It’s a matter of principle

8.30.2011 Leave a comment

Writing for CounterPunch, John V. Walsh takes to task Professor Juan Cole and the radio program Democracy Now for advocating humanitarian war-making (Cole) and for being too soft on this kind of war-making and for permitting a war-advocate like Cole to claim without opposition and on the air that he is a member of the left (Democracy Now). Walsh even points out that Juan Cole has been a CIA expert-consultant, a strange occupation for a self-avowed leftist. Strange because supporting American imperial statecraft has always disqualified the supporter from left membership, their claims notwithstanding and to the contrary. Walsh concludes by making clear that:

If one reads CounterPunch.org, Antiwar.com or The American Conservative, one knows that one is reading those who are anti-interventionist on the basis of principle. With Democracy Now and kindred progressive outlets, it’s all too clear where a big chunk of the so-called “left” stands, especially since the advent of Obama. In his superb little book Humanitarian Imperialism Jean Bricmont criticizes much of the left for falling prey to advocacy of wars, supposedly based on good intentions. And Alexander Cockburn has often pointed out that many progressives are actually quite fond of “humanitarian” interventionism. Both here and in Europe this fondness seems to be especially true of Obama’s latest war, the war on Libya . It is little wonder that the “progressives” are losing their antiwar following to Ron Paul and the Libertarians who are consistent and principled on the issue of anti-interventionism.

Democracy Now, quo vadis? Wherever you are heading, you would do well to travel without Juan Cole and his friends.

Filed under Commentary Tagged with , , , , , ,

Question of the Day

4.1.2011 Leave a comment

Alexander Cockburn asks:

In terms of evil deeds, is Qaddafi a Mobutu, a Bokassa, a Saddam, or any U.S. president?

His answer: “Surely not.”

I find it difficult to disagree with his answer given Qaddafi’s opponents, who were all unrepentant killers.

I ought to mention that neither Cockburn’s question nor his answer would hold any significance whatsoever if it were not for the American need to justify its imperial sorties by claiming these military actions were meant to check the actions of or depose outright an archfiend. It is believed, wrongly, I would guess, that Americans will not long tolerate war-making unless the war-makers target radical evil. Thus, for this American President, the name Qaddafi along with the aura that surrounds that name does provide the President with the fortitude needed to produce another costly political-military spectacle. That Obama’s actions in Libya are legally dubious and morally suspect are matters which remain unresolved. Neither the quality of Qaddafi’s character nor America’s pretensions to being exceptional can resolve them. Nor also an act of Congress and a Supreme Court judgment.

Fortunately, Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich have already identified one path that would resolve the issues raised by Obama’s Libyan actions: Impeachment. I believe this outcome, one that would be politically and legally relevant, would provide a more effective and durable remedy to Executive branch lawlessness than would Congressional disapproval or a Supreme Court ruling that could not be enforced except by the use of violence. After all, the impeachment option would require the proponents of the action to make their case in public to the American people and thus by extension to the whole world.

Related Articles

Filed under Commentary Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today’s disturbing video (2.20.2011)

2.20.2011 Leave a comment

This one originated in Libya:

Filed under News, Video Tagged with , , , ,