Home | About | Donate

Pardon Me! High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump


Pardon Me! High Crimes and Demeanors in the Age of Trump

Tom Engelhardt

Let me try to get this straight: from the moment the Soviet Union imploded in 1991 until recently just about every politician and mainstream pundit in America assured us that we were the planet’s indispensable nation, the only truly exceptional one on this small orb of ours.


When is the rest of the world going to explicitly call out the terrorism threat of the USA.

Martin Luther King in one of his last speeches - article by Glenn Greeenwald in The Guardian Jan 21, 2013

MLK’s vehement condemnations of US militarism are more relevant than ever: His vital April 4, 1967 speech is a direct repudiation of the sophistry now used to defend US violence and aggression

When is the rest of the world going to condemn the USA for starting the War on Terror for political reasons in the US and to support corporations and expand the military budget???

In light of the major issue, The New Climate Regime, the wars we started in the Middle East and our other military efforts around the globe, including Africa (Nick Turse has written on this) and now we have global terrorism.

In the article by Glenn linked above, he began the article with

The civil right achievements of Martin Luther King are quite justly the focus of the annual birthday commemoration of his legacy. But it is remarkable, as I’ve noted before on this holiday, how completely his vehement anti-war advocacy is ignored when commemorating his life (just as his economic views are). By King’s own description, his work against US violence and militarism, not only in Vietnam but generally, was central - indispensable - to his worldview and activism, yet it has been almost completely erased from how he is remembered.

King argued for the centrality of his anti-militarism advocacy most eloquently on April 4, 1967, at Riverside Church in New York City - exactly one year before the day he was murdered. That extraordinary speech was devoted to answering his critics who had been complaining that his anti-war activism was distracting from his civil rights work (“Peace and civil rights don’t mix, they say. Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people, they ask?”). King, citing seven independent reasons, was adamant that ending US militarism and imperialism was not merely a moral imperative in its own right, but a prerequisite to achieving any meaningful reforms in American domestic life.

In that speech, King called the US government “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”, as well as the leading exponent of “the deadly Western arrogance that has poisoned the international atmosphere for so long” (is there any surprise this has been whitewashed from his legacy?). He emphasized that his condemnations extended far beyond the conflict in Southeast Asia: “the war in Vietnam is but a symptom of a far deeper malady within the American spirit.” He insisted that no significant social problem - wealth inequality, gun violence, racial strife - could be resolved while the US remains “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift” - a recipe, he said, for certain “spiritual death”. For that reason, he argued, “it should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America today can ignore the present war.” That’s because:

Glenn goes on to criticize Obama and the consensus between the two political parties that war is the solution to …


The Duopoly must die along with the Evildoers of the Empire!

Trust none of them ever again.


" Are there no high crimes and misdemeanors for which we Americans are responsible on a planet of the otherwise guilty?"

Yes, but the problem is that the American military,industrial,congressional, complex will never indict one of its own… no matter how egregious it’s cabal of war criminals!


Absolutely spot-on.


There were people saying something along those lines.

If more Americans had paid attention when Jean Chrétien said - clearly and unequivocally - that the USA was wrong in their decision to invade Iraq, and to the fact that 71% of Canadians backed his decision, they might have been much further along. I still remember Mr. Chrétien’s clear statement and my feeling of pride and relief.

Unfortunately, Americans are very poorly served by their news sources and by their politicians. Especially when the news and points of view come from a non-American sources. Americans, in this respect, are like inhabitants of North Korea, who gets the ‘information’ that the oligarchy decides they’ll get. Reread Chomsky.

The Americans who call out the American government as one of the largest sources of terrorism are guaranteed to be ignored by the mainstream media, so why would this same media quote or pay any attention to non-Americans doing the same?

That is unless they’re trying to paint them as illiterate stooges. (Not that there are any of those in the 'States, eh?)


Yes, Tom, and when can we begin to write articles about what really happened in 9-11, not just what foreigners who all died did to help?