The Misinformation Mess: The GOP and the Dems Are Both Pro-war Parties
February 15, 2016
Oliver Stone / Reader Supported News & Robert Parry / Consortiumnews & Jeffrey Sachs / The Huffington Post
As Americans approach Election Year 2016, the crisis of misinformation is growing more and more dangerous. On issues from foreign policy to the economy, almost none of the candidates in the race appears to be addressing the real world. From escalating US military involvement in the Middle East to slashing taxes for the rich, the supposedly "mainstream" Republicans act as if the catastrophes under Bush-43 never happened. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton's foreign policy "experience" has been to support every war demanded by the military and the CIA.
The Media Continues to Ignore This Country's Most Serious Issues
Oliver Stone / Oliver Stone's Facebook Page
(February 13, 2016) -- When it comes to this election, several people have asked me, 'What do you think'? My answer is, what is there to think about? It's so frustrating. In an endless media loop that has barely mentioned global warming, the bulk eavesdropping of the National Security State, or the militarism of our garrisons and wars worldwide (50 plus percent of our budget), we're primarily debating how tough we must be against the 'threats' we've created in our paranoid minds.
One patient explanation of this phenomenon is enclosed below by Robert Parry, the essence of which is how we've become such an uninformed electorate. In that vein, I'm adding a recent blog by Jeff Sachs that reminds us, forcefully, who our leading candidate, Hillary Clinton, really is.
The Misinformation Mess
Robert Parry / Consortiumnews
(December 28, 2015) -- New York Times columnist Paul Krugman marvels at the right-wing extremism prevalent in the Republican presidential race not just from the "outsider" candidates but from the "establishment" favorites as well, doubling down on President George W. Bush's economic prescriptions and foreign policies despite their record of disaster.
The media's obsession with Donald Trump's off-the-cuff candidacy "has in one way worked to the G.O.P. establishment's advantage: it has distracted pundits and the press from the hard right turn even conventional Republican candidates have taken, a turn whose radicalism would have seemed implausible not long ago," Krugman wrote on Monday.
From escalating US military involvement in the Middle East to slashing taxes -- again -- for the rich, the supposedly "mainstream" Republicans, such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, are acting as if the catastrophes under Bush-43 never happened.
It would be fair to say that the Democrats are suffering from a similar disconnect from the lessons of the last quarter century, with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bristling with hawkish rhetoric toward Syria and Russia while sending fawning salutations to Israel despite its contribution to the Mideast crisis by repressing the Palestinian people.
Even Clinton's chief rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, can't formulate a rational policy toward the Middle East, although -- to his credit -- he did oppose Bush's bogus case for invading Iraq and favors prioritizing cooperation with Russia in defeating the Islamic State over demanding another "regime change" in Syria.
But Sanders simply wants to postpone the US removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and he encourages Saudi Arabia to throw its military weight around more across the region, not noticing that the Saudis are backing many of the Sunni jihadists who have helped turn the Middle East into a killing field.
Nor does Sanders explain why one would expect the Saudis to turn away from their obsession with fighting Shiites as they are currently doing in pulverizing Yemen because a Shiite rebel group, the Houthis, gained power in that impoverished nation.
In a rational world, Saudi Arabia would be viewed as a major part of the problem, not part of any solution.
On domestic policy, Sanders -- like Trump -- does seem to have touched a populist political nerve in their recognition that neo-liberalism (as preached since Bill Clinton's presidency) has failed to protect America's middle class.
Though Sanders's and Trump's brands of populism offer sharply divergent remedies, they both speak to Main Street's fear that it is being left behind by the high-tech globalized world that has diverted vast wealth to Wall Street and Silicon Valley.
The more traditional candidates -- whether Hillary Clinton or the establishment Republicans -- don't address the heart of this problem. Instead, they choose to play it safe on the edges while embracing the "free market" orthodoxies that created the crisis.
A Propagandized People
But is it really possible to expect that the American people (as propagandized and misinformed as they are) could effect significant change through the electoral process, which is itself deeply compromised by vast sums of dark money from American oligarchs, while other super-rich Americans own the major media companies.
So, while there may be some logical responses to this combination of crises, the media/political system prevents them from being considered in any coherent way.
For instance, a rational approach to the Middle East would shift American alliances away from the reactionary Persian Gulf monarchies and Turkey and toward a more balanced approach that would invite greater involvement of Shiite-ruled Iran, which the Sunni-led monarchies view as their chief regional rival. There is little reason for the United States to take one side of a sectarian split within Islam that dates back to the Seventh Century.
By shedding its current pro-Saudi bias, the United States could finally get serious about resolving the Syrian crisis by shutting down the money and weapons going from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to the extremists not just in the Islamic State but also in Al Qaeda's Nusra Front and its various jihadist allies.
Since summer 2014, President Barack Obama and his "coalition" have been fighting a half-hearted war that has failed to face down the US "allies" aiding the Sunni jihadists in Syria.
Only when shamed by Russia in fall 2015 did the US coalition join in bombing trucks carrying the Islamic State's oil from Syria through Turkey's open borders for resale in the black market. [See Consortiumnews.com's "A Blind Eye Toward Turkey's Crimes."]
As for Syria's political future, a reasonable approach would be to leave the selection of national leaders up to the Syrian people through internationally organized democratic elections. The voters would be the ones to decide Assad's fate, not outsiders.
Yet, Official Washington finds itself in the crazy position of extending the bloody Syrian war -- and the resulting chaos across the region and into Europe -- because Obama and other Important People said "Assad must go!" and don't want to lose face by dropping that demand. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Neocons Object to Syrian Democracy."]
A realistic approach to the Middle East also requires finally standing up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, rather than letting him dance US political leaders around the world stage like puppets on a marionette's string.
A balanced approach to the Middle East would allow for collaborating with Russia and Iran to apply pressure on the parties in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to make the necessary concessions for a peace deal, imperfect though it would surely be.
The need to work with Russian President Vladimir Putin would also require rethinking the aggressive US strategy regarding NATO and Ukraine. Instead of insisting that everything is "Putin's fault," the US government could acknowledge its hand in exacerbating the political crisis in Ukraine in 2013-14 and admit that the US-backed putsch on Feb. 22, 2014, was not the simple story of "our good guys vs. their bad guys" that was sold to the American public.
As part of all this reassessment, there needs to be a coming-clean with the American people regarding what US intelligence knows about a variety of key events, including but not limited to the Aug. 21, 2013 sarin attack outside Damascus, Syria; the Feb. 20, 2014 sniper attack in Kiev, Ukraine, which set the stage for the coup; and the July 17, 2014 shoot-down of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over eastern Ukraine.
The fact that such events have been exploited for propaganda reasons -- to blame US "adversaries" -- while the detailed knowledge of the US intelligence agencies is hidden from the American people has deprived the public of an ability to make rational assessments about the larger policies. US positions are driven by false or faulty perceptions, not reality.
The Disappearing Middle Class
Along with bringing rationality and reason back to US foreign policy, a similar process of truth-telling could take place domestically. The core problem of America's disappearing middle class is not just technology and globalization; it is that the super-profits from those developments have gone overwhelmingly to the extremely rich, rather than equitably shared with the population.
Thus, we see the rapid shrinking of the Great American Middle Class, a development that is destructive and dangerous because a prosperous middle class serves as ballast for an economy, preventing it from suddenly capsizing.
Plus, if most people can't afford to buy the products that technology produces, then eventually the investment in that technology becomes unprofitable, a lesson well known since the days of Henry Ford who wanted his workers to earn enough to afford to buy his cars.
There is the trick question about what is the value of all the properties and hotels in "Monopoly" once one player has won by bankrupting all the other players. The answer is zero because no one has any money to visit the properties or stay at the hotels. They thus have no monetary value. A similar reality holds true in the real-world economy. Over-concentration of wealth is a threat.
The answer to this conundrum is also clear: since it is impossible to stop technological advancement and risky to start trade wars, the alternative is to tax the super-profits of the rich and recycle the money in the form of jobs to build infrastructure, educate the young, protect the environment, research ways to improve health, etc.
There is nothing wrong with having machines do more of the drudgery and give humans more time to enjoy life. The problem comes when the benefits accrue to a tiny minority and the rest of us are forced to work harder or face declining living standards.
But what prevents us from making the sensible move -- i.e., dramatically increase taxes on the rich and put that money to use putting people to work on worthy projects -- is Ronald Reagan's propaganda message that "government is the problem." The Right has built onto that theme the idea that government promoting the common good is against the US Constitution.
Thus, you have extremists such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz posing as "constitutionalists" as they ignore the fact that the chief authors of the Constitution -- the Federalists -- inserted a clear mandate for the US government to "provide for the … general Welfare." That authority was cited in both the Preamble and Article I, Section 8, which enumerates the government's powers. [See Consortiumnews.com's "The Right's Made-up Constitution."]
In other words, the "originalist" meaning of the US Constitution was in favor of a robust and activist federal government. But few Americans know and understand that history. They have been sold on a false rendition that serves the interests of the rich who understandably don't want the government to use its taxing powers on behalf of the broader population.
The Heart of the Matter
Which get us to the heart of the matter: Why is the American political debate so ill-informed and misinformed?
Why was there virtually no accountability in the mainstream US news media when nearly every important foreign-policy journalist and pundit bought into the WMD lies that justified the Iraq War? Why are the same kinds of "group thinks" continuing to prevail, with US government propaganda accepted rather than questioned?
The answer to that conundrum is that Official Washington is dominated -- on foreign policy -- by neoconservatives and their liberal-interventionist sidekicks and -- on domestic policy -- by neo-liberals and government-hating conservatives. The old days -- when there were foreign policy "realists" who acted more from a perspective of American interests and politicians who remembered the Great Depression and the New Deal -- are gone.
The neoconservatives, who emerged as pro-Vietnam War Democrats in the 1970s and switched over to Reagan Republicans in the 1980s, have proved to be a formidable and effective force for a propaganda-driven foreign policy that sees American interests as indistinguishable from Israel's and treats the American people like cattle to be herded.
That is why real information is as dangerous to neocons as water was to the Wicked Witch of the West. It is also why they have concentrated so much on getting control of the flow of news to the American people.
If all the public gets is propaganda -- and if honest journalists and scholars are marginalized and silenced -- then the people will either support the latest neocon/liberal-hawk cause or end up in confused disarray, not sure what to believe.
The truth is that the neocons and their liberal-hawk allies now control virtually the entire mainstream news media, from The New York Times and The Washington Post to NPR and the major networks to Fox News and most of right-wing talk radio. Even esteemed journalist Seymour Hersh now must go overseas to the London Review of Books to get his important reporting published when it challenges the "group think" on Syria and other topics.
'Free Market' Capitalism
A similar situation exists regarding "free market" capitalism that is embraced by both neo-liberals and right-wing economists.
For decades, in the major US news media, it has been hard to hear a discouraging word about "free trade" deals even though labor leaders and some populist politicians warned presciently that these deals would cost millions of middle-class factory jobs.
Today, there is more skepticism about "free trade" as the social and economic impact has become undeniable but, again, there was no accountability for the misleading advocates of these agreements nor a serious effort to rewrite the deals. Renegotiation of the trade deals has been one of Donald Trump's major proposals and applause lines.
But most Republican candidates favor more of the same: more unrestrained capitalism and less taxation on the wealthy. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton positions herself as a centrist, promising no "middle class" tax increases on people making $250,000 or less, a redefinition of the "middle class" to include families making about five times the median income.
Despite their other shortcomings, Trump and Sanders are the only candidates seriously addressing some of these key economic issues. For his part, Sanders advocates much higher taxes -- especially on the wealthy and the stock speculators -- to fund a broad range of social programs, such as Medicare for all, and to finance massive infrastructure rebuilding.
Yet, the central challenge for a possible political transformation in America rests on reliable information getting to the people, especially given all the sources of misinformation and the many barriers to the truth. That battle -- restoring the life-blood of democracy, an informed electorate -- remains the challenge of our time.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. His latest book is America's Stolen Narrative.
Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine
Jeffrey Sachs / The Huffington Post
(February 5, 2016) -- There's no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy "experience" has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.
Hillary and Bill Clinton's close relations with Wall Street helped to stoke two financial bubbles (1999-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great Recession that followed Lehman's collapse.
In the 1990s they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose the worst demons of financial manipulation, toxic assets, financial fraud, and eventually collapse. In the process they won elections and got mighty rich.
Yet Hillary's connections with the military-industrial complex are also alarming. It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering.
This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don't want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.
Just as the last Clinton presidency set the stage for financial collapse, it also set the stage for unending war. On October 31, 1998 President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act that made it official US policy to support "regime change" in Iraq.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
Thus were laid the foundations for the Iraq War in 2003.
Of course, by 2003, Hillary was a Senator and a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, which has cost the US trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and done more to create ISIS and Middle East instability than any other single decision of modern foreign policy.
In defending her vote, Hillary parroted the phony propaganda of the CIA:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members . . . ."
After the Iraq Liberation Act came the 1999 Kosovo War, in which Bill Clinton called in NATO to bomb Belgrade, in the heart of Europe, and unleashing another decade of unrest in the Balkans. Hillary, traveling in Africa, called Bill: "I urged him to bomb," she told reporter Lucinda Frank.
Hillary's record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience.
Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.
Hillary has been much attacked for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi, but her tireless promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law but counter to the most basic good judgment.
After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria.
The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In the meantime, Hillary found it hilarious to declare of Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died."
Perhaps the crowning disaster of this long list of disasters has been Hillary's relentless promotion of CIA-led regime change in Syria.
Once again Hillary bought into the CIA propaganda that regime change to remove Bashir al-Assad would be quick, costless, and surely successful. In August 2011, Hillary led the US into disaster with her declaration Assad must "get out of the way," backed by secret CIA operations.
Five years later, no place on the planet is more ravaged by unending war, and no place poses a great threat to US security. More than 10 million Syrians are displaced, and the refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean or undermining the political stability of Greece, Turkey, and the European Union.
Into the chaos created by the secret CIA-Saudi operations to overthrow Assad, ISIS has filled the vacuum, and has used Syria as the base for worldwide terrorist attacks.
The list of her incompetence and warmongering goes on. Hillary's support at every turn for NATO expansion, including even into Ukraine and Georgia against all common sense, was a trip wire that violated the post-Cold War settlement in Europe in 1991 and that led to Russia's violent counter-reactions in both Georgia and Ukraine.
As Senator in 2008, Hilary co-sponsored 2008-SR439, to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. As Secretary of State, she then presided over the restart of the Cold War with Russia.
It is hard to know the roots of this record of disaster. Is it chronically bad judgment? Is it her preternatural faith in the lying machine of the CIA? Is it a repeated attempt to show that as a Democrat she would be more hawkish than the Republicans? Is it to satisfy her hard-line campaign financiers?
Who knows? Maybe it's all of the above. But whatever the reasons, hers is a record of disaster. Perhaps more than any other person, Hillary can lay claim to having stoked the violence that stretches from West Africa to Central Asia and that threatens US security.
Jeffrey Sachs is the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Posted in accordance with Title 17, Section 107, US Code, for noncommercial, educational purposes.