Obama as Jim Jones - The Kool-Aid that Kills

El_Kabong

excellent piece!

discuss


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/03/barack-obama-as-jim-jones/

Barack Obama as Jim Jones
The Kool-Aid that Kills

by Joshua Frank / March 19th, 2008

It could have been the defining moment of the campaign season. But last weekend’s Iraq Winter Solider Hearings were not only ignored by the corporate press, they were also snubbed by the mainstream candidates including alleged antiwar Democrat, Barack Obama.

None of this should come as much of a surprise if you’ve been watching Obama backpedal over the last few months. Somehow the Democratic frontrunner seems to believe Hillary’s defeat will only come about if he steers clear of a legitimate peace platform, merely paying lip-service to the conflicts in the Middle East instead.

While John McCain pronounces the US will be in Iraq for ten more bloody decades, Hillary and Obama aren’t raising any qualms in their policy papers. In fact, as author Jeremy Scahill has pointed out, Obama’s plan for Iraq not only includes continued funding for the gargantuan US Embassy in Baghdad, the senator also wants to leave at least 40,000 troops to roam about the country and allow mercenary forces like Blackwater to operate above the law indefinitely. Hillary Clinton, of course, seconds Obama’s thirst for more occupation and both senators aren’t the least bit hesitant to leave “all options on the table” in regard to Iran.

Warmongers all of them.

Sadly, many have unwittingly gulped the Kool-Aid this year, swallowing the notion that Barack Obama somehow represents a mild, pragmatic antiwar position. Even Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo, who usually provides keen insight into our militarized political sleaze, believes Obama may be the real deal.

“Clearly, Obama is the candidate the neoconservatives fear and loathe: the loathing is on account of his antiwar views, at least when it comes to Iraq, and the fear stems from the fact that campaigning against him will be difficult,” Raimondo recently wrote. “Hillary they can handle: she’ll mobilize the troops and weld together the fractured Republican coalition in opposition.”

The Republican establishment certainly deems Obama a serious threat. Not for the reasons Raimondo notes, however. The neocons fear Obama because of his grassroots support, not his “antiwar views”.

Simply put: Obama is not antiwar but his following seems to be. At least when it comes to the turmoil in Iraq. But a true antiwar movement should not get behind a candidate that promises to pander to Israel and continue an aggressive policy toward Iran — which includes threatening to murder the poor bastards if they don’t comply with our hypocritical demands.

On the contrary, those who oppose war ought to oppose candidates that support Empire in any of its ugly forms.

The differences between the big three campaigns at this point are only marked by rhetorical persuasions and not on the ground strategy. Iran will be threatened, Israel will be funded, and the war in Iraq will rage on despite it all.

Movements are most effective when they remain independent, refusing to wrangle their pleas in the circus of electoral politics. The tearful testimonies given by our bold veterans during last weekend’s hearings are an indication that dissent is growing, not only among the public, but also among the military. And that’s a good thing. Americans are becoming fed up with perpetual war and the political machinery that enables it.

Without a doubt Barack Obama would love to capitalize on this mounting disgust. But co-opting our efforts won’t end the war, it will simply finish off the movement that is seeking to end it.

Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of the forthcoming Red State Rebels, to be published by AK Press in June 2008. Read other articles by Joshua.

blackredyellow

So it's Obama's fault that the majority of the antiwar movement has decided to support him? The writer seems to be blaming Obama for not being what the antiwar people want him to be.

From what I have seen from Obama, he has been very clear on his plans for a drawdown of troops

his website wrote:

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

El_Kabong wrote:

...Obama’s plan for Iraq not only includes continued funding for the gargantuan US Embassy in Baghdad, the senator also wants to leave at least 40,000 troops to roam about the country and allow mercenary forces like Blackwater to operate above the law indefinitely.

And I'd like to see a source where he has said he wants to leave 40,000 troops "roaming" around the country and allow mercenary forces to operate above the law indefinitely (not to mention the fact that the president of the United States can't decide who is above the law or even what those laws are in another country).

unsung

Hey El_Kabong, be careful speaking out against the media darling. You will either be labled a racist or called an idiot in these here parts.

Im still here

Warmongers all of them.

Commy

Damn. I keep thinking Obama is the way to go this next election, he's got charisma, that maybe a dem won't be so bad in office.

But its things like this that remind me why I vote third party in elections.


Obama doesn't have the platform, fuck him.

I am anti war and i will be pissed if a dem gets elected and doesn't get us out of Iraq.

Me and 10 million friends.

lazymoon13

Dissident voice. A Radical newsletter.....

I mean come on...admitting to being a radical organization in the title! at least most wacky sites like this try to hide it.

Abookamongstthemany

lazymoon13 wrote:

Dissident voice. A Radical newsletter.....

I mean come on...admitting to being a radical organization in the title! at least most wacky sites like this try to hide it.

What do you mean 'come on'? All opinions are allowed and worth listening to, even ones that have been marginalized, to remain open minded and objective.

Why not try discussing the content?

lazymoon13

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What do you mean 'come on'? All opinions are allowed and worth listening to, even ones that have been marginalized, to remain open minded and objective.

Why not try discussing the content?

I have a hard time taking these people seriously when they claim to be radical. radical people do not think clearly. but sure, what about the content? blackredyellow already asked a great question that I guess will be left unanswered because there is no proof to these"radical" claims.

Abookamongstthemany

lazymoon13 wrote:

I have a hard time taking these people seriously when they claim to be radical. radical people do not think clearly. but sure, what about the content? blackredyellow already asked a great question that I guess will be left unanswered because there is no proof to these"radical" claims.

I don't know about that claim, I haven't seen it myself, and the article was pretty good without that claim.


"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." ~ George Orwell

I have found that the most honesty and sincerity have came from the candidates and the groups society has deemed 'radical'. And furthermore, all change/revolutions start with those who think outside the box, question the authority and apply pressure against the status quo. This system is fucked and it's pretty obvious...I don't see any 'unclear' thinking here. If we don't listen to people who offer a different take than our 'mainstream' sources we become stagnant as a nation.

lazymoon13

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I don't know about that claim, I haven't seen it myself, and the article was pretty good without that claim.


"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." ~ George Orwell

I have found that the most honesty and sincerity have came from the candidates and the groups society has deemed 'radical'. And furthermore, all change/revolutions start with those who think outside the box, question the authority and apply pressure against the status quo. This system is fucked and it's pretty obvious...I don't see any 'unclear' thinking here. If we don't listen to people who offer a different take than our 'mainstream' sources we become stagnant as a nation.

well have a good time with all that. I prefer to stay away from radical people. I rarely see something positive from them. but its great to live in a country where we can live and do what we want I've been to countries where dissent is punishable by death. so by all means, carry on.

Abookamongstthemany

lazymoon13 wrote:

well have a good time with all that. I prefer to stay away from radical people. I rarely see something positive from them. but its great to live in a country where we can live and do what we want I've been to countries where dissent is punishable by death. so by all means, carry on.

I see the brightest americans as the ones deemed radical. Bright enough to see through the bullshit, courageous enough to speak out against it.

WMA

Commy wrote:

Damn. I keep thinking Obama is the way to go this next election, he's got charisma, that maybe a dem won't be so bad in office.

But its things like this that remind me why I vote third party in elections.


Obama doesn't have the platform, fuck him.

I am anti war and i will be pissed if a dem gets elected and doesn't get us out of Iraq.

Me and 10 million friends.

I agree, though would you agree that a small force left in the area (maybe Kuwait) to destroy any training camps etc. that may pop up would be a good idea? Special forces with specific goals are much more productive than the "waiting for the violence to stop" approach.

While going in there was a complete mistake, I'd hate to see it end the same way Afghanistan did after the Russians got out of there... small militant groups taking control of things with very hostile intentions and recruiting/training anyone they could find to further their cause.

Unfortunately, someone has to clean up this administrations mess. Or... I guess people can vote Republican if they think everything is going great right now, and there is no need to do anything differently.

lazymoon13

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I see the brightest americans as the ones deemed radical. Bright enough to see through the bullshit, courageous enough to speak out against it.

I see the scariest, deranged, illogical, insane, americans deemed as radical. they are most times people who aren't interested in debating something or hearing another opinion. and the people who openly claim to be radical usually fall in that category.

Commy

WMA wrote:

I agree, though would you agree that a small force left in the area (maybe Kuwait) to destroy any training camps etc. that may pop up would be a good idea? Special forces with specific goals are much more productive than the "waiting for the violence to stop" approach.

While going in there was a complete mistake, I'd hate to see it end the same way Afghanistan did after the Russians got out of there... small militant groups taking control of things with very hostile intentions and recruiting/training anyone they could find to further their cause.

Unfortunately, someone has to clean up this administrations mess. Or... I guess people can vote Republican if they think everything is going great right now, and there is no need to do anything differently.

And Afghanistan was used as a political tool for Washington, the entire nation, and thousands of its civilians died as a result...but who's to say Tehran or Beijing isn't using Iraq the same way. Think that is why an international force is needed. Lead by some neutral country with nothing to gain or lose.

Abookamongstthemany

lazymoon13 wrote:

I see the scariest, deranged, illogical, insane, americans deemed as radical. they are most times people who aren't interested in debating something or hearing another opinion. and the people who openly claim to be radical usually fall in that category.

What and who are you basing this opinion on?

You're the one closing your mind to people simply because of the word 'radical'. That is pretty shortsighted.

lazymoon13

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What and who are you basing this opinion on?

You're the one closing your mind to people simply because of the word 'radical'. That is pretty shortsighted.

I'm basing my opinion on my many run ins with self proclaimed radicals. rarely does anything positive come from them. there is a reason why these types of people are shunned. radicals and radical websites arent interested in hearing all sides to a story. I am.

Abookamongstthemany

lazymoon13 wrote:

I'm basing my opinion on my many run ins with self proclaimed radicals. rarely does anything positive come from them. there is a reason why these types of people are shunned. radicals and radical websites arent interested in hearing all sides to a story. I am.

Your personal run ins with ordinary people have absolutely nothing to do with the merit of radical ideas out there. You're painting everyone with quite a broad brush and it's just coming off like a half thought out generalization/stereotype.

How can you be so 'open' to all sides when you said yourself you dismiss people because of the label 'radical' alone? That statement makes no sense.

lazymoon13

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Your personal run ins with ordinary people have absolutely nothing to do with the merit of radical ideas out there. You're painting everyone with quite a broad brush and it's just coming off like a half thought out generalization/stereotype.

How can you be so 'open' to all sides when you said yourself you dismiss people because of the label 'radical' alone? That statement makes no sense.

take you for example. you automatically dismiss anything that comes from the media because its "corporately" owned. thats not being very open minded now is it.

and this article posted has already been proven a shame. again, I'll point to blackredyellow's question. never has obama said he will let 40000 solders run around lawlessly.

Commy

lazymoon13 wrote:

take you for example. you automatically dismiss anything that comes from the media because its "corporately" owned. thats not being very open minded now is it.

and this article posted has already been proven a shame. again, I'll point to blackredyellow's question. never has obama said he will let 40000 solders run around lawlessly.

Presenting a personal attack as opposed to addressing the issue is a typical Fox news tactic, which seems to be the case here.




.

lazymoon13

Commy wrote:

Presenting a personal attack as opposed to addressing the issue is a typical Fox news tactic, which seems to be the case here.




.

where is there a personal attack?

Abookamongstthemany

lazymoon13 wrote:

take you for example. you automatically dismiss anything that comes from the media because its "corporately" owned. thats not being very open minded now is it.

and this article posted has already been proven a shame. again, I'll point to blackredyellow's question. never has obama said he will let 40000 solders run around lawlessly.

Don't lie. I said I don't trust mainstream news over alternative sources because they are corporate owned and have an agenda due to certain interests held by their owners. Do you not see this as a conflict of interest when your job is to report the news without bias? Are you telling me you are just fine with the crap mainstream media puts out there and don't see any problems in the way they report the 'news'? Seriously??


Obama has changed his stance on the war so much I'm not sure if this stat was an old one or a fabrication. I haven't tried to look it up. The piece still made good points that I have brought up well before reading it or this particular stat and I've based that opinion on Obama's actual words and voting record.