Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Why I do not support Barack Obama

I just sent this reply to a request from the Obama campaign for a contribution.

I have no intention of joining those who have contributed, to Barack Obama. I have found no evidence in Obama's campaign to justify the enthusiasm of his supporters. I think they are largely being duped by a smooth, but fraudulent campaign. I want to tell you all why.

There was an extraordinary opportunity the night of the last debate to compare a true statement of issues with the totally phoney one promulgated by the MSNBC debate. Democracy Now aired the entire speech of Noam Chomsky to a group in Massachusetts. His topic was the fact that the entire issue of the illegal aggression in Iraq had been submerged by the media and the candidates in total submission to the will of the junior bush administration. His address was truthful, calm, comprehensive, filled with irony and entirely correct about the past half century of US history, linking Vietnam and Iraq in pretty much every respect.

On the other hand, the debate was appalling. Not a single issue was addressed with candor or honesty, or with any attempt whatsoever to bring wisdom to the American electorate. Instead, both candidates tiptoed around what might otherwise have become substantive discussions. For example, "Isn't the real source of insurgency in Iraq, the presence of illegal occupying troops?" Evidence presented by Chomsky from very reliable and essentially unanimous sources around the world made a convincing case that the real reason for the insurgency in Iraq is that the US has illegally ravaged and plundered it for the benefit of a tiny and wealthy minority. This question was, of course not raised by either of the moderators, who are nothing but stooges for the administration. Neither of the candidates made the slightest effort to change the trajectory of the debate. Nor will the eventual candidate ever attempt to change the trajectory of future debates with John McCain.


Given Chomsky's position, and the sickening pablum of the debates, I have decided that in all honesty there really is not a dimes worth of difference between any of the three remaining Republican candidates, two of whom are still running for the democratic nomination. My friends turn apoplectic when I mention the possibility of not supporting the Democratic nominee. That's too bad. I am not going to vote for anybody who hides the truth from me this way, with his/her silence on the really important issues.

What is extraordinary here is that 84% of the US population believe the aggression in Iraq is illegal and immoral. Nevertheless, the democratic candidate, whoever it is, will never approach that percentage of the votes. Partly because many Americans do not vote, but also because the democractic party has abdicated its natural role. However, an even more important reason is that neither candidate has the courage to state what is obvious to a vast majority: the entire vocabulary associated with US foreign policy is fraudulent. This is not a war we have in iraq, it is an illegal occupation. One that has taken the lives of 1.5 million Iraqis and sent another 2.5 million of the most highly gifted and skilled into exile.


Lanny Davis was interviewed on Morning Joe this morning. I know Lanny well from our days as undergraduates. He is working for Mme Clinton. As much as I loath Senator Clinton for her votes in the Senate regarding the authorization and funding for fraudulent and illegal activities in the Middle East, I have to agree with Lanny that Barack Obama has essentially been given a free ride by the press. Obama voted precisely the same as Clinton on all issues relating to the war, except for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, and Obama was awol when that vote was taken. He hides this artfully, but this does not serve the public well. Obama lies to the American people when he pretends to be anti-war.

Neither Democratic candidate is willing to acknowledge or point out the the surge is a fraud. That it is not working. That the principal reason that violence has declined is that ethnic cleansing is essentially been allowed to go almost to completion. I am ashamed that no candidate besides Dennis Kucinich ever had either the wisdom or the courage to say so. Quite frankly, I do not believe that either candidate will be able to withdraw even 25% of the forces now in Iraq. Why? because neither has ever even used the appropriate vocabulary to describe what is happening there. Every time a candidate extols the wonderful things our military forces are doing to "protect" us, it makes me quail. These are largely mercenary forces, brainwashed to commit atrocities. My heart goes out to them, especially to the bereaved and maimed, but I am neither proud of them, nor do I "support them", nor do I think that they are doing anything but damage to US interests in the region. You cannot praise the military, perpetuating the pernicious myth that they are "defending democracy" and then hope to be credible about ending the engagement!


I don't know. What is important is to discuss NOW how to make democracy work, rather than to wait until November and lose the chance to change our trajectory. Now, democracy doesn't work. The fact that the eventual democratic nominee will have a fight on its hands is symptomatic of the fact that they are not articulating what >80% of the population wishes they would do. Enough are willing to BELIEVE that such things are articulated, that when subjected to the ritual casting of votes, someone will be elected. In fact nothing of the sort it is true. None of the important issues is being discussed at all! Without forceful interjection into the process, no serious issue in the campaign will ever get a decent airing, and things will simply NOT CHANGE.

I feel that the only reasonable response to this situation is to do my part to force discussion of the issues, in this case by refusing forcefully to perpetuate the myth of democracy.

No comments: