Barack Obama

Perhaps, the banking cartel families selected the candidates Americans elected in a ritual of democracy intended to provide legitimacy and a public narrative to conceal the true nature of power politics/economics on this planet.

This actually seems to be the case with European politicians also. Remember the European 'elections' a couple of years ago, when so many Right-wing politicos were elected; Angela Merkel in Germany being just one example. It was hinted in the Comments section of a Zionist-run blog that these elections were fixed - and they should know.

As for Tony Blair - I remember John Smith, the leader of the Labour Party dying of a sudden heart attack and Tony Blair seemingly coming up from nowhere to be declared the new 'leader'. Not many people had even heard of him. It was Nomad, I think, who brought up the point that Smith's heart attack was a very convenient coincidence for Blair. I have thought this ever since Blair showed his true colours by aligning with the monstrous Bush in all his war crimes, and by witnessing the devastation there has been ever since, fwiw.

Many ways, His raise is magical. obviously there is a bloodline connection.

Blair turned out to be a Neo-con Trojan horse - will Obama be the same?

It's interesting that other bloggers agree with most of the posters here.
 
Nomad said:
seek10 said:
After listening to his first press conference yesterday, I thought , he started more sounding like a JFK rather than a puppet. Direct to the point , very very cautious

When I heard his acceptance speech, it struck me that bits of it sounded like Martin Luther King's famous "I have a dream" speech - he used the same repeated inflections "in this day..." "with this faith" etc.


Fwiw and it's most likely a matter of subjective perception, but when I hear/see him talk I simply don't buy it. Sure the uses the right words and slogans, but is face, his eyes, his expression don't match it, as if he doesn't mean it at all what he's saying. I feel I'm being emotionally manipulated like watching a Hollywood movie.
He's obviously not as bad as Bush, but maybe a more perfected puppet? To me it seems more as if people are projecting into him how they like to see him as opposed to how he really is. Lots of wishful thinking going on. Deceptions has gone up a notch. With Bush it was easy to see through him. Or am I being too suspicious maybe? There are many other things Obama says and had been saying that no JFK or MLK would ever say and that go more in line with Bush. He supports many lies that have cost and will cost more suffering in the world, be it the "war on terror", the Al Qaida scare or his full-on allegiance to Israel.
To believe that he's just going to make a 180 degree turn on these issues that affect the whole word negatively may be a bit naive. Here's an interesting clip on Obama that includes a comparison to JFK: _http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGiVMHxGvgE
 
seek10 said:
After listening to his first press conference yesterday, I thought , he started more sounding like a JFK....

Nomad said:
When I heard his acceptance speech, it struck me that bits of it sounded like Martin Luther King's famous "I have a dream" speech - he used the same repeated inflections "in this day..." "with this faith" etc....

You're meant to make those associations, both consciously and unconsciously. Remember, nothing in politics happens by accident.

Bernhard said:
I feel I'm being emotionally manipulated like watching a Hollywood movie.

That's because you are.

Bernhard said:
There are many other things Obama says and had been saying that no JFK or MLK would ever say and that go more in line with Bush. He supports many lies that have cost and will cost more suffering in the world, be it the "war on terror", the Al Qaida scare or his full-on allegiance to Israel.

How perfect a strategy is that? Sell the same-old neo-con doctrine, but this time dress it up in liberal-appealing package that pushes all the right "feel good" buttons of a society nostalgic for "Camelot" and the civil-rights activism of the 1960s. The political equivalent of selling gas-guzzling cars with Bob Dylan songs....

Bernhard said:
To believe that he's just going to make a 180 degree turn on these issues that affect the whole world negatively may be a bit naive.

It's a lot naive. Once in office Obama will have to start paying his task-masters, the PTB who shelled out all that influence and all those millions that got him elected. It won't take long for the "real agenda" to become apparent, and for disillusionment to set in.
 
I've noticed a few times how black Americans talk about how they don't agree so much with his politics, but its a first step. With black America, Obama is a very personal and significant victory against hundreds of years of inequality and injustice. Support seems to be blind.

I've just been thinking what if he's put there to act the role of pied piper leading masses to the river.


A qoute:

"We have come a long way, Sisters, and we are up to the challenges of
our time. One of which is to build alliances based not on race,
ethnicity, color, nationality, sexual preference or gender, but on
Truth. Celebrate our journey. Enjoy the miracle we are witnessing.
Do not stress over its outcome. Even if Obama becomes president, our
country is in such ruin it may well be beyond his power to lead us
toward rehabilitation. If he is elected however, we must, individually
and collectively, as citizens of the planet, insist on helping him do
the best job that can be done; more, we must insist that he demand this
of us. It is a blessing that our mothers taught us not to fear hard
work. Know, as the Hopi elders declare: The river has its destination.
And remember, as poet June Jordan and Sweet Honey in the Rock never
tired of telling us: We are the ones we have been waiting for. "

J
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081109/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama

WASHINGTON – President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

John Podesta, Obama's transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own....

"There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."....

Although I truly believe that both candidates are bought and paid for, I could not help but want to feel some hope after learning that Obama won. Not so much that he won, but that Palin lost, I guess. That the dominionists lost this round anyway! But then I watched the u-tube links posted by Bernhard and now I am thinking that at least with McCain/Palin we would know what we are in for, with Obama we may not even have a clue.

I did think okay, what next?... I think that this article (from yahoo, for what it's worth) says alot. He is not even in office yet and he plans to use his 'executive powers' (Bush just seemed to love those 'executive powers'). And even though he may plan to use them to reverse some of Bush's policies (so they claim), he sites some of the more irrelevant issues facing the nation and the world at this moment. It still scares me to read "There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that", As that is what we have seen for the past Eight years.

I would love to think that it is a triumph to finally have a black president, I would like to think it would be a triumph to have a female president, however, when you see that it is a manipulation, a means to incite racial or gender wars, or solicit support for a hidden agenda, you can begin to see beyond the scam. They are all puppets, no matter race, creed or gender.

Personally, I have never believed in a democratic election. I only registered to vote so that I could get a homestead exemption!! Have never voted a day in my 45 year life!! Many of my friends would tell me that I have no right to complain because I did not vote. They find me very strange when I tell them that they are fools if they think their vote really counts for something!

Anyway, I think that maybe the global masses are being manipulated, being fooled into thinking that change is around the corner. Maybe the Palin thing was a hubristic attempt to finally assert the dominionists into an obvious position of political power. Maybe it was a test to see how accepting the majority would be, knowing that a win for Obama would eventually be a win for them anyway. He is pro-Isreal, and the 'chosen people' must build the temple before the 'second coming', if I got it right.

Now I am not sure how much truth there is to what this Webster Tarpley has to say, but I have often wondered about what would happen to the US Superpower, if Russia, China, and other smaller nuclear powered countries were to stand together against us. I mean right now we are the most arrogant and hated nation it seems. If I were a small country even with no nucs, I would join the cabal against the USA in a heart beat! (but I am not very politically savy).

I do find it ironic that a president-elect, before even taking office, would brag about using his 'executive powers'. Particularly after 8 years of 'executive power abuse'. He must feel, or have been made to feel very secure in his position.
 
mugatea said:
I've noticed a few times how black Americans talk about how they don't agree so much with his politics, but its a first step. With black America, Obama is a very personal and significant victory against hundreds of years of inequality and injustice. Support seems to be blind.

I've just been thinking what if he's put there to act the role of pied piper leading masses to the river.

Hi, mugatea
I agree that support for Obama is blind, this type of blind "savior" worship is a perfect set-up for leading the hypnotized masses back into the river of "non-change" while they celebrate his image.

Who is the "J" you were quoting in your post?
 
http://countercurrents.org/guma280708.htm

Barack Obama: The New Jimmy Carter

By Greg Guma

28 July, 2008
Countercurrents.org

Since Barack Obama emerged as the Democrat’s choice for president, the national mood has frequently been compared to the late 1960s, another time when an unpopular war polarized the nation. A recent ad for Republican candidate John McCain makes this explicit, starting off with clips of 60s protesters and “flower” children before warning that hope can be a slippery slope. But the dynamics in 2008 may have more in common with 1976, when a GOP discredited by Watergate, Richard Nixon’s resignation (under the threat of impeachment) and his pardon by Gerald Ford was defeated by a newcomer to national politics, Jimmy Carter.

Carter, an obscure but charming agribusinessman, became Georgia’s governor in 1970 with the support of an Atlanta establishment in need of someone who could talk populism while remaining in tune with corporate interests. Similarly, Obama looks like an “anti-establishment” politician but has played ball during most of his career with the Chicago political establishment. He ran for the state and US Senate as an outsider while operating like an insider, supported by Mayor Richard Daley and the city’s wealthy Gold Coast.

By the mid-70s, Carter was the darling of Eastern opinion-makers, meeting with David Rockefeller and lauded as a leader of the “New South.” In 1973, he was recommended for membership in the newly formed Trilateral Commission, a private international group that brought together leaders from the North America, Western Europe and Japan. Joining Carter on the North American section of the Commission were Rockefeller, Time Magazine Editor Hedley Donovan, corporate lawyers Cyrus Vance and Warren Christopher, Bendix Corporation chairman W. Michael Blumenthal, IBM20director Harold Brown, UAW president Leonard Woodcock, and eight other business, union, and political figures. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a close friend of Rockefeller, became director of the Commission.

Carter subsequently used Commission sources for much of his presidential campaign strategy. A key document produced during this period was The Crisis of Democracy, co-authored by Brzezinski associate Samuel Huntington, who advised Carter during the campaign and subsequently coordinated security planning for Carter’s National Security Council. Brzezinski became National Security Advisor.

Huntington advised that a successful Democratic candidate for president would have to emphasize energy, decisiveness, and sincerity while coming across as an outsider. But the real lesson of the 1960s, he added, was that political parties “could be easily penetrated, and even captured, by highly motivated and well-organized groups with a cause and a candidate.”

The appeal of Carter to the establishment was a combination of charm, an “interesting” family, traditional values, and his outsider image. But they knew he was essentially a “centrist” eager to be all things to all people, as Laurence Shoup explained in The Carter Presidency and Beyond. The same can be said of Obama.

Like Obama, Carter went from local curiosity to national phenomenon in less than four years, during a period when the public lost faith in the presidency and other national institutions. By 1975 The New York Times was regularly publishing pro-Carter editorials, articles and columns. Time Magazine was even more enthusiastic, in one feature describing him as looking “eerily like John Kennedy from certain angles” – and hammering the point home with a cover rendering. The drumbeat continued right through primary season with coverage that belittled competitors like Fred Harris, a real populist, with headlines like “Radicalism in a Camper.” Carter meanwhile received cover hypes like “Taking Jimmy Seriously.” The rest of the mainstream media soon came on board.

Why was it happening? As Brzezinski recently noted in an interview, there is no need to believe in hidden conspiracies. Groups like the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations don’t conceal their intentions, he noted; you can easily find out what they hope to see happen. Huntington’s diagnosis and prescriptions were blunt, and remain relevant. The authority of government depends on confidence and trust, he explained, and when these decline both participation and polarization increase. “If the institutional balance is to be redressed between government and opposition, the decline in presidential power has to be reversed…”

Describing the surge in democratic aspirations as a form of “distemper,” Huntington=2 0advised that some of the problems “stem from an excess of democracy.” It’s just one way to exert authority, he argued, and sometimes should be overridden by “expertise, seniority, experience and special talents.” He also explained that “the effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups.” People sometimes make too many demands, thus making democracy a threat to itself, he wrote. The basic prescription was to restore respect for authority, particularly in the presidency as an institution, and lower the general level of expectations about what government can do.

When Carter became president, he packed his administration with members of the center and liberal wings of the Eastern establishment. At least 27 high level officials were members of the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations, including Vice President Walter Mondale, Vance, Brzezinski, Blumenthal, Christopher, Brown, and Donovan. Pointing to an “alarming deterioration” in international relations and the threat of “long-term disaster,” Brown – as Secretary of Defense – prescribed leadership that would persuade people “to make sacrifices of individual and group advantages in order to produce long-term benefits of international economic and political partnership abroad.” Carter’s job was to restore trust and “renovate” the domestic and international system while leaving its basic structure intact. The fact that he failed in many respects is beside the point.

Now that Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee, it’s becoming apparent that his administration would have many things in common with Carter’s. The leader of his foreign policy team is Susan Rice, an assistant Secretary of State for African affairs in the Clinton administration and, more to the point, a current member of the Trilateral Commission’s North American Group. Until recently, Trilaterial member James Johnson was on Obama’s vice presidential vetting team. He stepped down after questions surfaced about loans he received from Countrywide Financial Corp., a key player in the U.S. housing crisis.

Other North American Trilateral members in Obama’s inner circle include Brzezinski, former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Michael Froman of Citigroup, and former Congressman Dick Gephardt, along with Dennis Ross, Middle East envoy for Clinton and the first President Bush, and James Steinberg. Additional Trilateral members of team Obama include Warren Christopher and Clinton National Security Advisor Anthony Lake.

According to a recent New York Times article, Ross, who accompanied Obama to the Middle East in July, is often asked by Rice and Lake for help in framing Obama’s comments on Iran and Israel. Steinberg, a Dean at the University of Texas and member of both the Commission and CFR, authored a white-paper titled, “Preventive War, A Useful Tool.” In this telling essay, he wrote, “Unilateralism is not the only alternative… regional organizations and a new coalition of democratic states offer ways to legitimize the use of force when the council fails to meet its responsibilities.” The problem, he says, isn’t the Bush doctrine of “preventive force but that it too narrowly conceives of its use.”

The renewed prominence of Brzezinski – architect of the “secret” war in Afghanistan three decades ago – along with the appointment of James Rodney Schlesinger, CIA director and Secretary of Defense during the 1970s, to lead a senior-level task force on nuclear weapons suggests that the process of moving from a neo-con to a Trilateral approach is already underway. The prospect of a military showdown with Iran would decrease during an Obama presidency, but confrontations with Pakistan, China and Russia become more likely.

Faced with such harsh realities, some conclude that an Obama presidency is still preferable to the disaster that is likely with John McCain. O thers contend that the evidence reinforces the need for a third party alternative. Both arguments have merit. Despite Carter’s surrender to Trilateral logic, his presidency was a necessary reprieve from morally and ideologically bankrupt Republican rule. And it’s certainly vital to look beyond the two-party monopoly, however long the road may be. But the truth is that, in Obama, a worried establishment has found the vessel through which they hope to restore international and domestic stability.

What do they hope to accomplish? Part of the agenda was revealed during an April meeting of the Trilateral Commission in Washington, DC. During panel discussions, the “suggestions” included increased foreign aid – especially for Africa, paying back UN dues, intervention on behalf of “financial institutions under stress,” and a more liberal immigration approach. On the other hand, there was much rationalizing about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And what does Obama say? While he pledges to end the war in Iraq, he wants to leave behind a “residual” force of about 50,000 troops. He says his administration will emphasize diplomacy, yet describes Iran as a terrorist state and pledges to use “all elements of American power” to deal with it. “If we must use military force,” Obama told the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), “we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts.”

As far as Afghanistan and Pakistan are concerned, he wants to send at least 10,000 more U.S. troops to reinforce the 36,000 already there, taking unilateral military action inside Pakistan if necessary, whether its government agrees or not. “This is a war that we have to win,” Obama explains. In Berlin last week, he called on Europe to provide more troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The size of the US military is likely to grow during an Obama presidency, and the projection of US force, combined with diplomatic carrots and sticks, will certainly continue.

Still, Obama’s Trilateral-influenced vision embraces reforms that may bring some relief from the theocratically-infused Bush approach. Supreme Court appointments will be more centrist, the health care system may improve, and some of the worst abuses of the Bush years could be rolled back. These are not insignificant changes, and the pragmatic wing of the establishment, rapidly shifting in Obama’s direction, seems to recognize that relief is essential if trust in government is to be restored.

As Huntington noted more than 30 years ago, “democratic distemper” makes allies nervous and enemies adventurous. “If American citizens challenge the authority of the American government, why shouldn’t unfriendly governments?” So, Obama – like Carter – can be useful in calming things down and re-establishing confidence in the legitimacy of the current political order. In short, he can reinforce the argument that “the system” still works. For those who want real change, he’s bound to be a disappointment. But perhaps, along the road to inevitable disillusionment, at least he may do a bit to ease the pain.

Greg Guma is an author and journalist living in Burlington. He writes about media and politics on his website, Maverick Media (http://muckraker-gg.blogspot.com/).
 
Myth of Myself said:
Who is the "J" you were quoting in your post?

I don't think that was part of the quote. Mugatea usually ends his/her posts with the J as a sign off, perhaps it is the first initial of the poster's first name?
 
Guardian journalist on Obama’s election: An “armed insurrection” averted

By Chris Marsden
10 November 2008

One of the most extraordinary statements made on Barack Obama's victory in the Presidential elections was by Martin Kettle in Britain's Guardian newspaper.

Kettle is someone with intimate connections to the New Labour project since its inception. He is the son of two prominent supporters of the Stalinist Communist Party of Great Britain, his father being the literary critic and philosopher Arthur Kettle who sat on the editorial board of Marxism Today. Kettle junior also wrote for the journal which, in the 1980s, did much to develop the ideas that came to be associated with New Labour including its explicit repudiation of the class struggle in the supposedly "post-Fordist" era of "modernity".

He is a personal friend of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who wrote in 2004, "socialism has failed. Even the era of the labour movement is passing inexorably away.... Capitalism has won the economic battle, albeit in a form that no 19th-century capitalist would easily recognise. Socialism has become a religion not a programme."

Kettle usually functions as a propagandist for those such as Blair and his successor Gordon Brown whose aim is to convince the disaffected that there is no alternative on the left to their rightwing trajectory. Yet, like so many in what passes for Britain's nominally liberal—often ex-Stalinist and pro-New Labour—intellectual circles, he is less convinced of the end of the class struggle and the "death of socialism" than his public pronouncements would normally indicate. Hence his candour in detailing how he saw the significance of Obama's election in his November 5 article, "The challenge ahead".

Acknowledging that Obama's was "an immense and historic victory", Kettle went on to explain that "if he had not won the 2008 presidential election and had not won it in some style, it would have been the most shocking political event in modern American political history."

The election had been "the Democrats' to lose," he continued. "For Obama to have lost the election when the incumbent party had presided over an economic collapse of epochal immensity and over two unsuccessful and unpopular wars, with three quarters of Americans believing their country was heading in the wrong direction and against an opponent who had been nominated by a divided party and who then himself selected a manifestly unqualified and divisive running-mate would have constituted the biggest electoral missed opportunity in generations."

Had this occurred, Kettle then warns, "It might have persuaded an entire generation that there was absolutely no validity whatever in electoral politics. Millions might have concluded that the only way to get the Republicans out of the White House was by some form of armed insurrection."

Later he adds, "if Obama had not won well, that too would have been a shattering blow to the Democratic cause at such a time."

There is a degree of hyperbole in Kettle invoking the danger of armed insurrection. Nevertheless there is a serious content to the warning he directs towards the political elite. He made his remarks in the knowledge that, ever since George W. Bush came to power in 2000 thanks to electoral fraud and the disenfranchisement of many voters, confidence in the US electoral system has been at rock bottom. Under conditions of acute social tensions made worse by the onset of recession, the situation in the US is indeed explosive.

Prior to the election, the Guardian's Sunday sister paper, the Observer, reported how, amidst claims of a surge in support for Republican candidate John McCain, "police forces in major cities made extra security preparations for election day."

In Chicago, "All police leave has been cancelled and off-duty firefighters have been told to keep their kit ready at home. The unspoken concern among some is that a surprise Obama loss—especially with most polls predicting a win for the Democrat—could lead to civil unrest.

"Detroit and Los Angeles were also deploying extra police out of concern for the potentially heightened emotions raised by this election."

Kettle is right in warning that a defeat for Obama could have led to an explosion of pent-up social anger—not only amongst African Americans, but millions of young people, Hispanics and many others who want an end to the Bush years and who believe Obama when he promises "change". He is also correct that it would have created the conditions for a major political realignment by finally discrediting the Democratic Party as a vehicle for even partially realizing the social interests of the American working class.

He also understands that such a disastrous development for big business and its political representatives and media apologists has only been deferred not eliminated. That is why Kettle spends the second half of his comment warning that expectations amongst working people and youth that Obama will deliver policies framed in their interests must be opposed.

Obama has won "his presidency by crafting a majoritarian programme on the economy, health, energy and the war," Kettle stresses, i.e., by also appealing to big business and former Republicans in "the mountain and desert states of the west and in parts of the south."

"So, while Obama has a mandate that has been denied to every Democratic president since the days of Martin Luther King," he warns, "he also has a level of support that he must be careful not to test to destruction. Forty-eight per cent of Americans did not feel the hand of history on their shoulders on Tuesday, in spite of everything."

Kettle is urging that Obama must do only what is considered acceptable by corporate America. And to this end he insists that the "majoritarian" coalition is not tested "to destruction". Such rhetoric is similar in all respects to the language he used for years to justify support for Blair. "The only practical and principled course is to back him, though without illusions, as the Marxists used to say," he once famously wrote in the aftermath of the Iraq war, while calling for "the doctrine and weapons of interventionism" to be "protected, honed and made effective."

Unfortunately for Kettle and his ilk, calls for Obama to defy the expectations of his supporters will only guarantee that he will alienate them more fully—and with yet more dramatic consequences—than New Labour did in the years following its victory over the Conservatives in 1997.

source: wsws.org
 
Amy Goodman this morning on Pacifica said that Obama is moving to:

- reverse tax cuts for the rich
- cancel missile shield in Poland
- release Guantanamo & other illegally held prisoners

and reverse many other aspects of the "Imperial Presidency" and the
sweeping powers that Cheney/Bush/Gates granted themselves. I am
very skeptical that Obama will complete such moves and emerge intact.

Goodman says that Obama meets with Bush in the Whitehouse today.
We'll see if he sings the same tune after...

db
 
In a recent interview, Gore Vidal said:

I think there is an instinct out there to rid us of our masters. They know we have masters. But the masters think of new things.... They knew after Vietnam that never again could you draft people to fight crazy wars in Asia.... It was genius, whoever thought of a volunteer army.... You make a million very poor men who have no chance for education or decent work, you enroll and give him a little extra money to be in our army and go off and get killed. And everybody feels so good about it....
Yes, the masters keep "thinking of new things". They knew after Bush no one would buy any candidate that appeared to follow in his footsteps. So it was genius, whoever thought of a Barack Obama. Sheer genius. Now those opposed to Bush and his policies are congratulating themselves on having elected his polar opposite, and "everybody feels so good about it".

But, as Paul Craig Roberts points out in the following article, Obama's choice of foreign and economic policy advisers reveals the reality behind the con -- that "the only thing different about the new administration will be the faces"....



Conned Again
Paul Craig Roberts
CounterPunch.org, November 10, 2008

If the change President-elect Obama has promised includes a halt to America’s wars of aggression and an end to the rip-off of taxpayers by powerful financial interests, what explains Obama’s choice of foreign and economic policy advisors? Indeed, Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff is a signal that change ended with Obama’s election. The only thing different about the new administration will be the faces.

Rahm Emanuel is a supporter of Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Emanuel rose to prominence in the Democratic Party as a result of his fundraising connections to AIPAC. A strong supporter of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, he comes from a terrorist family. His father was a member of Irgun, a Jewish terrorist organization that used violence to drive the British and Palestinians out of Palestine in order to create the Jewish state. During the 1991 Gulf War, Rahm Emanuel volunteered to serve in the Israel Defense Forces. He was a member of the Freddie Mac board of directors and received $231,655 in directors fees in 2001. According to Wikipedia, “during the time Emanuel spent on the board, Freddie Mac was plagued with scandals involving campaign contributions and accounting irregularities.”

In “Hail to the Chief of Staff,” Alexander Cockburn describes Emanuel as “a super-Likudnik hawk,” who as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006 “made great efforts to knock out antiwar Democratic candidates.”

My despondent friends in the Israeli peace movement ask, “What is this man doing in Obama’s administration?”

Obama’s election was necessary as the only means Americans had to hold the Republicans accountable for their crimes against the Constitution and human rights, for their violations of US and international laws, for their lies and deceptions, and for their financial chicanery. As an editorial in Pravda put it, “Only Satan would have been worse than the Bush regime. Therefore it could be argued that the new administration in the USA could never be worse than the one which divorced the hearts and minds of Americans from their brothers in the international community, which appalled the rest of the world with shock and awe tactics that included concentration camps, torture, mass murder and utter disrespect for international law.”

But Obama’s advisers are drawn from the same gang of Washington thugs and Wall Street banksters as Bush’s. Richard Holbrooke, was an assistant secretary of state and ambassador in the Clinton administration. He implemented the policy to enlarge NATO and to place the military alliance on Russia’s border in contravention of Reagan’s promise to Gorbachev. Holbrooke is also associated with the Clinton administration’s illegal bombing of Serbia, a war crime that killed civilians and Chinese diplomats. If not a neocon himself, Holbrooke is closely allied with them.

Madeline Albright is the Clinton era secretary of state who told Leslie Stahl (60 Minutes) that the US policy of Iraq sanctions, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, had goals important enough to justify the children’s deaths. Albright’s infamous words: “we think the price is worth it.” Wikipedia reports that this immoralist served on the board of directors of the New York Stock Exchange at the time of Dick Grasso’s $187.5 million compensation scandal.

Dennis Ross has long associations with the Israeli-Palestinian “peace negotiations.” A member of his Clinton era team, Aaron David Miller, wrote that during 1999-2000 the US negotiating team led by Ross acted as Israel’s lawyer: “we had to run everything by Israel first.” This “stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking. If we couldn't put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be?” According to Wikipedia, Ross is “chairman of a new Jerusalem-based think tank, the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, funded and founded by the Jewish Agency.”

Clearly, this is not a group of advisors that is going to halt America’s wars against Israel’s enemies or force the Israeli government to accept the necessary conditions for a real peace in the Middle East.

Ralph Nader predicted as much. In his “Open Letter to Barack Obama (November 3, 2008), Nader pointed out to Obama that his “transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights . . . to a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby” puts Obama at odds with “a majority of Jewish-Americans” and “64 per cent of Israelis.” Nader quotes the Israeli writer and peace advocate Uri Avnery’s description of Obama’s appearance before AIPAC as an appearance that “broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.” Nader damns Obama for his “utter lack of political courage [for] surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention.” Carter, who achieved the only meaningful peace agreement between Israel and the Arabs, has been demonized by the powerful AIPAC lobby for criticizing Israel’s policy of apartheid toward the Palestinians whose territory Israel forcibly occupies.

Obama’s economic team is just as bad. Its star is Robert Rubin, the bankster who was secretary of the treasury in the Clinton administration. Rubin has responsibility for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and, thereby, responsibility for the current financial crisis. In his letter to Obama, Nader points out that Obama received unprecedented campaign contributions from corporate and Wall Street interests. “Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart.”

Obama’s victory speech was magnificent. The TV cameras scanning faces in the audience showed the hope and belief that propelled Obama into the presidency. But Obama cannot bring change to Washington. There is no one in the Washington crowd that he can appoint who is capable of bringing change. If Obama were to reach outside the usual crowd, anyone suspected of being a bringer of change could not get confirmed by the Senate. Powerful interest groups--AIPAC, the military-security complex, Wall Street--use their political influence to block unacceptable appointments.

As Alexander Cockburn said of Obama in a pre-eection column, column “never has the dead hand of the past had a ‘reform’ candidate so firmly by the windpipe.” Obama confirmed Cockburn’s verdict in his first press conference as president-elect. Disregarding the unanimous US National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iran stopped working on nuclear weapons five years ago, and ignoring the continued certification by the International Atomic Energy Agency that none of the nuclear material for Iran’s civilian nuclear reactor has been diverted to weapons use, Obama sallied forth with the Israel Lobby’s propaganda and accused Iran of “development of a nuclear weapon” and vowing “to prevent that from happening.”

The change that is coming to America has nothing to do with Obama. Change is coming from the financial crisis brought on by Wall Street greed and irresponsibility, from the eroding role of the US dollar as reserve currency, from countless mortgage foreclosures, from the offshoring of millions of America’s best jobs, from a deepening recession, from pillars of American manufacturing--Ford and GM--begging the government for taxpayers’ money to stay alive, and from budget and trade deficits that are too large to be closed by normal means.

Traditionally, the government relies on monetary and fiscal policy to lift the economy out of recession. But easy money is not working. Interest rates are already low and monetary growth is already high, yet unemployment is rising. The budget deficit is already huge--a world record--and the red ink is not stimulating the economy. Can even lower interest rates and even higher budget deficits help an economy that has moved offshore, leaving behind jobless consumers overburdened with debt?

How much more can the government borrow? America’s foreign creditors are asking this question. An official organ of the Chinese ruling party recently called for Asian and European countries to “banish the US dollar from their direct trade relations, relying only on their own currencies.”

“Why,” asks another Chinese publication, “should China help the US to issue debt without end in the belief that the national credit of the US can expand without limit?”

The world has tired of American hegemony and had its fill of American arrogance. America’s reputation is in tatters: the financial debacle, endless red ink, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, rendition, torture, illegal wars based on lies and deception, disrespect for the sovereignty of other countries, war crimes, disregard for international law and the Geneva Conventions, the assault on habeas corpus and the separation of powers, a domestic police state, constant interference in the internal affairs of other countries, boundless hypocrisy.

The change that is coming is the end of American empire. The hegemon has run out of money and influence. Obama as “America’s First Black President” will lift hopes and, thus, allow the act to be carried on a little longer. But the New American Century is already over.
 
Could we avoid entire articles in red and put them in quotes instead? It is really hard on the eyes!
 
Myth of Myself said:
mugatea said:
I've noticed a few times how black Americans talk about how they don't agree so much with his politics, but its a first step. With black America, Obama is a very personal and significant victory against hundreds of years of inequality and injustice. Support seems to be blind.

I've just been thinking what if he's put there to act the role of pied piper leading masses to the river.

Hi, mugatea
I agree that support for Obama is blind, this type of blind "savior" worship is a perfect set-up for leading the hypnotized masses back into the river of "non-change" while they celebrate his image.

But, what of the man himself? It seems to me that his 'metal' is going to be sorely tested by the Neocon Terrorist Conspiritators. His only 'defence' is going to be his virtue and his ability to surround himself with good people.

Otherwise, he's got problems.

To know how this man is going to go, I think a person has to look at his personal qualities and not forget that STS doesn't always get its own way..... ;D all the time...
 
Ruth said:
But, what of the man himself? It seems to me that his 'metal' is going to be sorely tested by the Neocon Terrorist Conspiritators. His only 'defence' is going to be his virtue and his ability to surround himself with good people.

Well, you can always recognize a man's true character by the people he surrounds himself with. "His" choice (if it really was his. Who knows?) for Biden and Rahm Emanuel doesn't speak for him at all, nor the fact that he accepts Brzezinski as is (unofficial) foreign policy advisor. I don't see any "good" people around him so far. Rumors have that he will get a Kennedy or two into his administration. But before everyone jumps up in more hyped, nostalgic and romantic fashion, let me say that being a "Kennedy" is not automatically equals truth and a "better world/country". It's not like everyone in that family is a JFK.


Ruth said:
To know how this man is going to go, I think a person has to look at his personal qualities and not forget that STS doesn't always get its own way..... ;D all the time...

How can one judge one's "personal" qualities when his persona is clearly hyped and "emotionally" manipulated from the start?
What about his "personal" quality of pushing the lie of Al Qaida, 9/11, the war on terror and surrounding himself with Zionists?
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw2XTC1V4fk

And who says Obama is not leaning more to STS? With Obama I see the danger of people projecting qualities into him he simply doesn't posses. There is a lot of wishful thinking going on with Obama supporters and we all know that wishful thinking is rooted in STS as well.

Anyway, his actions will speak for or against him. Obviously he's going to throw the public some bones, seemingly "reversing" some of Bush's policies, but if it has a real effect or is just a drop on a hot stone will be the issue here.

We shall wait and see......but so far it seems more like this:

PepperFritz said:
Conned Again
Paul Craig Roberts
CounterPunch.org, November 10, 2008
The change that is coming is the end of American empire. The hegemon has run out of money and influence. Obama as “America’s First Black President” will lift hopes and, thus, allow the act to be carried on a little longer. But the New American Century is already over.
 
Back
Top Bottom