In Campaign 2016, the American people have shown little stomach for more foreign wars. The Republican candidates who advocated neoconservative warmongering crashed and burned, losing to Donald Trump who sold himself to GOP voters as the anti-neocon, daring even to trash George W. Bush’s Iraq War to an aghast field of Republican rivals.
I'll not vote for this hateful, cynical person, as I didn't for Bill.
Excellent piece Robert Parry.
What to do at this point? It would be helpful to get Parry’s thoughts on what to do. And address how the DNC/HRC campaign is using Trump to gin up fear and shame to garner more support for Clinton.
It is becoming clear to me----as pieces like this emerge-----that the gap (if there is one which I believe is doubtful) between “lesser of 2 evils” is closing.
How on earth can seemingly intelligent people like Paul Krugman or Elizabeth Warren dismiss these facts (which they MUST know) that Parry details? Is it power that allows them to rationalize and/or deny?
I realize there is an apathy/ignorant factor among the huge contingent of voters who don’t even want to read about this -----they will simply follow the lead of George Clooney or Oprah and vote “for her”. They are comfortable. They mistakenly believe she is a “progressive woman who gets things done” and that is as far as they will go. I recommend this contingent of voters look into the specifics of exactly what she "gets done" and how she does it.
Parry is talking about Clinton leading us into a nuclear abyss-----how can that be “less evil” than Trump? And NO I am NOT a Trump supporter!
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Nice little two-step you got there, Parry:
"That no such peace movement exists reflects the failure of anti-war advocates to penetrate the world of practical politics the way that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. did in working with President Lyndon Johnson to end racial segregation. But that’s not really the fault of peace advocates since they have been shut out of the mainstream media to a far greater degree than the civil rights movement was in the 1960s."
First you succumb to the "blame the peacemakers" narrative, but then back pedal it after putting it out front and center.
Having come of age during the glorious peace movement of the late l960s and l970s, let me REMIND you of what lent it its vitality:
A. Music! There were countless anti-war songs like Country Joe's "See your boy come home in a box... and it's 1, 2, 3, what are we fighting for? Don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop is Vietnam."
In other words, radio stations were not corporately owned and thereby content-controlled by a right wing Christian operation like Clear Channel.
Anti-war music was EVERYWHERE.
B. Academia: LOTS of professors were anti-war and outspoken about it. This created a venue of intellectual opposition to the War Fever of the M.I.C.
After 911, any academic who DARED to chastise the "all war, all the time" initiatives hidden (in plain sight) behind the "War On Terror" were apt to lose their tenure, be punished by the heads of their academic institutions, shut out of publishing opportunities, or worse.
C. TV Talk Shows... like Phil Donahue or late night numbers that always interviewed "radicals."
The OPEN VENUES of mass media and academia, both fueled by the powerful music of that era (and of course, further ignited by natural opposition to the Draft) created a contagious anti-war climate and community.
NONE of that is allowed now.
In addition, when Life Magazine or another popular periodical showed actual photos of what war DID, that also summoned outrage and CONSCIENCE in lots of people including the truly Progressive churches like the Unitarians.
Bush, with a lot of help from Right Wing interests, learned how easy it would be to gain major backing if the Christian Right was infiltrated. For some time I have gone on record stating my belief that Pat Robertson was a CIA plant (or somehow influenced by that organization). Using his popular TV show, "The 700 Club," he, along with other Evangelical Christian Patriarchs pushed the idea that the war against the Muslim World was Biblical in nature and thus "endorsed by God."
The ONE thing that should operate as a bulwark AGAINST WAR is religion and/or spirituality since both are (or should be) to the human conscience, what athletic training is to the Olympian athlete. When religion is used instead to PUSH or ENDORSE wars of aggression, then much of the nation's moral center implodes.
It was the suppression of those channels that would aggregate into a massive community of anti-war citizens that is the CAUSE behind the lack of seeming interest in this horror.
Also, when terror takes place over time, it becomes normalized. That's also part of the calculus intended to turn WAR into a constant: the perfect financial security plan for the MIC and its legions of war suppliers and war profiteers.
I am so tired of people on the receiving end of not just bad policy, but policies determined through force, coercion, dishonest and unlawful means being held to ACCOUNT, or held up as the scapegoats for these horrors.
I wonder if Parry is a Gemini? There's something very "twin like" about many of his analyses. So is Trump, by the way, and Kissinger, and Bush, sr.
I think the peace movement will have a big presence in Philly.
It seems there are far too many life-threatening issues and not enough people who feel capable of being change agents, nowadays. An entire shift in the paradigm has occurred since the heady days of anti-Vietnam War protests. I've talked to many folks who are angry and on the precipice of taking action, but seem afraid to be bold enough to take the first step. They are starting from a place of disempowerment and can't envision the pathway, never mind the end goal: that which would actually make them happy. Our entire culture has shifted for better and worse since Vietnam, along with the government's ability to manipulate us through an ever expanding media with shrinking independence.
Sanders is no Kucinich on issues of war and peace, but for his platform to hold, the war budget would have had to be cut rather significantly, the most effective way to harness the dogs of war.
The new Iron Lady will show Putin that she has balls. Beware
There is an “all done and dusted” Clinton script abroad.
Superdelegates still have to cast their votes – people like
Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin. Can she and others be persuaded to stop holding
their noses and vote for Bernie.
I agree lobo . . . . climate change is impacting everyone (whether they realize it or not) the climate is in a state of chaos, tipping points have been passed and ecosystems are dying.
It does feel overwhelming-----and I believe learned helplessness plays a role for many in all of this.
Big, complex question I know but: what were the factors (besides what you point out above re: gov. manipulation and media domination/control) in the culture shift since Vietnam and how much did the draft impact the level of protests? I was not around then so I did not live it, just learn from reading about it.
I don't dispute the accuracy of your narrative; however, I'd like to compare it with the following analogy.
The building is burning down and you're the Inspector searching for roaches on the 4th floor.
Since that analogy might prove too metaphorical for some, I'll explain further:
There is no doubt that a percentage of voters HAS BEEN beguiled by Mrs. Clinton and all the media hype about her accomplishments. It reminds me of the way the Message Machine talks up Obama's Legacy.
Most who read C.D. see far deeper. We, unlike many of our fellow citizens, have the TIME to do so; and we have (if we are honest posters, as opposed to plants) the intellectual acumen that isn't satisfied with pre-digested sound bytes.
But is that the seminal issue?
If the metrics of the system are controlled to PRODUCE a specific outcome, does it matter if a few million more or less citizens vote for Mrs. Clinton... or don't?
What actually proves decisive--as has been shown in the many flaws utilized (quite a few engineered into the metrics by design) --was the various ways that a preordained outcome was used to crown the One Destined for the American Imperial Throne.
That's why when C.D. commentators ALWAYS turn the issue around onto the flaw in voters, I can't help but think this is a Talking Point that's been circulated.
And that's because it fits my earlier stated analogy.
It doesn't matter how many vote for Mrs. Clinton. No one knows what the real numbers are. Too many eligible voters were discounted or blocked from voting in key states that counted.
The media's constant lies and false narratives intended to diminish the value of Mr. Sanders' would-be policies and basic analyses added to the ridiculous amount of media time allotted to the Great Huckster are also FAR more critical than the emphasis so many here place on voters.
If someone is thirsty and they've been driving all day, and they pull up at a gas station that either has Pepsi or Coke... or tainted water (product of lead, fracking gas, etc.)... is the driver to be faulted for his or her "choice"?
In other words, when the entire process is controlled... what value is there in pointing the finger at other voters CAUGHT in that same WEB of DECEPTION?
I think it's a purposeful diversion. It works because obviously there is some truth in your case.
I am appalled that some Feminists and some Labor Leaders back Mrs. Clinton and seem to perceive her as "a person of accomplishment."
Similarly, I think people are idiots to find anything laudable in Trump.
But when the SYSTEM props up these two dangerous clowns as the ONLY viable choices, attacking voters is counter-intuitive. However, it does do one thing: HIDE the flaws in the system and its systemic corruption to pretend that it's all fine and dandy... if only those voters would see the Good Candidate.
Remember--if voting were designed to really change the system, it would be rendered illegal. In lieu of that, American citizens take part in a very expensive high tech, PR-assisted FARCE.
Hold your nose while you're being blown to bits. NO Thanks. I will not vote for that lady.
Alas, THIS is good:
"Just like the white Southern press tried to pretend the civil rights movement wasn’t happening, today’s U.S. mainstream media ignores voices opposed to America’s imperial wars, no matter how credentialed those citizens are. Consider, for instance, how the major media won’t publish anything from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group that reflects the views of such international figures as Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley and former CIA analyst Ray McGovern."
Sanders was at first rendered invisible by the U.S. media; but then when too many thousands began to show up at all his events, the strategy turned to minimizing his message when not distorting it altogether.
There's a reason why Right Wing Interests purchase all major mass media in most developed nations: It is the most efficient way to manufacture consent, control official stories (the illusion of what's taken for truth across the land), and reciprocally, the proven method for marginalizing dissent.
Anyone who doesn't read from the same playbook is cast as a dangerous heretic, a conspiracy theorist, wingnut or worse. Then, who will believe them... what wasn't learned from the early Church was learned from the Nazis in how the control of a narrative works.
From the article:
"If it weren’t for today’s biased and imbalanced U.S. media, there would be daily, front-page, primetime, network news attention to the dangers of perpetual war and a critical examination of Hillary Clinton’s role in wasting trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives.
"There would surely be a serious and thorough debate about the wisdom of Clinton’s continued hunger for an expanded war in Syria. Yet, today’s mainstream “debates” are limited to slight deviations between Official Washington’s dominant neocons and their understudies, the “liberal interventionists,” who only differ regarding which excuses to use in justifying an invasion of Syria."
Yes! Halleujah! By Jove, you've got it now, Parry! So stop blaming the anti-war movement.
In the Democratic debates both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders advocated regime change in Syria but through negotiations not through violence. Pretty much everyone agrees that there can be no long-term peace in Syria as long as Assad is in power because the Sunnis will not accept that. There has to be sharing of power between the Shiites and Sunnis. The main alternative would seem to be to partition Syria into Shiite and Sunni areas which also might be necessary in Iraq. Unless these two groups of Muslim can agree to share power it is hard to see how any lasting stability can occur.
Robert Parry, as usual, hits the nail on the head! One of the greatest threats of a Clinton presidency is her slavish craven servitude to Israeli expansionism and all its mechanisms, including continued subversion of US sovereignty and foreign policy!
NO person should ever be elected that serves the agenda of a foreign power over their own nation or world peace!
Central to US ME wars is the overt subversion of US foreign policy and the arrogant pathology of Israel - no surprise to anyone paying attention - the greatest threat to world peace is the Israeli regime and mindset.
"the underlying reason for the Syrian “regime change” war was the Israeli government’s desire to remove Syria as the link in the supply chain between Iran and Israel’s foe, Lebanon’s Hezbollah"
"all the “humanitarian” talk about “safe zones” and other excuses for Syrian “regime change” was only the camouflage for Clinton’s desire to protect Israel’s “nuclear monopoly” and the freedom to mount what Israel has called “trimming the grass” operations, periodically mowing down Arabs in Lebanon, Gaza and elsewhere."
Under a Clinton presidency expect more Israeli pressure to abrogate the 6-nation deal with Iran and a push by the Israeli war criminals to attack yet another ME nation! Any CinC that accedes to such open subversion is guilty of treason, IMO! The creature revels in blood and death.........
The following strikes me as an escalation of the Vietnam war "logic" that insisted on DESTROYING the village in order to save it. After all, what logically would follow from the following assessment is a war with Russia that WOULD involve nuclear weapons. Therefore, under the stated purpose of protecting Israel's tactical nuclear armed advantage in the Middle East, a GREATER war utilizing those weapons would compromise THAT status, along with much in the way of human lives and untainted (by radiation) habitat. It's as if Dr. Strangelove's psyche took root in far too many high-placed people:
“Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel’s security, it would also ease Israel’s understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted.
“Right now, it is the combination of Iran’s strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran’s nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack — if necessary over the objections of Washington."
Another plan of absolute inanity and destruction passed off as Wisdom by Experienced Statesmen and Stateswomen.
Thank you. I LOVED that era... and as someone who worked in radio and television and saw firsthand how the new owners intended to shut out any unconventional voices, I am very aware of the various devices used to quell dissent for war.
The people who comment here and blame fellow citizens for what they describe as a lack of interest or engagement NEVER mention the factors that have induced that status. And if they do, they LIFT portions of things I've elaborately explained only to plant them as if they have no consequence: mere lip service.
Our nation spans 3000 miles. It consists of an amazing array of diverse communities. In order to create an effective coalescence, MAJOR MEDIA is required. Otherwise, as is the case on the Internet, communities of like interests become effectively Balkanized.
The Black Lives Movement has gotten some momentum, as has the 350.org, and the campaign to raise the minimum wage. Each of these efforts has required massive investment of time and energy from committed leaders. They have all received SOME media time.
Also, as several astute posters have pointed out, when Obama came into office, his allegations about ending the Middle East Wars (at least in Iraq) and his winning the Nobel Peace Prize put a damper on whatever Peace Movement was building up under Bush.
Another thing that isn't mentioned is that there was no Homeland Security State, neither so pervasive a program of data-mining and surveillance of citizens until the 911 event used mass trauma to induce obedience. It also used the threat of a nebulous, dangerous "outsider" to undermine Civil Liberties and create legal language (NDAA) that loosely attributed dissent to acts in support of terrorism (or otherwise as potential threats to National Security).
LOTS of devices were used to weigh citizens down with all sorts of authority and authoritarian entities.
So few discuss the MOOD that shifted this nation into its current covert fascist-lite status after 911. And quite a few who post here BUY the government's official LIES.
I agree. The two things most worrisome about Clinton is her war hawk regime change attitude and her obedience to Israel and specifically Bibi. He is deranged and power hungry like her. From her speech you can see she will jump when he says jump.
Yes, S. R. I am too. Just as I am appalled that some Big Green groups support HC as I pointed out on a previous thread. I used (as but one) example, the League of Conservation Voters endorsing HC before the first vote was cast in the primary!
Just because I pointed that out, you chided me and basically lumped me into the "ilk" that comport with the Koch brothers!
I don't have time to respond to all the other points you raise in your comment (I am still out there advocating for the nonhuman and human world in the form of conservation work which I'm getting to shortly) BUT I must point out a bit of hypocrisy when it's OK for you to be appalled by feminists and Labor leaders but not OK for me to be appalled at some (operative word "some") Green groups.
The first issue I raised by the way, was NOT regarding the "voters" but what psychological dynamic is at play with the likes of Paul Krugman and Elizabeth Warren; is it just lust for power that allow them to dismiss Clinton's patterns of behaviors that are damaging (I'd go so far to say ----murderous) to human and nonhuman life on earth?
I've followed Common Dreams from day one and was inspired to post due to the Sanders campaign. I'm not new here, but a new poster----I come in peace and with a love for the biosphere that is as deep as my love for my human family. I have advocated (physically and systemically) for those that don't have a voice for most of my life (and have the damaged hands to show for it!).
I really have no desire to get into cyber tiffs with you S.R. No time or energy for that----- so this will be the last time I respond to you and your personal attacks as evidenced on a previous thread. It has been painful to see these personal attacks that occur from you over the years. It makes it hard at times, to visit the comment section. Thankfully most of those that comment here keep it productive and elevate the dialogue in addition to offering inspiration (looking at you Cookies!), support and education.
Well, ROTW, we are faced with USAian voters choosing between the sanely insane and the insanely insane? Which should we prefer?
No annihilation without representation!
Regardless of what Hillary's sexual proclivities may be, it is clear that she was publicly humiliated over the course of many years by her husband's numerous affairs, and that had to take its toll psychologically. I wouldn't be surprised if she developed many serious mental health issues as a result (I think I would!). She may deserve our sympathy, but that does not mean that we need to give her the supreme power of the presidency as some form of therapy so that she can work out all of her issues on the world stage, particularly in military matters with possibly catastrophic consequences.
Thank you Robert Perry.
For all those still wondering if Clinton is as evil as most of us think she is, this article helps clear that up. She is. Her neocon policies still direct her motivations to bomb and dominate and her subservience to Netanyahu is truly a major problem. I know her mother is Jewish but is that why she feels the need to give him what he wants? Not all Jews are Zionist's and many disagree with his occupation of the Palestinian land but she has promised there wouldn't be any separation between the U.S. and Israel. We can control the West and he can control the ME. What could go wrong? A leader of a foreign country directing our foreign policy.
I believe Americans are sick of war and yes, we need a strong anti-war movement but that's pretty hard to do when the media are spoon fed what the government wants us to hear and we keep putting neocons in the White House.
In the 60's we had protests and activism much like today but we still had some news channels that reported on each one and the public saw what was going on. The draft was a huge motivator for the peace movement.
Now, a sitting Senator and candidate for president can't get news coverage of rallies that draw thousands of people much less a peace movement.
To me, the best way to pull this country away from perpetual war is to stop HRC. The protests and push for a third party are ongoing but I feel certain if she is the one in the presidents chair we will have revolution in the streets. She will have no patience for dissent and our rights will, no doubt, be further eroded. She is the evil we know.