Dec 242009
 

Crosspost with CounterPunch.org [print_link]

December 24, 2009

Obama, Progressives and the Press

“The ones that upset me the most are the so-called leaders of the “progressive” movement like Tom Hayden, CODEPINK and Michael Moore who very enthusiastically endorsed, worked for, voted for, and raised money for Obama, and NOW are beginning to speak out against his carnage, when in fact, Obama has always been very pro-war. Once the horse is out of the barn, it’s hard to get him back in.”

By MIKE WHITNEY

TOM-HAYDEN

Former New Left leader Tom Hayden should have known better than work for and endorse a transparently manipulative capitalist politician like Obama. Now the damage is done.

Mike Whitney: President Barack Obama recently visited Dover Air Force Base where he was photographed with the flag-draped coffins of soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why did Obama do this and what was your reaction?

Cindy Sheehan: “I think Obama did this as a publicity stunt and used the dead troops (that he was responsible for killing) as props to show that he “cares” about the troops. This stunt was in the middle of the “discussions” about how many more troops to send to Afghanistan. (After he has already sent about 35,000.)

It made me sick.

On Thursday, on orders from President Obama, the US military launched cruise missile attacks on Yemen which were followed by raids by the Yemeni Security forces. An estimated 120 people were killed. Obama’s actions indicate that he accepts the Bush Doctrine, that he thinks the US has the right to assassinate people without due process on the mere suspicion they may be linked to a terrorist organization. Is Obama right? Does the US need to be more aggressive in the “post 9-11″ world?

Cindy Sheehan: And Obama reiterated this doctrine during his Nobel acceptance speech — which some are calling the “Obama Doctrine” now.

No, I do not agree with these extra-legal executions. I do not agree that the CIA can be jury, judge and executioner in Pakistan and indiscriminately kill people with their drones.

I adamantly disagree with the doctrine of “pre-emptive” strikes or invasions and I don’t agree that they keep Americans “safer” and, even if they did, innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire and we are creating enemies that we will never be able to kill.

Hugo Chavez has been demonized in the US media as anti-American and a dictator. You’ve met Chavez and seen first-hand what’s going on in Venezuela. What’s your take? Is Chavez a dictator or does he believe in democracy? Have his policies been helpful or harmful to the poor and illiterate?

Cindy Sheehan: Well, statistically, illiteracy and poverty rates have improved since Chavez has been president of Venezuela–although, it is still a very poor country.

I think we should always take governments and politicians with a grain of salt, or with high suspicion. But for a politician, I do think that Chavez cares about the people of Venezuela and democracy movements in South America. His actions have proven that and he has been pretty courageous in trying to spread populism and socialism. He has supported other leaders, like Morales of Bolivia, who have been attacked and marginalized by the ruling class.

Is Chavez a dictator? He’s as much a dictator as Obama is. Chavez has put constitutional reforms before the public and has survived a CIA coup and recall attempts. I am sure there is always hanky-panky in any election, but Jimmy Carter has certified the elections.

Here’s a poem by an Iraqi blogger named Layla Anwar, which pretty well sums up the anger and anguish felt by many Iraqis:

Come and see our overflowing morgues and find our little ones for us…

You may find them in this corner or the other, a little hand poking out, pointing out at you…

Come and search for them in the rubble of your “surgical” air raids, you may find a little leg or a little head…pleading for your attention.

Come and see them amassed in the garbage dumps, scavenging morsels of food…

Come and see, come….

(“Flying Kites” Layla Anwar)

How important to you is it that the people who are responsible for the destruction of Iraq and the slaughtering of over 1 million Iraqis be brought to justice?

Cindy Sheehan: In my opinion, accountability for war crimes committed on the people of Iraq/Afghanistan and, now Pakistan, is imperative. The US has been committing war crimes for at least the last 100 years (off the continent) and none of our leaders have ever been held accountable and that’s one of the reasons that the empire is able to keep rolling. I also believe that the way to the rest of the world’s heart is for American leaders to be held accountable.

The senate just passed the $636 billion Pentagon budget on Friday which extends the controversial US Patriot Act. Obama is expected to sign the bill sometime this week. Why is America trying to trying to “liberate” Iraq and Afghanistan, when it is spying on its people at home?

Cindy Sheehan: First of all, “liberation” was not a goal of the invasions. We, the gullible, were told that we were going into Afghanistan to get Osama and Iraq because Saddam had WMD and a connection to al Qaeda. When those rationales were proven false, we were then told that it was to liberate the people. Now in Afghanistan, we are told we are “protecting the women.” The phony war on terror has been used to steal our liberties in a full-frontal assault since 9-11 and Obama voted to reauthorize the USA PATRIOT ACT when he was a Senator, and voted for the FISA modernization act, which gave broad authority to the government to spy on our electronic communications and gave telecom companies immunity. I not only see this as passive stealing of our liberties, but the United Police States of America is increasing in physical oppression, also. I’ll be interested to see how the Police State will handle my new action: Peace of the Action.

You know a lot of people across the country. What’s the mood among Obama supporters? Have they thrown in the towel already or do they still think he’ll turn out to be the leader they hoped he would be?

Cindy Sheehan: I lost a lot of friends when B.O. became president and it was a lonely 6 months after he was elected. I wrote a new book called Myth America (short title) and I started to travel around the country in April doing book events. For the first time since my activism started, people walked out on my presentations because I was telling them that it was the system — not the person who infests the White House. However, by the end of my book tour in August, the crowds were growing and more enthusiastic and less gaga-eyed over Obama. Then I started touring again in September and the discontent is growing. I am happy about that. The ones that upset me the most are the so-called leaders of the “progressive” movement like Tom Hayden, CODEPINK and Michael Moore who very enthusiastically endorsed, worked for, voted for, and raised money for Obama, and NOW are beginning to speak out against his carnage, when in fact, Obama has always been very pro-war. Once the horse is out of the barn, it’s hard to get him back in. The movement should never have given him a “chance.” Things are so much worse in foreign policy almost a year into his regime.

The media has had a tough time dealing with Cindy Sheehan. On the one hand, they’ve done everything in their power to glorify the wars and the men and women who serve in uniform. On the other hand, they’ve gone to great lengths to discredit the mother of a soldier who died fighting in America’s wars. Why is the media so afraid of Cindy Sheehan?

Cindy Sheehan: Because I tell inconvenient truths. War is not pretty, ever, but unnecessary wars and needless carnage are even worse. Also, I realized very early on that the problem didn’t rest with a particular political party, but it’s a systemic problem and the corporate media is part of it.

Here is a quote from Obama’s Nobel acceptance speech in Oslo:

“We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”

This is a very disturbing quote. What do you think Obama is trying to say here?

Cindy Sheehan: Like I said in my speech in Oslo, the ruling class is telling us by giving Obama that award, and in his speech that “War is Peace” and the only conceivable way to peace is through war. What is also disturbing, is the kudos he got from the left-right establishment over that speech. Disturbing, yet predictable.

Last question. This is an excerpt from an article you wrote more than a year ago:

“The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most….

Good-bye America …you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.”

Do you feel the same way now as when you wrote that, or do you see any glimmer of hope that the country is beginning to change directions?

Cindy Sheehan: I wrote this in May of 2007 when I resigned from the movement. I still believe that the people have to wake up on their own, but we can give them some gentle shakes. I am still sacrificing for the enlightenment and am still trying.

It was a short retirement.

CINDY SHEEHAN remains a thorn on the side of the system.  She can’t be bought, and won’t be intimidated. The media whores can’t do much to demonize her overtly, lest they lose the sympathies of the audience. It’s not easy to attack the mother of a young man who, misguided by politicians and promoted jingoism, chose to serve and die for a false cause.

Did you like this? Share it:
 Posted by at 10:13 pm
Dec 242009
 

FOR THE PRESERVATION AND PROMOTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY

Crosspost with http://tpjmagazine.us/jonas232

By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH Dateline: December 20, 2009  [print_link]

OBAMA-COPENHAGEN-largeMany of us on the Left, whether that’s the Democratic Party Left or the Real Left, are becoming increasingly disturbed, upset, concerned, what-have-you, with the behavior of President Obama in office.  We are surely concerned with his Afghanistan policy which is distinguishable from that of Bush-Cheney only in that he is sending more troops.  We are concerned with his lack of leadership on the central elements of health policy reform, such as providing for a true public option with teeth, protecting the freedom of religious belief (otherwise known protecting belief as to when life begins and thus abortion rights), and real regulation of the private, for-profit insurance companies.  We are concerned with his giving way to the respective Right-wings on Israel-Palestine and Honduras.  We are concerned with the virtual inaction on the sanctifiers of torture.  And so on and so forth.

Obama came into office promising to be a different kind of President. Many of us (including myself, I must admit) thought that he would be a different kind of Democratic President, in comparison with Carter and Clinton, although certain of our compatriots were not so easily taken in.  To them I must give credit.  But there were straws in the wind.  I even noted some of them myself.  But like so many others, I got caught up in the rhetoric.  In this column I am going to undertake a brief review of some of my earlier indeed cautionary thoughts (to which I should have paid more attention myself, as it has turned out).  Which brings us to the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).  The DLC is the right-wing organization that has dominated Democratic Party politics and policies since it was founded in the 1980s by the likes of Bill Clinton and Richard Gephardt, joined in the 1990s by the likes of Joe Lieberman.  One of its prominent political positions was that in order to win elections Democrats had to look as much like Republicans as possible. This reversed the long-held mantra of Harry Truman that if someone wants to vote for a Republican they will vote for him (or her) not for a Democrat trying to look like one.

The DLC was the engine behind the “free trade” push of the Clinton Administration, which did nothing but accelerate the export of capital and the jobs that go with it that began under Reagan.  The DLC strongly supported Clinton’s “welfare deform” act as well as his repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagal Act that kept separate investment and commercial banking. The latter drive was spearheaded by Obama’s principal economic policy-person, Larry Summers.  There were many factors which lead to the Crash of 2008, otherwise known as the Failure of Finance Capitalism.  But if one wanted to pick one among many as the most important cause, it was that repeal.  Currently, the DLC still clings to the Right.  On its website you can find its policy paper on health care reform which says in essence forget about the public option, what we really need is health insurance regulation and “exchanges.”  You can find a 2005 paper by Will Marshall calling for “victory” in Iraq.  And you can even find a continued devotion to “free trade,” as if enough US manufacturing jobs had not already been sent abroad in search of higher profits.

Back in December of 2007 (in my TPJ column 172) I had this to say in part about Obama and the DLC:

“As they have done in the past, the center-right Democratic Leadership Council is this time around running what in Standard-Breed (trotters and pacers) horse racing terminology is known as an ‘entry.’  In these races, one owner can enter two horses and bettors can bet on the ‘entry,’ so that if either one wins, places, or shows, the bettor collects.  In 2004 their entry was John Edwards and Richard Gephardt. . . . This time the DLC has an entry as well, but Edwards ain’t part of it. . . . The DLC entry is —- yes, indeed, Clinton and Obama.  They don’t like each other much, and each does indeed want to be President.  But their central philosophy is much the same and many of their policies are rather similar too.  The philosophy is better articulated by Obama.  But functionally, even though her rhetoric may be a bit harsher, Clinton is woven from the same fabric.  And so, Obama talks about the ‘politics of hope,’ about ‘bringing the country together,’ about ‘crossing the partisan divide,’ as if Ronald Brownstein, author of the mis-named ‘The Second Civil War’ were correct and that the problems facing our nation today are the result of a ‘partisanship’ that both parties are responsible for.”

(On the last point, as I have said many times, both parties are NOT responsible for partisanship in Washington.  For it is ultra-partisanship, as in “we don’t care what you propose, even if it is our policy (as in the current tax-rebate-centered so-called 2nd stimulus package) we are going to be against it” that is at the center GOP electoral politics and has been ever since Gingrich took over the House.  After all, the GOP can hardly run on their polices, the ones that created the mess we are presently in and cannot presently see the end of.  Actually many of us would be oh-so-happy if the Democratic leadership could become even a bit more partisan in promoting what is best for our nation overall.)

In the Summer of 2008 (July 2 and 8) I ran two Commentaries over at BuzzFlash.com entitled “No Obamallusions, I and II.”  I noted that after he won the nomination, Obama seemed to be veering toward the Hillary Clinton positions on a number of issues and that he was drawing a number of Clintonistas into his campaign, like Madeleine Albright, protégés of Robert Rubin, and even the old right-wing Democratic warhorse Zbigniew Brzezinski.   But then last April on BuzzFlash.com (April 9, in fact) I revealed that I had been sucked in by Obama.  In that column I wrote: “It is overwhelmingly obvious that I was totally wrong about Barack Obama. He is the most traditionally ‘Democratic’ President since the pre-Vietnam War Lyndon Johnson.”   Ooops!

There were several comments on that Commentary that took me apart on the above statement.  Well, I have come to the conclusion that they were right then and I, agreeing with them back then, was right the first time around.  At the beginning of his Administration Obama seemed to be or at least seemed to be becoming a “different kind of Democrat,” different that is from the Clinton-DLC type.  But there are now too many DLC-type policies in place.  He is not entirely consistent, of course.  EPA has taken a major position on carbon dioxide as a green-house gas.  Some good (and not-so-good) things are going on over at Interior.  But there are the major foreign policies outlined above.  And does it not seem that on Afghanistan the major presenters of Administration policy are Hillary Clinton, a prime DLCer and Bob Gates, who would be a DLCer were he not a Republican.  Obama spoke about a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan.  But either he is speaking with a forked tongue or he is not in charge.

Then there is the back-down on going after our homegrown torturers and their enablers.  In fact, the Administration has entered an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Prince of the Torture-enablers, John Yoo.  Yes, Administrations don’t like to be subject to civil law suits over decisions they have made.  But Yoo’s policies enabled crimes against the US Constitution which, in Article VI classifies treaties, like the Geneva Conventions, as the Supreme Law of the Land.  One of the monstrous ironies in this case is that during the Bush-Cheney years Attorney General Holder was a Board Member of the American Constitution Society.  It is an organization primarily of attorneys (full disclosure: I am a non-attorney long-time member) that strongly opposed the torture policies, the military commissions, the suspension of habeas corpus in “terrorism” cases, and the uses to which Guantanamo was put.

Yes indeed, the DLC is back in the saddle or were never out of it.  Unless Obama reverses course soon, he is going to face a serious challenge in the Democratic primaries in 2012, just as Carter did in 1980.  Hopefully his opponent will not be someone as hobbled by personal conduct issues as Ted Kennedy was back then.  Do I have someone in mind?  Well, yes, but I ain’t saying who quite yet.  If Obama does retain the nomination, then he will face a serious third-party candidate and I am not talking about Ralph Nader or someone from the Green Party.  I am talking about someone who would be well-funded and would stand a chance of winning, just as Abraham Lincoln did in a three-way race in 1860.  Of course taking that tack could pave the way for Sarah Palin who right now is the odds-on favorite for Republican nomination no matter how many lies she tells.  But I believe that is a chance we have to take.  Do I have someone in mind for that third-party nomination?  Well, no.  But he/she better be a grand candidate and better be able to raise lots of money.  Otherwise one way or the other we will really be in for it, worse than we already are.

STEVE JONAS is a senior editor with TGP. He writes a regular column on public affairs for Buzzflash.com, as well as other progressive venues.

Did you like this? Share it:
 Posted by at 6:24 pm