Obama on the Brink

Barack Obama is betraying his promise of change and is in danger of becoming just another political hack.

Yes, just like former maverick John McCain, who has refashioned himself as a mindless rubber stamp for the most inane policies of the miserably failed Bush administration. Both candidates are embracing, rather than challenging, the fundamental irrationality of Bush's "war on terror," which substitutes hysteria for rational analysis in appraising the dangers the country faces.

Terrorism is a social pathology that needs to be excised with the surgical precision of detective work, inspired by a high level of international cooperation, the very opposite of the unilateral war metaphor that recruits new generations of terrorists in the wake of the massive armies we dispatch. At a time when we desperately need a president to remind us we have nothing to fear but fear itself, we are increasingly being treated to a presidential campaign driven by fear.

Both candidates supported the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which has everything to do with violating the basic freedoms of our citizens and nothing to do with making them safer. There was no shortage of alarming intelligence warning the Bush administration of the impending 9/11 attacks, but rather an utter lack of competency in evaluating the abundance of evidence.

To use the failure of the president to pay attention to his daily-briefing warning of an impending attack as an excuse for shredding the fundamental rights of our citizens is appallingly illogical. Providing legal protection to the government and the telecommunications giants for unfettered spying on the people does not represent the change we desperately need.

Nor does the battle of the warmongers that has dominated the discussion of foreign policy in the past week. Obama has one-upped McCain's bluff to win in Iraq by raising the prospect of an even more deadly quagmire in Afghanistan. If his goal was to remind us that Democrats have been more often the party of irrational wars than the Republicans, he has succeeded all too well.

Whereas Dwight Eisenhower refused to wage war against Vietnam and Cuba, it was John Kennedy, that charmer of change, who launched both of those military disasters. And then there was that crafty "progressive" Lyndon Baines Johnson, who in order to defeat Barry Goldwater, the right-wing menace of his day, lied about a nonexistent attack in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify escalating a war that killed almost 59,000 Americans and 3.4 million Indochinese.

Even less noticed is the responsibility of Democrats for the mess in Afghanistan, which provided the incubator for the 9/11 attacks. It was under Jimmy Carter, highly admired as an ex-president, that the specter of modern Islamic fanaticism erupted, largely as a monster of our own creation when we supported Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

Carter's national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, when asked in a January 1998 interview with the French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur whether he regretted "having given arms and advice to future terrorists," replied: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"

I was reminded of that horrid stain on the record of Democratic stewardship of our foreign policy while cleaning out my garage last week. I came across a 1996 press release from the publisher of "From the Shadows--The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War," written by current Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, the ultimate insider, who was on Carter's National Security Council staff. The publisher's book promo boasts that thanks to Gates, who ran the CIA for many years, we learn of "Carter's never-before-revealed covert support to Afghan mujahedeen--six months before the Soviets invaded."

In short, the Democratic president baldly lied to us when he justified support for the Muslim fanatics in Afghanistan who were battling the secular government in Kabul as a necessary Cold War response to a Soviet invasion. That Gates' account is accurate was affirmed in a blurb for the book by none other than Brzezinski, hailing it as "a most impressive achievement ... especially pertaining to the U.S. policy on Afghanistan."

It is hardly reassuring that Brzezinski has resurfaced in presidential politics, this time as an occasional adviser to Barack Obama, or that there is talk that Obama, in a burst of bipartisan enthusiasm, might ask Gates to stay on as defense secretary.

At this point, I throw up my hands and plead with the candidate who I hoped would be that much-needed agent of change: Please prove me wrong.

Robert Scheer is author of a new book, "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America."

Comments

[schmuckwithearlaps]

Robert, this might just be the most important post ever written by any political commentator. It takes courage for a liberal to tell it the way it is about the sad history of our foreign policy. You have made a compelling case, and painted a vivid picture of failure. You have also challenged Obama in the way he needs to hear it.

[brighterside]

Robert I have always respected what you write. But this articles has too many points that I disagree with.

First you stated the that terrorist threat of nuclear weapons should not be used as a political platform of fear. I do agree with you on that. However, when do we bring up the subject of terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons? Russia has failed economically and have vast numbers of nuclear weapons that can easily make there way to the black market. Lets not put that thought aside that terrorism can get their hands on such weapons if they ever want to. Obama wants to make sure that this doesn't happen and I couldn't agree with him more.

Secondly, the Cuban missile crisis was handled magnificently by JFK. We did not end up in a war unlike Vietnam. Instead we used tough diplomacy against the mighty USSR to give in to our demands.

Just think about it. JFK was caught in a very tough position. Do we risk nuclear war or do we give in to the demands of the Russians thus weakening our stance as a super power? We did neither. In turn, JFK possibly saved the lives of millions of people and prevented nuclear war through the use of tough diplomacy. The same tough diplomacy that Obama wants to use in pressuring rogue nations as Iran.

[mexicanamerican1948]

The President is the President. The reality, if you look at foreign policy in the last 50 years, the policy of the two parties is the same. The leftist, new-left policy will never work, nor rightist ,extremes never work. America is basically Centrist does not matter if you hate Bush one or Two, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or Carter. It is all the same. If leftist want a leftest president, Obama is not going to be the man. You will find him very close to the policy of Bush and all presidents before him.. Join the real world. If you want a leftist president, perhaps Nader is your man or John Paul on foreign policy is an option for you, but they are not going anywhere

[Jeffomil]

The only important thing is to get ELECTED! Let's keep our eyes on the PRIZE. Whatever shift Obama makes to the center, his presidency would be markedly different than McCain/Bush.... and in a far better way. He may need to position himself "strategically" more to the center now. We shouldn't think that's how he'll govern necessarily. First he has to get ELECTED. The PRIZE.

[Roxanna]

You start to wonder Just Who is The commander and Chief? Is it the Army with a Puppet President?

[legalclubs]

I'm not even sure there is a real difference between the Obama position and the Bush/McCain position anymore. Obama says he has no problem leaving a force in Iraq on a long term basis (like McCain's 100 year statement) and that he is going to follow the advice of the commanders on the ground even if it pushes back his general pullout timeline and Bush/McCain are talking about "goals" of removing the vast majority of our troops in 2 years. Is this whole issue just a wash now? This whole race to the middle is so stupid, I have no idea what these guys actually stand for now.

[MissLouise]

Sure, Robert. Let's encourage Obama to position himself as a left-wing dove on the issue of terror--let's see where that gets us.

[BushBites]

Yeah, that was my first thought too.

[nikto]

Me Three.

[Ockham]

As much as I wish Obama could say what's on his mind, it's not going to win him the presidency. After Americans have been spoon fed the term "War on Terror" as if terror were suddenly a corporeal thing, it's now a term that's commonly accepted. The truth is, the only way we're going to rectify this situation is by, as Obama has said, getting out of Iraq relatively quickly and enlisting our allies support in cleaning up the situations in Afghanistan and Jerusalem.

Obama's got the world in a frenzy. I think I trust him enough to say he won't disappoint. Those are MY politics of hope.

[ghostsofamerica]

Have I told you recently you are terrific? If not, well, you are!

Both parties are using the WAR ON TERROR just as the war on communism, to mobilize and make money for EMPIRE, or neverending war machine.

read SAVAGE MULES, about the democratic history.

a Hegelian dialectic of good cop bad cop to keep people from taking back the power from the CORPORATIONS that have no conscience but excrete war machine funding to get rich.

Will America turn off their shadow government and the propaganda machines in their livingrooms and go to the streets with pots and pans and bang the drums for the US CONSTITUTION and the REPUBLIC? I somehow doubt it.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Well, yeah

That "pots -n-pans buisiness"? I kind of doubt that too................

tm

[zjr909]

Thank you, Mr. Scheer, for being someone who "gets it." It's refreshing to hear Senator Obama discussed rationally amidst all the cheerleading. It's becoming clear to all but the most rabid followers that Obama poses absolutely no threat to the status quo of the past eight years. The word "change", however many times spoken, does not actually constitute change; only a different set of policies and actions would constitute change. There's no reason to think a President Obama will take a single step toward rolling back any of Bush's excesses; rather, he'll follow behind his predecessor in robotocally performing every task the corporatocracy demands of him. Democracy went on life support the day the cult of the celebrity caught the electorate's attention. I say let's pull the plug by giving chronological twelve year olds the right to vote.

[Splainin2Do]

Yes, we need Morpheus. Obama is clearly not the one. We must escape the Matrix. Pull the plug.

[brighterside]

Poses absolutely no threat to the status quo? Thats a pretty hefty accusation that can be debunked quite easily. I for one disagree with the article. I for one support O'bama's stance against nuclear weapons and to make sure that terrorist do not have access to such weapons. Remember that we have lots of enemies with deep pockets. Russia has many nuclear weapons that can easily be sold in the black market if need be. I for one think this issue has been ignored and should be brought to the open.

[luvangelHussein330]

Oh robert...an artilce i think you should read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10collins.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[leonardse]

There has been a fallacy for a long time that even if you don't respect the elected President, we need to respect the Office of the President. That may have had some credibility in the past, but the current President has shown that Americans need not respect the Office of the President because he has bastardized and used the office to engage in countless criminal activities. He has changed the position (with the help of Congress) to something that is unrecognizable. In addition, the office of the Vice-President has been dishonored by the worst criminal in our History, including Benedict Arnold.
This does not take into consideration the criminal activity of the AG, Sec'y of Defense, State Department and the many other underlings that have supported this Administration. I am not sure if and when anyone will be able to correct this blight on this country, but I don't think it will be John McCain.

[SwampeastMike]

Please try to always respect the office of President. While the current holder of the position has completely lost my respect I have come pity him. Despite his extremely priviledged upbringing he remains ignorant to the world and overly subject to manipulation.

[BarryChamplain]

Nonsense. Anyone you catch flogging the idea of "respect" for this or that is only attempting to cloak the suspect with a protective layer of infallibility, and that's pretty much it.

It's hardly surprising that this administration or its toadies would want to shamelessly exploit the "office" of POTUS... why not? They don't care who they use, to obtain cover for their actions.

They have tried to conflate support for the Iraq disaster with "respect for OUR TROOPS", as if criticizing the warmongers who made policy is the moral equivalent to a spit in the face to that poor, brave, perky soldier from Topeka... BLEYAHH!

And if you're old enough, you'll remember that this crap, both about the "office" and about the "troops", was first trotted-out in the Nixon administration; the descendants of whom run this one. With about the same level of respect for the Constitution. You'd think we'd remember the con, from the first time around. Nah. Simply invoke "the TROOPS [sniff!]", and everybody turns white, gets weepy, and backs off of the criminals in the Bush administration predictably, like trained monkeys.

If the guy in the office stinks, the office stinks. Can the jingoism, and just air the damn thing out. Then it won't stink, anymore.

[RRonin]

I believe that a lot of folks feel an unspoken hope for their particular candidate. Many McCain supporters believe that McCain has a secret plan for victory (one he thought up during his years of imprisonment in the Hanoi Hilton) that will work a transformative magic in Iraq and will spread throughout the Middle East. That somehow the suffering he endured will reward him as THE leader they believe he was meant to be. Some Obama supporters believe that once elected he will revert to the visionary who spoke to them in "Dreams of My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope." The truth lies somewhere between what Scheer describes and those dreams.

[JanetE]

Yeah, I am really sorry I read this article. It is very difficult for everyone to understand and believe that the MEN we hire to run our country are just that ......... MEN. Human. You know, fallible. They make mistakes. They do not always have good judgement. And being reminded of the choices our former presidents made, especially Lyndon B. Johnson, makes me feel like throwing up.

I know in my heart that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has the judgment necessary to keep us safe and fix our economy. I guess we have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Perhaps it really was time for a WOMAN and her former president husband. With experience comes wisdom and better judgment. I can see that in my own life, can you see it in yours?

[texfly]

And how do you make this assessment?

"I know in my heart that neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has the judgment necessary to keep us safe and fix our economy."

I'd like to know.

[Micah616]

I suppose you're referring to the WOMAN who advocated the "obliteration" of Iran. Some change that would be.

[Anie]

She didn't 'advocate' "obliteration' -- she said that if their leaders were planning to make a *nuclear* attack on Israel, it would be good for them to remember that we have the capacity to obliterate them and that though it was a terrible thing to say, their remembering this might deter them from doing it since that would be a tragedy. And then some.

[jmpurser]

I think Obama's stances on FISA, Abortion, and the death penalty have moved him safely out of the "agent of change" category well before he began talking about terrorism.

Hold your noses and do what you have to do progressives and liberals. It will be at least another 4 years before you get a candidate.

[Titonwan]

I knew, when Brzezinkski was brought in, that it was all over. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) have their hooks in Obama now. Their goal is one world government. You don't have any say in this. Resistance is futile (at least that's what they'd have you believe). Time to impeach Bush with or without Barack's, Pelosi's or Reid's blessings. John Conyers needs to be hammered continuously to make him relent. Dennis knows (as should everybody) that once impeachment proceedings are enacted, the President can NOT grant pardons! Zilch, nada, none. If we're going to see any justice at all for the last eight years, we have to get started NOW. Go to "After Downing Street" website and find out how to fight for our rights! Sign Wexlar's and Kucinich's petitions. Bug your Congressmen. And let's make a fuss big enough to warn any future President that there's consequences to acting a fool. (Yeah, that means you too, Obama). He lost me on FISA. Totally.

[WorkingClass]

If you always do what you always did you will always get what you always got.

[mjc]

It isn't just Obama's foreign policy positions. What I worry about are his challenges to Roe vs. Wade, his support for the death penalty for crimes not murder, his advocacy of no gun control under certain circumstances. FISA and not taking the route of the federal finance campaign funds and his now non support of NAFTA, now that the primary stuff is gone, those are the scary things as well. Being tough on terrorism is the kind of crap we got from George Bush. Can this country afford another war in the MIDEAST? Is diplomacy going to be a lost art in the Obama administration?

[DRaymond]

Kennedy approved the Bay of Pigs invasion mostly because he felt that he needed to prove to folks that he was tough on communists. And where did that pressure to prove himself come from? The answer is mostly Republicans, but also in large part from the conservative branch of his own party.

So the Democratic party was going to go ahead and pass FISA ammendments with a veto-proof margin and we whine about how Obama decided to go along rather than hand the 527 attack ad producers a gift on a silver platter.

But where are our complaints about those 20 other Senators and 105 other Congressional Democrats? Where are our complaints about the half of the democratic party who cheered on '3am" attack ads and 'not being ready on day one'?

The rest of the Democratic Party gives him a great big shove and then screams "Oh My God! He Moved!"