It was rather horrifying to wake to hear that the Obama administration is considering sending hunter-killer teams into Yemen in hopes of seeking out and killing suspected terrorists.
First, there’s no guarantee that the people the CIA has identified are, in fact, terrorists. There is no court for assessing evidence and no appeal process if mistakes are made. If some CIA analyst decides someone is a terrorist, that’s it. That’s horrific to me, as a lover of truth and justice.
Second, imagine telling your children that if they have a disagreement with another child at school, they shouldn’t talk, they shouldn’t appeal to higher authorities, they should just kill them. That’s essentially what the United States is doing and teaching by these actions. Shame.
Third, I’ve been reading a lot about President John F. Kennedy’s foreign policy in the last few weeks. He knew that you’d never win a war by firepower alone. If your enemy is hungry, first feed them, then seek common ground. Violence only ever begets more violence.
I talked to someone whose hardcore Republican parents nonetheless talked with great fondness for President Kennedy and felt he was the best president we ever had.
Why? They were immigrants from El Salvador, and remembered how where Reagan had sent guns, Kennedy had sent care packages – caritas – of food to give away to the starving people. That bought more goodwill for America than violence ever did.
His “Alliance for Progress” started as a program to bring economic support to Latin America. The perversion of that program to include police and military training came about after Kennedy’s death. (You can read Kennedy’s original vision for the program, as outlined in this speech, given in the first 100 days of his administration.)
In Indonesia, Kennedy created a plan of economic stimulus and support, which was reversed after his assassination.
Kennedy was so certain that the way to a better future came from educating and feeding people, rather than killing them, that he created the Peace Corps with the goal of doing just that.
Yemen is so poor its capital city may run out of water within a decade. A third of its population is malnourished. I can’t think of anything more likely to breed terrorism than a population that has no choice but to kill to survive.
That kind of terrorism I understand. I certainly don’t condone it, but I understand that terrorism does not feel like a choice when people are that desperate.
Where Kennedy would have sent food and water, the Obama administration is considering sending “hunter-killer” teams. And the fact that the media can talk so openly about this shows how far we’ve fallen from Kennedy’s vision of America as a benevolent leader. Where is the outrage?
And does it even make sense that anyone in Yemen would be trying to attack the United States?
Yemen is already in conflict with its neighbor, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is rich, so it would at least make sense that Yemenese terrorists would target their rich neighbor in the hope of winning concessions.
It makes little sense that they would instead take whatever tiny resources they could scrape together in an effort to target the U.S. half a world away. [Indeed, the director of Yemenia Airways has denied that any UPS cargo plane or packages had left Yemen in the 48 hours prior to the alleged bomb shipment.]
I suspect this latest counter-terrorism operation isn’t about trying to end terrorism, which has supplanted “anticommunism” as the excuse du jour for enacting whatever policies Washington wants overseas. As with anticommunism, counter-terrorism is the excuse used for going after other countries’ resources.
When the CIA helped overthrow Iran’s democratically elected leader Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, the explanation at the time was that he was suspected of being a communist, but the CIA’s official history gives the first reason as Mossadegh’s nationalization of Iran’s oil industry.
When the CIA then overthrew Guatemala’s democratically elected leader Jacobo Arbenz, another non-communist, it was to reclaim nationalized farmlands for American businesses and to show Latin America that further nationalizations would not be tolerated.
In 1990, after Saddam Hussein got an apparent “green light” from President George H.W. Bush’s ambassador to invade Kuwait, the Iraqi invasion became an excuse to put U.S. troops permanently in the oil-rich region.
But President George W. Bush’s “war on terror” changed everything. While the United States used to do its empire building covertly, now it’s just a bald imperialist power, trying to establish military bases in other countries all over the world and not surprisingly upsetting many of the locals.
Imagine if China established a military base on American soil. Would Americans become sudden fans of the Chinese? Or would we be angry, fearing our nation had been in part taken over by a foreign power we never invited in? How is it that Americans do not understand that nearly every “victory” abroad won with guns ensures a long-term loss for America?
The Democratic Party’s severe losses on Tuesday were in part a reflection of President Obama’s failure to follow the moral vision President Kennedy once outlined. He showed Americans how to lead with our hearts and thus how to win the hearts of people from other nations.
Unfortunately, those who feel that the only way to lead is with guns now run the show.
- - - -
If you like this article and the others I and Robert Parry and Danny Schecter and Bill Moyers and others over at Consortium News have written, please contribute money to that site. They're doing a matching grant right now - so your $25 dollars is the equivalent of $50, for example. http://www.consortiumnews.com.
Cass Sunstein, Adrian Vermeule, Obama, and Conspiracy Theories
I'll have more to say about this over time - but an email touting Obama's role in suppressing conspiracy theories is going around. While I do not have enough evidence to know if Obama knew or agreed with the opinions in the paper referenced below, it's certainly cause for question and concern.
Glenn Greenwald sums it up nicely here:
It's certainly true that one can easily find irrational conspiracy theories in those venues, but some of the most destructive "false conspiracy theories" have emanated from the very entity Sunstein wants to endow with covert propaganda power: namely, the U.S. Government itself, along with its elite media defenders. Moreover, "crazy conspiracy theorist" has long been the favorite epithet of those same parties to discredit people trying to expose elite wrongdoing and corruption.
Who is it who relentlessly spread "false conspiracy theories" of Saddam-engineered anthrax attacks and Iraq-created mushroom clouds and a Ba'athist/Al-Qaeda alliance -- the most destructive conspiracy theories of the last generation? And who is it who demonized as "conspiracy-mongers" people who warned that the U.S. Government was illegally spying on its citizens, systematically torturing people, attempting to establish permanent bases in the Middle East, or engineering massive bailout plans to transfer extreme wealth to the industries which own the Government? The most chronic and dangerous purveyors of "conspiracy theory" games are the very people Sunstein thinks should be empowered to control our political debates through deceit and government resources: namely, the Government itself and the Enlightened Elite like him.
It is this history of government deceit and wrongdoing that renders Sunstein's desire to use covert propaganda to "undermine" anti-government speech so repugnant. The reason conspiracy theories resonate so much is precisely that people have learned -- rationally -- to distrust government actions and statements. Sunstein's proposed covert propaganda scheme is a perfect illustration of why that is. In other words, people don't trust the Government and "conspiracy theories" are so pervasive precisely because government is typically filled with people like Cass Sunstein, who think that systematic deceit and government-sponsored manipulation are justified by their own Goodness and Superior Wisdom.
Read the whole thing at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/.
Then read my letter to Adrian Vermeule below, re this paper, which he co-authored with Sunstein.
Dear Professor Vermeule:
I’m reading the paper you and Cass Sunstein wrote about Conspiracy Theories (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1084585), and had a few questions I hope you can answer.
1. Who wrote which parts? Did one of you write most of it and if so, who was that?
2. Why do you say “as a general rule, true accounts [of conspiracies] should not be undermined.” Which true accounts should be undermined, and under which circumstances?
3. If we say “all Asian people” do something, aren’t we being racist? When you generalize about conspiracy theorists as if they are a homogenous set of people (and trust me, that’s far from the truth), aren’t you being, shall we say, labelist? Assigning characteristics of some individuals to an entire group, without justification?
4. Which statement would you agree with more, and why?
a. All conspiracy theories should be dismissed at first glance.
b. All conspiracy theories should be investigated, and evaluated on the evidence.
5. There was a time when the Watergate affair was characterized as a “third-rate burglary.” Would the public have been better served by not pursuing what really happened?
6. If a conspiracy theory becomes consistently predictive, does that make it valuable? Isn’t that how we judge scientific theories, by their consistently predictive value?
7. Did you ever consider the possibility that it is not a lack of information, but rather a supply of information, that gives birth to some conspiracy theories? That conspiracy theory is sometimes simply pattern recognition?
8. There was a time when the notion of an arms-for-hostages deal, i.e., Iran-Contra, was considered a crazy conspiracy theory, until, of course, it was proven to be true. Some people had the information before others, and were denigrated as conspiracy theorists. Should we then acknowledge that some conspiracy theorists can be very good researchers?
9. If the CIA really did kill Kennedy, isn’t that worth investigating? As someone who knows for fact that the CIA lied about what they knew about Oswald, because I have the records from the CIA to prove it, isn’t it worth pursuing WHY they lied about Oswald? Isn’t that an act of patriotism, not paranoia?
11. How can you say that we can’t keep secrets in this “open society” when CIA people know they lose their job, their pension, and can be sent to jail for revealing them?
For the record, I too am frustrated with how gullible people are, and how quickly they can jump to unsupported conclusions. Why do some people refuse to believe a conspiracy happened, even when the evidence is there (e.g., Holocaust deniers)?
Some conspiracy theorists are indeed too gullible, are not skilled in the evaluation of evidence, and see shadows where none exist. But to group all conspiracy theorists into this bucket is to miss the fact that there are serious people -- professors, lawyers, judges, presidents -- who believe these theories precisely because of the evidence, not in spite of it.
As someone who has spent nearly twenty years studying the actual conspiracies of Watergate, Iran-Contra, Smedley Butler’s account of the plot to overthrow FDR, and in great detail, the CIA’s full history (mind control, infiltration and manipulation of the media, using academics to promote practices favorable to the agency, etc., bugging schemes, exotic weaponry, coups and assassinations and yes, the CIA’s curious obfuscations regarding its potential role in the assassination of President Kennedy), it seems that an honest investigation of conspiracy theories is the only way to dispel false conspiracy theories. Dismissing them out of hand without a proper hearing is anti-intellectual and simply compounds the problem.
Opening records, providing access to witnesses, conducting an honest inquiry -- isn’t that the simple way to either prove or disprove conspiracy theories? The trick is to find an honest group to hold an honest investigation. I’ve known very few truly honest people in my life. This will forever be a challenging task, especially when money and power are at stake.
Conspiracy theories aren’t the problem; they’re the symptom. And they’re not the symptom of “mental illness, such as paranoia or narcissism” that you suggest. They are the symptom of a government that lies to the people, often through the mainstream media. Most people aren’t stupid. And you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
We know the CIA lied about what they knew about Oswald to other agencies of the government just a month before the assassination because we have two communications drafted within hours of each other, by the same people, with one describing Oswald as older, fat and balding, and one describing him accurately. That’s not an accident, because the inaccurate description was escalated to nearly the Deputy Director’s level for approval, indicating, as one of the signees said on the record, sensitive information that was closely held and revealed only on a “need to know” basis. Those were the CIA officer’s words, not some screenwriter’s.
Does that prove the CIA killed Kennedy? Of course not. But it proves people are not crazy to suspect such. And it proves people who automatically discount that either haven’t seen the CIA’s own records to this effect for themselves, and understood them, or that they are suffering from, to borrow your words, a “crippled epistemology.”
What we really need is conspiracy literacy. People need to be taught how to evaluate evidence. There’s a hierarchy of evidence. For example, most people should believe sworn testimony over unsworn testimony, for example, if there’s a very real chance the person not only could but would be prosecuted for perjury. And to demonstrate why that caveat is needed, since there was no chance Richard Helms was going to be prosecuted for perjury when he lied about the CIA’s role in overthrowing Allende in Chile, he lied in his testimony. And while he was initially charged, it was dismissed, despite his outright admission of lying -- calling it a “badge of honor.” Is it any wonder people imagine hidden conspiracies when they see this kind of behavior flaunted openly, instead of punished?
What we really don’t need is what you suggested: “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of those who subscribe to such theories. They do so by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.
Been there, done that. It was called COINTELPRO when the FBI did it and Operation Chaos when the CIA did it. And neither worked. Which leads to my final question:
13. Why would you suggest the conspiratorial infiltration of groups by government operatives as a means to combat conspiracy theory? Can you appreciate the irony there?
I’m cc’ing this to many people, and will post this publicly. I will do the same with any response you provide.
Kennedy didn't say he was a donut! "Ich bin ein Berliner" means just what Kennedy meant - "I am a Berliner"
I love how these CIA-spread myths end up as the gospel truth, when they are nothing of the sort. Even Keith Olbermann fell for this one.
No, Kennedy did not say he was a donut.
He said, "Ich bin ein Berliner." And if you look up Berliner in a German dictionary, you will find that while donut is one meaning, the other meaning, the one Kennedy was obviously saying, is this:
"to be born in Berlin; to be a native Berliner; to be Berlin-born"
I am never surprised to hear the ignorant say Kennedy said this "wrong," when he didn't. But my heart sank when good ol' Keith Olbermann fell for the disinformation. Wow. I guess if a few people say it, it's suddenly true, eh?
Will all of you reading this please help spread the TRUTH about what Kennedy said? No doubt this will come up in the next few days as Obama prepares his own version of such a speech.
By the way - if you've never seen this speech, enjoy.
The Germans knew what he was saying. Here's the transcript of the full speech. It's a good one.
I am proud to come to this city as the guest of your distinguished Mayor, who has symbolized throughout the world the fighting spirit of West Berlin. And I am proud to visit the Federal Republic with your distinguished Chancellor who for so many years has committed Germany to democracy and freedom and progress, and to come here in the company of my fellow American, General Clay, who has been in this city during its great moments of crisis and will come again if ever needed.
Two thousand years ago the proudest boast was "civis Romanus sum." Today, in the world of freedom, the proudest boast is "Ich bin ein Berliner."
I appreciate my interpreter translating my German!
There are many people in the world who really don't understand, or say they don't, what is the great issue between the free world and the Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is true that communism is an evil system, but it permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sic nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin.
Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us. I want to say, on behalf of my countrymen, who live many miles away on the other side of the Atlantic, who are far distant from you, that they take the greatest pride that they have been able to share with you, even from a distance, the story of the last 18 years. I know of no town, no city, that has been besieged for 18 years that still lives with the vitality and the force, and the hope and the determination of the city of West Berlin. While the wall is the most obvious and vivid demonstration of the failures of. the Communist system, for all the world to see, we take no satisfaction in it, for it is, as your Mayor has said, an offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.
What is true of this city is true of Germany—real, lasting peace in Europe can never be assured as long as one German out of four is denied the elementary right of free men, and that is to make a free choice. In 18 years of peace and good faith, this generation of Germans has earned the right to be free, including the right to unite their families and their nation in lasting peace, with good will to all people. You live in a defended island of freedom, but your life is part of the main. So let me ask you, as I close, to lift your eyes beyond the dangers of today, to the hopes of tomorrow, beyond the freedom merely of this city of Berlin, or your country of Germany, to the advance of freedom everywhere, beyond the wall to the day of peace with justice, beyond yourselves and ourselves to all mankind.
Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one and this country and this great Continent of Europe in a peaceful and hopeful globe. When that day finally comes, as it will, the people of West Berlin can take sober satisfaction in the fact that they were in the front lines for almost two decades.
All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Berlin, and, therefore, as a free man, I take pride in the words "Ich bin ein Berliner!"
Why Barack Obama is ahead of Hillary Clinton in Iowa
I love Iowa. I got to spend some time there during Howard Dean's campaign. People in Iowa take democracy very seriously. They read. They meet the candidates in person. They evaluate carefully. They take their responsibility of being the first vote in the nation VERY seriously. Democracy, to many Iowans, is not just about a vote. It's a way of life.
I love the Caucus system, too. It forces you to vote in public, on the Democratic side. You literally stand in clumps to support your candidate and there's a public head count. There's no question, to caucus attenders, if their vote was counted accurately, because everyone sees it happen.
I've been following the polls lately to see who is ahead, but more importantly,who is rising. As we relearn in every cycle, it's not who the press touts necessarily that wins, but who's got the "mo" - wonkspeak for "momentum." I was surprised and, I dare say, pleased to find Barack Obama either ahead of Hillary Clinton or tying her in every recent major poll in Iowa and New Hampshire. For nearly a year, Obama was in third place, behind Edwards and Hillary. Edwards' numbers haven't changed that much. Hillary's have dropped. So the one with the mo is clearly Obama, and I don't attribute that all to Oprah Winfrey's first political endorsement.
I think it's largely attributable to the fact that Obama has run a 'clean' campaign, devoid of slurs against his opponents. And I think that's when Hillary's campaign took a major stumble - when her staffers started talking about Obama's past drug use, as a youth. I also think Obama's response to such attacks were refreshing as well. Instead of saying he "didn't inhale" as Hillary's husband had, Obama said of course he inhaled. "That was the point."
And that leads to what I really think is working for Obama and against Hillary. Obama doesn't talk down to people. I happened to catch one of his town hall meetings today, and far from the usual platitudes such as "I support Social Security" without detail, Obama gave the audience a detailed lesson in what works with Social Security, what doesn't, how the hype that it needs fixing is overblown, but how there's a grain of truth under the hype that does eventually need to be addressed. I realized right then, that's why Iowans like him. He treats them like they're intelligent enough to understand most questions don't deserve a yes or a no, but a nuanced explanation. He doesn't see the world in terms of black or white. Neither does Hillary, but I think she or her advisors think it's better for her to just say something strongly, even if it's not 100% true, than to appear to waffle. But the way Obama does it, it isn't waffling. It's letting you in on the facts he knows, and when he shares those, you find yourself in the same position as well, because the less black and white response is what the facts demand.
I also caught the Republican debate earlier this morning. I was surprised and pleased to see the current frontrunner, Governor Huckabee, state clearly why arts and music are as important to one's education as reading and arithmetic. He stated we need to develop both the left and right brain. Bravo and amen. I've been saying that for years, but it was shocking to find a Republican willing to say the same thing.
I also see Huckabee's appeal, in that he's not snide or sarcastic, but comes across as warm and genuine. But if I were a Republican, I'd be all over Ron Paul. He's dead right when he says the most regressive tax in America is inflation, which is caused by the issuance of currency backed by almost nothing at all. He is the only candidate in either party who understands this part of the equation, and I think it's an important one. If he shared my Democratic values, he'd be the one for me. But he's too conservative for my reality. He's not what we need.
Obama, on the other hand, would put a very new face on America to the world, one that is sorely needed. One that shows we're not this racist, divided society. One of the things I've noted most in Obama's record is his willingness to work on bi-partisan initiatives. He's not one to demonize opponents. He's not one to say "you're either for us or against us." He is someone who might yet be able to pull the country back from the divisions that threaten this country.
I get upset when people write to me about "rethuglicans" or "dumbocrats." Until we see each other as people first, last, and always, we will never have the conversations we need. I truly believe the division between the right and the left is far less, and far less significant, than the division between the haves and the have nots. But it suits the goals of the haves to keep us warring with each other, and creates a semblance of Democracy, when in fact we've rarely had leaders who truly challenged the elites to do better for America. Those that have, notably Lincoln and Kennedy, have been shot down.
But back to Clinton and Obama. I wouldn't count Clinton out yet. She's sharp, she's tough, and she's been through two presidential campaigns before. She's got more experience in her left pinkie than anyone else running. But this all can work against her, as well. People are tired of the past, and want to have something new to look forward to. A lot of Democrats I know are terrified that the one thing that could unite the beaten down and disillusioned Republican base is someone they can agree to hate, and that would be Hillary. Not all of them hate Hillary. I've talked to several Republicans this year that assured me they'd vote for whoever the Democratic nominee was because they think their party is headed in the wrong direction. (After Obama's appearance, one of the callers to C-SPAN claimed to be a Republican who was fed up and liked the calm intelligence Obama showed, and that he would be supporting him.)
Edwards fans and supporters of other candidates, I'm sorry if you feel left out. But the race, at this point, is between Clinton and Obama, and I'd be very surprised if that changed. But we'll see. Of the three, I like Edwards the least. But I'd take him over Huckabee, Giuliani, Paul, or any of the other Republican candidates.
For those interested in following the latest polls, this is one of the best free sites with solid information: Real Clear Politics. Have fun. And don't miss your own primary. My state, California, has moved its primary up much sooner so as to be more relevant to the selection of our candidates. I'm happy to see that, even as that must place an additional burden on the campaigns, who can't get to everyone!
