Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Warning to Obama on the New Cold War
Barack Obama and the Democrats are heading towards trouble in November because of a new cold war with the Russians triggered largely by a top John McCain adviser and the same neoconservative clique who fabricated evidence to lobby for the Iraq war.
This is not a conspiracy theory but a conspiracy fact, stated as boldly as possible before it is too late.
Because they are still mired in what Obama himself calls "old thinking," the Democratic hierarchy and the mainstream media will have to be challenged by the faithful and clear-headed rank-and-file and the blogosphere to recognize the Georgia Conspiracy.
Here are the short-term essentials:
• After border skirmishes similar to the 1964 Tonkin Gulf affair, on August 8, Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili invaded the autonomous breakaway region of South Ossetia with his US-trained army. The Russians responded with massive force, quickly routing Saakashvili's forces.
• McCain has traveled to Georgia, nominated his close friend Saakashlivi for a Nobel Prize in 2005, and was the first American leader to blast Russia last April, when Vladimir Putin issued a sharp warning against NATO membership for Georgia and the Ukraine, supported by the United States.
• The Bush Administration was divided along familiar lines, with the foreign policy "realists" around Condoleezza Rice opposite the pro-Georgia hawks centered in Dick Cheney's office and allied with McCain--enthusiasts for spreading "democracy" from Iraq to the Russian border.
• Randy Scheunemann, McCain's foreign policy adviser, was a registered foreign agent for Saakashlivi's government from at least 2004, when Saakashvili came to power, until May 15, 2008, when he technically severed his ties to Orion Strategies, his lobbying firm. At that point, Orion had earned at least $800,000 in lobbying fees from Georgia.
• Saakashvili, with Scheuneman advising him, campaigned on a platform of taking back South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
•Schuenemann was Georgia's lobbyist when Saakashvili sent troops to retake two separatist enclaves, Ajaria in 2004 and the upper Kodori Gorge in Abhkazia in 2006, over strong Russian objections.
• Saakashvili tarnished his democratic credentials by sending club-wielding riot police against unarmed demonstrators protesting his abrupt purging of the police, civil servants and universities in 2007, a replay of Paul Bremer's decision to privatize Iraq in 2003.
Until now Scheunemann has been less visible but no less important than any of the top neoconservatives who drove America into Iraq and now are lobbying for a new cold war and a McCain presidency.
He was the full-time executive director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He helped draft the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which authorized $98 million for the "Iraq lobby" led by Ahmad Chalabi, which disseminated bogus intelligence in the lead-up to war. He also worked for Donald Rumsfeld as a consultant on Iraq. He joined the board of the Project for the New American Century.
Scheunemann traveled with McCain to Georgia in 2006. Seeking to repeat his 1998 Iraq jackpot, he lobbied for an unsuccessful measure co-sponsored by McCain that year, the NATO Freedom Consolidation Act, which would have sent $10 million to Georgia.
He claims to have invented the phrase "rogue state rollback" for a 1999 McCain speech, an echo of the right-wing cold war strategy of rolling back the Soviet Union. He has been a paid lobbyist or consultant for such presumed beneficiaries of "rollback" as Latvia, Macedonia and Romania, as well as Georgia. Not to miss another opportunity, his firm has represented the Caspian Alliance, a consortium of oil and gas producers in the region.
It is unclear at this writing what links Scheunemann, as Georgia's lobbyist, may had to the Western oil interests who in 2005 built the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline through Georgia, a project intentionally designed to bypass Russia and implement what a recent New York Times report described as an "American strategy to put a wedge between Russia and the Central American countries that had been Soviet republics." The BTC consortium includes BP, Chevron, Conoco and the state of Azerbejian. As conceived, according to Ha'aretz, the system also would attempt to link eventually with Israel's pipeline system as well. Using the justification of pipeline protection, US Special Forces in 2005 reportedly trained 2,000 Georgian troops in anti-terrorism techniques. Scheunemann has been a lobbyist for BP America; Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, of course, has longstanding ties with Chevron, which even named a super-tanker after her.
But as evidence of the serious tensions within Republican circles, Schuenemann attacked Rice for appeasement of Russia over Georgia as recently as 2006. Now it appears that the Shuenemann-McCain faction has succeeded in pulling the United States into an unwinnable military situation, which is overflowing with political dividends for McCain and the Republicans.
In a nutshell, here is what should be said: the same Republican neocons who fabricated the reasons for going to war in Iraq are back, and now they have been paid to trigger a new cold war with Russia that benefits John McCain. These are dangerous, expensive unwinnable games being played with American lives to benefit Republican politicians and their oil company friends.
These are not words you are going to hear from Barack Obama or anyone in the Democratic hierarchy. Looking back, they agree that the Iraq invasion was a colossal misjudgment. Privately, most of them feel that Georgia's adventurism provoked the current conflict. But politically, they are pledged to be positioned as tough against terrorism and communism, tougher than the Republicans.
This should be a red line for peace movement supporters of Barack Obama. We can live to fight another time on his proposals on Afghanistan and Pakistan. We can learn to set aside his espousals of sending more troops into those quagmires down the road. After all, we cannot play into McCain's game plan, not with the Supreme Court at stake and a stronger-than-Obama Democratic majority poised to take over Congress. But this new cold war is now heating up by the day, and Obama is likely to be its first political victim. It is even possible that McCain, alerted to the danger, will propose a "diplomatic solution"--after he has squeezed as much benefit out of the cold war revival that he can, to be resumed after he becomes President and tries to incorporate the Ukraine into NATO.
Until a leading Democrat summons the courage and vision, the peace movement and netroots will have to lead the battle against this attempt to reward the very people who brought us Iraq with another lease on power.
First, it will be necessary for millions of people to re-educate themselves in the history and perils of the cold war. Fortunately, we don't have to repeat the communism/anti-communism debates that divided America and defeated Democrats for decades. The question is as old as 1917 or 1945: can and should the US attempt to strangle Russia through reckless pro-Western privatization schemes, combined with installing military bases--now including Patriot missiles--on its western and southern borders? And the question is as old as 1967: why was John McCain bombing Vietnam in the belief that it was a pawn of the Soviet Union? Why did our government and a majority of Americans fall for the same misleading pretext for that war?
The Republicans and neoconservatives should be asked this puzzling question: whatever happened to your triumphal claim that Ronald Reagan won the cold war by destroying the "evil empire"? Evidently they were seeking nothing more than Russia's natural resources and complete subjugation by NATO. There was no limit to what their superpower mentality thought possible.
Among those who caused this current debacle were also the Democratic Party's humanitarian hawks, who promoted the NATO military intervention in the Balkans with the dream of creating an independent Kosovo in Russia's historic sphere of influence. That war would have been a disaster if the United States (under Clinton) had sent ground troops. But Russia pulled back its support of Belgrade after three months of US bombing. That was perceived as a sign of Russia's weakness and the birth of a new unipolar world. Then came the giddy enlistment of former Soviet-bloc countries in NATO--the "new Europe," as Rumsfeld hailed them. The Russians were clear in warning that they could recognize places like South Ossetia if the West could carve out Kosovo, but the superpower was deafened by the delirium of success. It was to be the new American century, a resumption of the march to the free-market millennium first announced on the Time cover at the beginning of the cold war.
The initial goal of the principled rank-and-file peace movement should be to devise a persuasive message against the reckless adventurism of the resurgent McCain/neoconservative crusade and bombard the "realist" foreign policy school, from think tanks to editorial boards to senior members of Congress, with questions that widen the current climate of debate.
If Obama had a paid lobbyist for a foreign country on his Senate staff, what would the Republican outcry be?
If John McCain is above the special interest lobbies, why is he harboring Scheunemann? Is it enough to go off the Georgia payroll and over to the McCain campaign payroll during a regional war you helped set off?
Is Scheunemann as reckless as Saakashvili and McCain, in his own way? Besides his work for the Iraq lobby and the Georgia government, Scheunemann was the lobbyist for the National Rifle Association and the Sporting Arms and Ammunitions Manufacturers, and just nutty enough to be arrested for possession of an unregistered shotgun in the US Capitol--after a duck-hunting trip, of course.
Obama supporters should step up their criticism of his hawkish mimicry of McCain, and consider lessening their support--though still voting for him--unless he distinguishes himself from McCain on the immediate crisis.
At the very least, Obama can stop going out of his way to celebrate McCain as a great American war hero, which only reinforces McCain's strongest rationale for victory. And Obama's surrogates might delicately suggest that McCain shoots before he thinks. McCain was the pointman pushing the neoconservative war against "Islamo-fascism," centered in Baghdad, months before the Bush Administration revealed its intentions. While Obama urged caution about a "dumb war," McCain was supporting Ahmad Chalabi's misleading assertions about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq-Al Qaeda ties that didn't exist.
The broad peace movement has to awaken a burning memory from below. Everyone recalls George Bush declaring "Mission Accomplished," but does anyone recall John McCain standing on another aircraft carrier on January 2, 2002, yelling to young Navy pilots like himself during Vietnam, "Next up, Baghdad!"
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


34 Comments so far
Show AllThanks Tom Hayden (as always for decades now)....As a person who grew up 1955-through 60s/70s, I can't say how angry it makes me that---because of JOURNALISTS wanting to add drama to the newscast---this incredibly sloppy and worse than counterproductive use of the term Cold War is leading us with little more than words down a whole new path of waste and disaster....As Hayden's statement of facts shows, this is entirely provoked by the United States and its Right wing-nuts for (as usual with war) domestic political ends....There is no crime our government won't commit and no part of it our parasite class of fake journalists won't condone, explain and smile about....
Abbie Hoffman warned us about Tom Hayden a long time ago. Hayden is willing to settle for the vote without the goat all too often, and when he suggests we give our support to Obama tendered by the mild criticism he suggests, it's just more of the same. Bottom line: nothing from Obama, nothing for Obama. If he can't uphold a critique of the imperial project in his platform, he isn't worth voting for. Period.
Obama will continue the Bush policies of genocide and imperialism.
MCain will continue the Bush policies of genocide and imperialism.
Nothing new.
"These are not words you are going to hear from Barack Obama or anyone in the Democratic hierarchy. Looking back, they agree that the Iraq invasion was a colossal misjudgment."
-really? Then why don't they end the war seeing as they control the Congress and have the votes to end it or filibuster instead of continuously funding it while claiming to be opposed as Obama does.
"But politically, they are pledged to be positioned as tough against terrorism and communism, tougher than the Republicans."
-Obama's critiques against the wars/occupations are not that they are a needless immoral, illegal acts of aggression for imperial control of a resource rich region. Obama's marketing gimmick is that he would be a "smarter" Commander in Chief and would focus on what he calls the central front on the war on terror; Afghanistan. Obama is not opposed to the war on terror.
Obama starts to fade... Pulls a Kerry, even a Gore. Liberal activists lose interest in the Democratic half of the "party of the rich," an enterprise run by Wall Street and oil pipeline interventionists.
2008--end of Democratic Party as we know it.
2009 new party forms to take on Republicans.
From the looks of it the new party, as yet unnamed, will not be another party of the rich. Rule of Rich begins to fade in US as the truly rich move to China.
US in 2010 become a second tier power--emerges as happy and content Scandinavian country.
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
"This should be a red line for peace movement supporters of Barack Obama."
-oxymoron!
Obama told Logan: “There’s starting to be a broad consensus that it’s time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, [and] deploy them here in Afghanistan. And I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now’s the time to do it... If we wait until the next administration, it could be a year before we get those additional troops on the ground here in Afghanistan. And I think that would be a mistake. I think the situation is getting urgent enough that we’ve got to start doing something now.”
Peace movements will find no expression in either of the militarist pro-corporate mainstream parties. Obama talks about war in terms of "seizing the opportunity". If you want peace than a vote for Obama is misplaced and not going to achieve it.
"Obama supporters should step up their criticism of his hawkish mimicry of McCain, and consider lessening their support--though still voting for him--unless he distinguishes himself from McCain on the immediate crisis."
-If Obama will receive the votes of his supporters no matter how hawkish he becomes, Obama: "And so my job as the next commander in chief is going to be to make a decision what is the right war to fight, and, and how do we fight it?"
Why would Obama care if you soften your support as long as you still vote for him? I recommend voting for third parties to punish Democrats for becoming as warmongering as Republicans.
Obama's and McCain's war plans are almost the same: send more troops to Afghanistan. Obama wants to increase the military by 90,000 troops. Both will leave many tens of thousands of troops in Iraq to guard the embassy, train Iraqi soldiers, fight al Qaeda and guard our bases.
What is the difference between the two when it comes to militarism?
wonderbread
I am glad to read this article and see that I am not alone in my thinking that McCain is intentionally trying to reverse the Cold War detente of the last 20 years for political purposes. Although Hayden is very much on point in this article, I disagree with the notion that Obama should distance himself from criticizing McCain's troubling new imperialistic policies. Strength can be demonstrated through diplomacy to a much greater degree than through battle. We need to realize that our fear is not intrinsic, but is instead instigated, and shut down the provocateurs with our vote. Human instinct when confronted with a frightening situation is to fight or run. Instead of fighting or running, the strongest of men will show they are not afraid by using the most powerful of weapons . . . words; weapons that our foreign policy officials seem to have forgotten exist.
You can judge the candidates by their advisers and they're both recycling the worst of the worst. These advisers have created insane foreign and domestic policys. We are presently seeing the worst of capitalism and foreign policy. This article implies that condi rice (the realist) may be the pick of the litter. SAD !!!
dr. Wu,
The democratic party will never die as long as the rabid supporters of it (and I won't mention any names here, since this is the "new and improved" CD site) keep promoting and backing it--no matter what.
Vote Nader or McKinney, or hell, anyone else besides Obama, for that matter.
So, Moonpie, you really do want John McCain to be president. Is there anything about the current administration that bothers you?
Tom Hayden wants to be ruled by King O'Bama. Otherwise he would talk about something besides his majesty.
The external needs of the empire are not decided by the president. Those decisions will be made by Corporate America. So Obama can remain ignorant in regard to foreign affairs. He is only needed to placate enough 'good' Americans to keep the 'democracy' alive. It’s the empire’s last stand.
Hoa binh
"This should be a red line for peace movement supporters of Barack Obama”
This is the trouble some Democratic supporters find themselves in. They see their party as the only alternative to McCain. So what does it matter if Obama signs America up for one, three or ten more wars? Some, supposedly progressive, people will vote for him anyway. It is not so much a cold war history lesson they need as much as a clinic in multiparty democracy.
Progressives were never for corporate whore Obama. We won't accept another double-talking jester holding back the flood with his flaccid little dick in the dike. Send the shyster back to Chi town and let the dam burst.
"...let the dam burst".
As obscenely horrifying that I find your statement, I believe it is a necessity that the US fall miserably. Out of the resulting ashes may rise the America that that we have all dreamed.
Z-zzzzzzzzzz
There will be no nukes exchanged. There's too much money and real estate at stake. Nukes have always been yet another ploy to distract regular people from what really matters: money and power.
Force change & take back the democratic party of the future--vote Nader or McKinney.
George Orwell 1984 New Speak
-The one of the most amazing aspects of this campaign is the marketing of Obama as an antiwar candidate. He starts by stating we need to "end" the war in Iraq and ends by stating he favors sending two brigades (4000-10,000 troops) to Afghanistan.
In order to swallow the line that Obama is "antiwar" one must be capable of mental gymnastics and contortions worthy of an medal winning Olympic gymnast.
-tailcap
Listen to the guy. Obama clearly stated that he was not anti-war, just against wars that cannot be won or are poorly handled. He thinks he would be a better war-maker. Obama has been misunderstood by those who wish he was something he isn't: progressive----lizard
It is interesting to note the revival of the term "Cold War", once used to describe the clash of "communism" and "democracy", is now being used to describe the future clash of Russia and America, both now capitalist economies run by gangstas.
Maybe "Gang War" is apropos.
Back in the day (I'm 49) we grew our hair long and wore our jeans till they got holes in them which made them look kinda cool.
Nowadays corporations market the "hippie" look with faux worn and even "dirty-looking" jeans. I guess for our youth it's all about the look, hence they purchase jeans that have been aged and made to look worn for them. They prefer that to the real thing.
Obama is a faux progressive and many Democrats, indeed most of them prefer that to the real thing, Dennis Kucinich. Interesting what an upside down world we live in where people actually prefer imitation to the real thing.
The real thing? Kucinich is the real thing? He is very, very short. Americans don't want a short person for president, at least not for a hundred years with very few exceptions. His height is very real and very important to Americans, really---lizard
Tom Hayden writes in this article:
"It is unclear at this writing what links Scheunemann, as Georgia's lobbyist, may had [sic] to the Western oil interests who in 2005 built the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline through Georgia, a project intentionally designed to bypass Russia and implement what a recent New York Times report described as an 'American strategy to put a wedge between Russia and the Central American countries that had been Soviet republics.' The BTC consortium includes BP, Chevron, Conoco and the state of Azerbejian. As conceived, according to Ha'aretz, the system also would attempt to link eventually with Israel's pipeline system as well."
"Central AMERICAN countries"? What editor let this pass and was the error in the original Nation article?
Meanwhile, I am reminded by this and other articles on the Georgian crisis of the way Republicans interfered with then President Jimmy Carter's efforts to negotiate a settlement during the Iran hostage crisis. Anyone remember Iran/Contra?
Sakashvili's invasion and bombing of South Ossetia was the act of a madman, regardless of whose advice he was following---and all Media reports say that he and McCain are close. McCain nominated him for a Nobel Peace Prize? On what grounds? What does all this say about McInsane? The country of Georgia used to be among the richest in the USSR; it is now more dirt-poor than the State of Georgia, thanks to "free-market" policies. And who knew before this crisis---and it is still a crisis---that the U.S. had been pumping billions in military aid and training to this dangerously sick little shit?
-30-
If the paradigm is 'national security' then McCain will win. Therefore, look for more crises to erupt twist now and election day.
Vowing to be 'smarter' about war will not work for Obama.
Obama has the best chance when/if he transcends the political arena and evokes a movement. That's where 'change' and 'hope' reside. That's where his voice is most effective.
But he's going where man has gone before-the Democratic dance-take a step to the right, take another step to the right...
I'll go along with Hayden's 'red line' for Obama on the Cold War. That way, when Obama falls short again, more of the still-backing-Democrat-and-hoping might finally toss away their blinders.
---
Nice to see the 1,000 word limit. Someone listens!
"If the paradigm is 'national security' then McCain will win. Therefore, look for more crises to erupt twist now and election day."
Actually, it started a while ago. Notice how many of the unclosed issues of the Bush Administration are now being closed? E.g.
- The final report on WTC 7 was released a few days ago (fire did it);
- The Bush Administration is now leaning towards leaving Iraq on a timetable set by the Iraqis;
- Case closed on the anthrax attacks.
I will not be surprised if a dead bin Laden will be found before November.
Glad to see CD's revised login comment system is finally up and running.
Unfortunately, on my first attempt to use it, my post was mysteriously gobbled up and vanished into the void about ten seconds before I was going to try previewing it.
This is only a test.
Bill from Saginaw
In my opinion, it's now impossible for Obama's campaign to effectively raise torture or warrantless domestic surveillance by our spy agencies as an issue against McCain in this fall's election. But that makes it all the more important for Obama to squarely address one of the other biggest travesties of the Bush regime - PNAC's blueprint for waging preventative and preemptive war.
Unlike partisan discussion of torture or illegal wiretapping, there are no major potential embarassments for "blue dog" Democrats in focusing bluntly upon the aggressive unilateralism of Bush's war policies, their obvious blowback, and the enormous danger in perpetuating those policies for the next four years that the election of John McCain would insure.
I'm glad that Tom Hayden, Jason Leopold, and a variety of the other usual suspects are trying to press the sleazy past history and elevated current role of Randy Scheunemann as the McCain campaign's chief national security honcho into the public limelight. With a little media moxie and a little luck, Scheunemann can become as big an albatross for the GOP's war plans as Phil Gramm proved to be for McCain's economic policies.
By the way, as an Obama supporter, I fully agree that if Barack takes off after the latest red bait, and tacks still more to the right of center while the goal posts get moved towards Tiblisi, then he's probably toast no matter who his VP pick might be. If he goes any more wobbly on renouncing the inherent dumbness of war, the 2008 presidential election will become close enough to steal for the third time in a row.
Bill from Saginaw
A hundreds of war is not a worthy goal, but may be an acheivable goal, but only at the expense of all possible worthy goals. How much does the US want to lose by wanting to always win? Its a big world. Other people have to win too.
commoner3
Obama is not a progressive and he never was. He showed his true self after the primaries.
He is just a pretender and a phony. In short, we are having another war monger
and corporate whore who is no different at all from McCain and it will make
no difference at all who wins the next election.
Yes, we heard the same thing in 2000. Obama is a progressive in any measure against Bush and McCain. It will be a sad day if folks who should know better, contribute to the election of John McCain. Obama is the best chance for moving this country in a different direction than we have seen or may ever see again. I hope that the Obama-bashers here will realize that before election day.
Grappa
What good is a military if you don't get to use it? All other words seem so superfluous.
damnliberal August 22nd, 2008 8:43 pm writes, "I hope that the Obama-bashers here will realize that before election day."
-I'm always amused by Obama supporters who equate any criticism of Obama with "bashing".
How’s pointing out Obama has a record of voting to fund the wars/occupations, wants expand the miltary and redouble efforts in Afghanistan and voted to grant Bush and the Telecoms immunity "bashing?" Those positions aren’t very progressive. Is that bashing or is it simply the truth.
Do some Obama supporters have a problem with Obama's record or do they have a problem with anyone that points it out? Which is it?
It is indeed a sad day when Democrats shift so far to right that they make distinctions between the two parties a moot point. In terms of war aims the differences are insignificant. Obama wants to increase the military by 100,000 troops, buy a bunch of military hardware, and saber rattles Iran, Pakistan and Russia. Obama’s wholehearted embrace of militarism and the GWOT could make him as much an obstacle to peace as McCain.