Obama Should End the War or He Will Pay a Heavy Political Price

As 10th Year of Longest War Begins the Flood of Bad News in Afghanistan Continues

Today, the 10th year of the Afghanistan War begins.

The longest American war continues amidst a flood of bad news from the war front – supply routes cut, oil tankers burning, record deaths of soldiers and Afghan civilians, U.S. funding the Taliban to protect U.S. troops … on and on, the war failure stares the United States in the face.

If Obama thinks he is having a hard time with the “enthusiasm gap” in 2010, in 2012 if these wars continue, he will be unable to wake up his anti-war base no matter how much he chides them and tries to scare them with extremist Republicans.

The counterproductive, unnecessary, and damaging Afghanistan war is destroying one of the most impoverished countries in the world, killing Afghan civilians at very high rates and undermining the United States in multiple ways.

The war pushes the U.S. further into debt. The United States spends $1.5 billion per month in borrowed money on the Afghanistan war.

It undermines the rule of law; the U.S. holds thousands of Afghans in prisons without charges. Torture is reported. And robotic drones result in deaths. Legal experts have described these actions as war crimes.

It undermines democracy by propping up a corrupt leader put in office by a low-voter-turnout elections that are rife with fraud.

And it undermines national security by creating more enemies every day — enemies that will hate the United States for a generation or more.

Now the war is expanding into an Af-Pak war-quagmire. Since coming to office, President Obama escalated attacks in Pakistan with drone after drone killing civilians and local insurgent leaders. Pakistanis are no longer sitting back but are responding by exploding oil tankers and blocking key border routes. Cutting off U.S. supply lines and burning the oil used to keep tanks rolling and planes flying may end up being the nail in a coffin of a war that cannot be won and should not have been fought. Even before these attacks on supply lines, it cost $1 million per year to keep a soldier in Afghanistan. With supply routes cut and oil burning, that cost will escalate quickly.

With the mid-term elections soon to be behind us, the Obama administration is shaping up its re-election strategy. One lesson Obama and the Democrats should have learned in the mid-terms is that they cannot take their base for granted. Every day Obama, Biden, and other administration officials are criticizing their voting base for not coming out for the mid-term elections. Don’t they get it? The Democrats turned off their voting base.  Antiwar voters do not support policies that expand wars, create record military spending and result in the largest weapons sales in history.

Anti-war voters were critical to Obama’s election.  By the time 2012 comes around. if the U.S. is still fighting a war and occupation in Afghanistan, anger against the war will be at a very high level.  The anti-war vote that got Obama through the Democratic primaries and propelled him to a general election victory will turn against Obama – working for other candidates, funding other candidates and sitting on their hands when it comes to Obama and the Democrats.

Indeed, since 2006 the Democratic base has been saying, “End the wars.” The message has been clear with votes in 2006 that gave the Democrats back control of Congress because of the unpopular war policy of Bush and the Republicans. It was clear in the presidential election when Obama’s opposition to the Iraq War and pledge to end the war propelled him through the primaries. And it is clear in polls today: Americans oppose the Afghanistan War.

Anti-war voters need to make sure that Obama and team get the message from the enthusiasm gap in the mid-term elections: the Democrats cannot take the peace vote for granted.

Many of us did not support Obama in the last election because of his proposals to expand war, other anti-war voters supported him with the hope that he would end the wars. Some believed him when he said he would end the Iraq war and end the mindset that got the U.S. into war.  Now those voters are seeing the truth.  The Iraq war didn’t end, soldiers and mercenaries fighting combat in Iraq are now merely re-labeled as non-combat soldiers while the war goes on.  Peace voters see the Afghanistan war expanding and evolving into a more dangerous Af-Pak War.

The anti-war voting base is turned off to Obama and the Democratic Party.  The Democrats must reverse course on war and excite anti-war voters by ending the wars, cutting military spending and denouncing a war-dominated foreign policy. Denouncing us because we oppose war and therefore will not support candidates who expand war is a recipe for defeat in 2012.

But now, as the longest war enters its 10th year, anti-war voters need to make sure President Obama gets the message. Tell him, “If the wars continue, you will not get the peace vote. If the wars continue, there will be no peace activists working for you in the primaries or general election. If the war continues you are acting against a majority of Americans who oppose the wars and recognize they undermine the U.S. economy.” Remind him that war is not the answer, and it is time for America to come home and focus on the serious domestic problems the country faces.  You can click here to write the president today.

Peace voters need to realize they have the power because Obama and the Dems need their votes.  It is time for us to make clear demands so that as they plan for the next election they understand dramatic policy change is needed or they will be out of office.  The peace vote matters.

Kevin Zeese co-directs Popular Resistance and is on the coordinating council for the Maryland Green Party. Read other articles by Kevin, or visit Kevin's website.

41 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Charlie said on October 9th, 2010 at 11:17am #

    I admire Voters for Peace and its work, but I have to respectfully disagree with the main tenets in this article. To suggest that peace voters can send any message at all to the Democratic Party can only result from turning a blind eye to history.

    The last time the Democrats ran a true anti-war candidate at the national level occurred in 1972 in the Nixon-McGovern presidential election. How well did that turn out for the Democrats? I was young and hopeful and voted for McGovern. I think 3 other people in my district did too and perhaps a few thousand more nationwide.

    At that time, the hideousness, cruelty, and insanity of war were even more pronounced than today–with nightly news broadcasts (remember when we had real journalists?) of the carnage in Vietnam, complete with film footage of dead and dying Americans. Even with that backdrop, however, the Democrats could not capture the votes to propel a man who wanted peace into the White House.

    The Democrats learned a valuable lesson in the 1970s: Because all politics is theater, all politicians must be actors. Since then, “the play’s the thing” for the Dems, and they have sent some Tony-level performers across the boards of politics. Obama is simply the latest actor, a man in character, not a leader. (The Republicans, by the way, learned the same thing and didn’t even try to disguise their actors as politicians. In Reagan, they hired a professional actor, and he gave the most notable performance of his otherwise unremarkable career.)

    By your own admission, Obama courted discontented voters and promised them the change they desperately wanted. Again by your own admission, he has betrayed nearly every one of those voters by pursuing a policy of war heaped upon war, cruelty heaped upon cruelty, and lies heaped upon lies. Look at the events and policies you cite. Are those the record of a man who gives a crap about the peace vote? I think not.

    From any angle, Obama looks like a Bush to me. What peace voter wants trillions of taxpayer dollars transferred to Wall St. billionaires? What peace voter wants the health insurers writing legislation? What peace voter wants the torture camps running like the express line at a grocery store? What peace voter wants the richest people in America treated like royalty and handed the real reins of power in this country? What peace voter wants war criminals around the world, including Biden’s Zionists in Israel, to be given the blessing and financial assistance of the US?

    Please stop and think about it. Why on Earth would anyone think Obama is anything other than a warmonger who said whatever he had to say to get elected and then promptly proposed the largest Pentagon budget in the history of the nation and expanded the war? And why on Earth would anyone think he’s going to hear any message that doesn’t come from his overlords in corporate America?

    I hope the Democratic Party suffers the biggest losses in its history in the mid-terms and then again in 2012. That is the only message they will understand. Maybe then they will actually have to contemplate how the guy who voted for McGovern in 1972 now holds nothing but contempt for the Democratic Party.

    Voters feel trapped. They pick candidates like Obama because he is perceived as the lesser of two evils or possibly even a good choice. I’m not willing to settle for the lesser of two evils. I wouldn’t vote for Stalin just because he was running against Hitler–I’d do a write-in for someone else. So I think the peace voters need to act similarly. Stop thinking that warmongers will change if we just send them a message. Start thinking about how to get credible anti-war candidates on the ballot.

  2. Deadbeat said on October 9th, 2010 at 12:54pm #

    Charlie writes an excellent critique of Zeese’s article but concludes with the following …

    Start thinking about how to get credible anti-war candidates on the ballot.

    Well that was done in 2004 and much of the Left abandoned Nader for the “Anybody but Bush” tactic. So even if there were an anti-war candidate on the ballot you cannot count on the Left.

  3. kalidas said on October 9th, 2010 at 12:56pm #

    Well, somebody can count on them… (wink wink)

  4. teafoe2 said on October 9th, 2010 at 1:53pm #

    Kevin Zeese never gives up, keeps peddling those good old Liberal illusions. Supposed to be part of the “third party movement” but is really a Democrat.

    BTW “antiwar” candidates? you can keep ’em, give me an anti-Zionist candidate & I might even vote.

  5. hayate said on October 9th, 2010 at 8:31pm #

    The dems are just zionists in donkey suits, while the repubs are just zionists in elephant suits. But even before the zionists ran this monkey show, both the dems and repubs were still clowns in silly costumes working for the robber barons. One might as well vote nazi as vote dem or repug. Toss ’em and go independent. Non-zionist independents – do some homework first and make sure one’s choice aint just another zionist quisling in a green or pink bunny suit.

  6. kbzeese said on October 10th, 2010 at 5:26am #

    Don’t misunderstand me. I see Obama for what he is — a corporate-militarist who supports a foreign policy dominated by U.S. military power. I do not expect him or the Democrats to change.

    I served as Ralph Nader’s spokesperson and press secretary in 2004 and have not voted for either of the two parties since the 90s. During the Obama campaign I was a constant critic of Obama’s rhetoric on war, militarism, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan — he is doing what he would say he would do on all those fronts. (See Peace Perspectives from 2008/09 at http://www.VotersForPeace.US.) I supported Nader and McKinney in 2008. So, I am not fooled.

    But, I oppose these wars and want to see them ended. And, it is important for the peace movement to realize Obama is not Bush — not that his policies are different but the politics are different. Bush did not need the peace vote. The peace vote never supported Bush and never would. So, when we had mass demonstrations they were irrelevant to Bush because he knew those were not the voters that put him in office or would keep him in office.

    Obama was put in office by peace voters. His promise to end the Iraq War led off his speeches (of course, the details did not really promise an end, but few heard the details). The peace vote got him the Democratic nomination. Unfortunately, many peace voters are Democrats. So, they tend to support Obama even when he does the opposite of what they want. I want peace voters to realize that they actually have more power right now then they did under Bush. Those kinds of mass demonstrations and civil resistance actions against Democrats would make a difference now, unlike during the Bush era when they were irrelevant. But to exercise that power requires peace voters to become non-partisan, to turn their backs on the Democrats.

    My hope is that we have a real progressive third party some day in the United States. I would love for the Green Party to stand more strongly against the Democrats, but they have been very disappointing on that front too often. I don’t see myself supporting a Democrat in the near future. There would have to be a major paradigm shift that has never occurred in that party since the time it was the slave party before the Civil War. It was always a big business party with rhetoric for the people then and it remains a big business party with rhetoric (but not policies) for the people now.

    But, the Dems are getting a mid-term election lesson right now. Conservative policies mean voters will be unenthusiastic and stay home. The Dems can learn that lesson, and it can be emphasized by the peace movement if we turn away from them (as I said, while I am not a Dem, many peace voters are), protest the wars and warn them they are losing the peace vote. It is never easy to end a war once it starts but peace voters have more power than they realize, more power with a president who needs them vs. when there was a Bush president who did not need them.

  7. Don Hawkins said on October 10th, 2010 at 6:57am #

    My hope is that we have a real progressive third party some day in the United States. kbzeese

    Some day well something needs to change and soon or that some day will take on a whole new meaning.

  8. kbzeese said on October 10th, 2010 at 7:10am #

    You’re right about that Don.

    One thing that is always interesting about paradigm shifting change, when it happens, people say — wow that was quick, where did that come from? We might be close to that type of paradigm shifting change right now. A near majority of Americans consider themselves independent of the two parties. And, so many problems are reaching a breaking point. The military strategy is resulting in tremendous cost and more defeat than victory. We may wake up and find a major shift in the direction we have all been working for, for many years. We’ve got to keep pushing for progressive change despite the obstacles and powers that be doing all they can to stop us.

    And, don’t assume that the record corporate power in the post Citizen’s United World is a sign of their strength. It may also be a sign of their desperation. So often before a major paradigm shift the status quo stiffens its back and looks stronger than ever, but really they are more insecure than ever and therefore working harder to prevent change.

  9. bozh said on October 10th, 2010 at 7:17am #

    Without naming names, none–as far as i know– of the best known dissidents ever mention the cause for what US ruling class does.
    All of them offer us only jeremiahs.
    Thus, by avoiding to posit or postulate the cause for ills that befall us from onepercenters; they do not offer an elucidation.

    To me, none of these people appear honest nor well-wishing on econo-military-educational-governmantal level.

    As for nader running for president, it appears total waste of time. Much better wld be to form a political party and then for him to run for congress and not prez.
    It is abundantly clear that a prez functions like any safeway manager. And even if nader wld be elected as a prez, he’d either be assassinated or prevented from doing anything good!

    Movements, organizations do not change america. Whatever changes occur in US, they appear approved by the onepercenters.tnx

    And in add’n, they control freedoms and goodies americans have and get.
    And now both in diminishing proportions.

    Let’s face, the invariance of masters of wars, healthcare, information, education, people, land never changes nor ever will– only amount of freedoms and goodies change and the change enacted only by the ruling class. tnx

  10. Don Hawkins said on October 10th, 2010 at 7:32am #

    Oh there’s change coming alright Bozh just how it will play out is the question. So far it appears just more control then force if the illusion doesn’t work.

  11. catguy00 said on October 10th, 2010 at 9:10am #

    To the Americans here. I know Obama is part of the problem but if he is running against Sarah Palin in 2012 would you hold your nose and vote for him considering the alternative?

  12. teafoe2 said on October 10th, 2010 at 10:23am #

    catguy: NO. what a stupid question. Obama gets away with crap everybody would scream to high heaven if Palin or McCain tried it.

    Zeese. blah blah, same old convoluted reasoning why we should go for the Lesser Evil. Obama is not first of all a corporate militarist, he’s an AIPAC/CPMAJO puppet, that is an Isreali stooge. Fuck all this crap about him “depending on the peace movement”. There ain’t no peace movement.

  13. hayate said on October 10th, 2010 at 12:00pm #

    Unfortunately, most of the leadership in the “peace movement” in the usa gets its orders ultimately from tel aviv. This is why as soon as “the blair in blackface” was elected, those people stood down and began quieting their associates and followers with the “give the guy a chance” platitudes. The regular fascists don’t have anything like the influence ziofascists have on progressive/left movements simply because their people are on the outside trying to weasel in, but zionists have long been a part of the left and are not considered outsiders, unfortunately. They need to be considered outsides because they most definitely are. Very hostile outsiders.

    This was like with zionist soro’s moveon completely ignoring the Iraq war crime after the 2004 [s]election for a whole year – until people started asking questions about that and moveon realised their credibility was at stake. This is the major problem facing the left right now. Most left/progressive movements have been corrupted by zionist frauds fronting for the very corporate fascists they claim to oppose. When you have a majority of supposed progressive/left website promoting a ziofascist/fascist israeloamerican/eu “color revolution” destabilization campaign against Iran, you know there is something very seriously wrong going on. This is the kind of crap that needs to flushed out of left/progressive movements, or they will continue to be steered by the same ziofascist/fascist oligarchs that steer the various centrist and rightwing sectors – even the nazi freakshow takes its marching orders from these oligarchs.

    Unlike the regular fascists, the ziofascists have their guys in EVERY movement and org, and it is a direct result of this infiltration that the left and progressives are now completely neutered in the usa. For the left to have any further positive influence, these duplicitous critters need to be completely flushed out of the movement. We have lost ground continuously since the 70’s because of this zionist influence in the left/progressive movements, and as long as we allow these frauds and their sabotage a place, we will never get anywhere except eventually to a prison or a concentration camp.

    The disappointing behaviour of the Greens can also be traced to stealth zionist infiltration, disruption and misdirection tactics. The dems and repugs definitely need to be boycotted out of existence, but we need to make sure we are not replacing them with more of the same, as that is surely what ziofacism, inc. is busy working on right now.

  14. kbzeese said on October 10th, 2010 at 12:12pm #

    For me, I doubt I will be voting Democrat in 2012. I hope there is a strong independent or third party peace and anti-corporate power candidate that I can support. I decided, early in the Clinton years, to vote for what I want, not based on what I fear. I do not vote for evil — lesser or greater. I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it, then vote for what I don’t want and get it — thanks to Eugene Debs for that kind of clear thinking.

    KZ

  15. Don Hawkins said on October 10th, 2010 at 12:39pm #

    kbzeese I saved that last comment well put.

  16. Don Hawkins said on October 10th, 2010 at 12:44pm #

    Yes use that comment the thinking after the big vote in November after the clowns do there thing. Not a one is telling the truth yet. Sad clowns indeed.

  17. bozh said on October 10th, 2010 at 1:48pm #

    Don, u said that change wld come!
    Here’s what i say:
    “Voters for peace”, being an overgeneralization, cannot ever be decyphered. But whatever it may mean– and i in toto avoid decoding it {since it cannot be understood}– means that these voters are not voting for ending of the ownership of people.
    And if that stays–and is being supported by at least 99% of americans of which some 30% appear a bit left of hitler–one can march, complain, write, organize, form movements all one wants– then, it’l stay that way forever.

    For haven’t we yet noticed that it is allowed? It is allowed because it is 100% useless to complain to mafia! The only value they know is the money and ownership of people.
    That has not changed for at least 10 k millennia!
    Doni did not discover this vital knowledge. People in all countries and for millennia have noted that and may be paid with their lives for saying it.
    And if one wld say it from street corners that one cld also be killed and just about in any land and not only in US. tnx

  18. Don Hawkins said on October 10th, 2010 at 2:10pm #

    Yes Bozh and these few who take the dark road this time it is different. In order for these few to practice the Universal deceit in twenty ten many more know then in the past and yet they still get away with it sort of. What I see could be called the general theory of foolishness and yet it work’s for many of the reasons you just wrote. This time it is about the whole ball game and do they know this but of course probably why we see and hear strangeness pure 100% unadulterated nonsense. This is an amazing time as many know the knowledge is out there if we dig and look and countered with the nonsense on a relentless basis and it work’s so far. The disconnect now between the truth and deceit has never been more clear to those of us who know and the number who know more than these well dresses fool’s think. The next few years will not be boring.

  19. kbzeese said on October 10th, 2010 at 2:10pm #

    Hayate — I’m curious about Soros’s views on Israel. I did a google search and found him making critical comments about the actions of the Israeli government. See, e.g., http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1203/mason_soros.php3?printer_friendly.

    As to MoveOn, the problem is their close alliance with the Democratic Party. After all, their birth came out of the Clinton impeachment and urging the country to move-on from that issues. On issues I work on like single payer health care and ending of war funding they always support the Democratic Party leadership rather than what the health care reform and peace movements want. We need independent movements — independent of both corporate parties.

  20. catguy00 said on October 10th, 2010 at 2:51pm #

    “Unfortunately, most of the leadership in the “peace movement” in the usa gets its orders ultimately from tel aviv.”

    Evidence?

  21. Don Hawkins said on October 10th, 2010 at 2:57pm #

    Forgot to be a so called leader in twenty ten must be madding to say the least. Yes the deceit has been practiced for thousands of years but for these leaders knowing full well what’s coming down the track and then to talk to the public never once telling even anything close to the truth really must require some special mental skill’s. Granted they couldn’t get away with it without the help of the media then again maybe they could but must be madding to be that shallow on a warm December night.

  22. Deadbeat said on October 10th, 2010 at 3:05pm #

    kzeese writes …

    But, the Dems are getting a mid-term election lesson right now. Conservative policies mean voters will be unenthusiastic and stay home. The Dems can learn that lesson, and it can be emphasized by the peace movement if we turn away from them (as I said, while I am not a Dem, many peace voters are), protest the wars and warn them they are losing the peace vote

    This was also said of Clinton as well in both 1992 and 1996 and he starved Iraq and bombed both Sudan and Yugoslavia. So there was no peace. In addition Clinton deregulated the banks and the Internet and repealed AFDC.

    You do make a point about the lack of effectiveness of the anti-war movement during the Bush years but that’s not the real reason why the anti-war movement was ineffective. The reason why it was ineffective is that the “Left” betrayed the movement. They built NOTHING. You had “lefties” like Howard Zinn, Chomsky and the Z-Mag crowd abandon the movement and rally behind PRO-WAR John Kerry. In that sense you’d might as well voted for Bush.

    I think like hayate says that Obama is just an “interrim” between Republican administrations who are more hawkish for Zionism than the Democrats. The “Left” is just part of the same game playing the “good-cop” role. The problem for the “Liberal/Left” is how to remain credible and continue to discombobulate folks in the midst of the Capitalist crisis. This is the “annoyance” that the “Left” have no answer to while trying dial for foundation dollars.

    The problem with the “peace” movement is exactly what T42 says. There AIN’T one. “Stopping” wars is meaningless. In that sense I might as well join up with the Libertarians because they want to stop wars as well. The problem is that won’t build a radical anti-Capitalist and anti-Zionist front (and I don’t mean just anti-Israel).

    If U.S. Zionism is not address it will continue lurk to frustrate any kind of radical movement because Zionism can neither totally control the message nor the outcome. And there is a huge Zionist influence on the American Left.

    kzeese writes …

    I’m curious about Soros’s views on Israel. I did a google search and found him making critical comments about the actions of the Israeli government.

    Bollocks! This is a “leftist” canard. Chomsky is critical of Israel and he is a Zionist. Now the new leftist canard, like the former “War for Oil ™” canard that is now utterly discredited, is that criticizing Israel makes you an anti-Zionist.

  23. Unga_Khan said on October 10th, 2010 at 5:47pm #

    Deadbeat said on October 10th, 2010 at 3:05pm

    “Bollocks! This is a “leftist” canard. Chomsky is critical of Israel and he is a Zionist. Now the new leftist canard, like the former “War for Oil ™” canard that is now utterly discredited, is that criticizing Israel makes you an anti-Zionist.”

    I’m wondering what then makes one a Zionist or an anti-Zionist in your view, Deadbeat?

  24. Deadbeat said on October 10th, 2010 at 5:54pm #

    Simple I’ll answer your question with another question that I hope you can answer…

    I’m wondering what then makes one a [Racist] or an anti-[Racist] in your view, [Unga_Khan]?

  25. Unga_Khan said on October 10th, 2010 at 6:08pm #

    Deadbeat, I asked you a simple question, which you are apparently unwilling to answer. While I can already see how Zionism and Racism intersect, answering your question gets me no specifically closer to the one I asked you first and which is relevant to the discussion in the thread.

  26. Hue Longer said on October 10th, 2010 at 6:34pm #

    I applaud Zeese for calmly continuing after experiencing T42’s ignorance or slander.

    I agree with T42’s answer to the question concerning Palin but ask that any passerby exercise logic and not throw out his response due to the insults he attaches to them. He may be doing this for that goal because associating truth with the person he presents as T42 would be far more an effective means of propaganda than just coming in here as a straight up defender of “fill in the blank”. T42, are you a paid troll working for a Zionist cause?

  27. Deadbeat said on October 10th, 2010 at 8:29pm #

    Unga_Khan writes …

    Deadbeat, I asked you a simple question, which you are apparently unwilling to answer. While I can already see how Zionism and Racism intersect, answering your question gets me no specifically closer to the one I asked you first and which is relevant to the discussion in the thread.

    Here’s your question …

    I’m wondering what then makes one a Zionist or an anti-Zionist in your view, Deadbeat?

    Now what’s wrong with my answer? Are you telling me that you don’t know what racism is? Because the answer to my determination of anti-Zionism is no different from how I would determine racism.

    White Supremacy and Jewish Supremacy (Zionism) is no different and are essentially one-in-the-same. The ideology behind both are the same. The only difference is that in the U.S. there seem to be vigilance against one (White Supremacy) and a pass toward the other.

    This is why kzeese sees Soros or Chomsky’s critique of Israel as “anti-Zionism” but misses the power imbalances and policy machinations within the U.S. that are Zionist. In other words Zionism is a racist ideology that is not limited to “borders” as kzeese infers. That would be like saying white supremacy is limited to the South or to South Africa.

    If my explanation doesn’t help you then I can refer you to the many articles of James Petras that can be found here on this site or Kim Peterson’s excellent series on Zionism and Racism.

  28. Deadbeat said on October 10th, 2010 at 8:34pm #

    If there is any slander going on here it’s Hue Longer who slanders T42. Here is T42’s response to kzeese

    Zeese. blah blah, same old convoluted reasoning why we should go for the Lesser Evil. Obama is not first of all a corporate militarist, he’s an AIPAC/CPMAJO puppet, that is an Isreali stooge. Fuck all this crap about him “depending on the peace movement”. There ain’t no peace movement.

    Rather than offering specifics where he is in disagreement, Hue Longer uses a rather unseemly ad hominem attack to in an attempt to discredit T42.

    Clearly right after winning the Democratic nomination Obama didn’t head off to Disneyland. He went right to AIPAC and gave a speech proclaim Jerusalem as Israel capital.

  29. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 12:22am #

    kbzeese

    “Hayate — I’m curious about Soros’s views on Israel. I did a google search and found him making critical comments about the actions of the Israeli government.”

    He plays a “good cop” role. That means he’s critical of the israeli rightwing foamers, and is part of peres type slightly less rightwing foamers (the so-called israeli “doves”). Check out what he was doing to the European economies during the 80’s and 90’s and how he was a major bankroller and organiser of the mossad/cia “color revolutions”. He was the zionist/israeli interest in those ops. If you look closely at the results of those ones that “took”, not all were pro-american (Serb, for example – usually considered the first successful one, BTW), but every single one is pro-zionist.

    Soros has said he’s a loyal israeli. He also funds and supports the “soft” zionist right in a large way. Check out the recent breaking scandal of him being j street’s 2nd largest bankroller. The zionist far right “attacks” him the same way they “attack” obama, with the same sort of irrelevant childish rubbish. This is the “good cop/bad cop” routine that keeps people chasing their tails. In soros case, it’s designed to provide their loyal sayan with cover as a “progressive” and give the far right knuckledraggers a phoney target to shout about to keep them occupied.

    Apparently he didn’t start moveon, unless as an unnamed proxy, but he took it over . It’s more than a dem party front, it’s a zionist front that backs zionist elements in the dem party. Think of it as a stealthy outgrowth of the zionist lobby, like j street.

    There are a lot of zionists who see the far right antics of the current israeli leadership and their pets at aipac as hurting israel by creating too much opposition. Hence the creation of j street and the soft zionists. Soros claims to be in that camp. From the pov of prolonging israel’s survival, that’s probably the only serious contender in the long run. The far right are burning too many bridges, way too fast. If one thinks about it, these “soft” zionists are the real zionists who are working for israel, rather than the far right foamers, who like the nazis, their spiritual gurus, in a sense, have a warped sense of reality and a delusional idea of their ability to cope with it. In that sense, soros is a true zionist. You can read his own words here about it:

    George Soros On Israel, America and AIPAC

    Posted on March 22nd, 2007 by Ed Kent in All News

    http://www.bloggernews.net/15453

    That’s his public persona. The real george soros is about as shady as one can get. Try a search of his name with “Quantum Fund N.V.” or “Marc Rich” or “Richard Katz” or “Nils O. Taube” or “St. James Place Capital” or “Rothschild” or “Edgar de Picciotto” or “Edmund Safra” or “Republic Bank of New York”, you should find a few details to speculate on what the real soros is about. He’s about as progressive as nelson rockeller or al capone, but in the interests of zionism, he’ll play progressive if it means a better chance for israel to continue.

  30. shabnam said on October 11th, 2010 at 12:50am #

    George Soros IS A ZIONIST. I am surprised to see people view Soros’ ‘critic of Israel’ as an evidence of being an anti Zionist. Soros is the funder of J Street, another Zionist lobby like AIPAC, where its difference is limited only to its STYLE of doing business, otherwise, there is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AIPAC and J Street.
    J street IS A ZIONIST organization PRO APARTHIED STATE of Israel.

    {The Jewish-American advocacy group J Street, which bills itself as alternative to the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobby, has secretly received funding from billionaire George Soros despite previous denials that it accepted funds from the Hungarian-born financier and liberal political activist.}
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/24/soros-funder-liberal-jewish-american-lobby/

    If SOROS is not a zionist why is he funding a zionist lobby?

  31. Jonas Rand said on October 11th, 2010 at 12:58am #

    Some of your criticisms of Chomsky seem to be generalizations and assumptions. I can find multiple statements that he has made on Palestine that I’m sure you’d agree with. Simply evaluate more his statements with a less closed-minded view.

    Obama is spearheading American imperialist control throughout the world and his escalation of that brutal slaughter in AfPak is simply a fruitless display of militarist bombast in the face of courageously resistant Pashtun people. The war needs to end, it is an imperialist, racist, and unjust war (contrary to the sycophancy of Obama’s followers) that is being waged for a US desire to deplete the country’s resources for capital and foreign investment. The Afghan War, “Vietnamistan”, sees the corrupt and almost universally opposed Hamid Karzai playing the role of Ngo Dinh Diem.

    As for Palestine/Israel, a Palestinian state will simply not serve American interests because Palestinians will benefit if most insurgents’ vision was realized. Even if it is a state under Mahmoud Abbas, it will not serve the United States to the degree that Israel does. This is because American power worldwide is propped up by Israel (such as the Central American death squads in the 1980s and early 1990s, and the wars in Afghanistan and Yemen). A Palestinian state would not serve America, at least not before its own interests first (even if that does mean assisting capitalism).

    And none of this Zionism talk has anything to do with the Afghan War! It isn’t being waged to serve Israel. They do not care about building the Khyber Pass oil pipeline apart from profiting from it, just like any other country that the USA or its puppet Afghan gov. wants to sell the oil out to.

  32. Jonas Rand said on October 11th, 2010 at 1:07am #

    I would place Soros in a different camp than Chomsky. He seems to be a staunch right-winger, a pro-Israeli Labor person, and above anything else an thief and a capitalist. Also,this article mentions nothing about Jews, Judaism, Zionism, George Soros, Noam Chomsky, Israel, or who-serves-who debates. Why must everything degenerate into a debate about whether Israel serves America, or America serves Israel (the latter clearly the dominant perspective here) with attacks from people accusing everyone else of being in on this Zionist conspiracy to blame American imperialism (as if it is not at fault)?

    I have come to realize, however, that Israel is for the Jews just like what the United States would be for Whites if White Nationalists were to seize power. I find the entire country’s political atmosphere and its existence, the speeches by every politician, sickening, horrendous, and prejudiced. That said, all states rule by militarism and have been established by violence, conquest, or undemocratic measures. You can’t find one that hasn’t.

  33. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 1:21am #

    Jonas Rand said on October 11th, 2010 at 1:07am

    I realise that the elephant in the room is well camouflaged due to the grey carpet and walls and if one is trying to “look cool” wearing shades, and is encumbered by a certain predisposition, one might fail to notice the huge creature’s bulk standing right in front of them, but expecting everyone else to remain blinded is rather selfish – in a typically zionist sort of way, by one of those odd coincidences one encounters frequently on the web.

  34. Deadbeat said on October 11th, 2010 at 2:21am #

    Jonas Rand writes …

    I have come to realize, however, that Israel is for the Jews just like what the United States would be for Whites if White Nationalists were to seize power.

    But White Nationalist are NOT in power in the U.S. Zionist however ARE in power. As hayate suggest you need to take off the raybans.

  35. Unga_Khan said on October 11th, 2010 at 3:17am #

    “White Supremacy and Jewish Supremacy (Zionism) is no different and are essentially one-in-the-same. The ideology behind both are the same. The only difference is that in the U.S. there seem to be vigilance against one (White Supremacy) and a pass toward the other.”

    I agree with the idea that Zionism is a type of Racism, and thanks for giving an explanation after all. But from your remarks and those of others on this site, it would seem Zionism isn’t just Jewish Supremacy- there’s also a conspiratorial, megalomaniac element to it that isn’t necessarily present in other groups of racists (Nazis being the only White Supremacists to date with the means and serious motivation to take over the world). In particular, people write Zionists sometimes have a need to hide behind others (United States’ imperialism or other political fronts) to do their dirty work for them, lest their racism become overt- suggesting they are self-conscious of their racism, implying megalomania is the driving force?

    Also, what makes one an anti-Zionist? Being an anti-racist isn’t so simple, since everyone has a little internal prejudice and so “anti-racism” is more of an ideal than an actual practice.

  36. 3bancan said on October 11th, 2010 at 3:48am #

    Unga_Khan said on October 11th, 2010 at 3:17am #

    “Nazis being the only White Supremacists to date with the means and serious motivation to take over the world”

    Really???

    Unga_Khan sems to suffers from the usual illness – Jewblindness, since the world I see is being taken over by the zionazis and their supporters…

  37. Unga_Khan said on October 11th, 2010 at 3:52am #

    3bancan said on October 11th, 2010 at 3:48am

    Have you been reading any of the discussion? We were talking about White Supremacists as opposed to Jewish Supremacists…

  38. 3bancan said on October 11th, 2010 at 4:04am #

    Unga_Khan said on October 11th, 2010 at 3:17am #

    “Being an anti-racist isn’t so simple, since everyone has a little internal prejudice and so “anti-racism” is more of an ideal than an actual practice.”

    This everyone-is-a-racist slogan is a beautiful description of Unga_Khan’s philosophy…

  39. Hue Longer said on October 11th, 2010 at 4:06am #

    DB,
    The following isn’t slanderous? Why ask me to cut and paste this?…it’s right there. As others have mentioned you seem to have a big problem with comprehension but maybe you too are trying to dress up truth as ugly as possible? Do you get paid to do this? If not, you are doing better than Mebosa ever could have of chasing people away

    teafoe2 said on October 9th, 2010 at 1:53pm #
    “Kevin Zeese never gives up, keeps peddling those good old Liberal illusions. Supposed to be part of the “third party movement” but is really a Democrat.
    BTW “antiwar” candidates? you can keep ‘em, give me an anti-Zionist candidate & I might even vote”.

    kbzeese said on October 10th, 2010 at 5:26am #
    “Don’t misunderstand me. I see Obama for what he is — a corporate-militarist who supports a foreign policy dominated by U.S. military power. I do not expect him or the Democrats to change.
    I served as Ralph Nader’s spokesperson and press secretary in 2004 and have not voted for either of the two parties since the 90s. During the Obama campaign I was a constant critic of Obama’s rhetoric on war, militarism, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan — he is doing what he would say he would do on all those fronts. (See Peace Perspectives from 2008/09 at http://www.VotersForPeace.US.) I supported Nader and McKinney in 2008. So, I am not fooled.
    But, I oppose these wars and want to see them ended. And, it is important for the peace movement to realize Obama is not Bush — not that his policies are different but the politics are different. Bush did not need the peace vote. The peace vote never supported Bush and never would. So, when we had mass demonstrations they were irrelevant to Bush because he knew those were not the voters that put him in office or would keep him in office.
    Obama was put in office by peace voters. His promise to end the Iraq War led off his speeches (of course, the details did not really promise an end, but few heard the details). The peace vote got him the Democratic nomination. Unfortunately, many peace voters are Democrats. So, they tend to support Obama even when he does the opposite of what they want. I want peace voters to realize that they actually have more power right now then they did under Bush. Those kinds of mass demonstrations and civil resistance actions against Democrats would make a difference now, unlike during the Bush era when they were irrelevant. But to exercise that power requires peace voters to become non-partisan, to turn their backs on the Democrats.
    My hope is that we have a real progressive third party some day in the United States. I would love for the Green Party to stand more strongly against the Democrats, but they have been very disappointing on that front too often. I don’t see myself supporting a Democrat in the near future. There would have to be a major paradigm shift that has never occurred in that party since the time it was the slave party before the Civil War. It was always a big business party with rhetoric for the people then and it remains a big business party with rhetoric (but not policies) for the people now.
    But, the Dems are getting a mid-term election lesson right now. Conservative policies mean voters will be unenthusiastic and stay home. The Dems can learn that lesson, and it can be emphasized by the peace movement if we turn away from them (as I said, while I am not a Dem, many peace voters are), protest the wars and warn them they are losing the peace vote. It is never easy to end a war once it starts but peace voters have more power than they realize, more power with a president who needs them vs. when there was a Bush president who did not need them”.

    I agree with many of the things you say but that doesn’t change after you blurt them…I’m trying to make that point about T42 as well; It is a tactic to turn people away-whether or not the clowns doing it are trying to or not

  40. Unga_Khan said on October 11th, 2010 at 6:35am #

    3bancan said on October 11th, 2010 at 4:04am
    “This everyone-is-a-racist slogan is a beautiful description of Unga_Khan’s philosophy…”

    So all the DV regulars are completely without any speck of racial prejudice in their hearts? No, racial thinking & analysis is such a major part of ideology across the political spectrum that to completely root out prejudice from one’s mind is akin to eliminating water from one’s diet. I’m not saying everyone is evil for being a little racist, just that anti-racism is an ideal we all reach for and not the reality.

    kbzeese said on October 10th, 2010 at 5:26am
    “Unfortunately, many peace voters are Democrats. So, they tend to support Obama even when he does the opposite of what they want.”

    The “anybody but Bush/McCain/Palin/Romney/etc.” line of thinking most Dems have doesn’t seem to be appreciated around here. If liberal Dems really considered Obama’s POLICIES, they’d realize he’s not their man in heartbeat but would still vote for him anyway because the Democratic party and the media (courtesy of the idiots at Fox) have told him that the alternative of Republicans being in power is so much worse. History has shown that isn’t really true, of course, but before an election it’s just PR that matters, not history. Liberal voters are trapped by the overwhelmingly dominant two party-system and the overwhelming media conglomerates that perpetuate it.

  41. kalidas said on October 11th, 2010 at 7:09am #

    Here’s some history, and one thing certainly becomes clearer every passing day.
    George Bush’s infamous (or is it famous) phrase…

    “you’re either with us or agin us” (while flipping the bird)

    He got that right.