The Difference Between Wright and Wrong

With the revelation of a number of videos showing "controversial" sermons made by Barack Obama's good friend, spiritual mentor, and African American Religious Leadership Committee adviser, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the American lack of self-awareness was once again revealed in all its shameful and embarrassing glory.

It has been made very clear, time and time again, that outspoken and incendiary voices are not to be tolerated in the democratic presidential process (save for the bigoted views of your average Huckabees, Thompsons, Romneys, and McCains, with the added endorsements of serial racist and chronic hate-spewer John Hagee), and with the recent dismissal of Samantha Power from the Obama campaign and Geraldine Ferraro from the Clinton team, we can see how this process seems to mandate a playing field where everyone pretends to be respectful of one another and no one actually says anything important or substantial. The candidates themselves are supposed to remain judicious with their viewpoints and not stray too far (if at all) from an Americocentric vision of the world. Statements regarding the illegal invasion of Iraq are allowed, but must not ever include such crazy and anti-US words like "illegal" or "invasion." It's always a "war" and it was always just and right and correct to murder well over a million Iraqis (over eight-hundred thousand deaths have been reported and documented, though the actual numbers are substantially higher), displace about 5 million from their homes, and wound millions more. These figures continue to grow every day and are seldom, if ever, mentioned.

No no, it is the troops that need our help and care and who deserve a safe return from the killing fields. It is only the deaths of American soldiers and lack of safety for Western 'diplomats' that has turned Americans (and their representative politicians) against the 2003 invasion. Absolutely nowhere on either Clinton or Obama's sites (I didn't bother to check McCain's) are the words "Iraqi casualties" mentioned and only Obama even refers to America's "moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis" of its millions of refugees (the result of American invasion and occupation). Basically, American deaths are sad and terrible and wrong and therefore should stop, but Iraqi deaths seem not to register in any way within the consciousness of our supposed leaders (or the general public for that matter).

It is with this mentality that any comment critical of America is viewed as treasonous, inflammatory, and downright evil by the mainstream media, the misinformed (i.e. average) voter, and the brainwashed hysteric (see: Bible Belt resident). Critique of the American system, awareness of its historic inequities, and knowledge of its past century of aggressively imperial foreign policy is not only looked down on by the American public, any mere mention of these issues are shunned and the speaker ostracized. Obviously, as it stands, America can do no wrong. Whatever else happens in this world, America remains altruistic, honorably noble, and a protector of freedom. The United States is, in the eyes, minds, and hearts of its inhabitants, a beacon of justice and liberty. A shining "city upon a hill," as John Winthrop put it. Essentially, America finds itself much like a young Indiana Jones, alone and without help, clutching the stolen Cross of Coronado, and shouting idly for any sign of his compatriots in a desolate Monument Valley. Upon hearing no reply, Indy, and America too, calmly concedes without the slightest hint of irony, "Everybody's lost but me."

Reverend Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, spoke the truth quite often during his sermons in years past. He spoke passionately about the injustice for African-Americans in this country as well as about less domestic issues regarding the United States' drive for hegemony across the globe. The recent publicity of some of his less complacent statements has signaled his ridicule in the media and public domain and his immediate abandonment by Barack Obama. Apparently, American feelings are too important to be riled up by silly things such as the "truth" and "historical awareness." We Americans are far too sensitive about how great we are that calling us out on our dastardly deeds and complete complicity in the current state of the world and injustice done unto others on a constant basis (and paid for with our hard work and tax dollars) is always frowned upon. The lesson is: If you wish to voice dissent, please do it as quietly and dispassionately as possible; that way, you're easier to ignore while we heat up some more HotPockets and watch America's Next Top Fluffer.

On one occasion in 2003, reported on ABC News, Rev. Wright repudiated the United States for its unfair treatment of black people, stating,

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

I find nothing incorrect, dubious, or vile in any of these statements. Anyone who knows anything about the racial inequities in America would conclude the same thing. Alas, panic set in to the Obama campaign with the release of this news, and immediately distanced itself from the pastor by denouncing his accurate views as "inflammatory rhetoric." Meanwhile, it is Rev. Wright who has been speaking the truth and who has revealed himself as far more cognizant than his presidential candidate disciple of American imperial blowback. A mere six days after the events of September 11, 2001, Rev. Wright was preaching from the pulpit about the root causes of anti-imperial backlashes, stating in full clarity of vision,

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Now, for Wright to say these things to his congregation does not make him anti-American in as much as criticizing Zionism is in no way promoting anti-Semitism. He is simply aware of real historic factors that play a large part in America's dealing with the world as a whole and its own citizens at home. Wright is not anti-American. He doesn't speak out against people, but against governmental, military, and socio-economic practices that harm people, people that may or may not be American. He questions American policies here and abroad and preaches a social gospel that informs his followers of a reality that truly cannot be compared with the blind racism and ethnocentrism found in most Southern, white megachurches. In short, Wright is not wrong.

And yet again, Barack Obama can be counted on to show his complete lack of dignity and spine by feeling compelled to "vehemently disagree" and "strongly condemn" his pastor's statements, adding in an article for the Huffington Post, "I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies." How can anyone who is supposed to be the champion of international diplomacy claim that anything negative said about the United States must be ignored and blown off as absurd? This country has problems! Serious problems! And turning a blind eye or a deaf ear to the discussion of such issues is patently unacceptable.

Obama countered Wright's 9/11 statements with this cute bit of American idolatry and total absence of historical insight, "The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification...It sounds like he (Rev. Wright] was trying to be provocative."

Indeed, we truly are in deep, deep trouble regardless of who winds up winning the presidency come November.

If You Won't Bomb Iran for Us,We'll Find Someone Else Who Will:The Early Retirement of Admiral Fallon

The ebb and flow of this country's attention span and awareness of certain issues, directly controlled by the mass media's 'wash-rinse-repeat' tactics, is no more apparent than when considering news coverage of the potential (possible? probable? inevitable?) US attack on Iran.

For a long time, we were told repeatedly that Iranian President Ahmadinejad was a lunatic fanatic with his finger on the proverbial button, inciting anti-American and anti-Israeli violence across the globe. Ok, so that wasn't at all true. Then we heard that Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust and called to physically destroy Israel. Again, not true (though both of those lies still accompany each and every mention of the Iranian President in the US and Israeli media - in fact, it seems to have become somewhat of a epithet). Then there were British hostages. Nonsense. Then baseless and proofless accusations of Iranian IEDs being used in Iraq to harm our benevolent, civilian-killing, foreign country-occupying US soldiers. Then bogus claims of a nuclear weapons program, followed by two (now three) sets of US-bullied UN Security Council sanctions. Then came the NIE report, discrediting the allegations of Iranian weaponization of nuclear energy, so there was a trumped up speed boat incident in the Strait of Hormuz (damn you, Filipino Monkey!).

After the third set of UN sanctions, Iran continues to pursue its wholly legal right to achieve nuclear energy and does so while unveiling the utter hypocrisy of Security Council actions and exposing the true source of trouble in this world. Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki, at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament on March 5th, not only called for "a special committee for total nuclear disarmament" but stated:

Developing military doctrines based on preemptive attacks and imposing illegal sanctions clearly contradict the terms of the UN charter...Today, the international community is deeply concerned about the production of thousands of nuclear warheads at the arsenals of some nuclear countries.

Imposing illegal and unjustifiable sanctions against other countries, using international organizations for serving the interests of certain powers, making baseless accusations against other countries under the pretext of alleged concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, distorting reality to accuse other countries of breaking disarmament agreements, and misleading public opinion [have worried the global society].

Today, having veto power and possessing nuclear weapons have become a means of bargaining for the illegitimate rights of some powers.

Of course, this speech was not reported on in any way in the US media. A foreign official speaking the truth...a truth that contradicts the lies of the American government? An Iranian suggesting universal disarmament...an act that would include the US and Israel (and the UK, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea)? Naturally, that can't be reported here. As far as we are led to believe, all Iranians must be busy at work, hunched over thousands of their own spinning centerfuges, eagerly rubbing their hands together, and salivating over the possibility of World War III. In this absurd Strangelovean fantasy, the Iranians in question (which is all of them) are most likely wearing burkas or turbans (or both?), carrying AK-14s, and speaking Arabic...all because Americans are pretty stupid.

Still, the US public opinion seems to be generally against attacking Iran for no reason other than further imperialism and US/Israeli hegemony, despite all three remaining presidential candidates keeping the Iranian demonization machine in full throttle, and as a result the issue of bombing Iran has dropped out of the new for a little while. So, with everyone's attentions preoccupied with pictures of Obama dressed like a Hibachi chef, the fact that Roger Clemens has never heard the word vegan, dutifully ignoring the Israeli murders of over a hundred and fifty Palestinians, and now focusing squarely on Ashley Dupre's MySpace and Facebook pages, the Bush administration has moved one step closer to attacking Iran by removing, what appeared to be, the highest-ranking obstacle to their sinister plans.

A lot of hubbub has surrounded the early retirement of Admiral William Fallon, the top military official of United States Central Command in the Middle East, this week. The claims that Fallon was forced to retire from active service due to his previous statements regarding his preferred avoidance of war with Iran, which many see as directly at odds with the aggressive military policies of his commander-in-chief, seem well-founded regardless of what the Washington spinbots are trying to say. Fallon first attracted attention when asked about a potential US attack on Iran, by stating, "Not on my watch" and by opposing the troop "surge" in Iraq. Since then he has urged straightforward diplomacy with the Iranian government, which is obviously a serious threat to Bush's bellicose dreams. A recent article in Esquire, written by former professor at the Naval War College and ex-Pentagon official Thomas P.M. Barnett, further exposed Fallon's dissenting beliefs on Middle East military plans and, in the piece's opening lines, placed the Admiral at the forefront of US policies in the region:

If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance.

The article continues to place Fallon and the Bush cabal at odds and is eerily prescient of what quickly followed the piece's publication:

So while Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to World War III and his administration casually casts Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler (a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect), it's left to Fallon -- and apparently Fallon alone -- to argue that, as he told Al Jazeera last fall: "This constant drumbeat of conflict...is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions."

What America needs, Fallon says, is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."

Those are fighting words to your average neocon -- not to mention your average supporter of Israel, a good many of whom in Washington seem never to have served a minute in uniform. But utter those words for print and you can easily find yourself defending your indifference to "nuclear holocaust."

How does Fallon get away with so brazenly challenging his commander in chief?

The answer is that he might not get away with it for much longer. President Bush is not accustomed to a subordinate who speaks his mind as freely as Fallon does, and the president may have had enough.

Just as Fallon took over Centcom last spring, the White House was putting itself on a war footing with Iran. Almost instantly, Fallon began to calmly push back against what he saw as an ill-advised action. Over the course of 2007, Fallon's statements in the press grew increasingly dismissive of the possibility of war, creating serious friction with the White House.

Last December, when the National Intelligence Estimate downgraded the immediate nuclear threat from Iran, it seemed as if Fallon's caution was justified. But still, well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way.

Apparently, this article cast too much doubt on Fallon's willingness to launch an unprovoked attacked on Iran, and as a result he was swiftly and effectively removed from his post (though this reasoning is obviously denied by the White House as are the allegations that the US is furiously planning for an attack). Naturally, a high-ranking commander who urges "restraint and diplomacy" when dealing with a country with which the Bush administration is obviously intent on picking a military fight, is not long for this world.

Journalist Mark Thompson, in his article for Time, while believing that Fallon's 'retirement' was due wholly to the incompatability of his views with those of the administration that signed his paychecks, ends the piece with somewhat of an optimistic coda to the story:

The betting inside the Pentagon is that despite Fallon's departure, war with Iran is no more likely next month than it was last month. The U.S. military, its hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan, could only engage in an air war against Iran's nuclear sites. The ramifications of attacking a third Muslim nation since 9/11 are so extreme, military officers believe, that no President would launch such a war in his final months in office.

I wonder when any ramifications and rationale have ever made their way into the previous decisions of the Bush administration and if an attack on Iran is truly out of the question, now or in the future (judging from the rhetoric of McCain, Clinton, and Obama).

As the Esquire piece itself asks, "Who will prevail, the president or the admiral?" The answer, unfortunately as always, is clear.

*****

Iran Crisis Nearing Climax

By Bill and Kathleen Christison

Time after time we have heard statements from Israeli officials, spokesmen of the Israel lobby in the U.S., and Israel’s supporters in Congress that Iran “must” never obtain nuclear weapons. On March 3, 2008, all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus nine of the ten non-permanent members approved a new round of sanctions against Iran. Chalk up the final vote of 14-0 with one abstention (the Muslim nation of Indonesia) as another victory at the U.N. for the Israel-U.S. partnership.

The spectacle of the five “permanents” in the antiquated Security Council hierarchy -- all of whom refuse to eliminate their own nuclear weapons -- adopting a double standard with respect to Iran does not, of course, raise more than a peep in the mainstream media of the U.S. Iran, a nation of proud people in a neighborhood of proud peoples, sees only absurdity in the discrimination against it when the nearby nations of India, Pakistan, and Israel have all developed their own nuclear weapons without the U.S. stopping them. Israel’s nuclear weapons program particularly sticks in the Iranian craw, because Iranians know that Israel, an enemy but a far smaller country, acquired nuclear weapons over 40 years ago, considerably earlier than either India or Pakistan. Most Iranians also know that Israel accomplished this only with public and/or private aid from the U.S. It’s all seen as just one more example of the U.S. favoring Israel and picking on Iran.

The issue of the moment is not even actual production of nuclear weapons by Iran, but the “enrichment” of natural uranium so that it contains a higher percentage of one particular uranium isotope, U-235, than is found in nature when the ore called “uranium” is first mined. Such enrichment provides the single most-difficult-to-obtain product used in most nuclear weapons. (In the natural state, the raw ore contains other uranium isotopes as well, and usually has by volume less than one percent U-235. When concentrated to around three percent U-235, the product is widely used in common forms of nuclear power reactors. When concentrated to much higher levels -- 90 percent is the figure often cited -- the product becomes the “weapons-grade” material used in nuclear weapons. The equipment used in this “enrichment” process is not only complicated to build, manage and maintain; it also requires large amounts of electric power to operate. But all of this is within the capabilities of numerous nations and, probably increasingly, some subnational groups as well.)

Iran now possesses, has tested, and is using all the equipment required, and it has the necessary electric power, to produce enriched uranium. It claims it has already reached an enrichment level of around four percent U-235 in early tests. It also claims that it does not want nuclear weapons and will use the enriched uranium only to produce larger amounts of electric power for the nation in a series of nuclear power plants. But if one chooses to believe that Iran really wants nuclear weapons, another element comes into the equation: the ease with which an enrichment operation can be converted to produce weapons-grade uranium. Various Western experts commonly believe that if a nation or group is capable of going from less than one percent to a three or four percent enrichment level, then the technical difficulties of moving from three or four to 90 percent enrichment are not at all major.

The actual design and manufacture of the explosive device, and then of a deliverable weapon, would not be a simple task, but neither would it be terribly difficult. Precise estimates of the time the entire process might take are generally useless. There are too many variables. All such estimates depend heavily on the types of delivery systems available, the degree of targeting accuracy demanded, and the redundancy, or lack, of safety features assumed necessary to prevent unauthorized or accidental use. But for Iran, a simple guess of three or four years probably would be in the ball park.

While the U.S. and other nations demand that Iran cease all production of enriched uranium, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) that came into effect in 1970 does not prevent anyone from enriching uranium for peaceful purposes. Iran, as already noted, claims that is all it is presently doing, and there is no hard evidence to the contrary. The U.S., however, and most other signatories of the treaty who already possess nuclear weapons have made no serious efforts to work toward global nuclear and general disarmament as called for in the NPT. The treaty, of course, has no timetable or deadlines in it. But the fact that the major powers who signed the treaty have not even begun multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament in 38 years gives Iran a good excuse, if it needs one, to abrogate its participation in the treaty. Some day Iran may do just that. The fact that Israel, India, and Pakistan, who have refused to sign the treaty from the start, have now become known nuclear powers, gives leaders in Teheran yet another excuse to get out of the NPT if it wishes.

While some U.S. empire builders talk about the need to change the global system, the world today is still composed of legally independent states where nationalism is the dominant force underlying relationships among states. In such a world, it is logical to assume that Iranian leaders either already secretly want nuclear weapons or will soon come to want them. They will not indefinitely accept that the smaller state of Israel has any greater right to nuclear weapons than they have. Nor will they even accept that the much larger U.S. has a greater right to such weapons. Short of being forced abjectly to surrender to the U.S.-Israeli partnership, no Iranian government leaders could accept such views.

The possibility of negotiating a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East (including Israel), or even, conceivably, a nuclear-free world, is often suggested as the only true final solution to the Middle East’s or the entire globe’s nuclear dilemma. And the people who make such suggestions can often cite polls or surveys showing that a majority of people everywhere support these ideas. The tragedy is that at the moment there is simply not enough trust among the governments of the globe, or even within one region thereof. Take the United States alone, or the U.S.-Israel partnership. It is inconceivable that the present government of either partner would be able even to begin negotiations on eliminating its nuclear weapons, no matter what the possible benefits might be. The same would apply to China, Russia, Britain, France, India, and Pakistan to greater or lesser degrees.

Even in this time of distrust, however, the U.N. should set up a permanent conference of ambassador-level experts on Disarmament and Global Crises. Once it is up and running, spokespeople for this conference should direct public attention on a daily basis to the relationship between arms spending and the three major crises facing the globe -- the energy, climate, and water crises that will make it increasingly necessary for the peoples of the world to work together in overcoming the crises and drastically cutting back the outrageous and wasteful military expenditures of too many nations. The immediate task of the conferenceshould be to define areas of agreement and disagreement on disarmament and on the other three issues in different regions of the world. The chairperson should be a very senior U.N. official, and the unusual feature of the conference -- its permanence -- should receive great emphasis on every public occasion.

It is likely that before long new and unforeseen developments will occur in one or more of the three crises that will intensify thinking among at least some people about the wastefulness of present military spending. Costly new difficulties in any of the three areas might even lead in fairly short order to a rolling snowball of global opposition and disgust over new nuclear spending. No one can foresee how great will be the changes in daily life caused by the three crises but we should, as best we can, work to make the changes add to rather than detract from harmony among the world’s peoples. We should all specifically try to use these crises to encourage everyone to think first as citizens of the world, only second as citizens of a particular nation or region.

But none of this deals with the present -- or with the remaining months of Bush’s presidency. Since the present group of Republicans and copycat Democrats in Congress refuses to impeach Bush and Cheney, the danger of a war against Iran instigated by the U.S. and Israel remains real. The overextended state of U.S. ground forces, and Bush’s probable willingness to treat at least small nuclear weapons as ordinary weapons, mean that a war would possibly not be a ground war at all, but would begin with large air attacks and early use of nuclear weapons. While the longer term results of using nuclear weapons would be utterly disastrous, both for the world and for the U.S., the immediate results might be seen as a quick and cheap victory for the U.S. If the apparent military victory occurred before the November 2008 U.S. election, it would probably guarantee a Republican electoral victory. Given Bush’s interest in his own place in history, such a scenario could easily appeal to his gambling instincts.

Noise, and lots of it, seems to be the only weapon we have to make it less likely that such a scenario actually happens. Let’s make that noise, do it globally, and do it every day. Pound out the message through every medium we can access, including music and literature, that ordinary people around the world DO NOT WANT THE U.S. AND ISRAEL TO KILL A SINGLE PERSON IN IRAN, regardless of the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Bill Christison was a senior official of the CIA. He served as a National Intelligence officer and as director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis.

Kathleen Christison is a former CIA political analyst and has worked on Middle East issues for 35 years. She is the author of Perceptions of Palestine and The Wound of Dispossession.

*****

Make War, Not Love:A How-To Guide for Avoiding Impeachment

It is truly the evidence of a grim reality and the troubling state of our society when powerful, arrogant, and adulterous men face harsher scrutiny and penalties than those well-known and proven to be, not only the most corrupt, pathologically deceptive and imperialistic, but guilty of the very highest crimes and most treasonous misdemeanors in this nation's almost 232 years. The latter characters promote bigotry and fear, commit and encourage genocide, torture, and ethnic cleansing, and destroy the civil and human rights of millions of this world's citizens with impunity and without any sort of retribution, regret, or remorse. The former folks, the ones who cheat on their wives with overweight interns and high-priced hookers, are the ones who get impeached.

With the recent news of New York State governor Eliot Spitzer's ridiculously boneheaded indiscretions, especially in light of his past efforts to strengthen laws against prostitution with the added bonus of stiffening penalties (pun intended?) for the Johns involved in these escort rackets, the only question I can really raise is this:

Are we to believe that whenever someone with a high level of authority, be it say political or religious, rails adamantly against something, the real message is that he is actually guilty of that very thing he admonishes?

Let's see here: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Yes, indeed he did. People like Larry Craig and Ted Haggard, who notoriously and viciously lash out against homosexuals and same-sex marriage are, in fact, totally gay. Mark Foley, who fought aggressively against child abuse, molestation, and exploitation, was actually a big fan of pedophilia. Does this mean that soon we will all find out that Alan Dershowitz is actually Palestinian? Now, wouldn't that turn his ethnic-supremacist face red?

If the opposite is often true in regards to the passionate principles of many politicians, does that mean that when George Bush speaks of the 'War on Terror,' he's really aware that he has been waging a war of terror?

Spitzer was warned by New York Assembly Republican Minority Leader James Tedisco, earlier this week, that "If he does not resign within the next 24 to 48 hours, we will prepare articles of impeachment to remove him." And Spitzer resigned today, effective Monday March 17th. These threats of impeachment against a man who betrayed the trust of his family and community by paying (a whole heap of money) for sex, or the actual impeachment process over a sitting president lying about getting a blowjob, seem to signal one thing in American politics: The fist-pumping, hoarse-throated calls for impeachment and resignation are apparently reserved for adulterous and secretive sexual acts committed by elected politicians.

We can put things in official Clue terms to see what's really going on here:

NY Governor in DC hotel room with a hooker.

vs.

US President in Iraq with an illegal occupying army.

One of these actions is an impeachable offense. The other, it seems, isn't.

The Benefits of Decimation Over Copulation

This country has far more of a problem with the sexual behavior rather than the imperial behavior of its political leaders. Apparently being a member of the Emperor's Club VIP is an offense too great to recover from, whereas actually attempting to be an emperor isn't really that bad. Lying a country into an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation that, a week from today, will enter its sixth year isn't impeachable. Banging "Kristen," the prostitution agency's "petite, pretty brunette," for $4,300 during a trip to Washington DC on February 13th is impeachable. And yet, throughout all this, impeachment proceedings are nowhere close to being discussed for Dick Cheney and the other architects of the imperialism and genocide committed by this country and the utter destruction of the Constitution over the past seven years by anyone other than perhaps Congressman Robert Wexler.

Obama, Clinton, and McCain can travel around the country talking about maintaining a substantial troop presence (of varying, however minor, degrees depending on who's speaking) in Iraq, praising the past and ensuring the future decimation of Afghanistan, all with the twinkling-eyed and tittering excitement of a potential bombing of Iran. Obama, our supposed 'anti-war' candidate is the one advocating the redistribution of military personnel from Iraq to Afghanistan and has oft-repeated his belief that the invasion of Afghanistan was, in fact, a rational and just decision. None of the three remaining candidates has said, unequivocally, that s/he will refuse to engage militarily with Iran and all have maintained that "all options remain on the table." But when pressed on his own views about the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, Obama stated that impeachment in their case is 'unacceptable.' He elaborated,

"I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority."

Did I miss something in the past seven years? Proven lies, countless scandals, the gross neglect of an entire US city's population after a natural disaster, obstructing justice, sanctioning torture, illegal spying, bombing, invading, and occupying, murdering, fear-mongering, committing grievous war crimes, and threatening to do it all over again apparently aren't enough to be deemed 'breaches of executive authority,' according to someone running for the position of having that exact same authority? Sounds great, at least we'll know what to expect from the new guard.

Basically, in this glorious nation we call home (whilst trying our best to keep the bile from rising up our gullets as we do so), it is perfectly clear that getting laid by a hooker is worse, far worse, than getting paid by Halliburton. American society must be so desensitized to violence, that waging war on foreigners isn't seen as that big a deal. But extra-marital affairs?! Oh heavens no! Not from someone we're supposed to respect! How dare he! Why couldn't he just be a good boy and murder some Muslims?

No one dies when Eliot Spitzer makes a bad decision to call an escort service. It is a personal tragedy for him and his family, a real way to ruin a good life. But the bad decisions, the aggressive policies, and the active crusades of this past administration have affected the lives of millions, if not billions, of people on this planet and have directly and deliberately killed, wounded, displaced, and destroyed millions more. The obliteration of two countries and continued annihilation of human lives and the destruction of entire families, all due to illegal invasions, seems to me to be a much more punishable offense. If only George Bush had fucked a whore while on one of his alcohol-fueled cocaine binges of yore, this world might just be a safer place today.

Alas, it seems that too much time is spent scrutinizing other people's handjobs and not enough time examining each other's bloody palms.

*****

On Gaza, a Yeshiva, and the Opening Shots of the Third Intifada

This past week, the world has certainly seen a severe and horrific escalation of violence and brutality in Palestine/Israel. What is most striking to me, though, is how differently the news media reports Israeli deaths in contrast to Palestinian deaths. It should go without saying that any type of murder, from military incursion to machine gun and sniper fire to rubber bullets to air raid bombings to rocket fire to deliberate starvation to suicide attacks and so on, is terrible and deserves international condemnation. The killing of children, women, and men is always a tragedy, whenever and wherever it occurs. What should also been acknowledged, I think, is that certain lives are not more precious than others, despite what the media may lead you to believe.

Last weekend, over 130 Palestinians, about a quarter of whom were children, were killed by Israeli Occupation Force operations in Gaza and finding any real news coverage about it from the mainstream news outlets proved oddly difficult. Later in the week, it appeared that only British news sources even reported on the recent findings that living conditions in Gaza itself has reached a 40-year low, the worst since Israel first occupied the territory in 1967. Then yesterday, a gunman killed eight Israeli students at a school in West Jerusalem and the story has blanketed the network, cable, radio, and print news sources ever since - with big, sprawling headlines rife with cries of "terror" and "carnage" and "savage attack." Stating that 130 versus 8 is worse isn't the point. Any single death is awful. As citizens of the world, we should all agree on that. But what should not be ignored, and all too often has been and continues to be, is the fact that Palestinians and Israelis do not live their lives on an equal footing, these are not two even sides that both engage in hostile and violent exchanges, each claiming self-defense and a right to exist. Palestine is an occupied territory. It is occupied by the Israeli army and has been for over forty years. (The actual existence of "Israel" for almost sixty years is another topic altogether, but would only serve to further my point.) Palestinians are currently a population of open-air prison inmates, subject to the will, disdain, discrimination, and violence of the Israeli government and military. To argue that "militants" targeting civilians is more devious and nastier than a uniformed army firing sophisticated missiles into civilian neighborhoods of a besieged and starving refugee camp reveals a bias that is rampant and common in this country today.

As Ali Abunimah, so succinctly puts it,

The fallacy that lies behind the differential concern for the lives of innocent Israelis and Palestinians is that the massacre in Jerusalem and the massacres in Gaza can be separated. Israeli deaths are "terrorism," while Palestinian deaths are merely an unfortunate consequence of the fight against "terrorism." But the two are intricately linked, and what happened in Jerusalem is a direct consequence of what Israel has been doing to the Palestinians for decades.

What is most unfortunate, besides the tragic loss of life, about the recent events at the Mercaz Harav seminary is that, not only will it serve to justify more horrendous attacks by Israel upon Palestinians, but it may wind up being used as a justification for Israel's militaristic society as a whole. The school itself, located in the Kiryat Moshe quarter of Jerusalem, demonstrates the melding of Israeli nationalism and the Jewish religion than furthers the rampant militarism of Zionist ideals, under the guise of patriotism and piety. The gunman responsible for the eight Israeli deaths yesterday was himself gunned down by students at the school. The fact that students themselves were carrying weapons at a religious seminary speaks to how deep the Zionist synergy of Judaism and soldiery permeates, and quite possibly defines, Israeli society.

(Incidentally, an Arab professor at Sapir College in Sderot was recently dismissed from his job for requesting that a student - who also serves in the Israeli military - not bring his gun to and refrain from wearing his uniform in his class. The situation caused such an uproar that the college president, Zeev Tzahor, wrote to the professor demanding an apology, in which "you must refer to your obligation to be respectful to the IDF uniform and the full right of every student to enter your classroom in uniform." When Prof. Hassan refused to meet this demand due to his view that all uniforms, be they Israeli, Fatah or Hamas, are symbols of violence and therefore not welcome in his classroom, the college began proceedings to dismiss him. You can read all about this in Jonathan Cook's article, Academic Freedom? Not for Arabs in Israel.)

Another important piece of information to note is that the Mercaz Harav seminary stands at the very center of the Zionist ideological movement. BBC Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen reports that "the school is at the heart of the settler movement in the occupied West Bank [which] may have been the reason why it was targeted. Many of its students are on special courses that combine religious study with service in combat units in the Israeli army."

Judith Norman of Jewish Peace News cogently and concisely articulates the tragedy and context of these recent events:

As has been widely reported, a gunman in Jerusalem opened fire at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva yesterday, killing 8 students (most of them children) and wounding at least 9. At a time like this, there are two different sets responsibilities to the victims: one is to mourn the brutal deaths of these boys and young men. At the same time, we need to work to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, which requires us to understand the context in which this act of terrorism occurred. Failing to understand this atrocity within the overall context of the occupation reinforces the right-wing line that Palestinian violence is motivated simply by anti-Semitism, blood hatred, or Biblical feuds.

Although the gunman’s specific motives are unclear, this killing comes at a moment that the New York Times somewhat delicately describes as a time of “tension”. Israel’s latest attack on Gaza has left over 130 Palestinians dead, half of them civilians. Just yesterday, a 20 day-old infant was buried after being shot in the head by Israeli soldiers. Another contextualizing factor is the nature of the yeshiva where the attack took place, a key institution in the militant settlers’ movement, which has been stealing land from Palestinians in the occupied territories for decades, believing God intended the land for Jews.

These horrific killings are utterly unjustifiable, and Hamas’ praise for the operation is both contemptible and chilling. It is important not to let this sort illegitimate act of terrorist violence obscure the legitimate and urgent grievances of the Palestinian people under occupation and in exile. It is vital to keep this in mind, because whatever the specific motivations of the gunman might have been, terrorist violence like this is almost always a symptom of Israel’s expansionist policies and is unlikely to end until the occupation is over.

In conjunction with George Bush's declaration of a new 'peace process' and the promise of a lasting solution by the end of this year, it appears that 2008 may in fact be a year of increased bloodshed and the further destruction of hope for both Palestinians and Israelis. Justice is a rare commodity in a supposed struggle for existence and security and a rise in violence and vengeance will see a corresponding decrease in rationality, sympathy, and understanding. The occupation will intensify and become more brutal and dehumanizing, a besieged and displaced people will suffer more than they already have, a resistance movement will grow and gain momentum through both violent and non-violent acts, a deeply militarized and colonial culture will feel victimized and seek revenge by excessive force. Animosity will solidify and future generations of both sides will continue to learn hate and distrust. Hundreds, if not, thousands more will die. And still there will be no justice, no peace, and no hope. A mutually declared and enforced ceasefire is the very first step of a very difficult process of ending the occupation. As long as Israel continues to infiltrate the Occupied Territories, killing dozens of men, women, and children, the Palestinian resistance will not stop fighting, nor should it. One of these sides has the full and unconditional backing of the world's most dominant and destructive superpower, the other doesn't isn't allowed to control its own water supply. One side feels victimized by history and has, in turn, been victimizing others for sixty years. A lot needs to change before Palestine will be free and Israelis will feel safe...and almost all of it is ideology, mostly in the form of religious colonialism and frustrated nationalism.

But in the meantime, let's not forgot, it is not Israel that is occupied, it is Palestine. This need not be about "us" or "them" (whomever you happen to identify with)...it's about everyone. And, at this rate, we're all going to lose.

*****

For more insightful commentary and analysis, including information on the newly-leaked covert US government's plan to overthrow the legitimate Palestinian leadership and instigate a civil war, please read the following articles:

03.07.08 - A Defeated Policy, Not a Defeated People by Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada

03.07.08 - Islamic Organisation Condemns Jerusalem Attack report by IC Publications

03.06.07 - The Gaza Bombshell by David Rose, Vanity Fair (April 2008 issue)

03.05.07 - To Blame the Victims... by Seumus Milne, The Guardian (UK)

*****

The Coalition Against the Gaza Siege
Press Release, March 7, 2008

Bloodshed does not compensate for bloodshed - Ceasefire Now!

The Coalition Against the Gaza Siege calls for an immediate end to the killing and violence, on both sides of the conflict. Bloodshed does not compensate for bloodshed, and revenge is no solution.

Any attack on, wounding or killing of unarmed civilians - as happened in the attack on the Merkaz HaRav Yeshiva as during the IDF attacks and bombings of Gaza and in the shooting of missiles at Sderot, Ashkelon and the Western Negev - must end forthwith.

It is the civilians on both sides who are exposed to harm and who pay the full price for the manoeuvres of the political and military leaderships. We call upon the leaderships, of both sides, including all organizations and parties, to cease all violence immediately.

We call upon the international community and the world public opinion to firmly demand an end to the mutual killing and bloodshed.

In order to achieve that, we call for a full and mutual ceasefire, as a first step negotiating an end to the occupation and an end to the conflict between the two peoples, to a full peace which is the only hope for our future.

*****

THE NEW HOLOCAUST: There's No Business Like Shoah Business

©Latuff 2006

Genocide is happening. There was a massacre this weekend. Innocent people are being slaughtered daily. Murder is not 'collateral damage.' And the world does nothing, except spin the reporting so that 112 dead Palestinians is a fair trade for 3 Israelis. So that bombs fall indiscriminately on homes, killing entire families in a moment. Widespread murder with impunity while the world decries rocket fire that has caused a few scratches. Men, women, and children dead at the hands of a brutal occupying army. The Israeli government promised a holocaust, and they're delivering.

Omar Barghouti of the Electronic Intifada reports,

On Friday, 29 February 2008, Israel's deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai threatened Palestinians in Gaza with a "holocaust," telling Israeli Army Radio: "The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, [the Palestinians] will bring upon themselves a bigger holocaust because we will use all our might to defend ourselves."

This date will go down in history as the beginning of a new phase in the colonial conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, whereby a senior Israeli leader, a "leftist" for that matter, has publicly revealed the genocidal plans Israel is considering to implement against Palestinians under its military occupation, if they do not cease to resist its dictates. It will also mark the first time since World War II that any state has relentlessly -- and on live TV -- terrorized a civilian population with acts of slow, or low-intensity, genocide, with one of its senior government officials overtly inciting to a full-blown "holocaust," while the world stood by, watching in utter apathy, or in glee, as in the case of leading western leaders.

For an Israeli leader who is Jewish, in particular, to threaten anyone with holocaust is a sad irony of history. Are victims of unspeakable crimes invariably doomed to turn into appalling criminals?

Abused children often grow up to, in turn, abuse their own children. The offspring of racists usually become racists themselves. From this terrible cycle there seem to be few ways out. Whereas abuse victims can seek help from psychotherapy and support groups, the case of nation-states is somewhat different. Help needs to come from external forces, such as international involvement (perhaps in the form of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions) and worldwide condemnation.

(It is startling to realize how little is said about an Israeli leader threatening a new shoah upon an oppressed and occupied people, while a brand new set of sanctions has been placed upon the peaceful nation of Iran - a country that, at the absolute worst, is trying to arm themselves against an imminent attack by the world's two most aggressive and militaristic powers, who have surrounded Iran with hostile regimes, nuclear weaponry, and ground troops, but is much more likely to be legally pursuing its UN-approved right to gain alternative energy. President Ahmadinejad was misquoted as threatening to "wipe Israel off the map," causing a hysterical uproar that has since affected the economy and international reputation of the entire country, whereas not a peep is heard in the US media about the actual articulation - and past, present, and future indications of intention and implementation - of a real holocaust visited upon a harassed, forcibly displaced and relocated, disenfranchised and demonized refugee population by an Israeli official.)

Alas, news reports on what is actually happening are hard to find. Yesterday, browsing the websites of CNN, BBC, and MSNBC one would have had to delve a bit to find any mention of the current situation in Gaza. And even when an article could be located, the headline often betrayed an Israeli bias. Article titles often mentioned the Israeli "anti-rocket offensive" and the Palestinian "suspension of peace talks." We are supposed to believe that a victimized Israel is forced to kill civilians in a noble attempt to stop the evil Arabs from firing rockets at its innocent citizens. Israel's hands are tied, we are told. Civilian casualties are "the price of war," Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says. The major media buries Palestinian death tolls while shouting that Abbas has halted peace talks - yet another way to blame Palestine for Israel's actions. "They're the ones that don't want peace," Israel seems to scream as they disregard the constant Hamas ceasefire offers and fire missiles into apartment buildings and wipes out entire families.

And still, the focus remains on what the Palestinians are doing wrong. A BBC report today states that "neither the international appeals nor the Israeli crackdown stopped the barrage of rockets. More than 25 were launched on Sunday, and at least two more reached the city of Ashkelon on Monday after the Israeli withdrawal."

Yes, you read that correctly, 25 Palestinian rockets fired at Israel is called a barrage, but a weekend when over 100 people lose their lives by bomb and gunfire is referred to as a "military operation" and a "campaign in response to the firing of rockets from Gaza." Israel killed more than four times the number of rockets that were fired by Palestine. They didn't kill four times the number of people (for each Israeli killed, Israel killed about 40 Gazans and injured hundreds more), mind you, they killed four times the number of rockets fired. I repeat: the Israeli Occupying Forces murdered about four people for each individual rocket fired at Sderot and Ashkelon. How's that for what the EU called a "disproportionate use of force" by Israel?

A report by The New York Times clearly shows how spin is utilized in order to paint the Palestinians as crazy extremists and Israelis as frightened, shivering innocents:

The increase in violence started Wednesday when five members of the Qassam Brigades were killed in an Israeli airstrike in southern Gaza. Israeli military officials said that the squad had intended to carry out a special operation against Israel, possibly involving infiltrating the border and capturing a soldier.

Militants in Gaza responded by firing barrages of rockets at Sderot, killing an Israeli civilian, the first such fatality in months. On Thursday they started launching longer-range, manufactured Katyusha-style rockets at Ashkelon, a city of 120,000 people about 10 miles north of the Gaza Strip.

Israeli officials described the firing of the longer-range rockets as a serious escalation of the conflict, and they mounted a ground and air campaign in northern Gaza that left more than 60 Palestinians dead on Saturday.

In Gaza City on Sunday, two more bodies were pulled out of a house that was bombed by the Israeli air force the day before, bringing the number of fatalities there to six. One member of the family was known to be a member of the Qassam Brigades. Ahed Atallah, a family member who was not in the house at the time, said that only he and a married sister had survived.

Late Sunday afternoon, militants fired two more missiles into Ashkelon, one of which damaged a house, the police said. The residents escaped unharmed.

Three hours earlier, Meram Levy, 30, a mother of two young children, was carrying shards of broken glass out of her apartment after a longer-range rocket had landed outside before dawn on Saturday, shattering all the windows.

"At night I'm very scared," Ms. Levy said. She and her husband are now sleeping in shifts, she said, to listen out for the alert on the city's new public address system.

The popular Ashkelon marina was also hit by a rocket on Saturday afternoon, lightly wounding two local residents. Pini Biton, who owns a restaurant at the marina, said the militants in Gaza had "crossed all the red lines." The outdoor cafes and bars there were empty at lunchtime Sunday, despite the fine weather.

The fact that the rockets had reached Ashkelon made Israelis realize that "they can get anywhere," Mr. Biton said.

So, as we can see, Palestinians are militants out for revenge and Israelis are scared shop-owners just trying to live in peace. The blindness to such bias and bigotry is astounding and catastrophic. In a new article, journalist Rami Almeghari reports,

Fourteen Israelis have been killed by the crude rockets since Palestinian resistance began firing them in 2001, while approximately 300 Palestinians were killed just in the few months since the renewed peace process was declared in Annapolis in November of last year. Nearly 5,000 Palestinian men, women and children have been killed since 2000, all "terrorists" in the eyes of Israeli intelligence chief Yuval Diskin.

Though he may have passed on, the words of deceased Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat ring ever true thirty years since he uttered them: "Those who call us terrorists wish to prevent world public opinion from discovering the truth about us and from seeing the justice on our faces. They seek to hide the terrorism and tyranny of their acts, and our own posture of self-defense."

As long as Israel is seen as a perpetual victim (by themselves and the rest of the world) rather than the actual pursuer and perpetrator of hostilities and genocide, there will be no justice. And in the place of justice, there will be only death.

*****

Self-Deception and ‘Restraint’ in Israel

by Gideon Levy | Haaretz | 3 March 2008

Even yesterday evening, after the IDF already had killed about 50 Palestinians, at least half of them unarmed, and including quite a number of women and children, Jerusalem continued to claim, “At present there will be no major ground operation.” It’s incredible: The IDF penetrates the heart of a crowded refugee camp, kills in a terrifyingly wholesale manner, with horrible bloodshed, and Israel continues to disseminate the lie of restraint. Two days earlier Israel killed more Palestinians than have been killed by all the Qassams over the past seven years. Among the dead were four children and an infant. The next day Israel killed another five boys. And who is the victim? Israel. And who is cruel? The Palestinians.

This victimhood is not new, nor is our self-deception. The current lie: ‘restraint.’ Israel is demonstrating ‘restraint’ in the face of the Qassams; this assertion continues to spur the commentators and security experts to urge it to embark on the anticipated ‘major operation.’ But this operation began long ago. It reached its peak yesterday.

Our desperate attempt to have our cake and eat it, too, to claim that there is no ‘major operation’ at a time when the IDF is killing dozens every day, is nothing new. It has existed since the days of the ‘enlightened occupation’ and ‘purity of arms,’ through ‘the major operation that has yet to begin’ - all of them impossible desires. A senior minister who was asked last week about the siege on Gaza replied: ‘Occupation of Gaza is less moral.’ In this way, we have once again established ourselves a relative and distorted values system, with no absolute morality, only a double standard. Behind every action of ours in Gaza, even the terrible one this weekend, hides an option that is even worse. The fact that we are not yet carrying it out helps us to present ourselves in a positive light, to boast how moral we are.

During the past two years, we have killed almost 900 Gaza residents. About half of them were people who did not take part in the fighting. That is how restraint looks. At a time when we are counting the Qassams and their victims, in Gaza they are counting the dead. Presenting things as though we have not yet entered Gaza or “beaten the hell out of Gaza” is meant to deceive. Yes, more can be done.

Imagine if the Palestinians were to kill dozens of Israelis, including women and children, in one week, as the IDF did. What an international outcry we would raise, and justifiably. Only in our own eyes can we still adhere to our restrained, forbearing image. All the talk about the ‘major operation’ is designed to achieve only one goal: to show it is possible to be even more violent and cruel.

That is an extremely pathetic consolation. The siege, the assassinations and the raid this weekend are terrifying enough. The claim that as opposed to them, we do not intend to kill children and citizens, is also overused and deceptive. The gun sights of Israeli weaponry are sophisticated. If the Palestinians had Apache helicopters and sophisticated drones like ours, we can assume that they would choose more strategic targets than the yard of a hospital in Ashkelon or a parking lot in Sderot. The Qassam is the weapon of the poor and helpless.

In the South, a war of attrition is taking place between the strong and the weak. It will not be stopped by military means. It is therefore surprising and depressing to see the uniform chorus of the residents of the Western Negev, city dwellers and kibbutzniks, the direct victims, in favor of the IDF’s pointless fighting. How is it that in the entire South, not a single different voice can be heard, calling for a change in direction? How is it that no group of Sderot residents, yes, they of all people, is shouting in protest? Demonstrating in the city squares, not in favor of more of the same, but in favor of a different, much more promising approach? After all, they are the ones who are paying the heavy price, and they should be the first to see what the residents of the center of the country cannot see.?

The residents of Sderot, and now Ashkelon as well, have to look and see beyond the fence that is meant to protect them, and is imprisoning their neighbors. To understand that as long as things are so bad there, things will be bitter for them as well. That as long as we don’t talk to them, nothing will change. They, who know that every assassination is followed by the ‘Color Red’ Qassam alert, fear and anxiety, who know that dozens of assassinations have not improved their lives at all, that the present raid will not help either, should be the pioneers who bring about the change we need?

A large operation is now at its height. It has not helped at all so far; it will never help. Neither will the siege, the assassinations, the raids or the bombings. Perhaps the good will originate from the South, and someone there will call for something else?

*****

The Abominations of the Obama Nation

It seems that every time Barack Obama does something that would gain him a little bit of respect in my eyes, it's followed up by something else that's totally abhorrent. And that's really frustrating.

Early this week on Democracy Now!, Samantha Power, Obama's senior foreign policy advisor, spoke with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez about some of Barack's platforms. Whereas it was good to see that a candidate had such a lucid and knowledgeable advisor, it struck me that Obama's biggest claim to the false label of "progressivism" is his stated willingness to meet with world leaders without any pre-conditions whatsoever - a stance that has gained him a fair share of criticism by the more racist, xenophobic, and bellicose elements of this country. As Powers states about Obama,

He doesn’t think that meeting with the president of the United States is a reward you get for good behavior. He thinks that by being in the room, you actually identify whether there are sources of agreement.

Yes, sure, great. Whoopty-doo. He thinks that talking to world leaders is the duty of a United States president. Fantastic. I agree with him (because it is). But this makes him stand out as liberal? Willing and able diplomacy is now the benchmark for being a progressive (how progressive is leaving all military options 'on the table' during these unconditional talks)?

I really don't think that this standpoint should be the cause of such celebration when Obama's actual positions speak to much more of the same violent and aggressive foreign policy that we've had for the past decade and a half.

Obama's fan base seems to relish his so-called "progressive" status among the remaining candidates, but he deserves that label as much as Crassus could have been called the peacenik of the First Roman Triumvirate. Just because Curly was more endearing to the audience and had better comic timing than Moe or Larry (or Shemp), doesn't mean they're not all of them Stooges. And yes, in this example, Mike Huckabee is, of course, Shemp.

Willingness to meet with foreign leaders aside, I wonder how Obama continues to inspire the gaggles of giddy go-getters who are so enthusiastic about his campaign. Are they actually listening to him, or are "hope" and "change" the newest form of earplugs - wadded up buzz words that stuff up people's concha like cotton balls so that the sounds of real policy can't enter the ear canal for decoding?

At a time when the United States is the unquestionable greatest threat to (and active destroyer of) world peace and its closest ally one of the foremost perpetrator of human rights violations as well as being a brutal occupying force responsible for the deaths of over 200 people (including many women and children) since the resumption of "peace talks" three months ago, it seems a bit unconscionable to ramp up aggressive rhetoric against a country like Iran, which has not threatened or attacked any other nation in hundreds of years and is legally allowed to develop nuclear energy. The obvious pandering of Obama to Israel and against Iran is striking, especially at a time when Iran could almost single-handedly stabilize Iraq and Israel is truly pursuing a strategy best described as Neo-Shoahism in Gaza. As the ever-brilliant Kathleen and Bill Christison point out,

Obama has taken an extremely immoral stand on the Palestinian-Israeli issue by, among other positions, actually applauding Israel's siege and starvation of 1.5 million innocent Gazans, and by mourning Israel's losses to Palestinian rocket fire (12 people in seven years) without bothering even to mention the approximately 2,600 Gazans killed by Israeli rocket fire, airstrikes, and assassinations in those same seven years.

It seems that Obama's reactions to personal attacks, as well as international ones, are always a bit off the mark. In response to the appalling "accusations" of his being a Muslim (which apparently is now a crime by American standards), Obama has not considered the notion that such an attack on his character should not actually even be an attack on anyone's character, whether the allegations are true or not. Rather, he has done everything in his power to prove his devout Christianity and bolster his solidarity with the American (and Israeli) Jewish community, constantly reaffirming his fundamental opposition to the Palestinian Right of Return while stating that, to him, Israel's own security is "sacrosanct." He has never addressed the fact that at the heart of the Obama-is-a-Muslim "smear" campaign against him is really the confirmation that the United States is truly a deeply racist and bigoted country. Obama should condemn the attack, not because it gets his personal history and religious affiliations wrong, but because it inherently, implicitly, automatically, and categorically assumes that praying in a mosque or potentially being inspired by the words of Mohammad is on par, if not worse, than being accused of pederasty, adulterous gang rape, flip-flopping or, as in Shemp's preferred circles, atheism and evolution. Naomi Klein, in an excellent new piece in the Nation, explains,

[Muslims] are watching their culture used as a crude bludgeon against Obama, while the candidate who is the symbol of racial harmony fails to defend them. This at a time when US Muslims are bearing the brunt of the Bush Administration's assaults on civil liberties, including dragnet wiretapping, and are facing a documented spike in hate crimes.

Obama should really respond to racist propaganda by condemning the propaganda for being racist, not by disassociating himself with the victims.

Basically, I'm still waiting to hear a single compelling argument for actually voting for Barack Obama come November...something other than "He's not Hillary."

(By the way, on the heels of an illuminating article by Jeremy Scahill regarding Obama's refusing to rule out the continued employment of private security contractors in Iraq, Clinton has just announced that she is now co-sponsoring legislation to "ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.")

*****

Count Me Out

The Obama Craze

By Matt Gonzalez | Counterpunch | 29 February 2008

Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.

Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn't much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama's voting record, and I'm afraid to say I'm not just uninspired: I'm downright fearful. Here's why:

This is a candidate who says he's going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.

But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I'd like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.

THE WAR IN IRAQ

Let's start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.

First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage.
The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute." The Tribune went on to say that Obama, "now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation ? a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."

Obama's campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn't he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he's done just that.

Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration's various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of "Operation Iraqi Liberation" the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.

And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman "his mentor" and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called "Bush's closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War." Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?

Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn't actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.

At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to "carry out our counter-terrorism activities there" which includes "striking at al Qaeda in Iraq." What he didn't say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to "redeploy" the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama's plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.

This is hardly a position to get excited about.

CLASS ACTION REFORM:

In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts.

By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the "reform" was a thinly-veiled "special interest extravaganza" that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, "Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop "frivolous" lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill's real objective was to protect corporate abusers."

Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: "On its face, the class-action bill is mere procedural tinkering, transferring from state to federal court actions involving more than $5 million where any plaintiff is from a different state from the defendant company. But federal courts are much more hostile to class actions than their state counterparts; such cases tend to be rooted in the finer points of state law, in which federal judges are reluctant to dabble. And even if federal judges do take on these suits, with only 678 of them on the bench (compared with 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets will grow. Thus, the bill will make class actions ? most of which involve discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations ? all but impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits were filed against Wal-Mart for allegedly forcing employees to work "off the clock," four state courts certified these suits as class actions. Not a single federal court did so, although the practice probably involves hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide."

Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it harder for working-class people ( Or the people of Hunter Point suing Lennar) to have their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?

CREDIT CARD INTEREST RATES:

Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.

Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling too high. His explanation isn't credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative, and didn't put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found objectionable.

Why wouldn't Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him. For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome.

LIMITING NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES:

These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama aligns himself with Republican Party interests aren't new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully recover for pain and suffering or for punitive damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were already empowered to adjust awards when appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court had previously ruled such limits on tort reform violated the state constitution.

In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering with patients' full recovery for tortious conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting patients' economic recovery. Rather than simply mandating disclosure, Obama's solution is to trade what should be mandated for something that should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured patient.

MINING LAW OF 1872:

In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by Ulysses Grant, allows mining companies to pay a nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine for hardrock minerals like gold, silver, and copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits for mining hardrock on public lands is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion a year according to Earthworks, a group that monitors the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when it comes to lobbying: an estimated $60 million between 1998-2004 according to The Center on Public Integrity. And it appears to be paying off, yet again.

The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 would have finally overhauled the law and allowed American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers over $50 million, and addressed health and safety concerns in the 11 affected western states.

Later it came to light that one of Obama's key advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies (CBS News "Obama's Position On Mining Law Questioned. Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him," November 14, 2007).

REGULATING NUCLEAR INDUSTRY:

The New York Times reported that, while campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama boasted that he had passed a bill requiring nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive leaks. This came after residents of his home state of Illinois complained they were not told of leaks that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corporation.

The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the bill to be amended in Committee by Senate Republicans, replacing language mandating reporting with verbiage that merely offered guidance to regulators on how to address unreported leaks. The story noted that even this version of Obama's bill failed to pass the Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming to have passed the legislation. The February 3, 2008 The New York Times article titled "Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate" by Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of Obama's constituents, which was hardly enthusiastic about Obama's legislative efforts:

"Senator Obama's staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft," said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. "The teeth were just taken out of it."

As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: "Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama's campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers."

ENERGY POLICY:

On energy policy, it turns out Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow. It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are required to produce eight barrels of corn ethanol, according to research by the Cato Institute. Ethanol's impact on climate change is nominal and isn't "green" according to Alisa Gravitz, Co-op America executive director. "It simply isn't a major improvement over gasoline when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions." A 2006 University of Minnesota study by Jason Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. (There's even concern that a reliance on corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.)

So why would Obama be touting this as a solution to our oil dependency? Could it have something to do with the fact that the first presidential primary is located in Iowa, corn capital of the country? In legislative terms this means Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money should have been committed to alternative energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind.

SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE:

Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Obama's own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. "Sicko" filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, "Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place."

NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT:

Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, "I don't think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have." Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama's record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that comment to be misleading: "In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent's call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers."

Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice known as "pole-vaulting" over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid "right to organize," "minimum wage," and other worker protections.

SOME FINAL EXAMPLES:

On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, America's pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein he disavowed his previous support for the plight of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided history of the region and called for continued military support for Israel, rather than taking the opportunity to promote the various peace movements in and outside of Israel.

Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn't have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)

Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)

On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he's campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he'd employ a different border solution.

It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.

Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president ("Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable," USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn't even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold's effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Feingold's words "I'm amazed at Democrats cowering with this president's number's so low." Once again, it's troubling that Obama would take these positions and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime.

CONCLUSION:

Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about "change" and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.

I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama's style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I'm glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.

Matt Gonzalez is a former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is running on Nader's ticket as a vice presidential candidate.