IN FEBRUARY 2009 — just one month after Obama’s inauguration — a series of policy announcements from the new administration startled and angered civil liberties activists because they amounted to a continuation of some of the most controversial Bush/Cheney war on terror programs. That led New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Charlie Savage to observe that “the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting al Qaeda,” which was “prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies.”
In response, I wrote that while I believed “Savage’s article is of great value in sounding the right alarm bells, I think that he paints a slightly more pessimistic picture on the civil liberties front than is warranted by the evidence thus far (though only slightly).” Yes, that’s correct: Very early on in his administration, I defended Obama from the “he’s-just-like-Bush” critique as premature. But six months later, the evidence piled up higher and higher that there was far more continuity with the Bush/Cheney model than almost anyone expected. As a result, I wrote in July that “in retrospect, Savage was right and I was wrong: His February article was more prescient than premature.”
Over the years, Savage has become one of the most knowledgeable and tireless reporters chronicling the civil liberties and war powers controversies under the Obama administration. The way in which that continuity has solidified what were once regarded as right-wing aberrations into bipartisan consensus — strengthening the Bush/Cheney template far beyond what the GOP by itself could have achieved — is easily one of the most significant, and one of the most disturbing, aspects of the Obama legacy.
Savage has written a book that will clearly be the comprehensive historical account of these controversies. Titled Power Wars: Inside Obama’s Post-9/11 Presidency, the book provides exhaustive detail on each of these questions (the book also early on recounts the exchange he and I had on these questions to help set the framework for the ensuing debates). Its most valuable contribution is the access Savage has to some of the key legal and policy officials responsible for these decisions, and the book thus provides a full account of their thinking and self-justifications.That makes his book simultaneously illuminating but also infuriating. Many of these officials are administration lawyers and their excuses for following Bush/Cheney — or their denials that they have done so — are often tendentious: dubious lawyer parsing at its worst. But Savage is an extremely diligent narrator of the thinking behind these debates, and the book really is essential for understanding Obama officials’ (often warped) thinking and rationale that led to these policies.
I spoke with Savage for what amounted to about an hour about his book. We could have easily spoken for hours. The discussion was occasionally contentious — mostly because I find much of the self-excusing rationale of Obama officials that he conveys so dubious and often disingenuous — but Savage and his new book really are an indispensable resource for understanding the nuances and details of these controversies, and his book is fascinating for those who have followed these debates over the Obama legacy on these questions.
You can listen to the discussion on the player below. A full transcript, which has been edited for clarity, is here.
GREENWALD: This is Glenn Greenwald with The Intercept and my guest is the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter with the New York Times Charlie Savage, who has a newly published book, the title of which is Power Wars: Inside Obama’s Post-9/11 Presidency. And I think the best way to describe this book is that it’s really a comprehensive history on all of the many civil liberties and war power controversies that have taken place over the last seven years under Obama and especially the extent to which Obama has or has not, as one chapter put it, been acting like Bush in these areas.
One of the things I found most valuable about the book, Charlie, is that you have access to a lot of sources who have been inside these controversies — White House lawyers, lawyers in the Justice Department, key Pentagon officials – who we haven’t heard all that much from on these controversies until your book. It gives some great insight into what a lot of these people who have been responsible for these decisions have been thinking about — why they made the choices they made. I want to begin by taking a step back and asking you the history of these issues. Of course these issues were very controversial after 9/11.
Under George Bush and Dick Cheney, there were a lot of accusations that they were constructing what was called “an imperial presidency,” and yet as you point out, this kind of model and concern about the imperial presidency dates back to the end of World War II when all of these war agencies and militarized policies were implemented, and then after the war they weren’t deconstructed. And it was Arthur Schlesinger, the historian, who coined the term imperial presidency. How did those events create the conflicts that ended up being so controversial first under Bush and now under Obama?
SAVAGE: Sure. Thank you very much for having me on, Glenn, I really appreciate it. In some ways, what you’re asking me to do is summarize my first book about the growth of executive power, especially from Watergate to the present and especially under the Bush administration at that time.
You’re absolutely right that it was typical in American history, up until World War II, that when there was a war, there would be a tremendous growth in executive power. There would be the creation of a big army, and the president would have all kind of tools at his disposal and things that he was in charge of — that when the war was over would be dismantled again. The army would be largely decommissioned and the people would come home and the special powers that had been asserted would lapse.
This is one incredible story .. thanks for bringing ethical journalism to users’ of technology in the digital age.
There is a balance between protecting the privacy of citizens while also protecting the nation from the reality of terrorism. The president is drawing that balance as best he can. But don’t let these ardent pro civil liberties folks fool you; let a terrorist attack on the scale of Paris, or even bigger, happen in their neighborhood and I guarantee the conversation of completely stripping NSA of its powers changes a bit. It’s just human nature at play.
The Smack down!
Number 1:
“the House of Representatives not only was silent but voted to reject the authorization to fight in Libya, and Obama ignored that and fought there as well. I mean, that would be a pretty good example of first-term Bush/Cheney …” Greenwald
SMACK:
“That’s a slightly tendentious way of explaining exactly how screwed up things were in the House of Representatives…No, I think it’s more like the president has the authority to act in the teeth of a statute that says he can’t, as opposed to the president can act when Congress has not gotten its act together enough to do anything.” Savage
Number 2
“that people at the highest levels of the Pentagon and the White House hadn’t formally directed that Awlaki be targeted but, operationally, the people ordering these strikes were nonetheless trying to kill him before Abdulmutallab implicated him as an operative?” Greenwald
SMACK:
…I think there has been a lot of reporting that assumed that Awlaki was the target without actually having a source that was saying that, and I would put Long War Journal in that category….So, I just think she’s completely wrong… she had to retract a big chunk of that article later and I suspect that it was the same bad sourcing that led to this stray claim a couple of paragraph from the end of that article.” Savage
Number 3
“…why, for a lot of people, imposing the death sentence on an American citizen based on evidence that nobody can see, and whether you think it’s Constitutional or not, certainly no real due process…”Greenwald
SMACK!!!
“…The idea of a death sentence without a trial already is assuming this isn’t war, because killing an enemy in war is not a death sentence. It’s killing an enemy in war….But beyond that, so he’s not in U.S. custody. And we don’t have boots on the ground in Yemen who can go arrest him, and the Yemeni government is hapless…he is sitting there coming up with plots like the Christmas 2009… and sending young dupes like Abdulmutallab out to their death to try to kill a lot of innocent people. And he can’t be arrested…do you just sort of sit back and let him keep taking shots at the U.S., and sooner or later, he’s going to succeed at killing a lot of innocent people.”
Number 4:
“…they have operations as they proved with Osama bin Laden where even if you don’t have boots on the ground, you can still actually go to where the person is and get them.” Greenwald
SMACK:
“Special forces operations never guarantee fewer civilian casualties. Some of your ignorant supporters believe otherwise (i.e rrheard), but history has proven that boots on the ground might result in even more casualties than a typical drone strike i.e Battle of Mogadishu.” Lenk
Greenwald, after that smack down, you should take a break before you blame the US or France for the Paris attacks.
BTW I love when you quickly delete my comments and ban my email. Sometimes you even block my IP address. How cute for an “activist journalist” to be scared of an online commentator. That means you are not even confident in your own arguments.
What’s the point of making comments here when they seem to disappear after a day or two?
There are no rules in the comment section. That allows Greenwald or the moderators to delete whatever they “feel” should not be here. However, these are the unofficial rules:
1) If you are part of the “living room” (Mona, Pedinska, Kitt..) then your comments might get deleted by mistake. They will quickly fix your account after as soon as you contact TI
2) If you continuously bash Greenwald (Louise Cypher, me (lenk)…) then those from the “living room” will make sure that you get deleted. They will call you a “troll” then a “crapflooder” and they will give their code to the moderator: “you should be banned”
3)If you are a moderate supporter of Greenwald, then your comments might get deleted from time to time by mistake or because the moderator “feels” they should not be here.
I hope you get to read this before they remove it. Greenwald is not man enough to face my harsh criticism, so I regularly get banned here.
There must be at least one other (number 4). because none of the three you listed apply (not that I’m denying their correctness). My comment that was deleted was fairly arcane and innocuous; It criticized (” attacked”) only Savage in that I questioned the authenticity and credibility of his comments. He seemed to me to display the sociopathic mental gymnastic capability to reason (justify or excuse) any position, much like a lawyer can do making argument to defend any position, regardless how silly and baseless. As such he would do good service for any despot in power,as he has and is, be it emperor, czar, king, or president. Perhaps that hit too close to home for some reason, though I’ve no knowledge of the Greenwald culture that you allude to. Perhaps a bit thin skinned when my comments may be tantamount to guilt by association.
To their credit, they have left your post and, I hope my replies, up though, for the time being at least. We’ll see.
Reasoning like the Obama administration, there wasn’t anything wrong with pre-Civil-War slavery. It was recognized to be legal by Congress!
Anybody read the Bibi-Barack expose on the huffington post? I was thinking that the article was portraying Bibi as a rational human being but I couldn’t tell what the angle was until I came upon this paragraph:
So it’s not a Turkish NGO, but an “Islamist” organization that sent the flotilla. And the people there were so maniacal, that they attacked soldiers armed with uzis with knives.
So even though it was really the fault of the turks for attacking the soldiers, Bibi the great, the magnanimous, apologized to the Turkish prime minister, because he’s so awesome.
What a farce of an article. This is huffington post.
Really, how much time do you think we have?
with new advances in life-support i bet they string this out for decades …
i see Paris is burning once again. good thing they don’t have an incendiary anti-Semitic press in France.
And stepping back even further, beyond the Israeli occupation, how does America’s government plan to turn what they call “accidental” hospital bombings, and “mistaken” invasions, into a policy that is going to benefit Americans into the future? Is the eternal war on anything, anywhere, (assuming the US president’s lawyers write a memo legalizing it, of course) going to make the world’s most powerful military feel secure enough, at some point, to stop killing around the world? Or if the powers in control of the US government don’t feel “safe” now, when will they feel safe enough to stop killing?
A lot of comment is lethargic doom empty empire talk, widely overestimating the power Obama as president has. The US two party system is driving the whole world crazy and it would gladly ignore the whole northern part of the continent but they are a great threat to global stability with their foreign policy ideas. Just look at the latest presidential candidates, I have not seen any country on earth that comes close too so much stupidity. I live in a very corrupt banana republic, compared to the US it’s a model democracy.
Stepping back from individual hospital attacks, and looking at the big picture, here’s an interesting article that grapples with a question that I often ask, how do pro-apartheid Israelis plan to continue on with their project into the future?
Another attack on a hospital. Twenty Israeli troops, out of uniform, disguised as civilians escorting a pregnant woman, enter an occupied West Bank hospital. Inside a hospital room, the Israelis kill the cousin of the patient they were looking for.
Until The Intercept wraps its investigative powers around 9/11 and associated events these reports are all raindrops compared to the river.
The human story of these Obama national security lawyers is a compelling part of the story. These people seem sincerely desperate to believe they’re different from the Bush lawyers who abetted the same policies. Where Bush lawyers would write a bluntly-worded two-page memo to authorize a presidential power grab, the Obama lawyers write a twenty-page memo that basically comes to the same conclusion. It smells like a coping mechanism: “We’re not like those neanderthal Bush lawyers. It’s true we’re also endorsing the same vast expansions of presidential power, but our intellectual processes are far more sophisticated and nuanced, far more pragmatic and far less ideological.”
Thus the simplistic and terse certainty of the Bush lawyers is replaced with tortured verbosity that leads to the same endpoint.
This:
There’s something profoundly unsavory about this. Something that suggests Obama was more concerned with preserving his political hide than the thousands of deaths, the trillions of dollars squandered, the creation of a terrorist producing factory which would follow, and the inevitability of an endless inherited war for any administration that would come next. All in response to a failed bombing that a passenger actually prevented. Pitiful and pathetic. It was neither a worthy, nor noble trade.
End democracy!
Back to the drawing board for underwear bombs.sheesh.
Great story, great coverage, great interview. Glenn, keep up the amazing work.
“War is a racket”, some Marine Commander said once. I’m glad to see our endless war is proceeding as planned. Arms sales are booming under Obama, both here ans abroad. Nothing like a continuous war on, (the flavor of the day) terror etc to keep all the jobs up for military contractors. I can’t wait to see what kind of new adventures we’ll see with the new administration. I do foresee an effort coming to totally take all the power away from citizens, as if we had much anyway. Hang on to your guns, you might need them to protect yourself from govt invasion.
(Major General) Smedley Butler said that.
“(Major General) Smedley Butler said that.”
He published a book under that title:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf
He also gave speeches with a more succinct version.
http://fas.org/man/smedley.htm
Butler’s book was reviewed on the Mayday Books Blog long ago. Use search box to find it.
The bit about the underwear bomb plot, specifically the argument that Savage makes that it wasn’t so much the event itself but the political reaction to the plot that swayed the Obama administration toward unconstitutional counter-terrorism strategies, underscores the basic lesson here. Fear of terrorism drives the expansion of spying, killing, etc. If you like your constitutional rights, you can keep your constitutional rights — as long as you manage your anxiety and fear of terrorists like a rational person. Your bathtub is a much greater threat to your life and health than terrorism is, so vote accordingly! (Presumably, Trump is the best candidate to protect you from slips and falls because he wants bathroom attendants for everyone, which the Mexicans will pay for. “Boom!”)
On a related note, economic propaganda works similarly. Too-big-to-fail is analogous to the “terrorist threat.” Once you buy that BS, be sure to check your back pocket…you will find no money and no rights, sadly.
Does it matter that the people hyping these dangers (of economic collapse and terrorism) are exactly the same people with the most to gain from widespread acquiescence to irrational fear? Yep.
@ Macroman
In what way are monopolies or monopsony (i.e. ‘too-big-to-fail’) in any way analogous to the “terrorist threat” propagated by government?
Terrorism is a statistically marginal ‘threat’ in every meaningful understanding of risk analysis.
Too-big-to-fail in certain industries is not.
The former is “BS” while the ‘threat’ posed by the latter is not.
I take your meaning to be: but but TBTF is a real threat! Assuming I understand you correctly, then of course you don’t see the analogy. This is where I can either (1) quit or (2) try to convince you that TBTF, like the terrorist threat, is something your overlords scare you about to get what they want from you. Your choice.
@ Macroman
If you don’t understand the inherent difference in real world “risk” to lives and well-being of human beings between an entire key domestic industry, let’s say banking for example and its actions being controlled by a handful of basically monopolistic entities, vs. a handful of individuals on the other side of the globe with small arms and improvised explosives, then you should probably choose 1 and quit because you don’t really know what you are talking about. Your choice.
That you claim to teach economics is a little disturbing to me. Or is this the part where you chime in that it was really knucklehead borrowers who crashed the economy and not the TBTF banking industry? That would be a real hoot.
The latter, statistically speaking, doesn’t even approach death by bee sting for Americans. The actions of the former caused the penury of millions of Americans if not the deaths of thousands (if you count increased suicides due to stress of homelessness and impoverishment).
http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/18/news/economy/financial-crisis-suicide/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/melaniehaiken/2014/06/12/more-than-10000-suicides-tied-to-economic-crisis-study-says/
I gave you the choice because I figured that whatever I said, it wouldn’t matter. You have not found me persuasive before, and you are clearly absolutely sure that if we hadn’t bailed out companies deemed too big to fail, like AIG, the world would have ended. My position is that these firms could have been allowed to fail and the world wouldn’t have ended. They could have been placed in receivership, like the S&L’s in the late 80s and early 90s, and been unwound without disrupting the payment system (as the Lehman bankruptcy did). The economy and the existing bankruptcy system can quickly reallocate resources to those insurers and bankers that have not proven inept (and criminal in many cases). We wouldn’t have just forgotten how to write insurance or loan contracts, but by not bailing out the existing firms in trouble, we would have allowed the capitalist system to allocate capital according to profits and losses, not political whim. You complain about the control of “monopolistic entities” (technically, they would be oligopolistic) while simultaneously arguing for TBTF policies. TBTF serves to concentrate market power — i.e. the policy you are supporting is part of what creates the situation you abhor. If firms fail and they get bailed out anyway, they maintain their market power even if they screw up, and they tend to control more of markets over time.
Sadly, it is not that part. Before I became a professor, I was a banker for four years. And the commercial mortgages I made and sold to pension funds were bad because I made them so, for profit.
I am not claiming that the recession cost no lives and hurt no one. I honestly can’t follow your logic on a lot of this as to why you think your points are arguments against mine. I respectfully request that you open your mind to the possibility that I am also concerned about people and their economic well-being, and that my position on TBTF is that the recession itself and future economic performance would have been better if TBTF bailouts were avoided. It seems, though I could be wrong, that you think I’m some sort of villain that is arguing that, say, the poor should just all die. We both want people to be better off; we just disagree on how best to achieve that goal. And I know from your other comments that you are generally liberal and like to spout off about free healthcare and education and jobs and rainbows and lollipops. You know from my comments that (I claim to be) an economist and hence study the allocation of scarce (repeat, scarce) resources, while you live in a world where you understand everything about a complex economy and where you can wave magic wands and the resources you want will be sent to places you desire. So I find your comments naive, and you find my comments evil because you (incorrectly) read into them a lack of concern for the 99% or whatever. I expect we’ll remain at this impasse for some time. So…yeah. There is no firm that is TBTF, and if you buy that you are consenting to being robbed. Don’t just write checks to everyone that comes up to you and says “systemic risk” three times! Imagine, just for a moment, that new banks and insurance companies replace ones that fail. If you bought that premise (based on all the historical evidence available — no widespread bank failure has been followed by an absence of banking, ever, from the Italian Renaissance to the present), then could you see my point that TBTF is bunk? If not, there is nothing to talk about. If you can, maybe you can give me an argument as to how you know that AIG (or a firm of your choice) was TBTF other than that’s what Paulson told you.
@ Macroman
I’ve never once argued the above. Never. In fact if you search my comment history under Glenn’s pieces on the topic at the time at Salon you’ll know I consistently argued precisely the opposite. My point is the very existence of TBTF is the real “threat” (i.e. subject to having to be bailed out by taxpayers is the problem–they should exist ever under any circumstances and should be broken up by resurrecting the available legal tools in the anti-trust legal arena).
Whether or not the “world would have ended” means what to you exactly? But generally speaking I agree and argued that at the time. They should have been placed into receivership and depositors protected as they were by FDIC. But I also argued at the time that any similarly situated banks and insurers should have been broken up at that time as well so it could never happen again. And instead of “bailing out” all those entities thereby allowing the banking industry to further consolidate into fewer hands, that the only people who should have been bailed out were homeowners via a direct subsidy that paid their mortgage payments for a fixed period of time. All of which is precisely what we should have learned after the S&L crisis, but sadly didn’t because the “capitalist system” you are so enamored of obviously ensured that that did not happen whether through regulatory or political capture.
It is my opinion that you misunderstand/misunderstood the scope and scale and international implications of letting them fold. And the misery that would have ensued for all the regular human beings who had nothing to do with their existence and/or failure.
You mean the same “capitalist system” and its ability to “allocate capital according to profits and losses” that gave rise to the TBTF entities in the first instance? And the same “capitalist system” that couldn’t prevent their massive failures in the first instance through proper allocation of resources and/or by doing what it necessarily must and will do to capture regulatory and political mechanisms that may have prevented it from happening? You mean that “capitalist system”?
You complain about the control of “monopolistic entities” (technically, they would be oligopolistic) while simultaneously arguing for TBTF policies.
Yes to be technically precise the TBTF entities in the banking industry are oligopolistic rather than by definition monopolistic. Not really my point. Again, please cite to where I’ve ever supporting anything remotely resembling “TBTF policies”. In fact of consistently argued for precisely the opposite policies–policies that ensure “TBTF” entities never exist in the first instance.
Which policy is it you think I support that created the situation that gave rise to TBTF?
Agreed.
Shocker.
And with a history of bad personal and professional ethics like that it is precisely why I am disturbed by the idea that you are permitted to teach any subject to anybody. It should also be one reason why you would understand why somebody like me finds somebody like unpersuasive on this topic and many others.
Except apparently when there is a profit to be made by you doing bad things in life. Or maybe you’ve reformed now and your personal and professional ethics, and economic worldview, are somehow different from what they were in the past? Possible. But my personal experience has been most people don’t change and anyone who would harm people for money are the least likely to change–ever.
I’ve never once spouted off about rainbows and lollipops. Although I’ll concede I do appreciate a good rainbow and blowpop on occasion.
I don’t believe in magic and understand very well that any allocation of resources (scarce or otherwise) is about distributive normative choices. Always have been always will be, not some “immutable” laws of “economics”.
And I find yours about the nature and functioning of “capitalist systems” to be very blinkered as are most non-liberal economists. I don’t find your comments “evil” simply misguided by your blinkered understanding of the world and “economics”. And the likely problem is that you don’t really recognize the inherent problems with many of the assumptions and concepts (from “value” to “scarcity” to “elasticity of demand” to “externalities” to . . . ) that the discipline of “economics” and its models rely upon. And if those assumptions are flawed or inaccurate (as many are), then you need to open your mind to the possibility the “capitalist system” which is built upon those assumptions and models is flawed and will never produce what it claims to be able to produce.
Not sure when I ever argued that any event of any kind has ever caused the absence of banking since the invention of banking about 4000 years ago.
More importantly, you appear to be missing the point about what TBTF entities are and why they are dangerous to the lives and well being of human beings and the perpetuation of a stable economy (domestic and/or global) and functioning representative form of government.
You are making an argument I will concede–nothing is technically “too big to fail” given that such entities have failed. Again, that isn’t the point nor is it the definition of TBTF that most people operate under. The “problem” is that when such nominal entities exist their failure has far reaching negative consequences for everybody and thus shouldn’t exist in the first instance once they approach that size and/or have to capacity to fail absent proper legal and regulatory oversight.
That is the nature of our disagreement. You buy “the very existence of TBTF” and the idea that some firms “[had] to be bailed out by taxpayers…” I don’t.
Yet we have
So true. If only the regulation was “proper,” that capture would have never happened.
Something like
You know, the counterfactuals and assertions some accept as Truth.
Must we do this capitalism dance every time?
Nope. I do not agree that capitalism is the proper name for crony capitalism or fascism or corporatism, as you insist, nor that capitalism is to blame for regulatory capture and the formation of powerful industry groups. I blame benevolent and omniscient voters that accept the idea that to eradicate rent seeking behavior we should continue to vest more power and resources in D.C. and then express indignation over regulatory capture. And as you must suspect at this point, I’m not scared of large firms’ “massive failures” like you are. That was part of my original point that you can’t stand.
Yes, I know.
The whole bailouts thing, which you agree makes the problem worse. Bailouts aren’t a policy that ensures an end to TBTF. You seem to be glossing over the part of your argument where you say, based on the presumption that TBTF exists, we had to use taxpayer money to bail out some firms or people or whatever to save the poor and everything. See above and…
Giving money to homeowners to then pay their mortgages wouldn’t have consolidated more resources in the hands of the people holding many of those mortgages. Makes sense.
Ouch!
Whoops, double block quoted that last part.
Bush built it and Obama screwed it down and striped the screws. I will use a Nazi word Gestapo. I am not comparing Bush or Obama to Hitler, neither could as far as true evil is concerned make a dimple on his ass. They are both fairly mediocre politicians. However, They both are enablers of perhaps a much worse evil. They have set the stage created the apparatus for a true evil man or woman to work their will. Not a weak unimaginative sort like themselves, but some who will not waste the full force of power, so naively handed to them. Gestapo is not too strong a word if you say it friendly like good morning it does not sound so bad.
you give them too much credit.
Engineering Empire: An Introduction to the Intellectuals and Institutions of American Imperialism
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/engineeringempire.html
See also:
Techno-Financial Capital and Genocide of the Poorest of the Poor
petras.lahaine.org/?p=2033
Read:
Yes, There is an Imperialist Ruling Class
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/06/yes-there-is-an-imperialist-ruling-class/
Got yea, The Foxes own the henhouse, selling eggs and eating chicken. They use to do this with care so there was not too much squawking, now they just do it and few squawk.
Thanks for the site references.
Ok,Hitler,30 million dead,Obomba and Bush a couple,or few? million.Yeah,not quite Adolf’s record,but mentionable in the same breath.
An ocean vs, a sea of blood.
He ain’t the brightest light but very good in fooling a lot of people, brilliant actor. You can hear the real president Obama for example about the spending of something like 500 million USD to train 5 Syrian terrorists, netto. He said yeah look here, I didn’t really believe in it from the start but I went along with idea’s of others.
The Syrian “moderates” probably didn’t earn the US minimum wage. How did Obama’s backers make out? Ka-ching!
But Purple Shovel, is a bottom feeder, here are the real beneficiaries of “Yes we can”:
“Substitute Obama for Nixon and Iraq for Vietnam, and you have a latter-day version of the Nixon Doctrine of arms sales promotion. Obama wants to be seen as a president who ended large-scale wars, not a president who started new ones. “
Well done Glenn,. We are left with Obama the manipulated and hypocrite.
I see what you did there.
*a matter of semantics … perhaps, perhaps not./
Honoring veterans with PREFERENTIAL treatment for jobs/benefits is unpatriotic! An official time to reflect, pay respect and thank the veterans is as far as we should go!!!!!!!
I can think of some ways to honour veterans. Ensure that soldiers only fight in self-defence, and not come back with trauma and missing limbs, only to find that the war was for oil, or was “a mistake”. Give everybody in the country good health care, instead of having a separate neglected system for veterans. Make education affordable for everyone, not only will a more educated people be more capable of resisting demagoguery and warmongering, it will give the poor a route to school that is not through invading other countries. Spend money on mental health services instead of deceptive NFL recruiting campaigns. I’m sure there are lots of ways to honour veterans.
There were reports that veterans on death row should be given a reduced sentence. America seems a strange land to me. Capital punishment is barbaric. But if you have it why excuse veterans?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/300-veterans-some-ptsd-are-death-row-report-n460111
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-are-so-many-veterans-on-death-row
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/1110/Veterans-Day-Should-300-veterans-be-on-death-row-in-the-US
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/military-vets-death-row_5640ed40e4b0307f2cae5f4d?section=australia&adsSiteOverride=au
I mean, come on, It’s not even “lesser of two evils” any more, it’s a social experiment to see what happens when the only choices are fascists and lunatics. Young Turks does the best review of a US debate I’ve ever seen, hilarious.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, or maybe this is just the danger of relying too heavily on your own sources for reporting, but it seems he is lamenting that his sources didn’t tell him to read the newspaper.
I mean that Leslie Cauley story was a huge deal for anyone remotely interested in this kind of stuff. Now admittedly, all the serious people, journalists included, circled the wagons and insisted that not only was the story wrong, but that this was the perfect example of irresponsible reporting by un-serious people, and that was pretty much all it took to put an end to that–until Snowden–but nobody forgot the story.
Again, maybe I am misreading, but it seems Mr. Savage is saying that he was one of the serious people when it came to the USA Today story–and that if only someone serious would have told him to not be so serious, then maybe he could have put two and two together. Either way, it is a strange anecdote.
Of course the USA Today story was long before Obama. Maybe journalism didn’t need Obama to crackdown on leaks.
Journalists swim in a sea of misinformation. Pointing out a stray flotsam of truth they can cling to is not insignificant. More so than the general public, journalists appreciate how rare and elusive the truth can be. The fact that it was to be found in a newspaper – the last place anyone would expect to find it – would have made the act of drawing Mr. Savage’s attention to it that much more valuable.
So I think you are wrong to diminish the significance of that anecdote.
I should have put this in the first post
—-
NSA has massive database of Americans’ phone calls
Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET
By Leslie Cauley, USA TODAY
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
—-
The quotes from politicians promising to get to the bottom of this are priceless.
Thanks for the link. From the article:
In a follow up story one one month later,
Good interview. Greenwald asks the sort of questions I want asked. And Savage provides about as good an explanation for the actions of the US government as I’ve heard.
The comments, naturally after such a frank exposition of the state of affairs, lend themselves to a sense of despair.
Alternatively, you could look at it as progress. Just look how far Clinton has to move to the right. She has to be more hawkish than Obama, and swear eternal loyalty to Netanyahu. Extending the Bush doctrine, yes, but she’s gone so far right, the Republicans have given up trying to out warmonger her, and have decided to argue about whether the Egyptian pyramids are biblical grain silos.
So, yeah, there is no sign of any opposition to permanent war, getting any foothold in congress, any time soon, but at the same time, human nature, physics, reality must assert itself, right? Can I compare it to climate change? We can reduce climate change now, or wait till we’re all choking, drowning, starving. and then do something. We can end the permanent war now, or wait till we’re all feeling the effects of killer drones flying overhead, our family being renditioned, our hospitals being bombed.
Too many people cynically believe that presidents are powerless to oppose the interests of the vast military-industrial complex. But as Mr. Greenwald states, it is the president who defines the approach. That’s why Americans invest such hope in the next presidential election campaign; if Hillary Clinton can be elected, everything changes.
It must have been a shock to the office of the legal counsel when Obama told them that in order to continue curtailing civil liberties, they would have to up their game. No more memos saying the president can do anything – they needed to provide some actual research and citations from primary sources. As a result, undermining human rights has required more effort by the Obama administration than by all previous administrations combined.
However, in retrospect, Bush’s compliance is understandable. In both cases, the CIA ignored a terrorist plot and then told the president if he wanted to stop the next one, he would have to invest them with some additional powers and provide them with greater resources. But 9/11 was demonstrably more traumatic than the Abdulmutallab event. So I think Bush’s hand was forced to a greater degree. He didn’t have the time to hire a lot of fancy lawyers – he just started rounding up people and sending them to Guantánamo. Obama had more time to prepare. He consulted better lawyers who advised him that dead people don’t hire legal counsel, so he replaced indefinite detention and torture with a program of targeted assassinations.
And when you think about it, the power to kill anyone at will is ample power for any president. A skillful president doesn’t need any more leverage than this in order to implement their agenda. So I’m looking forward to the next Clinton administration, to see what can be accomplished now that the presidency has been unburdened from the handicaps imposed by the constitution.
Link
You do great interviews I always like to listen to them. Good job.
Obama’s first and foremost job when he was ‘hired’ was to sell the the Bush doctrine to the left. He hardly broke a sweat. My left leaning friends still wear it on their sleeves, and don’t even know it. The hard fact is this book still won’t change their minds.
While he managed to con quite a large number of left-leaning voters, he didn’t get them all. The Green Party still does exist, and in 2012 had its best showing since Nader, albeit still a rather low .4%. That’s still nearly 400,000 voters who either weren’t conned, or woke up to the con after four years of Obama’s neoliberalism.
Watch Jill Stein’s vote total triple or more if Hillary Clinton gets the Dem nomination in 2016. If enough of Bernie’s supporters are willing to show some electoral courage in such a situation, she might even get 5% of the vote and Establish the Green Party nation-wide.
Paul Street wrote in 2009:
Paul Street certainly nails it. Thanks for that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNVCR39dX0o
Midnight Oil – Armistice Day Lyrics
You’re watching people fighting, you’re watching people losing
On Armistice Day
The watchers do the wincing, reporters so convincing
But the TV never lies
I went looking for a war, but the only guns I saw
Never used in anger
You’re watching people fight, say they fight, oh say they lose
On Armistice Day
The fixers do the fixing, the locals do the lynching
The papers deny
I went looking for a headline, got talking to the backline
They’d never seen the action
Here’s another suitable video for Veterans’ (Armistice) Day. It doesn’t seem to have dated all that much. Hard times and hard-up veterans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzMy7-7WV44
Remember your forgotten man?
In Australia its called Remembrance Day, people wear a sprig of Rosemary not a poppy.
My father spent five years in New Guinea, Borneo and Sarawak fighting the Japanese during WW 2. He was a gunner AA on a Bofors gun.
He use to talk highly of the Fighting CBs and how well equipped the Yanks were. They could turn a rainforrest into an air field and have air conned huts built in less than a week. But the ordinary grunts he said, were good blokes but not well educated. He could get beer and Lucky Strikes playing poker with them.
He said they shot at anything that moved and especially Lieutenants and Sergeants. They shot down their own planes and shot their own boats. He said they were good men but lacked discipline.
How many forgotten men are there? Too many.
So what you’re both saying is that a President who has a lot of power and gets more when he has war, comes to like war and promotes war and thrives on war and compromises his principles and goes back on his promises to keep in power and keep on keeping on?
Guys, you’re geniuses. I am so glad we have Americans to understand the nature of this problem and to give us a website on which to help explain it and maybe, but unlikely let’s admit, maybe change it for the better.
In Ideal (the Constitution) vs Reality (everything else), Reality Bites. Hard.
Here’s a thought also, that maybe suggests a little bit of forethought on the part of your leaders pretty much since forever: there’s a gazillion trillion litres of oil under your arses and you’ve known that for a long time and you’ve been counting the days until the oil prices rise enough that you can move in and take all that money. I mean assets. I mean energy. I mean money.
It is a global game-changer that will put the USA at the unrivalled top of the world, enabling you to possibly once-and-for-all-time fly the Stars & Stripes over the entire globe. Now there’s a heady brew to savour!
To get it out at a profitable price to the Prez and his buds it is going to be messy, possibly in a we-ruined-half-the-country-forever-kind-of-way.
To do that you need to subjugate your population and suppress dissent. CHECK. Drill cheaply and quickly and forget about the environment and the social impact. CHECK. You need to ensure you can do whatever you like with taxpayer funds because this is going to take some real big subsidising in the early stages. CHECK. You need to ensure allied governments and their markets have control over their own populations. CHECK. You need to counter the forces that influence oil prices using political and military manouvring. ONGOING. You need to manufacture flagpoles for every corner of the globe – saving that for a special day!
There’s the story, guys.
Talking about anything else makes you look complicit at best/worst or stupid at worst/best. Not sure how that lies.
If I am barking up the wrong tree, don’t tell me, because this tree is awful big and awful bad and needs a few more yapping hounds around it anyhows. But I can say that you haven’t madea clear statement for anything else other than said NeoconNeolibConLibGOPDemocratFillibusterGitmo a lot. Whatever that sh!t means.
@ Zeus
I don’t think either were suggesting all Presidents “like and promote war and thrive on war”. Or that war compromise a President’s principals. First I think both would suggest you have to prove a President has “principles” in the first instance. I think both would suggest that if any American President does have “principals”, and they subsequently convince themselves “we” are “at war,” then the preeminent or only “principle” is to do whatever is necessary to perpetuate the political perception that they are “keeping the American people safe” (or “win” or “defeat the enemy” or whatever).
I’d argue that both accept the reality that once a President accepts the “we are at war” paradigm, what follows will likely if not necessarily possess “continuity” as a function of policy. It is institutionally baked into the system. What a President “prefers” or “likes” or “thrives” on is largely irrelevant. Now clearly some American President’s have historically been more at ease with engaging in war (of whatever variety–directly or via proxies), or not, for whatever purported reasons they deem it necessary.
I’d argue that since WWI if not WWII, all American Presidents (with the arguable exception of Carter) have felt it necessary to engage in “war” somewhere, against somebody, as a function of its geopolitical strategy and aim to be the global economic hegemon. At least to the degree that America’s “warmaking” doesn’t involve the real risk of total military defeat or economic immolation for that President. And I’d argue by the time America entered WWII total defeat was very very very unlikely and by the end not going to happen once they developed and possessed nuclear weapons.
That’s why we don’t make war against other nuclear armed powers and can even spin losses like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan as “not military defeats” because quite obviously they weren’t even close to “total”. Just claim “victory” and slink on out whether you got your ass kicked and tanked your economy temporarily or not. Total defeat for a nuclear weapons possessing nation is only really possible against a fellow member of the nuclear club at this point in human history anyway. And since they never would fight each other conventionally at this point except via proxy, there isn’t any likelihood (IMHO) that this type of extension of politics (using conventional tools of war) will stop any time in the foreseeable future. And it will always be used against those who don’t have the industrial or military capacity to go toe to toe conventionally with a nuclear weapons possessing nation or via its proxies.
Why do you think the current possessors of nuclear weapons don’t want any “lesser” nations to possess them? It isn’t really a “rational” fear of “terrorism” or “rogue nations” launching them if they had them–to do so would ensure that nation’s quick and ultimate nuclear immolation.
It’s because it dilutes the power of those with them and makes it less likely for those with them to be able to employ the “tool” of choice–conventional war–against lesser armed “enemies” to advance the nuclear possessing nation’s (and/or together with its allies) global economic interests.
I don’t think Glenn or Mr. Savage thinks making those sorts of observations makes them geniuses, just students of history and politics.
Clausewitz also understood the inherent superiority of “defense” rather than offense and understood that habitual aggressors usually ended up as failures eventually. At least when employing conventional arms. Obviously many have taken issue with Clausewitz’s theories where nuclear armed nations are concerned.
What I said is the very definition of the Military-Industrial Complex. That is what rules America. Talk, debate, ponder all you like. They don’t mind. They have your tax dollars and they have your safety at heart, even if it means imprisoning you or murdering you. Rest assured, you sit safely in Mother America’s warm and protecting embrace.
Just don’t drink the tap water in the Mid West. Or the Appalachians. Or California. It’s poisoned. Or anywhere where there’s so much drought there’s none left. You can’t because there is none. Or speak your mind too loudly. Or look at anything suspicious on the internet. Or go anyplace and meet anyone strange. Or get too bothered when the private banks that beat the drum against public sector spending ask for public money to bail them out when they’ve pocketed all the money as commissions again. Or you need environmental protection against a major corporation’s activities. Or legal representation. Or healthcare. Or uncorrupted police. Or you want more choice and more freedoms than your monopolising corporations allow. Or don’t want to pay such high prices for supermarket products that you are subsidising the production or farming of. Or expect the rest of the world to care about you any more.
I would say you deserve it all for being the kind of moron that would rather sit on here and argue with me, someone not American that wants your country to be free and great again and not under the control of these maniacs, than say hear hear! Thank you stranger for caring. I cannot wish it on you as I am not that type of person.
Good luck America. For you are truly screwed.
@zeussmokestoomany thaisticksforhisowngood
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bobdylan/whatwasityouwanted.html
“What Was It You Wanted”
What was it you wanted
Tell me again so I’ll know
What’s happening in there
What’s going on in your show
What was it you wanted
Could you say it again
I’ll be back in a minute
You can get it together by then.
What was it you wanted
You can tell me I’m back
We can start it all over
Get it back on the track
You got my attention
Go ahead speak
What was it you wanted.
When you were kissing my cheek.
Was there somebody looking
When you give me that kiss
Someone there in the shadows
Someone that I might have missed
Is there something you needed
Something I don’t understand
What was it you wanted
Do I have it here in my hand.
Whatever you wanted
Slipped out of my mind
Would you remind me again
If you’d be so kind
Has the record been breaking
Did the needle just skip
Is there somebody waitin’
Was there a slip of the lip.
What was it you wanted
It ain’t keepin’ score
Are you the same person
That was here before
Is it something important
Maybe not
What was it you wanted.
Tell me again I forgot.
Whatever you wanted
What can it be
Did somebody tell you
That you could get it from me
Is it something that comes natural
Is it easy to say
Why do you want it
Who are you anyway.
Is the scenery changing
Am I getting it wrong
Is the whole thing going backwards
Are they playing our song
Where were you when it started
Do you want it for free
What was it you wanted
Are you talking to me.
And my god you’re boring.
Zeus… only the English think that the world gives a fart about their opinion.
@ ZeusIs
Boring or not, I’m sure you as a non-American have all the answers re: how all us moron Americans can extricate themselves from their current predicament. I’m all ears, not trying to argue with you.
I’m sure you’ve been protesting and lobbying your nation’s political officials to hold America’s political officials accountable for our leader’s crimes against humanity, amirite?
If not why not? Do you refuse to buy American made goods or services? How exactly do you believe anyone is going to be able to rein in America’s leader’s abuses if we don’t first articulate the problem(s) and then engage in solidarity across borders to come up with viable strategies and tactics that lead toward solutions or changes in American policy?
A majority of the brainwashed American people don’t want this nation to change. They don’t even recognize the immorality of our nation’s actions in the first instance. They believe what our leaders do abroad is necessary to perpetuate “our way of life” and therefore almost anything is justifiable. I’m not one of them and want to see meaningful change. In fact I’d say a significant minority wants change but clearly we aren’t having much luck doing it ourselves over the last 60 years. Any help or assistance you might be able to provide would be greatly appreciated by many here.
Or you can just paint us universally and without exception a nation of morons if you think that will help.
But absent your help, and paradoxically, it isn’t really Americans under any statistically significant threat of being bombed by a foreign national in our beds–it’s the citizens of the rest of the world that should be afraid of the statistically significant threat that America’s leaders might decide there is something in your lands we want and bomb you guys to get it. So I’d think the citizens of the rest of the world have a vested interest in helping those Americans who don’t want to see change find a way to pressure our leaders to change their policies.
Clearly Americans don’t appear capable of doing it themselves or for themselves so any help Zeus might give us would be appreciated.
@ Glenn
First of all great interview. I’ve been itching to buy and read Mr. Savage’s book.
Seems to me the real crux of the lack of meaningful distinctions between the Bush and Obama administrations foreign policy (notwithstanding Iran nuclear deal which wasn’t just America’s doing) is as follows:
When you frame the issue as a “war” against a “tactic” or “feeling” then the “continuity” of policies is inevitable. It only amounts to the Obama administration having lawyers who’ve convinced themselves they’ve “grappled more ethically with the difficult issues” and produced a better “work product” (i.e. memos) to justify whatever it is they want to do (form over substance). Or, alternatively, biding the administration’s time until Congress retroactively “legalizes” some formerly immoral and illegal act by the administration.
And that’s why Savage imputes the following to the Obama administration’s way of thinking:
That President Obama and those influential in the administration don’t understand why this isn’t a “war” makes it possible for them to rationalize and justify all of the “tools” of “war” as “not inherently wrong.” They never question the ultimate “ends” for which the use of those tools becomes “necessary” and they never question whether such ends or the tools employed toward those ends “actually keep us safe”. First and foremost they don’t really care about the things that would keep the American people “safer” unless it is “safe” from the astronomical unlikely event of a “terrorist” attack. Because pretending to do something that purportedly makes Americans “safer” (i.e. the war on terrorism) is the politically expedient path and feeds the beast.
But to do the things that would actually keep more Americans safer and live longer like than any “terrorist prevention” monies ever could–improved universal health care, stronger regulation of food, water and air, better housing an education for poor, and more money being put into clean energy independence, global disease control and reformation of police practices and the entire mass incarceration apparatus in this nation–is to necessarily gore some elite’s economic interest and is “politically” difficult. That’s the one thing the American House and Senate are not prepared to do because their livelihoods and station in life depends upon those elites while in office and when out.
That’s the biggest part of the problem. That’s why there was so much “continuity”, necessarily between the administrations. The abuses inflicted on Americans and other’s civil liberties, Constitutional rights, and international human rights can only be sustained if enough in the US Congress and administration convince themselves or believe that “we” are “at war”. And that’s why they all basically embrace the idea that this is a “generational” war or one that will last decades.
In fact, it could easily be argued that the only difference between the two administrations has been that the Obama administration “nominally” stopped torturing human beings by executive order (and I mean “nominally” because much of the field manual “interrogation” techniques presently permitted should and would still be considered torture under international law by definition if many were ever brought to trial outside the US and “nominally” because there is no way for any American to verify that those prohibited practices have in fact stopped being employed or that there are not still “black sites” engaging in such practices).
And the only reason they likely did that was because this administration’s lawyers had just enough of an incremental or marginally more ethical understanding of international law re: two things: 1) that there was no legitimate legal or moral debate about the use of “torture” under any circumstances, and 2) that if they continued it (regardless of whether they held those who employed it previously accountable) they stood a much greater risk of the international community, some day in the future, actually trying to hold one of them accountable at some point.
It’s one of the biggest reasons I didn’t vote for Obama in 2012. And it is a significant part of why I would never vote for Hillary Clinton and despite her recent claim to Rachel Maddow that she would be “less hawkish than Obama”. She won’t because she too believes or has convinced herself that “America is at war”. And so long as the American people don’t replace the vast majority of those in the House and Senate that actually believe you can “wage a war” against “non-state” actors engaged in what amounts to, by definition, an international criminal conspiracy to murder civilians of various nations, then the “war on terror” with its myriad abuses of domestic and international rights and law will continue unchanged and unabated. And the “deep state” will continue to have an outsized influence on the continuation of America’s foreign policy. “Those tools” of war have now been “normalized” and legally legitimized if not enshrined in legal precedent. Even assuming “those tools” stopped being used or needed at some point in the future, it would moot any future American Supreme Court’s ability to adjudicate the legality of them. And even then they could simply be resurrected for use again by any subsequent President and the whole long dance of keeping it all out of court under claims of “executive privilege” or “state secrets” can recommence for decades. America’s elites will never hold themselves “accountable” in that way.
The only way it could ever happen is if the rest of the world started to BDS America to the point America’s elites were forced to renounce those tools forever and bind itself (as it has refused to do in past) to certain international treaties and subject itself to the jurisdiction of certain international bodies. And repeal all of the odious laws that have been passed since 9-11. And that isn’t happening in my lifetime. Unfortunately, and for the fairly immediate future anyway, no group or bloc of countries has the economic clout or trade relationships existing outside of America’s influence sufficient to force those issues or bring that type of accountability to America’s elites. So again, IMHO, we are stuck with this immoral “new normal” for a good long while regardless of its newfound “legality”. Then again, as I’ve said in the past, maybe its not “new” in any way and this is always what and who America was and is–for better and worse.
The only problem for anybody in power, and just like the Germans before them, is that you apparently only have to have enough qualified attorneys and judges in place to rubber stamp whatever the political, business and military elites want do as “legal” and hope no single country or group of countries has the power to bring you to heel economically or militarily.
Clausewitz summed up America’s economic foreign policy of militarism under the fictions of “humanitarian interventionism” and “freedom and liberty promotion” quite nicely–“War is the continuation of America’s politics by other means.”
America’s “politics” is about America’s global economic hegemony and has been since at least WWII. And that’s why America will continue its present foreign policy into the foreseeable future, regardless of who sits on the Executive branch throne, until it implodes economically or is defeated in war. Glad I won’t be around to see which one it will be. But one or the other is likely inevitable if history is any indicator. Which is not to say one or the other is certain to happen as a function of history only that it is much more likely.
Of course Clausewitz argued “war is the continuation of politics by other means.” He wasn’t specifically referencing only America, but those who had the capacity to wage war.
No offensive to Glenn but your comment is better than the article.
The Intercept should give you your own column.
@ tombrowns’ schooleddaze
Um okay, thanks I guess. Don’t know about my comment being better than the article, but Savage’s book and Glenn’s interview definitely opens the door to a lot of interesting discussions.
Superb commentary!!!!
quoting Savage:
Radicals — not to be confused with “liberals” — understand that there is no war but the class war. The Left — again, not to be confused with Democratic partisans, liberals, progressives, or other apologists for the right wing Obama administration — opposes the violence and terrorism of the capitalist class and Empire. The Left shows the connections between the illegal aggression by the US government, the covert operations, the pursuit of world domination, Washington’s collaboration with right wing regimes and sponsorship of terrorist groups, etc, to political economy.
The continuity between the two administrations is better explained by the fact that the US government serves the interests of the ruling class, as well as the absence of effective class struggle “from below”. The murderous policies and illegitimate seizure and exercise of dictatorial power by the occupant of the WH don’t depend on whether the POTUS believes himself to be protecting the American people, or whether the POTUS believes himself to have the law on his side.
“Legal Imperialism” and International Law: Legal Foundations for War Crimes, Debt Collection and Colonization
http://petras.lahaine.org/?p=1923
Capitalists, Technocrats and Fanatics: The Ascent of a New Power Bloc
petras.lahaine.org/?p=1986
The New Authoritarianism: From Decaying Democracies to Technocratic Dictatorships and Beyond
petras.lahaine.org/?p=1881
The ruling classes are at war with the vast majority of humanity and the planet. It is the power of the ruling class which permits the ruling class to convince the masses through propaganda that “we’re all in this together”, that the “government is legitimate”, that “there is no alternative”, that “Congress and the POTUS and the SCOTUS are public servants and committed to the public’s interests”. The ruling class is not at all interested in allowing the masses adequate education, food, healthcare, security of any kind, housing, etc. Human rights and freedom never were gifts from the government or the ruling class.
It’s the absence, the underdevelopment, of political consciousness of the masses, that makes the propaganda of the ruling class, the ideology of our oppressors, effective. Our induced amnesia and confusion — the end result of a deliberate, calculated, decades-long campaign by the ruling class — makes it easier for the ruling class to divide, distract, manipulate, hoodwink, frighten, exploit, impoverish, brutalize, and conquer us.
That’s passing the buck.
From Howard Zinn:
@ Vivek Jain
All in all, I’m a big fan of your posts and links. But I don’t know if I’m “passing the buck” to anybody. My point was, and I’m very well acquainted with Prof. Zinn’s work, is that Americans are too historically and culturally propagandized, and geographically isolated, to the point that those of us who “get it” in America can’t do it alone. We’re going to need outside help and international solidarity.
I find it interesting that you quoted the following:
I’ve written that here, or some approximation of it, many times. Moreover, I think there is an obvious corollary when it comes to ‘capitalism': “Economic exploitation of the working classes will stop when labor refuses to show up for “work” en masse and globally for a long enough period of time to demonstrate it is prepared to bring down the entire edifice of capitalism upon the heads of the capitalists absent a “new (re)distributive order” being implemented that provides a healthy quality of life for all the world’s people in contribute to the creation of global ‘wealth’ and that does not pit them against one another in a ‘race to the bottom’ for ever cheaper labor.”
But until the world’s working class really understands their inherent power, a power born only of solidarity and when wielded with enlightened long-term ‘self-interest’, rather than short-sighted selfishness and nationalism, then nothing will change. Or what little that does change will be incredibly incremental and at the margins of society.
@ Vivek Jain
And to expand on the idea above–I don’t think fundamental change has to come from “violent” radicalism or protest. I believe, if we could convince 100s of millions of others to believe it too, that simply refusing to “participate” (i.e. refusing to consume and work except for medical personnel and fire (don’t think you’ll ever get the police on board as they are really mercenaries for the capitalist class as a historical matter) for the ‘neoliberal global capitalist system’ for ‘long enough’ the working people of the world could change the world, systemically, in short order. I predict with enough stockpiling of water, food and medicine in advance and arrangements for shared transportation, care and support for the infirm and disabled–that should only take about 90-180 days–that’s how fragile global capitalism is.
Or alternatively, even if you couldn’t get 100s of millions, if you could even get 100s of thousands in key industries (agriculture, transportation, education, retail sales, lawyers, and civil servants) all across the globe to engage in “rolling strikes” or “sick outs” you could cripple the capitalist system in short order. It would stymie the capitalists ability to pay their debts to each other (or to collect on them), it would cripple their “shareholder value” that is the greatest source of their paper “wealth”, and it would create such a horrible backlog and cockup of the capitalist “infrastructure” that working class demands would be met and/or the capitalist class and capitalist ‘system’ would fade into historical obscurity right along with the fates of the working class. That’s what the arrogant capitalist fuckos don’t understand about the fragility of their “system”. It depends upon, necessarily, the participation of labor and the capitalists ability to siphon of the marginal productivity (i.e. profit) of the working class that isn’t paid to them in wages and benefits.
But fostering that sort of human working class ‘solidarity’ has so far proved very difficult to achieve.
If the world’s working classes really understood the import and power of the above statement, they could change the world quite easily. Unfortunately they appear to be easily pitted against their own self interest and that of their fellow class members through a very well orchestrated campaign of ‘divide and conquer’ achieved through economic propaganda and historical revisionism and deletion of the very concept of “class struggle”.
Gandhi and MLK Jr. understood quite clearly the power of personal sacrifice without fear and a refusal to participate in an unjust system.
Withhold your participation in solidarity with enough others and in fairly short order the entire system crumbles to one degree or another.
There aren’t enough business and governmental goons in the world to force people out of their homes and enslave them in service of the ‘capitalist system’. So it has always seemed to me that the only thing stopping a global revolution and reformation of ‘capitalism’ into democratic socialism–is us and fear of an unknown or uncertain future.
Which is not to say that Gandhi or MLK Jr. didn’t feel fear when I say “sacrifice without fear” but that they didn’t let that fear stop them from acting–by definition demonstrating courage in the face of their fears.
It may have started earlier than that. The U.S. started building a large modern navy in the 1890s — Alfred Thayer Mahan and all that — and after the 1898 war was involved in the Caribbean and western Pacific. Certainly, if Smedley Butler is a witness, the U.S. was far more aggressive with its gunboat diplomacy — marines and navy — from that time, and it also got into the dreadnought arms race. And it arranged the 1922 Washington naval treaty (conducted in English, a first) in which the U.S. made itself co-equal with Britain and fixed an inferior navy ratio for France, Italy and Japan. Since the U.S. was using the Marines and Navy to project its power then, it was a very assertive step.
None of this was what the Framers envisioned for executive, military or international relations, see, e.g., Federalist No. 11, 23-25, 80, nor what the U.S. judiciary had envisioned at least up to WWI.
They are just words Coram. Useless and powerless as history has shown.
Give up your childish belief that words will change anything to do with America.
Give up this religious belief that the Constitution or the Framers or the Bill of Rights or lawyers will change anything.
All of the above has brought America to where it is now. America is an immoral cesspool of corruption and laws are just tools of the so called Democratic process to continue its murderous campaign of World Domination. E pluribus unum. They have always wanted to make the many one.
The fix was put in on day one when the murderer Washington and his lodge buddies set up this conspiracy of fraud.
You are way to smart to fall for this con of trying to fix a broken system, that was designed from the start to fool people, with words that they used.
Actions speak louder.
When Americans talk about the Constitution I want to throw up.
Hey, a review of my comments, passim, would suggest I know it’s a rule of power, not law, now. It’s still worth remembering what the old Republic was like before it became an empire. Could it be that it was ah so simple then, or has time rewritten every line?
Anyway, point I was trying to make was that U.S. imperialism and permanent militarism did not start after WWII. It was already starting back in McKinley’s day and was manifest in 1922, when the U.S. started dictating how many battleships everyone else could have.
Yes Coram, the system has been fucked up from day one, not after.
The old Rebublic was designed to become an Empire, thats my point.
Its not personal, I think you are a great man.
There is nothing to fix if something isn’t broken.
There is no fixing a system that is designed to break.
America has never been great or exceptional, except in the star spangled eyes of the radicialized brainwashed American people.
You can never go back to the American Dream for it was always a nightmare.
@coram nobis
“It may have started earlier than that. ”
Shhhh!!!! Can’t you see that people are trying to sleep? (Pssst… the world began on September 11, 2001 – pass it on).
Don’t be too hard on yourself.
I remember a kerfuffle in February 2009 where you deplored Obama when he reneged on his campaign promise to release thousands of torture photos.
Ah the good old days … while we still hoped Obama might hold some of the Bush team accountable.
“As a result, I wrote in July that “in retrospect, Savage was right and I was wrong: His February article was more prescient than premature.” Elegantly said, Glenn, and my trajectory followed yours to the month. For the first six, I held out hope that the campaign promises would prove Savage a pessimist, but, as you note, it became clear by that first summer that we were in for more of the same. ”
This mutual acknowledgement of you collective gullibility is touching, but there was ample evidence that Senator Obama (and his wife) were of CFR manufacture – many on the far right of the political spectrum were endlessly bemoaning this fact in the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election. Waiting seven tears to offhandedly admit that ones understanding of the American political scene was/is so shallow that one could be swayed by candidate Obama’s insubstantive “hope and change” rhetoric is neither elegant of revealing. In fact, Obama was breaking his campaign promises even before being elected in 2008:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Obama says he is unsure about being a member of the CFR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEnuhSScLgc
CFR membership:
http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/nominators.html
Everybody gets fooled once. But it’s like an inoculation. As GW so eloquently explained:
“Marketers spend millions developing strategies to identify children’s predilections and then capitalize on their vulnerabilities. Young people are fooled for a while, but then develop defense mechanisms, such as media-savvy attitudes or ironic dispositions. Then marketers research these defenses, develop new countermeasures, and on it goes.”
– Douglas Rushkoff
Obama’s political marketing campaign beat Apple in 2008 (Chomsky)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W93agCReEJs
And now there’s “micro targeting” of voters. The rich can go to Google and Facebook with their granular data on everyone, and ask: What set of local minority interest groups do I have to appeal to, in order to cobble together enough votes for my, “lower the taxes on the rich – send the army out to make me even richer – party”?
@Jlocke
Very interesting link! Thanks
Those who were fooled by the “hope and change” rhetoric of CFR sponsored candidate Barrack Obama simply were not paying attention for the past century. Take the Carter presidency for example:
The Carter Administration: Myth and Reality
Noam Chomsky
Excerpted from Radical Priorities, 1981
“Perhaps the most striking feature of the new Administration is the role played in it by the Trilateral Commission. The mass media had little to say about this matter during the Presidential campaign — in fact, the connection of the Carter group to the Commission was recently selected as “the best censored news story of 1976” — and it has not received the attention that it might have since the Administration took office. All of the top positions in the government — the office of President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Defense and Treasury — are held by members of the Trilateral Commission, and the National Security Advisor was its director. Many lesser officials also came from this group. It is rare for such an easily identified private group to play such a prominent role in an American Administration.
The Trilateral Commission was founded at the initiative of David Rockefeller in 1973. Its members are drawn from the three components of the world of capitalist democracy: the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. Among them are the heads of major corporations and banks, partners in corporate law firms, Senators, Professors of international affairs — the familiar mix in extra-governmental groupings. Along with the 1940s project of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), directed by a committed “trilateralist” and with numerous links to the Commission, the project constitutes the first major effort at global planning since the War-Peace Studies program of the CFR during World War II.
The new “trilateralism” reflects the realization that the international system now requires “a truly common management,” as the Commission reports indicate. The trilateral powers must order their internal relations and face both the Russian bloc, now conceded to be beyond the reach of Grand Area planning, and the Third World.”
http://chomsky.info/priorities01/
Of coarse, Chomsky was not the only one to point these facts out. The John Birch society had been extremely vocal in their opposition to the influence of the CFR and Trilateralism for decades. This is why individuals like Congressman Larry McDonald were targeted for marginalization by the leading journalistic shills of his day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80u-Cy2uiiM
CIA operatives Tom Braden and William F. Buckley were tasked to marginalize the established conservative right-wing of the American body politic in a manner identical to that used against pro-soviet factions in Europe via Operation Mockingbird:
“In 1950, at the start of the Korean War, Braden joined the CIA and in 1950 became head of the International Organizations Division (IOD) of CIA’s Office of Policy Coordination, the “covert action” arm of agency secret operations, working closely with Allen Dulles and Frank Wisner. Believing that the cultural milieu of postwar Europe at the time was favorable toward left-wing views, and understanding that The Establishment of Western Allies was rigidly conservative and nationalistic as well as determined to maintain their colonial dominions, it was estimated that American supremacy would be best served by supporting the Democratic left. Thus the program was begun by which more moderate and especially anti-Soviet leftists would be supported, thereby helping to purge the social democratic left of Soviet sympathizers.” (Wikipedia: Thomas Braden)
Hey Glenn,
What’s the comment removal policy at TI? Seems like we spend our time writing comments, only for some person at TI to remove them later. Has happened to my comments (and that of others) quite frequently of late.
thanks
I can’t speak for any weirdness coming from the site itself, but NATO’s cover-up team is in full force amongst the commenters in some of the more obvious articles.