Obama Betrays The Liberals

Australia.TO | May 25, 2009

by Sherwood Ross

America’s liberals stand betrayed. Their new president, the one they sweated to elect—-a brilliant, charismatic leader with a professional background in constitutional law—has transmogrified himself from the champion who denounced in his campaign the illegalities of the Bush White House into a president bent on their perpetuation.

Liberals are stunned by Obama’s plan to “restart Bush-era military tribunals” for some Guantanamo detainees, reviving what the Associated Press pointed out, is “a fiercely disputed trial system he once denounced.”(May 15). Liberals are appalled by Obama’s May 21st proposal to hold terrorism suspects in “prolonged detention” inside the U.S. without a trial. “Such detention,” Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) wrote him, “is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world.”

If liberals chaffed over Obama’s centrist cabinet choices, they were dismayed by his decision not to release photographs depicting the sadistic tortures the Bush Gang inflicted on prisoners during a so-called “War on Terror” that was nothing but terror itself. A typical reaction comes from Joe Kishore, writing on the World Socialist Website (May 22): “Whatever verbal warnings Obama may make about the erosion of democracy in the United States, the actions of his administration facilitate and escalate its breakdown.”

Obama’s latest policy reversals come as liberals are still reeling from his April 16th speech to the CIA, ignoring its documented history of 60 years of overthrows and assassinations, and reassuring the Agency of its “right” to continue “covert activities,” as if such conduct was not prima facie illegality in the eyes of law-abiding nations.  Earlier, Obama’s pledge not to prosecute CIA torturers that followed orders likely brought relief to the throne room in Langley that is a throbbing heart of the Dark Side. Obama calls upon the nation to “look forward” as he ignores his presidential obligation to prosecute those who, like Bush and Cheney, trampled the Constitution when they ordered torture in violation of international laws that by treaty are America’s laws as well.

And if Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive magazine hasn’t accused Obama of betraying his liberal subscribers, he charged in his May 21 column the President “tried to carve out an extra-constitutional arrangement for indefinite detention of some detainees without trial.” Rothschild accused Obama of “chiseling away at the basic habeas corpus right that has been the foundation of our jurisprudence dating back to the Magna Carta of 1215.”

One campaign promise on which Obama has not reversed himself is his pledge to intensify the war in Afghanistan, which, one liberal essayist predicted, will “doom” his presidency. This war is already under heated attack from the liberal quarter. Justin Raimando of antiwar.com (May 20) denounces the appointment of Lt. General Stanley McChrystal to head U.S. forces in Kabul. Asserting McChrystal oversaw torture at Camp Nama near Baghdad that was “notorious” for its “beatings, degredation of prisoners and outright, cold-blooded murder,” Raimando writes:  “That’s what they call ‘fresh thinking’ over at Obama’s Pentagon. If Bush and Cheney ordered it, it’s reprehensible and might even be a war crime. If, however, a known torture-enabler is elevated by Obama’s secretary of defense to the position of commander of our armed forces in Afghanistan – well, then, that’s a far different matter.”

Full Story

Democrats were routinely briefed on Bush’s torture techniques

Raw Story | May 8, 2009

By John Byrne

The CIA has released a devastating document detailing the dates and explicit details of secret Congressional briefings in which members of Congress were told of the Bush administration’s torture techniques and when they had been used.

Most damning, perhaps, is its description of a meeting held between CIA staff and then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Porter Goss and now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which shows that Pelosi was briefed on the Bush Administration’s torture techniques in 2002 — even though she’s publicly said she was never told about the use of waterboarding.

Equally striking, however, is the volume of the briefings that have been conducted on the CIA’s interrogation practices since 2002. The document runs ten pages, with up to four briefings a page.

Briefings given to Democrats are of particular significance because the party has been the most vocal about the Bush Administration’s torture practices. Apparently, however, they had known about the practices for years. At least 19 Democrats were briefed about the techniques in detail  by end of 2006.

Those briefed earliest on the so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” included Pelosi, Goss, Rep. Jane Harman, then-Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Sen. John Rockefeller (D), Sen Patrick Roberts (R-KN) and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL).

On Sept. 6, 2006, the CIA briefed the full Senate Intelligence Committee, excluding Sen. Ron Wyden (D-WA), who did not attend. According to the document, “Significant details of EITs were provided in this briefing to include mentions of waterboarding, diet manipulation, nudity, walling, and stomach slap.” EIT is shorthand for “Enhanced Interrogation Technique.”

Full Story

Hillary Clinton salutes Ron Paul’s campaign

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton let it be known today that she thought highly of Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s sway with his supporters. (NEWSCOM)

“I just want to say, having campaigned during the last presidential election, you had the most enthusiastic supporters of anybody I ever saw,” she gushed.

“I love to hear that,” he replied.

CSM Vote Blogs | Apr 22, 2009

Hillary Clinton digs Ron Paul

By Jimmy Orr

Love was in the air this afternoon on Capitol Hill. Some bipartisan love.

No, it wasn’t between President Obama and Rush Limbaugh. Today they proved they couldn’t be any further apart.

It happened when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was testifying in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Among the numerous topics discussed, Clinton shed light on the administration’s thoughts on piracy, Cuba, relations with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a nuclear-armed Iran, and the future of Indonesia.

Could there be a better array of topics to spark some romance?

Full Story

A New World Order emerges out of chaos

Slowly the shape of the world after the financial flood is beginning to emerge.

BBC | Apr 3, 2009

New World Order emerges from chaos

By Paul Reynolds

The first thing to be said is that everyone is in the same boat. And they have to bail together. This contrasts to the old days when capitalists and communists exchanged insults as their ships passed in the night.

The worst threat at this G20 summit was a remark by French President Nicolas Sarkozy that he would walk out if there was not better regulation of banks and financial markets, not exactly the kind of casus belli that plunged Europe into war nearly 100 years ago. We have moved on. Nor did he walk out. Indeed, he was pleased, he said, at the result.

The Franco-German analysis might well have been right. But being right about the past does not mean that you alone can put right the future. The European Union as a whole, normally so free in its advice to all and sundry, was a bit chastened, with many newer and some older members on the verge of or in financial crisis.

We have moved on too from the 1930s, when depression helped fuel the rise of dictatorships. Whether the world solves its financial crisis this time has yet to be determined, but the players at least seem to have learned some lessons.

United States

The second thing is that the position of the United States has changed.

President Obama came and conquered, with little gestures like shaking hands with a black policeman guarding 10 Downing Street to the larger “listen and lead” attitude he showed at the conference itself.

There was no longer the sense of American particularity that there was under George W Bush.

President Obama spoke of an “era of responsibility” – meaning no more wild financial dealings and a willingness to take joint corrective action with others.

He accepted that America could not solve the crisis by itself (though its critics would say that it managed to cause it largely by itself). This was a return to multilateralism – and a recognition that American ways were not necessarily the best ways.

It extended beyond economics. Mr Obama had a productive meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev at which they agreed to start negotiations on new nuclear weapons reductions and complete them by December.

They managed not to allow their differences – over missile defence or Georgia to name but two – to prevent the reset button from being pressed.

This does not mean that all will be well in their relationship. But it does mean that there are better prospects for overcoming problems.

New diplomacy

Then there was China. Chinese President Hu Jintao did not make much of a public impact, beyond that in his own media, but China’s influence was felt everywhere. They and the Americans agreed on a “strategic and economic dialogue” to start in Washington this summer.

The workshop of the modern world cannot be ignored. One sign is that China is likely to get much larger voting rights in the IMF to match its much larger contributions.

Can the day be long delayed when China enters the trading world fully, with a convertible currency?

This is the new super power diplomacy – not East versus West, nor a return to the disastrous manoeuvring of the late 19th Century or the 1930s, but the management of relationships within better agreed rules.

And do not forget the presence of leaders from places like India and Brazil. They cannot be ignored either.

It makes one wonder how much longer the old G8 style of meeting, another of which is planned in Italy this summer, can stagger on.

There can be no rich man’s club if the members are no longer so rich and have caused so much disaster.

Dmitry Medvedev hails Barack Obama as ‘comrade’

“Mr. Dodd, all of us here at the policy making level of the foundation have at one time or another served in the OSS or the European Economic Administration, operating under directives from the White House. We operate under those same directives…The substance of the directives under which we operate is that we shall use our grant making power to so alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.”

-  Rowan Gaither, the President of the Ford Foundation, during a meeting with Norman Dodd, Research Director for the Reece Committee, 1953.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev gestures, after putting on a cap, during a speech to the London School of Economics in London.  Photo: AP

Russia’s leader hailed President Barack Obama as a “comrade” on Thursday and predicted that the two countries would resolve the vexed issue of a missile defence shields in Eastern Europe.

Telegraph | Apr 3, 2009

By David Blair, Diplomatic Editor

Delivering a strikingly conciliatory speech at the London School of Economics, President Dmitry Medvedev predicted that an agreement about defence could be achieved.

At present America plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic to act as a shield against incoming weapons. Washington says the only aim is to guard against a future threat from a nuclear armed Iran. But Russia has always refused to accept this explanation.

Mr Medvedev said: “On the part of America, there is decision to listen to our arguments. They are not trying to cut us off by saying the issue has been decided, there’s nothing to discuss. Therefore we can try to find a way of resolving this issue.”

Related

Stalin Proves Resilient In Popularity Contest

He added: “We cannot rattle our sabres and show our muscles. That is counter productive.”

But the President restated Russia’s position to any further enlargement of Nato. “Before taking any decisions to further expand one should think about the consequences. I described this yesterday to my new friend and comrade, Barack Obama.”

Mr Medvedev added that Russia was “not the Soviet Union” and pledged that his country would develop into a “normal state with a market economy”.

Transatlantic EU-US “rift” over global crisis being overplayed

G20 summit: EU and US are sparring, not feuding

A much-written-about transatlantic “rift” between Europe and the US on the response to the financial crisis may have been overplayed.

Telegraph | Mar 23, 2009

By Pierre Briançon

Framed in somewhat hackneyed terms, this is the debate: the US wants to focus on stimulus – which Europeans are resisting. And the EU wants to talk about financial regulation – which the US supposedly isn’t that interested in. But in reality the two sides aren’t that far apart.

Ben Bernanke’s speech this week at the Council on Foreign Relations suggests that common ground does exist. By calling for broad reforms and stricter financial regulations – not only in the US, but on a global scale – the Federal Reserve chairman seemed to sing in tune with the French and German leaders, who are trying to place the issue at the top of the April G20 meeting in London.

There are certainly differences of position and perspective. The US, as the largest debtor nation in the world, would like others to help.

Europe – some tend to forget – is a common market bound by a common currency, but not an economic policy decision centre. European leaders fear that talking mostly about the stimulus at the G20 would squander an opportunity to address the deep-rooted causes of the crisis. And some in the US feel that Europe should get a better sense of urgency about the recession.

But American decision-makers recognize that better regulation is crucial and necessarily global while European leaders are sensitive to the daily flow of dismal figures, followed by other terrible numbers showing the recession is worse than thought. They can’t simply wait for the distant results expected from their stimulus plans. In any case, everyone is trying out the same basic remedies: aggressive monetary and fiscal policies, support for the financial system, and a few doses of populism

The US and Europe should recognize that they have plenty of common ground. Then they could take the G20 meeting seriously, work on concrete proposals and forget about scoring political points. This shouldn’t be too much to ask. Adversarial rhetoric is risky, especially in a crisis.

Kissinger meets with Russians, echoes Obama’s line

Henry Kissinger, left, talks with former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov at a Moscow news conference.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sounds optimistic about improved relations after Nixon’s secretary of State and other former high-ranking officials pay an informal visit.

LA Times | Mar 21, 2009

By Megan K. Stack and Sergei L. Loiko

Reporting from Moscow — The octogenarian Republican is an improbable go- between to push the diplomatic line of a young Democratic president. But here he was in Moscow on Friday: Henry Kissinger, the architect of Cold War detente with the Soviet Union, meeting informally with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to try to smooth over a new generation of animosities between their two countries.

Kissinger led a team of prominent former U.S. officials in meetings in Moscow this week who were acting on their own but echoing the message of cooperation from an Obama administration that has pledged to “reset” relations that have become tense in recent years. And the young Russian president, still regarded by many observers as an apprentice to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, spoke encouragingly of efforts to end the acrimony.

“This surprising term ‘reset’ will, I hope, reflect the essence of the changes we would like to see,” Medvedev said. “We are counting on a reset. We hope it takes place.”

His relatively passive remarks reflected the prevailing Russian contention that relations have soured because of U.S. belligerence and that the onus is on Washington to soften its behavior.

Kissinger, who also met with Putin, assured reporters that he’d found ample ground for cooperation. “I’m happy to report that the differences were not so remarkable and the agreements were considerable,” he said.

The Nixon-era secretary of State was joined on the trip by other prominent officials from previous administrations, including former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn, former Defense Secretary William Perry and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.

The White House said the group had not been sent by President Obama. “They’re private citizens and not there at the behest of the White House,” said an official, speaking on condition of anonymity. “But they did inform the White House beforehand.”

A foreign policy realist, Kissinger is an advocate of finding accommodation with the Russians and setting aside tensions that sharpened during George W. Bush’s presidency.

The U.S. and Russia have clashed recently over proposed missile defense systems. Under the Bush administration, the U.S. began plans for a missile shield based in Poland and the Czech Republic that was intended, officials said, to deflect the threat of Iranian weapons. Moscow sees the plan as Western military infringement on the edge of its territory and has protested vigorously.

Obama has already sent a measure of relief to Russian leaders by signaling a willingness to consider scrapping the planned bases.

In exchange, however, the United States wants Russian cooperation on two strategically sensitive spots: Iran and Afghanistan. U.S. officials are hopeful that Moscow will use its commercial and strategic ties with Tehran to dissuade Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability.

Russia has also begun to allow NATO supplies to pass through its territory en route to U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan. And Moscow has indicated it could offer additional help as the United States raises its troop levels in the war in Afghanistan.

But the question of regional influence remains a contentious issue. Medvedev has said that Russia expects to have “privileged” influence over the countries and territories of the former Soviet Union, and many Russians are deeply angered by U.S. support for pro-Western leaders in Ukraine and Georgia.

Earlier this year, the impoverished Central Asian state of Kyrgyzstan accepted billions of dollars in aid from Russia and, in what appeared to be a quid pro quo, ordered the closure of a U.S. base used to support the war in nearby Afghanistan.

The tensions have raised anticipation for a meeting between Obama and Medvedev on the sidelines of next month’s G-20 summit in London. On Friday, Medvedev said he was looking forward to the encounter.

“Many issues have accumulated in recent years that should be discussed,” he said.

Still, Russian officials are now suggesting publicly that relations might brighten under Obama. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told reporters Friday that “the low point of this period of chill in our relations is behind us.”

_____

Related

Former Russian Premier/Ex-KGB Head to Work for Homeland Security

Primakov: Former Soviet KGB general as US national security adviser

Bush Admin Hiring of Ex-KGB Chiefs to Develop Internal Passport

The $5 Trillion Cold War Hoax

Buffett: GOP should unite behind Obama after “Economic Pearl Harbor”

“I think that the Republicans have an obligation to recognize this as an economic war and realize you need one leader,” he said in a pitch for leaders to unite the way they did after Pearl Harbor.

New York Daily News | Mar 9, 2009

After saying the economy has “fallen off a cliff,” legendary investor Warren Buffett this morning rapped political leaders for not being united enough in dealing with what he called an “economic Pearl Harbor” about six months ago.

Buffett, who supported Barack Obama in the election, didn’t let Democrats skate, but he particularly singled out the GOP.

“They really do have an obligation to support things that are clearly designed to fight the war in a big way,” Buffett said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” this morning.

“I think that the Republicans have an obligation to recognize this as an economic war and realize you need one leader,” he said in a pitch for leaders to unite the way they did after Pearl Harbor.

Related

Buffett: crisis is an economic Pearl Harbor

But he also said he understood why the GOP might gripe, since the Democrats have been using the crisis to push all sorts of things.

“You can’t expect people to unite behind you if you’re trying to jam a bunch of things down their throat,” Buffett said.

The Oracle of Omaha also hasn’t been entirely impressed with the way the White House and Congress have been explaining the huge problems to America.

“We’ve had muddled messages,” he said.

Nevertheless, he echoed President Obama’s position that government has a huge role to play in getting the economy working again, which Buffet said could take five years if things go poorly.

“Government is going to play an enormous factor in how fast it (confidence) comes back,” Buffett said.

Obama’s Neocon

Obama listens as Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, speaks at the State Department in Washington January 22, 2009. Reuters

The Curious Case of Richard Holbrooke

ZMAG | Jan 24, 2009

By Joshua Frank

In wee morning hours on Friday, January 23, a U.S. spy plane killed at least 15 in Pakistan near the Afghanistan border. It was Barack Obama’s first blood and the U.S.’s first violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty under the new dministration. The attack was an early sign that the newly minted president may not be overhauling the War on Terror this week, or even next.

As the U.S. government fired upon alleged terrorists in the rugged outback of Pakistan, Obama was back in Washington appointing Richard Holbrooke as a special U.S. representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, like the remote control bombing that claimed human life, Obama’s vision for the region, in the embodiment of Holbrooke, may not be a drastic departure from the failed Bush doctrine. Or a departure at all.

“[Holbrooke] is one of the most talented diplomats of his generation,” Obama said during a January 22 press conference at the State Department. In his speech Obama declared that both Afghanistan and Pakistan will be the “central front” in the War on Terror. “There, as in the Middle East, we must understand that we cannot deal with our problems in isolation,” he said.

In 1975, during Gerald Ford’s administration, Indonesia invaded East Timor and slaughtered 200,000 indigenous Timorese. The Indonesian invasion of East Timor set the stage for a long and bloody occupation that recently ended after an international peacekeeping force was introduced in 1999.

Transcripts of meetings among Indonesian dictator Mohamed Suharto, Gerald Ford, and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger have shown conclusively that Kissinger and Ford authorized and encouraged Suhatro’s murderous actions. “We will understand and will not press you on the issue [of East Timor],” said President Ford in a meeting with Suharto and Kissinger in early December 1975, days before Suharto’s bloodbath. “We understand the problem and the intentions you have,” he added.

Henry Kissinger also stressed at the meeting that “the use of US-made arms could create problems,” but then added, “It depends on how we construe it; whether it is in self defense or is a foreign operation.” Thus, Kissinger’s concern was not about whether US arms would be used offensively, but whether the act could be interpreted as illegal. Kissinger went on: “It is important that whatever you do succeeds quickly.”

After Gerald Ford’s loss and Jimmy Carter’s ascendance into the White House in 1976, Indonesia requested additional arms to continue its brutal occupation, even though there was a supposed ban on arms trades to Suharto’s government. It was Carter’s appointee to the Department of State’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Richard Holbrooke, now a likely candidate to be nominated for Clinton’s Secretary of State, who authorized additional arms shipments to Indonesia during this supposed blockade. Many scholars have noted that this was the period when the Indonesian suppression of the Timorese reached genocidal levels.

During his testimony before Congress in February 1978, Professor Benedict Anderson cited a report that proved there was never an US arms ban, and that during the period of the alleged ban the US initiated new offers of military weaponry to the Indonesians:

“If we are curious as to why the Indonesians never felt the force of the U.S. government’s ‘anguish,’ the answer is quite simple. In flat contradiction to express statements by General Fish, Mr. Oakley and Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Richard Holbrooke, at least four separate offers of military equipment were made to the Indonesian government during the January-June 1976 ‘administrative suspension.’ This equipment consisted mainly of supplies and parts for OV-10 Broncos, Vietnam War era planes designed for counterinsurgency operations against adversaries without effective anti-aircraft weapons, and wholly useless for defending Indonesia from a foreign enemy. The policy of supplying the Indonesian regime with Broncos, as well as other counterinsurgency-related equipment has continued without substantial change from the Ford through the present Carter administrations.”

If we track Holbrooke’s recent statements, the disturbing symbiosis between him and figures like uberhawk Paul Wolfowitz is startling.

“In an unguarded moment just before the 2000 election, Richard Holbrooke opened a foreign policy speech with a fawning tribute to his host, Paul Wolfowitz, who was then the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington,” reported First of the Month following the terrorist attacks in 2001.

The article continued: “Holbrooke, a senior adviser to Al Gore, was acutely aware that either he or Wolfowitz would be playing important roles in next administration. Looking perhaps to assure the world of the continuity of US foreign policy, he told his audience that Wolfowitz’s ‘recent activities illustrate something that’s very important about American foreign policy in an election year, and that is the degree to which there are still common themes between the parties.’ The example he chose to illustrate his point was East Timor, which was invaded and occupied in 1975 by Indonesia with US weapons – a security policy backed and partly shaped by Holbrooke and Wolfowitz. ‘Paul and I,’ he said, ‘have been in frequent touch to make sure that we keep [East Timor] out of the presidential campaign, where it would do no good to American or Indonesian interests.”

In sum, Holbrooke has worked vigorously to keep his bloody campaign silent. The results of which appear to have paid off. In chilling words, Holbrooke describes the motivations behind support of Indonesia’s genocidal actions:

“The situation in East Timor is one of the number of very important concerns of the United States in Indonesia. Indonesia, with a population of 150 million people, is the fifth largest nation in the world, is a moderate member of the Non-Aligned Movement, is an important oil producer — which plays a moderate role within OPEC — and occupies a strategic position astride the sea lanes between the Pacific and Indian Oceans … We highly value our cooperative relationship with Indonesia.”

Gaza Phosphorus Burn Victims Vow to Become Bombers

Fox News | Jan 23, 2009

Two days after their last soldiers returned from Gaza, Israelis are asking increasingly whether the offensive had achieved anything other than spawning a new generation of potential suicide bombers.

Related

• Israel admits using white phosphorous in attacks on Gaza

The three-week war enjoyed massive popular support at the time but, with the guns silent, scathing criticism is emerging from the Left and the Right of Israel’s political divide.

The stated goal of Operation Cast Lead was to end Hamas’s constant rocket fire on southern Israel and weaken the Islamists’ grip on the territory. It has failed to achieve either. Hamas kept up its barrage of rockets to the very end of the campaign and has won new recruits for its cause.

In Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, Sabah Abu Halima, her body covered with burns from what are believed to be phosphorus shells, her husband and four of nine children dead, dreams of becoming a suicide bomber.

“I pray to Allah that I will have revenge, I pray and dream of killing myself among the Israelis,” she says. “I hope that on the last day of my life I kill as many of them as possible and make myself a martyr.”

Israel had hoped that its offensive would sow discontent with the Hamas movement, which had promised to turn the coastal territory into “a graveyard for Israeli soldiers”. Nearly 1,300 Palestinians were killed and thousands more wounded, according to local medics, while only 13 Israeli soldiers died — a statistic which allowed Israel to proclaim itself the victor of the war.

The casualties have failed to dent support for Hamas, with many in the hardest-hit Gaza neighbourhoods pledging their allegiance to the Islamists. There have been muted calls for Hamas to show more flexibility in its ceasefire negotiations with Israel and allow time for residents to recover and rebuild their homes but most feel that Hamas has gained political and international legitimacy in recent weeks.