Barack Obama, RFK, and Blackwater

Forty years ago, in 1968, when Robert F. Kennedy started his campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, he made a point to travel to what today would be considered "red" states. Five days after he announced his candidacy, he visited Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee. At the University of Alabama, Kennedy said:

I have come here because I seek to join with you in building a better country and a united country. And I come to Alabama because I need your help. This election will mean nothing if it leaves us, after it is all over, as divided as we were when it began. We have to begin to put our country together again. So I believe that any who seek high office this year must go before all Americans: Not just those who agree with them, but also those who disagree; recognizing that it is not just our supporters, not just those who vote for us, but all Americans, who we must lead in the difficult years ahead. And this is why I have come, at the outset of my campaign, not New York or Chicago or Boston, but here to Alabama.

Barack Obama, in his victory speech last night following the Iowa caucuses, struck similar chords. He made an impassioned appeal to voters in "blue" states as well as "red" states. His primary campaigns have a grassroots fervor not seen in American politics since 1968, and he has sparked a nerve among young people who desire to move their country in a new direction away from the dismal politics of inaction, limitation, and scarcity to a new politics of hope and collective effort toward building a better future. It took forty years but perhaps today with Barack Obama we are seeing the continuation of the project that Robert Kennedy started in 1968.

In 1968, when Kennedy was gaining momentum and piling up primary victories it looked as though he would win the presidential nomination. But before he could be safely ensconced inside "the bubble" of 24-hour federal protection he was assassinated. And his progressive challenge to the war in Vietnam and to poverty at home was stopped in its tracks.

In 2008, Obama is gaining momentum, and hopefully people inside his organization are cognizant of the fact that he constitutes a very real threat to the likes of Blackwater, Dyncorps, Halliburton, and the hundreds of other private companies currently profiteering from the Iraq occupation.

Blackwater, that reactionary private mercenary outfit headed by the right-wing Christian nationalist Erik Prince stands to lose big time with an Obama presidency. Under George W. Bush Blackwater went from a marginal company with about $27 million in government contracts to a behemoth currently receiving over $1 billion in federal largesse.

It was revealed after the massacre of 17 Iraqis in Baghdad by Blackwater mercenaries that the U.S. State Department cannot function in Iraq without the services of the well-connected private company. Blackwater has a lot riding financially on keeping the Iraq occupation going and a lot to lose if it is ended. (Please read Jeremy Scahill's book Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.)

Under an Obama Administration Blackwater would no doubt be cut down to size along with Bush's other crony capitalist entities. The Blackwater Boys no doubt have close friends and ideological soul mates deep inside the federal security services.

In 1968, immediately following the killing of Robert Kennedy, President Lyndon Johnson signed an executive order providing Secret Service protection to all viable presidential candidates. His decision came as a result of the RFK assassination. But it was too late to prevent a tiny piece of lead from disfranchising millions of American voters.

Let's hope that the Blackwater elements can be thoroughly flushed out of the federal security services. Let's also hope that the Secret Service does a better job protecting Obama in the coming election year than Pakistan's ISI did in protecting Benazir Bhutto who didn't live to see election day.

What must be done with Blackwater is what President John F. Kennedy said he wanted to do with the CIA following the Bay of Pigs disaster: Tear it up into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK are rolling in their graves at the privatizing of the armed forces that George W. Bush has rammed through. With privatization comes a lack of control on the part of the government over its own military and security services. Bush gave Blackwater and companies like it a free ride on the government's dime and they no doubt want the gravy train to continue. Obama promises to apply the brakes. He therefore has some well-armed and lethally trained enemies that stand to lose their livelihoods if he follows through on his promise to end the Iraq occupation.

When the political winds blow toward radical change our recent history shows that there's a tendency for popular leaders on the left to face some form of unexplained tragedy. Let's hope the primary campaigns of 2008 only mirror those of 1968 in their grassroots energy, enthusiasm, and vision for the future.

Comments

[JoeyP]

Too bad Edwards supported the war or he might have my vote

[JoeyP]

You rightwingers who have been tossing your salad over "O my goodness, those sweet little Blackwater cub scouts would never hurt a political rival" -- like we all live in some Leave It To Beaver Norman Rockwell world where such a "conspiracy" can never happen -- it was one of your guys who blew up the Federal building in Oklahoma City, it was one of your guys who gunned down innocent people in Washington DC -- you right-wing dumbasses! You probably all work at the local burger shack or the bowling alley -- you don't even know that your man Bush is a fraud and a fascist and a murderer! You can't win a "debate" on the Internet because it's like the Special Olympics with you guys -- and even that's too much: At least the kids with Downs Syndrome are killing people with their lame ideas of the world.

[Rule Of Law]

Joseph, your concerns are well placed. While leaders in this country can be threatened by any wacko acting alone--and Oswald, being a CIA operative, was not one of them--our gravest concerns are from organized enemies of the people working for a continuation of the status quo, not assassinating for liberal change.

The American Leaders you note, worked for historic social change and were all threats to the established order. The reason I make a distinction between the "lone gunman" and a sophisticated cabal, well funded and armed, is that our Progressive leaders who have fallen to the assassin's bullets have all been murdered by the Corporate Elites, while attacks on right wing figures have all been deranged individuals.

As you point out further down in the posts: "Historically there have been plenty of them including Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Chile in 1973 -- how about Iran-contra? These were conspiracies." And those are just the tip of the iceberg that includes the Phillipines, Mexico, Indonesia, and many others. Our international political policy has been written by our Economic Policy for many many years, and those authors have changed history with a single bullet, or in the case of Iraq, with an entire war to insure their continued profits. And anyone who threatens that, becomes a target.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

I am grateful that this blog has circulated among some of the prominent right-wing web sites. It has ventilated an important issue among people who I hope do a lot of thinking about their views of the country and the role of assassination in our politics over the years. Hopefully, with all of the web chatter on the topic of the possibility, however remote, of a violent act directed at Obama at some point, I hope it will help us all make sure nothing like that can ever happen. Keep up the good work bloggers!

[rollingdivision]

RFK's murderer was motivated by his hatred of Israel and had nothing to do with the US political right.

[Nutcase]

There is no rational way to identify Obama as being in the same league as RFK.

[mommadona]

"In 2008, Obama is gaining momentum, and hopefully people inside his organization are cognizant of the fact that he constitutes a very real threat to the likes of Blackwater, Dyncorps, Halliburton, and the hundreds of other private companies currently profiteering from the Iraq occupation."

Thank you for bringing this up.
I've been very concerned for ANY "non-KoolAide" drinking candidate.

These people don't "do" national boundaries.
They believe they are onna 'Universal Soldier mission for Gawd'. They got the weaponry and they got the bucks and they got the American Mullah's backing.

They all need to be driven out of our country immediately.

And they CANNOT take their weaponry with them, since they only got it from their connections with our own 'armed forces' by contract.

Time to disband the "Onward Christian Soldiers"

[RPLinNYC]

Mr. Palermo,
I've always enjoyed your cogent, well-documented posts but you've lost me on this one. I never
thought a critical mind like yours would drink the Obama kool-aid!
The guy is being marketed as a feel-good cipher -
as if charisma (which i don't see btw) alone
will somehow 'bring together' the deeply entrenched special interests that have corrupted this country. Perhaps he appeals to the narcissism of his fans, who identify with this fantasy. There's far too much at stake this time for us to go on 'hope' alone. As commenter falgiano asks, above, "Has Obama gone on record anywhere about Blackwater et al?" So far I haven't heard anything substantive from him that will implement any of the changes we so sorely need: to get out of Iraq, universal healthcare and most importantly, to put a lid on the increasing corporatization of our so-called nation.

[AnnoyedMan]

Thomas Jefferson, whom liberals LOVE to quote when it comes to church/state issues, said that the tree of liberty must be watered with blood periodically to keep it alive. He also said that threat of an armed citizenry being able to overthrow its own government is what keeps that government honest. Yet, liberals have consistently sought to disarm themselves and the society, on the notion that the only the government should have firearms. In fact, if armed revolution ever become necessary, a disarmed society cannot fight it. Conversely, conservatives have fought tooth and nail to preserve that right to keep and bear arms, not just for themselves, but for the citizenry at large and for posterity.

These are some of the things that perplex me about conspiracy theorists, conservative OR liberal. There is a saying, probably not politically correct, that "life is too short to dance with ugly women (or men, if you prefer)." I believe that it is possible to be politically and socially aware without wallowing in un-provable paranoid fantasies.

By the way, in addition to being a conservative, I am also a "right wing gun nut" and a (GASP!) Christian, and a pretty fair shot out to about 800 yards. Yet, I would never take a pot shot at Senator Obama (or any other politician, for that matter). I don't know anybody like me who is that crazy. It is insulting to people like me to make the assertion that such a threat would automatically come from someone at my end of the political spectrum. Lee Harvey Oswald was an ardent communist and had the résumé to prove it. Whether or not he was part of a conspiracy, he did have the option to not do what he did, but he chose to do it anyway. He was a lefty commie, not a rightist; and he shot Jack Kennedy. I remember the day very clearly, and I remember him. At the end of the day, Mr. Palermo has forgotten his history, or at least conveniently ignored it, to offer his "right wing assassin" theory.

[AnnoyedMan]

Mr. Palermo said, "Bush gave Blackwater and companies like it a free ride on the government's dime and they no doubt want the gravy train to continue. Obama promises to apply the brakes. He therefore has some well-armed and lethally trained enemies that stand to lose their livelihoods if he follows through on his promise to end the Iraq occupation."

Look, I'll get this part out of the way right up front: I am a self-identified conservative who believes that it is possible for conservatives and liberals to have thoughtful discourse without the shedding of one another's blood. I don't think that liberals are automatically evil, and it disturbs me to think that so many liberals automatically think that conservatives are evil. Mr. Palermo's assertion strikes me as excessively paranoid, and it requires a belief that there exist dark forces which are arrayed against us and that we are powerless to prevent their malevolent schemes.

What perplexes me about this type of world view (and believe me, there are plenty of conservatives who also hold to it) is this: How does one reconcile the belief in such vast conspiracies with the practical application of Occam's Razor in logical thought processes? It simply can't be done. The very complexity of the theories testifies against their probability. Probability theory argues that, by definition, all assumptions introduce possibilities for error; If an assumption does not improve the accuracy of a theory, its only effect is to increase the probability that the overall theory is wrong. However, for that assumption to support the theory, it must be a empirically quantifiable fact - not just another theory itself. In other words, theories which are "supported" by other theories are actually not supported, and are therefore invalid themselves.

Another thing that perplexes me about this particular world view, particularly when it comes to modern liberalism, is that the very conspiracies that it seems to promote would also seem to mitigate for armed revolution.

…to be continued…

[dave]

The far right christo-fascists are filled with enough hate to try something like this. They will stand for war crimes when we win in 2008.

The vote was stolen in 2000 and 2004.

MLK, JFK,RFK Wellstone spoke truth to power and were murdered right-wing thugs.

When will america realize that right-wing christians are the true threat?

[Mgmax]

Of course, RFK was killed by an angry Palestinian, not the CIA, Halliburton, Cigarette Man or anything else. I'd say an American president has more to worry about a Bhutto-style car-bomb attack by middle easterners or Islamist sympathizers than your stale and puerile movie fantasies about the CIA killing people, but that, of course, is the reality that dare not speak its name in PC-land.

[JackBauer]

"What must be done with Blackwater is what President John F. Kennedy said he wanted to do with the CIA following the Bay of Pigs disaster:"

Oh you mean when Kennedy ratted on the people he secretly enabled in trying to rid the world of another loony left commie?

(Though I admit that prefixing lefty with loony is redundant.)

Then abandoning them when the going got tough, and leaving them to die? That Bay of Pigs?

But I thought the liberal-socialists and their fellow leftist travelers LOVED the CIA now? Isn't that the Plame line?

Gosh Mr. Palermo (sure, like that's your REAL name), you must be so conflicted.

Well you would be if anything resembing joined up thinking ever flitted across the vast empty space between your ears.

Just for the record, my fave CIA op is the part they played in righfully disposing of that psychopathic, malignant narcissist Ernie Guevera. It was a great day when they put a whole clip in him.

What's your?

[coffee260]

Lee Harvey Oswald was a lefty.

[BinBaldwin]

One problem with this logic. RFK was killed by a Palestinian who was angry at US Support for Israel. Today our sympathizers for the Palestinians are on the left such as Jimmy Carter.