Home   »  CP Action Hmpage  »  Campaigns  »  Moving Obama


The REAL NEWS on Obama
  • Afghanistan: Not a Good War, By Conn Hallinan, Foreign Policy in Focus, July 30, 2008
    Every war has a story line. World War I was “the war to end all wars.” World War II was “the war to defeat fascism.” Iraq was sold as a war to halt weapons of mass destruction; then to overthrow Saddam Hussein, then to build democracy. In the end it was a fabrication built on a falsehood and anchored in a fraud.

    But Afghanistan is the “good war,” aimed at “those who attacked us,” in the words of columnist Frank Rich. It is “the war of necessity,” asserts the New York Times, to roll back the “power of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.” Barack Obama is making the distinction between the “bad war” in Iraq and the “good war” in Afghanistan a centerpiece of his run for the presidency. He proposes ending the war in Iraq and redeploying U.S. military forces in order “to finish the job in Afghanistan.” Virtually no one in the United States or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) calls for negotiating with the Taliban. Even the New York Times editorializes that those who want to talk “have deluded themselves.”

    But the Taliban government did not attack the United States. Our old ally, Osama bin Laden, did. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are not the same organization (if one can really call al-Qaeda an “organization”), and no one seems to be listening to the Afghans. We should be.

  • Obama, The Prince Of Bait-And-Switch, By John Pilger, ZSpace, July, 24 2008
    The US and its allies are dropping record numbers of bombs on Afghanistan. This is not news. In the first half of this year, 1,853 bombs were dropped: more than all the bombs of 2006 and most of 2007. "The most frequently used bombs," the Air Force Times reports, "are the 500lb and 2,000lb satellite-guided . . ." Without this one-sided onslaught, the resurgence of the Taliban, it is clear, might not have happened. Even Hamid Karzai, America's and Britain's puppet, has said so. The presence and the aggression of foreigners have all but united a resistance that now includes former warlords once on the CIA's payroll.

    The scandal of this would be headline news, were it not for what George W Bush's former spokesman Scott McClellan has called "complicit enablers" - journalists who serve as little more than official amplifiers. Having declared Afghanistan a "good war", the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the bloodfests in Afghanistan and Iraq. What they never say is that Obama is a bomber. In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghanistan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan.

  • No U-turn. Obama's stance on Iraq is chillingly consistent, Sami Ramadani, The Guardian,July 22, 2008
    As November's American presidential elections approach, Barack Obama's message on Iraq is being widely interpreted as "flip-flopping" and a "retreat" from a previously unequivocal stance of fully withdrawing the US occupation forces. This is to misunderstand Obama, who is not someone who shoots from the hip. There is much more to his words than cursory reading could unravel.

  • Memo to Obama, McCain: No one wins in a war, By Howard Zinn, Boston.Com, July 17, 2008
    BARACK OBAMA and John McCain continue to argue about war. McCain says to keep the troops in Iraq until we "win" and supports sending more troops to Afghanistan. Obama says to withdraw some (not all) troops from Iraq and send them to fight and "win" in Afghanistan.

  • Full text: Obama's foreign policy speechThe Democratic presidential candidate's foreign policy address at the Ronald Reagan building in Washington, BBC, July 16, 2008

  • Chasing Needles by Burning Haystacks, by Tom Hayden, Huffington Post, July 14, 2008
    In summary, to borrow a popular phrase of the season, ending one war [Iraq] to start two more [in Afghanistan and Pakistan] seems to be a dumb idea.

  • Barack at Risk, by Tom Hayden, Huffington Post, July 4, 2008
    Call him slippery or nuanced, Barack Obama's core position on Iraq has always been more ambiguous than audacious. Now it is catching up with him as his latest remarks are questioned by the Republicans, the mainstream media, and the antiwar movement. He could put his candidacy at risk if his audacity continues to shrivel.

  • Obama Tilts Toward Center, Irking Some Activists, by Susan Davis, The Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2008
    Barack Obama's support of an overhaul of domestic-spying laws last week was the latest in a string of statements suggesting the Democratic presidential candidate is tacking toward the center to compete with John McCain.

  • Let's Party Like It’s 1932, by Norman Solomon, AlterNet, April 21, 2008
    Obama has the potential to become as great a president as FDR, while activists have the potential to prompt change comparable to the New Deal.