|
05 September 2012 By Stephen
Lendman Both candidates represent duopoly
power. They're two sides of the same coin. Differences
between them are minor. On issues mattering most,
they're in lockstep. In January 2013, America will be
run by rogues whoever wins. Under either party, expect
the next four years to be worse than previous ones. Lame duck Obama will be
unrestrained. Religious extremist/corporate predator
Romney promises the worst of his agenda and then
some. Money power runs America. Wall
Street owns both candidates. Whatever giant banks want
they'll get. Expect victory for whichever one they
prefer. They get to choose, not voters. Interlocking directorates assure
all major corporate interests are served. Bottom line
priorities matter most. War profiteering boosts them.
Expect permanent ones because they want them. Both candidates assure them.
Differences between them reflect tone and nuance, not
substance. Romney talks tough. In late August, his
campaign co-chair Governor Tim Pawlenty (R. MN) said
diplomacy is running out on Iran. It's time to "start
the clock ticking." Options so far haven't worked, he
said. He wants Congress to pass an authorization to
use military force. Doing so assures it. Millions of
potential deaths don't matter. Nor do rule of law
principles about attacking a nonbelligerent country
posing no threat. Romney's policy is bombs away. So
is Obama's. His softer tone conceals it better. It
hides what he has in mind. Occasionally he makes overt
threats. They reveal his real intentions. Last March he said he won't
"hesitate to use force" to prevent Iran from building
nuclear weapons. He knows none exist or a program to
develop them but won't say. Instead he states "all options
are on the table….That includes all elements of
American power," isolating Iran, "a diplomatic effort
to sustain our coalition and ensure (close
monitoring), an economic effort that imposes crippling
sanctions, and, yes, a military effort to be prepared
for any contingency." "Rest assured," he added, "the
Iranian government will know of our resolve." Days
ago, he laid down "red lines." They're triggers for
war. They likely advanced the timeline. Long ago it
was planned. Expect it post-election or
perhaps sooner against Iran and Syria. Whether one
precedes the other remains to be seen. Each nation is
targeted for regime change. Both parties endorse it.
Obama or Romney makes no difference. It's baked in the
cake. Not according to Nation magazine.
Its editorial policy scorns truth. Since the 19th
century, it turned reality on its head. Early on, it
was unapologetic about slavery. It fell short of
supporting labor, minorities, and women's rights. It championed 19th century
laissez faire. It attacked the Grangers, Populists,
trade unions and socialists. It 1999, it called NATO's
Serbia/Kosovo aggression "humanitarian intervention." Post-9/11, it backed the Big Lie.
Initially, it supported imperial wars on Afghanistan
and Iraq. It claimed no evidence showed America's 2004
presidential election was stolen. In January 2006, it ran a
full-page "Arabian Fables" ad. It claimed Palestinians
are prone to violence and deception. Weeks later, it
said Haiti's Jean-Bertrand Aristide was "feared and
despised." It blamed Haitians for their own misery. It urged ending "Qaddafi's
despotic rule (and) sav(ing) the lives of those
bravely resisting his onslaught." Doing so ignored
clear evidence of imperial ravaging another
nonbelligerent state. It twists reality on its head
about Syria. It calls a Western sponsored invasion a
"violent (sectarian) civil war." It suggested Lakhdar
Brahimi's appointment might make a difference. It
ignores his role as Washington's point man. Like his
predecessor, he's a reliable imperial tool. It's less than candid suggesting
Obama doesn't want war on Iran. It doesn't explain its
lawlessness against a nonbelligerent country
threatening no one. It downplays illegal sanctions. It
stops short of denouncing Netanyahu's hawkishness and
Israel's ruthless agenda. It unabashedly supports
Democrats. It pretends they're different than
Republicans. It called Obama sellout on healthcare "a
historic (victory) for reform." It described Democrat convention
phony populism as "Change We Can Believe in, 2.0." Editor Katrina van den Heuvel
wrote it. She's an establishment figure. Her
background is elitist. She appears often on corporate
TV. She gets regular Washington Post op-ed space.
She's a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member. It
shows in what she endorses. She said Democrats reminded us
"that elections matter." She called Obama "our first
community organizer president." He's "against the
plutocrats who want to buy our elections." He's "committed to 'We the
people' and a challenger convinced that 'corporations
are people.' " Romney/Ryan winning "would spell
full-spectrum disaster. An Obama victory….would bring
few guarantees….(N)o person makes change alone…..But a
second term presents an opportunity for change." She called one of his campaign
speeches a "barn-burn(er)." "Hope - not rosy optimism but the
belief that hard work and commitment makes changes -
springs eternal." Her unabashed support ignores
four lawless years, a president beholden to big money,
a consummate con man, a serial liar and moral coward.
He exceeded the worst of George Bush. Imagine what he
has in mind if given four more years. Republicans, in contrast, are
bashed. Nation editors call them "the Post-Truth
Party." Obama's lies are ignored. Republican ones are
highlighted. They "pose a real challenge for
the Democrats (not to) get bogged down in the minutiae
of every" one….(T)here are too many of them." Democrats by implication are
squeaky clean. In fact, they're in lockstep on
destroying social America. Medicare, Medicaid, and
other New Deal/Great Society programs are on the
chopping block for elimination. Job creation is moribund. Both
parties oppose creating them. Since Obama took office,
261,000 fewer exist. Tax cuts for the rich, banker
bailouts, other corporate handouts, and permanent
imperial wars come at the expense of popular needs
gone begging. Half the country is impoverished
or bordering on it because both parties planned it
that way. Obama's no less ruthless and heartless than
Romney. He just hides it better. Nation editors claim Democrats
made a good start toward financial reform. Wall Street
wrote the legislation. It benefits them. Grand theft
remains policy. Neither party curbs it. Crooks when
they're caught aren't punished. Since crisis conditions emerged
in fall 2007, no high-level corporate official faced
prosecution. They're free to keep stealing because
who'll stop them. The Libor scandal alone revealed
government/banker complicity. Nothing changed. The dirty game
continues. It's institutionalized. Both parties
endorse it without saying so. Nation editors pretend
Democrats are different. They call Republicans liars.
They claim Obama's "telling the
truth." Doing so reveals an agenda supporting his, and
the worst of what political Washington represents. On September 6, Nation's John
Nichols headlined "Obama Manufactures an Argument for
His Re-election," saying: He stands in stark contrast to
"Romney's empty rhetoric." His convention speech
"touched the important themes" for reelection. He
"made the case for himself as a job creator." In all respects, he's a
destroyer, not a creator. He's a demagogic con man
dressed up in well-scripted political mumbo jumbo. His
speech was duplicitous from start to finish. Reality
faced by millions of households was ignored. Working people have no friend in
Obama. He's gone all out against them. He wage war on
labor rights. He's dismissive of popular needs.
Apologists claiming he's different than Romney accept
illusions about a heartless, soulless president. Both parties represent two wings
of money power. Privilege matters, not people needs. "Obama talked the talk Thursday
night," said Nichols. He made promises he'll likely
keep. So far he broke every major one made. Nichols
thinks, or perhaps hopes, this time is different. He told voters they have to
"choose between two different paths for America." He
was right, said Nichols. "The choice between an
Obama-Biden future and a Romney-Ryan (one) is stark." "His speech was a start." He has
to show he "really does worry more about Main Street
than Wall Street." He's done mirror opposite. Give him another four years and
he'll outdo the worst of what he's done so far. What
does he have to lose? Faux progressives support
whatever he does. Why anyone believes them who knows. On war and peace issues, Obama and Romney are in lockstep. Obama's softer rhetoric belies his belligerence. Romney is blunter. He supports direct intervention against Syria. He calls Iran an existential threat to Israel. Its ballistic missile capability endangers Europe and eventually America. It's provoking a regional arms race. It's creating "a nightmarish cascade of nuclear tensions in the world's most volatile region." He accused Iran of sponsoring international terrorism. He calls doing so "terrifying." As president, he says, he'll "end Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, eliminate the threat of Iranian nuclear terrorism against the United States and our allies, and prevent nuclear proliferation across the region." Iran must understand that "a military option to deal with (its) nuclear program remains on the table. This message" has to be more than tough words. Actions must follow. Romney wants tougher sanctions, absolute support for Israel, and war if other policies fail. He and Obama know no Iranian threat exists. America, by its presence, and Israel are the only nuclear armed and dangerous regional countries. They're the only regional menaces. Their history reflects belligerence. Iran endorses peace, not war. So does Syria. Neither nation shows hostile intent toward anyone. Whether Obama's reelected or Romney succeeds him, expect more regional war than already. Doing so risks potential catastrophic consequences. Cooler heads understand what neither candidate publicly admits or implies. Expect nightmarish conditions ahead exceeding the worst of what's already happened. At issue is whether humanity can survive. There's no guarantee. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War" http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour |
Add Comments