William Blum
The Anti-Empire Report #147
By William Blum - Published November 30th, 2016
What can go wrong?
That he may not be "qualified" is unimportant.
That he's never held a government or elected position is unimportant.
That on a personal level he may be a shmuck is unimportant.
What counts to me mainly at this early stage is that he - as opposed to dear
Hillary - is unlikely to start a war against Russia. His questioning of the
absolute sacredness of NATO, calling it "obsolete", and his meeting with
Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, an outspoken critic of US
regime-change policy, specifically Syria, are encouraging signs.
Even more so is his appointment of General Michael Flynn as National
Security Adviser. Flynn dined last year in Moscow with Vladimir Putin at a
gala celebrating RT (Russia Today), the Russian state's English-language,
leftist-leaning TV channel. Flynn now carries the stigma in the American
media as an individual who does not see Russia or Putin as the devil. It is
truly remarkable how nonchalantly American journalists can look upon the
possibility of a war with Russia, even a nuclear war.
(I can now expect a barrage of emails from my excessively
politically-correct readers about Flynn's alleged anti-Islam side. But that,
even if true, is irrelevant to this discussion of avoiding a war with
Russia.)
I think American influence under Trump could also inspire a solution to the
bloody Russia-Ukraine crisis, which is the result of the US overthrow of the
democratically-elected Ukrainian government in 2014 to further advance the
US/NATO surrounding of Russia; after which he could end the US-imposed
sanctions against Russia, which hardly anyone in Europe benefits from or
wants; and then - finally! - an end to the embargo against Cuba. What a day
for celebration that will be! Too bad that Fidel won't be around to enjoy
it.
We may have other days of celebration if Trump pardons or in some other
manner frees Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, and/or Edward Snowden. Neither
Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton would do this, but I think there's at least
a chance with the Donald. And those three heroes may now enjoy feeling at
least a modicum of hope. Picture a meeting of them all together on some
future marvelous day with you watching it on a video.
Trump will also probably not hold back on military actions against radical
Islam because of any fear of being called anti-Islam. He's repulsed enough
by ISIS to want to destroy them, something that can't always be said about
Mr. Obama.
International trade deals, written by corporate lawyers for the benefit of
their bosses, with little concern about the rest of us, may have rougher
sailing in the Trump White House than is usually the case with such deals.
The mainstream critics of Trump foreign policy should be embarrassed, even
humbled, by what they supported in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
Instead, what bothers them about the president-elect is his lack of desire
to make the rest of the world in America's image. He appears rather to be
more concerned with the world not making America in its image.
In the latest chapter of Alice in Trumpland he now says that he does not
plan to prosecute Hillary Clinton, that he has an "open mind" about a
climate-change accord from which he had vowed to withdraw the United States,
and that he's no longer certain that torturing terrorism suspects is a good
idea. So whatever fears you may have about certain of his expressed weird
policies . just wait . they may fall by the wayside just as easily; although
I still think that on a personal level he's a [two-syllable word: first
syllable is a synonym for a donkey; second syllable means "an opening"]
Trump's apparently deep-seated need for approval may continue to succumb
poorly to widespread criticism and protests. Poor little Donald . so
powerful . yet so vulnerable.
The Trump dilemma, as well as the whole Hillary Clinton mess, could have
probably been avoided if Bernie Sanders had been nominated. That large
historical "if" is almost on a par with the Democrats choosing Harry Truman
to replace Henry Wallace in 1944 as the ailing Roosevelt's vice-president.
Truman brought us a charming little thing called the Cold War, which in turn
gave us McCarthyism. But Wallace, like Sanders, was just a little too damn
leftist for the refined Democratic Party bosses.
State-owned media: The good, the bad, and the ugly
On November 16, at a State Department press briefing, department
spokesperson John Kirby was having one of his frequent adversarial dialogues
with Gayane Chichakyan, a reporter for RT (Russia Today); this time
concerning US charges of Russia bombing hospitals in Syria and blocking the
UN from delivering aid to the trapped population. When Chichakyan asked for
some detail about these charges, Kirby replied: "Why don't you ask your
defense ministry?"
GK: Do you - can you give any specific information on when Russia or the
Syrian Government blocked the UN from delivering aid? Just any specific
information.
KIRBY: There hasn't been any aid delivered in the last month.
GK: And you believe it was blocked exclusively by Russia and the Syrian
Government?
KIRBY: There's no question in our mind that the obstruction is coming from
the regime and from Russia. No question at all.
.
MATTHEW LEE (Associated Press): Let me -- hold on, just let me say: Please
be careful about saying "your defense minister" and things like that. I
mean, she's a journalist just like the rest of us are, so it's -- she's
asking pointed questions, but they're not -
KIRBY: From a state-owned -- from a state-owned -
LEE: But they're not -
KIRBY: From a state-owned outlet, Matt.
LEE: But they're not -
KIRBY: From a state-owned outlet that's not independent.
LEE: The questions that she's asking are not out of line.
KIRBY: I didn't say the questions were out of line.
..
KIRBY: I'm sorry, but I'm not going to put Russia Today on the same level
with the rest of you who are representing independent media outlets.
One has to wonder if State Department spokesperson Kirby knows that in 2011
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking about RT, declared: "The
Russians have opened an English-language network. I've seen it in a few
countries, and it is quite instructive."
I also wonder how Mr. Kirby deals with reporters from the BBC, a STATE-OWNED
television and radio entity in the UK, broadcasting in the US and all around
the world.
Or the state-owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation, described by
Wikipedia as follows: "The corporation provides television, radio, online
and mobile services throughout metropolitan and regional Australia, as well
as overseas . and is well regarded for quality and reliability as well as
for offering educational and cultural programming that the commercial sector
would be unlikely to supply on its own."
There's also Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Radio Liberty
(Central/Eastern Europe), and Radio Marti (Cuba); all (US) state-owned, none
"independent", but all deemed worthy enough by the United States to feed to
the world.
And let's not forget what Americans have at home: PBS (Public Broadcasting
Service) and NPR (National Public Radio), which would have a near-impossible
time surviving without large federal government grants. How independent does
this leave them? Has either broadcaster ever unequivocally opposed a modern
American war? There's good reason NPR has long been known as National
Pentagon Radio. But it's part of American media's ideology to pretend that
it doesn't have any ideology.
As to the non-state American media . There are about 1400 daily newspapers
in the United States. Can you name a single paper, or a single TV network,
that was unequivocally opposed to the American wars carried out against
Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada, and Vietnam while
they were happening, or shortly thereafter? Or even opposed to any two of
these seven wars? How about one? In 1968, six years into the Vietnam war,
the Boston Globe (February 18, 1968) surveyed the editorial positions of 39
leading US papers concerning the war and found that "none advocated a
pull-out". Has the phrase "invasion of Vietnam" ever appeared in the US
mainstream media?
In 2003, leading cable station MSNBC took the much-admired Phil Donahue off
the air because of his opposition to the calls for war in Iraq. Mr. Kirby
would undoubtedly call MSNBC "independent".
If the American mainstream media were officially state-controlled, would
they look or sound significantly different when it comes to US foreign
policy?
Soviet observation: "The only difference between your propaganda and our
propaganda is that you believe yours."
On November 25, the Washington Post ran an article entitled: "Research ties
'fake news' to Russia." It's all about how sources in Russia are flooding
American media and the Internet with phoney stories designed as "part of a
broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its
leaders".
"The sophistication of the Russian tactics," the article says, "may
complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on 'fake news'."
The Post states that the Russian tactics included "penetrating the computers
of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked
emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign."
(Heretofore this had been credited to Wikileaks.)
The story is simply bursting with anti-Russian references:
. An online magazine header - "Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is
Trying to Destroy Our Democracy."
. "the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda
campaigns."
. "more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda
during the election season."
. "stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were
viewed more than 213 million times."
. "The Russian campaign during this election season . worked by
harnessing the online world's fascination with 'buzzy' content that is
surprising and emotionally potent, and tracks with popular conspiracy
theories about how secret forces dictate world events."
. "Russian-backed phony news to outcompete traditional news
organizations for audience"
. "They use our technologies and values against us to sow doubt. It's
starting to undermine our democratic system."
. "Russian propaganda operations also worked to promote the 'Brexit'
departure of Britain from the European Union."
. "Some of these stories originated with RT and Sputnik, state-funded
Russian information services that mimic the style and tone of independent
news organizations yet sometimes include false and misleading stories in
their reports."
. "a variety of other false stories - fake reports of a coup launched
at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey and stories about how the United States was
going to conduct a military attack and blame it on Russia"
A former US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is quoted saying he was
"struck by the overt support that Sputnik expressed for Trump during the
campaign, even using the #CrookedHillary hashtag pushed by the candidate."
McFaul said Russian propaganda typically is aimed at weakening opponents and
critics. "They don't try to win the argument. It's to make everything seem
relative. It's kind of an appeal to cynicism." [Cynicism? Heavens! What will
those Moscow fascists/communists think of next?]
The Post did, however, include the following: "RT disputed the findings of
the researchers in an e-mail on Friday, saying it played no role in
producing or amplifying any fake news stories related to the U.S. election."
RT was quoted: "It is the height of irony that an article about 'fake news'
is built on false, unsubstantiated claims. RT adamantly rejects any and all
claims and insinuations that the network has originated even a single 'fake
story' related to the US election."
It must be noted that the Washington Post article fails to provide a single
example showing how the actual facts of a specific news event were rewritten
or distorted by a Russian agency to produce a news event with a contrary
political message. What then lies behind such blatant anti-Russian
propaganda? In the new Cold War such a question requires no answer. The new
Cold War by definition exists to discredit Russia simply because it stands
in the way of American world domination. In the new Cold War the political
spectrum in the mainstream media runs the gamut from A to B.
Cuba, Fidel, Socialism . Hasta la victoria siempre!
The most frequent comment I've read in the mainstream media concerning Fidel
Castro's death is that he was a "dictator"; almost every heading bore that
word. Since the 1959 revolution, the American mainstream media has routinely
referred to Cuba as a dictatorship. But just what does Cuba do or lack that
makes it a dictatorship?
No "free press"? Apart from the question of how free Western media is (see
the preceding essays), if that's to be the standard, what would happen if
Cuba announced that from now on anyone in the country could own any kind of
media? How long would it be before CIA money - secret and unlimited CIA
money financing all kinds of fronts in Cuba - would own or control almost
all the media worth owning or controlling?
Is it "free elections" that Cuba lacks? They regularly have elections at
municipal, regional and national levels. They do not have direct election of
the president, but neither do Germany or the United Kingdom and many other
countries. The Cuban president is chosen by the parliament, The National
Assembly of People's Power. Money plays virtually no role in these
elections; neither does party politics, including the Communist Party, since
all candidates run as individuals. Again, what is the standard by which
Cuban elections are to be judged? Is it that they don't have private
corporations to pour in a billion dollars? Most Americans, if they gave it
any thought, might find it difficult to even imagine what a free and
democratic election, without great concentrations of corporate money, would
look like, or how it would operate. Would Ralph Nader finally be able to get
on all 50 state ballots, take part in national television debates, and be
able to match the two monopoly parties in media advertising? If that were
the case, I think he'd probably win; which is why it's not the case.
Or perhaps what Cuba lacks is our marvelous "electoral college" system,
where the presidential candidate with the most votes is not necessarily the
winner. Did we need the latest example of this travesty of democracy to
convince us to finally get rid of it? If we really think this system is a
good example of democracy why don't we use it for local and state elections
as well?
Is Cuba a dictatorship because it arrests dissidents? Many thousands of
anti-war and other protesters have been arrested in the United States in
recent years, as in every period in American history. During the Occupy
Movement of five years ago more than 7,000 people were arrested, many beaten
by police and mistreated while in custody. And remember: The United States
is to the Cuban government like al Qaeda is to Washington, only much more
powerful and much closer; virtually without exception, Cuban dissidents have
been financed by and aided in other ways by the United States.
Would Washington ignore a group of Americans receiving funds from al Qaeda
and engaging in repeated meetings with known members of that organization?
In recent years the United States has arrested a great many people in the US
and abroad solely on the basis of alleged ties to al Qaeda, with a lot less
evidence to go by than Cuba has had with its dissidents' ties to the United
States. Virtually all of Cuba's "political prisoners" are such dissidents.
While others may call Cuba's security policies dictatorship, I call it
self-defense.
William Blum
The Anti-Empire Report #147
By William Blum - Published November 30th, 2016
&&&&&&&&&&&&
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.ShareError! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
What can go wrong?
That he may not be "qualified" is unimportant.
That he's never held a government or elected position is unimportant.
That on a personal level he may be a shmuck is unimportant.
What counts to me mainly at this early stage is that he - as opposed to dear
Hillary - is unlikely to start a war against Russia. His questioning of the
absolute sacredness of NATO, calling it "obsolete", and his meeting with
Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, an outspoken critic of US
regime-change policy, specifically Syria, are encouraging signs.
Even more so is his appointment of General Michael Flynn as National
Security Adviser. Flynn dined last year in Moscow with Vladimir Putin at a
gala celebrating RT (Russia Today), the Russian state's English-language,
leftist-leaning TV channel. Flynn now carries the stigma in the American
media as an individual who does not see Russia or Putin as the devil. It is
truly remarkable how nonchalantly American journalists can look upon the
possibility of a war with Russia, even a nuclear war.
(I can now expect a barrage of emails from my excessively
politically-correct readers about Flynn's alleged anti-Islam side. But that,
even if true, is irrelevant to this discussion of avoiding a war with
Russia.)
I think American influence under Trump could also inspire a solution to the
bloody Russia-Ukraine crisis, which is the result of the US overthrow of the
democratically-elected Ukrainian government in 2014 to further advance the
US/NATO surrounding of Russia; after which he could end the US-imposed
sanctions against Russia, which hardly anyone in Europe benefits from or
wants; and then - finally! - an end to the embargo against Cuba. What a day
for celebration that will be! Too bad that Fidel won't be around to enjoy
it.
We may have other days of celebration if Trump pardons or in some other
manner frees Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, and/or Edward Snowden. Neither
Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton would do this, but I think there's at least
a chance with the Donald. And those three heroes may now enjoy feeling at
least a modicum of hope. Picture a meeting of them all together on some
future marvelous day with you watching it on a video.
Trump will also probably not hold back on military actions against radical
Islam because of any fear of being called anti-Islam. He's repulsed enough
by ISIS to want to destroy them, something that can't always be said about
Mr. Obama.
International trade deals, written by corporate lawyers for the benefit of
their bosses, with little concern about the rest of us, may have rougher
sailing in the Trump White House than is usually the case with such deals.
The mainstream critics of Trump foreign policy should be embarrassed, even
humbled, by what they supported in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
Instead, what bothers them about the president-elect is his lack of desire
to make the rest of the world in America's image. He appears rather to be
more concerned with the world not making America in its image.
In the latest chapter of Alice in Trumpland he now says that he does not
plan to prosecute Hillary Clinton, that he has an "open mind" about a
climate-change accord from which he had vowed to withdraw the United States,
and that he's no longer certain that torturing terrorism suspects is a good
idea. So whatever fears you may have about certain of his expressed weird
policies . just wait . they may fall by the wayside just as easily; although
I still think that on a personal level he's a [two-syllable word: first
syllable is a synonym for a donkey; second syllable means "an opening"]
Trump's apparently deep-seated need for approval may continue to succumb
poorly to widespread criticism and protests. Poor little Donald . so
powerful . yet so vulnerable.
The Trump dilemma, as well as the whole Hillary Clinton mess, could have
probably been avoided if Bernie Sanders had been nominated. That large
historical "if" is almost on a par with the Democrats choosing Harry Truman
to replace Henry Wallace in 1944 as the ailing Roosevelt's vice-president.
Truman brought us a charming little thing called the Cold War, which in turn
gave us McCarthyism. But Wallace, like Sanders, was just a little too damn
leftist for the refined Democratic Party bosses.
State-owned media: The good, the bad, and the ugly
On November 16, at a State Department press briefing, department
spokesperson John Kirby was having one of his frequent adversarial dialogues
with Gayane Chichakyan, a reporter for RT (Russia Today); this time
concerning US charges of Russia bombing hospitals in Syria and blocking the
UN from delivering aid to the trapped population. When Chichakyan asked for
some detail about these charges, Kirby replied: "Why don't you ask your
defense ministry?"
GK: Do you - can you give any specific information on when Russia or the
Syrian Government blocked the UN from delivering aid? Just any specific
information.
KIRBY: There hasn't been any aid delivered in the last month.
GK: And you believe it was blocked exclusively by Russia and the Syrian
Government?
KIRBY: There's no question in our mind that the obstruction is coming from
the regime and from Russia. No question at all.
.
MATTHEW LEE (Associated Press): Let me -- hold on, just let me say: Please
be careful about saying "your defense minister" and things like that. I
mean, she's a journalist just like the rest of us are, so it's -- she's
asking pointed questions, but they're not -
KIRBY: From a state-owned -- from a state-owned -
LEE: But they're not -
KIRBY: From a state-owned outlet, Matt.
LEE: But they're not -
KIRBY: From a state-owned outlet that's not independent.
LEE: The questions that she's asking are not out of line.
KIRBY: I didn't say the questions were out of line.
..
KIRBY: I'm sorry, but I'm not going to put Russia Today on the same level
with the rest of you who are representing independent media outlets.
One has to wonder if State Department spokesperson Kirby knows that in 2011
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking about RT, declared: "The
Russians have opened an English-language network. I've seen it in a few
countries, and it is quite instructive."
I also wonder how Mr. Kirby deals with reporters from the BBC, a STATE-OWNED
television and radio entity in the UK, broadcasting in the US and all around
the world.
Or the state-owned Australian Broadcasting Corporation, described by
Wikipedia as follows: "The corporation provides television, radio, online
and mobile services throughout metropolitan and regional Australia, as well
as overseas . and is well regarded for quality and reliability as well as
for offering educational and cultural programming that the commercial sector
would be unlikely to supply on its own."
There's also Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia, Radio Liberty
(Central/Eastern Europe), and Radio Marti (Cuba); all (US) state-owned, none
"independent", but all deemed worthy enough by the United States to feed to
the world.
And let's not forget what Americans have at home: PBS (Public Broadcasting
Service) and NPR (National Public Radio), which would have a near-impossible
time surviving without large federal government grants. How independent does
this leave them? Has either broadcaster ever unequivocally opposed a modern
American war? There's good reason NPR has long been known as National
Pentagon Radio. But it's part of American media's ideology to pretend that
it doesn't have any ideology.
As to the non-state American media . There are about 1400 daily newspapers
in the United States. Can you name a single paper, or a single TV network,
that was unequivocally opposed to the American wars carried out against
Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Panama, Grenada, and Vietnam while
they were happening, or shortly thereafter? Or even opposed to any two of
these seven wars? How about one? In 1968, six years into the Vietnam war,
the Boston Globe (February 18, 1968) surveyed the editorial positions of 39
leading US papers concerning the war and found that "none advocated a
pull-out". Has the phrase "invasion of Vietnam" ever appeared in the US
mainstream media?
In 2003, leading cable station MSNBC took the much-admired Phil Donahue off
the air because of his opposition to the calls for war in Iraq. Mr. Kirby
would undoubtedly call MSNBC "independent".
If the American mainstream media were officially state-controlled, would
they look or sound significantly different when it comes to US foreign
policy?
Soviet observation: "The only difference between your propaganda and our
propaganda is that you believe yours."
On November 25, the Washington Post ran an article entitled: "Research ties
'fake news' to Russia." It's all about how sources in Russia are flooding
American media and the Internet with phoney stories designed as "part of a
broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its
leaders".
"The sophistication of the Russian tactics," the article says, "may
complicate efforts by Facebook and Google to crack down on 'fake news'."
The Post states that the Russian tactics included "penetrating the computers
of election officials in several states and releasing troves of hacked
emails that embarrassed Clinton in the final months of her campaign."
(Heretofore this had been credited to Wikileaks.)
The story is simply bursting with anti-Russian references:
. An online magazine header - "Trolling for Trump: How Russia Is
Trying to Destroy Our Democracy."
. "the startling reach and effectiveness of Russian propaganda
campaigns."
. "more than 200 websites as routine peddlers of Russian propaganda
during the election season."
. "stories planted or promoted by the disinformation campaign were
viewed more than 213 million times."
. "The Russian campaign during this election season . worked by
harnessing the online world's fascination with 'buzzy' content that is
surprising and emotionally potent, and tracks with popular conspiracy
theories about how secret forces dictate world events."
. "Russian-backed phony news to outcompete traditional news
organizations for audience"
. "They use our technologies and values against us to sow doubt. It's
starting to undermine our democratic system."
. "Russian propaganda operations also worked to promote the 'Brexit'
departure of Britain from the European Union."
. "Some of these stories originated with RT and Sputnik, state-funded
Russian information services that mimic the style and tone of independent
news organizations yet sometimes include false and misleading stories in
their reports."
. "a variety of other false stories - fake reports of a coup launched
at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey and stories about how the United States was
going to conduct a military attack and blame it on Russia"
A former US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, is quoted saying he was
"struck by the overt support that Sputnik expressed for Trump during the
campaign, even using the #CrookedHillary hashtag pushed by the candidate."
McFaul said Russian propaganda typically is aimed at weakening opponents and
critics. "They don't try to win the argument. It's to make everything seem
relative. It's kind of an appeal to cynicism." [Cynicism? Heavens! What will
those Moscow fascists/communists think of next?]
The Post did, however, include the following: "RT disputed the findings of
the researchers in an e-mail on Friday, saying it played no role in
producing or amplifying any fake news stories related to the U.S. election."
RT was quoted: "It is the height of irony that an article about 'fake news'
is built on false, unsubstantiated claims. RT adamantly rejects any and all
claims and insinuations that the network has originated even a single 'fake
story' related to the US election."
It must be noted that the Washington Post article fails to provide a single
example showing how the actual facts of a specific news event were rewritten
or distorted by a Russian agency to produce a news event with a contrary
political message. What then lies behind such blatant anti-Russian
propaganda? In the new Cold War such a question requires no answer. The new
Cold War by definition exists to discredit Russia simply because it stands
in the way of American world domination. In the new Cold War the political
spectrum in the mainstream media runs the gamut from A to B.
Cuba, Fidel, Socialism . Hasta la victoria siempre!
The most frequent comment I've read in the mainstream media concerning Fidel
Castro's death is that he was a "dictator"; almost every heading bore that
word. Since the 1959 revolution, the American mainstream media has routinely
referred to Cuba as a dictatorship. But just what does Cuba do or lack that
makes it a dictatorship?
No "free press"? Apart from the question of how free Western media is (see
the preceding essays), if that's to be the standard, what would happen if
Cuba announced that from now on anyone in the country could own any kind of
media? How long would it be before CIA money - secret and unlimited CIA
money financing all kinds of fronts in Cuba - would own or control almost
all the media worth owning or controlling?
Is it "free elections" that Cuba lacks? They regularly have elections at
municipal, regional and national levels. They do not have direct election of
the president, but neither do Germany or the United Kingdom and many other
countries. The Cuban president is chosen by the parliament, The National
Assembly of People's Power. Money plays virtually no role in these
elections; neither does party politics, including the Communist Party, since
all candidates run as individuals. Again, what is the standard by which
Cuban elections are to be judged? Is it that they don't have private
corporations to pour in a billion dollars? Most Americans, if they gave it
any thought, might find it difficult to even imagine what a free and
democratic election, without great concentrations of corporate money, would
look like, or how it would operate. Would Ralph Nader finally be able to get
on all 50 state ballots, take part in national television debates, and be
able to match the two monopoly parties in media advertising? If that were
the case, I think he'd probably win; which is why it's not the case.
Or perhaps what Cuba lacks is our marvelous "electoral college" system,
where the presidential candidate with the most votes is not necessarily the
winner. Did we need the latest example of this travesty of democracy to
convince us to finally get rid of it? If we really think this system is a
good example of democracy why don't we use it for local and state elections
as well?
Is Cuba a dictatorship because it arrests dissidents? Many thousands of
anti-war and other protesters have been arrested in the United States in
recent years, as in every period in American history. During the Occupy
Movement of five years ago more than 7,000 people were arrested, many beaten
by police and mistreated while in custody. And remember: The United States
is to the Cuban government like al Qaeda is to Washington, only much more
powerful and much closer; virtually without exception, Cuban dissidents have
been financed by and aided in other ways by the United States.
Would Washington ignore a group of Americans receiving funds from al Qaeda
and engaging in repeated meetings with known members of that organization?
In recent years the United States has arrested a great many people in the US
and abroad solely on the basis of alleged ties to al Qaeda, with a lot less
evidence to go by than Cuba has had with its dissidents' ties to the United
States. Virtually all of Cuba's "political prisoners" are such dissidents.
While others may call Cuba's security policies dictatorship, I call it
self-defense.
