Chomsky: No change coming with Obama


“It was pretty clear that Obama would accept the Bush doctrine that the United States can bomb Pakistan freely.”

MWC | Feb 8, 2009

By Shahram Vahdany

The following is a Press TV interview with respected American author, political analyst and world-renowned linguist, Professor Noam Chomsky.

Press TV: Professor Chomsky, we better start with Pakistan. The White House not commenting on the killings of people [in cross-border drone attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan]. Richard Holbrooke, someone whom you’ve written about in the context of Yugoslavia, is the man [President Barack] Obama has chosen to solve the situation.

Chomsky: Well, it was pretty clear that Obama would accept the Bush doctrine that the United States can bomb Pakistan freely, and there have been many case which are quite serious.

There has been for example a great deal of chaos and fighting in Bajaur province, which is a adjacent to Afghanistan and tribal leaders- others there- have traced it to the bombing of a madrassa school which killed 80 to 95 people, which I don’t think was even reported in the United states, it was reported in the Pakistani press of course.

The author of the article reporting it, a well-known nuclear physicist, Pervez Hoodbhoy pointed out at the time that this kind of massacre will of course engender terror and reactions, which will even threaten the state of Pakistan. And that has been what is happening. We are now seeing more of it.

The first message of the Pakistani government to General [David] Petraeus, the American General when he took command of the region was that they did not want any more bombings in Pakistan.

Actually, the first message to the new Obama administration by President [Hamid] Karzai of Afghanistan was the same, that he wanted no more bombings. He also said that he wants a timetable for the withdrawal of the foreign troops, US and other troops, from Afghanistan. That was of course just ignored.

Press TV: And these three foreign envoys, well the third one has not been announced yet perhaps, but some people are expressing optimism about George Mitchell’s position as Middle East envoy.

Richard Holbrooke, which have looked at. We have talked to the former Bosnian foreign minister here, who seemed to imply that he may even have had a role in the say so for the Srebrenica massacre, and of course, Dennis Ross is being talked about as an envoy for Iran.

Chomsky: well Holbrooke has a pretty awful record, not so much Yugoslavia, but earlier. For example, In the Indonesian atrocities in eastern Timor, where he was the official in charge, and evaded to stop the US support for them, and all together it’s a very spotty record.

George Mitchell is, of the various appointments that have been made, he is the most decent let’s say. He has a pretty decent record. He achieved something in Northern Ireland, but of course, in that case there was an objective.

The objective was that the British would put an end to the resort to violence in response to IRA terror and would attend to the legitimate grievances that were the source of the terror. He did manage that, Britain did pay attention to the grievances, and the terror stopped- so that was successful.

But there is no such outcome sketched in the Middle East, specially the Israel-Palestine problem. I mean, there is a solution, a straightforward solution very similar to the British one. Israel could stop its US-backed crimes in the occupied territories and then presumably the reaction to them would stop. But that’s not on the agenda.

In fact, President Obama just had a press conference, which was quite interesting in that respect. He praised the parabolic peace initiative, the Saudi initiative endorsed by the Arab League, and said it had constructive elements. It called for the normalization of relation with Israel, and he called on the Arab states to proceed with those “constructive elements,” namely the normalization of relations.

But that is a gross falsification of the Arab League initiative. The Arab League initiative called for accepting a two-state settlement on the international border, which has been a long-standing international consensus and said if that can be achieved then Arab states can normalize relations with Israel.

Well, Obama skipped the first part, the crucial part, the core of the resolution, because that imposes an obligation on the United States. The United States has stood alone for over thirty years in blocking this international consensus, by now it has totally isolated the US and Israel.

Europe and now a lot of other countries have accepted it. Hamas has accepted it for years, the Palestinian Authority of course, the Arab League now for many years [have accepted it]. The US and Israel block it, not just in words, but they are blocking it in actions constantly, (this is) happening every day in the occupied territories and also in the siege of Gaza and other atrocities.

So when he skips that it is purposeful. That entails that the US is not going to join the world in seeking to implement a diplomatic settlement, and if that is the case, Mitchell’s mission is vacuous.

Press TV: Is there a contradiction in that George Mitchell of course did speak to members of the Sinn Féin, their military wing of course of the IRA.

At the same time, well on this channel [Press TV] we have been covering the Gaza conflict, its headquarters were bombed, and now we are being told that Israeli soldiers will not give their names, and the names of people are not being released for fear of prosecution.

And yet, some were saying that Obama did say that the border should be opened. Should we see any change in policy there?

Chomsky: He did say that, but he did not mention the fact that it was in the context of a lot other demands. And Israel will also say, sure the borders should be opened but he still refuses to speak to the elected government (i.e. Hamas), quite different from Mitchell in Northern Ireland.

It means Palestinians will have to be punished for voting in a free election, the way the US did not want them to, and he endorsed the Condoleezza Rice-Tzipi Livni agreement to close the Egyptian-Gaza order, which is quite an act of imperial arrogance.

It is not their border, and in fact, Egypt strongly objected to that. But Obama continued. He says we have to make sure that no arms are smuggled through the tunnels into the Gaza Strip. But he said nothing about the vast dispatch of far more lethal arms to Israel.

In fact, right in the middle of the Gaza attack, December 31, the Pentagon announced that it was commissioning a German ship to send 3,000 tons of war material to Israel. That did not work out, because the government of Greece prevented it but it was supposed to go through Greece but it could all go through somewhere else. This is right in the middle of the attack on Gaza.

Actually there were very little reporting, very few inquiries. The Pentagon responded in an interesting way. They said, well this material won’t be used for the attack on Gaza, in fact they knew that Israel had plans to stop the attack right before the inauguration, so that Obama would not have to say anything about it.

But the Pentagon said that this material is being used for pre-positioning for US forces. In other words, this has been going for a long time, but this is extending and reinforcing the role of Israel as a US military base on the edge of the major oil producing regions of the world. If they are ever asked why they are doing it, they will say for defense or stability, but it is just a base for further aggressive action.

Press TV: Robert Gates and Admiral [Mike] Mullen have been talking about the 16-month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq is just one of the options, a slight difference from what Obama has been saying in the campaign. And, Hillary Clinton famously said she was prepared to obliterate all of Iran and kill 70 million citizens. On Iraq and Iran what do you see as changes?

Chomsky: What happened in Iraq is extremely interesting and important. The few correspondents with real experience any whom know something have understood it. Patrick Cockburn, Jonathan Steele and one or two others.

What has happened is that there was a remarkable campaign of non-violent resistance in Iraq, which compelled the United States, step-by-step, to back away from its programs and its goals. They compelled the US occupying forces to allow an election, which the US did not want and tried to evade in all sorts of ways.

Then they went on from there to force the United States to accept at least formally a status of forces agreement, which if the Obama administration lives up to it, will abandon most of the US war aims. It will eliminate the huge permanent military bases that the US has built in Iraq. It will mean the US will not control decisions over how the oil resources will be accessed and used. And in fact just every war aim is gone.

Of course there is a question of whether the US will live up to it and what you are reporting is among the serious indications that they are trying to evade living up to it. But what happened there is really significant, and a real credit to the people of Iraq, who have suffered miserably. I mean, the country has been absolutely destroyed, but they did manage to get the US to back away formally from its major war aims.

In the case of Iran, Obama’s statements have not been as inflammatory as Clinton’s, but they amount to pretty much the same thing. He said all options are open. Well, what does all options mean? Presumably that includes nuclear war, you know, that is an option.

There is no indication that he is willing to take the steps, say, that the American population wants. An overwhelming majority of the American population for years has been in favor, has agreed with the Non-Aligned Movement, that Iran should have the rights granted to the signers of the non-proliferation treaty, in fact to develop nuclear energy.

It should not have the right to develop nuclear weapons, and more interestingly about the same percentages, about 75 to 80%, call for the establishment of a nuclear weapons free zone in the region, which would include Iran, Israel, and any US forces deployment there, within all kinds of verifications and so on.

That could eliminate probably one of the major sources of the conflict. There is no indication that the Obama administration has any thought of doing anything about this.

Press TV: Just finally Professor Chomsky, the US economy, of course where you are -that is dominating the news and the lives all Americans and arguably the people around the world- and this 825 billion dollar package. How do you think the Obama people are going to handle this?

Chomsky: Nobody really knows. I mean, what is happening with the economy is not well understood. It is based on extremely opaque financial manipulations, which are quite hard to decode. I mean, the general process is understood, but whether the $800 billion, or probably larger government stimulus, will overcome this crisis, is not known.

The first $350 billion have already been spent- that is the so-called part bailout but that went into the pockets of banks. They were supposed to start lending freely, but they just decided not to do it. They would rather enrich themselves, restore their own capital, and take over other banks- mergers and acquisition and so on.

Whether the next stimulus will have an effect depends very much on how it is handled, whether it is monitored, so that it is used for constructive purposes. [It relies] also on factors that are just not known, like how deep this crisis is going to be.

It is a worldwide crisis and it is very serious. It is suddenly striking that the ways that Western countries are approaching the crisis is exactly the same as the model that they enforce on the Third World when there is a crisis.

So when Indonesia has a crisis, Argentina and everyone else, they are supposed to raise interest rates very high and privatize the economy, and cut down on public spending, measures like that. In the West, it is the exact opposite: lower interest rates to zero, move towards nationalization if necessary, pour money into the economy, have huge debts.

That is exactly the opposite of how the Third World is supposed to pay off its debts, and that this seems to pass without comment is remarkable. These measures for the West are ones that might get the economy moving again, while it has been a disaster for others.

11 responses to “Chomsky: No change coming with Obama

  1. This is why intellectuals like Chomsky are vital. You may not agree with everything he says, but without insight such as this the rest of the NWO research wouldn’t make much sense.

    Alex Jones and many others bring much to the table for debate, but what they lack is analytical perspective (a nack for political science). And without that element it become extremely difficult to make your case/connect the dots. Chomsky, Greg Palast, Christopher Hitchens, and many others help to fill in those gaps even though we may not agree with them on many talking points.

  2. I agree. We have to listen to all sides to get the big picture. LIsten to what both a Limbaugh and an Ariana Huffington have to say and find the truth somewhere in the middle of their distortions. We should especially listen to what the globalist elites and technocrats have to say, not to believe everything they say, but read between the lines, know their plans and to know thy enemy.

  3. I totally agree PJwalker 911:
    Anyway, I finished reading John Coleman’s the “Committee of 300” and maybe I’m wrong, but I didn’t find anything useful. He seems to take elements of the truth and inculcates it into his distorted view of reality. He admits he can’t prove the 300’s existence. Then he goes on to name the individuals who are members.

    My question is how does he know who the members of the committee are when he can’t prove they exist?

    Moreover he distorts the history of the Civil War by vilifying Lincoln when it was Lincoln (like Kennedy) who was fighting with the banksters trying to keep the union together.

    His book also doesn’t provide any notes or a bibliography. Everything this man states is off the cuff, while providing no evidence.

    I’m not saying that none of what he’s saying is true, but I do feel Texe Marrs’ book “Circle of Intrigue” provides a much clearer perspective of the Inner Circle’s workings.

    I don’t have time to go through all of Coleman’s misnomers, distortions, and unmitigated fiction mixed with truth. But I wouldn’t recommend this book for study without first reading other works first. As a matter of fact I wouldn’t recommend Coleman’s work at all, but if anyone out there feels they need to give Coleman a try please read these books I listed below first:

    Books I think people should read are:

    James Perloft “The Shadows of Power”
    Daniel Estulin “The True Story of the Bilderberg Group”
    Noam Chomsky “Hegemony or Survival”
    Noam Chomsky “Failed States”
    James S. Henry “The Blood Bankers”
    Milton William Cooper “Behold a Pale Horse”
    Greg Palast “Armed Mad House”
    Ralph Nader “The Good Fight”
    Jim Tucker “The Bilderberg Diary”
    Webster Griffin Tarpley “9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in the USA”
    Texx Marrs “Circle of Intrigue”
    Seth Payson “Proof of the Illuminati”

    There are a plethora of other books I could recommend but I think someone new to the subject should start with these, but be mindful of the fact that you won’t agree with everything these writers have to say.

  4. We don’t have to agree with everything we read, but we should be dedicated enough to the truth to listen to all sides and follow it wherever it leads us which means we might have to accept unpopular views for which we may be condemned by all sides. That takes a certain degree of courage to go out on a limb when others are just standing by to see if you fall. Recall the great quote by Mark Twain on being a patriot. And remember that being a patriot does not mean you worship physical things like flag and government offices, but that you hold to principles like freedom, love and truth above all and you recognize that if a government stops serving the will of the people, then maybe it is time to abolish it and start a new one as Jefferson stated. People who cling to the system they are in without being willing to think outside the box are apt to go down with the ship rather than thinking of constructive ways to survive a catastrophe.

    When reading, we should take note of both what is true and what is false, and try to think things through as objectively as possible. This is NOT what the majority of people do. They start out brainwashed, and they filter information through their brainwashed system of beliefs. In fact, I believe if you are determined to seek truth, you won’t be very popular with the world in general because you will piss off just about everybody as Bill Cooper stated. The majority of people, I have found, either hate or fear truth to the degree that they they are willing to kill you for speaking it. As Orwell said, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

    I believe we have been deceived all along about the founding of this Union and reasons for its maintenance at all costs such as the half-million slaughtered during the Civil War. I also believe that true freedom-fighters like the anti-federalists and Patrick Henry (in his earlier years anyway) were marginalized and pushed aside by the elite Masonic landowners of the time to set up what was for Master Mason Ben Franklin a model for future world federation. Now these are unpopular views, but I have plenty of reason for having them. Most people in the “patriot movement” are afraid to look at the issue of Freemasonry because it means they have to question the motivations of the Masonic Founding Fathers. They are also afraid to question the nature of the US constitution, the Union itself or of historical events that have been frankly whitewashed and presented by the victors as the official truth. People in the patriot movement are generally only able to go so far in questioning authority, and so they will stop at safe positions and safe politicians who seem to say all the right things. Of course, I am talking about Ron Paul who nobody in the patriot movement seems willing to dare criticize. That is bad. Alex Jones says he is perfect in every way which just sets RP up as a sacred idol whose image must not be tarnished by dissent. But the truth is, if we continue down that path, nothing will improve and we will definitely go down with the ship. And that is the whole point of studying all the conspiracies, to find the real truth and then ACT upon it. Otherwise it is all fed into controlled opposition and neutralized or it becomes just another hobby, an exercise in futility.

  5. I agree on all points, but in the case of Lincoln, Coleman left out the fact that the Csar Nicholas II loaned Lincoln the money to fight the war because he knew that as soon as the Black Nobility/Rothschild bankers split the union they would soon gun after Russia. So Russia backed Lincoln allowing him to finance the war, otherwise the Illuminati bankers would have set up two central banking systems in two devastated nation states.

    Russia allowed Lincoln to print American greenbacks, which weren’t control by the Illuminati bankers, and that’s one of the reasons why he was assassinated. John Wilks Booth was working for the banksters and was a Freemason.
    Coleman doesn’t include this in his book.

    Besides, in the end the Illuminati bankers ended up over throwing the Romanoff Dynasty in 1911 (the Bolshevik Revolution.) Which leaves Nicholas II correct in his assumption that they were going to overthrow Russia, and besides look who ended up in power …Stalin…a 33rd degree Freemason (how ironic).

    I’m like you we should read everything, but be skeptical about it all. We have to sift through everything, that’s the only way we’ll find the truth.

    I’m the type that deals with what makes sense while pondering all options. I just wished the Coleman did the same in his writings.

  6. I don’t have any proof, but I believe Coleman might be Catholic and having links to intelligence, may also be involved with something like SMOM. It is quite possible, but just a hunch I have.

    I do also believe the Civil War rationale was changed to suit political expediency. Just as Bush started out saying Iraq was about WMD and changed it to “bringing democracy” (neither true), Lincoln started out saying the reason was to preserve the union and later changed it to equal rights in his Gettysburg address, thus today we are told it was over slavery, but the reasons go much deeper. The point is that as far as I can tell, the official reason for the South seceding was punitive tariffs and interference in states’ rights by Washington, at least that, and the eventual invasion of the South were the main reasons Confederate boys were fighting. But all that is on the surface. Working behind the scenes are always the Illuminati (bankers, royalty, occult brotherhoods) and their agents constantly getting us embroiled in conflicts for Hegelian synthesis towards their NWO agenda. I believe it has been ever so since the founding and is just one long continuous path to where we are today, whereas many feel that it is a more recent thing.

  7. I agree on all of your points.
    Anyway, I just watched Alex Jones latest documentary “The Obama Deception” and I thought it was pretty good as well as accurate, but the main problem I have with films like this is that they preach that the NWO is coming as if its something that hasn’t been realised yet when in fact it has always been here.
    Plus, I think Jones should have dimed out the real perps, and not just their puppets.
    Hank Paulson, Richard Holbrook, Obama, Greenspan, and many others are just agents for the world banking elite/Federal Reserve Bank. And I believe if he and others don’t start talking about the higher echelons of the NWO and connect the dots, then all of their films and protest rallies are for nothing, which makes them a controlled opposition.
    For years they’ve been producing films and independent tv shows about the NWO and people are starting to walk away frustrated and disgusted because they think these guys are just fear mongering, not realising that we are already caught up in the net (the Illuminati Matrix.)

    As for Coleman’s book I do think there are alot of truths in it, but he clouds it with his religious convictions, narcissistic entitlements, and the Phantom 300 when he could have just refered to them as the Inner Circle; making his story believable.
    Is Coleman a vatican soldier?…I don’t know, but what I think he’s telling the truth about is that the Gold Market and Heroin are linked and that the Banks of Shanghi and Hong Kong are a control arm of it all, and the neferious dealings of the British East Indian Company in the drug trade are hard hardcore facts.
    His nonsense about the Beatles being a product of Tavistock is silly. If the Music industry wanted to corrupt America they could have used Elvis or Jerry Lee Lewis. Writing about the Beatles was a waste when he could have engaged more about the house of Guelph (aka the Hanovers) who intermarried with the house of Saxe Coburg Gotha, which the House of Saxe was a high ranking Illuminati family that should have been explored in his book because they are now the Windsors headed by Queen Elizabeth II whose also the head of Hanoverian Freemasonry today, and she has knighted many officials such as George H.W. Bush and Colin Powell, which is an act of treason on their part. The worst part of Coleman’s book was the spelling errors and bad editing. He should have been more professional about this. Again I could dissect this book for hours, but there really isn’t any point in that.

  8. I started listening to Jones late 2000 and have always just stopped short of accusing him of being an operative, but there are an awful lot of things I could not stomach with him beginning with his irritating hyped up fear-mongering. I have a long list of grievances and suspicions on him that I don’t want to get into right now. Suffice it to say, I stopped listening about the time I stopped supporting Ron Paul. Jones and his guests spend a hell of a lot of time on the surface-level of the NWO operations, which is fine, but as you say, they don’t spend hardly any time on the real elites behind it all, which should be a tip-off. For example one day I heard him say he was finally going to talk about the Jesuits and Knights of Malta. Oh boy I thought, he is going to spill the beans, and yet when he did get around to it (albeit begrudgingly – you could hear it in his voice), it was “Yeah they’re bad. Okay, we dealt with that issue. Now let’s move on to the Federal Reserve..” or something to that effect. I think he spent all of five seconds talking about the Jesuits and Knights of Malta in his entire career.

    Let’s face it. We are living in a time of revelation largely because of the internet and access to millions of terabytes of revealing information available at our fingertips. The general public therefore have had a pretty good dose of what is called “conspiracy theory” and I know that most people do at least suspect something is terribly wrong, but are also very confused about it all, and that is by design. Wouldn’t the elite want to make sure that the general public, though they might get some idea about the NWO, that their understanding of it should be confused and muddled and led off track so as to neutralize it? I am quite sure of that because as we look around for leaders to show the way out, we are confronted by those who either provide only a surface level understanding or those who take us down one-sided side-tracks like those who say Jew, Jew, Jew or those who say it’s the aliens, or the convergence of the stars or whatever.

    An operative would have two basic rules to go by. First would be that he can reveal quite a bit about the horrors of the agenda, but only just enough to keep the public enthralled. As a part of their strategy, they would also be allowed to focus their attack on one NWO group such as the Vatican, the Zionists, or the banksters or ten foot tall lizards. As long as the public can’t get the big picture, that is fine. The other rule is to do with solutions. When pressed, Christians end up saying it’s all in God’s hands and we can only wait for Jesus to come down out of the clouds. A more New Agey type anti-NWO leader might say the solution is to all sit in a circle, hold hands and chant OM until the planetary vibrations come back to normal. You can listen to some of the Marxists out there talking about the NWO and they often do have a pretty good handle on it and express much of the problem quite well, almost verbatim what Alex Jones says. But then their solutions, well we know what the solution is according to the Communist Manifesto. And the solution according to Alex Jones and Ron Paul is to audit the Federal Reserve. Does anyone really believe that the Fed is going to lay its books open to the American people? If they did you know those would be cooked books. And secondly, does anyone really believe that Congress, which is absolutely crammed with corrupt members of the fraternity/secret society masonic matrix system, that they would ever do something that was in the interest of the American people? No fricking way! They sure as hell haven’t yet, and they ain’t gonna start now. So that avenue of “solution” is just never going to happen. Period. And if it ain’t gonna happen, they why the hell do these people gather up the entire patriot community under this aegis? Simple. To stop any real revolution, that is the abolition of a tyranny, from ever happening.

  9. Which this leads to only on decision; to stop recognizing these leaders/governments as the government. In other words anarchy.

    People need to learn how to depend on themselves and create a viably salubrious environment and work with others willingly.

    I know this is the only solution and that it sounds unrealistic because of individual bigotry, but unfortunately that’s all we have. People have to make an individual decision to respect one another. People need to realize that groups such as the Knights of Saint John, the Ku Klux Klan, The Freemasons, Jesuits, and main others are there to simply divide and conquer.

    There is enough on this beautiful planet for us to share and no one should go hungry, which leads me to this…
    I was watching Oprah today, which featured Windsor Castle and what struck me was here is a woman (Oprah) whose supposedly a humanitarian, building schools in Africa and yet she’s celebrating the Guelph/Saxe Coburg Gotha who are at least partially responsible for the discombobulating of Africa the very continent she’s giving aid to.

    60% of the world’s population is living in poverty and these people are allowed to have this lavish lifestyle at everyone elses expense. I’m not a socialist by any stretch, but enough is enough already. No one should be dying of starvation while others fawn over these exploiters of misery and suffering.

    If you saw a person on skid-row going hungery would you not give that individual something to eat? Of course you would, but the Venetian Black Nobility wouldn’t, so, how come human nature allows us to fawn over these people and not reflect on how they acquired that wealth? It’s strange, but how could people such as Oprah live with themselves in the end is beyond me? I guess Darwin’s theory of evolution/survival of the fittest is axiomatic. But I’m sure Winfrey is a Links Club Girl or a member of the Girl Friends, which are female subsidiaries of the Boulés and Prince Hall Freemasonry.

    It’s a mighty strange world we live in.

  10. You’re probably right about Oprah’s connections. She was also a major force behind Obamamania prior to the election. If you can find anything to corroborate your hunch, please let me know. Somewhere there would be some awards or memberships from these orders probably.

    From my point of view, freedom and independence in themselves are sacred principles above any government or document. All else is just meaningless without that. That means people have the right to form their own government any time they deem necessary. If that means the breakup of the US, then so be it. I would rather see that than to see the US go down into the NAU which will mean nobody will be able to break out of that prison sentence, ever, because it will be internationally enforced. I guess I’m in a minority, but I still feel secession is the only way out of this NWO. Some chaos after that and probably bloodshed too, but we have got to remember that true freedom is never handed to us. It has to be claimed and taken, by force if necessary. It’s really just a matter of self-defense.

  11. Posted Monday, October 12, 2009

    Chomsky books banned at Guantánamo
    Anti-war activist’s works banned at prison camps. By Carol Rosenberg. October 11, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s