I had a phone call from a friend in Maine yesterday. He was very upset about the recent passage of the FISA surveillance bill in the Senate and wanted to know what should be done about it. He cares very much about civil liberties issues. He mentioned that he was disappointed that Obama had voted in favor of the bill.
I listened to him for some time. When I finally spoke I told him that I was losing patience with my progressive friends who keep complaining about how badly the Democrats performed (on Iraq occupation, possible Iran attack, no impeachment hearings, civil liberties, etc) and then turn right around and vote them back into office without a mumbling word.
He acknowledged that he, like many, has donated to Obama and volunteered for his campaign. He said he fears that John McCain would be a dangerous president - after all just look what McCain had said when he spoke at the recent AIPAC convention........
I told my friend that in the end the right to vote is a sacred thing. We each must be free to do what we have to do and friends must remain friends. But with that said I told him I needed to tell him a story.
I voted for Jimmy Carter when he ran for president (1977-1981) largely because of his statement during his campaign that the "arms race was a disgrace to the human race." Then he went and built the huge Trident nuclear submarine base in St. Marys, Georgia right on the Florida-Georgia border. I spent many days and nights protesting at this base in the years thereafter.
I told my friend that after the Vietnam War the American people were suffering from the "Vietnam syndrome" which meant the people were not eager for any more "foreign entangling alliances". David Rockefeller at the Trilateral Commission sent the executive director of that high-brow organization, Zbignew Brzezinski, out to find a fresh face, someone who could offer "change" to the public. He recruited Jimmy Carter, the unknown Georgia governor and peanut farmer, to run for president. With the support of this hidden elite Carter became president. I fell for the trap. Brzezinski became Carter's national security adviser and is the one who helped us arm the Taliban in Afghanistan so they could give the former Soviet Union their own version of a Vietnam quagmire. The U.S. has now built six permanent military bases in Afghanistan.
Zbignew Brzezinski went on to write a book called The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives that was published in the late 1980's or early 1990's. In this book Brzezinski talks about the importance of the Middle East and Central Asia because of their vast supplies of oil and natural gas. He says, "... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.”
He continues, "In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75% of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60% of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources."
How though, Brzezinski asks, will we be able to convince the American people to expend the enormous amount of money it would take to secure Eurasia on behalf of the American corporate empire? How can we talk the American people into giving up their favorite social programs (Medicare and Social Security) so that permanent bases can be established in this region in order to control the extraction of resources?
He answers the question by saying, "Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Translation - terrorism. The war on terror. Endless war to protect us from the dark, hard to find, cave dwelling forces of evil.
Today the American people are beginning to suffer from the Iraq and Afghanistan syndrome. Since 2001 we have been in a perpetual state of war which has been supported by both the Republicans and Democrats. How can we ever convince the American people to press on, to keep our feet in "Eurasia" when they have begun to show such a proclivity to tire of these foreign entanglements?
A new fresh face is needed.
I recently read an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski that was published in a British progressive journal. In the interview Brzezinski, who is now one of Obama's chief foreign policy advisers, brags that he had early on "vetted" the potential presidential candidate and was quite certain that he was the right man for the job at hand.
The official definition of the word vetted: to evaluate for possible approval or acceptance.
I told my friend that the fresh face of change was a facade. A false, superficial, or artificial appearance. A trick. A lie. A humiliation.
Bruce Gagnon is the Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.
Between 1983–1998 Bruce was the State Coordinator of the Florida Coalition for Peace & Justice.
He was the organizer of the Cancel Cassini Campaign (launched 72 pounds of plutonium into space in 1997) that was featured on the TV program 60 Minutes.
Bruce has been featured by artist Robert Shetterly in his collection of portraits and quotes entitled Americans Who Tell The Truth.In 2006 he was the recipient of the Dr. Benjamin Spock Peacemaker Award.
In 2003 Bruce co-produced a popular video entitled Arsenal of Hypocrisy that spells out U.S. plans for space domination.His latest video, shot in 2006, is entitled The Necessity of the Conversion of the Military Industrial Complex.
In 1968 Bruce was Vice-chair of the Okaloosa County (Florida) Young Republican Club while working on the Nixon campaign for president.
Bruce is a Vietnam-era veteran and began his career by working for the United Farm Workers Union in Florida organizing fruit pickers.
Thanks for posting this. I've gone from being a raging Obama supporter to wondering how this guy can get away with alll the bullshit. You've helped me put a big piece of the puzzle together.
Thanks.
by
Mystic Wizard (1 articles, 95 quicklinks, 10 diaries, 54 comments)
on Saturday, July 19, 2008 at 2:25:02 AM
I, too, was an early enthusiast for Obama, but I'm still for him. The reason may be familiar: the alternative is far, far worse. But there is more than that. Obama began as a community organizer; his orientation is towards looking to the base, not the elite for direction; his political organization and the ancillary organizations that have been galvanized by his success will have much greater access, and influence on him than they would a more conventional (establishment) candidate (Clinton or McCain).
Obama is not perfect. If Nader or McKinney actually had a real shot at the White House, you'd realize they weren't either. But Obama is more likely to do more that progressives would endorse than either of the above, especially since he would be more open to our appeals/demands.
That said, he does have to get elected first. I bid you all remember that FDR ran on a platform for balancing the budget as the way to solve the Depression. Why? Because that was the received wisdom and only an elected President (not a candidate) is in the position to change how people think about the political world, as FDR did.
Obama can't appear too far outside received wisdom if he is going to have any chance of being elected, but his whole background implies that he'd be willing to change our general way of looking at the political world once he is in a position to do so--as long as the progressive community pushes him in that direction.
That's why I'm an agnostic (neither a believer nor a non-believer), when it comes to this Presidential race. But to vote for anyone but Obama is just to give up. Progressives have had the vain hope that if things get worse, finally people will wake up. Well, things have gotten worse, because of Bush. Would people finally see the light if McCain were elected and we had another 4 years of this?
Not bloody likely, but in the meantime our whole democratic system would be even further dismantled in favor of a plutocratic autocracy, which would be even harder to overturn.
Douglas
by
Douglas Smyth (20 articles, 5 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 61 comments)
on Saturday, July 19, 2008 at 9:27:38 AM
2 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
