Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDon't Let Barack Obama Break Your Heart
Why Americans Shouldn't Go Home
American planes have, in fact, taken out two brides in the last seven months. And don't try to bury your dead or mark their deaths ceremonially either, because funerals have been hit as well. Mind you, those planes, which have conducted 31% more air strikes in Afghanistan in support of U.S. troops this year, and the missile-armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) now making almost daily strikes across the border in Pakistan, remain part of George W. Bush's Air Force, but only until January 21, 2009. Then, they -- and all the brides and grooms of Afghanistan and in the Pakistani borderlands who care to have something more than the smallest of private weddings -- officially become the property of President Barack Obama.
That's a sobering thought. He is, in fact, inheriting from the Bush administration a widening war in the region, as well as an exceedingly tenuous situation in devastated, still thoroughly factionalized, sectarian, and increasingly Iranian-influenced Iraq. There, the U.S. is, in actuality, increasingly friendless and ever less powerful. The last allies from the infamous "coalition of the willing" are now rushing for the door. The South Koreans, Hungarians, and Bulgarians -- I'll bet you didn't even know the latter two had a few troops left in Iraq -- are going home this year; the rump British force in the south will probably be out by next summer.
The Iraqis are beginning to truly go their own way (or, more accurately, ways); and yet, in January, when Barack Obama enters office, there will still be more American troops in Iraq than there were in April 2003 when Baghdad fell. Winning an election with an antiwar label, Obama has promised -- kinda -- to end the American war there and bring the troops -- sorta, mostly -- home. But even after his planned 16-month withdrawal of U.S. "combat brigades," which may not be welcomed by his commanders in the field, including former Iraq commander, now Centcom Commander David Petraeus, there are still plenty of combative non-combat forces, which will be labeled "residual" and left behind to fight "al-Qaeda." Then, there are all those "advisors" still there to train Iraqi forces, the guards for the giant bases the Bush administration built in the country, the many thousands of armed private security contractors from companies like Blackwater, and of course, the 1,000 "diplomats" who are to staff the newly opened U.S. embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone, possibly the largest embassy on the planet. Hmmmm.
And while the new president turns to domestic matters, it's quite possible that significant parts of his foreign policy could be left to the oversight of Vice President Joe Biden who, in case anyone has forgotten, proposed a plan for Iraq back in 2007 so filled with imperial hubris that it still startles. In a Caesarian moment, he recommended that the U.S. -- not Iraqis -- functionally divide the country into three parts. Although he preferred to call it a "federal system," it was, for all intents and purposes, a de facto partition plan.
If Iraq remains a sorry tale of American destruction and dysfunction without, as yet, a discernable end in sight, Afghanistan may prove Iraq squared. And there, candidate Obama expressed no desire to wind the war down and withdraw American troops. Quite the opposite, during the election campaign he plunked hard for escalation, something our NATO allies are sure not to be too enthusiastic about. According to the Obama plan, many more American troops (if available, itself an open question) are to be poured into the country in what would essentially be a massive "surge strategy" by yet another occupant of the Oval Office. Assumedly, the new Afghan policy would be aided and abetted by those CIA-run UAVs directed toward Pakistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden and pals, while undoubtedly further destabilizing a shaky ally.
When it comes to rising civilian casualties from U.S. air strikes in their countries, both Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari have already used their congratulatory phone calls to President-elect Obama to plead for an end to the attacks, which produce both a profusion of dead bodies and a profusion of live, vengeful enemies. Both have done the same with the Bush administration, Karzai to the point of tears.
The U.S. military argues that the use of air power is necessary in the face of a spreading, ever more dangerous, Taliban insurgency largely because there are too few boots on the ground. ("If we got more boots on the ground, we would not have to rely as much on airstrikes" was the way Army Brig. Gen. Michael Tucker, deputy commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, put it.) But rest assured, as the boots multiply on increasingly hostile ground, the military will discover it needs more, not less, air power to back more troops in more trouble.
So, after January 20th, expect Obama to take possession of George Bush's disastrous Afghan War; and unless he is far more skilled than Alexander the Great, British empire builders, and the Russians, his war, too, will continue to rage without ever becoming a raging success.
Finally, President-elect Obama accepted the overall framework of a "Global War on Terror" during his presidential campaign. This "war" lies at the heart of the Bush administration's fantasy world of war that has set all-too-real expanses of the planet aflame. Its dangers were further highlighted this week by the New York Times, which revealed that secret orders in the spring of 2004 gave the U.S. military "new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States."
At least twelve such attacks have been carried out since then by Special Operations forces on Pakistan, Somalia, most recently Syria, and other unnamed countries. Signed by Donald Rumsfeld, signed off on by President Bush, built-upon recently by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, these secret orders enshrine the Pentagon's right to ignore international boundaries, or the sovereignty of nations, in an endless global "war" of choice against small, scattered bands of terrorists.
As reporter Jim Lobe pointed out recently, a "series of interlocking grand bargains" in what the neoconservatives used to call "the Greater Middle East" or the "arc of instability" might be available to an Obama administration capable of genuinely new thinking. These, he wrote, would be "backed by the relevant regional players as well as major global powers -- aimed at pacifying Afghanistan; integrating Iran into a new regional security structure; promoting reconciliation in Iraq; and launching a credible process to negotiate a comprehensive peace between Israel and the Arab world."
If, however, Obama accepts a War on Terror framework, as he already seems to have, as well as those "residual" forces in Iraq, while pumping up the war in Afghanistan, he may quickly find himself playing by Rumsfeld rules, whether or not he revokes those specific orders. In fact, left alone in Washington, backed by the normal national security types, he may soon find himself locked into all sorts of unpalatable situations, as once happened to another Democratic president, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who opted to escalate an inherited war when what he most wanted to do was focus on domestic policy.
Previews for a Political Zombie Movie
Domestically, it's clear enough that we are about to leave the age of Bush -- in tone and policy -- but what that leave-taking will consist of is still an open question. This is especially so given a cratering economy and the pot-holed road ahead. It is a moment when Obama has, not surprisingly, begun to emphasize continuity and reassurance alongside his campaign theme of "change we can believe in."
All you had to do was look at that array of Clinton-era economic types and CEOs behind Obama at his first news conference to think: been there, done that. The full photo of his economic team that day offered a striking profile of pre-Bush era Washington and the Washington Consensus, and so a hint of the Democratic world the new president will walk into on January 20, 2009.
How about former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, those kings of 1990s globalization, or even the towering former Fed chief from the first Bush era, Paul Volcker? Didn't that have the look of previews for a political zombie movie, a line-up of the undead? As head of the New America Foundation Steve Clemons has been writing recently, the economic team looks suspiciously as if it were preparing for a "Clinton 3.0" moment.
You could scan that gathering and not see a genuine rogue thinker in sight; no off-the-reservation figures who might represent a breath of fresh air and fresh thinking (other than, being hopeful, the president-elect himself). Clemons offers an interesting list of just some obvious names left off stage: "Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs, James Galbraith, Leo Hindery, Clyde Prestowitz, Charlene Barshefsky, C. Fred Bergsten, Adam Posen, Robert Kuttner, Robert Samuelson, Alan Murray, William Bonvillian, Doug & Heidi Rediker, Bernard Schwartz, Tom Gallagher, Sheila Bair, Sherle Schwenninger, and Kevin Phillips."
Mobilizing a largely Clintonista brain trust may look reassuring to some -- an in-gathering of all the Washington wisdom available before Hurricane Bush/Cheney hit town, but unfortunately, we don't happen to be entering a Clinton 3.0 moment. What's globalizing now is American disaster, which threatens to level a vulnerable world.
In a sense, though, domestic policy may, relatively speaking, represent the good news of the coming Obama era. We know, for instance, that those preparing the way for the new president's arrival are thinking hard about how to roll back the worst of Bush cronyism, enrich-yourself-at-the-public-troughism, general lawlessness, and unconstitutionality. As a start, according to Ceci Connolly and R. Jeffrey Smith of the Washington Post, Obama advisers have already been compiling "a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues," including oil drilling in pristine wild lands. In addition, Obama's people are evidently at work on ways to close Guantanamo and try some of its prisoners in U.S. courts.
However, if continuity domestically means rollback to the Clinton era, continuity in the foreign policy sphere -- Guantanamo aside -- may be a somewhat different matter. We won't know the full cast of characters to come until the president-elect makes the necessary announcements or has a national security press conference with a similar line-up behind him. But it's certainly rumored that Robert Gates, a symbol of continuity from both Bush eras, might be kept on as secretary of defense, or a Republican senator like Richard Lugar of Indiana or, more interestingly, retiring Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel might be appointed to the post. Of course, many Clintonistas are sure to be in this line-up, too.
In addition, among the essential cast of characters will be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Michael Mullen, and Centcom Commander David Petraeus, both late Bush appointees, both seemingly flexible military men, both interested in a military-plus approach to the Afghan and Iraq wars. Petraeus, for instance, reportedly recently asked for, and was denied, permission to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
All these figures will represent a turn away from the particular madness of the early Bush years abroad, one that actually began in the final years of his second term. But such a national security line-up is unlikely to include fresh thinkers, who might truly reimagine an imperial world, or anyone who might genuinely buck the power of the Pentagon. What Obama looks to have are custodians and bureaucrats of empire, far more cautious, far more sane, and certainly far more grown-up than the first-term Bush appointees, but not a cast of characters fit for reshaping American policy in a new world of disorder and unraveling economies, not a crew ready to break new ground and cede much old ground on this still American-garrisoned planet of ours.
Breathless in Washington
Let's assume the best: that Barack Obama truly means to bring some form of the people's will, as he imagines it, to Washington after eight years of unconstitutional "commander-in-chief" governance. That -- take my word for it -- he can't do without the people themselves expressing that will.
Of course, even in the Bush era, Americans didn't simply cede the public commons. They turned out, for instance, in staggering numbers to protest the President's invasion of Iraq before it ever happened, and again more recently to work tirelessly to elect Obama president. But -- so it seems to me -- when immediate goals are either disappointingly not achieved, or achieved relatively quickly, most Americans tend to pack their bags and head for home, as so many did in despair after the invasion was launched in 2003, as so many reportedly are doing again, in a far more celebratory mood, now that Obama is elected.
But hard as his election may have been, that was surely the easy part. He is now about to enter the hornet's nest. Entrenched interests. Entrenched ideas. Entrenched ideology. Entrenched profits. Entrenched lobbyists. Entrenched bureaucrats. Entrenched think tanks. An entrenched Pentagon and allied military-industrial complex, both bloated beyond imagining and virtually untouchable, along with a labyrinthine intelligence system of more than 18 agencies, departments, and offices.
Washington remains an imperial capital. How in the world will Barack Obama truly begin to change that without you?
In the Bush years, the special interests, lobbyists, pillagers, and crony corporations not only pitched their tents on the public commons, but with the help of the President's men and women, simply took possession of large hunks of it. That was called "privatization." Now, as Bush & Co. prepare to leave town in a cloud of catastrophe, the feeding frenzy at the public trough only seems to grow.
It's a natural reaction -- and certainly a commonplace media reaction at the moment -- to want to give Barack Obama a "chance." Back off those critical comments, people now say. Fair's fair. Give the President-elect a little "breathing space." After all, the election is barely over, he's not even in office, he hasn't had his first 100 days, and already the criticism has begun.
But those who say this don't understand Washington -- or, in the case of various media figures and pundits, perhaps understand it all too well.
Political Washington is a conspiracy -- in the original sense of the word: "to breathe the same air." In that sense, there is no air in Washington that isn't stale enough to choke a president. Send Obama there alone, give him that "breathing space," don't start demanding the quick ending of wars or anything else, and you're not doing him, or the American people, any favors. Quite the opposite, you're consigning him to suffocation.
Leave Obama to them and he'll break your heart. If you do, then blame yourself, not him; but better than blaming anyone, pitch your own tent on the public commons and make some noise. Let him know that Washington's isn't the only consensus around, that Americans really do want our troops to come home, that we actually are looking for "change we can believe in," which would include a less weaponized, less imperial American world, based on a reinvigorated idea of defense, not aggression, and on the Constitution, not leftover Rumsfeld rules or a bogus Global War on Terror.
79 Comments so far
Show AllJames A. Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com [For FREE downloads of entire book]
"How Many Brides Must Bush Bomb Before Bush Bombs Bin Laden?"
“Stupid power” is a useful term introduced in Chapter 2 of the new book, “The Bush League of Nations: The Coalition of the Unwilling, the Bullied and the Bribed—the GOP’s War on Iraq and America,” by James A. Swanson (2008, CreateSpace Publishing, 448 pages).
Chapter 2 is entitled, “A Just War vs. Just War—Hard Power, Soft Power and Stupid Power.”
Joseph Nye, in his book “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics,” states that, ideally, neither hard power nor soft power should be used exclusively. Rather, it is usually best to combine the two—what Nye calls “smart power,” which can be considered a third category of power.
The “Bush League of Nations” introduces the term “stupid power” to reflect a fourth category of power created by the GOP’s neocon-led Bush regime.
It defines “stupid power” as “using either hard power or soft power in an incompetent, ideological, faith-based, non-analytical fashion, especially where military decisions are made by civilian bureaucrats without active military experience who intentionally ignore professional military advice.”
During the several decades of the Cold War, several American presidents, both Democratic and Republican, used a mixture of hard power and soft power—primarily the hard power of military deterrence (vs. its actual use) combined with the soft power of broad international cooperation and pressure—to help speed the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But then Bush, Cheney and the GOP neocons rode into town.
The Bush regime believes that bombing is the first and best medicine in addressing terrorism or fabricated terrorism, so long as America is doing the bombing. This faith-based belief is similar to their belief that America can simply drill its way out of its energy problems.
As for the much criticized bombing of Pakistan and Afghanistan—there is a role for smart bombs, but smart bombs become dumb bombs when dropped by dumb leaders who make dumb decisions.
Here’s a gift to patriots everywhere who are fighting to take back America. You can download for free “The Bush League of Nations” at www.bushleagueofnations.com. Please pass along the good news.
I ask for nothing in return, except that you consider using my book to help restore and build America.
Jim Swanson, Los Altos, CA
www.bushleagueofnations.com
Dear Tom:
For serious political people Obama has already broken our hear, except most of us are happy leaving in fantasy land. I would advise people to read the following write up from Joe Bageant site. The hardest analysis of what is to come our way.
http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2008/11/sarah-palin-is-the-future-of-conservatism.html
As usual the left progressive thinking patterns are infected with viral psychic denial and bizarre contradictions endemic of their side.
Greider first lists how Obama is going to carry on the Bush legacy in succinct and clear language, and I was thinking wow, this might be the aha moment for the "left"
He then moves as easy as a snake in grass on to this:
"Domestically, it's clear enough that we are about to leave the age of Bush -- in tone and policy."
Then he goes on to portray potential problems that escalate to a man who will be hog tied, awash floundering in the polluted tide pool that the Washington establishment has become. Barely afloat unless the people save him!!!!!
This is a sad joke. Obama did not enter this race ignorant of what he was getting into, and I really will not defame his character to the degree that says oh the poor good black man will simply be lost as the evil door of the establishment swings closed behind him in the white house.
What a joke. Obama is not some saint. He is bad enough to get in and get dirty and do a lot of cleaning up even if we all keep our proverbial asses in the manger for the next four years and watch him do all the work to bake the bread we swore was needed in our time to feed the masses.
But I agree that without massive protests beyond the scale of what we saw with Bush, I doubt any meaningful legitimacy may be brought to this "historical moment"
If the progressive left and the middle road left can't follow through by not only putting in a man who they feel represents them but also act accordingly which all logic would see them marching in the streets, and protest more vehemently with president Obama who they feel will listen, than they ever did with Bush the one they knew would not.
My sneaking suspicion is the majority will not test their audacious hope with this newly anointed change agent. Because finding out that even he will not listen would be a blow that might take this nation down.
But like him, you, I and we have a chance to find out and prove our mettle and meaning in our time.
This Obamamania will make it doubly hard to organize a powerful movement. Progressives love him too much, want to protect him, are willing to wear blinder to do so. This political phenomenon was manufactured and managed by the duopoly. If millions of people weren't dying as result of Obama"s votes in favor of the war on Iraqis, this would be hilariously funny. The left! Protecting a war criminal because he gives nice speeches and is hugely charismatic and can lie with the best of them. Ha!
The elections aren't over - we still have the chance to unseat Rep. William Jefferson, who is facing trial on 16 counts of corruption.
Malik Rahim, who organized the New Orleans community to help thousands of Hurricane Katrina victims, is running for Jefferson's seat in Louisiana's second district. He can win, but he needs our help. Find out what you can do at http://tinyurl.com/5686o2
Peaceman
Thank you for nailing it, Mr. Engelhardt.
Eventually, the hope and change public will get Obamamaniaitus out of their system and return to reality. The groups which promoted him from the get go want to be paid. But, I'm willing to withhold my judgement and also have "hope" that he'll do the right things. I ate my portion of humble pie before.
Another way to make sure there is real change is to help us get Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond appointed Secretary of Education. She was already a member of his education team for the campaign, so President-Elect Obama already knows who she is and what she stands for.
There's an online petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/DHammond/petition.html asking Obama to appoint Dr. Darling-Hammond.
At the petition site there is information about her qualifications. Please take a minute to sign the petition and spread the word about it. Thanks.
Dave Atias
Another way to make sure there is real change is to help us get Dr. Linda Darling-Hammond appointed Secretary of Education. She was already a member of his education team for the campaign, so President-Elect Obama already knows who she is and what she stands for.
There's an online petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/DHammond/petition.html asking Obama to appoint Dr. Darling-Hammond.
At the petition site there is information about her qualifications. Please take a minute to sign the petition and spread the word about it. Thanks.
Dave Atias
One possible solution out there:
http://november5.org/
The first email they sent went as follows:
We are off to a great start. In the 5 days since we launched November5.org, nearly 10,000 of you have signed up for this effort!
Getting our country back on track by using the leverage we can exert over Congress is an approach that naturally fits with third party and independent voters, as well as many who voted for Democrats and Republicans. Millions of us realize that we must now put our shoulders to the wheel of justice and push harder than ever.
If we all move fast to get our friends and family involved, we could have 1000 active and organized citizens in each Congressional district in 2009. To do this, we need you to encourage people to sign up today by forwarding this link: www.november5.org.
Remember to emphasize to others that what will make November5 different from many other similar efforts is that we will have no allegiance to any political party. We want to create a non-partisan mechanism to get problems solved. Action will result when members of Congress hear loud and clear from their constituents back home. This will not be about raising big money for expensive television ads during the Super Bowl. It will involve using tried and true organizing techniques - and all the local creativity we can muster - to make sure that our Representatives respond to our voices, district by district, person by person.
We want to focus on the victories - big and small - that we can achieve. Too much citizen advocacy involves sending emails or letters to Washington, D.C. We need a return to raising our voices on the ground "back home," where Congressional elections are decided.
High on our list is a plan to pass privately-delivered, publicly-funded health care. This approach would save hundreds of billions of dollars over the current for-profit system, enough to provide coverage for every American. After all, how can you be civically active if you are worried about your health care? Many organizations do great work on this issue (see Physicians for a National Health Program), but there is a need for much more citizen muscle behind it. That's where we'll come in.
Other issues we are looking at include: new regulation of Wall Street, a $10 living wage, the elimination of unnecessary weapons systems that cost tens of billions, a strong drive for investment in solar, wind, and conservation - against coal and nuclear - and a federal law requiring paper ballots and establishing uniform rules for ballot access for all candidates.
Soon, we will email you with more details on how this website will enable you to organize in your district, and on how we will keep building November5 in the coming weeks.
Now, though, it all comes down to getting all of the people who agree with the basic approach of shifting our focus to Congress in 2009 signed up for November5. This is the critical building phase and we all have to do everything we can to get the word out.
Onward for Justice,
The November5 Team
I like the idea. But live in Spain.
One of your first agenda items should be the return of all representatives to vote from their districts in a "Town Hall Forum".....We, The People of the United States, have not had a "Representative Democracy" for years. I also advocate that there is no need for Representatives to remain in Wshington DC......Committees can be formed and meet via Internet......Each Representative has enough staff to do the research they need.....It is time to cut Government spending. Once a year, they can have a Congressional Convention.
Back to the article....President Elect Obama´s advisers have already warned us, "We need to maintain a presence in Iraq." So said Zbigniew Brzezinski. He is wrong!
They also have advised him to go after terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unless you know the history of American Involvement in Pakistan and Afghanistan, you should not be advising any president to continue this "Global War on Terrorism".
Prince Faisal, King Faisal´s nephew waited several years to assassinate his uncle. After he killed him, he said, "Now, I have avenged the death of my brother." King Faisal had ordered his police to kill demonstrators, years before, and one of the victims was Prince Faisal´s brother.
A terrorist act is a criminal act of violence against a civilian population. The act is motivated by: anger, hate, or revenge. A suicide attacker does not intend to make political change.
The United States created a 100,000 Man Islamic Militant Force from 43 Islamic Nations. Many of those men who volunteered were prisoners in those Islamic Nations. Countries like Saudi Arabia sent men who they hoped would never return.
That force was funded by the United States and Saudi Arabia to the tune of over 6 billion dollars. It did not go out of existance until the late 90´s with the installation of the Taliban in power in Afghanistan supported by the United States.
"My enemy is my friend. My friend is my enemy."
You had me going with this one until Nader came on.
Dude, will you forget about Nader already? Who cares? You'll not get on board with an idea you agree with because you don't "like" Nader?
I see. But "we" are the Nader-obsessed ones. Mmmmm.
Obama has indicated that he MAY (rather than WILL) revoke Bush’s ban on stem cell research; which not only deprived hope from thousands of victims with incurable or terminal disorders, but also defied the will of the majorities of the populace and congress.
In view of urgent needs to reverse the immeasurable destruction from so many of Bush’s unprecedented environmental and social abuses, such ambiguity is not a good sign and cannot be tolerated. Obama was propelled to the presidency because of the gravity of these abuses--and his promises to nullify them. He must be made to understand that his voters will rebel against him if this is a prelude to his mode of operation
Yes.
FACE IT!!! We must do what people all over the world do to get control of their stolen governments. Pull all of your investments out of corporate America, that means bank accounts too. Do not shop, make and create. Do not pay federal taxes, Do not go to work, put everything you can grab and put it in the street. Don't worry about the economy crashing, it is not ours and it is designed to eat us at
some point anyways (I heard Naomi Klien say the total bank bail out will be over 4 trillion when done and said).
SHUT IT DOWN!! POWER ONLY RESPECTS POWER! If We TAKE POWER FROM POWER, WE MUST BE ABLE TO SHOW POWER WE CAN HOLD POWER OR POWER WILL TAKE IT BACK!
That is how it works if you read history. None of it is easy, but it it alway easier sooner than later.
Just remember, racism, sexism,and homophobia are the tools of the ruling elite. Class analysis is the tool of the people. Go out and make friends, eat food, talk, shut it down, make more friends.
I think it was 2 or 3 years ago the French did just that! It took 3 months and 6000 burnt cars to change the governments mind about employment and young people. Many other examples, look at Bolivia. We can do it if we want to.
Check out Project Censored, and look at the article on the Global Dominance Group. That will wake us up!
The author would be better off spending some time getting President Obama to not be another Clintonion centrist rather than lecturing us on what to think of Obama already. Give us 4 years to make up our minds. If he does his job well, we'll give him a second term and if he does, ta ta NEXT !
If Obama want to be the next one-term Democrat President, and guarrantee that the Dems are out of power for the next 50 years, all he has to do is to fail to recind President Dumbass's policies, or try to slime down the middle of the road.
I have never had a lot of hope for Obama..he was just the best of the usual bad bunch. He is just like Sarah Palin, blindly ambitious and power hungry, only more eloquent.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Obama is not going to answer to this mass of volunteers and others who voted him in and worked for him. I don't remember when I read about this occurrence happening, but at some point Obama was confronted during the campaign by angry leftists or progressives about some issue (??maybe FISA), and his response was, "Hey, read my platform. I never said I was running as a progressive."
The guy marketed himself as a "blank slate product," and these gullible people projected their desires onto him. They jumped right on board without realizing they were going to get pushed off the boat later without a life raft.
Kucinich was the only Dem worth backing. Someday I'd like to see Nader or Gonzalez run as a Dem so that they can at least make it into the primary debate. But I'm hoping Gonzalez runs for Governor in 2010 when Arnold gives up the ghost.
This comment posted elsewhere fits here as well (expanded a little):
Here's a story from "The Feats of the Knowers of God" by Aflaki translated by John O'Kane, p41
(it's a compilation of anecdotes about Rumi and the personages around him)
BTW Rumi was born in Balkh in what is now Afghanistan. His family left before the Mongols leveled it.
It's great advice from 900 years ago.
In fact, I am trying to get a copy of it to Obama. Can anyone out there help?
The story concerns Rumi's father - Sheik Baha-e Valad, also a Saint - after fortress walls were built around Konya.
"Likewise, when Sultan 'Ala Al-Din-God have mercy on him--completed the ramparts of the city, he implored Baha-e-Valad and begged him to walk around the ramparts and inspect them. Our Master replied: 'You have erected a good defense against floods and a barrier against cavalry, and built an impregnable fortress. But what can you do against the arrow of the prayers of the oppressed which passes through a hundred thousand towers and bulwarks, and destroys an entire world. Oh, God, oh God! Make an effort (jahd) and undertake holy war (jehÄd) to erect a fortress of beneficence and justice, and to acquire an an army of well-wishers' prayers. That is better for you than thousands of impregnable fortresses, and therein lies the world's safety and protection for the people.'
Adopting Baha-e Valad's instructions in complete sincerity as his weapon and instrument, the sultan strove to spread justice and good deeds until the time of his death, and he attained felicity."
One can only hope!!!
But I could be wrong !
I'm very puzzled. I'm sure I read about a fortnight ago that Obama intended to relinquish all permanent bases there - the very crux of the Iraqis grievance and, with the oil, the joint purpose of the entire occupation; unless the term "permanent" is being used in a duplicitous sense.
Certainly, it seems clear from his position on Guantanamo that he does not want to be designated a war criminal.
This must be what our Christian Churches mean by Defense Of Marriage.
Though I agree bombing weddings is horrible, let's not forget how oppressed women are in most Muslim areas. Not only are they usually being married into an extreme anti female system, then they get bombed on top of that.
"...the pervasive marriage custom of watta satta
in rural Pakistan, [which is] a bride exchange between families coupled with a mutual threat of reciprocity. In a setting where husbands wield considerable coercive power, forms
of marriage should adapt to protect the interests of women and their families." "...watta satta may be a mechanism to coordinate the actions of two sets of in-laws, each of whom wish to restrain their son-in-laws but who only have the ability to restrain their sons."
In rural Pakistan, half of all girls married are under age 17). Let's also make sure our government puts Muslim women's and very young girls' terror on the front burner when planning for all these anti-terror arms and wars. Maybe our soldiers should be sent to rescue these females from brutalizing marriages before bombing the males who perpetuate female-icide systems based on convenient (for men) religious interpretations.
My suggestion of a year ago was for a million people to drive their cars to Washington, DC (which is the size of a napkin) and try parking them. It would bring everything to a halt. Meanwhile go to the government offices of your choice and kick the bums out.
yes, I was disappointed similar tactics weren't used in Indianapolis ... rather than what appeared to be more in-your-face look-at-me-being-a-bad-ass take-my-picture-please media seeking...
Rather than chaining vehicles to things and people to vehicles, just turn off the ignition and walk away ... ditto the cumulative effects of, say, stalling and asking lots of questions during snappy events, like question and answer sessions ...
Anyone else remember mill-in's (not sit-in's or die-in's though they have their place) -- just a whole buncha folk arriving at the same place at the same time .... wanting, say, information ...
500 people, hell, 100 people, hell 50 people arriving to talk to their senator in a single say ... you get the picture ... no confrontation ... just convergence
Great ideas! I think is what we need to not only get people out but to keep it positive and not scare off those who might bet overwhelmed by "shutting the government down" type of language.
What about Political Flash Mobs? What about more Political Theater? I wonder how differently the law would react to a "Political Play" as opposed to a "Protest". It is sad that we have to resort to finding ways to express our first amendment rights but we are the creative and clever ones and we should not let the gestapo determine how we go about things.
Too many people are yelling at each other and talking tough "Revolution talk" but few seem to be up to the task of outwitting these neanderthals in power.
Let's make this a revolution that kids and grandmas would want to join. Let's stage "Love ins" this coming spring. We can post all the video on U-tube and bypass the MSM
Where is Abby Hoffman when you need him?
Shutting the government down language???? Huh? The government has been shut down already, that is the problem. We practically need to bring it back from the dead.
Leea-
Easy, I like you but I am trying to talk tactics here. I am done with arguing about how disappointing Obama is going to be and talking about how much our government sucks. As any smart ten year old would say....DUH?
I am not putting you down I just put a line in there to contrast what I think is a better way to approach things.
It is hard being a positive guy on this site sometimes, not that I am upset with you but there is so much negativity and apathy here and sometimes feels as if people need to stop being selfish and get to work making stuff happen.
Now I gotta go make some pesto.
I think it safe to assume the people manning a HRC cabinet will be the same as those named by Obama as both are creatures of the DLC. As for Imperial contraction, any attempt to solve the economic crisis means the overall Imperial budget must shrink. As for the economic crisis, we are still at its start. A big win/win for business and common folk would be instituting Single Payer, which I think ought to be framed as an economic issue using Big Auto's problems as an example of how their balance sheet would be greatly helped by this one act.
After the holidays and prior to innauguration day, a further bevy of retailers will declare bankruptcy, throwing tens of thousands more out-of-work. States and counties already at the edge will have fallen over and the need for immediate and imaginiative action will be clearer than now. Many will be making the connection between Imperial largess and privation at home, which is the drum we all should be banging--We can maintain a middleclass country and economy or maintain the existing US Empire, but not both. We must make it clear in no uncertain terms to both congress and Obama that the Empire is expendible, that its maintenence is destroying what remains of the US middleclass economy.
Just before Bush gave the order to invade Afghanistan (because the Afghanis wouldn't turn over Bin Laden) the Afghan government said they would gladly turn over Bin Laden if the U.S. Government produced evidence that Bin Laden did in fact mastermind, participate in, or inspire, the attacks on 9/11/2001. Evidently, not having proof, our government preferred to attack and launch a horrible war which is still going strong. Wouldn't it have been less costly, less barbaric, and more sensible, to provide the proof that Bin Laden was indeed guilty? And if our government is unable to provide the proof that Bin Laden was involved, then why in hell did Bush launch the war?
.As I recall the Taliban govt of Afghanistan agreed to turn bin Laden over to any nation that didn't have the death penalty for a fair trial. Unacceptable to our government....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Thats because we have a stupid government.
You are right.
But, before the Taliban offerred to turn over Osama Bin Laden, the Sudanese Government asked to send Osama Bin Laden to the U.S. The Clinton Administration, through the CIA, encouraged them to let Osama return to Afghanistan. You see, the Taliban had not acquired complete control of Afghanistan and Bin Laden could help with more arms and money from the Saudis.(Even though Osama Bin Laden had been kicked out of Saudi Arabia, he was still able to raise money and arms. (Steve Coll, "Los Bin Laden")
Sandy Berger apparently stole documents from the National Archives. My guess is that he knew which documents he wanted and they probably related to the Sudanese requests or at least Osama Bin Laden. (See Philip Shenon´s, "The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Commission") Shenon´s description is far from what Berger claimed.
On March 25, 1975, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia was assassinated by his nephew, Prince Faisal Ibu Musad Abdel Azia. After shooting the King, the Prince shouted, "Now my brother is avenged."
Several years before the assassination Prince Faisal and his brother were demonstrating against the government and were going to attack a radio station. King Faisal ordered the police to shoot those who were demonstrating. One of those killed was Prince Faisal´s brother and King Faisal´s nephew.
It took Prince Faisal several years, but he got his revenge.
"A terrorist act is a criminal act of violence against a civilian population. The act is committed out of hate, anger, or revenge." No suicide bomber is attempting to enforce political change.
The United States had created a 100,000 Man Islamic Militant Force in the 80´s and 90´s. Now the United States is creating the "Terrorist Enemy" so that they can wage a "Global War on Terrorism"for ever......The problem is that civilians become the victims.
President Elect Obama is a Council of Foreign Relations Member. Bill Clinton had over 320 Council of Foreign Relations Members in his Executive Branch.
If I were President, I would have formed a "Blue Ribbon Panel of Economic Advisers from outside Wall Street" and formed a plan of action that included the GAO supervising the "Bail Out" with advice from the "Blue Ribbon Panel"........
Barack Obama rode a "Movement Demanding Change" into the White House. He has already abandoned the "Movement" and he hasn´t even taken office.
If I were Chicago, I would not want the Olympics for at least three generations and if I were London, I would cancel the 2012 Olympics now.
The war was launched because it was already planned and assets already inplace, plus it dovetailed with the PNAC's ideology and plan for global US dominance.
global US dominance, huh? We're slipping fast. The neocons gambled with the PNAC plan and lost bigtime. The neocons' buddies all became billionaires mind you, but the rest of us will lose our high standard of living. America will be lucky to come out with a seat at the head table a decade from now.
I don't care. I will move to a happening country. I like adventure.
What do you mean "will" lose?
For far too many of us, it's ALREADY gone or never was.
I recommend Venezuela.
I DON'T recommend Mexico--where we are going down the toilet due to our economy being destroyed by NAFTA.
moon
Ha!
I totally agree about Mexico and NAFTA.
Not always whatever those three were!
Does anyone really think that Obama gets to 'pick and choose' his cabinet? I rather doubt it. Is he asking any of the economists that have been telling us for quite some time that the financial situation we are now facing was going to happen to join him in solving this do or die mess that we are in? It really didn't come as a 'surprize' to those who have been following on the informative websites like CD and yet Obama picked the 'good old boys' from Wall Street for his economic team, or was that bunch preordained? It would be so refreshing to think that Obama has a mind of his own, but he is juggling his financially helpful big backers against the meager financial supporters of his voters. He will be operating within a ridgid set of parameters dictated by those a whole lot more powerful than 'Joe Sixpack.' However, we can always hope and remain vigilent and stay active in reminding him how he actually made it while holding his nose to the grindstone of the people's agenda.
And it wouldn't be a surprise if he renigs on reinstituting taxes on the wealthy to contribute their fair share (framed as a tax cut that Obama never really vocally challenged). The MSM generally spins it as "increasing taxes" as if it was all-inclusive when it really their own narrow interests. The final irony is we, as taxpayers, bail out the class who had their taxes cut under Bush, while we are told there isn't enough money to benefit our interests. They tell us we have to continue to fight and struggle--but we can only expect incremental change while everything else gets rolled back at an alarming speed. At least the French get some bang for their buck.
Uniting under class issues is surely the most dangerous force of all for the champions of the status quo gravy train.
This is good analysis, but lacks any discussion of what mechanisms that we "the people" can use to give DC an injection of oxygen. I don't see them. If we can't find/create them, then we're just adding alot more hot air to the stench and pollution.
Tj, good question. The first comment: NYCartist November 12th, 2008 12:47 pm, has a reference for you.
Frances Fox Piven's book mentioned: Challenging Authority, has an entire list of the available tactics in one key chapter. It is a fine book and a great list of tactics and methods.
Paul Street lays out some great goals for progressives in his book Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics, at the end.
I strongly suspect that, as an expat, I will be just ashamed to carry a US passport with Obama in the Oval Office as I was with Bush.
And no flippin' way am I going back to live in the US.
If you are ashamed of being a US citizen then you shouldn't. Why do you retain it?
.I know you understand the difference between loathing ones nation and being ashamed of the actions thereof, actions done in your name. In fact, if you really love your country you should be rather deeply ashamed of much of what is done in all our names.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Except that I am Native American.
Because both my ex and I worked for many years (he died almost 3 years ago) to be able to draw a pension from SS. Although I occasionally work as an educational consultant on short-term contracts, my severe renal insufficiency due to having systemic lupus for more than 60 years would make it hard for me to work full-time year after year till I die.
When there is a problem with SS pensions, you have to physically go to an office in the US, as you cannot call on the phone from outside the US and letters are answered with non-replies. I know, because I had a problem 2 years ago. If you think I would be let in after giving up my US passport you are misinformed.
A friend who is not a US citizen, but who has a green card, is in the US right now--his SECOND trip to LA to try to solve the problem of his SS pension being deposited in another person's bank account.
What would YOU do in my situation?
I was just curious. Not meant any other way.
I was unaware that you have to return to the US in person if you have a problem. That seems onerous to the folks on SS. Expensive for some. Why isn't going to a Consulate or embassy good enough?
The consulate has no authority to do anything. And even if they did, they wouldn't. They practically hang you by your thumbs and beat you if your passport is stolen (which has happened to me twice in the past 3 and a half years). They are beyond rude and unhelpful (at least they are in Mexico and in Ecuador).
It is both onerous and expensive--especially with current airfare prices--to return to the US when there is a problem. You betcha.
It is also an indication of how the US government feels about anyone who doesn't live in its "friendly confines". Another indicator is the policy of no Medicare coverage except when treated in the US. Which means someone like myself will never have Medicare. Another indicator is the policy of tossing absentee ballots aside uncounted.
Not that the US government treats YOU patriots much better.
I simply assumed that you were giving me some Love it or leave it b.s., as your comments to me are usually rude, jingoistic and bullying.
I don't know which country you are in, but where I am there is a Federal Benefits Section at the US Consulate and you can apply for and deal with Social Security issues and problems with them right there. It will take a lot longer to get it resolve or your application approved; etc., but you can do it. You'd think that would be true of all Consulates, not just some.
Contact info for moon:
http://ciudadjuarez.usconsulate.gov/federal_benefits.html
http://merida.usconsulate.gov/merida/federalbenefits.html
hope it helps
Thanks, but I live only 2 hours from the main embassy in Mexico City--where I have renewed my US passport several times. I checked with them about the SS problem two years ago but was told by the consul that it would be much more effective to go to the US and handle it myself.
What they say on websites and what they SAY face to face differ widely. As I have lived here for 15 years you may wish to assume that I know a little bit about how things work.
4the future,
Do tell me about your personal experience using the consulate where you live to solve social security benefits problems. I am all ears.
I live in Mexico.
"I simply assumed that you were giving me some Love it or leave it b.s., as your comments to me are usually rude, jingoistic and bullying."
Nope. Not only that, I don't intend for my comments to be that. Certainly not rude and certainly not to a lady. My apologies. I'll be more careful in phrasing what I say if I comment again.
"They are beyond rude and unhelpful (at least they are in Mexico and in Ecuador)."
Frankly thats been my experience with foreign service types starting in the mid seventies. Before that they weren't too bad.
But you are right, I do love our country.
Before you anglos committed genocide against my people, it was Turtle Island. I would like to see it go back to that.
What tribe was that?
What difference does MY tribe make? There were many tribes living here when whites arrived.
My tribe was not any more of a victim than many others.
Now, let's see what personally invasive questions I can pose to you....to invalidate your experience as a human being.
.Hey you redneck Texan...leave the rudeness, bullying and jingoism to me, us New Yorkers ( born and raised and long gone) are really good at it.
For Moon:
He really isn't as you portray him to be, really he isnt. Well, perhaps a trifle jingoistic......
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Thanks!
"He really isn't as you portray him to be, really he isnt. Well, perhaps a trifle jingoistic......"
There you go again you rational radical. By the way, your pecan pralines are on the way! 14......you need two pralines.
"How in the world will Barack Obama truly begin to change that without you?"
One would hope that he had an inkling of a position on something without us having to fight for every crumb every second of the day. The author lists all the people missing from that stage but then uses the continuity argument. Where is the change in that? Obama must've known what the majority views were on FISA and the bailout but he pressed on. One may have given him greater latitude to get his foot in the door, but what is his excuse going to be now? That he can justify ignoring us if we aren't raising a fuss 24-7 on every issue? Hopefully he is on a firmer foundation but he hasn't given us much reason to hope for much promised change rather business as usual.
Don't hold your breath. Have you seen his choice for chief of staff? If that first appointment is any indication of the future, we should be cowering with fear.
Of course, it comes as no surprise to me. When a candidate is backed by the corporate and the Israel lobbies, what "change" do people expect?
I think people were so desperate to elect "anyone but Bush," that their mental faculties and critical thinking skills shut down completely. In this climate, even Vladimir Lenin could have been elected president. If people really wanted change for the better, they should have elected Ron Paul when they had the chance.
Now they get to enjoy the bed they've made for themselves.
Dave
http://daveeriqat.wordpress.com/
Lenin would have been tons better than Obama.
I hope that this Obama presidency becomes an opening for a more progressive populist party or candidate in 2012. That might be the best thing to come out of an Obama presidency.
Forget Ron Paul. Dennis Kucinich would have been the real president of change.
Anyone but Bush. You're right. I think the democrats could've had a mouldy hamburger on a plate and it still would've landslided to victory.
Obama's victory was no landslide. The number of citizens declining to vote once again greatly outnumbered the votes for the victor. That is the landslide--again.
"On the day that Americans turned out in near record numbers to vote, a record was set halfway around the world. In Afghanistan, a U.S. Air Force strike wiped out about 40 people in a wedding party. This represented at least the sixth wedding party eradicated by American air power in Afghanistan and Iraq since December 2001."
We've killed all the terrorists, now let's wipe out all the lovers. America does not like lovers; they are sinners of the flesh who mock God Almighty with their moaning and sweaty gyrations and exchange of bodily fluids. Drop the Leviticus Bomb on them. KILL 'EM ALL!!!
Frances Fox Piven had a long interview on WBAI this morning. www.wbai.org on "City Watch". (It's available free online, archived.) "We have to make trouble to make Obama do the hard choices". Her newest book is "Challenging Authority:How Ordinary People Change America". She means protest. Alice Walker talked about protest yesterday on DemocracyNow in re Obama. Journalist Earl Caldwell frequently says on his radio show, "The Caldwell Chronicle" on WBAI, "You are what your record says you are.".
Piven also said she thought the internet was a good place to spread the word and organize, and mentioned CommonDreams.
NYCartist,
as I expressed above, those willing to protest Bush the evil, are not willing to protest Obama the good. SO what, you exhausted yourself on he who will not listen and have nothing left for he you chose to listen for a change??????
How do we maintain meaningful pride then?
.Leea, Might I note that "we" protest ideas and actions , not people. Try it you might like it.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Leea: You might be a little early on proclaiming "those willing to protest Bush are not willing to protest Obama". Will you protest?
Protest. Sorry, been there, done that, hasn't worked too well lately. Something more effective, please.
AMEN.
Just Say No to protest, and state that it "hasn't worked too well lately", but don't offer any ideas about what an engaged person might do. Just Say No.
Well, protest is a good place to start, and now is a good time. When you get out and organize, then you develop ideas about how to organize better next time, and you go back and try again.
Throwing darts from the comfort of your chair certainly "hasn't worked too well lately", has it?
I agree. It might be a stretch to plan 500,000 people showing up at the gates of the White House, but it sure as shit is not a stretch to get 50 people together on Wall Street or in front of the Federal Building in San Francisco or whatever. And you go from there. What you're looking for here is press coverage. And you do it. Again and again, over and over. And make sure the press covers it.
Foreclosures are happening in record numbers. People are losing jobs right and left. If the automakers are not bailed out, we are looking at another couple of million unemployed people, including the downstream chain of services/goods that employ ancillary auto services in communities all across the country. One of Matt Gonzalez's closing remarks in his final position paper before Election Day was "What will it take for you not to vote for them?"
What will it take for you to keep them accountable? I was a Nader/Gonzalez voter, but I have to say this to all of the Obamabots on here: You won it, you work it. You wanted the guy in office - hold his feet to the fire. YOU FIND A WAY TO DO IT.
Here is what happens if Obama does not move to the left of center, and none of you Obamabots hold him accountable: in 2012, there will be a vacuum - and that vacuum will fill with an even more authoritarian and rabid Republican candidate. And when people realize what a sham Obama has been, they'll go for him (or her--yikes!) in droves.
Because the lack of accountability right from jump starts creating the vacuum early on until it snowballs in 4 years.
Best get working on how you plan to get your guy to give you what you want.
There is another reason you have to start early to keep the guy accountable: Obama and his handlers - even BEFORE HE HITS OFFICE - are already telling you that you must "lower your expectations." There is much work to be done and we must all "lower our expectations."
What does this mean? It means that the powers that be, including Obama, realize what a Pandora's box they've opened up with this mass outpouring of voters falling at his feet. They realize that they will be expected to deliver, so they are tamping down on your enthusiasm BEFORE HE EVER BEGINS HIS PRESIDENCY.
Obama voters have the numbers. Obama and his people, the ruling elite, have the guns and the money. But we out here in working class America have the numbers. Millions of working class Americans. And you CAN scare the crap out of the power elite if you ORGANIZE.
Anybody read the news today about Paulson? The ruling class right now has piss running down their legs. They are in a complete flail and are clueless about where to go financially, economically. Neoliberalism is dead on the vine.
This is your opening to start your engines and partake of this weakness in neoliberal policy and capitalist control. Make no mistake - it's a flail. They have to juggle the financial shitstorm AND the possible masses of voters who love Obama. So they "dampen your enthusiasm" just to keep you all in check for a little while. They just need to buy some time until Paulson opens his mouth once again and lies come falling out about this money, or that bailout, or these terms, or those financial institutions.
It's all about controlling the masses. Obama controlled you guys perfectly in the run-up to his election, right? He got you working, volunteering, phone banking, and sending out mailers. He was controlling it, not you.
And right now it's "don't have any expectations."
And like cattle to the prod will they follow his directions????
Who puts much meaning on what he tells us? He works for us, he serves to protect and uphold our rights, there was no loophole in our constitution on this, it's an absolute. I say to him and all my representatives my expectations are higher than ever, why not??????? Our time demands high expectations, now lowering them. The ongoing establishment 'logic' is totally broken and lost all common sense and meaning.
"What does this mean?"
You know just like I do. They want to institute another round of austerity measures. That's all these pathetic talking heads since at least reagan have ever had in mind for poor workers like me. I never once heard these pieces of dung (mcbush and obomber) mention the poor. I had my nose to grindstone for years. I don't really have nose left to grind now.
"don't have any expectations."
I never did have any concerning obomber. The only "hope" I have is maybe he won't make life any harder. But I won't be surprised if he does. I thought for almost 30 years now that democrats will only screw me in the ass 90% as bad as republicans. I may be delusional in that thinking too. My life was most difficult under the clinton regime.
FZ, the same thing strikes me as well. Ignoring the 'poor,' pretending they don't exist or count, has become quite glaring. It's middle class this, or middle class that, ad nauseum. Might it not be that there is really little distinction between the two now? Many of those so-called middle class are plunging headlong into the poor zone. Pretty soon there will be only 2 classes left: the uber rich, and poor. Don't put too much stock in labels; they are mostly used to deceive.
If "the man" tells you what time to start work, what time to finish for the day, how many days to work each week, and how much he's going to pay you then you AIN'T "middle class". If "the man" can hold your job over you and threaten you with job loss you AIN'T "middle class". If you "work for a living", paid hourly, you AIN'T "middle class". 90% of us are "working class" or "lower class" and dat be dee damn troof! Middle class my ass.
-- EKATON --