Hillary did NOT win Iowa! I have no love for Mrs. Clinton, but there's some twinge of regret I feel for her big loss. Her whole life she's worked for this race. Just a twinge, mind you. As a person (or at least, the persona he projects), I like Obama, but what's the difference, really, between Barack and Hillary? Yeah yeah--race. gender. experience. But what real alternatives to the status quo do either offer?
Yesterday's Democracy Now confirms my suspicions about both of them, as well as the frontrunning Republicans. Amy interviewed Allan Nairn, an independent journalist (
"News & Comment" http://newsc.blogspot.com), and Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, a freelance journalist whose article, "War Whisperers" appeared in the
American Conservative, in a discussion about the leading candidates' advisers and their participation in atrocities around the world.
If you continue to think, 13+ months after November, 2006, that the Democrats offer ANY hope of change, here's further evidence to the contrary. Barack Obama's top advisor? Zbigniew Brzezinski. Remember him? Among many other accomplishments, Brzezinski created, proudly, the Afghan jihadi movement, which created Osama Bin Laden. According to Nairn, Brzeznski was asked by an interviewer,
“Well, don’t you think this might have had some bad consequences?” And Brzezinski replied, “Absolutely not. It was definitely worth it, because we were going after the Soviets. We were getting the Soviets.” Another top Obama person—
AMY GOODMAN: I think his comment actually was, “What’s a few riled-up Muslims?” And this, that whole idea of blowback, the idea of arming, financing, training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, including Osama bin Laden, and then when they’re done with the Soviets, they set their sights, well, on the United States.
ALLAN NAIRN: Right. And later, during Bill Clinton’s administration, during the Bosnia killing, the US actually flew some of the Afghan Mujahideen, the early al-Qaeda people—the US actually arranged for them to be flown from there to Bosnia to fight on the Muslim/NATO side.
Obama's other key advisers include Anthony Lake, General Merrill McPeak, Dennis Ross, and Sarah Sewall. Anthony Lake orchestrated the US invasion of Haiti during the Clinton administration. Nairn says that
...they brought back Aristide essentially in political chains, pledged to support a World Bank/IMF overhaul of the economy, which resulted in an increase in malnutrition deaths among Haitians and set the stage for the current ongoing political disaster in Haiti.
General McPeak was behind the massacre in Dili, East Timor in 1991 (which Nairn and Amy Goodman survived). Obama adviser Dennis Ross served both Bushes and Clinton as an adviser on Israel and Palestine. Ross advocated the subordination of the Palestinians' internationally-recognized legal rights to the "needs of the Israeli government." According to Nairn, Ross led the attack on Carter's endorsement of Bishop Desmond Tutu's comparison of Israel's position in the occupied territories to aparthied. Finally, Sarah Sewall is the author of the General Petraeus’s Marine Corps/Army counterinsurgency handbook, which Nairn claims is "now being used worldwide by US troops in various killing operations."
So much for Obama. Of course, you know Clinton is being advised by Madeleine Albright and Wesley Clark, among other "throwbacks" (Vlahos).
Even Edwards, whom I was glad to see come in second in Iowa, apparently has some sketchy affiliations with defense lobbyists.
Why do we keep pinning our hopes on presidential elections? Why do we keep thinking those with power will cede
any of it to justice? I never thought I'd look back on the 2000 elections with nostalgia, but wouldn't it be nice to hear some dissenting voices once in a while? Sure, Dennis Kucinich keeps talking, and I truly appreciate his heart, but where are the gadflies? Where's Ralph? I'm not interested in Ralph running again, but I sure would like to hear him talk more often. You know, about corporate power and civic duty. Democracy.
I'd like to hear the so-called analysts talk about
something other than how much money the candidates raise. The other night on Jim Lehrer, an interviewer asked a talking head about whether the candidates were addressing issues, "issues in the
classical sense" (emphasis mine). The head responded that issues provided "the lay of the land" but had not been "central" to most campaigns. What the hell does that mean?
One more day into 2008, blue sky in Salt Lake City and a storm on the way.
Enjoy.