Login
Home
Chris Floyd
R.G. Kastelein

Expathos
Network

afplogo
empire burlesque
afplogo
afplogo



book
Amazon.com
Amazon.com (UK)
Barnes&Noble
Powells

cd
Buy CD from CafePress

Available on iTunes

More samples
at CD Baby
(in stock there soon)

MySpace Page

Projects

Latest

  • Outside Agitators: Another Missile Attack Aimed at Peace Talks
    Preview content | Read more...
    They cry peace, peace, but there is no peace -- not when American missiles are around to derail any talks that might hamper the profitable operations of the Washington war machine.

    On Wednesday, missiles from an American drone destroyed a house in the Pakistani village of Damadola, killing at least 15 people, with women and children reportedly among the dead. The ostensible target was a gathering of Taliban fighters, who control the surrounding area in this border region with Afghanistan.

    But the real target of the attack, no doubt, was the peace process now underway between the local militants and the new Pakistani government. As AP notes:

    The explosions came as Pakistani authorities and Taliban militants exchanged dozens of prisoners in the latest step in a peace process that is stirring growing alarm in the West. NATO claims [that] militant incursions into Afghanistan have increased.

    This is a familiar pattern of the worldwide Terror War launched by the Bush Administration. We saw it a few weeks ago in Somalia, when national unity talks between the government and insurgents were disrupted at a delicate stage by the "targeted assassination" of a rebel leader (and the usual assorted civilians) by U.S. missiles.

    In the American imperium, subject nations are not permitted to work out their internal conflicts on their own -- especially if this involves a cessation of hostilities that leaves any group or faction disfavored by Washington still standing. Obliteration of the disobedient is the ultimate goal, as Hillary Clinton put it so well the other day. But the Terror War policy of disrupting peace talks has some short-term objectives as well. These include the continuation of the war profiteering that now greases the entire American system; and, perhaps above all, the ape-like show of dominance that gives such deep psychological satisfaction to the pathetic, stunted, needy wretches who control our politics and our political discourse.
  • Falling Cedars: Fomenting War in Lebanon -- and Beyond
    Preview content | Read more...
    What's going on in Lebanon? Nothing you haven't seen before -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Palestine and other places where "the United States is basically instigating and funding civil wars."

    So says Professor As’ad AbuKhalil -- better known perhaps as the "Angry Arab," for his indispensable website of the same name. AbuKhalil was born and raised in Lebanon and has an intimate knowledge of troubled land's warring factions there -- and their external backers. Needless to say, the American media's framing of the current flare-up of violence in Lebanon is the usual sinister caricature of reality, with "bad guys" attacking "our friends" out of pure, malevolent, world-gobbling evil.

    In fact, "our friends" in Lebanon are actually in league with our allegedly erstwhile friends Al Qaeda. The Hariri faction backed by the Bush Administration is drawing upon the most extremist Sunni armed factions in an attempt to counteract the power of Shiite Hezbollah. This is of course just a continuation of current American strategy in the region, as Sy Hersh outlined last year: giving arms and money to extremist Sunni groups allied with al Qaeda in order to ward off Shiite factions making trouble in our client regimes.

    This in turn is part of a broader, more long-standing strategy, going back to 2004, as we noted in a recent report: a global program of arming and funding militias and other violent "non-state actors" to foment trouble where Washington wants trouble, and pressure recalcitrant regimes to bend to the imperial will.

    And no, Washington is not "behind" every twist and turn in Middle East politics. But American interventions, direct and covert, are responsible for exacerbating and intensifying conflicts, enflaming sectarian and ethnic divides (or literally building giant concrete walls between them, as in Baghdad today), bolstering tyrannical and/or ineffectual, illegitimate leaders whose misrule provoke more strife, suffering and conflict.

    In an interview this week on Democracy Now, AbuKhalil cuts through the corporate media cartoons to give a truer picture of the outbreak in Lebanon:

    I think that people may remember, back in the 1980s, the United States government, for two years in the administration of Ronald Reagan, deployed troops from ’82 to ’84. And there was a civil war, and the United States was supporting the rightwing militias of Israel in Lebanon, and they used the discourse of supporting the central government of Lebanon.

    Something similar is taking place right now in Lebanon, and this is very much similar to what’s happening in Sudan, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and Somalia. The United States is basically instigating, funding and arming civil wars in all those places. We hear a lot about this inability of the international community to tolerate armed militias. Of course, Hezbollah is an armed militia, but so are the pro-militias of the government. There’s a Los Angeles Times article today detailing the efforts by the United States and allies to create militias throughout the country. And the Washington Post indicated that this government of the United States spent $1.4 billion to prop up the administration of Siniora in Lebanon.

    And basically, what happened in Lebanon in the last few days is a partial coup d’etat that was in response to a full coup d’etat that was engineered by the United States and Saudi Arabia and Israel from behind the scene back in 2005, capitalizing on the assassination of Rafik Hariri.

    And things have gotten to this point because America basically is responsible, more than their clients in Lebanon. I mean, there were ideas of dialogue in Lebanon, and things were moving in that direction, and then, suddenly, lo and behold, the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States for the Near East, David Welch, shows up in Lebanon, and he basically wanted to stiffen the resolve of the clients and to basically prevent the possibility of dialogue. And then, Walid Jumblatt, one of the clients of the United States and Saudi Arabia and Lebanon today, escalated by deciding on taking the issue of disarming Hezbollah, which is supported at least by half of the Lebanese; and Lebanese parties, including clients of the United States, [had] agreed that the issues of disarming Hezbollah should be left for internal dialogue of the Lebanese themselves...

    This [the current violence] is something that experts have warned the United Nations about. If you push things to that point, the other side is going to lash out, and they did lash out, even if one, like me, does not like the scenes of these militias and armed thugs running into the streets of Beirut and so on. But basically, we have to say that this is the doing of US foreign policy, and this is the true face of the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East.....

    We have to say that this level of intense tensions and conflict and animosity is the product of a deliberate American-Saudi policy of instigating a Sunni-Shiite conflict, the likes of which Lebanon has never seen. I mean, even somebody like myself who comes from a split background—my mother is Sunni, and my father is Shiite—I mean, we’ve never seen anything like this. Saudi media, with the full cooperation of the United States, have been for three years mobilizing the Lebanese opposition, because that’s the only thing they have....They have been [doing] serious propagandizing to [split] Sunnis from Shiites in order [to] create a militia that can stand up to Hezbollah.

    Back at his website, AbuKhalil notes:

    What is quite ironic is that Lebanese Forces' media (like LBC-TV) are gleefully airing calls for Jihad... by (Hariri- and Saudi-funded) Salafite groups in North Lebanon. Do they not know what those groups' views are of Christians? They even refer to Lebanese Christians as "crusaders". These are clones of Al-Qa`idah, but the Lebanese Forces seem to be embracing them.

    And so in Lebanon -- as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia -- the policies of the Bush Administration have only produced more extremism, more terrorists, more violence.

    Can we not discern a pattern here, a clear intention? The "War on Terror" produces terror; it's part of the "creative destruction" that the militarists used to boast about, when they dreamed that their crimes of aggression, torture and murder would lead future generations to "sing songs about us," in the immortal words of Michael Ledeen.


    This quote is often attributed to Richard Perle, but it comes from Ledeen's call for "total war" in a speech at American Enterprise Institute on October 29, 2001. Ledeen followed this up with a piece on National Review Online in August 2002, when he mocked Brent Scowcroft's concern that an invasion of Iraq could turn the Middle East into a cauldron. Ledeen's response:

    One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today.

    Ledeen is no mere kibitzer on the rightwing gravy train. He is one of the architects and chief abettors of the cauldronization -- the slaughter and suffering -- we see across the Middle East today. As the Washington Post noted back in the glory days of 2003, when these bloodthirsty wretches were still strutting around beating their chests about their importance:

    One [of Karl Rove's advisers] is Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, whose specialties include terrorism and the Middle East. His latest book, according to the official summary, asserts that "America must topple the regimes of the terror masters to eliminate the threat of terrorism."

    The two met after Bush's election. "He said, 'Anytime you have a good idea, tell me,' " Ledeen said. Every month or six weeks, Ledeen will offer Rove "something you should be thinking about." More than once, Ledeen has seen his ideas, faxed to Rove, become official policy or rhetoric.

    Nowadays, of course, Ledeen skulks around pretending he opposed the invasion of Iraq: the kind of astonishing lie one might have heard in a Nuremberg courtoom back in the day, and one easily refuted. (As is his current lie that he has always opposed an attack on Iran.) But he, Rove and all the other facilitators of the militarists bear a direct and substantial share of responsibility for the murder and chaos that continues to erupt across the tormented region.

    UPDATE: And now Bush is proposing an even more direct U.S. military intervention in Lebanon. Speaking in Cairo -- on yet another one of his pointless trots* around the cauldron (maybe he wants another fancy sword -- or just some more good smoochin' -- from the Saudi king) -- Bush offered to help the Lebanese army "respond more effectively" to Hezbollah. He also took the opportunity to -- what else? -- blame Iran for everything happening in Lebanon, claiming that without the backing of the devilish Persians, Hezbollah -- which, as AbuKhalil noted, is supported by almost half of the Lebanese population -- would be "powerless."

    So Bush will soon have yet another proxy war playground to while away his time before retiring to stick his snout in the same corporate trough that has so enriched his fellow war crminal, Tony Blair -- who has already made almost $20 million in corporate pork in less than a year after leaving office.

    Who says crime -- especially war crime -- doesn't pay?

    *Note. Some might think that Bush is touring the region to build support for an attack on Iran. But that kind of head-knocking and arm-twisting is left to Dick Cheney (who took an ominious swing through the cauldron not long ago). Junior is too witless for any hard-core dealing -- although no doubt he will bluster and bellow to his hosts about Iranian perfidy and "doin' God's will" and whatever else vomits up from his murder-rotted brain.
  • Another Note
    Preview content | Read more...
    To divert from atrocity and anguish and political folly for a moment: over at the MySpace page, there are four new songs up, with more to come. These are demos, self-produced, rough-sketch possibilities for the second album, which, if all goes well, might be recorded this summer with Nick Kulukundis, the extraordinary producer, arranger and musician. There are also two songs from the first album with Nick, Wheel of Heaven (available through iTunes), still up on the page. Give 'em a listen if you take a notion.

    *(Harmony vocals on "Only Now" by Christina Kulukundis.)
  • Armed Truce: Surging Into Slaughter on Jerusalem Street
    Preview content | Read more...
    Civilians are still streaming out of Baghdad's Sadr City, despite the announcement of a truce late last week designed to avert – or at least give the appearance of diverting – a major bloodbath from an all-out assault on the densely-populated area by U.S. forces and their local junior partners. Announced on Saturday, the deal was immediately eviscerated by U.S. forces, who bombed three neighborhoods in Sadr City that very afternoon, as dpa reports.

    Oddly enough, when Iraqi government forces tried to enter disputed Sadr City quadrants the next day, they were attacked, the New York Times reports. The Times' intrepid correspondents, including the ever-reliable spin-funnel Michael Gordon, professed to be shocked – shocked! – at such rude behavior, which they presented as clear and unprovoked violations of the nascent truce. Naturally, they omitted any unseemly and unnecessary mention of the American bombing of the day before.

    The fighting is Sadr City is concentrated along a demarcation line, Al Quds Street (Jerusalem Street), between areas loyal to nationalist cleric Motqada al-Sadr and areas now under the control of the violent sectarian factions backed by both the United States and Iran; i.e., the Iraqi "government." In addition to bombing residential areas and leading Iraqi government troops in attacks, American forces are also erecting a massive concrete wall, 12 feet high, along three miles of Al Quds street, in attempt to seal off the recalcitrant neighborhoods. Of course, it was considered poor form – or rather, an international outrage – when the Soviets did this kind of thing in Berlin; but in our brave new world, it is now an accepted, even celebrated policy. (Just like torture, concentration camps, aggressive war, warrantless surveilance, etc.) During the past 17 months, throughout the vaunted "surge," U.S. forces have been building ghettos all over Baghdad and elsewhere in the country, often turning over these enclaves to the tender mercies of "former" insurgents and terrorists who, now in the pay of Washington, rule them as private fiefdoms. This, you understand, is what is now known as "liberation."

    Civilians still living in the slowly closing concrete trap say they are almost as fearful of a genuine truce as continued warfare. That's because a real truce would allow the violent sectarians empowered by Bush to operate with murderous impunity in their neighborhoods, replacing al-Sadr's draconian militia with something even worse, as McClatchy Papers reports:

    Inside Abdul Hassan's home, furnished with colorful rugs and flimsy mattresses, Sakran and his wife hoped for calm after weeks of bombardment and gun battles, but they feared the worst is yet to come. "We just want peace," Sakran's wife, Suham Bresam, said, her eyes heavy from sleepless nights. "This agreement happened and I was up all night from the gunshots and strikes."

    Her home was in the middle of the fight on the edge of the district where U.S. forces are holed up in abandoned buildings and the Iraqi Army has set up checkpoints, and she hadn't left it in weeks. A nearly completed wall built by the U.S. military isolates the area, and her modest dwelling is scarred by bullets and shrapnel…

    Nowhere in Sadr City is safe from an air strike, Bresam said, but Abdul Hassan's home was safer than her own. At home, the Iraqi Army shoots erratically after a roadside bomb blast hit civilians, and when the Mahdi Army shoots rockets at U.S. aircraft, missiles rain on people's homes.

    "It's just the civilians who get hurt," she said....

    Before the battle began in late March, the area was peaceful…but they lived in an atmosphere of intimidation. When women were beaten by the Mahdi Army in her neighborhood or Sunnis killed, they objected quietly and never challenged the militia....

    But they also fear the Iraqi Army. Videos captured on cell phones are being sent as messages from person to person. Abdul Hassan pulled out his phone to show a public hanging of three men. They stood on police trucks with nooses around their necks as a crowd of people looked on and then the trucks were driven away and the men were hung. Another showed men shot by the Iraqi Security Forces and then burned. In the background Iraqi soldiers spoke.

    "Don't say in the name of God the most compassionate the most merciful. They are animals," one soldier said....

    Abdul Hassan said the videos were shot in the southern cities of Karbala and Nassiriyah, and he worried that the same would happen in Sadr City if the Iraqi Army had free reign.

    "We haven't seen a solution that will give us peace," he said. "We don't want it to be like Karbala or Nassiriyah. We don't want people executed in the streets."

    But there will be no peace in Sadr City. The "surge" will continue along the Al Quds line. Bombs will keep falling from American planes, missiles from drone-craft operated by button-pushers bunkered in Nevada will continue to rain death on houses and apartment blocks, and the extremists embraced by George Bush will keep hanging and shooting people in the streets.

    II.
    Meanwhile, civilians in Mosul are likewise fleeing or hunkering down in the face of a major assault by U.S. and Iraqi forces. Patrick Cockburn of the Independent reports that one of Iraq's largest cities has been turned into a "ghost town," as likewise fleeing or hunkering down in the face of an attack by U.S. and Iraqi forces. The latter have launched the attack because, they say, the city has been under the control of "al Qaeda in Iraq" for many months.

    That's right; as Juan Cole notes, one of Iraq's largest cities has been in the hands of what is supposed to be America's deadliest enemies in Iraq – even while Americans has been bombarded with propaganda about the "success" of the surge. This is the same city, by the way, that is routinely trumpted as a "success story" in the glittering career of General David Petraeus, architect of the "successful" surge. Petraeus was in control of Mosul during the first months of the war, when he was regularly touted – by Michael Gordon of the NYT, among others – for his remarkable "counterinsurgency techniques" and peerless "nation-building skills." So "successful" were Petraeus' efforts that the current assault to dislodge "al Qaeda in Iraq" is a carbon-copy of a similar operation launched earlier this year, as Cole reports:


    Reading news about Iraq is like watching Bill Murray's 'Groundhog Day' in which you have to live through the same day over and over again. So the US and Iraqi governments have announced a new campaign against Sunni radicals in Ninevah province, especially Mosul. Take a look at this article, published late last January: "Thousands of Iraqi army soldiers reached the northern city of Mosul on Sunday in preparation for what the government said would be a major offensive there against Al-Qaeda in Iraq, along with other Sunni militants."

    Ninevah governor Duraid Kashmula admitted to Al-Hayat that Mosul "has come to dominated by the leaders of al-Qaeda as a result of the delay in the military operation in the city."

    What??! Mosul is Iraq's second largest city at 1.7 million, and it is under the control of "al-Qaeda"? How long has this been the case? All this time? While the US press was reveling in the "calm" in the country?

    Mosul was also taken over by insurgents in 2004 – while U.S. forces were destroying Fallujah. It has long been flashpoint for terrorist attacks, reprisals and strife throughout the war. And now, for the second time in less than a year, it is being subjected to a major attack to wrest it away from insurgents. This is the kind of "success" that has fuelled Petraeus' meteoric rise to his current perch in command of the entire "Central Command" of the Terror War.

    But what is happening in Mosul today? Patrick Cockburn has the story:

    Mosul looks like a city of the dead. American and Iraqi troops have launched an attack aimed at crushing the last bastion of al- Qa'ida in Iraq and in doing so have turned the country's northern capital into a ghost town.

    Soldiers shoot at any civilian vehicle on the streets in defiance of a strict curfew. Two men, a woman and child in one car which failed to stop were shot dead yesterday by US troops, who issued a statement saying the men were armed and one made "threatening movements"....

    I had been to Mosul down this road half a dozen times since the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003 and on each occasion the military escort necessary to reach the city safely has grown bigger....

    That's  Petraeus' legacy of "success" in action!

    There is no doubt that security in Mosul has been deteriorating over the last six months. Mr Goran, who in effect runs the city, said that 90 people were killed in Mosul last September compared to 213 dead this March, including 58 soldiers and policemen. The number of roadside bombs had risen from 175 to 269 over the same period.

    The official theory for this is that al-Qa'ida in Iraq, which has only a limited connection with Osama bin Laden and is largely home grown, has been driven out of its bastions in Anbar and Diyala provinces and Sunni districts of Baghdad. It has retreated to Mosul, the largest Sunni Arab city and the third largest in Iraq.

    This is probably over-simple. Attacks on US troops in Anbar province have restarted and in Sunni districts of west Baghdad al-Qa'ida appears to be lying low rather than being eliminated. In many cases in Baghdad al-Sahwa, the supposedly anti-al-Qa'ida awakening councils paid by the Americans, in practice have cosy arrangements with al-Qa'ida.

    I was in Mosul on the day it was surrendered by Saddam Hussein's forces in 2003. Scenes of joy were succeeded within the space of a few hours by looting and gun battles between Arabs and Kurds. Five years later Mosul, one of the great cities of the world, looks ruinous and under siege. Every alley way is blocked by barricades and the only new building is in the form of concrete blast walls. The fact that the government has to empty the streets of Mosul of its people to establish peace for a few days shows how far the city is from genuine peace.

    How far from peace…. There will be no peace in that tormented land now, because the ones who started the war, and keep it going, see no profit in peace – unless, as we've said before, it is the peace of the grave, with all resistance to their will, their interests, their agenda crushed utterly. There is no middle way for the war-and-dominion machine that bestrides our system. There is only the "obliteration" of resistance – or else, as in Vietnam, ignominous retreat after years of pointless death and ruin. But what do they care? In the words of Suham Bresam: "It's just the civilians who get hurt."
  • Shot of Wonder: Supporting Arthur Silber
    Preview content | Read more...


    Arthur Silber needs your help. It's as simple as that. One of the most insightful, original, informed and meaningful voices in our political discourse today, Silber must scrape by from month to month on the jagged edge of circumstance, battling ill health with notable courage, surviving on nothing but what his blog can bring in. This is a shameful reflection of how our society regards wisdom and truth: as something to be cut off, unsupported, crushed if possible, and if not -- as in the case of Silber's indomitable spirit -- then marginalized, battered, made to suffer.


    In recent weeks, Silber has roared back from a particularly vicious bout that laid him low to write a remarkable string of essays, full of the learning, passion, perception -- and wicked wit -- that is a trademark of his work. Some particularly choice example can be found here: Let the Victims Speak; Why America May Go to Hell; and Cultivate Your Sense of Wonder.

    In the latter piece, Silber combines older and new material to speak eloquently about the vision that drives his work:

    If I had to select just a single word to express my deepest feeling about the world, and about humankind, it would be that one: wonder. I consider it a measure of how unevolved we are that so many people appear to be capable of that feeling only when they contemplate an imaginary, supernatural plane. It is hardly surprising that our world holds so much unnecessary suffering, when so many people are willing and eager to condemn it to second-rate status in favor of one they've made up out of whole cloth...

    I think it highly probable that our circumstances will continue to get significantly worse, although this deterioration may come quickly or comparatively slowly. You may live the rest of your life without seeing the worst of what will happen, or even anything close to the worst -- or you may not. There is no way to know, and the variables are close to infinite. But I say again: it does not have to be this way. Extraordinary events have transpired in history before, and they might again. We need a miracle, but not one delivered to us from a supernatural realm: we require a miracle that we create.

    It can happen. Hold on to your sense of wonder; if you do not have a sufficiently strong one, then develop it. For me, it is the most precious resource in the world....

    Live in the sense of wonder, and in the world of joy. Take it, feel it and pass it on. That's sometimes all you can do -- for someone, somewhere, one day. It's everything.

    I now add that, when you engage in this process, you yourself live ecstatically -- today.

    Can we afford to let such a voice fall silent? If you have anything at all to spare, get on over to Silber's site and give what support you can.

    *Photo by Ken Jackson.

Comments

Outside Agitators: Another Missile Attack Aimed at Peace Talks
Thomas married into the multi-billionaire Bucksbaum clan, owners of about 60 million square feet of shopping malls. Thomas lives better than the average reporter, in Bethesda, in "a palatial 11,400-square-foot house, currently valued at $9.3 million...
Outside Agitators: Another Missile Attack Aimed at Peace Talks
When he describes the type of government acceptable to the U.S. in other countries as "slave governments" .
Serving the System: Disillusion, Deception and the Obama Campaign
Honestly, why even bother with pwogwessives like fd? He's obviously carved a comfy niche for himself in the corporate DNC and can manage to maintain the delusion that Obama is some kind of pwoggie savior. Nice work if you can get it... There's no ...
Falling Cedars: Fomenting War in Lebanon -- and Beyond
mistah Charlie: check the podcasts; I did an interview with Howard Zinn a few weeks back to discuss 'A peopel's History of American Empire' Jimmythem: youa make-a me laugh: like you, i like bikes and weed, and liberals make me feel weird and uncomfo...
Falling Cedars: Fomenting War in Lebanon -- and Beyond
The U.S. has had a remarkably consistent policy in the Middle East for nearly 40 years, selling arms to as many factions as possible, and pitting them against each other whenever it can. The "war on terror" just makes this foreign policy more obvious...
Falling Cedars: Fomenting War in Lebanon -- and Beyond
Um. Chris? You should check your permit. In most counties, shootin' trolls in a barrel is not exactly above boards... HA! oh, that was made to order. Love, Scott
Fire Alarm: Feeding the Flames at Traitor's Gate
I am in the militia in my state, and the militia is not what the mainstream media make us out to be. However this thing plays out, you and your loved ones will stand a better chance of coming out the other end by getting plugged in to the militia ne...
Falling Cedars: Fomenting War in Lebanon -- and Beyond
ordo ab chao
Falling Cedars: Fomenting War in Lebanon -- and Beyond
I'm glad I stopped by here today, because I need diagnosis: I'm a motorcyclist who smokes wacky weed and likes shiny black boots. Creepy liberal hippies are people who smoke wacky weed, but evil Nazi faggots like shiny black boots. Both hippies AND N...
Falling Cedars: Fomenting War in Lebanon -- and Beyond
In the interview you quote from Democacy Now, Professor As’ad AbuKhalil states "There’s a Los Angeles Times article today detailing the efforts by the United States and allies to create militias throughout the country. And the Washington Post in...

Serving the System: Disillusion, Deception and the Obama Campaign PDF Print E-mail
Thursday, 08 May 2008
Arthur Silber has the second part of his powerful "Choosing Sides" series up now: Killing Truth and Hope -- The Fatal Illusion of Opposition. There is little I can add to the insight and eloquence of the piece -- just go read the whole thing, and follow up on the links provided there as well.

But I would like to highlight two particular aspects of the post. First is Silber's succinct description of the "corporate-authoritarian political system" that confronts us at every turn with its soul-crushing, death-dealing power:

This system encompasses every area of our national life....The military-industrial complex -- or what is now often more accurately described as the military-industrial-congressional complex -- is the most significant component of these interrelationships, but there are many other parts. They encompass all major industries, and almost every minor one, as well as many of our educational and cultural institutions....

This system as it exists today consists of innumerable interrelated, constantly moving parts. Countless agencies, commissions and bureaucrats act in concert and on their own to expand their power, and that of government generally. The system has a life of its own; it is its own reason for being. It sustains itself, and it seeks more and more territory for its dominance. The exercise of power and the acquisition of still more power are not directed at the improvement of the lives of "ordinary" Americans, whoever they may be; ordinary Americans are of no interest or concern to the ruling elites, except insofar as their labor and often their lives are necessary for the maintenance of the lives of immense comfort and privilege enjoyed by the powerful. Power is not the means to some other end, although that claim is a crucial element of the extraordinarily successful propaganda so willingly swallowed by the public. Power -- its exercise and maintenance, and the acquisition of still more power -- is the end.

Again, see the original for the several illuminating links provided.

Silber also deals extensively with two important articles by Pam Martens recently published at Counterpunch. (Here and here.) As Silber notes, Martens is a personal admirer of Barack Obama, and believes him to be a more or less sincere tool of forces beyond his control. Yet this does not prevent her from doing what legions of "progressives" -- especially in the blogosphere -- seem congenitally unable to do: look at the reality of the Obama campaign in the face. And Marten's reality-based analysis of the campaign's real nature is absolutely devastating. She shows the true backers of Obama's candidacy:

A Wall Street cartel of financial firms, their registered lobbyists, and go-to law firms that have a death grip on our federal government....Seven of the Obama campaign’s top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.

She also exposes the rank hypocrisy of Obama's claim to be free from the influence of the Big Money lobbyists who wield such overwhelming, sinister sway in Washington. This claim is, to put it bluntly, an egregious lie. As Martens demonstrates, Obama's Wall Street backers are also some of the worst, most corrupt lobbyists -- such as Greenberg Traurig, former home of that master criminal of the Bush Regime, Jack Abramoff.

Senator Obama's premise and credibility of not taking money from federal lobbyists hangs on a carefully crafted distinction: he is taking money, lots of it, from owners and employees of firms registered as federal lobbyists but not the actual individual lobbyists. But is that dealing honestly with the American people?

As Silber notes, Martens quotes to telling effect from the editors of the Black Agenda Report:

The 2008 Obama presidential run may be the most slickly orchestrated marketing machine in memory. That's not a good thing. Marketing is not even distantly related to democracy or civic empowerment. Marketing is about creating emotional, even irrational bonds between your product and your target audience.

Martens goes on to report that "the Obama campaign has spent over $52 million on media, strategy consultants, image building, marketing research and telemarketing." As Silber says, you should read Martens' articles in their entirety to get the full impact of her facts and analysis.

In his piece, Silber kindly quotes from a post I wrote, in which I noted that the very small differences between the two major parties could have significant effects, because "even minute mitigations in the operation of vast power structures can translate into real benefits for many ordinary people, simply due to the scale on which such structures operate." But Silber goes on to note, quite rightly:

If you choose to support one party over the other because of those "minute mitigations" that "can translate into real benefits for many ordinary people," that's fine -- but intellectual honesty ought to compel you to recognize the great danger you're courting.

He has much more to say on this theme -- again, go read the whole thing -- but it is a point worth stressing again. As I noted in this earlier post ("Disabuse Your Illusion"):

Whether these mitigations of injustice and suffering in certain instances outweigh the cost of participating in – and thereby to some extent legitimizing and perpetuating – a system that inevitably produces injustice and suffering on a massive scale is a question that each person must decide for themselves, in their own individual conscience.

And this question is certainly pertinent in the case of Barack Obama. For by the choices he has made in picking advisers to help him shape his policies, he has given every indication that while his presidency might represent a better management and presentation of the current system, it will in no way overturn or even seriously challenge it on any essential point. In other words – and bearing in mind the type of not-insubstantial mitigations noted above – he will keep doing what Bush has been doing, only more competently, less radically, with a greater care for the long-term viability of the power structure. And what is that structure that Obama seeks to refine and extend? It is an imperial system based on militarism and the exaltation of elitist profit and privilege above all other concerns.

It's your choice. But as Silber says -- "at least be honest about the nature of your choice." Have the courage to do what Martens and Silber are doing, and look reality in the face.

***
Comments (20)add comment

FD said:

thanks for all of your excellent writing. I want to support Obama - he is historical after all. But he has pretty much made it clear that it will be "business" as usual. And we know how dirty that business is. bush has done wonders to destroy the empire - would Mccain be better in the sense that he will continue the disasterous policies of bush, thereby more quickly destroying the empire? I don't know the answer to that.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 08, 2008
Votes: +1

Antifa said:

Since the office of President is restricted to infinitely vetted members of the power establishment, it really is a placeholder office.

The President signs a lot of important papers, so they're all nice and legal, and he or she gets their photo taken a lot, and gets to sign off on the consensus of Washington power players.

All in all, an innkeeper's role.

Although I will be voting for the best Democratic Party candidates available for all my local races in November, I have decided to write in my choice for President of America when I get to the ballot box.

I will vote Basil Fawlty, so I can sleep at night.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 08, 2008
Votes: +1

Evan Rhood said:

Bravo all around, Mr Floyd. I'd read the Pam Martens essays Tuesday, they are incredibly damning -- and I mean that literally, not as a vulgarity or derision. One of the problems I see for Blacks in America if Obama should win the White House, is the problem that Obama becomes the new standard-bearer, and look at what Pam Martens has shown us about this new standard-bearer: he is a poor representative of any ethnic group, his only loyalty is to relationships that will give him access to power or at least the face thereof. I think he has a strong chance of ruining the chances for any Black candidates for some time, and he's surely not the one that I'd want to be the ground-breaker or standard-bearer. Cynthia McKinney, maybe.

Or maybe we'll all get really lucky and Condi Rice will be our next Vice President. That would be a true triumph for Black Americans!
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 09, 2008
Votes: +0

Charles said:

Amy Goodman had an interesting conversation on April 30 between 2 African-American professors (Melissa Harris Lacewell and Adolph Reed, Jr.) discussing the Obama candidacy that epitomizes the current choice before us. Here, a couple of excerpts

Lacewell, "On the other hand, here are our options: John McCain, a conservative Republican who has moved to the right in order to win his party’s nomination; Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is part of this Clinton administration, which Adolph Reed has just told us was part of this kind of entire process of moving the Democratic Party towards the right and who has ruthlessly deployed race and gender in this campaign towards her own benefit; and then there’s Barack Obama."

Reed "Finally, you know, the premise that our politics is—at the national level somehow has been characterized by partisan division just flies in the face of everything that we’ve seen over the last twenty-five years. I mean, what have progressives been complaining about, right? That we have basically two wings of a single party, right? It was the Clinton administration and the Democrats who have led—who have polished off the destruction of the federal government’s sixty-year commitment to direct provision of income support for the poor, to direct provision of low-income housing, that led to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, that opened up the dotcom boom, and so—and so on, that’s been as committed to a regime of public advocation and service provision as Republicans have.

And if anything, the contention that the candidate can bring us all together despite our partisan differences is the same thing that the Democrats have been claiming consistently since at least, you know, Dukakis, to be post-partisan, to be post-political. And frankly, I think it appeals—it’s an appeal that gets greatest traction among people who want to take politics out of politics, ultimately. "

Far too many people are confusing Obama's excellent marketing campaign with a social movement. It is no more a social movement than is the iPhone.

 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 09, 2008 | url
Votes: +0

Evan Rhood said:

Good excerpt, Charles. I especially like this statement:

And frankly, I think it appeals—it’s an appeal that gets greatest traction among people who want to take politics out of politics, ultimately.


That's exactly right. It's got traction among those who want to pretend that politics never should tackle "dirty" subjects or ugly truths, and should just sweep those things underneath a rug of superficial transcendence beyond race, beyond class, beyond all forms of injustice.

What, then, will be politics after that?

Newspeak, that's what.

Damn, 1984 again?
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 09, 2008
Votes: +0

Tory Hartmann said:

I don’t see the problem with fighting fire with fire – hiring expensive pollsters or using the technology at hand to achieve goals. If Obama didn’t use these tools, I’d laugh at him and wonder about his intelligence. I rely on an old California politician, Jesse Unruh, who extolled “If you can’t eat their food and screw their women and still say no, then you don’t belong in politics.” So if Obama can’t use the media and technical tools at hand, use the money from whomever decides to give, and use it wisely, then he doesn’t belong in politics. Just what he’ll do in office is the question, but I’ll vote for someone who (seems) to have a higher mind than others, who seems to have toiled on the mean streets, organized in church and public parlors, and who has vocabulary that stretches upwards of 6000 words. Oh joy! Oh rapture. Complete sentences. Not that the lady doesn’t have a vocab as well, but I always get the feeling that if you aren’t worth any votes, she’d toss you under the bus in a New York minute. Time will tell, but I refuse to damn a person because he takes some dough from a Wall-streeter. Oh woe to me and to us all if Obama turns out with the same low-life make myself rich ethic we have seen before. Then truly, God help us!
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 09, 2008
Votes: +0

Evan Rhood said:

Troy, you misunderstand completely. Nobody's saying use a wet noodle in a swordfight.

We're saying that you are deluded if you think Obama is different. We're saying that Obama is as much a stooge of Empire as is Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or McCain, or Hillary Clinton. Or Bill Clinton.

The proof is out there, Troy. Examine 3 basic things:

1) Who funds Obama.

2) Who advises Obama.

3) How Obama has voted in the Senate.

And you will find:

1) Wall Street, heavily regulated big corporate businesses, rich individuals... the same types of donors as Bush-Cheney, as McCain, as Clinton.

2) Imperialist advisors and DLC regulars are the core of Obama's advisory team. He shares some advisors w/ Hillary Clinton. Some of his advisors have worked alongside members of the Bush-Cheney Admin or the Bush-Cheney advisory team. Many of his advisors have openly supported Bush-Cheney and the imperialist agenda. And then there's that wicked affiliation with Israel's hawks, the ones who love to murder Palestinians.

3) 94% of the time Obama and Clinton have voted the same. 100% of the time Obama has refused to stand in the way of the Bush-Cheney agenda.

Sorry, Troy. This is the lay of the land. This is the landscape we are working with. Obama is a stooge of the same people who now pull strings in American federal government. He is no different.

So it's not about fighting fire with fire.

It's about who's doing the fighting, and whose interests is that fighter protecting.

When you try to make it about fight tactics, you distract from the core point: whose interests are at stake. With Obama, clearly he doesn't care about anyone who wants change.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 09, 2008
Votes: +0

mistah charley, ph.d. said:

This past Sunday, talking with Tim Russert on Meet the Press, Obama said, with regard to his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq,

"If we cannot get the Iraqis to stand up in seven years, we're not going to get them to stand up in 14 or 28 or 56 years. And the danger we've got is that, with our military overstretched, with acknowledgement by our own Army officials that we don't have a strategic reserve right now to deal with other problems, we can't get more troops into Afghanistan, we're having trouble leveraging NATO to send in more troops in Afghanistan to deal with a growing Taliban and al-Qaeda threat, that unless we change postures in a deliberate fashion, our overall strategic posture in the region is going to be weaker."

May the Creative Forces of the Universe stand beside us, and guide us, through the Night with the Light from Above, metaphorically speaking - and have mercy on our souls, if any.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 09, 2008 | url
Votes: +0
..., Lowly rated comment [Show]

Evan Rhood said:

fd,

NOBODY "has to vote for" Obama, or McCain, or Clinton.

You mention Supreme Court appointments. Have you not noticed that it doesn't matter what POTUS appoints a Justice, the Justice will follow fascism? No, I guess you haven't. I take it you're neither a lawyer, nor a student of Supreme Court decisions and constitutional law. In case you forgot, the SCOTUS that handed the White House to Bush in the Bush v Gore decision wasn't a GOP-packed court. It was a balanced panel, jurisprudentially speaking. The problem is that the Court isn't independent. It hasn't been for a long time. So this is a ruse, saying that Obama would help balance the court. Obama's own jurisprudence is fascist, fd. Any student of Obama's policies would be able to tell you that, if he/she knew the law at any decent depth and breadth. Obama is a DLC Donkey, which means he favors corporations. His major campaign donors are regulated industries, corporate law firms, big Wall Street financial entities, and corporate lobbyists. Those people control Obama. They would control whomever he appointed to the SCOTUS.

You are engaged in fantasy, fd. A terrible fantasy. You fail to see that Obama is no different from McCain, even though you try to say that only McCain is the "fascist." The truth is otherwise, and your spin can't change that.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 10, 2008
Votes: +1

Grandma Jefferson said:

I'm at the point where I simply can't endure the freewheeling psychobabble from any of them, any more.
There is NOBODY speaking for the "people", nobody demanding the dismantling of the dictatorship, nobody committed to ending the ongoing warcrimes we're operating, nobody running worth a damn to any of us.
We are observing how a Kabuki Election works, that's all. They're all actors for the corporatocracy, and whoever wins, if there is an election, will cement the dictatorship.
It's all over. And that is what Chris keeps pointing out: this is a FARCE.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 10, 2008
Votes: +1

TC said:

Great post. You're absolutely dead-on. Nader '08.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 10, 2008
Votes: +0

Jon Korein said:

Point well taken. Obama is clearly an establishement candidate. But after what we've been through the last 8 years, eye-opening as they have been, I'm glad he's an establishment candidate, because it means he has a chance to win. I'll take him over McCain in a heartbeat - he at least has a bit of integrity.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 12, 2008
Votes: +0

PhillipAllen said:

fd, with all respect, a lesser evil is still evil.

I don't know why you think Obama would advance any other than DLC-approved SCOTUS appointments. He did nothing to stand in the way of the approval of Scalia or Roberts. He could have filibustered against both, but obviously he didn't have too much trouble with either of them.

Sure, he voted so nobly against the AUMF, but he has not done anything significant in the way of, say, opposing the further funding of war.

Yes, his rhetoric is 'soaring' and 'inspiring', and just empty enough of anything concrete as to allow everyone to project whatever they want to hear into it. Meanwhile he aspires to a foreign policy that will hearken to the lofty, humanity-embracing administrations of George H.W. Bush, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. And lest you are prone to starry-eyed nostalgia for the myth of JFK, remember that his foreign policy was one of rabid anti-communism, terrorism against the Cuban people, the institution and support of government right-wing torture regimes throughout Latin America -- humorously called 'The Alliance for Progress' -- among other soaring, inspired policies.

The lesser evil is, by definition, still evil. Vote for lesser evil if you must, either Obama flavor or Clinton flavor, whichever ends up on offer. It will still be evil, and you will be supporting evil. If you really don't believe in the policies and politics of the Republicans or Democrats, then vote for any other party on your state's ballot you can believe in. If there isn't such a party on your state's ballot, then write in the candidate who does represent what you in fact support. Or simply don't vote for a presidential ticket at all.

Just don't kid yourself that voting in a Democrat will alter the character or trajectory of the American empire.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 12, 2008
Votes: +0

Evan Rhood said:

Obama is clearly an establishement candidate. But after what we've been through the last 8 years, eye-opening as they have been, I'm glad he's an establishment candidate, because it means he has a chance to win. I'll take him over McCain in a heartbeat - he at least has a bit of integrity.


I take it you stumbled over here from Digby, Firedoglake, Daily Kos, Eschaton, Crooks and Liars, or some other likeminded place. That would explain your statement above.

Let me offer some notions for you to consider in your gleeful celebration of being "glad" that Obama is an "establishment candidate."

1) I'm not going to play the game of nebulous statement. Obama isn't an "establishment" candidate. He's a tool of empire. That's a whole lot different. "Establishment" has a ring of sincerity or benevolence for some. Obama will protect only his own ambitions. He doesn't care about you, or me, or anyone who comments here -- he doesn't give a damn about the views of people who think Chris Floyd sees things accurately. Obama is not someone who will help reform or repair America. He is a product of, and willing helper in, the march toward self-defeating Empire.

2) So you say he "has a chance to win" because he's "establishment," eh? What do you think his "winning" will do to help anyone, including yourself? Obama has shown no interest in helping people like me. His "win" would be a win only for himself and Empire. That's not helping me. But maybe you want Empire, endless war, murder of innocents, theft of other nations' resources. Maybe that's what you want. Maybe that's why "winning" is important to you.

3) The desire for Obama to "win" is a by-product of being fooled into thinking that there is ANY difference between Obama (or Clinton) and McCain, that there is ANY difference between Republican and Democrat where Empire and profiteering are concerned. There is no such difference. Unless you are a major campaign contributor, or are engaged in defense, defense-related, security, security-related or espionage-related businesses, a win from Obama (or Clinton or McCain) is not a win for you. It is a loss, a major loss -- a major loss because you continue to have Empire running the show.

And as long as people like you keep thinking that Obama is a good candidate, we're going to have these problems.

Because Obama's a fraud.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 12, 2008
Votes: +0

Evan Rhood said:

Sure, he voted so nobly against the AUMF, but he has not done anything significant in the way of, say, opposing the further funding of war.


Obama was not in the US Congress in 2002, therefore he could not have voted on the original Authorization to Use Military Force regarding Iraq.

This is a fiction created by idiotic "liberals" and "progressives".

What Obama said back then was that he wouldn't have voted for it. That's an easy statement for him to make -- he wasn't in a position to vote for it.

Now that he's been in the Senate since 2006, what has he done?

He has given Bush-Cheney EVERYTHING they have asked for.

EVERYTHING.

So he's a fraud.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 12, 2008
Votes: +0

fd said:

Evan - you should read what Noam Chomsky has to say about voting for the lesser of two evils. And believe me, Noam is a brilliant man, while your rants betray you to be something much less.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 12, 2008
Votes: +0

Evan Rhood said:

fd,

You're amusing. You need Noam Chomsky to tell you what to do/think? What a laugh. I have read Chomsky many times, on many subjects. Perhaps he's a hero of yours. That's good for you, I guess. He's no hero of mine, he's not my thought proxy, and he's not anyone I deem reliable on any subject except being a "leftist gatekeeper" -- namely, to gull fools into thinking he's a "radical" who "sees things differently" and thus he's accorded "expert" status and is allowed to "explain" America to those gulled fools.

I don't know why you or anyone would need Chomsky to "explain" things. I don't need it.

And your lame attempt at comparing me to Chomsky is even funnier, fd. You never have met me and yet you know my intellectual capacities and whether I'm correct, as compared to Chomsky?

How comical.

Besides, this isn't about me or Chomsky. It's about Obama being a fraud. And he IS a fraud. Even if Chomsky says he's a "lesser evil" he's still a fraud.

And you cannot persuade me that supporting a fraud is positive. Nor could Chomsky persuade me of the same.

But bully for you, worshiping Chomsky as you do!
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 12, 2008
Votes: +0

fd said:

Evan, thanks for being so foolish.

Sincerely,
fd
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 13, 2008
Votes: +0

AlanSmithee said:

Honestly, why even bother with pwogwessives like fd? He's obviously carved a comfy niche for himself in the corporate DNC and can manage to maintain the delusion that Obama is some kind of pwoggie savior. Nice work if you can get it...

There's no more point in arguing with fd than there is with any garden variety religious cultist. Logic and reason simply don't apply. The only thing that impacts fd's political outlook is what he feels. It's not about the issues, it's about the team!

 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
May 15, 2008 | url
Votes: +0

Write comment
quote
bold
italicize