The War Enabling Politics of Norman Solomon and “P”DA

The response of the Liberal commentariat to Obama’s escalation of the AfPak war has been one of acquiescence or downright hypocrisy as documented by Justin Raimondo in It ranged from “Obama’s strategy will work,” to “We support Obama but not his policy” (Whatever that means.) to “Let us turn to Congress to stop the funding.” (This last is especially disturbing since turning to Congress was the argument that “progressive” Dems advanced in 2006 to elect a Democrat Congress, an effort which yielded nothing but a betrayal of the antiwar votes that poured in for the Dems.)

Norman Solomon was first of this crowd out of the gate with a pre-emptive strike on the eve of Obama’s West Point speech. In this effort Solomon excoriated politics that “enables” as practiced by some members of Congress. ((In a lapse of its usual good judgment ran Norman’s article, but even Homer nods.)) But such politics is not confined to Congress, and Norman does well to write about “enabling” politics, for he and his organization “Progressive” Democrats of America, “P”DA, are shining examples of it. Norman seems to have forgotten that Obama was his candidate and that of “P”DA, that Obama was not just the Democrat Party candidate but the candidate of the “left” wing of the Dems. Even as Obama was telling us in 2008 that he would escalate the war on Afghanistan, Norman was urging one and all to vote for him. Solomon likes to say that things would be worse if McCain were elected. But after Obama’s West Point performance, one wonders. Solomon likes to say that if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, there would have been no war in the Middle East. But after the performance of Obama, who is regarded as more progressive than Gore, one wonders. Of course Solomon cannot say that war would have ended if Kerry, whom he supported in 2004, were elected, since Kerry ran as a prowar candidate.

That record of endorsement makes Solomon and his ideological bedfellows enablers without peer. Let us recall that many of these enablers heaped abuse on a genuine antiwar candidate, Ralph Nader, refused to invite him to speak at anti-war rallies and made sure that his words did not appear in the “liberal” press like The Nation. These days the bumper stickers that proclaim “Don’t Blame Me; I voted for Ralph,” should be flying off the shelves.

In fact it goes beyond that. The enablers like Solomon and Medea Benjamin and Katrina vanden Heuvel owe the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan an apology, for their backing of Obama makes them complicit in the war and killing that will soon intensify. They worked to get Obama elected rather than to build a new political movement, which is necessary to end the depredations of US Empire and which will never be organized if anti-warriors keep following the Dems. In fact the enablers of war consistently frustrate the building of such a movement. It is time to recognize that the Democrat Party is one of the two parties of Empire, and one of its functions is to contain the antiwar movement at which it does splendidly, not least by permitting an impotent “progressive” wing to keep keep hope alive. (Solomon and his buddies should simply stop offering their opinions and go to work with the Red Cross in Afghanistan to relieve some of the suffering they helped to cause.)

Some of the Democrat liberals are saying that somehow they got Obama wrong — and they will not do that sort of thing again. There is only one problem with that. They will do it again.

They do it over and over and should not be trusted or followed ever again. They did it in 2004, endorsing the prowar John Kerry, in 2006 endorsing Democrats for Congress with the promise they would act to end the war and move to impeach Bush, and they did it in 2008 with their support of Obama who promised escalation of the war in AfPak. They will get fooled again. We should not allow ourselves to be fooled with them or by them.

John V. Walsh, @JohnWal97469920, until recently a Professor of Physiology and Neuroscience at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, has written on issues of peace and health care for several independent media. Read other articles by John V..

35 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. dan e said on December 5th, 2009 at 12:47pm #

    good article!

  2. Max Shields said on December 5th, 2009 at 1:07pm #


  3. Max Shields said on December 5th, 2009 at 1:11pm #

    These PDAers (in one form or another) are perhaps more complicit that any other sector of the population because they ensure war by nullifying any real action against it.

    You can not be in and of the system – the two party system – and expect any kind of change. The system is what it is and those who move to change it from the inside are simply prolonging it. It is not mutable. It turns any effort from within into a coopted means of expanding popular control.

    PDAers are either stupid, naive, or simpy liers.

  4. Deadbeat said on December 5th, 2009 at 2:12pm #

    Let’s not forget that Norman Soloman was adamantly against Nader/Camejo run in 2004. He promoted the Anybody But Bush mantra that was a huge betrayal not only to building a Left alternative to the Democrats but also help to neutralize the anti-war movement.

    Then in the subsequent years Soloman makes the movie “War Made Easy” yet his actions seem to help extend war by interfering with building real alternative to the Democrats and the strengthening of the Left.

  5. dan e said on December 5th, 2009 at 3:13pm #

    Applause! Max you got that much absolutely right, except it would have been more clear if you’d said “social control” instead of “popular”. The two terms each have a history; I think most wd understand by Popular Control something parallel to “Worker’s Control”, that is, something democratic emerging from below, while I think you meant something emanating from above, from our capitalist puppetmasters?

    Your mispelling of “liers” (sic) I found fortunate, because it reminded me that the great basso Ezio Pinza bore the name of the tool known in English as the pliers:)

    However I remain a little mystified. I’m glad you reject PDAers, but isn’t your hero N Chomsky also a hero of the PDA and its parent org the 2nd International DSA, with its “fraternal relations” with the Histadrut?

  6. Max Shields said on December 5th, 2009 at 3:46pm #

    dan e, Chomsky is not my hero. Not sure where that urban myth got started, except by some who are not discerning; i.e., I’m more interested in the justice of accuracy whether it’s about Chomsky or the extent to which US empire can be soley attributed to Zionism. (btw, didn’t know Chomsky was a PDAer(?), and I still find his theory on linguistics very compelling.)

    But let us stay positive here, I agree with your points and concede to you the the use of the word Social rather than Popular control.


  7. Deadbeat said on December 5th, 2009 at 3:50pm #


    Also part of the failure of the anti-war movement has also to do with the Zionists that are extremely influential on the so-called “Left”. As Shabnam points out in her commentary, Soloman and Chomsky supported are signatories of Hopi who is really a pro-West (and pro-Zionist) front group. It was clear that the anti-war movement was corrupted from within especially when International Answer raised the Palestinian issue and the specter of scrutinizing Israeli Zionism.

    So part of the function of the Democrats is not only to diffuse economic struggle but especially to diffuse any real confrontation of Zionism as we’ve seen with the dismantling of the anti-war movement since late 2003.

  8. Don Hawkins said on December 5th, 2009 at 3:57pm #

    DB peak oil what year? I’ll bet 2025 is pushing it. Yes there will still be oil at $400 a barrel or more. Just on the off chance that’s true what’s the big plan so far. A new way of thinking no stuck on stupid and were ‘re getting warmer.

  9. Brian said on December 5th, 2009 at 4:39pm #

    I think you’re right. Can anyone who’e ever seriously read Chomsky think he’s a PDAer?

  10. Don Hawkins said on December 5th, 2009 at 5:13pm #

    Population Clocks
    U.S. 308,090,922
    World 6,801,491,503
    00:09 UTC (EST+5) Dec 06, 2009

  11. Max Shields said on December 5th, 2009 at 5:21pm #

    Chomsky is a self-proclaimed anarchist…not exactly a party guy.

    PDAers are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats who naively (or cynically) think they can make the Democratic Party a “progressive” party. Jim Hightower better symbolizes what they’re after. Hightower served the Dem war party while he coopted progressive ideas to help make the case for Obama. Sure Norman Solomon is part of the same systematic placation and destruction of real change; but he’s not alone by a long shot.

  12. bozh said on December 5th, 2009 at 5:58pm #

    We’ve tried ‘god’ and ‘jesus’ and look where we are. And things will get even worse, much worse, or catastrophic even for some weaklings.

    It is time we repented and turned our lives over to the devil. I used to be a basket case before i accepted my own devil. Now i say, s/he’ll take care of things.
    I sleep well now. I haven’t shed a tear yet ab warming or warfare after letting the devil manage my business of crying, pleading, bitching, yammering, etc.
    One responder to my post talking ab devil pointed out that nobody wages wars in name of devil. Good point!

  13. lichen said on December 5th, 2009 at 6:35pm #

    This is a good article; nothing to do with chomsky, who is not a pda person, and who’s writing takes a stance very, very far to the left of people like solomon and the democratic party whores.

  14. Don Hawkins said on December 5th, 2009 at 6:37pm #

    Bozh I saved that comment.

  15. Aliceq said on December 5th, 2009 at 11:40pm #

    w00t! (i’m not very articulate, but I feel my truth when I read it) thx

  16. Alice said on December 5th, 2009 at 11:40pm #

    no Q

  17. bozh said on December 6th, 2009 at 6:36am #

    I too have noted that oh so many of these ‘dissenters’ tacitly support US constitution-governance and dwell mostly on personalities.

    And by avoiding or even deterring establishment of second political party, they prolong miseries of US soldiers-civilians and so many people of s.w. asia. tnx

  18. Steve Zielinski said on December 6th, 2009 at 11:13am #

    It’s one thing for “common folk” to trust Obama and his pre-election act. They mostly take their cues from a center-right political culture. By itself, Obama’s race made him a choice that symbolized “progress” of a definite and welcomed kind. And, many Obama voters likely believed themselves as voters for change in other ways. That is, they believed Obama opposed the war, supported healthcare reform, etc.

    But seasoned political observers, especially those located on the left, cannot rightly use these “excuses” — i.e. these plausible reasons for voting for Obama. They cannot defend their preference for Obama as possibly realistic or reasonable. For the left political intellectuals the Obama option was unrealistic simply because Obama and the Democratic Party provided no evidence whatsoever that they would support the kind of reforms the country must make if it wishes to master the crises of the day. Being better than Bush or McCain-Palin does not count as a qualification for the Presidency. The Obama option was unreasonable for them because it was self-defeating in the short- and long-term. They had the resources and, presumably, the motive to see Obama for what he is — a system politician and a crisis manager. They should have known that the “lesser evil” argument, of dubious legitimacy even in the best cases, is not even plausible when the lesser evil is unacceptable per se.

    What the United States needs today is a radical reform politics. It will not get a politics of this sort if those who most need this kind of reform elect tools to public office.

  19. rosemarie jackowski said on December 6th, 2009 at 12:06pm #

    Good article. Yes, the dems conveniently forget that during his campaign Obama said that he would increase the Offense Budget.
    DRAFT NADER NOW !!!!!!!

  20. dan e said on December 6th, 2009 at 1:56pm #

    Sorry Max, sorry chompsky fans: the great linguistics prof may not directly endorse PDA by name, but he endorses the same crap they push, namely that “isreal” (sick) has a “right to exist” (sic), and the fairytale about how “Big Oil” (sic) is the driving force behind the Iraq/”AfPak” invasions/occupations. Chomsky, Zunes, Juhacz, N Solomon, N Klein, Tom Hayden are all Part of the Scam.

    Big Oil and Petroleum Addiction are certainly a serious high priority problem, but a US foreign policy which truly reflected their bottom line interests would look very different from this Zionist/Militarist insanity formerly known as “The War on Terror” and now known as Give Obama A Chance.

  21. Shabnam said on December 6th, 2009 at 4:27pm #

    Dan e :
    You are right when say:

    […. But a US foreign policy which truly reflected their bottom line interests would look very different from this Zionist/Militarist insanity formerly known as “The War on Terror” and now known as Give Obama A Chance.]

    I believe if the Americans are truly were following the interest of the United State, not Israel, for the control of ‘petroleum’ then its foreign policy would have been different from the present one. However, what we have seen so far is the Zionist foreign policy sold as American’s interest to the elite who have similar interests as the zionists do, to hide the main force, the hand of Jewish lobby, behind it.

    First, they would have not made Iran as an irreversible enemy if US was looking for cheap energy to control the flow of Oil through pipe lines from the central Asia to Europe to keep their allies happy against the main RIVAL Russia. In staed, according to zionist pressure they have presented Iran as the MAIN enemy where should be isolated for regime change but at the same time the Jewish Lobby sent Zionist Black puppet, Obama, to bow to the ground in front of the most reactionary Wahabi haed of a terrorist state who has killed thousand of Shi’ites, Abdulla, and has given financial assistance to Taliban.
    Instead, the foreign policy of America would have been very different if we listen to ZMAG and its extension, CPD, HOPI, Klein, Zunis that war is for OIL to contain Russia and China. Today, Israel policy executed by e Congress, WH, and senate has done exactly opposite to what we have been told since it has been beneficial to ISRAEL, RUSSIA, even, China but against the interest of the United States and Iran.

    As John Walsh writes:
    {The enablers like Solomon and Medea Benjamin and Katrina vanden Heuvel owe the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan an apology, for their backing of Obama makes them complicit in the war and killing that will soon intensify. They worked to get Obama elected rather than to build a new political movement, which is necessary to end the depredations of US Empire and which will never be organized if anti-warriors keep following the Dems.}

    The ‘progressive’ Zionists have one thing in COMMON and that is the interest of the “Jewish state”. To do so, one gang of closet zionist like Zmag, Katrina vanden Heuve, from Nation magazine, her husband Stephen Cohen, a professor of Russian studies, are presenting Russia as progressive to create an audience for the racists and terrorist state of Russia in the West especially in the United States. Russia is the only state in the world where majority of its population support Israeli policy of genocide AGAINST Palestinians. Russia has close relations with Israel and is hoping to gain a foot in the Middle East region by working with Israel against Muslims. There are thousands of Russians in the occupied land who are working for the same thing. Both states prime goal is to whipe Muslims through genocide and relocations. Russia killed 2 million Afghani before left Afghanistan.

    Due to many concessions that Russian have gained through Jewish Lobby, Putin is going to visit Israel soon after the new year to thank Israel for creating a phony ‘enemy’ for American Empire and transferring so many concessions beyond imagination of anyone given to Russia through zionist lobby.

    Although the USSR is dead and the Russian Federation is not a super power as it was once, the Russian leaders are always dreaming of restoring the Russian hegemony in the area that once used to be the Russian domain.
    Russia with the help of Jewish Lobby in Washington has gained many concessions in Georgia, Iran and the region where all are against the interest of the United States. Due to a Zionist foreign policy in Washington, Iran bashing, Russia has been given many opportunities to steal most of the Caspian Sea riches for herself and small puppet state like Azerbaijan where is a Zionist spy network. As far as the Caspian Sea is concerned, they want to have access to all of the Caspian Sea for their military and civilian fleet. But Iran so far has resisted. Due to Zionist policy the United States has chosen the most expensive route for the pipe line from Azerbaijan to Turkey leaving Iran behind? Do you think these policies are in the interest of the United States?

    Russia like Israel does not want Iran to be independent to have its own fuel enrichment program and does not want Iran to develop nuclear weapon but both Israel and Russia are sitting on thousands of nuclear bombs.
    The phony ‘war on terror’ is mainly beneficial to Russia and Israel, not the United States. The United States needs friend in the Muslim world to contain Russia and China in the region. However, due to Zionist policy the United States has expanded the Russian racist and Zionist state greatly and has created a golden opportunity for China to build its economy and expand its influence in the oil rich countries beyond anyone imagination, on one hand and has belittle the United state to the same degree as Israel with billions new enemies who are not going to change their mind and heart any time soon. I ask you: is this in the interest of the empire as the zionist, Chomsky, Soloman, vanden Heuve want us to believe. Do you think people are that naïve to believe such rubbish?

  22. Max Shields said on December 6th, 2009 at 5:25pm #

    dan e, saying Chomsky’s views PDA with any attachment is obviously a stretch. Whether PDAers think well of Chomsky is immaterial. Again, Chomsky is a red herring on the topic of this thread.

    I think is presumptuous to think Corporations work as some kind of monolithic bunch of rational thinking bottom liners.

    I’ve made the point before, there’s reason to believe that in the larger geopolitical scheme as the Cold War ended, nation-states (not just the USA) began to put government in the driver’s seat regarding energy, and not the interests of “Big Oil”. I refer you to the work of Michael Klare (with some hesitation because the tendency here is to argue against people rather than facts) and Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet, The New Geopolitics of Energy.

  23. Deadbeat said on December 6th, 2009 at 5:48pm #

    I refer you to the work of Michael Klare (with some hesitation because the tendency here is to argue against people rather than facts) and Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet, The New Geopolitics of Energy.

    The tendency is to get to the INTERESTS being promoted by the voices being sited. It is not unreasonable to examine Norman Soloman nor unreasonable to examine Chomsky especially since their view dominate what is considered acceptable “alternative” or “Leftist” positions.

    Now let’s examine Michael Klare. You can read the transcript of the April 5, 2005 interview from Democracy Now! to obtain his perspectives regarding the Iraq War …

    AMY GOODMAN: Professor Michael Klare, do you agree [with Jim Paul]?

    MICHAEL KLARE: Yes. I generally agree [that the markets are moving higher and higher because it looks like the world is actually running out of oil.] . I think we have to even elaborate on what Jim Paul said. We’re facing a structural change in the oil and energy industry that’s likely to be permanent, and that structural change is that the output cannot keep up with demand; and what you have to add to the equation is surging demand for oil around the world, especially in the United States and China and Japan, Europe and India. And the global oil industry is simply not capable of satisfying this rising level of demand and won’t be so far as we could tell for the rest of the petroleum era. So there’s going to be intense competition. And then you add on top of that political instability in Venezuela and Nigeria and Angola and Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and you can understand why prices are so high.

    What we now know is that in 2005 the oil prices ran up due to speculation in the commodities and future market because of the Iraq War. This situation was due to the uncertanity cause by the War. We also know that the Saudi INCREASED supply during the war years so that there was a GLUT of oil on the market while prices were rising. Thus the explanations offered by Klare does not jibe with the real supply and demands condition to justify the oil price increase in 2005.

    In other words their explanation was wrong therefore one must ask WHY are they speading misinformation. It is clear the reasons is to misdirect the public from the influence Zionism had on the War on Iraq.

    We’ve seen this from the so-called “Left” spokespeople namely Chomsky who consistently excuses domestic Zionism an influencing force in U.S. MidEast policy and Niomi Klien who book “Shock Doctrine”‘ was written not as a prelude to the current economic crisis but as to divert the explanation of the Iraq War away from Zionism and onto neo-liberalism.

    Thus is it important for dissidents to give particular scrunity to those voices who position themselves to the “Left” of the “mainstream”.

  24. dan said on December 6th, 2009 at 6:58pm #

    hehe:) Actually I was just messin’ wit you a little, I know Chompsky isn’t your hero:) You’ve made it clear many times that you reserve that status for Henry George, which is even funnier:)

    However, it IS material what “PDAers” think re Chomsky’s political views. Since the PDA/DSA/CCDS/CPUSA honchocrats are able to point to Chomsky’s academic & “laureate” credentials to legitimize their own “explanations” of things like who wanted the US to invade & occupy Iraq, criticism of Chomsky’s expressed views is far from being a “red herring”. In actual fact, Chomsky’s views on global political dynamics are at the heart of why the US “peace movement” is such a farce.

    I guess it may seem “presumptious” to a entreprenuerially-minded fellow like yourself for me to attribute anything like the profit motive to people who are in business to make a profit, so I guess I should apologize for my display of disrespectful cheek? In my own defense, I can only say that I may have been unduly influenced by one Karl Marx who said once “Accumulate, accumulate: that is Moses and the Prophets”.
    But you are making my point for me. It is not I or James Petras or Jeff Blankfort who make the claim that the recent and ongoing campaigns of violence cum megamendacity. I do have to reject your Liberal buzzword “government”, since The State in contemporary capitalist society includes a lot more than can be subsumed under that rubric. But we are in agreement that current official US policy is not determined by the interests of “Big Oil”, but by Strategic Considerations.

    We disagree apparently about whose Strategic Interests get the most consideration when Obama goes about deciding which white ass to kiss hardest:)
    BTW I first ran across Michael Klare at least twenty years ago. For quite a while I was very impressed, but lately have come to conclude that in the last analysis, his impressive scholarship serves to legitimize a particular version of the Zionist Narrative.
    However I haven’t read the works you cite and am unlikely to do so for reasons unrelated to these discussions, so he may have dealt with the objections I was forced to make to what he put forth earlier. So “benefit of the doubt”, maybe he does have it all figured out. But I doubt it:)

    I am in agreement with him that any serious assessment of global realpolitik in the current conjuncture must take Energy into account. But I don’t think he has much to say about the Zionist Political Configuration, about the Positions of Advantage the ZPC has in the last few decades attained in key social structures including the US Imperialist Political, Financial & Ideological State Apparatus.

    What I’m trying to tell you, Max ol’ buddy, is that we aren’t going to make an progress in confronting these evils until we confront not only that we live in a capitalist society, but we live in one that has become dominated by Jewish Zionist Militarists leading a defacto coalition of Defense Contractors, Military and “Security” professionals/entrepenuers, Christinane Zionists, Central Bankers, and phoney “leftists”. And others, you can fill out the list yourself.

    Yes, by all means, let’s talk about global energy issues. But anybody who goes on and on about those aspects with nary a whisper about the Eretz Yisrael angle is either not so knowledgeable as we’re sposta believe, or is deliberately try to take your mind on a run around the mulberry bush. Oops, update that, mulberry obama:)

  25. dan said on December 6th, 2009 at 7:05pm #

    oops, left out part of a sentence. “It is not I or James Petras or Jeff Blankfort who make the claim that [responsibility for]the recent and ongoing campaigns of violence cum megamendacity [should be laid at the feet of “Big Oil”]. Sorry, Max:)

  26. Max Shields said on December 7th, 2009 at 7:19am #

    Deadbeat you are the link. You’re obsessed with turning everything into Zionists/Chomsky pseudo-debates. That obsession verges on pathological. And you’ve found one cohort.

  27. bozh said on December 7th, 2009 at 9:25am #

    US/nato/world plutos have in mind an end solution. The question to ask is, What it may be?
    Are the present aggressions in somalia,afpak,and iraq the last US aggressions?
    Well, we don’t know the future, but know the past. So, we expect more wars from world plutos.
    Chomsky does not speak of the end solution but of american global dominance. The latter label contains different implications than the label “end or final solution”.
    The latter implies that world plutos and not just american-european plutos are on the way to conquer entire planet and to finally achieve a perm plutocratic rule.
    And thus wld have realized their eternal dream to forever eradicate many basic rights.
    Proportionally, ‘Jews’ are the richest group of people; thus wld have been more responsible if a perm enslavement of lower classes wld come to fruition.
    So, at least some ‘jews’ prefer to call the present world events, “US wars for global dominance” rather than plutocratic conquest of the planet.
    Of, course, i do not know whether prominent ‘jews’ are obscuring this fact deliberately or not!
    They do, imo, deter establishment of a second political party in US; without which not much wld change for better.Or we cld expect change for much worse. That is the change i believe in! tnx

  28. Deadbeat said on December 7th, 2009 at 11:53am #

    HAHAHAHAHAHA — Now we “Dr.” Shields going beyond his typical ad hominem “analysis” to psychoanalysis. What is going on today in the U.S. is a combination of interest and forces that best can be described as Militarism, Capitalism and Racism the very three pillars that Martin Luther King identified in his 1967 “Beyond Vietnam” speech. I guess to you Max MLK was “psychotic”.

    Give it up Max and admit you are a Liberal who values Capitalism and Zionism since you spend you time defending both here on DV with the PRETENSE of being against them. This is what I mean by Chomskyism and you exemplify that behavior to a tee.

    Here’s an excerpt from Christopher Hedges today as he being his journey to Left-wing critique. The more he continues on this path the more his eyes will open.

    I save my anger for our bankrupt liberal intelligentsia of which, sadly, I guess I am a member. Liberals are the defeated, self-absorbed Mouse Man in Dostoevsky’s “Notes From Underground.” They embrace cynicism, a cloak for their cowardice and impotence. They, like Dostoevsky’s depraved character, have come to believe that the “conscious inertia” of the underground surpasses all other forms of existence. They too use inaction and empty moral posturing, not to affect change but to engage in an orgy of self-adulation and self-pity. They too refuse to act or engage with anyone not cowering in the underground. This choice does not satisfy the Mouse Man, as it does not satisfy our liberal class, but neither has the strength to change. The gravest danger we face as a nation is not from the far right, although it may well inherit power, but from a bankrupt liberal class that has lost the will to fight and the moral courage to stand up for what it espouses.

  29. Max Shields said on December 7th, 2009 at 12:26pm #

    Christopher Hedges (who I generally find agreeable) is but another one of your red herrings, Deadbeat. I’ve made clear that I agree with Mr. Walsh’s article which is a critique not of the “left” per se, but those who have been Obama boosters (as well as those who never give up on the Democratic wing of the war party, PDAers being primary examples). Hedges, in the piece you quote, speaks to my issues as well.

    But none of this explains your pathology with everything Chomsky/Zionism. You cannot hide behind Hedges.

  30. dan e said on December 7th, 2009 at 1:03pm #

    Shabnam, on reading your post more closely I’m not at all convinced that Russia and Israel are as synonymous as you seem to be claiming. I do realize that Russia, the USSR, and the Tsar were all hostile to Islam and to the neighboring Muslim states, including the Ottomans and Iran and others. However I’m not convinced of the progressive character of the various separatist movements claiming to be Islamic as they strive to implement the Zionist Imperialist strategy of fragmenting the Russian Federation.
    However I’m willing to consider any facts you may want to present in support of your arguments. ??

  31. dan e said on December 7th, 2009 at 1:17pm #

    Max shields Zionism from criticism as much as he can, calling anti-Zionism “pathological”. Well, at least it’s a variation on the usual ad hominem used by defenders of the ZPC, the charge of “anti-Semitism”.

    But it amounts to the same thing, an attempt to divert those concerned about US military adventures from focussing on the unprecedented degree of power attained by the Jewish Zionist component of the US ruling class.
    Aahh, it’s so boring, this refusal to face documented facts. Makes me wonder if it’s due more to ego-driven stubbornness, or just plain moral cowardice.
    Which would be entirely understandable, given the ability of the Jewish State and its allies to carry out covert operations anywhere in the world at any time. So I can’t really blame you Max, I’m afraid of the Jews too:)

  32. Shabnam said on December 7th, 2009 at 2:39pm #

    Juan Cole follows the same line as Zmag. He writes:

    [President Obama is slowly putting Iran in a box. His cancellation of the useless and expensive so-called “missile shield” program in Eastern Europe, which had needlessly antagonized Russia, has been rewarded with greater Russian cooperativeness on Iran. But in fact his move was shrewd and gutsy, since he predisposed Russia to increased cooperation with the US in regard to Iran’s nuclear research program. Obama’s full court press for a United Nations Security Council resolution on nuclear disarmament also pulled the rug out from under Iran’s previous grandstanding tactics, whereby it accused the US and its allies of only wanting nuclear dominance, not the abolition of nukes.]

    He does not tell the readers ISRAELI was influencial for such a foreign policy because Israel is working to bring Russia on board. Russia always has worked with Israel to advance her interest in the region and the world. Israel is using Obama and her influence on American foreign policy to direct Obama to give more concessions to Russia to bring Russia on board. Russia and Israel have IDENTICAL POLICY against Iran and use Iran card, Bushehr reactor construction and vote against Iran at the UN to get more concession. Iran views Russia far more dangerous than the United States, but the Zionist policy have forced Iran into Russian hand where Iranians view as an enemy due to Russia/Iran histroy for the past, at least three centuries. Israel has a win, win situation since she has one leg on foreign policy of the United States and a foot in Russia’s court. Majority of the closet Zionist circle view Russia as a friend and push for more concessions to Russia against Iran. Russia after Israel is the most pro Zionist policy in the world.
    Juan Cole criticizes policies of Israel but he hardly, like Chomsky, exposes the hand of Jewish Lobby in US foreign policy regarding Muslim countries and waging wars one after the other. It is interesting that you accept Chomsky as a gatekeeper but not Juan Cole. Juan Cole is NOT ANTI ZIONISM per say. He criticizes Israel policies but he is a REALIST like Stephen Walt and Joan Mearsheimer. Both consider Israel a vibrant ‘democracy.’ Juan Cole is NOT against establishment of state of Israel, like Stephen Walt and his co author, and I have never read he is for one state for all. All closest Zionists, like Chomsky, Soloman and others, are against one state for all and are seeking a ‘Jewish state.’
    Cole is a ‘democrat’ and could not openly side with neocons, however he said the following:
    “Iraq never has been as close as two decades from having nuclear weapons.” And
    “I am an Arabist and happen to know something serious about Baathist Iraq, which paralyzes me from opposing a war for regime change in that country (Milosevic did not kill nearly as many people). If it is true that Chirac thinks the Baath party can be reformed from without, he is simply wrong.”
    And the month after that: “I remain convinced that, for all the concerns one might have about the aftermath, the removal of Saddam Hussein and the murderous Baath regime from power will be worth the sacrifices that are about to be made on all sides.”
    He like Noam Chomsky has his own style to let people in certain direction to reduce opposition to certain Government policies so to help stability to keep fools on board. Both Chomsky and Juan Cole have supported a LIE that Iranian election in June 2009 was ‘fraud’ and they site the Chatham House report, close to MI6, as evidence which is unfortunate.
    Now, he is fully on Board with Obama and supporting his policies on every direction including the recent ‘Green revolution’ in Iran. Juan Cole gives grad A to Obama, a zionist puppet, for his policy towards Iran: As Edward Herman and David Petersen wrote:

    Juan Cole’s very positive report card for President Barack Obama’s foreign policy is a bit shocking, given his knowledge and frequent enlightening comments. (“Obama’s Foreign Policy Report Card,” Salon, October 27, 2009.1) “[Obama] receives his lowest grade for his failure to force America’s chattering classes to take notice,” Cole judges — policy issues resolve into matters of perception, and can be remedied by better PR, or fewer negative attacks from the right. But on his accomplishments, it’s another story. Obama “has already set in motion significant change on several [foreign policy] fronts,” Cole avers, so much so that Cole believes we are now living in a “different world.”
    Cole gives Obama the grade of “B” for his policy toward Iraq, “A” for Iran, and “B” for Pakistan. Cole writes that “[Obama] can be faulted for not working closely enough with the Nouri al-Malaki government [in Iraq] to ease the transition, hence a grade of B instead of A.”

    Herman and Petersen continue:
    On Israel-Palestine, Cole speaks of “little progress,” when in fact there has been no progress whatsoever, and humiliating backtracking as the Obama administration has been unable or unwilling to halt Israeli settlement growth and aggressive ethnic cleansing actions in East Jerusalem,18 has reaffirmed Israel’s rogue status as a nuclear weapons state beyond the reach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty,19 and has even rejected the findings of the Goldstone Commission as “unbalanced” and “deeply flawed.”20 Admittedly, with the entire Democratic Party establishment and the U.S. media groveling before the pro-Israel lobby, there was not much Obama could do, but he has not fought back very hard and has failed to do anything useful. Another failing grade.
    Cole also lauds Obama’s movement on Iran policy, where Obama is willing to “jawbone,” which helped get an IAEA inspection team visiting the newly announced enrichment facility at Qom.22 But Cole fails to mention that Obama announced the “discovery” of the Qom facility in a dishonest and fear-mongering way, hijacking the attention focused on the Group of 20 summit in Pittsburgh to stage the announcement at the very outset of the summit,23 and that his administration has put enormous weight on containing Iran’s non-existent “threat” and continues to keep all options “on the table” to meet it. Cole doesn’t suggest that the threat is phony or mention that Israel and the United States are the real nuclear threats, already wreaking havoc with their massive conventional forces, while leaning on their nuclear supremacy as backups. Obama flunks again here, and so does Cole.

    Juan Cole is fully on board with the Zionist administration of Obama on domestic and foreign policy directed by the Jewish Lobby pro Israel against interest of the American people.

  33. Max Shields said on December 7th, 2009 at 2:49pm #

    Anti-Zionism is not pathological – incessent distortion IS.

  34. Shabnam said on December 7th, 2009 at 8:20pm #

    dan e:

    Russia during the history has alway been an expansionist power. Russia always goes after her interest if that requires to kill millions of people, exactly like the United States, the British Empire or the Zionist entity. I look at Russia from this point of view to say that Russia and Israel have the same policy towards Iran and that is to keep Iran WEAK because they view themselves as the power of the region, and they use any mean to achieve their goal in the Middle East, Central Asia and Caucasia.

    Islam entered on the Russian scene in the seventh century. After the conquest of eastern Caucasia (Qafqaz) Islam began to spread in these areas without any resistance. The Muslim armies crossed river Oxus in 673. Bukhara fell to the Muslims in 674. The series of such conquests went on up to the tenth century when Islam became the most popular religion in the entire central Asia and Caucasia. However, Russia had a tight grip over the Muslim territories from the middle of the sixteenth century to the beginning of the twentieth century.

    With the Russian Empire continuously advancing south in the course of two wars against Persia (Iran), and the treaties of Turkmanchai and Golestan in the western frontiers, Persia lost its traditional foothold in Central Asia to the Russian Tsarist armies. The Russian armies occupied the Aral coast in 1849, Tashkent in 1864, Bukhara in 1867, Samarkand in 1868, and Khiva and Amudarya in 1873. The Treaty of Akhal, in which the rulers of Iran, Qajarid were forced to cede Khwarazm, topped off Persian losses to the global emerging power of Imperial Russia.

    The Persian language was the main literary language and the language of correspondence in Central Asia and Caucasus prior to the Russian occupation, Central Asia being the birthplace of modern Persian language.
    As you see, all these changes occurred during the second part of the 19th century. People had their own culture and tradition for centuries and they were not willing to give it up in order to satisfy the Russian expansionist attitute.
    All Soviet attempts at uprooting Islam and the Muslims failed. Stalin used relocation of the people to control Muslims. The cities of Bokhara and Samaghand where are very important centers for Persian speaking people (Tajik) were made part of Uzbakistan to attack on their language and culture. When you want to defeat people the first thing you attack is their language and culture and Stalin did. That’s why you see a many Tajiks in Uzbekistan speak Persian.
    Russian outlawed Arabic alphabet, Persian is written in Arabic alphabet. They were forced to use Cyrillic Alphabet. This empire building happened just a century ago. The period of the Russian Iron Curtain from 1928 to 1968 encouraged Muslims to leave their religion and become atheist and accept communism as their religion, like Zionism became the zionist religion.

    According to the 1918 Constitution, all Russian nationals were guaranteed complete religious freedom. Yet religious preaching had been banned. All sorts of anti-religious propaganda were encouraged. Under flimsy pretexts, Islam was commonly subjected to the worst possible criticisms. In spite of all that, however, the Russian government always remained highly suspicious and apprehensive of its Muslim population.
    In 1941, Soviet Russia and Great Britain launched the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, ignoring Iran’s plea of neutrality.
    In a revealing cable sent on July 6th 1945 by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the local Soviet commander in northern Azerbaijan was instructed as such:

    “Begin preparatory work to form a national autonomous Azerbaijan district with broad powers within the Iranian state and simultaneously develop separatist movements in the provinces of Gilan, Mazandaran, Gorgan, and Khorasan”

    As you see Iranian are very suspicious of Russia due to Russian policy towards Iran. Today, due to Zionist policy in Washington Iran is being forced to seek Russian help but Russia using both, Iran and US, has gained many important concessions where are not in the interest of the US or Iran.
    You should not think that a ‘secular’ Russia is more ‘progressive’ than Islamic Tajikistan. This picture is favored by the empire builders in order to demonize the indigenous population and eliminate them without opposition. When you write:
    [However I’m not convinced of the progressive character of the various separatist movements claiming to be Islamic as they strive to implement the Zionist Imperialist strategy of fragmenting the Russian Federation.]
    It is questionable, at the least. You have to look at the history of Russia for the past few centuries to understand why people in the Caucasus and the Central Asia view Russia as their enemy. Do you think Russia as a ‘secular’ country is more progressive than ‘Tajikistan?’ Don’t forget Saddam leader of Baath party was secular so the United States and British. The way you put it is very similar to those who justified their war crimes due to ‘civilizing mission’, or ‘exceptionalism.’
    Iran-Russia relations for the past few centuries has been very turbulent due to Russian expansionist policy and strangulation of Persia (Iran).
    I must say that ‘power’ is at the center of Russian behavior towards Iran rather than ‘religion.’ But we should not forget that majority of these countries are using ‘Islam’ to protect their culture and their territories from Russian expansionist policy. Russia is using Iran as a trump Card to gain more concessions from Washington through its relations with Israel for a policy which is shared by two states.
    Moscow agreed to build the nuclear power plant in 1995 and the project was supposed to be completed in July 1999, but the start-up of the reactor has been postponed for 10 years on Israel demand and Russia has gone with Israel because Iran trump card has given Russia many golden eggs. In addition, Russia does not deliver the S-300 missile system according to agreement, thus, Iran has threaten to take legal action, but as you know Iran does not have leverage at all and Russia knows it and use it fully and create a lot of hatred for itself.
    “The Russians, surely under the pressure of the Zionist lobby and America, refuse to fulfill their commitments,” the official IRNA news agency quoted Brigadier General Mohammad Hassan Mansourian as saying. Hillary Clinton praised Russia last month for not providing the S-300 to Iran, like Israel.
    Although the USSR is dead and the Russian Federation is not a super power as it was once, the Russian leaders are always dreaming of restoring the Russian hegemony in the area that once used to be the Russian domain.

  35. Deadbeat said on December 7th, 2009 at 9:38pm #

    Anti-Zionism is not pathological – incessent distortion IS.

    Gee Max look at all the pertinent information Shabnam present here on DV about the ills of Zionism and the “closet” Zionist like Chomsky, Solomon and Juan Cole — all operating from the United States. Do care to comment?