For the last couple of months the nation has been watching as protesters from New York City to Oakland have set up encampments and debated political issues. The mainstream press has reported on the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement as if it was a leaderless children’s crusade or an incoherent mob unable to express its demands. But middle aged people, unions, minorities, civil libertarians, pacifists, and every stripe of progressive America have also turned out to show their support. They have expressed their demands, and unfortunately they are not neat, easily digested talking points from a central Tea Party organization. They are complex, interconnected demands that defy one minute sound bites.

Increasingly, city governments, with support from the Obama administration, have shut down the protests in city parks and squares by means of SWAT teams, sound cannons, tasers, concussion grenades, rubber bullets, tanks, and a host of armaments we are used to seeing in photos of protesters being similarly set upon by authorities in Syria and Egypt. The message from the ruling class is: You want class warfare? Fine. You’ve got it.

As winter sets in and the onslaught of injunctions, attacks, and arrests of OWS protesters increases, the mainstream media has already begun writing its obituaries. Some claim that the OWS movement is the Islamist spawn of Tahrir Square protests. The New York Times quoted Tahrir Square activist Asmaa Mahfouz, saying “Where are the organizers?” As if, without a Grover Norquist or a Dick Armey to speak for the masses they have no voice.

The OWS movement has successfully demonstrated the dimensions and size of a suffering working and middle class, in many ways much better than the Tea Party movement, which often veers into racist, xenophobic, and religious extremes. To be fair the OWS movement has its own share of people on the fringe, and not all members of FreedomWorks, 1776 Tea Party, Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Patriots, ResistNet, or the Tea Party Express are necessarily as racist as their leaders. Both groups share at least this: they’ve both been denied whatever they imagine the American Dream to be.

But now, especially as both winter and political primaries approach, it’s time for OWS to think about how it intends to implement its many analyses and demands. Does it want the Democratic Party to magically change course? Does it want to create a PAC to promote progressive Democrats, Greens, or Independents? Recently some Tea Party and OWS groups have even begun talking with one another. There is some risk that part of the OWS movement will be co-opted.

The two million dollar questions are: How is OWS going to enter the political stage? And: Will OWS have a voice in the 2012 election?

Occupy Wall Street needs to decide, and decide quickly, if it wants to live in the halls of Congress or just in tents from REI.

John Kerry was one of the first to push for another war in the Middle East, this time the war on Libya. Even before U.S.-initiated hostilities began, I sent Senator Kerry a critique of his dumb idea, with the title Are you out of your mind? — thereby omitting an adjective I really wanted to use. Months later, the yacht club Senator finally deigned to reply to me. Below is his justification for another one of the wars Democrats have championed. I have not changed Kerry’s text, only highlighted portions of interest.

What strikes me about Kerry’s response is that he repeats the lie that the intervention was to “avoid a massacre,” yet everywhere else the motivation for the intervention is more honestly described as regime change or seizing the opportunities of the Arab Spring. Kerry’s assumption that seeing the U.S. involved in (and currently failing at) another Middle East war would send a warning to other dictators does not seem to have impressed the Syrian dictatorship — the same one that helped the U.S. with extraordinary renditions.

Kerry cynically writes that failing to help Muslims would send the wrong message. There are many more opportunities to send the right message in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. We’ve squandered them all.

As to why we invaded Libya and not, say, Syria? Kerry’s answer is so slippery it’s hard to believe he actually wrote, “we must weigh our ideals.” One weighs polls, not ideals.

Finally, Kerry says that bombing Libya in a “supporting” role is not war. Little matter that in the first days of the invasion it was hardly “supportive” and essentially a U.S. show. The senator seems to have succumbed to the same mental gymnastics as global warming deniers. Just deny it and it won’t exist.

But read his letter yourself. I’ll never vote for this weasel again.

Dear Mr. ___:

Thank you for your letter regarding U.S. actions in the NATO coalition preventing crimes against humanity in Libya.

Everything I believe about the proper use of American force and the ability of the community of nations to speak with one voice was reaffirmed when the world refused to stand by and accept a bloody final chapter of the uprisings sweeping across North Africa and the Middle East. With a mandate from the Arab League and the Gulf states, the United Nations Security Council approved a limited military intervention to avoid a massacre.

Neither the U.N. nor any nation should be drawn into military intervention lightly. But there were legitimate reasons for establishing a no-fly zone over Libya and forcing Gadhafi to keep his most potent weapons out of the fight.

First, what is happening in the Middle East could be the most important geostrategic shift since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Absent U.N./NATO resolve, the promise that the pro-democracy movement holds for transforming the Arab world could have been crushed. Other dictators would have seen the world’s failure to challenge Gadhafi as a license to act with impunity against their own people. The vast majority of the protesters in these countries are crying out for the opportunity to live a decent life, get a real job, and provide for a family. Abandoning them would have betrayed not only the people seeking democratic freedoms but the core values of the U.S. and other democratic nations. It would have reinforced the all-too-common misperception on the Arab street that America says one thing and does another. We are already spending billions of dollars to fight increasing extremism in many parts of the world. We didn’t choose this fight; it was forced on us, starting with 9/11. To fail to see the opportunity of affirming the courageous demand of millions of disenfranchised young people for jobs, respect and democracy would be ignorant, irresponsible and short-sighted. It would ignore our real national security interests and help extend the narrative of resentment toward the U.S. and much of the West that is rooted in colonialism and furthered by our own invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Second, the pleas for help came not just from the Libyan rebels, but from the Arab League and the Gulf states. Silently accepting the deaths of Muslims, even at the hand of their own leader, could have set back relations for decades. Instead, by responding and giving the popular uprising a chance to take power, the U.S. and our allies sent a message of solidarity with the aspirations of people everywhere that will be remembered for generations. Rather than be forced to debate “who lost Libya?” the free world is poised to say “remember Tripoli” every time demagogues question our motives.

Third, the particular nature of the mad man who was vowing to “show no mercy” to the “dogs” who dared challenge his rule demanded that his threats be taken seriously. Gadhafi is after all the man behind the bombing of Pan Am 103, which claimed the lives of 189 Americans. The military intervention in Libya sends a critical signal to other leaders in the region: They cannot automatically assume they can resort to large-scale violence to put down legitimate demands for reform without consequences. U.N. resolve in Libya can have an impact on future calculations. Indeed, the leaders of Iran should pay close attention to the resolve exhibited by the international community.

It is fair to ask, why Libya and not other humanitarian situations? The truth is that we must weigh our ideals, our interests and our capabilities in each case when deciding where to become involved. We must not get involved in another lengthy conflict in a Muslim country. With French and British willingness to lead on Libya, we do not need to take on the primary ownership of this conflict-and the Obama administration has made clear we will not. So the risks are manageable and, in my view, the rewards are potentially enormous.

The question of presidential authority is an important question. Some argue that our involvement in Libya is unconstitutional because it violates the provisions of the War Powers Act enacted in 1973. I am very familiar with the debate surrounding this act because it was created in response to the Vietnam War. Presidents have taken the view that the WPA does not include every single military operation and since it was enacted, only three of the numerous military actions we have participated in were authorized prior to engagement. Additionally, the WPA is very specific in its wording, requiring Congressional authorization only when our “Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities.” In Libya, we have no ground troops nor are we considering ground troops – in other words, our troops have not been introduced to these hostilities. Our troops are engaged in the conflict solely in a supporting role. President Obama and I both support the War Powers Act and neither of us believes that our intervention in Libya violates it. How

ever, I believe we are strongest when we speak with one voice – which is why on June 21, 2011, Senator McCain and I introduced a bipartisan resolution to provide limited authorization for our engagement in a supporting role in Libya. I cannot emphasize enough that this authorization only provides for the limited use of American forces for a limited time. This resolution is no blank check for the President, but is consistent with the vision of action outlined in his May 20th letter to congressional leaders. It makes clear the goals of U.S. policy in Libya: the departure of Qadhafi and his family and a peaceful transition to an inclusive government that ensures freedom and opportunity. It also plainly states that our participation in Libya will continue to consist of non-kinetic support of the NATO-lead operation in the form of intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue missions; Congress does not support deploying, establishing, or maintaining the presence of units and members of the U.S. Armed Forces on the ground in Libya. On June 28, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the resolution and I look forward to the full Senate’s consideration of the legislation.

I plan to maintain a close watch on our involvement in Libya. The President will be required to consult with Congress frequently regarding our efforts by providing regular briefings and reports. These must include an updated description of U.S. national security interests and policy objectives, a list of U.S. Armed Forces activities in Libya, an assessment of opposition groups and potential successor governments, and the legal and constitutional rationale for conducting military operations consistent with the WPA.

I believe that the passage of the Kerry-McCain resolution would demonstrate to the country and the rest of the world that the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States are committed to this endeavor. The Arab Awakening could be the single most important geostrategic shift since the fall of the Berlin Wall. If we support the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people and assist them in their transition to democracy, I believe the positive implications for our own security will be immeasurable.

Thank you again for your interest in this critical issue and please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Oh, I won’t.

While the details of the debt agreement are yet to be hammered out, the big picture is emerging and there’s little question that President Obama needlessly capitulated to the Tea Party, which impressively projects its extremist minority views on the entire nation. Yet despite the president’s weakness and failure to keep campaign promises, conventional wisdom is that Liberals and Progressives will still rally around him in the next election solely out of fear of the Tea Party.

Don’t count on it.

Liberal Democrats are not very happy with the President at the moment. The Congressional Black Caucus, for example, has promised to oppose the debt agreement. “Seeing a Democratic President take taxing the rich off the table and instead push a deal that will lead to [massive] cuts is like entering a bizarre parallel universe – one with horrific consequences for middle-class families,” Progressive Change co-founder Stephanie Taylor wrote. “MoveOn’s 5 million members, along with the vast majority of Americans, will not stand for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefit cuts-not now, and not six months from now,” moveon.org’s Justin Ruben darkly hinted. Even House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi hasn’t been fully sold on the agreement, saying only “I look forward to reviewing the legislation with my caucus to see what level of support we can provide.” Liberals rightly regard Obama’s multiple capitulations as paying ransom to hostage takers — in a nation that officially never negotiates with terrorists.

About my only point of agreement with the Tea Party is that Mr. Obama will be a one-term president. This will not be due to the Tea Party’s savage racist attacks on the President. It’s been largely self-inflicted. Young people are not going to turn out to vote in such numbers as they did last time for a president who has now shown that the “audacity of hope” was merely a cynical slogan. Besides the youth, Mr. Obama has lost the support of many independents, Libertarians, and reflexive Democrats who supported him last time. His numbers are way down with minorities. Mainly, however, Mr. Obama has lost the support of the left wing of his own party.

Three years ago I hoisted a glass with friends after Mr. Obama was elected. But after watching the Democrats feebly continue (and expand) not only the Bush wars, bailouts for the rich, tax cuts for the wealthiest, and embracing Republican “trickle-down” economics and neoconservative foreign policy, it is impossible to continue supporting this bankrupt party. In the next election I’ll probably vote Green. If I’m going to throw my vote away, I’d rather do it myself than have the Democrats do it for me.

If there is concern about third party “spoilers,” the Democrats now have an opportunity to reevaluate the viability of the President and should follow Independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sander’s advice to primary someone other than Mr. Obama. Otherwise, they’re going to lose the next election.

There is more than a kernel of truth in the joke that the Democrats are the Party of No Ideas and the Republicans are the Party of Very Bad Ideas. This country either needs some new ideas or some very good old ones because the Tea Party’s loony prescriptions are going to harm this country for decades. Yet the Democratic Party’s failure to present better policies is taking us nowhere. They seem to be forever peeking out the door, checking to see if it’s safe to support workers, consumers, minorities, or the environment — then darting indoors when they conclude it’s not.

I don’t hold out any hope for the Republicans, who have spinelessly let their party be hijacked by Dick Armey, Grover Norquist, nativists, fundamentalists, “ex-gay” therapists, Birthers, the Christian Identity movement, Larouchites, Secessionists, and every species of ding-dong. But the Democratic flirtation with centrism has also failed. Their own Blue Dog Democrats are nothing but Republicans in disguise.

Mr. Obama, meanwhile, has completely botched his Lincoln-esque “Team of Rivals” approach. Concession after concession hasn’t worked. Golf with Boehner hasn’t worked. Worse, far from building a “team of rivals,” Mr. Obama has actually resigned his job as team captain only to become the Gatorade carrier for the opposing team.

Democrats should not blame what used to be the Progressive wing of their own party for the coming defeat in November. Democrats could have remained true to their own values, but they abandoned those along with a constituency that elected them. Tragically, this could have been avoided.

While I was working this morning, a friend sent me an email with an article from the Associated Press on President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. At first I thought it was a hoax, and then re-read it carefully:

“President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.”

The announcement from Oslo was neither a hoax nor a prize. It turned out to be either wishful thinking or a misguided incentive.

Right-wing commentators are going to have a field day with the prize, and maybe they should. President Obama doesn’t deserve it. At a time when the United States has yet to shut down Guantanamo Bay, will still be in Iraq well beyond 2010, is contemplating the expansion of war in Afghanistan, is accelerating the delivery of Boeing’s bunker busters for use in Iran, and has been no more an honest broker for peace in Israel-Palestine than his predecessors – the president’s peace accomplishments are few and dismal.

So while Conservative pundits froth over his prize, Liberals too may wish to hold off on congratulating the president – until he has actually earned this award.

This was published in the Standard Times on October 14, 2009
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20091014/opinion/910140318

Neoconservatives and pro-Israel organizations and ideologues have been calling lately for military action against Iran. House Democrats with close ties to Israel have also been making the same noises. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations has organized a call for rabbis to condemn Iran from the pulpit during the High Holy Days. And now Obama’s Defense Secretary is trying to sell war on Iran – to the Arab world.

It sure looks like we’re being prepped for another war.

The Jerusalem Post, in an article titled “Arab world should arm against Iran,” quotes US Defense Secretary Robert Gates calling for Arab nations to beef-up their militaries. The article is based on an interview with Al Jazeera’s Abderrahim Foukara, which can be viewed below. According to Gates, large weapons purchases are already being negotiated with the United States.

In the interview, Foukara asks Gates about the double-standard of asking Iran to give up nuclear research while never questioning Israel’s nuclear program. Gates responds:

First of all, it’s the Iranian leadership that has said it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Those threats have not been made in the other direction. It is the Iranian government that is in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions with respect to these programmes, so focus needs to be on the country that is feuding the will of the international community and the United Nations.

There’s so much wrong in Gates’ response that it requires some comment. First, I am still looking for a credible translation of an actual threat by Iran against Israel. Neoconservative and pro-Israel warmongers apparently found what they were looking for in some flowery Farsi. But in terms of violations of UN resolutions, Israel is the clear winner. Then Gates has the threats backwards. Israel’s war games last year, this year’s demonstrations of Israeli naval force in the Suez Canal, and countless Israeli speculations of the “best time to bomb” all convey the impression that, if anyone is about to become an aggressor, it’s Israel.

This is a very troubling interview because it demonstrates that the Obama administration itself, as much as any lobbyist or group of pro-Israel House Democrats, is also starting the beat the drum of war.

plugin:youtube

Here’s an excerpt from the interview:

FOUKARA: The issue of Iran and Israel is obviously rattling a lot of countries in the region, the Israelis, the Gulf states, who are thinking about buying more and more weapons, and indeed there has been some sales authorised by the United States. Some estimates put the weapons packages to the Gulf states and Israel at about $100bn. How much substance is there to that?

GATES: That figure sounds very high to me. But I think there’s a central question or a central point here to be made and it has to do both with our friends and allies in the region, our Arab allies, as well as the Iranian nuclear programme, and that is one of the pathways, to get the Iranians to change their approach on the nuclear issue, is to persuade them that moving down that path will actually jeopardise their security, not enhance it.

So the more that our Arab friends and allies can straighten their security capabilities, the more they can strengthen their co-operation, both with each other and with us, I think sends the signal to the Iranians that this path they’re on is not going to advance Iranian security but in fact could weaken it.

So that’s one of the reasons why I think our relationship with these countries and our security co-operation with them is so important.

FOUKARA: I mentioned $100bn and you said that doesn’t sound right to you. What does sound right to you as a figure?

GATES: I honestly don’t know.

FOUKARA: But there are a lot of weapons being asked for by the countries in the region?

GATES: We have a very broad foreign military sales programme and obviously with most of our friends and allies out there, but the arrangements that are being negotiated right now, I just honestly don’t know the accumulated total.

FOUKARA: You’re asking the Iranians to give up their intentions to build nuclear weapons. They are saying they’re not building nuclear weapons. On the other hand, a lot of people in the region feel that you know that the Israelis do have nuclear weapons and they say why doesn’t the West start with Israel, which is known to possess nuclear weapons rather than with the Iranians, who are suspected of having them. What do you say to that argument?

GATES: First of all, it’s the Iranian leadership that has said it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Those threats have not been made in the other direction. It is the Iranian government that is in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions with respect to these programmes, so focus needs to be on the country that is feuding the will of the international community and the United Nations.

FOUKARA: But you decided that the rhetoric of the Iranians reflects the reality of what’s going on in Iran in terms of nuclear weapons. Isn’t that a leap of faith?

GATES: Well, we obviously have information in terms of what the Iranians are doing. We also have what the Iranians themselves have said, so we only are taking them at their word.

FOUKARA: So you know for sure that they are working on a nuclear bomb?

GATES: I would not go that far but clearly they have elements of their nuclear programme that are in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

We want them to adhere to these resolutions and we are willing to acknowledge the right of the Iranian government and the Iranian people to have a peaceful nuclear programme if it is intended for the production of electric power so on. What is central, then, is trying to persuade the Iranians to agree to that and then to verification procedures under the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency].

That gives us confidence that it is indeed a peaceful nuclear programme and not a weaponisation programme.

The truth of the matter is that, if Iran proceeds with a nuclear weapons programme it may well spark and arms race, a real arms race, and potentially a nuclear arms race in the entire region.

So it is in the interest of all countries for Iran to agree to arrangements that allow a peaceful nuclear programme and give the international community confidence that’s all they’re doing.

FOUKARA: But the Obama administration seems to have a difficult circle to square because on one hand they’re saying that they want improved relations with the Muslim world. On the other hand, any pressure on Iran, is seen by people in the Muslim world as an indication the US is not genuine in wanting to improve those relations because many Muslims say Israel has nuclear weapons, and the US is not doing anything about it.

GATES: The focus is on which country is in violation of the UN Security Council resolutions. The pressure on Iran is simply to be a good member of the international community.

The neighbours around Iran, our Arab friends and allies, are concerned about what is going on in Iran, and not just the governments.

So the question is how does Iran become a member in good standing of the international community. That’s in the interest of everybody.

May 27, 2004

John Kerry for President
901 15th Street, NW
7th Floor
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Senator Kerry and Staff:

Please accept my campaign contribution of $1. Please use it to buy yourself a coffee you can sip while reading my letter.

I am sorry I am writing to you and not to Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich. Your spineless support, and the spineless support by many members of Congress, for both the invasion of Iraq and the imposition of the Patriot Act brought us to this point. We have a system of checks and balances, and you simply didn’t do your job in checking the power of the president.

There’s not much to like about your campaign, aside from future Supreme Court appointments. This might be the only advantage to voting for you.

I have read your campaign positions on your website and you are either holding back or being so cagey about what you’d really do that it’s impossible to truly distinguish your positions from Mr. Bush’s. This morning’s Boston Globe reports you chastising Mr. Bush about potential terrorist attacks: “President not doing enough, Kerry says” Well, Mr. Kerry, what would you do?

You do the same on Iraq. But what really distinguishes you from Bush on Iraq? All you’ve really said is that you don’t like the way he’s run things. Many Republicans echo that sentiment too, but guess who they’re going to support? And what exactly would you do differently? Your campaign materials say you’d drag NATO into this mess. But NATO says they’re already over-committed. Europeans characterize your plan as not being invited to the dinner, then being asked to clean up the dishes. Your plan sounds as credible as the “secret” Nixon plan.

And why have you not unveiled a comprehensive energy plan? Not the usual tired old energy incentives, but a sweeping plan as bold as the space program? It seems to me that our oil addiction is the only reason we have “interests in the region.” We need to be able to get the hell out of the Middle East and create balanced relations with both Israel and the Arab world.

And why do you continue to support Israel uncritically? I’ve seen your positions on your own website and also seen a survey you sent back to an Arab-American group, and you don’t even support Israeli withdrawal from illegal settlements! If you’re afraid of losing the Jewish vote, well, you’re already in danger of losing my Jewish vote. Because the only thing that will truly make Israel secure is a moderate Israeli government dealing with a moderate Palestinian leadership. And this excludes religious fanatics from both sides, both armed Jewish settlers and armed Islamic militants. They’re all nutcases.

Sure, everyone wants health care and education. I’ve heard you talk about the $29 billion you want to reallocate to education from an end of tax credits to the very wealthy. But I haven’t heard a truly coherent plan for health care, just the expansion of a patchwork of entitlement programs.

As a former (and not by choice) programmer, I appreciate your remarks on outsourcing and on “leveling the playing field.” However, I feel the real crisis in our country is that we have lost a domestic manufacturing core that keeps other support and service industries here to serve them. Fix the manufacturing hemorrhage and you’ll fix a lot more. But then you have to have a PLAN for that. If you have one, talk about it.

In the coming weeks and days you need to truly differentiate yourself from the Bush campaign. On the surface you both wave the flag and talk about non-specifics, profess concern for education and health care. You need to unleash an attack on militarism and bigotry, talk about a new social contract, talk about a plan to GET OUT OF IRAQ altogether, unveil real energy, health, and education programs, and introduce voters to a potential Presidential cabinet who will be implementing them. If you play it too close to the vest, you’ll lose. As much as voters hate being lied to, they need a reason to switch allegiance.

I don’t care whether you threw your medals away or whether Bush didn’t show up for National Guard service. I don’t care if either one of you inhales or cheats on his wife. I am interested in ideas, vision, and the courage to go out on a limb and risk it all to put those ideas forward because they are the right things to do. My doubts about you are that you just hedge your bets, play the game, and buckle when it’s time to stand up against wars and threats to civil liberties.

Don’t make me vote for a lesser of the two evils. I’m tired of voting for evils in any form. Do what’s right and you’ll have my support. Because if there are no candidates with a vision worth voting for, any vote is a wasted one.

Sincerely,

Save your outrage for the outdated electoral process, Florida election fraud and the Supreme Court appointment of a president. The Greens have comparatively little political influence; they can’t automatically get on a ballot or qualify for matching election funds. So let’s be clear: it wasn’t Nader that elected Bush in 2002.

Democrats seem to have forgotten who they are. Some of the recent crop of Democratic candidates like Joe Lieberman were virtually indistinguishable from Republicans. John Kerry, with his support for the Iraq War, NAFTA, and the Patriot Act, and now with his “Band of Brothers” show, goes out of his way to be GOP-Lite. Democratic candidates like Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich have run spirited campaigns, yet have not received much support from their own party.

If Democrats won’t give voters a choice, third parties like the Greens will. Don’t blame Nader, Dean, or Kucinich. Blame a party that’s driving away its own membership.