Campaign Rant

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.

Foment builds around the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. And now the Pakistan government's official story about her death has shifted.

I found this interview with Bhutto on Alternet. David Frost spoke with her shortly after her caravan was attacked in Karachi last November. She explicitly addresses questions about that attack and its intent, as well as her relationship with Musharaff.

Some are calling her assassination the end of hope in the region. Meanwhile, politicos in the U.S. are using Bhutto's death (Rudolph W. Giuliani) or "clueless" (that Huckabee guy).

Again, I think we need to be paying close attention to what this situation will justify in the world arena. Of course, Bush and the rest of the world have denounced her assassination. Consider how the whole thing has played out as projected, perhaps even as Bhutto herself projected. Still her death is a shock. From what her supporters say, her global reputation seemed to lend her protected status. She is the face of democracy in Pakistan. She even represented a reconciliation with India.

Yet the attack in Karachi upon her return from exile happened in a neighborhood populated by wealthy, politically influential residents, which suggests that political weight was not protecting anyone, including Bhutto.

Instead of a messy democratic Pakistan, Bhutto's assassination sacrifices democracy to martyrdom, which is much easier to manipulate. Musharaff likely will remain in charge. The chaos engendered by Bhutto's death paves the way for another crackdown, or at least, a postponement of elections in the name of fighting terrorism.

A real democracy in Pakistan might not sustain U.S. plans for the region. Now Bhutto's calls for democratic reform pose no threat to the expanding empire. Instead, the assassination fits right into the U.S. characterization of the "terrorists' war on us." As Rudy argues,

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event for Pakistan and for democracy in Pakistan. Her murderers must be brought to justice and Pakistan must continue the path back to democracy and the rule of law. Her death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere -- whether in New York, London, Tel-Aviv or Rawalpindi -- is an enemy of freedom. We must redouble our efforts to win the Terrorists' War on Us.

By this logic, Bhutto's martyrdom and the ensuing chaos, once dubbed "acts of terror", further justify our war. The only possible response to her death is expanding war. Without doubt, the attack on Bhutto's rally, like the attack on her caravan, was an act of terror. But responding to terror with terror breeds terror, as we witness in the news of Iraq and Afghanistan every day. If another crackdown is the type of redoubling effort Giuliani advocates, that move is also without doubt, a course of action that Bhutto would not have approved.

While I quote Giuliani, by no means expert in foreign relations (or justice or democracy or reason), it seems obvious that his rhetoric reflects the underlying logic of our warmongering lifestyles. That's what it all comes down to, this current propagation of "democracy" across the planet.

As the American Dream supersizes itself, we keep buying it. The gap between the uber-rich and the rest of us widens, and we keep insisting that the virtue of uber-wealth sanctifies its means. We keep insisting on lifestyles that require the exploitation of others. We eat Burger King and shop Walmart and pay taxes to fund Haliburton, all delivered through exploitation in Florida, in China, in Iraq. We justify the complete destruction of a sovereign country's infrastructure, the decimation of its internal systems, including the family, because we believe our "way of life" is worth more than their lives. I think it's really that simple.

We call our way of life "democracy" and claim "they hate our freedom" but we'll sacrifice our own freedoms for great sale prices. We know the war on terror is a war for oil, and really, what's wrong with that, as long as we can drive our cars and watch tv.

The sad residue of manifest destiny.

Dramatic, sure, but let's wake up. How much longer will we consume the war on terror's doublespeak? How much longer do we watch our rights erode? Our values? How much more terror will we ignore in the world? How many more soldiers will we sacrifice? How many more mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters?