Hope Abandoned: Obama Stands Up for Murder & Plunder by Chris Floyd

Dandelion Salad

by Chris Floyd
Empire Burlesque
Monday, 31 March 2008

Well, it doesn’t really get much plainer than this, does it? From AP:

Obama Aligns Foreign Policy with GOP
Sen. Barack Obama said Friday he would return the country to the more “traditional” foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

At a town hall event at a local high school gymnasium, Obama praised George H.W. Bush — father of the president — for the way he handled the Persian Gulf War: with a large coalition and carefully defined objectives. Obama began a six-day bus tour through Pennsylvania, the largest remaining primary prize in the contest with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton…

“The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush’s father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan….”

Obama is doing two things here, reaching out to two very different audiences, on different wavelengths. First, for the hoi polloi, he is simply pandering in the most shameless way imaginable, throwing out talismans for his TV-addled audience to comfort themselves with: “You like JFK? I’ll be like him! You like Reagan? I’ll be like him too! You like the first George Bush? Hey, I’ll be just like him as well!” This is a PR tactic that goes all the way back to St. Paul the spinmeister, who boasted of his ability to massage his message and “become all things to all men.” Obama has long proven himself a master of this particular kind of political whoredom — much like Bill Clinton, in fact, another champion of “bipartisan foreign policy” who for some strange reason got left off Obama’s list of role models.

But beyond all the rubes out there, Obama is also signaling to the real masters of the United States, the military-corporate complex, that he is a “safe pair of hands” — a competent technocrat who won’t upset the imperial applecart but will faithfully follow the 60-year post-war paradigm of leaving “all options on the table” and doing “whatever it takes” to keep the great game of geopolitical dominance going strong.

What other conclusion can you draw from Obama’s reference to these avatars, and his very pointed identification with them? He is saying, quite clearly, that he will practice foreign policy just as they did. And what they do? Committed, instigated, abetted and countenanced a relentless flood of crimes, murders, atrocities, deceptions, corruptions, mass destruction and state terrorism.

Obama is telling us — and the war-profiteering powers-that-be — that he will give us “realistic policies” like those of John Kennedy. These include his steady march into the quagmire of Vietnam, and the backing of a deadly coup in Saigon to replace one brutal junta with another; greenlighting successful coups in Guyana, the Dominican Republic and Iraq, where the CIA helped the Baath Party come to power; greenlighting the spectacularly unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, not to mention the terrorist operations and assassination attempts there. As Edward Jay Epstein noted (in John Kennedy Jr.’s magazine George, of all places):

While the Mafia continued its unsuccessful machinations, John F. Kennedy became President and, in April 1961, launched the Bay of Pigs invasion, an attack on a swamp in Cuba by CIA-trained Cuban exiles that ended in disaster. Furious at this humiliating failure, Kennedy summoned Richard Bissell, the head of the CIA’s covert operations, to the Cabinet Room and chided him for “sitting on his ass and not doing anything about getting rid of Castro and the Castro regime” (as Bissell recalled). Richard Helms, who succeeded Bissell, also felt “white heat,” as he put it, from the Kennedys to get rid of Castro.

By then, the Kennedys had set up their own covert structure for dealing with the Castro problem the Special Group Augmented, which Attorney General Robert Kennedy and General Maxwell Taylor effectively ran and which, in November 1961, launched a secret war against the Castro regime, codenamed Operation Mongoose. Secretary of Defense Robert Strange McNamara, who was not a formal member of this group but attended meetings, later testified: “We were hysterical about Castro at about the time of the Bay of Pigs and thereafter. And there was pressure from JFK and RFK to do something about Castro.” It was a “no holds barred” enterprise, as Helms termed it, for which the Special Group Augmented assigned such “planning tasks” as using biological and chemical warfare against Cuban sugar workers; employing Cuban gangsters to kill Cuban police officials, Soviet bloc technicians, and other targeted people; using agents to sabotage mines; and, in what was called Operation Bounty, paying cash bonuses of up to $100,000 for the murder or abduction of government officials.

More of this kind of thing, then, from Obama when he reaches the White House?

As for his other two foreign policy mentors, Reagan and Bush I, the rap sheet is far too long for even a brief accounting here. (And indeed, I’ve spent much of the past seven years detailing many of these crimes in various venues — because they involved so many of the same players now spewing filth and blood from the current administration.) We could begin, I suppose, with Reagan and Bush’s act of treason in negotiating with Iranian hostage-takers in 1980 to ensure that Teheran would not release the American captives at the U.S. embassy before the November election; in return, Reagan and Bush pledged to provide cash and military hardware to the extremist mullahs, which they duly did. (See here, and here.)

Or we could cite Reagan’s ardent support for mass-murdering militarist regimes in Central and South America; the arming and funding of the Contra insurgent army in Nicaragua, which received CIA training in terrorist tactics. Or the Iran-Contra affair, which saw Reagan and Bush ship weapons to the extremist Iranian regime in return for cash which they then gave to their Contra terrorist militia, in flagrant violation of the law. Or Reagan’s stupid and pointless invasion of Grenada, which he undertook solely to cover up the embarrassment of his stupid and pointless intervention in Lebanon, where 241 American soldiers were killed after having been dropped into the middle of a multi-sided civil war. Or Reagan’s vast expansion of a policy begun under Jimmy Carter of arming, funding, training and organizing a global network of violent Islamic extremists — a “foreign policy” masterstroke that is still paying dividends today. (Quite literally paying dividends for investors in the defense, security and military servicing industries.)

But at least Obama did qualify his embrace of Reagan’s traditional and realistic bipartisan foreign policy, saying that he would emulate “some” of Reagan’s approaches. So maybe he will skip on the election-fixing treason and go for supporting mass-murdering militarist regimes instead? Or are we being too cynical? Perhaps Obama means he will follow in the footsteps of some of Reagan’s more merciful and reconciliatory policies — such as the time the Great Communicator laid a wreath at a cemetery where Nazi SS soldiers lie in honored burial: a clear signal from the U.S. president to these dead mass-murderers that “all is forgiven” at last.

Obama offers no qualification at all to his championing of George Herbert Walker Bush however. Indeed, his was the first name uttered in the paean to bipartisan foreign policy. But here too one quails (and Quayles) at the prospect of toting up the high crimes and monstrous follies of this “traditional realist” whom Obama promises to emulate. Should we start with Bush’s arming and funding of Saddam Hussein — long after the latter “gassed his own people” — and Bush’s later perversion of the legal process to cover up his largess to the dictator? Or Bush’s pointless and unnecessary invasion of Panama, which killed hundreds if not thousands of innocent people and drove at least 20,000 people from their homes, all to remove a long-time U.S. intelligence “asset,” Manuel Noriega, who in the 1970s received fat payments of bribes from the director of the CIA — one George Herbert Walker Bush?

Or perhaps we should follow Obama’s example and point to “the way [Bush] handled the Persian Gulf War.” Yes, let’s take a closer look at that, since Obama clearly sees it as a model for his own presidency. Here’s an excerpt from an earlier piece, Scar Tissue: How the Bushes Brought Bedlam to Iraq (where you will also find much more on Bush’s backroom tryst with Saddam):

Then came Bush’s “Gulf War,” when he turned on his protégé after Saddam made the foolish move of threatening the Kuwaiti royals – Bush’s long-time business partners [in the oil business], going back to the early 1960s. Saddam’s conflict with Kuwait centered on two main issues: first, his claim that the billions of dollars Kuwait had given Iraq during the war with Iran was simply straightforward aid to the nation that was defending the Sunni Arab world from the aggressive onslaught of the Shiite Persians. The Kuwaitis insisted the money had been a loan, and demanded that Saddam pay off. There was also Saddam’s claim that Kuwait was “slant-drilling” into Iraqi oilfields, siphoning off underground reserves from across the border. These disputes raged for months; a deal to resolve them was brokered by the Arab League, but fell apart at the last minute when Kuwait suddenly rejected the agreement, saying, “We will call in the Americans.”

How worried was Bush about the situation? Let’s look at the historical record. In the two weeks before the invasion of Kuwait, Bush approved the sale of an additional $4.8 million in “dual-use” technology to factories identified by the CIA as linchpins of Hussein’s illicit nuclear and biochemical programs, the Los Angeles Times reports. The day before Saddam sent his tanks across the border, Bush obligingly sold him more than $600 million worth of advanced communications technology. A week later, he was declaring that his long-time ally was “worse than Hitler.”

Yes, the Kuwaitis had called in their marker. Like a warlord of old, Bush used the US military as a private army to help his business partners. After an extensive bombing campaign that openly – even gleefully – mocked international law in its targeting of civilian infrastructure (a tactic repeated in Serbia by Bill Clinton – now regarded as an “adopted son” by Bush), the brief 100-hour ground war slaughtered fleeing Iraqi conscripts by the thousands – while, curiously, allowing Saddam’s crack troops, the aptly-named Republican Guard, to escape unharmed. Later, these troops were used to kill tens of thousands of Shiites who had risen in rebellion against Saddam – at the specific instigation of George Bush, who not only abandoned them to their fate, but specifically allowed Saddam to use his attack helicopters against the rebels, and also ordered US troops to block Shiites from gaining access to arms caches. It was one of the worst, most murderous betrayals in modern history – and has been almost entirely expunged from the American memory.

Then came the Carthaginian “peace” of the victors – Iraq sown with the salt of sanctions, which led to the unnecessary death of at least 500,000 children, according to UN’s conservative estimates. The sanction regime actually strengthened Saddam’s grip on Iraqi society, as the ravaged people were reduced to surviving on government handouts of food….

Yes, these are truly worthy examples of the kind of traditional, realistic, bipartisan foreign policy that we need more of. And my stars, isn’t that Obama a breath of fresh air, promising to take us back to that golden age of yore!

Next up: “Sen. Barack Obama said today that he would appoint Supreme Court Justices ‘like John Roberts, Samuel Alito and, in some ways, Antonin Scalia,’ in ‘a return to a more traditional, realistic, bipartisan judicial philosophy…..'”

P.S. We’ve said it before and no doubt we’ll say it again: an Obama presidency, like a H. Clinton presidency, will mean some measure of genuine mitigation of some of the worst depredations of the Bush Regime. There’s no question about that. But no one who openly embraces the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan and George Bush I, or John F. Kennedy for that matter, is going to change in any substantial way the militarist-corporate machine that has already destroyed our democracy, gutted our Constitution, corrupted our system beyond all measure (and probably beyond all repair), and killed – and keeps on killing – hundreds of thousands of innocent people, decade after decade. Given this fact, every American voter must decide, in his or her own conscience, this question: Should I act to mitigate some small measure of the mass suffering wrought by this machine; or does that action, that participation, merely legitimize the machine, and strengthen it?

That is the only question at issue in this election. For none of the prospective presidents offer any hope – audacious or otherwise – of any kind of root-and-branch reform of the imperial system, which will continue to grind on — in its traditional, realistic, bipartisan way.

see

Interview: Ralph Nader Says We’re Living Under Corporate Fascism (link)

9 thoughts on “Hope Abandoned: Obama Stands Up for Murder & Plunder by Chris Floyd

  1. I think you’re referring to “NSAM 263”, which is a very good point to raise Joe, though there has been so much revisionism, spin and conspiracy stories about “Special K” that discussions about him can turn into as big a quagmire as Vietnam itself! It is not really my view that he was withdrawing. I think that it was just a monumental case of US hubris and underestimating the enemy (as usual).

    Kennedy withdrew around 1000 “advisors” (troops) in 1963, because he was advised by McNamara and Taylor that Vietnam would be something of a “cakewalk” (oops! that was another war 😉 sorry, McNamara predicted that most of the NLA/NLF would be crushed in short order, and that the war would probably be “completed by the end of 1965”. This was not so much a “withdrawal” as a hopelessly premature declaration of “Mission Accomplished” before the war had even started properly. McNamara advised “an increase in the military tempo” of the war with the withdrawal of a few troops in 1963, and the withdrawal of all troops by 1965. This was not a wish to extricate themselves from a quagmire, remember, this was a long time before the days of the “Tet Offensive” and all that. They were so hubristic that they thought that they could crush the might of Uncle Ho with around fifteen thousand troops in a year or two!

  2. Paul makes a good point about the Kennedy brothers obsession with Castro. The fact that Obama has made reference to these three American failures, just shows his willingness to feed the American people propoganda about the facts. He has no interest in informing the people about the truth. He only wants Americans to cling tighter to their false beliefs and misguided conclusions.

  3. Kennedy did want to leave Vietnam, however they referred to it as a “steady march into the quagmire of Vietnam”. In this sense they are not incorrect. He did not pull out like so many Americans hoped he would. He waited too long, and that menat his death. He also authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion. This is not incorrect. The only reason Kennedy posed a threat to those in power is because he turned on them. He was involved in all of their inside information trading. He knew what the purpose and cause of those trerrible failures were. He may have realized too late that he was turning on the wrong people. But the info on Kennedy here is not wrong. It is vague and it does not tell the whole story. But it is far from wrong.

  4. Once again Lo, many thanks. I try!

    Anyway, back to the subject at hand, Obama’s “new brain”, the man behind his “return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy” was also a supporter of that charming fellow Pol Pot and his lovable band of rogues the “Khmer Rouge”.

    “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the Khmer Rouge. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him. But China could.” – Zbignew Brzezinski 1979.

    I have yet to figure out how supporting Pol Pot was going to “help the Cambodian people”. That’s a little like saying that Henry Kissinger wanted to help the Cambodian people when he dropped three million tons of bombs on them without even having the decency to declare war first. But I digress.

    Obama is not about “change”, he’s about hypocrisy, ambition and veneer just like Clinton and McCain.

  5. Again, no problem Lo.

    Regarding the article above

    “…Sen. Barack Obama said Friday he would return the country to the more “traditional” foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan…
    The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush’s father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan….”

    Do you remember our little discussion about Brzezinski Lo? 😉 “bipartisan realistic policy” means a return to theories such as the “Grand Chessboard”, though of course, Obama left Carter off his list as well as Clinton. Floyd is right to refer to “A relentless flood of crimes, murders, atrocities, deceptions, corruptions, mass destruction and state terrorism”, though he should have mentioned the “blowback” that inevitably comes with such folly too.

  6. “Kennedy didn’t support Operation Mongoose. Kennedy didn’t support the Bay Of Pigs. ”

    Oh yes he did! Though the original idea of overthrowing Castro was started under Eisenhower.

    Kennedy himself took the blame for the “Bay of Pigs” (Operation “Zapata”) fiasco publicly through his failure to provide air cover. He wanted “plausible deniabilty” but it all blew up in his face and he had to “come clean” about it. There is no room for doubt on this issue I’m afraid. It’s a little like saying that George W. Bush didn’t support the invasion of Iraq.

    After this embarrassing failure, both Kennedys were obsessed with the idea of obliterating Castro, especially Robert Kennedy, who was pathological about it to avenge the humiliation of his brother. He was positively rabid about the project, so much so that he exasperated the CIA with his recklessness, and it was a major factor in Castro’s decision to accept ballistic missiles from Khrushchev. I have researched these topics extensively through my work on Ted Shackley, who was the head of the JM/WAVE station in Miami at the time.

    http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1946_cold_war/castro_cuba_missles.html
    http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/ea/17739.htm

    As for Kennedy “pulling out of Vietnam”, you’ve been watching too many Oliver Stone movies! Though of course, it will always be debatable whether he would have followed the same line as LBJ.

  7. Kennedy didn’t support Operation Mongoose. Kennedy didn’t support the Bay Of Pigs. John F Kennedy is hated by the Cuban exiles for having been soft on Cuba. They blame Kennedy for the Bay Of Pigs failure. John F Kennedy wanted to leave Vietnam. Why do you think Kennedy was killed? Kennedy posed a threat to the powers that be. I’m not saying Kennedy didn’t have any faults, but your information about Kennedy is wrong.

Comments are closed.