc. have been trained as "Terrorism Liason Officers", who spy and submit info to "secret government databases. Thousands of pastors have also been trained to guide their flocks to submit to government authority in case of national emergency or martial law. So 500,000 to a million nazi youth in the streets will make this picture perfect.

So, for all the poor, pathetic "progressives" here who prefer the sly, lying snake to the belligerent buffoon--Baaa! Baaa!

Same Old, Same Old.

Over a hundred years ago the United States decided to flex its newly found ambitions for empire building. After decimating the native populations in near genocidal wars, Uncle Sam scanned the horizon for new conquests.

Sam saw a lot of Spaniards in juicy little foreign hot spots sitting ripe for resource exploitation.

All Sam needed was a good excuse to start up the new war for glory and empire. As luck would have it, in 1898 the battleship USS Maine happened to be anchored in port in Havana. Kaboom! There was a massive explosion and the ship went down, killing many American sailors.

The cause of the blast was later found to be accidental, but the Spanish were conveniently blamed.

The Hearst corporate media cheered, "Remember 9-11…er, the Maine!"

And very much like our neo-con imperialists of today, who eagerly anticipated the 9-11 attacks to trigger their war for glory and empire, the budding military industrial complex urged President McKinley to declare war on Spain.

Interestingly, both triggers for the Iraq War and Spanish American War had nothing to do with the countries we attacked. We wanted war and that's what we got. And since God is always on America's side, who cares about the little details?

After we whipped the Spanish we moved in to occupy the newly "liberated" Philippines. Imagine our shock when we were not actually greeted as liberators. We occupied their country and began to impose our rule on them. Of course we generously offered to set up a friendly and compatible government that suited US interests.

Well, son of a gun, those Philippine ingrates went and started an insurrection against us. Soon over four thousand American troops were dead.

The American imperialists were shouting "Stay the course", or whatever the equivalent phrase was a hundred years ago. It doesn't take much imagination to infer that those Americans who didn't share the enthusiasm for the counter-insurgency were probably called appeasers, or un-patriotic, or other applicable contemporary appellations.

But patriotism took another form, too.

There was a courageous American writer who stepped forward to fill the vital role of conscientious dissent.

That man was Samuel Clemons. Here is what Mark Twain had to say about this particular foreign misadventure.

"There is the case of the Philippines. I have tried hard, and yet I cannot for the life of me comprehend how we got into that mess. Perhaps we could not have avoided it -- perhaps it was inevitable that we should come to be fighting the natives of those islands -- but I cannot understand it, and have never been able to get at the bottom of the origin of our antagonism to the natives. I thought we should act as their protector -- not try to get them under our heel. We were to relieve them from Spanish tyranny to enable them to set up a government of their own, and we were to stand by and see that it got a fair trial. It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority of the Filipinos, a government according to Filipino ideas. That would have been a worthy mission for the United States. But now -- why, we have got into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation."

"A quagmire," he says! Why, that…that LIBERAL!

We can imagine what Republicans would have to say to Mr. Clemens if he were here today. "They hated us for our freedom! We had to fight the Philippine Insurgents over there so we didn't have to fight them over here in our towns and cities! Why do you hate America?"

It never ends.

I'm very fond of Nader, Kucinich and others.
But I'm for Obama. As people criticize him,
myself included, we almost never mention the huge vertical stripe running 400 years through
American history. His election will be the closest we will ever come to removing the
blight of slavery resting in our genes and bones. And that's not a small thing. It's
HUGE!!!!! Much bigger than electing our first woman president, which is going to happen soon anyway. We certainly have treated our women badly (just consider Bill Clinton please rather than me) but not as badly as we have treated persons of color. One of the many things that Barack Obama has going for him is some as yet unrealized history-- a true force of goodness rather than the youthful faddism cynically alluded to in a few glib posts in this excellent website.

I am baffled and puzzled. Why Howard Zinn although admitting that he does not like Obama he still will "bite the bullet" and vote for Obama.
Who and what is forcing him to do that? And if he thinks his vote is useless then why vote? Why he is not calling for a vialble third
party or at least recommending the Greens who have the beginning of
possible viable third party??

I won't put words in Zinn's mouth as to why he probably isn't considering a third party. But in a recent article he beseeched the left to stay away from election hoopla. The election is a farce because it doesn't offer us a real choice. If the people want to be heard it will not happen through an election where we have little choice. Change will happen through people working at the local level to build a popular movement. Are third party candidates the vanguard of a real popular movement, or do they just make us feel better about ourselves and our sham democracy.

Mr. Zinn:
Please don't forget the plane that went down in Pennsylvania... Otherwise great writing as always. Thanks.

Daniel David: I agree with your approach, with due respect to Ralph and Ms. McKinney.

Sure, I'd love the cathartic experience of having Barack Obama deliver a soaring convention address that castigated the evils of torture, rendition, wars of aggression, neo-colonialism, blood for oil imperialism, acquiescence in the AIPAC Middle East agenda, warrantless wiretapping of American citizens by our own civilian and military intelligence agencies, and the whole laundry list of related sins accompanying the Bush regime's racist jingoism and flag idolatry.

Karl Rove and John McCain would just love to see Obama do that too. That way, they could really fear monger Bubba, Lurline, and Mister In-Between silly, about how that Barack Hussein fella is just way too radical to ever trust with the White House keys (like we've been saying all along.....)

Elect first, then demand clarity of thought from the office holder you've put in power, while pushing your policy demands. Only one of the two major party presidential candidates will even listen, and nationwide ballot access being what it is, I can't see voting third party this time around (I have before).

It's only half a loaf, I know. But that's better than just keeping on cursing and pissing away upstream into a strong current for another four years, while Mr. BombIran blithely hums along with his finger near the nuclear button.

Bill from Saginaw

.

leftk

would like to continue this discussion because I think it gets to the heart of what seems to be a major schism in the left - an apparent disdain by a good number of lefties for the electoral process or at least for those who engage in it who haven't come up through the ranks. I realize that running for Pres, is not what Zinn most values. But let me ask you , if his heroes were marching and fighting for something and there was a candidate running who was championing their cause, why would he not only discourage people from voting for that candidate, but indicate that he was going to vote for someone who, at best, was not going to assist his heroes, or was, at worst part of the system that is beating them down? I have wanted an opportunity to actively confront him with this question and realize I will never have the chance. I note that no one else, apparently, ever has either, even those who had the opportunity to do so. I'm sorry, but it IS a legitimate question.

And, just out of curiosity, what would a "working class hero" who ran for office look like? Must we wait for the second coming of Debs before we vote for 3rd Party cand.? And, by definition, if no working class hero would run for Pres. then what would a Pres. cand. who would pass Mr. Zinn's muster look like? I am really curious now. If not Nader, what about Kucinich, what about McKinney? I really am curious. Mr. Zinn has said who he doesn't like. Who does he like?

Don't misunderstand me, I really don't CARE who he likes. What angers me is that he uses his position, reputation, and influence to discourage others from voting for anybody other than the Corp. Dem. THAT's what frosts my cookies. With friends like that.....

You see no matter what happens, he can still sell his books and go on tour. But to me, here in the trenches, it makes a great deal of difference what happens.

In a previous post in this thread, "zzz" quotes Howard Zinn in the above article. Professor Zinn's words:

"Have our political leaders gone mad?"

zzz then points out that Howard Zinn supported John Kerry in 2004.

zzz writes: "You (Howard Zinn) are supporting them (re. Zinn's vote for Kerry in 2004 and his support of Obama in 2008). I have much respect for you, but have you gone mad?"

I would really like those "celebrity-progressives" who abandoned Ralph Nader's third party candidacy, either in 2000 and/or in 2004, and urged voters to vote for "the lesser of the two evils" to deal with the question zzz poses. ... "Have you gone mad?"

Barbara Ehrenreich wrote an article in The Nation magazine just before the 2000 presidential election. She started by pointing out so many of her progressives friends come up with all these sound, passionate, well-reasoned, deeply-felt reasons why both the Democratic and Republican parties should be rejected, then, wrote Ehrenreich in 2000, these same progressives go ahead and urge voters to vote for Al Gore!

Well, guess, what. That's exaclty what Barbara Ehrenreich advised voters to do in the 2004 election -- vote for John Kerry.

And guess what. That's exaclty what Barbara Ehrenreich advises voters to do now -- vote for Barack Obama.

Ehrenreich is part of an organization called "Progressives for Obama." Included in this group is Tom Hayden.

Some progressives. (You will know them by whom they vote for.)

I wonder if there was a "Progressives for Mussolini" movement in the 1930s. I mean, the United States having bombed 20 different countries since the end of World War II, and in the process killing millions of people -- plus all the corrupt dictatorships the ruling class in the US has supported in the past 50 years -- how can a progressive support such murderous policies?

And here we have Barack Obama, who has made it quite clear that he will continue to support these militaristic, neocolonial policies. Albeit with his now-famous "happy face" and "upbeat" way of speaking to, oh, i'm sorry, i mean, hustling his audiences.

Professor Zinn, come on, as professor emeritus of history at Boston University, surely you recall the interview John Kerry gave to the Wall Street Journal in July 2004. In that interview -- the Wall Street Journal being a publication through which a presidential politician, in effect, speaks directly the ruling elite -- in that July 2004 interview, John Kerry was asked how long the US would be in Iraq if he was elected. ... His answer: for at least my first term, maybe longer. ... Well, that just as long as George Bush has had the US in Iraq!

Whoever pulls the lever for Obama has to live with the fact that with their vote they are supporting a candidate who is:

-- pro-war.

-- pro neocolonial imperialism.

-- pro Big Oil.

-- pro Big Pharma.

-- In short, pro Corporate America (Obama has nearly twice as much Wall Street money behind him than John McCain!)

The DPAers (the Democratic Party Apologists) keep saying that once Obama gets elected they'll pressure him to move to the left.

Hey, that strategy is working really great so far, hasn't it? As soon as Obama won the nomination -- thanks to the crucial support of the liberal-left -- he didn't move to the left at all; instead he lurched to the right with remarkable speed and unabashed cynicism.

You can't move a corporatist candidate who has millions of corporate dollars behind him to the left. ~ Candidates with principles don't move left or right! ~ Ralph Nader doesn't move to the left or move to the right as the political winds blow. Cynthia McKinney doesn't move to the left or move to the right as the political winds blow. These are candidates who have courageous, clearly-defined political beliefs and they stick by them. (A revolutionary idea, I know. But there you are.)

Nothing will change unless and until a viable third party movement is established in the United States. This will take time, but unless that happens, kiss the planet goodbye, along with your children and grandchildren.

H20,

You're right this is a big divide in the left.

While I have some disdain for the electoral system, I don't have as much disdain as some of my more radical friends. I was quite enthused by Nader's 2000 campaign, but feel that no real movement came out of that campaign. It was all about Ralph not so much about the people.

I recently saw Zinn who credited the advances of the New Deal and Civil Rights to activists who forced FDR and LBJ to move to the left, or at least pass more leftist legislation than they were inclined to support. Of course, LBJ never listened to the left when it came to matters of war and peace.

I understand your frustration that Zinn uses his position to further the cause of the dems. I know the kind of leftists who do that, but never considered Zinn one of them. I've always found him quite critical of the dems and found that he has always steered away from the dangerous idea that progressives should capitulate to the corporate dems.

I think there are many reasons why Zinn might not like the way that the 3rd parties are arranged today, but it doesn't make sense to speculate what he might think of them.

As for me, I'd love to see McKinney and Nader in the debates.

Some random thoughts. Hope that bridges the gap a bit.

I guess people on the left are afraid to tell the true numbers, for fear of being critised. I feel the need to correct these ever dwindling numbers.

The author claims hundreds of thousands died from the sanctions from Iraq. In fact 1.5 million died as of 1996 according to the UN reports and 500,000 of those were children. The deaths were caused by water born diseases such as dysentery.

In early 1990 the military reported to the whitehouse that Iraq had plenty of dirty water and was dependent on water treatment plants in order to provide drinking water. These water treatment plants were dependent, in turn, upon the power stations. The same documents go on to predict widespread outbreaks of disease if the water treatment or the power stations were destroyed.

http://www.iraqwaterproject.com/docus/attack_water.htm

The U.S. Military then proceeded to destroy all of Iraq's water treatment plants and all of Iraq's power stations. They then used the sanctions, and prevented the repair of the water treatment plants and the power stations by declaring any parts as "dual use", as if they were going to be used for WMD. Where as in fact, Rolf Ekkus, the previous head of the weapons inspection beleived that Saddam had already destroyed those weapons. They had accounted for 95% of them, and the rest, they believed had either been used on Iran, according to Scott Ritter.

If I add more than two links, my posting will be censored, so here is my other link. It is one which provides links to other links:-

http://www.casi.org.uk/guide

I am not apposed to fighting for my class interest. Wars started and sold to us by the ruling class do not represent working class interests.
The working class is dying in these wars and the ruling class is making huge profits.

"Elect first. Elect the right one. Then demand your agenda." says DD. Is this not like saying, I will kill you now, but if I get elected I will try and bring you back to life.

• Zinn is an icon, a hero, and a bit of a Wizard. But I might as well pick a nit too-- since he IS a historian, and obliged to be meticulous, I would've preferred a qualifier, even something softer than "allegedly", in the paragraph about September 11, 2001. It's a passing reference, so it's no big deal. But I twitch at any suggestion that the factual events of 9/11 are comprehensively, verifiably, and robustly known to an extent that such descriptions are a settled question.

And yes, it's a bummer to consider that Zinn and Democratic Party Chatty Cathy/Energizer Bunny Daniel David have even a single point of concurrence. But it's a judgement call; just because Zinn doesn't advocate supporting worthy third-party candidates to effect change doesn't mean I can't.

• I cannot tell a lie: I, Little Brother, bought into the corporate media caricature of Cynthia McKinney for a long time. Actually, I instinctively liked her, but took her to be obnoxious and unsophisticated because of the corporate media coverage of the contretemps with the Capitol cop, etc. In short, I thought she was OK, but a bit wild & crazy.

Then I happened to see her being interviewed on "Democracy Now", IIRC, and after about ten seconds my half-assed take dissolved into dust and blew away. As McKinney supporters have always known, she's sharp, incisive, and articulate.

I hate to lower the tone, in case Thomas More drops by, but I really have to confess that lately I've taken to saying to myself things like: Fuck this shit-- I'm just NOT voting for fucking Pod Persons any more. Even-- ESPECIALLY-- if they're transplendent post-partisan alinskyfied futuristic messianic uniters taking the form of a neo-liberal militaristic conservative Democratic Roundhead. I've HAD IT with the fucking Pod Persons...

And on that note, I'm surprised that no one cited the Starr Doctrine here; it resonates so perfectly with Professor Zinn's message:
_____________________________________

♪ War... Huh... Yeah!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Uhuh... uhuh...!

War... Huh... Yeah!
What it is good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Say it again y'all
War... Huh... Look out!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Listen to me - AAH!
War I despise
'Cause it means destruction of innocent lives
War means tears in thousands of mothers' eyes
When their sons go out to fight and lose their lives

I said:
War... Huh... Good God y'all!
What it is good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Say it again
(War... Huh!) Lord, Lord, Lord...
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Listen to me:

(War) It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
(War) Friend only to the undertaker
War is the enemy of all mankind
The thought of war blows my mind
War has caused unrest within the younger generations
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die? ♪ [...]

H20 It appears that no one posting on this string is really interested in joining the "circular firing squad" with yourself as the target of their firing. This is very commendable...and very unusual in these comment strings which seem to attract the invectives of many folks who like to call those with whom they disagree the vilest names that their limited vocabularies can sustain.

Perhaps H20 and some others have touched on a central division among progressives. On the one hand, we have those who urge we vote from our conscience: the names Nader, McKinney, Kucinich and sometimes Paul come up most often. This is actally the smallest of the three divisions (as you can tell by their single digit voting numbers), though I consider this my "home" division. A larger number of progressives are pragmatists in their voting behaviors, which is what Zinn is being accused of being: those who take the "responsible" position of voting for the most progressive of "viable" candidates, not "wasting" their votes in a way that could lead to the defeat of their "lesser evil" (more progressive) candidate. The third division is also a very large portion of the progressives whom I have known, what I'll call the "movement" progressives who disdain electoral politics in terms of direct action, ranging from "write your congressman" to being willing to take to the streets with knives and bullets. What I think we have with Zinn and so many other "heroes" of movement progressivism---Ehrenreich,Chomsky Norman Solomon, Tom Hayden, many many others (call em The Nation crowd)---is that they can't decide to which of the two latter divisions they belong: so they alternate between urging that progressives avoid politics in favor of activism but, not really having the courage of their nihilistic convictions, they are "forced" as Zinn said to make a lesser evil choice; in the process of course (the way "my" division sees it) helping to guarantee that we will never have any viable choices except choices between candidates whom we don't like.

I know this is all getting very sociological in that discipline's penchant for typologizing of whatever one is analyzing. But hell I'm a sociologist and I don't think it would hurt in advancing this very necessary dialogue among progressives to recognize our "tribal" differences and at least bring our discourse up to the level that we can respect one another for who we are even while we fight out our tribal differences, civilly perhaps and without recourse to the circular firing squad.

Jerry, I think you did a nice job of summing up three divisions within the American left. I do think there's some merit in the combination of 2 and 3. But 2 without 3 is disasterous. Why not a combination of 1 and 3?

Good and refreshingly CIVILIZED discussion.

LORAX (3:17) Your post reads like the I Ching.
GREENER THAN THOU, JOHN C & WSWS.org. Good posts!

leftk (8:19) Well, I for one LOVE the idea of a 1-3 combination. If Cynthia's GP run gets off the ground, the wind under its sails will be the "movement" progressives (and just everyday "people" with no ideological tag) who for one reason or another don't want to melt into the crucible of a "corporatist" candidate because he's marginally better than the other corporatist. What I'll advise her campaign, at any opportunity I have to do so, is for her to combine the hard-core progressive "values" of the Green Party with an on-the-street (maybe with some Common Dreams news release statements a la Kucinich) presence wherever people are protesting their getting screwed over by the corporatist society. What Tom Joad told Ma in The Grapes of Wrath should be the flag of her campaign, as he assured his mother that she would indeed "see" him again: "wherever a guy is getting his head busted because he stood in a picket line, I'll be there, etc." Dennis K. did a pretty job of "showing up" at the Seattle anti-NAFTA rallies, etc., and Cynthia and the GP have to do much, much more of those. For all my respect for Kucinich, McKinney is a much more charismatic and authentic populist and she can (as did Kucinich) use the "legend" of her own head-busting in Georgia (Dennis' in Cleveland) to elicit indentification with all of what I call the pissed-off of the world; far more than the 5% that the GP defines as the goal of electoral success for her candidacy. As more people like little brother in the 8:10 post above experience her authentic persona for themselves rather than through the lens of the corporate media, I think a very large number of "type 3" progressives will feel that she even more than Nader represents a candidate whom they can support with their hearts without abandoning their movement progressivism.

Obama is blowing it. Just like Kerry and Gore before him.

Go to http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
There you'll see a compendium of the various presidential polls. Note that the Rasmussen poll now has Obama and McCain tied. Note, too, that before Obama captured the nomination, he was leading McCain in the Rasmussen poll by 6 to 7 points.

So, again -- A-GAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN! -- the Democratic nominee has moved to the left to win the nomination, after which he's
moved to the right -- looking for that 1 to 2 percent of the electorate that can go either way, Republican or Democratic ... and he's blowing it!

Never mind that there are ***MILLIONS*** of votes to the left of Obama. Consider just these two thousand pound elephants in the middle of the room; namely, 1.) Two-thirds of the American public wants out of Iraq; 2.) Only 25% of the American public approves of the Bush presidency. ... Who represents these dissenting voices? ... Were Obama to move to the left and tap into these majority sentiments, not only on international issues but also on domestic issues (health, education and welfare), he would *swamp* John McCain -- annihilate him -- send him packing like the loser he was born to be.

McCain would be so far behind in the polls he probably wouldn't even bother to show up on Election day to vote.

So why doesn't Obama move to the left? ... (Surely Professor Zinn knows the answer to that one.) ... Because if Obama were to move to the left, the corporate money behind him, the corporate money that catapulted him to politcal stardom, would dry up in a heartbeat.

Mainstream media would go after him like a pack of wild attack dogs.

I imagine someone would come forward claiming that Obama slept with a busload of nuns when he was 21 years old, and got them all pregnant. ... And then tried to get them all on welfare.

But what does the Democratic Party care? They'd rather lose election after election after election -- they're rather *lose* than turn their back on their corporate paymasters.

In short, they feed from the same corporate trough as their Republican cronies.

Such a system can't be "reformed," it needs to be replaced. Meaning: even reformers such as Nader and McKinney are not radical enough that they advocate *replacing* such a corrupt system, i.e., throwing capitalism onto "the dustbin of history." ... But at least supporting them would be a start.

(Supporting them would also be a way of confirming one's sanity.)

Why aren't you with us on this, Professor Zinn? How long will progressives such as yourself who condone voting for the lesser-of-the-two-evils -- how long will they keep denying that it is precisely this evil-oriented strategy that has moved the political establishment in the United States not just a little bit but *radically* to the right in the past 40 years.

Who's responsible for that radical move to the right? ... With more progressive legislation passed in the six years Nixon was president than in the eight years Clinton and Gore were in office.

The difference between a left wing conservative and a right wing conservative:
one wants to make you equally poor and the other wants to make you unequally poor.

"The goal of conservative rulers around the world, led by those who occupy the seats of power in Washington, is the systematic rollback of democratic gains, public services, and common living standards around the world."
Michael Parenti

...and to kill us all.

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."
H. L. Mencken

Howard said there are no winners, not no beneficiaries (pardon the double negative:)As someone once said, winning a war is like winning a hurricane. He's right, of course. War is insanity, and we can and must just say no. I'm more persuaded every day that the way for Obama or any serious candidate for president to win is to be 100%-straight-up-uncompromising-honest; dare, like Dennis Kucinich or Al Gore, to speak the unadulterated truth and let the people witness for themselves the light it sheds. The truth is not confusing or unpalatable, it is illuminating. It will enable us to know how to proceed. We already know what's right.

ezeflyer,

Thank you for the H.L. Mencken quote:

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."

It reminds me of when Seymour Hersh wrote his book on Henry-the-War-Criminal Kissinger. ...

One would have thought that after the book was published, short of going to jail for the rest of his life, at a minimum -- at a goddamn MINIMUM! -- Henry Kissinger would be so discredited, so mortified to have been exposed in such a thorough and meticulously- documented way, that he wouldn't dare show his face, so great would be his shame.

But, oh no! In fact, quite the contrary! His deification by the media continued uninterrupted. He was still the darling of the talk show circuit and, needless to say, the political establishment.

Indeed, who did George Bush and his fellow war criminals call on the "find out the truth" about 9/11? ... Why it was none other than Henry himself! (Who needs a Socrates when a pig is so handy?) ... There he was the political establishment's humble and obeident servant, at the ready to head up the 9/11 commission.

It was really quite simple. After the prodigal son, Master George, went out and smashes up the Dussenberg, who else but the butler-cum-consigliere, the ever-faithful Henry, to clean up the mess.

He is John Gielgud to Dudley Moore's "Arthur."

And lest one say: "But what about the outcome: Kissinger never got to head up the 9/11 commission." Alas, 'tis true, but not for lack of trying on the part of those behind the gates and the meticulously-trimmed lawns. After all, it only makes sense to probe one's limits. Especially when it involves probing just how many lies those outside the gates will slavishly endure.

Remember the Korean war is not over. Only a cease fire. We won Vietnam when we left. The killing stopped and the issues were discussed and continued peaceful existence is now possible.

Samson: "in several notable cases (Germany, Russia especially), the entire political system didn't survive the war."

Ditto USA. Its democratic system was succeeded by a fascist system after "victory" in its "cold war on socialism". God Bless the United States of America!

Any misconception that Barack Obama is running in the 2008 election as an "antiwar" candidate should have been cleared up Tuesday in what was billed by the Democratic presidential campaign as a "major speech" on national security and the US war in Iraq.

The Democrats "antiwar" candidate, Sen. Barak Obama:
"The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan," he warned. "We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won't. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j16.shtml

$12,000,000,000.00 a month in Iraq
$4,000,000,000.00 a month in Afghanistan
The Democratic "antiwar" candidate wants 90,000 additional troops, which in effect, increases the military budget when it is already larger than the rest of the world combined. Vote for Obama?

"McCain is not going to do anything but literally laugh at the left"

Wrong, many Dems laugh at the leftists too.

kman2 you are right on the money. The left wing of the Republicans, the sold out, despicable, Democrats laugh at the left. That's the truth!

Hey kman2: Can you outline the differences between McCain and Obama on the war?

I agree with you 100%.There is no winner in a war.The soldier lost their arms,legs,eyes even life.The citizen lost their home,their family.The country lost the money,the citizens.The world lost peace.
Morther lost son,kid lost father...Many terrible things caused by wars.
Wish a forever peace for the world!

wsws.org says:

"I admire Howard Zinn greatly but what disappoints me is Professor Zinn's ongoing failure to point out what should be obvious to all. And that is that nothing is going to change, things are only going to get *worse,* unless and until a viable third party movement is established in the United States."

To be fair:

http://www.counterpunch.org/bates06252004.html

I remember a quote by Freeman Dyson, the physicist, who said, 'in war, HOW you fight is eventually more important than WHY' As I've aged, I've realized that that statement is true of all our endeavours.

All of our endeavours constitute a kind of struggle, a war if you will, against our circumstances, our environment, and HOW we compose ourselves in that struggle is ultimately more important than WHY, for no more important reason than we often don't completely UNDERSTAND the reasons why (unless we're evangelicals, in which case we understand 'why' a little too 'clearly' for comfort). But we know the morality of the HOW even without some miraculous vision: because HOW is composed of ACTIONS, and ACTIONS always speak louder than words or fuzzy sentiments. Even a CHILD knows that if you're waterboarding someone BECAUSE your morality compels you to do so, your hurting of them is of immediate and tangible consequence to your actual 'morality'. You can be Jesus himself, but if you're waterboarding someone, THAT's what you're DOING.

An old country song taught me this: "Love...is something that you DO"
Its not something that you feel, you wear, you ARE, you sing. If you don't walk love...YOU DON'T LOVE, you're just borrowing its clothes.

I believe that war is sometimes necessary, as it was after 9-11. But the execution of justice after 9-11 bears no resemblance to the blatant takeovers of Iraq and Afghanistan that have resulted, and its increasingly clear they are about oil. The outpouring of international sympathy that attended post-9-11 was a call to justice. We chose not to go there. Justice is a search for the truth, and in war, truth is the first casualty. Perhaps that's Zinns ultimate point: when you go to war you first kill the truth. After that's died, there is no chance for justice.

In the march to the Iraq invasion, I was reminded of a saying I'd heard long ago: "War is like wildfire... it makes its own weather", referring to the way a wildfire, by releasing heat into the air stream (usually at a ridge where it has the most effect), can literally change the wind around it, making the fighting of the fire almost impossible to predict. War is like wildfire: it releases nonlinear human passions that are IMPOSSIBLE to fathom, and which are EASILY capable of overwhelming the passions that led to the war in the first place. Those passions are of a breadth and depth that cannot be plumbed or understood, and make wars outcome impossible to predict. Zinn knows: this Iraq war may end, but it wont end, not for decades to come.

There's something that should make it a lot easier for progressives to vote their principles in the elections and in their everyday exchange/association. The progressive platform has a lot of socialist elements and the capitalist idea that these elements should be essentially crushed should itself be crushed. We're drowning in evidence that the extreme right policies are catastrophic to the public interests. Enough! And if you wonder how a progressive candidate can possibly win, well, Gandhi said first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

rsliverpool

"As usual some posters here are passing on info that is as inaccurate and misleading as our friends in the msm do. Re: Mr. Zinn's endorsement please see it for yourself."

Yes, yes, very inaccurate indeed. BTW thanks for that link to Zinn endorsing Obama. I love the line "I will be forced against my will to make a choice and I will probably choose Obama", as if there were only choice A or B.

Here's another,

http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080403082953122

"KA: Should the left in America support Obama?

HZ: Obama will be better than the alternative, so we must support him at the polling booth. But before and after election day he should be subject to sharp, bold criticism to move him forward."

So how's that coming along? Have his policies being shifting to the right or left? And do you honestly believe that his rightward tilt for issues like telecom immunity, spying on Americans, bombing Pakistan, escalating the war in Afghanistan, keeping our troops in Iraq, unconditional support for Israel, advocating against universal health care, advocating for nuclear power, expanding the size of the military, arguing against impeachment etc... will help him get elected? None of these are popular stances. They will alienate people who might support him. So these are not mere election ploys and should not be passed off as such by someone as intelligent as Howard Zinn. They are consistent policy statements that adhere to what we might call the Bush (or American) doctrine of imperial fascism. He's not responding to grassroots pressure now, and will be even less likely to once elected. His actual policy positions are so clearly and repulsively on display, that the best his supporters can muster in defense of him is that he is lying to the public in order to get elected, as if that was some kind of necessity.

For the US to declare war against Afghanistan because Bin Laden was there, is like declaring war against New Jersey because the Mafia is there.

It appeased those people who want, allow, knee-jerk reactions, even if it is in the form of misguided revenge. It was publicity stunt and it seemed to be working. Bush's approval rating went up considerably.

And remember, most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. None were from Iraq, and I don't believe any were from Afghanistan. But that shouldn't matter.

I will support third party because the two corporate candidates will support another war for what purpose? Oh yeah, not for the oil.

so it goes,

By the size, cost and the ritual surrounding the Vietnam Memorial one would be led to believe that the US had won the US war in Vietnam. Be that as it may, the Germans or the Japanese do not have a similar monument commemorating the war they lost.

bnerin wrote:

"I would love to have some journalist ask Obama and McCain 'Sir, do you agree with Howard Zinn's Memo? If not, why not?'"

Well, we know part of the answer. Obama disowned his own pastor, the Reverend Wright, for saying that "war is terrorism," which is Zinn's concluding point.

As for McBomb, it goes without saying ....

The only war that can be won, is the one that can be prevented by common sense and diplomacy on all sides. The flip-side is, of course: no profits for the arms-industrie.

The next neocon war the oil industry wins and Iran lights up the middle east oil fields and oil goes to 500 to 1000$ a barrel

It saddens me that Howard Zinn would write that it was Al Qaeda that was apparently responsible for the 911 attacks.
That has never been proven by our government. Shortly after 911, Colin Powell promised to provide a "white paper" that would show proof. That paper never reached the public.

I have been researching the attacks for almost seven years now and I am thoroughly convinced that the government's conspiracy theory is totally false in every aspect. It doesn't take a genius to know that. It just takes common sense. Mr Zinn is certainly analytical enough to know that Al Qaeda did not act alone in the attacks.

This type of appeasement is a serious affront to the cause of justice in the world.

For those who (like pissantnobody)consider Howard Zinn's above article lacking in sufficient detail I suggest you read "A People's History of the US","War", and "Original Zinn" for more detailed and elaborate analysis of the issues involved with war.

********************

Davedubya--How could you forget The Mexican-American War (1848-1850)? Call the tidal wave of Mexican Immigrants now doing the scutt work of our society Montezuma's Revenge. Especialy when the next generation of Latinos and Latinas turns the tables and treats their former Anglo masters with the patronizing condescension with which they were treated.

Karma (or sowing and reaping for non-Bhuddists or Hindus)works--say "amen" Siouxrose!

You can be absolutely certain that Nader, McKinney, and Barr will not be invited to participate in the debates because the Obama campaign knows that they will ask questions that are political poison for their candidate.
The only people that deserve to "win", meaning getting the murderous foreigners off their backs, are the people of Iraq and Afghanistan whose countries were invaded illegally.
Either Obama or McCain will be our next president. There are substantial differences between the two on domestic political, social, and economic issues. However, anyone who believes that Obama will stop making war somwhere in the world should make an appointment with his/her shrink. One tipoff is that he wants to expand our army with some 60,000 soldiers. Why, if that is not for making it easier to conduct war in Iraq and Afganistan at the same time? Sixty-thousand is twice the number used for the "surge" in Iraq! Are they intended for "Obama-surges?"
The rising costs of war (Tom Engelhardt has written an excellent article about this. It can be read on Antiwar.com) and the shrinking revenue income of the Federal government next year will shrivel the funding of a President Obama's social programs to almost zilch unless.....he borrows more money from the Chinese which he has recently kicked in the balls by criticizing President Bush for attending the opening of the Olympic Games and adulating the Tibetan "pope".

And the world should not forget Panama: in order to get Manuel Noriega (an American puppet), the US invaded and killed about 5,000 civilians and left over 20,000 homeless. How much longer does the world have to put up with this murderous nation??? Wars will end when there is no one left to pull a trigger.

Those on the "left" in the US and other western countries who carried the banner of anti-Sovietism, did a major disservice to the international class struggle. They effectively kept the "left" confused for all those years and in doing so, must assume some of the responsibility for today's reality of total global capitalist hegemony. In this regards, the icons of the "left" - the petty bourgeois left - the likes of Zinn and Chomsky, have ultimately done a major disservice to the international working class. The Soviet Union, for all it's warts and problems, was the FIRST socialist state in the history of humankind. It supported the anti-colonial battles that took place in the 20th Century and defeated fascism in WWII. Who knows what the world would be like today, had the petty bourgeois left not been able to confuse the "left" in the western world and instead had constructively supported the socialist states fighting American imperialism? The whole outcome may have been quite different. As a "historian", Zinn owes it to himself and the rest of us to look deeper into all that and his role in helping split the left.

poopdeck July 18th, 2008 9:23 am writes "President Obama's social programs to almost zilch unless..."
-good point. And he will do almost nothing to help Blacks because he is very careful to not even hint at race or racism. He doesn't want to scare off White voters therefore he dilutes himself and self-castrates any attempt to speak truth to power and keeps Blacks at arms length.

EXCELLENT POSTS: HAR DAVIDS, JERRY ROSE, & WORDS ARE IMPORTANT.

endCapitalism writes:
Those on the "left" in the US and other western countries who carried the banner of anti-Sovietism, did a major disservice to the international class struggle. They effectively kept the "left" confused for all those years and in doing so, must assume some of the responsibility for today's reality of total global capitalist hegemony.

The soviet union was not very different from a fascist state. It did not embody the values of socialism or equality, but a strange and scary new form of authoritarianism and centralization. I detest Soviet socialism just as much or more than neo-liberalism. They are both against the working class.

As Chomsky has said a lot of people on the left are borderline fascists. Submitting all authority to some vanguard is not something I would assent to. In fact, I'd fight against it.

Call me an imperialist if you want. But I'm fighting against all forms of domination. Furthermore, your suspicion of the petty bourgeois left is precisely the suspicious attitude that led to the purges of the soviet era.