[PAA-Discuss] Obama Courts the Lobby

[Ron and Kris Graham]

Barack Obama and Joe Biden: both on their knees for AIPAC. Obama keeps
saying that the U.S. must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and
threaten Israel. Biden has admitted to being a Zionist. What more do you
want? There are people on this list who are hell bent on voting for the
Obama/Biden ticket while saying they support Palestinians. I call you out on
that! It's utter bullshit! If you support indigenous Palestinians and their
absolute right of return to their homeland to live in peace under a true
democracy then you absolutely cannot support an Obama/Biden ticket.
Obviously, you cannot support a McCain/Palin ticket, either. So, you have a
choice to make don't you? You can either sit at home on Election Day or you
can cast a protest vote for McKinney or Nader. Your choice shouldn't be a
tough one unless you are afflicted with a case of cognitive dissonance which
I have mentioned on this list before. 

 

Some of you may feel I am "going negative" all the time. People, I am being
truthful. I am not trying to be smug or hateful. I am simply posting
articles I believe to be truthful, and we could all use a good, strong dose
of the truth for a change.

 

Kris

 

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/08/obama-courts-the-lobby/

 


Obama Courts the Lobby


by Gary Leupp / August 29th, 2008

I will tell you having visited Israel just a month and a half ago, their
general attitude is, 'We will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon.' My
job as president would be to try to make sure we are tightening the screws
diplomatically on Iran, that we mobilize the world community to go after
Iran's nuclear program in a serious way. . We have to do it before Israel
feels its back is against the wall.

- Barack Obama, August 25, 2008 

The candidate of "change," having just selected the ultimate Washington
insider as his running mate, again makes clear how thoroughly he embraces
the Lobby and the foreign policy establishment. 

He might have said: 

Well, as I understand it, the National Intelligence Estimate of November
2007, which represents the consensus of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies
including the CIA, stated with a high degree of confidence that Iran does
not have a nuclear weapons program. Some Bush administration officials,
especially those around Vice President Cheney, act as though they know that
there is one and it threatens the whole world. But they've pulled that act
before, haven't they?-scaring us all about Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction which, it turned out, didn't exist. 

I visited Israel a month and a half ago, and I know there are some people
there who see Iran as their main enemy. They'd like the U.S. to bomb Iran.
But I frankly question their judgment. My foreign policy will be based upon
my administration's assessment of America's interests, which do not include
antagonizing more Muslim nations or reinforcing the perception that the U.S.
gives Israel everything it wants, even as it ceaselessly expands illegal
settlements on the occupied West Bank and- let's speak frankly-treats
Palestinians as blacks in South Africa were treated under apartheid. 

I'd like to remind you that in the summer of 2003 the Iranian government
through the Swiss ambassador to Tehran proposed talks with the U.S. The
Iranians were willing to exchange support for the Arab League proposal for a
two-state solution in Israel/Palestine, withdrawal of military support for
Hamas and Hizbollah, and resolution of U.S. concerns about its nuclear
program in exchange for normalized diplomatic and trade relations with the
U.S. Although Secretary of State Colin Powell was interested in the offer,
Vice President Cheney rejected it out of hand. The initiative was not even
reported in the press at the time. 

We need to revisit that moment. We need to engage the Iranians. We need to
question the neocon propaganda machine which, having circulated so much
disinformation about Iraq is now doing the same about Iran. We need to call
these guys out on their fear-mongering, their wild references to World War
III and a 'nuclear holocaust.' Some say we need to 'tighten the screws'
diplomatically. But we really need to question the premises behind the
sanctions we've enacted to date. There hasn't been any debate in this
country about how to relate to Iran. It hasn't been possible, politically,
to say: 'Maybe Iran is not a threat to U.S. security.' It hasn't been
popular to point out the obvious: Iran supports the al-Maliki government in
Iraq, just as we do, and the Karzai government in Afghanistan, just as we
do. 

Rational analysts point out that even if the entire U.S. intelligence
community is wrong, and Iran is poised to acquire nuclear weapons soon, it
wouldn't use them against Israel. Iran is a long ways from Israel, has no
territorial issues with Israel, no national interest in attacking Israel.
Reports of anti-Semitism in Iran appear exaggerated, for political reasons.
(Iran's Jewish community is the largest outside of Israel in the Middle East
and has representation in the Iranian parliament.) Israel unlike Iran is a
nuclear power. Unlike Iran it hasn't signed the Nonproliferation Treaty and
refuses IAEA inspections. It has about 200 nuclear weapons that could
respond to an Iranian attack with apocalyptic ferocity. 

Frankly I think the Israeli leaders are hypocritical in saying that they
'can't allow' Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Whoever allowed them to get
theirs? They may feel that their backs are against the wall, but how do you
suppose the Iranians feel, when the Bush administration has been saying for
years it reserves the right to attack them, even using nukes? 

Advocates of a 'preemptive' attack on Iran charge that Iranians are somehow
suicidal, irrational, willing to suffer millions of deaths of their
countrymen in order to annihilate Israel. But this is an irrational and
indeed racist characterization of the Iranian people. 

My job as president will be to make a clean break with the Bush
administration's foreign policy based on lies and fear-mongering. I would do
our Israeli friends no favor if I capitulated to the propaganda and paranoia
and continued this disastrous neocon strategy of regime change throughout
the Middle East. I stand for change in foreign policy, change in how we
think about foreign relations. I stand for mutual respect and dialogue, not
the arrogance of the Bush White House summed up in Cheney's statement, 'we
don't negotiate with evil, we defeat it.' 

We have to humbly understand that many people around this world think the
United States is evil-for going to war and killing hundreds of thousands for
no good reason. We need to understand that Iranians and Russians a whole lot
of other folks think their backs are up against the wall because of
reckless, provocative U.S. actions. As the candidate of change, I repudiate
the strategy of aggression and culture of lies that have undermined American
democracy. I ask you to vote for me as the candidate of peace.

Of course he can't do that. Because in this "democracy" his hands are tied.
No powerful news editor in the mainstream media, employed by General
Electric, Time-Warner, Murdoch, Verizon or Disney would treat such a
statement as anything other than an expression of wild-eyed leftwing
extremism (if not anti-Semitism). Real debate is not possible outside the
catacombs of the internet. It's an iron law of the system: any candidate of
change, having acquired an enthusiastic mass base through the raising of
false hopes, has to at some point become the standard-bearer of the status
quo. The candidate flushed with victory cynically expects serious supporters
to stay on board the program-even as the program looses all but symbolic and
rhetorical content. 

The ultimate message: Voting for me is the best you can do. Forget any
immediate withdrawal from Iraq, which I see as a strategic blunder, but not
a war crime. Forget any rapprochement with Iran, or rethinking of Middle
East policy, because I, like my vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, am
intimidated by the Israel Lobby. Settle for a Bush Lite administration-no
surprises, nothing radical, more troops to the real war in Afghanistan and
maybe Pakistan. 

This is a country of 300 million people, many of us really paying attention
to events. We're presented with a choice. One presidential candidate who's
unable to answer a question about how many homes he owns; states publicly
that Iran is supporting al-Qaeda; and surrounds himself with neocon advisors
who want a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq, want to bomb Iran, and
want to provoke conflict with Russia. Another candidate (there being two,
under our system) who boasts that he opposed the Iraq War but hedges on the
issue of withdrawal, talks hawkish on Afghanistan, threatens to assault
Pakistan, wants to "further isolate Russia," and keeps an Iran attack "on
the table" because he thinks Israel's back is against the wall. 

In fact it's we, the American people, who have our backs against the wall.
The screws are tightening on us-we who get screwed every four years,
routinely. The candidate of "change" and the candidate of "country" stand
together in pledging allegiance to a conception of reality the Israel Lobby
endlessly promotes although it clashes at every turn with the actual world.
Candidates cannot say what needs to be said. 

There is something fundamentally wrong here. We are in one of those "times
of universal deceit" in which, as George Orwell put it, "telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act." You just can't do it if you're running for
election, urging the masses to observe the voting rite, demanding they cast
their ballots as a statement of compliance and acceptance, while offering us
such meager choice. If the goal were democracy, we could do so much better.
There's no way Obama's going to be accused of being revolutionary, no way
the Congress is going to investigate and punish the liars whose hands are
covered in blood, no way the mainstream press is going to acknowledge near
term what for so many of us are obvious truths. It falls to others to tell
the truth and act against the universal deceit. 

Gary Leupp is a Professor of History, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative
Religion at Tufts University, and author of numerous works on Japanese
history. He can be reached at: gleupp at granite.tufts.edu. Read other articles
by <http://www.dissidentvoice.org/author/GaryLeupp/>  Gary.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://paa-tx.org/pipermail/discuss_paa-tx.org/attachments/20080829/189f2319/attachment.htm>