Obama 2012 75a66
Jun
02

Democratic Party Ignored Its 2012 Platform

Tag: Political Ideas

By David Swanson, American Herald Tribune

Bernie Sanders' accomplishment, whether he wins the most actual delegates, despite the rigged system, or not, and whether that garners him the nomination or not, has not been to persuade Hillary Clinton to pretend to support progressive policies. And it has not been to persuade the DNC to let progressive people have some say in drafting its 2016 platform. Sanders' accomplishment has been persuading millions of people to vote for whom they choose in defiance of the corporate media's dictates. The U.S. public's growing ability to tell the corporate media to go to hell is going to mean a lot more to our future than the outcome of any election.

If you look through the 2008 and 2012 Democratic Party Platforms, the idea that the next one could be improved upon appears obvious. The idea that it matters appears less so. In 2008, the Democratic Party was going to "defeat al Qaeda," and "win" a war on Afghanistan by escalating it, make America loved again while expanding its military presence all over the globe, eliminate nuclear weapons from the earth, handle climate change, enact the Employee Free Choice Act, etc., etc. It's not that times changed. It's not that the evil Republicans got in the way. The Democrats never attempted these things -- well, except for the one in Afghanistan that they're still attempting, and the hate-generating military expansion.

This is not necessarily a drawback in platform writing. If you fail to do something in four years, you get to stick it into the next platform four years later -- perhaps with even worse writing after some additional group-editing is applied. After the 2006 congressional victories, Rahm Emanuel told the Washington Post that the Democrats would actually not end the war on Iraq, because they preferred to run "against" it again in 2008. That attitude seems to be the model for how the 2012 Democratic Party Platform evolved out of the 2008 version.

Jun
01

David Swanson on War Is A Lie in Sarasota

Tag: Peace and War, War Is A Lie

Thanks to Mark Binder, Programmer, “Yesterday’s Dead Today”, Mondays 7-9 p.m. Eastern, WSLR Sarasota Low-Power FM Community Radio 96.5, www.wslr.org

Jun
01

What if Revolution Were More Than a Campaign Slogan?

Tag: Political Ideas

Learning From Egyptian Revolution

By David Swanson

What if people in the United States came to understand "revolution" as something more than a campaign slogan in a presidential election campaign?

Ahmed Salah's new book, You Are Under Arrest for Master Minding the Egyptian Revolution (a Memoir), early on characterizes its own title as an exaggeration, but over the course of the book works to substantiate it. Salah was indeed as involved as anyone in building public momentum in Egypt over a period of years, culminating in the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, though all of his accounts of in-fighting among various activist groups necessarily have other accounts from each individual involved.

Of course, master minding a revolution is not like master minding a construction project. It's much more of a gamble, working to prepare people to act effectively when and if a moment arises in which people are willing to act -- and then working to build on that action so that the next round is still more effective. Being able to create those moments is itself more like trying to control the weather, and I think must remain so until new democratic forms of media become truly mass media.

Jun
01

Cindy Sheehan and David Swanson on War Is A Lie

Tag: About David Swanson, Peace and War

Peace Fresno event in Fresno, CAVideo by Richard Iyall, board member of Peace Fresno, also with Community Alliance newspaper of Fresno at fresnoalliance.com and of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe

May
31

Talk Nation Radio: Sam Husseini on Greatness of Katharine Gun, How to Vote, and Hillary v. Muslims

Tag: Peace and War, Talk Nation Radio

  https://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/talk-nation-radio-sam-husseini-on-greatness-of-katharine-gun-how-to-vote-and-hillary-v-muslims

Sam Husseini is the Communications director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, whom I have to thank for having found and promoted many of my previous guests on this show. Husseini wrote an article titled "Katharine Gun’s Risky Truth-telling" about a British official who crucially leaked evidence of NSA spying against UN officials during the buildup to the Iraq invasion. The Intercept has now published copies of the NSA's internal newsletter that fit into that story. See:

http://www.accuracy.orghttp://www.votepact.org

Total run time: 29:00

Host: David Swanson.Producer: David Swanson.Music by Duke Ellington.

Download from LetsTryDemocracy or Archive.Pacifica stations can also download from Audioport.

Syndicated by Pacifica Network.

Please encourage your local radio stations to carry this program every week!

Please embed the SoundCloud audio on your own website!

Past Talk Nation Radio shows are all available free and complete athttp://TalkNationRadio.org

and athttps://soundcloud.com/davidcnswanson/tracks

May
30

How Dateline NBC Lies About Drones

Tag: Media, Peace and War

By David Swanson

NBC's Dateline program aired pro-drone propaganda this week and has posted the video online. Their so-called report purports to be "balanced" and "even-handed." In fact it misleadingly promotes an extremely destructive government program that millions of people would protest if they knew the actual facts of the matter.

Dateline introduces us to drones with the claim that drones have saved lives by "hitting terrorist targets." Unlike any negative statement about drones made in the course of this Dateline video, such positive statements are never immediately countered by somebody authoritative saying the opposite in a different vocabulary (such as "murdering human beings never convicted or even indicted for any crime" rather than "hitting terrorist targets"). Much less is any positive statement countered with actual facts. At the very end of the program we'll hear that during this "war on terrorism" terrorism has increased, but the causal connection recognized by numerous experts is brushed over. In fact numerous top officials involved in the U.S. drone program blurt out, the moment they retire, that it is generating more enemies than it is killing. Numerous such statements are publicly available, and such voices could have been included in this program.

Next Dateline shows us a drone pilot in Nevada in his car and "on his way to fight ISIS." In fact, U.S. drone pilots (who dress up as pilots and sit at a desk) blow people up in numerous countries, have (like their commanders) no idea who most of the people are whom they blow up, and have seen ISIS recruitment soar since the U.S. began bombing that organization which its earlier bombings and occupations and prison camps and torture and weapons sales were absolutely central to creating.

Dateline shows us footage of drones, but none of what they do -- only fuzzy videos selected by the Air Force in which we see no humans, no bodies, no body parts, and are just told that the people murdered were ISIS, which is supposed to make it moral and legal. Endless footage exists and is available, including of course from the Air Force, of the people blown to pieces by drones. Plenty of reporting explains that this type of warfare kills more innocent people than even other horrific types of warfare. But Dateline will instead eventually get around to focusing on phony critiques like "Is this too much like playing a video game?"

Dateline lets us meet "pilots" and hear their views. We meet no victims, no survivors (available footage includes testimony before Congress), and no targets. A man recently traveled to London from Pakistan to request to be taken off the kill list and for the United States and Britain to stop trying to blow him up. He was not arrested, by the way, which CIA Director John Brennan falsely claims later in the program is always preferred.

Drone pilots and the narrator (should we call him a "reporter"?) tell us on Dateline that they protect human lives, rather than destroying them: "Operators often keep watch over U.S. troops on the battlefield." Dateline glorifies the technology describing "an exotic array of onboard bombs and missiles." Dateline shows us drone footage of their "journalist" that is fuzzy but that he tells us is clear. Yet that's the closest we come to seeing footage of an actual drone victim. Government documents that reveal that most victims have never been identified or targeted, and which contradict much of what government officials say on this program, are public.

"Do you ever feel guilty that you're fighting an enemy who can't hit you back?" Dateline asks a drone pilot, reinforcing the idea that he's fighting an enemy, and not asking if he feels guilty for killing human beings, for killing non-enemy human beings, for generating more enemies, or for violating the laws against murder and against war. "We're saving our troops on the ground," the drone pilot says, without explaining how or, of course, why those troops are on that ground and couldn't be saved by leaving it.

"Drones are decisive weapons, key to U.S. military dominance," Dateline tells us. Then we see Brennan claiming drone murder protects the United States. Then we see fuzzy distant footage of an unarmed drone's film supposedly showing Osama bin Laden prior to 9-11. The implication is that blowing him up would have prevented 9-11 and its thousands of deaths, if not perhaps the millions of deaths caused by the U.S. wars marketed as responses to 9-11, since those wars might have been given a different marketing theme. But the cartoonish implication that a single evil mastermind was the source of all resentment and violence toward the United States, and that murdering him wouldn't have further enraged many others, is torn down by Dateline itself which later claims triumphantly that drones have murdered seven potential replacements of bin Laden.

The CIA's role in the Dateline film is more extensive than in the production of Zero Damn Truth -- er, I mean, Zero Dark Thirty -- and we next hear Brennan claiming that "Counter-terrorism professionals always would prefer to capture individuals." That counter terrorism is terrorism, that children living under the constant buzz and threat of drones are traumatized, never comes up. And Brennan's claim is false. We know of numerous cases when someone could have been easily arrested, but murdering them and anybody nearby was preferred -- or at least murdering whoever had that person's cell phone at the time.

Brennan's next utterance is ludicrous: "Taking kinetic action against a target or individual usually is a last resort." Because the option of not doing so doesn't exist?

This flood of propaganda is not impeded by the voices of critics, protesters, lawyers, survivors, or victims, by the views of foreign governments or the European Union or the Pakistani courts, by the perspective of families afraid to step out of doors. The "successful" drone war in Yemen that predictably led to a larger war is not examined. The spread of terrorist groups, the strengthening of al Qaeda in places like Yemen goes unmentioned. Instead, Brennan blatantly lies that al Qaeda has been "very methodically dismantled." No voice replies to that provable falsehood. In fact, Brennan tries to fudge his words to leave a way out, but the message received by the viewer is false.

Dateline's "reporter" who is to a reporter more or less what a drone pilot is to a pilot holds up what he says is a list of "285 names of terrorist targets" and exclaims that "about half are gone" -- clearly expecting us to shout Hurray!  

Then -- blink and you'll miss it -- we hear from critics of drone killing, specifically three former participants therein. But it's the Dateline reporter who claims this: "It's because drones are so effective that we use them more than we should, critics say." Effective at what? The critics he then turns to say drones are counterproductive and immoral, but they don't say that on Dateline. The seconds they are given do not allow them to say on NBC what they've said elsewhere.

The former pilots and participants do raise the topic of killing civilians, and the "reporter" asks whether they didn't realize the military kills people. He also asks them if drone warfare is "video game warfare" and then takes that line of his to the commander of Creech Air Force base and asks him the same silly question. He also lets that commander claim that "every effort is made" to avoid killing civilians, before devoting one sentence to what "international human rights organizations say," without putting them on the air to say anything. But our "journalist" counters that with what Obama says -- allowing Obama to say it directly -- and then brings on a pseudo-critic to wisely tell us that the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. Isn't it more likely that the truth lies somewhere near the serious journalism that identifies the victims?

Dateline brushes aside the question of who's being murdered and never touches the question of legality, focusing instead on the supposed need for "transparency" from the White House. Dateline briefly mentions signature strikes and double taps, and even has Brennan acknowledge that the number of terrorists has grown (without commenting on why).

The best question Dateline asks is when it asks the base commander what the U.S. will do if other nations do drone murders (perhaps in the United States). But the reply is not met with laughter or critique: "We'll adapt. We don't rest on our laurels." Adapt how? Wasn't that the question.

Brennan closes out his program by saying: "When I see the extent of evil and the number of individuals who wantonly murder innocents, the obligation of government is to ... protect its citizens." Nobody mentions that his drone pilots are murdering innocents, that doing so is evil, or that it's endangering U.S. citizens -- or that in fact some of his drone victims have themselves been U.S. citizens, including in one case that we know of a child -- whose head may not have been cut off with a knife but whose head certainly didn't remain on his body.

Jump to the end of this episode of Dateline, sponsored by the number 1 and the letters "C" "I" and "A" and we are treated to footage of little children speaking in their cute little voices over military music telling us how heroic the U.S. military is. "They protect people" a tiny boy says in his cute little baby voice.

The United States is the one nation on earth that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child which forbids military recruitment of children.

May
27

Obama in Hiroshima Paints a Peace Sign on a Bomb

Tag: Peace and War

President Obama went to Hiroshima, did not apologize, did not state the facts of the matter (that there was no justification for the bombings there and in Nagasaki), and did not announce any steps to reverse his pro-nuke policies (building more nukes, putting more nukes in Europe, defying the nonproliferation treaty, opposing a ban treaty, upholding a first-strike policy, spreading nuclear energy far and wide, demonizing Iran and North Korea, antagonizing Russia, etc.).

Where Obama is usually credited -- and the reason he's usually given a pass on his actual actions -- is in the area of rhetoric. But in Hiroshima, as in Prague, his rhetoric did more harm than good. He claimed to want to eliminate nukes, but he declared that such a thing could not happen for decades (probably not in his lifetime) and he announced that humanity has always waged war (before later quietly claiming that this need not continue).

A boy looks at a huge photograph showing Hiroshima city after the 1945 atomic bombing, at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, Japan August 6, 2007.
May
26

"Looking Forward" Comes to Hiroshima

Tag: Peace and War

Never mind an apology, Obama should admit the truth

By David Swanson, TeleSUR

Since before he entered the White House, Barack Obama has proposed handling past crimes by powerful people and entities through a policy called "looking forward" -- in other words, by ignoring them. While President Obama has targeted whistleblowers with retribution and more prosecutions than his predecessors, deported more immigrants, and kept the lights on in Guantanamo, anyone responsible for war or assassination or torture or lawless imprisonment or most major Wall Street scams (or sharing military secrets with one's mistress) has been given a total pass. Why shouldn't Harry Truman receive the same privilege?

May
25

Will You Join Me in Voting for Neither Trump Nor Clinton?

Tag: Elections

I'm committing to not vote for Clinton or Trump, and you can do the same.

The Democratic Party's undemocratic primaries are not over, and nobody has won them. It is entirely possible that Hillary Clinton will not be nominated for any office. That doesn't prevent us from going ahead and committing to never vote for either her or Donald Trump for president of the United States.

Making this commitment could send a badly needed message to the world: There are people in the United States with some minimal level of decency. It could also kickstart the movement that will be needed to resist the regime of whichever of them wins. It could also alert Californian Democrats to the need to vote for Bernie Sanders in the primary.

There's a cartoon floating around at which a Muslim U.S. voter tries to choose between "Ban my relatives from entering country" and "Bomb the s--- out of my relatives." Not much of a choice, is it? Especially when the bomber is following the model of our current president with his record deportations, and the banner is a loose cannon who's proposed to kill the families of designated enemies in the Middle East.

This is the essence of the problem. Whichever of these two you were to vote for, you'd get wars, nasty policies toward immigrants, plutocratic policies toward wealth, and destructive policies toward the natural environment -- barring the arising of a powerful popular movement to bring the government under control.

Sure, one candidate is a comically ill-informed jackass who hates women, while the other is a woman whose comically jackassy policies will come with great scholarly volumns of ill information. But where does either of those really get us?

Lesser evilism predictably produces a pair of candidates each cycle who are both worse than was the more evil candidate last time. This cannot go on forever, and has already gone too far. We need a nonviolent movement to reform our election system -- something not done through elections. But there are plenty of good candidates, such as Jill Stein, to check or write in. We should vote for those good candidates and get right back to work on improving the world.

Will you click here and join me?

Here are a few reminders of who the "progressive" candidate of the "Democratic" Party is:

"For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." —Robert Kagan

"I have a sense that she's one of the more competent members of the current administration and it would be interesting to speculate about how she might perform were she to be president." —Dick Cheney

"I've known her for many years now, and I respect her intellect. And she ran the State Department in the most effective way that I've ever seen." —Henry Kissinger

Nobody Beats This Record

She says President Obama was wrong not to launch missile strikes on Syria in 2013. She pushed hard for the overthrow of Qadaffi in 2011. She supported the coup government in Honduras in 2009. She has backed escalation and prolongation of war in Afghanistan. She voted for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. She skillfully promoted the White House justification for the war on Iraq. She does not hesitate to back the use of drones for targeted killing. She has consistently backed the military initiatives of Israel. She was not ashamed to laugh at the killing of Qadaffi. She has not hesitated to warn that she could obliterate Iran. She is not afraid to antagonize Russia. She helped facilitate a military coup in Ukraine. She has the financial support of the arms makers and many of their foreign customers. She waived restrictions at the State Department on selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar, all states wise enough to donate to the Clinton Foundation. She supported President Bill Clinton's wars and the power of the president to make war without Congress. She has advocated for arming fighters in Syria. She supported a surge in Iraq even before President Bush did.

window.yepnope || document.write('<\/script>');

World Beyond War

RootsAction.org

War Is A Crime

Talk Nation Radio

There Is No Way To Peace

Peace is the way.

This site is maintained by a union shop at MayFirst.org