Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama, The Prince of Bait-and-Switch
I interviewed a woman who had lost eight members of her family, including six children to a US bomb - but mass murder in Afghanistan isn't news.
On 12 July, the Times devoted two pages to Afghanistan. It was mostly a complaint about the heat. The reporter, Magnus Linklater, described in detail his discomfort and how he had needed to be sprayed with iced water. He also described the "high drama" and "meticulously practised routine" of evacuating another overheated journalist. For her US Marine rescuers, wrote Linklater, "saving a life took precedence over [their] security". Alongside this was a report whose final paragraph offered the only mention that "47 civilians, most of them women and children, were killed when a US aircraft bombed a wedding party in eastern Afghanistan on Sunday".
Slaughters on this scale are common, and mostly unknown to the British public. I interviewed a woman who had lost eight members of her family, including six children. A 500lb US Mk82 bomb was dropped on her mud, stone and straw house. There was no "enemy" nearby. I interviewed a headmaster whose house disappeared in a fireball caused by another "precision" bomb. Inside were nine people - his wife, his four sons, his brother and his wife, and his sister and her husband. Neither of these mass murders was news. As Harold Pinter wrote of such crimes: "Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest."
A total of 64 civilians were bombed to death while the Times man was discomforted. Most were guests at a wedding party. Wedding parties are a "coalition" speciality. At least four of them have been obliterated - at Mazar and in Khost, Uruzgan and Nangarhar provinces. Many of the details, including the names of victims, have been compiled by a New Hampshire professor, Marc Herold, whose Afghan Victim Memorial Project is a meticulous work of journalism that shames those who are paid to keep the record straight and report almost everything about the Afghan War through the public relations facilities of the British and American military.
The US and its allies are dropping record numbers of bombs on Afghanistan. This is not news. In the first half of this year, 1,853 bombs were dropped: more than all the bombs of 2006 and most of 2007. "The most frequently used bombs," the Air Force Times reports, "are the 500lb and 2,000lb satellite-guided . . ." Without this one-sided onslaught, the resurgence of the Taliban, it is clear, might not have happened. Even Hamid Karzai, America's and Britain's puppet, has said so. The presence and the aggression of foreigners have all but united a resistance that now includes former warlords once on the CIA's payroll.
The scandal of this would be headline news, were it not for what George W Bush's former spokesman Scott McClellan has called "complicit enablers" - journalists who serve as little more than official amplifiers. Having declared Afghanistan a "good war", the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the bloodfests in Afghanistan and Iraq. What they never say is that Obama is a bomber.
In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghan istan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power - because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, "bait-and-switch" Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince.
Those who write of Obama that "when it comes to international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush" demonstrate the same wilful naivety that backed the bait-and-switch of Bill Clinton - and Tony Blair. Of Blair, wrote the late Hugo Young in 1997, "ideology has surrendered entirely to 'values' . . . there are no sacred cows [and] no fossilised limits to the ground over which the mind might range in search of a better Britain . . ."
Eleven years and five wars later, at least a million people lie dead. Barack Obama is the American Blair. That he is a smooth operator and a black man is irrelevant. He is of an enduring, rampant system whose drum majors and cheer squads never see, or want to see, the consequences of 500lb bombs dropped unerringly on mud, stone and straw houses.
John Pilger is an investigative journalist and documentary film-maker.
© 2008 The New Statesman



251 Comments so far
Show AllMy hatred of Barack Obama increases daily - I regard him (and Bush & McCain, etc.) as a terrorist, and I regard his supporters as complicit in terrorism as well. The murders of afghanis, iraqis, palestinians (among many many others all over the world) is not o.k. It's time to STOP ALL THIS MADNESS by not supporting terrorism of the U.S. variety: one way is to vote for alternative parties that do not condone, support, nor are complicit with U.S. terrorist policies.
My hatred of Barack Obama increases daily - I regard him (and Bush & McCain, etc.) as a terrorist, and I regard his supporters as complicit in terrorism as well. The murders of afghanis, iraqis, palestinians (among many many others all over the world) is not o.k. It's time to STOP ALL THIS MADNESS by not supporting terrorism of the U.S. variety: one way is to vote for alternative parties that do not condone, support, nor are complicit with U.S. terrorist policies.
Well, seems we have been scammed again......this time, by Obama. I loathe the evil, Israel FIRST Zionists who have almost destroyed this country. And, as a retired military officer, I detest the cowardly supporters of torture who brought us the unnecessary war of choice for Israel. I had hoped that Obama would represent real change......change where the rule of law would apply; change where international law and conventions would be respected; change where UN Seucrity Council resolutions would be enforced equally and fairly. Yet, I knew when I heard Obama's comments as he groveled on the floor in front of AIPAC that Obama was just as phony as Libby, or Addington, or Cheney, or Bush, or Feith. Obama will not face the rule of law with fairness. Obama will not expose the evil criminals behind 911. Obama is just more of the same Zionist evil that has a chokehold on the US Congress. The USA is in serious decline. We are no longer the shining city on the hill. We are now a nation of hypocrites who refuse to face facts. We are doomed. In my lifetime, I have seen the hope of the future shrink as hedge fund and private equity managers make BILLIONS a year, taxed at the 15% rate, and the once proud middle class evaporates under
a worthless dollar, shrinking retirement accounts and out of control medical expenses. This all did not have to happen. This is what Americans voted for.
The American idea of "foreign policy credentials" is an imbecile package tour of seventeen countries in seven nights and six days, so now there's yet another sound-bite photo-op American clown named Barack Obama runnning around Southwest Asia talking about how to "finish the job in Afghanistan," and all the Americans who happen to like this particular clown can't stop cheering for his plan to "finish the job in Afghanistan," as if we had a job in Afghanistan that anyone could ever finish...
But this particular clown thinks maybe two extra brigades will "finish the job" that an enormous Russian army never finished, and even the relatively intelligent British colonial generals never finished, and even Alexander the Great never "finished the job in Afghanistan," but Barack Obama thinks he can "finish the job in Afghanistan" with two more brigades, even though nobody in the universe has any idea what this particular job may be, or how anyone could determine when and if we ever "finished the job in Afghanistan," unless you realistically redefine "the job in Afghanistan" as killing every living thing in that god-forsaken country, and it's obviously way too much to expect that a clown like Barack Obama will notice that's exactly the job we're doing, and it's obviously way too much to expect that a clown like Barack Obama will realize that maybe the Afghans don't want us to "finish the job in Afghanistan" because most of them understand that the only job we ever had in Afghanistan that anyone could ever finish is the job of killing every living thing in that god-forsaken country.
Time Magazine ran a cover a couple weeks ago: "Afghanistan - The Right War." I thought I would gag.
Neither of the duopoly candidates will end this. You want peace? Vote for a candidate that wants peace!
McKinney, Nader, Bob Barr, several others, support bringing home the troops, shutting down the majority of bases, and an end to empire.
Just do it!
Obamma is as American as Mom, Apple Pie, and the wonton slaughter of 3rd world innocents.
Surprise! Not. "When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"
What the hell is Common Dreams here for? To elect McCain?
It's one thing to say you're "progressive", but you (we) participants here are enduring the ultimate bait and switch.
This "site" supposedly exists to make things better. But when they put up author after author after author asking people to either stay home, vote for McCain or vote for some impossible-to-elect fringe candidate, they are either clueless or nefarious. Yes, CD editors, that means you.
[Editor's Note: Me?]
Cynthia McKinney, 2008.
jj
obama has stated over and over again that he can't carry through with his agenda for "change" without our help. The people have to be mobilized and supporting real change. Both the Dems and Repubs are controlled by Big Business. In power, which of the two is more vulnerable to the peoples' demands for real change? If progressives can't see that the bringing about change is a process and that success can only be achieved by first sweeping aside the greatest impediments to change - the ultra rightwing, then I'm afraid, we'll never see change. The FIRST step is to defeat McCain and the Republican neocons. The SECOND step is to organize, mobilize and start a class struggle fightback in the interests of the people against the corporate domination of politics. The ultimate and last step, which could well be step 100, is socialism.
I've noticed the parallel between Blair and Obama too; they both rose from humble beginnings, and their political careers caught fire because each were enthusiastically embraced and welcomed by a weary and desperate citizenry: just what the doctor ordered. Each carefully cultivated a reputation and image as a truly fresh face-- a politician who combined the worthiest traditional values with innovative organizing and campaigning.
Since I'm Amerikan, I was neither present nor paying attention during Blair's meteoric rise; thus, it's hard for me to even imagine finding Blair "charismatic" or inspirational. But such was the case, until he gradually revealed himself as an egregiously pious and self-righteous neo-liberal warmonger.
Naturally, those wedded to the certainty that Obama is the real thing-- or at least the last, best hope for Amerikan mankind-- will refuse to admit the parallel, at least as regards its predictive power. The rebuttals have already been made over and over: Obama is merely twirling his War Boner like a virtuoso drum majorette because He's Doing What He Has to Do to Win; his true intellectual and moral depth will be revealed once he's in office.
It would be at best politically naïve, and at worst politically suicidal, for Obama to express positions that undermine his bona fides as a Warlord ready to unleash military force, megadeath and mega-mayhem on the slightest pretext-- especially against an opponent virtually endorsed by the corporate media as a Proven War Hero.
And, since rabid partisans are as irrational, small-minded, and anti-intellectual as any jingo-addled wingnut dittohead, it's likely that these parties will wonder aloud, or simply insist, that Pilger must be a Paid Republican Plant, or a Nihilistic Defeatist Nay-Sayer who only inflicts his scurrilous opinions to undermine the best thing that's happened to US politics this century. This reactionary view goes something like THIS:
Who is this outside agitator, this agent provocateur Pilger, anyway? In any case, he's obviously some sort of ivory-tower ninny. He uses long words-- the hallmark of the supercilious blowhard! He doesn't have a PLAN! He's not offering SOLUTIONS! I choose to dismiss him forthwith-- no snarky, treacherous pile of poop or banana-peel is going to trip up THIS Crusader while Victory is at hand. I want to BELIEVE; end of conversation!
______________________________________
Come to think of it: I wonder if there are any die-hard Blair supporters left in Britain who stand by their man even today, and blame his blighted and malignant tenure as PM on critics and dissenters who reprehensibly proved unable or unwilling to clap on cue, and harder and harder. :?:
Has "Fixed News" done a "hostile take-over" of CD? Or is it just another desguised "Vote McCain" ad?
Daniel David July 26th, 2008 11:52 am
"when [Commondreams] put[s] up author after author...asking people to either stay home, vote for McCain or vote for some impossible-to-elect fringe candidate..."
1) Please show where the author "ask[s] people" to do this.
2) Please respond to the article's main point, indicating whether you do or not agree, and supporting your view with a reasoned explanation:
"Those who write of Obama that 'when it comes to international affairs, he will be a huge improvement on Bush' demonstrate the same wilful naivety that backed the bait-and-switch of Bill Clinton - and Tony Blair."
It is also a pleasure to read Pilger, Hedges, and Moyers, to name a few. Maybe we can start a spin off site for the true progressive and let people like Hayden, Katrina, and Nichols, et al, play their little elitist games for the rest of the sheeple they represent.
To choose between Obama and McCain is to choose between Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer, either way there'll be genocide and mass-murder.
The nation has to once and for all get out of this destructive trend of voting for the kinder serial killer and elect a real representative of the people. We have at least 2 extra choices this time, Nader and McKinney. Get behind them.
Please - Can anyone verify that Blackwater signed another big money contract to provide air power for U.S. use in Afghanistan?
Nothing exists.
"vote for some impossible-to-elect fringe candidate"
Sadly, it's those people who always have the right idea.
I may vote McKinney too. I'm definitely not going with McCain or Obama.
Voting for Obama, a guy who's MOR at best, a guy at best who just wants to do things halfway, a guy who wants merely to win a title and be the most popular kid in school isn't going to make the world better. He may not be as bad as McCain, but why do we have to accept the lesser of two evils? Why do we have to vote for the guy who's the least worst who has the best chance of winning, if that makes sense?
The man wants to go after Afghanistan. He hints that he wants to nuke Iran. He doesn't want a full withdrawal from Iraq, and wants to leave the contractors there, continuing to line the pockets of imperial profiteers! McCain is Godzilla, Obama is Gorgo.
I hate when people say, "Oh Obama needs to be moderate in order to get elected."
Why do we have to accept compromise? Why? The people don't want to compromise. Obama betrays the will of the populace when he compromises.
I'm so sick of giving this guy the benefit of the doubt. I expect better. People on the left have a tendency to do that when they are presented with a candidate who has a good chance of winning. They did it with Kerry, and they did it with Gore. Let's ignore and forgive his flaws why don't we since he's such a handsome guy with a smooth voice who knows how to work a crowd? Besides, Oprah likes him, he made the cover of Rolling Stone, and he's just so cool. Him and his wife do fist bumps. *sigh*
I want to like Obama, but I dunno...if he gets in, and I won't be too upset if he does, we the people are gonna have to get on his case BIG time. Lean on him people. If we're going to attack McCain, and we should, Obama needs to be taken to task as well. The "change" he offers is shallow.
We could I think elect our troubles away. It's possible in theory I believe. But at this juncture it's highly unlikely. The best candidates are always kept out of the game due to their lack of shiny rhetoric, star power, and wealth.
I wrote in Dennis Kucinich at our Pennsylvania primary, and I still don't feel that I threw a vote away.
I am beginning to wonder if "the powers that be" have decided that with Iraq becoming unfeasible, Afghanistan will be helpless to resist its use as our "forward base" and, hey, NATO (our "coalition") is already there ....
Dire poverty? Drugs? "Narcoterrorism"? Violence to women? Bin Laden?
Sounds like "Primetime TV" to me. What's not to love?
Sounds like a disaster of opportunism in the making.
obama is aging right before our eyes and mccain has stopped aging and started petrifying
relax - your vote is without meaning
you have no rights and are without input into the political reality of the rancid republic
the race for the presidency is another nuance of american non-reality that has slipped into the realm of the absurd - the never-ending campaign reduces the candidates to miss america contestants.
they get to prance aound the stage in their best dresses and insist they want to heal the world of all pain and injustice.
and i can tell you, when it comes to mccain, i am not looking forward to the swim suit competition
It's especially tacky of Daniel David to insult the "editors" of Common Dreams at this sad time for the only remaining editor.
We must elect more Democrats this November because they will clean up Washington and make things bright and shiny again.
This has been a prerecorded message.
copyright MMVI
Voting at this point is totally irrelevant.
It appears that it will take nothing less than civil war to dislodge these evil people.
Have the people (with a conscience) been "Gandhized" to the point it can't be done?
1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Bargaining
4. Depression
5. Acceptance
If people are going to vote for Obama, then they need to think about that vote, and then hold Obama accountable *coughgivehimhellcough* when he sways from Progress, Peace, and Justice. That's all. If people want to vote for Obama to block McCain, fine. Just don't act like everything is hunky dory afterwards. The work will be far from finished.
Who becomes president is probably meaningless until we rid ourselves of the known criminals and thieves in Congress and the Senate - it's not like it even requires more than a weeks research to find out who they are through the public record
VOTE FOR JESUS------JEHOVAH---MOHAMMED----BUDDAH----VISHNU---RA----etc---
The reason why I advocate voting for someone who does not exist, nor ever has in the context mentioned is simple.
Everyone has the answer---"Vote for ?????? they have the answers to our problems" without taking into consideration that the 'SYSTEM' IS THE PROBLEM; THEN THE CANDIDATE IS SECONDARY.
Just a few month ago, many believed that Hilary would be the "savior"---then they switched to Obama, then many believed that GW Bush was the "savior" but he never had the chance to shine so MCCain is the "savior"----and then Obama started to show that he was surrounded by the same "social parasites" that Hilary is ( WalMart etc), and GW Bush was, and MCCain is--- and are the "evangelicals" really supporting MCCain, or are they just afraid of a "Dark Skinned" guy, who may be a secret Muslim-----and it just goes on for ever.
The American people are looking for a Messiah (or don't forget,,in December Santa is Coming to Town) to save them from the messes they allow themselves to be put into without seeing the problem---the PROBLEM is NOT THE CANDIDATE-----the problem is the system has been since the begining under the control of Big Money----
Americans fret that the "Constitution" has been trampled upon by GWBush and Co. but the fact is the same document was merely a matter of convenience from the begining: The MEN who signed the Document that began with "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal; all owned slaves.---in 1883 the US passed the General Allotment Act, which broke every treaty they had with the Native Tribes (after the US LOST THE WARS WITH THOSE TRIBES) in direct defiance of Article SIX, "all treaties are SUPEREME LAW---they will spend trillions of dollars they need back home to bring Democracy to others when it is a failure for them---and it just goes on and on----because the American people are blind to their own duplicity, and are fooled into thinking that a "Messiah is coming any day now----or vote for this one he/she is the TRUE messiah".
The cold hard fact is that NO MATTER WHO IS PUT INTO OFFICE, from the Pres on Down, they are all there in Wash/ or the State level--to do the bidding of those WHO MAKE IT WORTH THE EFFORT----THE ONES WHO PAY BIG FOR THE POLITICAL FAVORS THAT MAKE THEM RICHER---SO THAT THEY CAN AFFORD TO BUY MORE POLITICIANS----------------
So even if Jesus, or any other "Messiah" is voted into office----they to, will be under the influence of the same big money----or they will end up DEAD-----if they can get to office.
The one problem that I can see ahead is that the American people do not have much time left to make the changes they need to make in order to save themselves and their "grand experiment"-----as it stands now, the USA is a huge mistake--a miserable failure to the rhetoric--unless you are one of the monied ones, or you are one of the "bought ones"...
Most Americans have shown themselves to be small minded--- short sighted----scared people, who would rather buy into a fairy tale future ; while they revel in a fairly tale history , and therefore willing to repeat--the same mistakes--and they are doomed at this point, to any kind of a future except a copy of the mess and the mistakes they have now because:
They are willing to WAIT FOR THE MESSIAH----OR VOTE FOR THE MESSIAH--------
On the other hand they have a wonderful opportunity to become the Positive Example of History, by learning from their mistakes, and avoiding repetition of those mistakes---and make this nation a shining example for thousands of years into the future.
blackfeather7 July 26th, 2008 12:38 pm
Nothing exists.
Bullshit exists. I see so much of it every day, starting at where I work and spreading out to all points from there, that I know it's real.
RichM,
No, I do not support the War on Terror, either as "named" by Bushies or as prosecuted by Bushies. That is not to imagine, however, that the sun will not come up tomorrow on the world AS IT EXISTS, and that America can somehow go "on vacation" from its military involvements now underway.
We're less than 100 days to election of either McCain or Obama. I'm quite sure I trust Obama's judgment on how to proceed much more than I trust McCain's. I'm also quite sure I trust Obama's domestic initiatives (including the Court) more than I trust McCain's. I know the purists don't like lesser-evilism as justification for anything, but that's all you (we) get as voters. We're dumb as rocks if we're too busy wailing to even make that choice.
abramawicz,
To your questions:
1) Editorially bashing one candidate in words less "Fair and Balanced" than Fox News IS asking voters to support the other candidate(s).
2) No, I do not agree Obama is a "bait and switch." I believe Obama is doing his best to win a difficult election in an increasingly dumb land (the USA) with conservative liars all over him like a swarm of (killer) bees. And I believe he is feeling the weight not only of the campaign, but of the prospect of actually serving and making the tough choices. Knocking him for that (in favor of Bomb, Bomb beer dealer, McCain) is not only stupid, in my view, but petty like a bunch of high school prima-donna mean girls do for sport. Immature. Insensitive. Short-sighted. Selfish.
"...unless you realistically redefine "the job in Afghanistan" as killing every living thing in that god-forsaken country..."
The poppy-crops are "living-things" -- and doing quite-nicely, of-late...
"I believe Obama is doing his best to win a difficult election in an increasingly dumb land (the USA)..."
What? Elitist much? The majority of the people in this "increasingly dumb land" want a full withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. The American people don't want any more Godzillas.
"Insensitive" you say? Not wanting any more Iraqis, Afghans, and American troops to die for empire is "insensitive?"
Difficult decisions my ass. Pull out, EVERYWHERE! The solution is pretty easy imo.
"Editorially bashing one candidate in words less "Fair and Balanced" than Fox News IS asking voters to support the other candidate(s)."
No it's called holding people accountable.
No Surprise here, The Candidate's apologists abound on even these points. tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk
EndCapitalism: Thanks for your post. I do believe Obama is educable and open to others' ideas. I HOPE he learns what our support for Israel's aggression in the Middle East has helped them do to the Palestinian people; that he calls off the stupid War on Terror, which is the current administration's excuse for bombing private residences in which "terrorists" (people who resent our occupation?) reside with their families; that he learns what the Int'l Republican Institute (chaired by McCain), the CIA, the World Bank and IMF, and the State Dept. have done to harm democratically elected leaders in South America; and that he learns that the Bush people want to help "democratize" and make "peaceful" the entire continent of Africa with the help of mercenaries because they have decimated our military. He has a BIG job to do. If he does not win, however, McCain will carry on with our Militarized Foreign Policy From Hell.
Little Brother: Re: The young, , likable, charismatic and genuinely idealistic Tony Blair, see the movie "The Queen."
Cheer up folks...
"The only vote that's wasted is a vote for someone you don't believe in," Nader said, at the University of Hawaii-Manoa campus
July 3,2008
VOTE NADER 2008… You'll be glad you did and so will I…
.
"This "site" supposedly exists to make things better. But when they put up author after author after author asking people to either stay home, vote for McCain or vote for some impossible-to-elect fringe candidate, they are either clueless or nefarious. Yes, CD editors, that means you."
_
Progressive does not necessarily equal Democrat and vice versa. You seem to think that Common Dreams is a front for the Democratic Party? Perhaps, we are finding out that, well yes, maybe? Maybe not. Good.
I vote with my lack of money.
iwarrior: "No it's called holding people accountable" (so you say)
You don't and wouldn't know "accountable" from a hole in the ground. Candidates are not "accountable"--because they have not yet made a decision. Presidents and others actually elected are "accountable". How you doin' holding Bush's feet to the fire? How well do you think McCain is going to listen to you rant?
jozef,
CD need not "front" for Democrats. But this article is the same as "fronting" for Republicans (by default). Treason to dozens of real cause of liberals and progressives everywhere is what it amounts to. Just seeks to help citizens lose to corporations (again).
Why don't we save Obama bashing until AFTER he gets elected then we can join the Repugs in their incessant attacks on Democrat administrations.
At this point, we should be glad to get the lesser evil.
Obama or McCain is a life or death decision and the only one you get.
If you don't like it, you can hold your breath until you turn blue, literally.
VOTE ANYBODY BUT THE TWO PARTIES
"Treason to dozens of real cause of liberals and progressives everywhere is what it amounts to. Just seeks to help citizens lose to corporations (again)." Voting for either of the two major party candidates IS VOTING FOR CORPORATIONS.
Unlike Daniel David (7-26, 11:52 AM), I'm glad that CD is giving us food for thought and motivation to be critical of Obama. I'll still vote for him, but I don't believe for a second that we should vote Obama and then leave politics on auto-pilot (as some Dems may be tempted to do). He'll be better than Bush in many ways, but part of that will be a greater willingess to listen to citizens of his country and the world.
Obama won't be the best president he can be without constant pressure from progressives. If he has that, he has the potential to be a good, inspiring and elloquent leader. Without it, he'll sugar-coat compromise and make it sound sweet.
John Pilger is one of the great historians of our time. Thanks to the editors for publishing this article.
In the end, and always, it is the moral responsibility of every voter to inform himself. The voters will get what they vote for. Proof - last election they voted for a War Party candidate and got more war - really a continuation of the Bush 1/Clinton War. The US started bombing Iraq in 1991. As of right now, 90%+ of the voters are supporting a War Party Candidate.
Stop blaming the Editors, media, talk show hosts, FOX, and everybody else.
Get with the program. You can have Capitalism, or you can have Peace. You just can't have them both at the same time in the same country.
VOTE FOR NADER.
yes, I think Obama supporters would do well to cool the hysteria a bit... they may well need it in October ... that whole boy-wolf thing gets old ... and it takes on a ring of condescension they could not possibly, reasonably, not-in-a-million-years intend to convey -- seriously, so very off-putting.
It's clear that we (USans)won't ELECT ourselves out of our MESS.That said,I live in COLO. and will vote for B.O. -TO BLOCK McSAME &the NEOCONmen.
Carl Jung said that the most important problems in life are 'insoluble'....they can never be solved only OUTGROWNED.
U.S. natonal politics a prime example.
DANIEL [ jew in the lions den ] DAVID [ king of Isreal }=ZIONIST NEO-CON SHILL,it's no supprise that he would support OBAMAnation in his efforts to continue endless wars for the zionist gangsters of Isreal and their mentors the AIPAC gangsters.
OBABAnation in Germany supported walls comming down while in ISREAL/PALASTINE he supports walls going up on stolen lands no less,what a prize he is!
If elected OBAMAnation as a constitutional professor will refine his skills in further destroying the constitution untill like Bush wanted it wouldn't even be a GD piece of paper.How do i know this ,perhaps it could be in the way he helped BUSH destroy it as a mere senetor!
If you want a change you can believe in vote for Cynthia McKinney and Rosa Clamenti of the Green party,bothe of whom are running on real issues that progressives can believe in,not just the facts of a black man or a woman,see you can have your cake and eat it too!
When I first tried to participate in discussions concerning the best way to implement progressive values and policies through the electoral process, I thought it would be a good thing to try to honestly engage in a "debate", if you will, with those who argued for the "least worst" alternative. But as I have watched Obama, and the discussion about him, unfold, I have come to my own conclusion that, in the end, what we are having is a debate, not among those who differ in their opinion about how to advance those values, but between those who really do want to and those who simply want more Democrats in office, whatever that means.
I have come to this conclusion simply because it should be becoming more and more clear with each passing day that there is nothing progressive about the Dem. candidate, and that attempts to establish the concept that there is a real, let alone significant, difference between the Dem and the Rep candid. are becoming more and more desperate in tone and threadbare in substance. I have gotten to the point where, when I read articles in the Nation, e.g., to this effect, I am not only angry, but actually embarrassed for the authors and editors. And it has gotten to the point where it is no longer necessary to counter their arguments with others, it is enough simply to juxtapose one of their own statements against another. You don't even have to contrast one author with another, the contradictions are internal and so obvious that I really wonder how they can make their defense with a straight face, or should we now read them as we would, say, the Onion. For example, how does The Nation's editor, with any semblance of credibility, argue for support of a fellow who supported a measure her publication is suing to overturn? Sorry, but when the "logic" of such a position becomes as convoluted and internally inconsistent as this obviously has, it cannot be considered seriously. The idea that the "oh, but he is really different than just about everything he is saying and doing" argument, which is about all his plaintive supporters have left, should be definitive in our choice is too incredible for even as gullible a person as I have been known to be. It does not pass the laugh test.
To show how desperate his supporters have become, realizing that their candidate can no longer be made even to appear progressive, they argue that his detractors are merely McCain supporters. How ironic that they accuse us of the very thing they are themselves, knowingly or not, guilty of - perpetuating the stranglehold the military industrial complex has placed us in under the auspices of both major parties; it usually takes two hands to strangle someone. If one of the parties had truly been an opposition party, the stranglehold could have been released.
So, as much as I have enjoyed the discussion over the past few months, I really do think that it has come to the point where Obama's defenders should be put in the same category as McCain's - defenders of the status quo. So now we have a choice of 2 candidates on the right, a black male Dem. and a white male Rep. and 2 candidates on the left, a black female Green and a white male Indy and a few others somewhere on the spectrum. The decision lefty's, and progressives have to make, it seems to me, is to decide whether they want their vote to be consistent with, not simply their avowed principles but the things this country desperately needs, or whether they want to throw those things under the bus for the sake of, what, exactly? Keeping out the horrid Rep.? Horrid, why? Because "our" guy is so much better? Hardly. Because "our" guy is a Dem.
Frankly, it is clear to me that arguing for Obama has deteriorated into nothing more than an "on any given day, any Dem is better than any Rep" argument - much like the 5 year olds who face off with "my dad can beat up your Dad, so there!"
I do not have an exhaustive knowledge of Pilger's work, but what I have read and heard has impressed me mightily. I think this man is a truth teller and the tone of the reaction of some of the above posters rather indicates to me that truth is the last thing they want to hear or have the rest of us hear about their beloved candidate.
It is so tempting to refer to the Dem cand. as "Obamer" (though perhaps in New England this might be the normal pronunciation of his name), but, though it may be quite descriptive of his policies, it will not add to intelligent discussion, so I will refrain even as that moniker reverberates in my head.
Just as Bush has reduced the credibility of the US with his policies, I really think much of the "left-wing" media has reduced its credibility with progressives with its continued and, in my view, absurd, support for a guy like Obama. If one really does want to turn this country around, such support is irrational. The only way it makes any "sense" is if one's primary goal is merely to change the party that gets to keep and hand out all the corporate goodies from Rep. to Dem. Progressives must refuse to participate in this charade. It isn't simply a matter of self-respect. It is a matter of survival.
Unlike too many the Coalition's 500-lb and 2000-lb bombs, Pilger's assessments always hit the right targets; unfortunately, not enough westerners, especially those served by the commercial media in the USA, ever hear about the civilian deaths (in Afghanistan AND elsewhere) or read Pilger, among the many other voices (see Huck at 12:32 p.m.) that appear here on CD. BTW, Pilger's documentaries are the best.
I fear that Pilger is correct about Obama, though I, for the moment, timidly share in Bernice's (2:26 p.m.) optimism.
Peace.
What's wrong with Republicans? In 2006, the Democratic party in Rhode Island attempted to unseat extremely popular Senator Lincoln Chafee, a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-gay rights, anti-death penalty Republican who had voted in 2002 against Bush's authorization of force in Iraq. (People who know their history will remember that a majority of Senate Democrats -- not some, a majority -- voted to approve this resolution.)
During the 2006 election campaign, in Rhode Island and nationwide, the Democrats promised to end America's military involvements abroad -- not "win" or manage them better. Bringing the soldiers home within months was the hands-down, number one issue on which the Democrats ran their candidates. Having a majority of Democrats in Congress was trumpeted as the make-or-break way to achieve this. Riding a national wave of anti-Bush sentiment, the Democrats in Rhode Island mercilessly tarred Chafee for simply being a Republican, despite his very liberal record. It was a tactic of guilt-by-association.
And the strategy worked. Voters in Rhode Island took the Democrats at their word and threw out Chafee to elect a Democrat in his place. Furthermore, the Democrats won a majority of the seats in Congress. Citizens already working to end America's nasty foreign entanglements waited expectantly for the new Congress to join them. We are still waiting.
This is a documented case of Bait-and-Switch, and I'm hard-pressed to be convinced otherwise. Seriously, what's a logical person to think? Larger than the issue of military force, it will stand as the official American historical record that the Democratic leadership acquiesced to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, but refused to even consider removing his loathed, warmongering successor. Do the Democrats think Clinton is more deserving of punishment than Bush? It seems that way to me.
Republican Dwight Eisenhower said: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Wow. The actual quote is much longer and very eloquent. Look it up and then compare it to anything Obama has remarked about such things.
Voters look for candidates who best represent what they think America needs -- they're called "Representatives" for a reason. In its basic form, the concept is called self-determination, and America's continued occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are preventing their respective citizens from enjoying it. (Hint: The right time to end a burglary is now.) So, when Obama lays out a detailed plan for withdrawing all American soldiers and contractors from Iraq and Afghanistan within 16 hours of taking office, not 16 months, he'll have earned my vote. But if that's too much to expect from him, then I'm happy to be courted by a different political party.
And if more Republicans get elected, then maybe we're better for it. We may even get back Lincoln Chafee.