...the most important opinion isn't Scahill's

Iran hails Obama's UN speech
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023728166

This Will Send The Right Wing Apoplectic. The President Tells It Like It Is.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023724351

However, anyone who takes off their red, white and blue rimmed, rose colored glasses can't help but notice that this has been our foreign policy forever. It's not new with Pres. Obama.

I sure did.

I guess the global industrial oligarchy prevailed. They have always been the ones behind our foreign policy and in Latin America, the Monroe doctrine as well.

... in clear unambiguous terms.. I hate the policy, but at least he told the truth without saber rattling... well at least without calling Iran the Axis of Evil, and "They Hate Us for Our Freedoms". We're just interested in our national interest which is the free flow of oil. Don't interfere with that and we're all good to go.

it's an important step, I think. Perhaps Americans will push for sustainable energy and finally ween ourselves off fossil fuels once and for all.. but probably I won't live to see it. Hopefully my grandchildren will.

And also, I appreciated that he came out and said out loud why they don't trust us... referencing the Coup in '54. Didn't mention how we aided Iraq in gassing the Iranians during their war, but that's for another President at a different time, perhaps.

men that good don't have the backing of those powerful enough to be in a position to even run for the gig, let alone win it.

He is no better, but no worse than the imperial American presidents before him and the shared view, "all your resources belong to us".

As well as the right to use military force to get it.

There have been some changes for the positive on social issues, but that does not cost the oligarchs that actually run the show a penny, a single drop of oil, or gram of minerals we will perpetually kill to procure for them.

I had hoped for a change when we replaced the Bush regime, but have been proven to be far too gullible than I should have been at my age regarding our country's proven nature.

and its former Colonialist allies taking their resources. If this is the only way the US thinks it can get the resources it needs, we are a pretty sad excuse for a nation. And now that it has been admitted openly, that what we are are just a bunch of thieves, despite all the denials and excuses about 'national security' and 'terrorists'.

So I doubt there will be much sympathy from now on when people whose resources we have decided to take, fight back. The very least we could do now would be to stop trying to garner the world's sympathy each time we invade yet another country for its resources and kill so many of its people.

So 'elect more Democrats' simply means 'keep the status quo'. That is quite a switch from the reasons we were given over the past decade.

There aren't many who know what we do overseas and they have drunk the patriotic Koolaid that tells them that all our imperialism is to protect us from those bad guys. In truth we are protecting the global interests of private companies operating overseas. What is a shame is that this was the reason we fought the Revolutionary War because of the excesses of the British East India company. It's what the Boston Tea Party was about. The biggest offender is the Monroe Doctrine. We have to disown this first.

I'm sure, 'it is getting harder to sell the New World Order now as people are far more informed due to the Internet and other media'. He was referring to the failure to 'sell' the Syria Intervention.

They are attempting to deal with this new reality by smearing other media, such as RT and International Al Jazeera and Wikileaks but it isn't working. Once Pandora's box opened which began to happen in the middle of the last decade when all this new media began to explode, it will be difficult to close it. The next generation, eg, is far more informed than the older generation and are already making their voices heard regarding all of this.

I believe there is a real political shift occurring but there will have to be an alternative to the current system that has people locked into the status quo no matter who they vote for. THAT will be the challenge for the next several decades. I do believe it has begun, a bit late, but better late than never imo.

Depressingly so. It is a blatant declaration that all the worlds recourses belong to the U.S. and we will take them and kill any one who stands in our way.

We will kill anyone who stands in our way.

How anyone could take the overall point of the speech and twist it into "Obama’s ‘Neocon’ Foreign Policy" is surreal.

Jeremy Scahill Lambasts ‘Imperialist’ Obama’s ‘Neocon’ Foreign Policy
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jeremy-scahill-lambasts-imperialist-obamas-neocon-foreign-policy/

With praise from the international community, including Iran.

Iran hails Obama's UN speech
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023728166

This Will Send The Right Wing Apoplectic. The President Tells It Like It Is.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023724351

And the events of the last few days.

Obama Directs Kerry To Enter Nuclear Talks With Iran: 'The Diplomatic Path Must Be Tested'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023721186

Kerry, Iranian Counterpart To Hold Highest-Level Talks Since 1979
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023716416

It was only a matter of time before the President's speech was twisted to fit the anti-Obama narrative perpetuated by some.

Coming right after "the United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War", it sounds exactly like a claim to use the US military to control oil in the Middle East. He's saying that the oil justifies the intervention.

Which I applaud, but to ignore that we are bullies that intend to keep bullying for oil, is willful ignorance.

The kind of ignorance that Professionals work to cultivate and encourage here.

That's a subtle but important difference.

than many DUers.

that includes the rest of the world?

I think it's great when a President is just stating the facts. Hell, he even came out and admitted to CIA meddling in Iran (first official admission of that).

Just because Scahill has a keener eye and analysis of the speech than most doesn't make him an asshole. Schaill is referring to Obama's declaring our intention to impose military force whenever we perceive our national interest to be threatened, to which Obama clarified his meaning, stating that the Free Flow of Oil will be protected will not be allowed to be disrupted. (paraphrasing)..

That bold declaration of imperialism is actually jaw-dropping on it's face, unless of course you're totally all for it. Then you're with the pro-Gulf War, Iraq Invasion crowd and if McCain's Bomb Bomb Bomb.. Bomb Bomb Iran jingle made you giggle, well I can understand why you might think Scahill is an asshole.

But if you're anti-war, Scahill's remarks should be given some well deserved thought.

The point is that nothing about this speech makes Obama a "neo-con."

The premise is absurd.

or at least I'm not.

But I cannot help notice when O says stuff that is
so brazenly imperialistic that * couldn't have gotten
away with saying it.

None of this "makes Obama a neo-con", but that's
not even the point. The point is making sense of
Obama's UN speech, so as to better understand
WTF is really going on behind all the posturing and
appearances.

It's a bullshit take on the speech, and at this point it's simply anti-Obama bullshit.

Obama straight out states what our imperialists goals are.

Which to me, though I oppose the mindset/policy completely, I'm still none the less find the statement quite refreshing to have it stated out loud and in plain english, absent the Neo-Con line of name calling, eg. "axis of evil" "terrrists" etc. Bullshit saber rattling which we were fed day after day for 8 long miserable years.

I don't recall Scahill using the term Neo-Con, he would have been more accurate to include Neo-Liberal /Neo-Con foreign policy because that's essentially U.S. Global Imperialism's political roots since JFK -Dubbya - through today.

Actually it could be argued since Jefferson and Monroe, and that is our history. Not a lot has changed in that regard. I think Obama simply and boldly told the truth, I give him credit for that.

the DU2 archives

but he was reporting on it years before his book was published. I suspect Scahill was the source of the reports posted on DU pages, since he was only one I know of covering that beat,

Jeremy was reporting on what Blackwater did once they won those contracts.

have a looksy over at wiki on Scahill..

you'll quickly discover his roots aren't exactly, bourgeoisie, chic or faux left.

quite the contrary actually.

to the money flow, because (as I noted upthread in #46) that's part of understanding the political-economy of imperialism and militarism

for a number of generations, by now.

I don't consider having conversations and engaging in discussion here on this board as activism.

I do that in town hall meetings, city council meetings, demonstrations, and tabling at other events etc. "Noise" making is sometimes appropriate, particularly in demonstrations & picket lines, here not so much, imo.

As far as winning fights... I don't engage here with the notion that I'm dealing with freepers. Please, spare me the patronizing lecture on activism, thanks.

Getting back to the point of contention wrt to your attack on Jeremy Scahill- did you go over to wikipedia to research his background and do you now recognize that he is not a "bourgeois - pseudo-leftist" as you claimed?

If so, will you do the principled thing, admit your mistake and wrong assumptions and correct your error in this or even a separate post dedicated for that purpose?

I direct your attention to your #13, in case you have perhaps forgotten. As I pointed out in my #46, that sort of remark is wedge-driving

But now you think I owe you some apology?

I simply asked if you now understand that your attack on Schaill was ill founded, and if so, if you intend to make that correction.

If not, so be it.

I'm NOT vested, interested, requesting or otherwise expecting an apology personally.. I hope that's clear.

eod

careful attention to facts, does not actually serve the ends it claims to serve, such as anti-imperialism or anti-militarism

It is only possible, to fight back effectively against militarist and imperialist tendencies in the US, by understanding in detail the diverse sources of those tendencies -- which in some cases are purely ideological, in other cases are driven by the considerable economic forces arising from the huge "defense" industry, and in still other cases are the political result of US dependence on foreign resources -- and the interaction of those tendencies

Spreading messages which merely encourage cynicism and despair among critics of the status quo may seem to you a way to show that you are chic and smart -- but when those messages contain no careful analysis and nothing by way of facts that can help us understand how to proceed in our tasks, they actually serve the status quo by discouraging effective action

I do not regard your assertions, such as "Bomb Bomb Iran jingle made you giggle," as a form of activism: such assertions, considered objectively in terms of their potential consequences, are merely disruptive wedge-driving, which cannot help us

Giving initial reactions in an interview isn't "spreading" any kind of message.

Those remarks were given in an interview just following the speech, and the text that is posted here is a TRANSCRIPT of that interview, not a written analysis. Although it would be fair to assume Jeremy's written analysis (should he write one, perhaps he already has and I missed it) would likely be in the same vein.

As to quoting McCain's jingle, isn't asserting any form of activism, and the chic thing makes no sense either.

If you're asserting that I'm a "pseudo leftists" pretending to be chic (?) that might be hilarious if it made any sense.

As to careful analysis, my interpretation was the same as Jeremy's on the point he's referring to. I just happen to have a different reaction than he does.

I found it jaw droppingly refreshing to hear the truth from a sitting President about our (the U.S.) Imperialistic aims stated so clearly, absent the propagandistic jingoism "they hate our freedoms" (and so on) that I sang O's praises. I hope he does that from this point on. I mean, tell the American People and the World the TRUTH about what our objectives really are and why.

Just Keep that Oil Flowing, baby. No disruptions and all will be just fine.

and nothing resembling your so-called" paraphrase

actually take some of them seriously if I ever saw them busily organizing US workers class to fight for bread and butter

If you did, you would know how forcefully his circle of friends and followers are to push for economic justice and a living wage.

Or a specialization?

Scahill writes on foreign policy.

However, the journalists and activists he closest identifies with are very active in workers' rights, the 99%, and the underclasses.

how dare they push for living wage! See? They're the pseudo-left bourgoise radical chic limousine liberals that the Repukes and the BOG despise so much.

It's true I'm not a working class activist. I'm a working POOR activist. so chic, so pseudo leftist.

interesting that you would be so presumptuous as to determine who is a working class activist on line.

I've been acquainted with Jeremy's work for about 15 years give or take. I have a lot of respect for him, he's put his LIFE on the LINE quite literally as a journalist.

And there ain't nothing bourgeois about that my dear.

Sad but I am afraid very true.

...the FEELING that's not all of what Obama said.

on Democracy Now!

then posts and spins to fit his own narrative.

Obama is a neocon who is pushing diplomatic talks with Iran.

Something about that sounds very odd.

How does a *neocon* or an imperialist seek *diplomatic* solutions with Iran?

Scahill does not 'always do this', because he didn't do it this time. The Democracy Now! host gave the Obama quote, and he reacted to it.

sorry for the caps, but these reactions against Scahill's remarks is infuriating.. again, thanks for the time and labor required.

of neo-con philosophy in this speech. He says that America is attempting to reduce dependence on imported oil. What's wrong with that? That's hopeful true! He says that the entire world does still rely on that region for its resources. That would still be true. Then, he says there are still terrorist networks in that region. That is true. That America and "our partners" (read to mean the UN and allies) will dismantle those networks. (How is that imperialism? unilaterialism?) He says that we respect the sovereignty of nations. Again, how is that imperialism? However, we will defend the U.S. What's wrong with that? Shouldn't we defend the U.S.? I should hope so. Shouldn't we reject the development of nuclear arms? I should think so.

I'm still not sure what your issues are here.

Did you think your vote could change US policy?

They need to shut down their comments like good journalists,
and report what is said by Fearless Leader.
That is all.

good.

Really, how low can he go?

where this conversation took place. The effect of not providing source info and links leads one to make inaccurate assumptions and draw incorrect conclusions.

Not sure, but if it isn't too late to edit the post to provide the links to the video so that reader will be able to see the actual context Scahill's remarks were made, it would go a long ways to repair credibility to the poster's actual intentions, in this readers eyes.