http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2008/1/3
The show explores two topics of great relevance to our lives -- the presidential race, and the situation in Pakistan. The very fact of this broadcast might be deemed as sufficient evidence that the mainstream media is failing us completely. There is probably as much or more very important information provided here within a few minutes than all the mainstream media coverage combined. In addition, it features, among other thought-provoking speakers, journalist Allan Nairn, who views the election with an unashamedly "Chomskyesque" perspective. I almost felt I was listening to Chomsky himself, although that's uncharitable. Mr. Nairn is quite eloquent in his own right, and there's nothing particularly esoteric about Professor Chomsky's perspective, anyway. The astonishing thing is when you apply the most basic morality to the topic of American foreign policy, the problems of our world quickly achieve the status of actions for which we must take personal responsibility and endeavor to correct as quickly as possible.
The theme of the coverage for the presidential race was a look at the people who are solicited to advise the various candidates. The rogues gallery of advisors in every camp offers a dim prospect for real change from any corner, including the most progressive. It lends credence to my claim on New Year's Day that this crop of hopefuls is likely to still disappoint, and emphasizes how much work we need to do to bring new perspective to American government.
The conclusion reached by Goodman, Nairn and fellow journalist Kelly Vlahos was that there is almost no difference between the candidates, even across party lines. My own opinion is there is some significant difference regarding some domestice policies, and even in foreign policy, which was the focus in this context. As we've seen all too often, however, foreign policy problems result from both Democratic and Republican administrations. Mr. Nairn is at his most eloquent when he makes the most natural, and most Chomskyesque, connection between American foreign policy and human rights abuses around the world. Speaking of Hillary Clinton's advisors, for example:
Madeleine Albright, she was the main force behind the Iraq sanctions that killed more than 400,000 Iraqi civilians. General Wesley Clark, he was the one who ran the bombing of Serbia in the former Yugoslavia, came out and publicly said that he was going after civilian targets, like electrical plants, like the TV station there. Richard Holbrooke, in the Carter administration he was the one who oversaw the shipment of weapons to the Indonesian military as they were invading—illegally invading East Timor and killing a third of the population there, and he was the one who kept the UN Security Council from enforcing its resolution against that invasion. Strobe Talbott, he was the one who, during the Clinton administration, oversaw Russia policy, a backing of Yeltsin, which resulted in turning over the national wealth to the oligarchs and a drop in life expectancy in much of Russia of about fifteen years—massive, massive death. And you have various backers of the Iraq invasion and occupation and the recent escalation, people like General Jack Keane, Michael O’Hanlon and others. That’s just Clinton.
Mr. Nairn is actually being somewhat conservative in his accounting of such events as the tragic sanctions on Iraqi citizens. It was in 1999, I believe, that Madeleine Albright was asked on 60 Minutes about reports that the sanctions had led to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children. She responded that she thought it was worth it. I remember that one.
None of the candidates look very impressive regarding their choice of advisers, including Obama, and when you consider how independent Obama's internet financing could allow him to be, it's very troubling. I'm hoping that, as we become more clearly aware that we are our brother's keeper, we can continue to put more people in office who balk, as we would, at these abuses. I'm betting that most of you, when you're made aware of what's going on, will be active in helping to put some genuinely moral, and preferably courageous, people in office, and as long as facilities such as this open internet -- and Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! -- exist, you're going to be made aware.
The second segment about Pakistan is just disturbing, and well worth your time if you watch the entire show. It's a more realistic look at Benazir Bhutto, along with legitimate concerns over how many Al Qaeda sympathizers might have infiltrated Pakistan's half-million strong military with potential access to their nuclear weapons. Can you say "blowback"?
All we can do is take things one step at a time. Vote for your candidate, and work on those candidates after they're elected, in particular to enable full public funding of elections. One of the problems with public funding is the courts tend to view spending limits as unconstitutional, and they're likely to find new justifications to limit public funding in the future. This is probably an excellent candidate for constitutional amendment. We have-nots are going to have a tough time battling the haves until big money is neutralized in election politics.
I can lead you horses to water, but it's still up to you. Please, please watch this show. I promise you it will be among the most valuable time you spend on this year's presidential election.
No comments:
Post a Comment