Obama as Jim Jones - The Kool-Aid that Kills
El_Kabong
Posts: 4,141
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.
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.
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
From what I have seen from Obama, he has been very clear on his plans for a drawdown of troops
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).
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
PEARL JAM~San Antonio, TX. 4~5~03
INCUBUS~Houston, TX. 1~19~07
INCUBUS~Denver, CO. 2~8~07
Lollapalooza~Chicago, IL. 8~5~07
INCUBUS~Austin, TX. 9~3~07
Bonnaroo~Manchester, TN 6~14~08
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 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?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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 see the brightest americans as the ones deemed radical. Bright enough to see through the bullshit, courageous enough to speak out against it.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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.
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.
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.
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.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
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.
.
where is there a personal attack?
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.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
so as long as some of its true, its ok to throw in an outright lie here or there.
I can read various types of sources and decide for myself. I don't automatically close my eyes and ears to anything. Are you going to answer my question?
I don't know what context or where that particular stat came from so I can't say it's a lie just yet and neither can you. I never said shit about it being ok to lie.
And that stat doesn't automatically dismiss all other points made. You seem to be an absolute, black and white type thinker...good luck with that.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
its a lie because its not true. obama never said that. so yes, I can say its a lie. so, yea you are saying its ok to lie. it aint gonna fly with me lol nice.
Thanks for the dodge.
How do you know he never said it?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
because it would be able to be proven. and its in none of his stated policies on Iraq. but since this radical website says, it must be true.
Oh, so you don't know if it is true or false because I won't go look it up for you...gotcha. You are aware of the practice politicians like to use where they say certain things to certain crowds but don't have those promises laid out on their website? I emailed the editor and asked about the source so I'll let you know what they say.
I didn't say it was true or false. So no, this website doesn't make it true to me. I've said this already but alas...it seems like this is a little difficult for you...
And about the question I asked you pertaining to mainstream media? Still waiting.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
it might be from this boston globe article, obama doesn't say 40,000, just the ppl he will consult w/ but obama's advisor gives a pretty big number close to 40k
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/11/fuzzy_plans_for_iraq/
......In a BBC interview last week, Power, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author and Harvard University global affairs professor, said Obama's plan to remove combat troops from Iraq in his first 16 months was a "best-case scenario." She said Obama "can't make a commitment, in whatever month we're in now, in March of 2008, about what circumstances are going to be like in January of 2009 . . . He will of course, not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or as a US senator. He will rely upon a plan, an operational plan that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now.".....
.....But a host of military officials "on the ground," the very ground Obama and Clinton say they will consult with, are saying something different. In a conference call with online journalists last week, Air Force Colonel Dean Clemons, an adviser to the Iraqi defense minister, reasserted that the Iraqis will not be ready to protect themselves from internal threats without US soldiers until 2012 and will not be ready to defend against external threats until between 2018 and 2020.
Asked if that meant US involvement until Iraq was ready, Clemons said, "Yeah." Also last week, retired General Barry McCaffrey said on National Public Radio that while tens of thousands of troops will come home because "there's no political support for the war," he anticipates up to 40,000 soldiers staying for up to a decade, "providing embedded trainers to the Iraqi Security Forces as well as a continuing air power, special operations, intelligence, logistics capability."
That might make defense contractors happy, but that is far from what Obama and Clinton are selling. In a January debate, Clinton said, "I hope to have nearly all of them out within a year." Obama countered with his 16-month timetable because "It can't be muddy, it can't be fuzzy." Referring to the Iraqis, he said, "They've got to know that we are serious about this process."
But what numbers constitute "serious" and the muddy road to fuzziness? A February Wall Street Journal article said one Obama adviser was "comfortable" with a long-term US troop presence of about 35,000 troops after his 16-month deadline. Those moldy lead speeches on their websites just might be an indication that Iraq is more fuzzy to them than either wants to admit.
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Many Troops Would Stay
In Iraq if a Democrat Wins
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
February 29, 2008; Page A4
WASHINGTON -- Despite the rhetoric of the Democratic presidential candidates, significant numbers of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq regardless who wins in November.
In their final push to win the nomination, Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York are repeating their vow to start withdrawing U.S. forces shortly after taking office. But both candidates draw a distinction between "combat" troops, whom they want to withdraw, and "noncombat" troops, who will stay to battle terrorists, protect the U.S. civilian presence and possibly train and mentor Iraqi security forces.
Conducting such missions would likely require the sustained deployment of tens of thousands of American military personnel, foreign-policy advisers from both campaigns acknowledge.
"No one is talking about getting to zero," said a foreign-policy adviser to Sen. Obama.
The upshot: When voters go to the polls in November, they will face a stark choice about the future direction of the Iraq war, but they won't be able bring American involvement to a quick end.
Republican front-runner Sen. John McCain was an early and vocal advocate of the Bush administration's troop "surge," which deployed an additional 30,000 combat troops to Iraq as part of a broader shift to a counterinsurgency strategy.
If elected, Sen. McCain has said that he would maintain the current approach, which focuses on protecting Iraq's population by having small units of American troops live in neighborhoods and towns. That would mean keeping U.S. troop levels at or near 130,000, roughly the number deployed there since the start of the war in 2003.
The two Democratic candidates, by contrast, want to abandon the counterinsurgency approach. Both say they will begin withdrawing combat troops shortly after taking office and will shift the remaining U.S. forces to a more limited mission that won't include explicitly trying to deter Iranian activity within Iraq or moving against Shiite militias responsible for much of the country's carnage.
Sen. Obama, on his Web site, says that the drawdowns would begin "immediately" and continue at a pace of one to two brigades -- which each normally number between 3,500 and 4,500 troops -- per month. He hopes to have all combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months of taking office, or by the middle of 2010.
Obama foreign-policy adviser Dennis McDonough says the Democratic front-runner wants the residual U.S. forces to focus on counterterrorism -- largely directed against al Qaeda in Iraq, the homegrown extremist organization responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians -- and protecting the enormous U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
Mr. McDonough says Sen. Obama is open to leaving additional forces in Iraq to train and advise Iraqi security forces, but only if the Iraqi government takes steps to reconcile the country's sectarian groups. Absent such progress, Sen. Obama would halt the training effort, he said. "Our support wouldn't be open-ended," said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Sen. Obama.
Mr. McDonough declined to say how many troops Sen. Obama hoped to have in Iraq after the initial 16 months of withdrawals. But another senior adviser said that Mr. Obama was comfortable with a long-term U.S. troop presence of around five brigades, which -- depending on the numbers of support troops and other personnel -- would likely leave around 35,000 troops in Iraq.
Sen. Clinton takes a similar approach and promises to begin withdrawing combat troops within 60 days of assuming the presidency. Lee Feinstein, the Clinton campaign's national security director, says "the principal focus" of the remaining U.S. forces will be fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq.
U.S. forces would no longer patrol Iraqi streets and towns or seek to prevent sectarian strife between Shiites and Sunnis, or between Arabs and Kurds, he said. "Our troops will not be there to patrol a civil war," Mr. Feinstein said.
Mr. Feinstein declined to say how many troops Sen. Clinton wanted to leave in Iraq, but said that they would be there "in sufficient numbers to carry out the more limited set of missions."
Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
no need to look it up for me. I already did and I cant find it. Plus, it's in none of his stated polices on Iraq. It's made up spin being shoved down your throat but a radical website. you may be skeptical, and that good, but this it the type of crap I'm talking about. there are many radical people who will take this as fact and never open their eyes to other possible truths simply because this website said it.
whats the question, do I trust the media? not really but I do believe much of what they say is true. There are too many check and balances. If abc reports that a car bomb killed 50 people in a market I'll tend to believe them. If abc reports that recent polls show Iraqis are becoming more optimistic, I tend to believe them. If they lie about something, there are too many people watching and too many other networks ready to pounce on them for being a liar. there are no checks and balances for dissidentvoice.com...they can say whatever they want and people like the threat starter will take it as fact. the site shows no sources and has no one saying they are wrong.
and then posts this....
2 things to note here, Obama never said 40,000 troops will stay. and there is a big difference between...
40,000 troops to roam about the country and allow mercenary forces like Blackwater to operate above the law indefinitely..
vs
up to 40,000 soldiers staying for up to a decade, "providing embedded trainers to the Iraqi Security Forces as well as a continuing air power, special operations, intelligence, logistics capability."
If Kabong was never called out on it he would continue on thinking obama will let 40,000 troops raom around the country and shoot up the place with no regard for the law. HE TOOK THIS AS FACT. he went out of his way to BOLD it. now do you see where the problem lies? radical websites can say whatever they want with and most radical thinking people like this kabong guy will take it as fact without every checking. At least you seem to be smart enough to second guess everything and I respect you for it.