Obama and the Empire

The New Yorker magazine in its July 14 issue ran a cover cartoon that achieved instant fame. It showed Barack Obama wearing Muslim garb in the Oval Office with a portrait of Osama bin Laden on the wall. Obama is delivering a fist bump to his wife, Michelle, who has an Afro hairdo and an assault rifle slung over her shoulder. An American flag lies burning in the fireplace. The magazine says it’s all satire, a parody of the crazy right-wing fears, rumors, and scare tactics about Obama’s past and ideology.

The cartoon makes fun of the idea that Barack and Michelle Obama are some kind of mixture of Black Panther, Islamist jihadist, and Marxist revolutionary. But how much more educational for the American public and the world it would be to make fun of the idea that Obama is even some kind of progressive.

I’m more concerned here with foreign policy than domestic issues because it’s in this area that the US government can do, and indeed does do, the most harm to the world, to put it mildly. And in this area what do we find? We find Obama threatening, several times, to attack Iran if they don’t do what the United States wants them to do nuclear-wise; threatening more than once to attack Pakistan if their anti-terrorist policies are not tough enough or if there would be a regime change in the nuclear-armed country not to his liking; calling for a large increase in US troops and tougher policies for Afghanistan; wholly and unequivocally embracing Israel as if it were the 51st state; totally ignoring Hamas, an elected ruling party in the occupied territory; decrying the Berlin Wall in his recent talk in that city, about the safest thing a politician can do, but with no mention of the Israeli Wall while in Israel, nor the numerous American-built walls in Baghdad while in Iraq; referring to the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chávez as “authoritarian”, but never referring similarly to the government of George W. Bush, certainly more deserving of the label; talking with the usual disinformation and hostility about Cuba, albeit with a token reform re visits and remittances. But would he dare mention the outrageous case of the imprisoned Cuban FiveWilliam Blum, “Cuban Political Prisoners … in the United States.” in his frequent references to fighting terrorism?

While an Illinois state senator in January 2004, Obama declared that it was time “to end the embargo with Cuba” because it had “utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro.” But speaking as a presidential candidate to a Cuban-American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not “take off the embargo” as president because it is “an important inducement for change.”Washington Post, February 25, 2008; p.A4. He thus went from a good policy for the wrong reason to the wrong policy for the wrong reason. Does Mr. Obama care any more than Mr. Bush that the United Nations General Assembly has voted — virtually unanimously — 16 years in a row against the embargo?

In summary, it would be difficult to name a single ODE (Officially Designated Enemy) that Obama has not been critical of or to name one that he has supported. Can this be mere coincidence?

The fact that Obama says he’s willing to “talk” to some of the “enemies” more than the Bush administration has done sounds good, but one doesn’t have to be too cynical to believe that it will not amount to more than a public relations gimmick. It’s only change of policy that counts. Why doesn’t he simply and clearly state that he would not attack Iran unless Iran first attacked the US or Israel or anyone else?

As to Iraq, if you’re sick to the core of your being about the horrors US policy brings down upon the heads of the people of that unhappy land, then you must support withdrawal –- immediate, total, all troops, combat and non-combat, all the Blackwater-type killer contractors, not moved to Kuwait or Qatar to be on call. All bases out. No permanent bases. No permanent war. No timetables. No approval by the US military necessary. No reductions in forces. Just OUT. ALL. Just like what the people of Iraq want. Nothing less will give them the opportunity to try to put an end to the civil war and violence instigated by the American invasion and occupation and to recreate their failed state.

George W. Bush, 2006: “We’re going to stay in Iraq to get the job done as long as the government wants us there.”New York Times, December 1, 2006, p.1.

George W. Bush, 2007: “It’s their government’s choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.”White House press conference, May 24, 2007.

Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie, 2008: “said his government was ‘impatiently waiting’ for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops.”Washington Post, July 9, 2008.

Barack Obama, 2008: We can “redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months.”Obama’s website.

Obama’s terms of withdrawal equals no withdrawal. Literally. Has he ever said that the war is categorically illegal and immoral? A war crime? Or that anti-American terrorism in the world is the direct result of oppressive US policies? Instead he calls for a troop increase and “the first truly 21st century military … We must maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world.”Speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, April 23, 2007. Why of course, that’s what the people of the United States and the people of Iraq and Afghanistan and the rest of the people in this sad world desperately desire and need — greater American killing power! Obama is not so much concerned with ending America’s endless warfare as he is with “succeeding” in them, by whatever perverted definition of that word.

And has he ever dared to raise the obvious question: Why would Iran, even if nuclear armed, be a threat to attack the US or Israel? Any more than Iraq was such a threat. Which was zero. Instead, he has said things like “Iran continues to be a major threat” and repeats the tiresome lie that the Iranian president called for the destruction of Israel.Haaretz.com (leading Israeli newspaper), May 16, 2007.

Obama, one observer has noted, “opposes the present US policy in Iraq not on the basis of any principled opposition to neo-colonialism or aggressive war, but rather on the grounds that the Iraq war is a mistaken deployment of power that fails to advance the global strategic interests of American imperialism.”Bill Van Auken, Global Research, July 18, 2008.

He and his supporters have made much of the speech he delivered in the Illinois state legislature in 2002 against the upcoming US invasion of Iraq. But two years later, when he was running for the US Senate, he declared: “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2004. Since taking office in January 2005, he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s false justifications for going to war in Iraq. In doing so, he lacked the courage of 12 of his Democratic Party Senate colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

If you’re one of those who would like to believe that Obama has to present moderate foreign policy views to be elected, but once he’s in the White House we can forget that he lied to us repeatedly and the true, progressive man of peace and international law and human rights will emerge … keep in mind that as a US Senate candidate in 2004 he threatened missile strikes against Iran.Chicago Tribune, September 25, 2004. and winning that election apparently did not put him in touch with his inner peacenik.

When, in 2005, the other Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin, stuck his neck out and compared American torture at Guantanamo to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings”, and was angrily denounced by the right wing, Obama stood up in the Senate and … defended him? No, he joined the critics, thrice calling Durbin’s remark a “mistake.”Congressional Record, June 21, 2005, p.S6897.

One of Obama’s chief foreign policy advisers is Zbigniew Brzezinski, a man instrumental in provoking Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in 1979, which was followed by massive US military supplies to the opposition and widespread war. This gave rise to a generation of Islamic jihadists, the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and more than two decades of anti-American terrorism. Asked later if he had any regrets about this policy, Brzezinski replied: “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.”For the full Brzezinski interview.

Another prominent Obama adviser — from a list entirely and depressingly establishment-imperial — is Madeleine Albright, who should always wear gloves because her hands are caked with blood from her roles in the bombings of Iraq and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

In a primary campaign talk in March, Obama said that “he would return the country to the more ‘traditional’ foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.”Associated Press, March 28, 2008. Use your imagination. Bloody serial interventionists, all.

Why have well-known conservatives like George Will, David Brooks, Rush Limbaugh, Joe Scarborough, and others spoken so favorably about Obama’s candidacy?See, for example, Peter Wehner, “Why Republicans Like Obama”, Washington Post, February 3, 2008, p.B7. Whatever else, they know he’s not a threat to their most cherished views and values.

Given all this, can we expect a more enlightened, less bloody, more progressive and humane foreign policy from Mr. Barack Obama? Forget the alleged eloquence and charm; forget the warm feel-good stuff; forget the interminable clichés and platitudes about hope, change, unity, and America’s indispensable role as world leader; forget all the religiobabble; forget John McCain and George W. Bush … All that counts is putting an end to the horror — the bombings, the invasions, the killings, the destruction, the overthrows, the occupations, the torture, the American Empire.

Al Gore and John Kerry both took the progressive vote for granted. Neither had ever been particularly progressive himself. Each harbored a measure of disdain for the left. Both paid a heavy price for the neglect. I and millions like me voted for Ralph Nader, or some other third-party candidate, or stayed home. Obama is doing the same as Gore and Kerry. Progressives should let him know that his positions are not acceptable, keeping up the anti-war pressure on him and the Democratic Party at every opportunity. For whatever good it just might do.

I’m afraid that if Barack Obama becomes president he’s going to break a lot of young hearts. And some older ones as well.

Writer Norman Solomon has written: “These days, an appreciable number of Obama supporters are starting to use words like ‘disillusionment.’ But that’s a consequence of projecting their political outlooks onto the candidate in the first place. The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is to not have illusions in the first place.”

Victors’ justice and impunity

So, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic has finally been apprehended. He’s slated to appear before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, Netherlands, charged with war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. And now all the law-abiding governments of the world, and all the right-minded media of the world, and all the decent citizens of the world join together in celebrating this triumph of justice.

The ICTY was created by the United Nations in 1993. Its full name is “The International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991”. Notice the “who” — “Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law”. Notice the “where” — “Territory of the Former Yugoslavia”. This is all spelled out in the statute of the Tribunal.Updated Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.”

In 1999, NATO (primarily the United States) bombed the Yugoslav republic of Serbia for 78 consecutive days, ruining the economy, the ecology, power supply, bridges, apartment buildings, transportation, infrastructure, churches, schools, pushing the country many years back in its development, killing hundreds or thousands of people, traumatizing countless children who’ll be reacting unhappily to certain sounds and sights for perhaps the remainder of their days; the most ferocious sustained bombing of a nation in the history of the world. Nobody has ever suggested that Serbia had attacked or was preparing to attack a member state of NATO, and that is the only event which justifies a reaction under the NATO treaty. But Serbia was guilty of a greater crime: It had refused to happily fall under the dominion of the US/NATO/European Union/World Bank/IMF/WTO world government. The quasi-socialist Serbian state was Europe’s last communist holdout. Moreover, post-cold war, NATO needed to demonstrate a raison d’être if it was to remain alive as Washington’s enforcement thug.

The ICTY has already held one high-level trial in an attempt to convince the world of the justice of the NATO bombing — former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, who died in the Hague prison while trying to defend himself against charges that remain unproven. Radovan Karadzic is now next. When will the Western leaders behind the bombing of Serbia be tried for war crimes, as called for by the Tribunal’s own statute?

Shortly after the bombing began in March, 1999, professionals in international law from Canada, the United Kingdom, Greece, and the United States began to file complaints with the ICTY charging leaders of NATO countries with “grave violations of international humanitarian law”, including “wilful killing, wilfully causing great suffering and serious injury to body and health, employment of poisonous weapons and other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering, wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, unlawful attacks on civilian objects, devastation not necessitated by military objectives, attacks on undefended buildings and dwellings, destruction and wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences.”

The Canadian suit named 68 leaders, including William Clinton, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Tony Blair, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, and NATO officials Javier Solana, Wesley Clark, and Jamie Shea. The complaint also alleged “open violation” of the United Nations Charter, the NATO treaty itself, the Geneva Conventions, and the Principles of International Law Recognized by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.

The complainants’ briefs pointed out that the prosecution of those named by them was “not only a requirement of law, it is a requirement of justice to the victims and of deterrence to powerful countries such as those in NATO who, in their military might and in their control over the media, are lacking in any other natural restraint such as might deter less powerful countries.” Charging the war’s victors, not only its losers, it was argued, would be a watershed in international criminal law.

In a letter to Louise Arbour, the court’s chief prosecutor, Michael Mandel, a professor of law in Toronto and the initiator of the Canadian suit, stated:

Unfortunately, as you know, many doubts have already been raised about the impartiality of your Tribunal. In the early days of the conflict, after a formal and, in our view, justified complaint against NATO leaders had been laid before it by members of the Faculty of Law of Belgrade University, you appeared at a press conference with one of the accused, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, who made a great show of handing you a dossier of Serbian war crimes. In early May, you appeared at another press conference with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, by that time herself the subject of two formal complaints of war crimes over the targeting of civilians in Yugoslavia.This and most of the other material concerning the complaints to the Tribunal mentioned here were transmitted to this writer by Mandel and other complainants. See also: Michael Mandel, How America Gets Away With Murder (2004).

Arbour herself made little attempt to hide the pro-NATO bias she wore beneath her robe. She trusted NATO to be its own police, judge, jury, and prison guard. Here are her own words:

I am obviously not commenting on any allegations of violations of international humanitarian law supposedly perpetrated by nationals of NATO countries. I accept the assurances given by NATO leaders that they intend to conduct their operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in full compliance with international humanitarian law.Press Release from Chief Prosecutor Louise Arbour, The Hague, May 13, 1999.

The ICTY on its website tells us: “By holding individuals accountable regardless of their position, the ICTY’s work has dismantled the tradition of impunity for war crimes and other serious violations of international law, particularly by individuals who held the most senior positions.”Fact sheets. US/NATO leaders, however, are immune not only for the 1999 bombings of Serbia, but the many bombings of Bosnia in the period 1993-95, including the use of depleted uranium. Impunity indeed.

William Blum is the author of: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir, Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire. He can be reached at: bblum6@aol.com. Read other articles by William, or visit William's website.

17 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozhidar balkas said on August 6th, 2008 at 5:58am #

    it is wrong to wage wars based on predictions, hatred, evocation of perils, rationalization, etc.
    it is equally wrong to oppose a war such as US invasion of iraq on perception, rationalization, prediction, wishes, hate, anger, etc.
    instead, we shld oppose all wars basing oposition on the desirable/necessary truth that no land/empire has the right to attack another land/empire under any circumstance.
    instead, we solely go after alleged criminals. this wld preclude collective punishment.
    collective punishment, to me, is a crime. it cannot be justified because a number of individuals (such as saddam, et al ) have done or been accused of commiting crimes against own or foreign people.
    we also know causes (never mind the reasons) for all wars: greed, lust for control, land gain, hatred, stupidity, supremacism, etc.
    thank u

  2. Donald Hawkins said on August 6th, 2008 at 6:59am #


    One of the best I have ever read. Do you read DV Obama?

  3. Deadbeat said on August 6th, 2008 at 8:11am #

    Very excellent analysis and critique of Obama’s position on Foreign Policy and well sourced. However Blum goes on to write the following…

    Al Gore and John Kerry both took the progressive vote for granted. Neither had ever been particularly progressive himself. Each harbored a measure of disdain for the left. Both paid a heavy price for the neglect. I and millions like me voted for Ralph Nader, or some other third-party candidate, or stayed home. Obama is doing the same as Gore and Kerry. Progressives should let him know that his positions are not acceptable, keeping up the anti-war pressure on him and the Democratic Party at every opportunity. For whatever good it just might do.

    The question now is why did “progressives” NOT support Nader in 2004 and build upon his success from the 2000 elections? And why did these “progressives” not build upon the anti-war movement which involved many citizens and where citizens became active. That was a huge missed opportunity and Blum misses an opportunity to analyze why that failure created the void now being filled by Obama.

    Because Nader was abandon in 2004, this year he provides no institutional underpinnings. He is merely a protest vote. The same is true pretty much for Cynthia McKinney, who btw voted for the Afghanistan invasion. The Left this year simply provides no alternative for many voters to Obama.

    What is needed is to build from the bottom up. The problem however is the real lack of working class conscientiousness and cohesion. We see this just by how the Left has expends a huge amount of efforts to mislead the public on key issues and how the Left engages in reactionary “blame the victim” rhetoric with regards to electoral choices and sanctimonious posturing.

  4. Josie Michel-Brüning said on August 6th, 2008 at 9:05am #

    My husband, Dirk, and me are very grateful for this excellent article, as we were for instance in 2001, ocasionally “9/11” his “Brief history of US Interventions since 1948”. We then translated it completely and distributed it to our friends. – Being involved in the international campaign to free the “Cuban Five”, this time, we appreciate especially his mentioning of the case of the “Cuban Five”. When we dare to ask our chancellor Angela Merkel occasionally the visit of president Bush in Germany for mentioning at her conversation with him our concern about the the treatment of the case, the denying visiting rights for their wives etc. our ministry of foreign affairs answers like that: the USA are a constitutional state. …
    The case of the “Cuban Fives” proves however, they are not!
    Please, read the following appeal:
    “The International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban Five is organizing a major concert in New York City on the upcoming 10th anniversary that we have entitled “Five Stars and a Song”.
    The concert will take place Saturday September 13, from 8 to 11pm at the Hostos Community College Auditorium, New York City. […] We are appealing to you to help us make this concert a significant step forward in breaking the silence around the case of the Cuban Five. – In addition to the Concert, we anticipate considerable costs associated with a publicity campaign to reach out to different US and foreign media outlets demanding the freedom of the Cuban Five and visas for those family members who have been denied visitation rights. In the last two years, the International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban Five has worked with practically no resources.
    We have been fortunate that at times we have received some support from U.S. , Spanish and Argentinean friends who have helped us to publish our material and to help us organize our presence at events around the world.
    The grave situation that our Five brothers and their families are facing, after a decade of injustice, demands a greater effort on all of our parts. We realize that in the past you have contributed time and resources in the struggle to free the five and your actions are deeply appreciated by them. The Five constantly remind us that the solidarity they receive provides them with a great deal of
    encouragement and strength. For the first time the International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban Five is appealing to you for help to make this
    historic event a success that cannot be ignored. We think that this rich cultural evening on the 10th anniversary of their arrests will be an important step forward in breaking the silence around the case. This concert will provide us with a way to educate those attending about the injustice that our five brothers face.
    Please send us a tax-deductible contribution made out to IFCO/Awareness Project and mail your check to:
    International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban Five
    P.O. Box 22455 , Oakland CA 94609
    To send a contribution from abroad, please write to gro.5nabucehtnull@ofni for information on how to make a wire transaction. ”

    You can be sure, we will support this event from Germany, please, join us respectively them.

    We appreciate your generosity and thank you in advance for all your support, trust and solidarity to this noble cause.

    A strong embrace,

    Graciela Ramírez Clara Sastre Alicia Jrapko

    International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban Five


  5. Lloyd Rowsey said on August 6th, 2008 at 9:47am #

    Thank you for this article, Mr. Blum, and the occasion it provided for J. M-B. to post the mailing address for contributions to the IFCO/Awareness Project.

  6. heike said on August 6th, 2008 at 10:43am #

    The usual disinformation and ranting from Blum, so typical of him. He seized on ZB’s self-serving account of Afghanistan but didn’t go into internal Soviet or U.S. documents which are readily available and have been declassified. They show that the Soviets were concerned that Amin was moving beyond their control and that he had to be liquidated. They never mentioned the CIA either in their public propaganda or in their internal deliberations. Indeed, in one of the Sept 1979 documents from the CWIHP, Gromyko is described as saying that “the Americans have no real policy in Afghanistan.” In short, even though the Soviets made a few half-hearted attempts to call Amin a “CIA agent,” they never produced any details nor could they make the accusation stick.

    It’s sheer fantasy to write about the “many bombings of Bosnia in the period 1993-95.” There was one bombing mission launched after the Serb atrocity that killed so many people in a Sarajevo bazar in August 1995 and it finally was successful in getting the Serbs to end the siege of Sarajevo and negotiate an end to the Bosnian war.

    As far as the Cuban Five are concerned, they were spies sent by their employer, the Cuban intelligence Service, the DGI. They weren’t boy scouts! How many of you people who are lending your voices to the “cause” care a whit about the political prisoners rotting in prisons in Cuba whose only crime was to use the internet to express their “dissident voice” to their fellow citizens.

  7. Arch Stanton said on August 6th, 2008 at 11:44am #

    “The intellectual apologists for Western imperialism have pretended that the Yugoslavia Tribunal is not fully politicized, but is rather pursuing justice, as they skirt by the facts that nothing happened to Tudjman, Izetbegovic, or any other non-Serb high officials guilty of war crimes in the Balkans. (These would properly include Clinton, Blair and their top associates, guilty of aggression, and whose bombing tactics even Human Rights Watch, a notorious apologist for NATO policies in the Balkans, condemned as violations of “international humanitarian law”).”

    –Edward Herman


  8. Michael Kenny said on August 6th, 2008 at 12:56pm #

    Mr Blum is essentially right in regard to Obama, but you always need to bear in mind that he is the Israel Lobby’s candidate (although they would have prefered Hillary!). The Lobby wants the two wars ended ASAP, since they (like most of the rest of the neocons’ bungling!) are doing immense damage to Israel. For the same reason, they want a settlement with Iran. Equally, they need NATO as a legal pretext for keeping US forces and military supplies near to Israel but must by now have understood that Europe is not going to send its children to fight Israel’s dirty wars. I would guess, therefore, that he will let NATO go dormant, lay off Russia and encourage the EU to extend into the military sphere, thereby placating both the EU and Russia in a single swoop!

    The strategy, I think, is to encircle the “Muslim crescent” stretching from Morocco right out to Pakistan and back through Central Asia to Turkey: NATO to the west, Russia to the north, India to the east and AFRICOM to the south. How realistic any of this is, and whether the US economy can bear the cost, remains to be seen.

    Good news though for Latin America and the Far East. They have no influence on Israel’s position, so the Lobby doesn’t give a damn about them. To paraphrase the old saw, lucky Mexico, so close to the US but so far from Israel!

  9. Max Shields said on August 6th, 2008 at 12:59pm #

    Deadbeat, I suggest you take those concerns and bring them to a liberal or Dem “progressive” or PDA site where the problem you identify exists.

    I consider myself fully aligned with what Mr. Blum has written here, and I consider his expressions to be progressive. I did not support the Dems in 2004 and for sure won’t this time around.

    And you?

  10. bozhidar balkas said on August 6th, 2008 at 2:33pm #

    3 croat’n generals stand trial at the hague. i thought that tudjman started the war against bosnian muslims,aka as bosniaks.
    cannot say if izetbegovic, the muslim leader, had commited a crime against either serbs or croats.
    however, at least one his officers is accused of war crimes against serbs.
    it shld be noted that the reporters from war zones in bosnia and croatia were generally acurate/adequate.
    according to their reports, ab. 80-90% of crimes have been commited by serbs.
    tudjman may have ordered croat’n army to prevent serb return to the areas they left just before croat’n attack in ’95.
    peter galbraith, the ambassador to croatia had testified at hague that serbs weren’t expelled but were prevented from returning.
    but he’s dead. hasn’t been indicted as far as know.
    thank u

  11. Beverly said on August 6th, 2008 at 3:48pm #

    Yes, The New Yorker should do another cover, this time riffing on faux progressive Obama. You know this won’t happen since they’d have to print the truth about behind the lie that is Obama. I’m surprised the Muslim satire made the cover since that magazine is staffed with Obamabots and kool aid drinkers. I didn’t read the article, but I’m sure it took a sympathetic take on how those “mean, bigoted right wingers” try to smear Saint Barack with the Muslim label.

    Thought #2: Interesting how Obama and his braindead followers were so incensed about The New Yorker cover. I thought only Muslim extremists went apeshit over cartoons and Teddy Bears.

  12. Giorgio said on August 6th, 2008 at 6:19pm #

    “….Barack Obama wearing Muslim garb in the Oval Office with a portrait of Osama bin Laden on the wall. Obama is delivering a fist bump to his wife, Michelle, who has an Afro hairdo and an assault rifle slung over her shoulder. An American flag lies burning in the fireplace.”

    This is hilarious! I wish it could be true…but not even in my dreams I could conjure this up! It certainly would scare the shits of Americans and make 9/11 feel like some kids prank on April Fools day!

    But Obama (or is it Osama?) is too smart for that. He knows damn well which side of the toast is buttered. He’s an Oprah Winfred clone in a sleek evening dress suit, the suit I saw him wearing in that YouTube video with an Israeli flag tie and an American stars and stripes suit.
    This is much more like Obama’s ( or Osama?) true self. He will outsmart McCain by an extra ZERO and occupy Iraq (not 100) but for 1000 years! LONG LIVE THE EMPIRE!

    And Ron Paul’s REVOLUTION gutted!

  13. Josie Michel-Brüning said on August 7th, 2008 at 4:07am #

    I would like to add another appeal to all of you, apart from “free the Cuban Five”:
    People like me are very grateful to articles like those at this website. Please, don’t keep just to this media try constantly to reach the mass medias for keeping them informed about your opinion, as we are doing in Germany. Even if they don’t publish our opinion, our impression is, they are learning step by step, that people can’t be betrayed for ever. We are realizing that at least some of them are more careful instead just publishing “U.S. Public Diplomacy”. However, as a matter of fact, the U.S. is the main battle field for winning any change. The world seems to depend on you!

  14. Lloyd Rowsey said on August 7th, 2008 at 8:01am #

    And some day, J M-B, it will begin sinking in that America Depends on the World. With no “seems” about it.

  15. Josie Michel-Brüning said on August 7th, 2008 at 9:27am #

    Dear Lloyd Rowsey, thank you for your reply.
    Let us hope for being able to prevent such an global catastrophy altogether. A deadly wounded giant could destroy the entire earth.

  16. MrSynec3 said on August 7th, 2008 at 2:09pm #

    TROLL ALERT. Michael Kenny is a TROLL

    Michael Kenny wrote:
    “AIPAC wants the two wars ended ASAP, since they (like most of the rest of the neocons’ bungling!) are doing immense damage to Israel. For the same reason, they want a settlement with Iran. ”

    OH YA!. Are you serious??!! You gotta be kidding. From where did you get that nonsense?!. Definitely you are a TROLL

  17. fekkkkog geoooore said on July 9th, 2009 at 1:36am #

    Another fantastic article from Mr. Blum!

    And heike is a stupid troll who should do us all a favor and remove himself from the gene pool.