The Men Behind Obama

[ParanoidAndroid]

Those who subscribe to Conspiracy Theories or conspiracy spin, in particular (and in the case of those asserting something reprehensible in Obama and Brzezinski’s association) without facts in evidence of the perspectives they express.

Are you talking about people or a hypothetical type? What's your type?

It’s not addressed to you specifically, though you seem to be in that number (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong by addressing my points as presented in paragraphs 2-4 of post #53 above or by explaining that I'm wrong in my perception that you are among those asserting a "foul" in Brzezinski and Obama's association).

I've no interest in proving you wrong about anything.

One fact that appears not to bother your type is that Brezezinksi has showed no remorse for his part in stirring up violence and Islamic extremism in Afghanistan and continues to believe that it's fine to kill, maim and destroy in order to "protect US interests" (a euphemism for colonial conquest and looting).

What good has the parasitic US empire brought to its hosts? Is Obama anything more than just its latest face?

…the powers of deflection are strong with this one…


My type? An Intelligent, witty blond; about 5’10” tall with an uncanny knack for recognizing utter crap for just that…or anyone who thinks critically before spouting off.

I’m not asking that you “prove me wrong”. Read the paragraphs to which I referred you; I’m suggesting that you coherently make your case with some facts that demonstrate the particularly sinister nature you (and others) seem to perceive in Obama’s association with Brzezinski. Or, don’t; I’m fine with leaving things with you not connecting your own dots and appearing as an unfounded conspiracy theorist…makes no difference to me.

As for Obama’s value to “the empire’s parasitic hosts”, most of the reasonable “hosts” I speak with are prudently reserving assessment until there are some facts to weigh. We leave the tragically speculative guess work to the crackpots and Las Vegas odds-makers.

 

[JihadJane]

... Thats just the way big power politics works, unfortunately. As much as we might prefer to live in a different world, we gotta deal with the one we have, not the one we want to have.

I think you are still misssing the point of the OP and the point of scutinising the people that Obama is surrounding himself with. Most of these characters, like Bzrezinski, are the same old same old. Where's the change?

There are alternatives to the US' hyper-violent, global, self-destructive, imperial rampage. It's not inevitable. Industrial civilisation is in crisis on several fronts and needs co-operation not competition.The world is looking for a change from US' bullying criminality and many appear to think Obama represents it. How is their perception justified?

 

[JihadJane]

…the powers of deflection are strong with this one…


My type? An Intelligent, witty blond; about 5’10” tall with an uncanny knack for recognizing utter crap for just that…or anyone who thinks critically before spouting off.

Ooh! Sounds just like me except for the hair color and height. "Uncritically" or "critically"?

Is there a witty, catchy name for our type that other people can use to demean us with in a shorthand way?

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

...How is their perception justified?

Intended or otherwise, you have keen ability to display irony.

How is your apparent perception (detailed over the course of 2 pages of posts) justified? Your crystall ball seems to forecast "more of the same policy of empire" without demonstrating why via clear concise cause and effect evidence; you're no better than blind Obama supporters at this early date.

...psssst...address my points: see posts #57 and #53...

ETA: JJ, has it occurred to you that Obama won't even begin to provide evidence of his conduct as a president for another 2 months (+)? As one of the more reasonable posters here at JREF is fond of suggesting, perhaps you can show us the part of Obama's policy that was written by Brzezinski in lieu of (the nonexistent) demonstrable international thug-like actions on Obama's part.

 

[Praktik]

I think you are still misssing the point of the OP and the point of scutinising the people that Obama is surrounding himself with. Most of these characters, like Bzrezinski, are the same old same old. Where's the change?

Actually if you're asking about "change", then Brezinski, a hard-boiled realist (realist denotes a strain of political thought vis a vis international relations) really does represent a significant change from the "hard Wilsonianism" of the dreamers in the Bush administration.

Take a look at his approach to Iraq or Iran - VERY different from the Bush crowd. He can see the limits of US power whereas the neocons blinded themselves to those limits and expected their fantasies to turn to into reality.

Give me a realist administration rather than an administration of idealist dreamers like the Neocons any day of the week. But if you're hoping for an Amy Goodman/Chomsky type approach to international relations you're just as much divorced from reality as the Kristols and Kagans are.

Baby steps. Maybe a dose of realism is exactly what we need right now. And before America could ever pull back from its pre-eminent role it needs to be in a much less powerful position than it is now - say after a decade or more of continuing economic decline and another few foreign policy boondoggles like Iraq.

The conditions just aren't right for that yet. Believe it or not Jihad Jane, our views of how we would prefer to have the world are probably very similar - our difference lies not with that, but with how we appraise the way to get there.

Excising the Brezinskis won't change much - there needs to be a sea change in the political establishment and culture, America would need to be in a very different position vis a vis its rivals in order for an Amy Goodman or Ron Paul wet dream to be realized. Meanwhile, don't let your understandable disgust for the consequences of US policy lead you to paint all policy makers with the same brush. There is a big difference between a Kristol and a Brezinski, between a Perle and a Kissinger. While all of them may have America act in ways we would disagree with, the ways in which they would do so cannot be claimed to be identical.

Baby steps. First - we remove all the neocon dreamers whose perception of America's self-interest is completely flawed and dangerously innacurate.

 

[Praktik]

I guess a question I have for you as I've been mulling this on the backburner is that since you are couching your argument here in moral terms - in terms of the misery of the Afghan people - how much of that misery is a direct result of Brezinski the individual?

The country had been the site of war for decade upon decade, there were already two conflicting factions: communists and islamists, and factions within those factions. The Soviets were already deeply involved for years, supporting "their guy" in Afghanistan against all domestic comers. America's involvement in supplying arms started only very shortly before the Soviets invaded, the conflict was already well on its way to deterioration with political support for the Soviet puppet collapsing in the face of an Islamist cause that was drawing fighters from across the Middle East on moral and identity grounds. Those fighters and aid from the region for the Islamists would have continued to flow whether America got involved or not...

Would there not have still been a bloody conflict between the weakening Soviet-backed government and a growing and more assertive Islamist opposition? Brezinski may have approved plans developed by intelligence agencies to funnel arms to Islamist groups - but did this do much more than add a bit more fuel to a fire that was already burning brightly?

You can dismiss it as a "hypothetical", but I argue that the Afghan people's "misery level" would be pretty similar even if America stayed out of the conflict - history was working its way towards a bloody power struggle and America merely aided one side of that in a minor way. I'm not sure that its reasonable to hang all the effects of this conflict on Afghan society on the head of Brezinski, the CIA or America generally - at least I see no way in which America abstaining from its minimal involvement there would have resulted in some sort of panacea of prosperity and security for Afghanistan. Besides, we also should consider the much-greater and deeper involvement of the "callous" Soviet Union, the brutality of the government they put in place and the fanaticism of the opposition - aren't these "misery generators" an order of magnitude more responsible than America for the "callous treatment" of the Afghan people?

I also think that Brezinski and others of the time like to over-inflate their impact: "Look, we *made* the Soviets get involved in their own Vietnam!" - well, did you really? Or was an authoritarian and forceful Soviet response to domestic threats to a client regime inevitable? I think this reduction of the conflict to a few simple inputs and outputs is commonplace and when its not done in a self-serving way like Brezinski's over-inflation of his impact its done in emotional ways (like your posts) designed to paint the conflict as purely the result of American realpolitik so as to better denigrate those Yankee Imperialist Dogs.

 

[JihadJane]

Intended or otherwise, you have keen ability to display irony.

How is your apparent perception (detailed over the course of 2 pages of posts) justified? Your crystall ball seems to forecast "more of the same policy of empire" without demonstrating why via clear concise cause and effect evidence; you're no better than blind Obama supporters at this early date.

Are you denying that Obama is perceived as being a force for change (for the better!)? If not, what solid evidence, beyond rhetoric, is there to support this perception?

Political forcasting works with considerably more solid information than a crystal ball gazing. Examining Obama's political appointees, for example, is a powerful indication of a likely future direction e.g.: Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff

Why should blind people be less politically astute than sighted people?

...psssst...address my points: see posts #57 and #53...

-------i.e.: "...facts that demonstrate Obama’s debilitating shortcomings."

An article exploring how Obama will be debilitated:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21193.htm

-------i.e.: "Another obvious possibility is that those who find this association between Obama and Brzezinski to be so odious is that you perceive Brzezinski to have some puppet master like pull with the president-elect. If this is the line of reasoning, then (again) make the case with facts demonstrating that degree of persuasion in their association."

Here you are asking me to support a position that I do not occupy. The interview extract I quoted above provides ample evidence as to why Brzezinski is an unhealthy influence on anyone seeking to respect life or who is concerned about the future well-being of humanity as a whole, political "realist" or not.

ETA: JJ, has it occurred to you that Obama won't even begin to provide evidence of his conduct as a president for another 2 months (+)?

Yes.

As one of the more reasonable posters here at JREF is fond of suggesting, perhaps you can show us the part of Obama's policy that was written by Brzezinski in lieu of (the nonexistent) demonstrable international thug-like actions on Obama's part.

Who has claimed that any part of Obama's foreign policy "was written by Brzezinski"?

-----------------

@ Praktik

Thanks for your comments and for your civility. I haven't time now to respond but may do later.

Meanwhile here are a couple of links I'd like to share:

----- A different approach than military violence to the energy crisis:

http://www.oildepletionprotocol.org/

----- An article on the Afghan people's "misery level":

'Afghanistan: The Promise and the Reality

Reckless Soldiers, Slappers and Smack':

"The only winners emerging from Afghanistan these days are the drug barons who preside over the world’s largest heroin trade and the pimps who control the Chinese prostitutes operating from the scores of bordellos and brothels which have emerged since the US military occupation."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21183.htm

Do you have figures for how much military aid was funnelled to Islamic fighters and who received it?

 

[Praktik]

No I don't have figures. I'm basing much of my knowledge on the political context of Afghanistan from Robert Fisk's excellent "The Great War for Civilization". He was there in the runup to the Soviet invasion and met with Osama and the Mujahideen. His book is less a "CIA worldbook" accounting of numbers and facts and more of a higher-level discussion of the politics of the place.

What I came away with from reading that book was that the Mujahideen were already internationalized (drawing recruits from across the region) and that much of their weaponry was Soviet-made (AK-47s abounded). He visited the offices of the puppet government and discussed their precarious political situation.

It really seems to me like the wheels of history were already on a track towards greater conflict there - with or without the Americans. The Afghans were already rebelling against a foreign influence and America cannot claim to have created that rebellion since it was a natural product of a foreign-imposed tyranny.

His meetings with the Mujahideen showed them to be a more than capable adversary, canny, smart - good at hiding and with strong support from the countryside.

In many ways I think there are parallels to Vietnam - a much more powerful foreign country has the hubris to think it can "drain the swamp" - but when the WHOLE SWAMP is against you, you're really fighting against an impossible tide, no matter how many of the enemy you kill. I think that the Soviets learned the same lesson the Americans learned and would have learned it even if America left the Mujahideen alone. The momentum was on their side both in Afghanistan and in the region.

 

[remirol]

A Two part interview with Webster Tarpley

After the first minute, the man hadn't said anything of substance. Closed the tab; tl;dw.

Does it ever actually say anything? If so, what?

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

Intended or otherwise, you have keen ability to display irony.

How is your apparent perception (detailed over the course of 2 pages of posts) justified? Your crystall ball seems to forecast "more of the same policy of empire" without demonstrating why via clear concise cause and effect evidence; you're no better than blind Obama supporters at this early date.

Are you denying that Obama is perceived as being a force for change (for the better!)? If not, what solid evidence, beyond rhetoric, is there to support this perception?

No. I’m 1) questioning your interpretation of what Obama meant by change. Being as he never expressly defined it, your version of his meaning is either a reach or a straw man; frankly, I am caring less be the second which. And 2) rejecting your unsupported speculations that Obama’s association with Brzezinski automatically equates to no change from the Bush imperialism.

Political forcasting works with considerably more solid information than a crystal ball gazing. Examining Obama's political appointees, for example, is a powerful indication of a likely future direction e.g.: Congressman Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff

Why should blind people be less politically astute than sighted people?

I’ll assume this is meant as baiting or a bad joke and leave it at that.

...psssst...address my points: see posts #57 and #53...

-------i.e.: "...facts that demonstrate Obama’s debilitating shortcomings."

An article exploring how Obama will be debilitated:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21193.htm

At best the article you linked speculates as to how Obama might be compromised, not “how Obama will be debilitated”.

-------i.e.: "Another obvious possibility is that those who find this association between Obama and Brzezinski to be so odious is that you perceive Brzezinski to have some puppet master like pull with the president-elect. If this is the line of reasoning, then (again) make the case with facts demonstrating that degree of persuasion in their association."

Here you are asking me to support a position that I do not occupy.

No, I gave you options of potential arguments I perceive in your posts, including an “other” option in case the first 2 were off-base.

The interview extract I quoted above provides ample evidence as to why Brzezinski is an unhealthy influence on anyone seeking to respect life or who is concerned about the future well-being of humanity as a whole, political "realist" or not.

At most, Brzezinski is an advisor. Brzezinski’s level of influence (regardless of the content of his advisories) on Obama will be determined by Obama, not Brzezinski, yes?

ETA: JJ, has it occurred to you that Obama won't even begin to provide evidence of his conduct as a president for another 2 months (+)?

Yes.

Excellent! Then what point(s) would you like to make that you are willing/able to support with some facts?

As one of the more reasonable posters here at JREF is fond of suggesting, perhaps you can show us the part of Obama's policy that was written by Brzezinski in lieu of (the nonexistent) demonstrable international thug-like actions on Obama's part.

Who has claimed that any part of Obama's foreign policy "was written by Brzezinski"?

If he isn’t demonstrably responsible for any of Obama’s policies, you have no hope of supporting your projection that Brzezinski is an "unhealthy influence" at present, that’s all.

 

[Skeptic]

A Two part interview with Webster Tarpley describing who is behind Obama and pulling the strings on the president elect and the plans behind it for the future

In my experience, such "documentaries" have the following format:

1). Find a politician you don't like.
2). Find someone -- anyone -- from the Ku Klux Klan / Black Panthers / Muslim Brotherhood / the IRS / whatever despised organization you want that is related in some way to said politician.
3). Interpret "related in some way" very liberally: if the politician once sat in a room with the hate-group related man, or said "hello" to him, or had the same zip code, etc., that's good enough.
4). Claim that is proof man from hated group is the "power behind the throne" and "controls" the politician.

We've seen this with every single president in American history. George Washington was supposed to be "controlled" by the Masons according to some. Bush, as we all know, was "controlled" by the shadowy neocons in the military-industrial complex. JFK was a puppet of the pope.

So now Obama, too, is "controlled" by a shadowy, hated, group? So what? Seems to be a practical requirement to becoming POTUS, anyway.