GREEN PARTY CANDIDATE LOSES THE PLOT
Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party presidential candidate has made an extraordinary claim that 5000 prisoners were executed by the US state during the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans, and dumped in a Louisiana swamp.
This is pretty strong coffee. Surely 5000 prisoners would have been missed by their families? Surely at least some of the prison guards might have had moral objections and gone to the press. Shooting 5000 people would be a very major undertaking, and would need a lot of organisation, and transporting the bodies would take several lorries, and dozens if not hundreds of people would need to be involved. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, McKinney’s claim is so improbable that it will seriously damage the Green Party’s credibility.
This is a shame, McKinney is a fiery and outspoken politician. She has 17 years experience as a Democratic congress woman, and has been a consistent and outspoken opponent of American foreign policy, and the war in Iraq. Sadly her latest accusations will remind people that in 2002 she claimed that President Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
McKinney is not the only left field candidate, and Ralph Nader is on the ballot in 45 states. The American voting system is by electoral college, where each state nominally sends delegates who elect a President, so only the few states that are genuine marginals are critical to the evenual outcome. In my opinion, in the safe states, progressive and left voters should vote for Ralph Nader, but in the swing states where the outcome of the presidential election will be decided, then the left should support Obama/Biden.
Jeez.
Why are so many American leftists loons? Dennis Kucinich and the aliens spring to mind as well.
Mind you, we have quite a few of these nuts over here too.
Comment by Rory — 3 October, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
There is a good article in The Progressive a US leftist Magazine associated with folk like Howard Zinn on the Mckinney and Nadar Campaigns, if anyone is interested in the US lefts take on things
Maybe Andy you could post it up here.
http://www.progressive.org/mag/gray1008.html
Comment by Ray — 3 October, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
why not vote for socialist candidates: http://socialism.com/fsarticles/vol29no5/voting.html … btw Nader is a more a populist than a leftists
Comment by Entdinglichung — 3 October, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
Cue Derek Wall…
Comment by Spock's Brain — 3 October, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
it would be preferable to campaign and vote for a socialist candidate, however, given ballot access and the fact that the socialist candidates don’t have any campaign to speak of at all, it makes more tactical sense to intervene in an actual living campaign that attracts activists to it and holds larger meetings, has a public profile and so on.
by orientating towards such a campaign and offering critical support you can then attempt to win the activists attracted to it towards socialist ideas - and put forward the demand for a workers’ party in the us. this is purely a tactical judgement about where it is easiest and most profitable to spread socialist ideas and recruit to revolutionary marxist organisations.
nader has many short comings indeed but he is well-known, is standing on a radical programme in the context of us politics currently, and he will attract a certain radicalised mileau to his campaign, providing fertile ground for socialists to recruit, spread their ideas, sell literature and so on.
a tiny number of socialists campaigning for a candidate not on the ballot in most states anyway and unheard of would be less productive i suspect.
best wishes,
ks
Comment by karlshayne — 3 October, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
I dont know why Andy is still parroting the old Democrat chestnut that in swing seats you have to vote for them as a third party will reduce there votes. If you compare the last two elections, the lack of a united left campaign helped only one candidate… Bush. This is the only evidence based statement that can be made. In the vast majority of states Bush actually increased his percentage of the vote and Kerry’s vote decreased compared to Gore. So much for the supposed taking away of votes by a third party.
In another thread Andy claims the left has a lot to learn from the ruling classes electoral strategies, but on this evidence i wouldn’t trust ‘the anyone but “the latest republican arsehole” mantra’ within sections of the democrats and its hangers on with a barge pole.
Comment by imatrot — 3 October, 2008 @ 11:15 pm
#6 That bdoesn’t make any sense at all.
A more left third candidate cannot win, and will not take votes from the Republicans.
So the only option left is that they will take some votes from the Democrats.
So how does that help the Republicans?
And there is certainly no evidence that the lack of a “united left” candiadte helped Bush.
Comment by Andy Newman — 3 October, 2008 @ 11:31 pm
Cynthia McKinney’s spin doctor says…
Listen to the tape, all Cynthia does is tell the meeting what the mother of a soldier said to her. She covers the key assertion, that 5,000 people ‘executed with a single bullet to the head’ were dumped in a mass grave, with a “reportedly”. So all she was doing was sharing a story she has been told.
So give her a break guys, it’s a long campaign. Both Hillary and Joe Biden said they had been shot at on foreign fact-finding missions, but it turned out they had misremembered. These things happen - these candidates are going for days on end without sleep.
Cynthia remains a whole lot less deluded, dangerous and weird than Sarah Palin.
That’s my best shot - now cue Derek Wall….
Comment by Strategist — 4 October, 2008 @ 1:02 am
Andy, #6 does make sense. The claims that left-wing candidates take away Democratic votes rely on an unspoken assumption, namely “everything else being equal”. There is no reason to believe this assumption, however.
Let’s take Florida 2000, the prime example usually trotted out (not by us trots, though… sorry, stupid joke).
Suppose Nader doesn’t run, or campaign, there. What are the consequences? We don’t know. His campaign might have raised turn-out among left-leaning voters, helping Gore. Hell, it might have raised turn-out among right-wing voters. Or depressed it. The truth is WE DON’T KNOW. There hasn’t been any analysis done. All liberals do is take the Nader votes and add them, or some part of them, to the Gore total - voila, “Nader did it”. That’s just too simple, and there’s no reason to fall for it.
Comment by christian h. — 4 October, 2008 @ 2:01 am
“All liberals do is take the Nader votes and add them, or some part of them, to the Gore total - voila, “Nader did it”.”
The “some part of them” they focus on is probably the 532 votes Gore supposedly lost by?
I’m not disagreeing with all you say here, but it’s a fair bet Nader cost Gore Florida. The better question is, why was Nader supposed to owe Gore anything back then? He wasn’t to know he’d turn out to be a Nobel prizewinner!
Comment by Strategist — 4 October, 2008 @ 2:15 am
“btw Nader is a more a populist than a leftists”
He’s a populist, but a left populist. Compare this to Sarah Palin’s pathetic attempt (and the rest of the Republican party’s very good attempt) at right populism. I don’t think populism is a bad word. But if you mean that Nader is no socialist, you’re absolutely right.
Comment by MQDuck — 4 October, 2008 @ 2:27 am
Andy here is a website http://www.electoral-vote.com/ You can point your mouse over every state and see the percentage of votes for the last four elections. Take the famous state of Florida. In 2000 when Nader was running a strong left campaign, Gore got 48% of the vote, in 2004, when most of the left capitulated to your ‘anyone but bush mantra’ Kerry still managed to lose 1% to 47%. This trend is followed in pretty much every state. I may have over stated the argument that the lack of a united left helped Bush but the whole basis of your argument, that we need to unite behind the Democrats to boost their vote is flawed when matched to statistical reality.
In reality what you are proposing is a double edged sword and both are pointed at the development of a left alternative. On one hand we miss the opportunity to use the elections to build that alternative, offering people the chance to vote for a left wing project, but more importantly the chance to build those electoral coalitions that Andy has been banging on about recently. And on the other, we still don’t have a positive effect on the democrat vote, thus not doing anything to actually help a Democratic victory.
Comment by imatrot — 4 October, 2008 @ 5:03 am
I would have thought that any serious politician would have checked what they had been told before repeating it. Paranoia of this kind is not limited to blac merica it is rampant over here. The black newspaper New Nation and the lobbying group Operation Black Vote actively claim that the Aids epidemic in Africa was started by white doctors to control the population and both want the anti semitic white hating homophobic bigot Louis Farrakhan allowed into the country.
The black press and web sites are full of conspiracy theories many of which are concerned with Jewish plots so really what was said is not that outlandish. As to voting for “left” candidates I think people should vote tactically and forget delusions of grandeur. If Galloway stands against Jim Fitzpatrick he will probably let the Tories in and left groups standing where the BNP are is down right suicidal. It is a question of the lesser evil, do you hate New Labour more than the Tories or vice versa?
Comment by terryfitz — 4 October, 2008 @ 7:04 am
‘In my opinion, in the safe states….’
I’m really glad you don’t live here in the states when you give advice like that.
Do you really want to encourage some one to vote for a (Democrat) person who has demonstrated his zeal to bomb and occupy Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan?
He wants to bailout the Wall Street billionaires, many of whom are his buddies.
They are just the other wing of the ruling class who have demonstrated time and again that they will attack the working class for the benefit of the rich.
You should probably read socialistworker.org for the correct strategy regarding the elections.
I believe the socialist worker reporter Lance Selfa has just come out with a book about the history of the Democrats, which I am sure, will make abundantly clear why one should NOT vote for the Democrats.
Comment by Peter Hine — 4 October, 2008 @ 7:06 am
Terry:
It is a question of the lesser evil, do you hate New Labour more than the Tories or vice versa?
Reply:
What’s the difference?
Comment by John W — 4 October, 2008 @ 8:40 am
I forget the exact details, but hasn’t McKinney always been a bit of a weirdo? What’s certainly true is that she only ended up as the Green candidate because she was defeated in a primary election for her Congressional seat. Weirdo or not, I was always rather sceptical of her running for the Greens for this reason.
Comment by Voltaire's Priest — 4 October, 2008 @ 9:52 am
#16 At least she doesn’t advocate bombing Tehran!
Comment by anti — 4 October, 2008 @ 11:37 am
So look at the opinion polls in Florida in 2008.
Obama 47%
McCain 47%
undecided 5%
Do you really think it doesn’t matter, and there would be no difference with a Mccain or Obama presidency?
In the unlikely event that there isn’t a socialist revolution in America between now and November, the election is going to be very important. And perhaps Obama and Mccain might have even more mainstream political imapct that socialist worker?
Specifically, in the five or six states that are very close, and which will decide the election, then progressive voters should vote for Obama, and argue for their friends, colleagues and neighbours to vote Obama.
If you really think it will make no difference then you are deluded ultra-lefts, but even if you werre correct that there was no difference in the White house, the left shoudl still be cognisant that a McCain victory will demoralise everyone who wants a break from Bushism.
am sorry “Iamatrot” but your original formulation that the lack of a united left campaign helped Bush was not just a slip of words, it really does reveal that you think in your heart that the far left are some sort of significant factor in politics.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 October, 2008 @ 11:37 am
#17
Good point. Are the AWL backing McCain?
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 October, 2008 @ 11:39 am
Here’s a recent essay by Cynthia McKinney Seize the Time
We the people must now seize the time! We have always had the capability of determining our own destiny, but for various reasons, the people failed to elect the leaders who provided the correct political will. There was always some corporate or private special interest that stood in the way of the public good. And they always seemed to have the power of the purse to throw around and influence public opinion or our elected officials. The very foundation of the U.S. economy is crumbling underneath our feet. This represents a unique moment in U.S. history and we must now seize the time for self-determination–for health care, education, ecological wisdom, justice, and all the policies that will make a difference in the lives of the people including an end to all wars, including the drug war!
The crisis was staved off for a time for some of our major finance engines when they were able to obtain bridge funding from certain sovereign wealth funds. That option grows increasingly dim as The Federal Reserve is becoming the lender of last resort. This means that the people are becoming the owners of the primary instruments of U.S. capital and finance. This now means that the people have a say in how these instruments are to be used and what their priorities ought to be. The people should now have more say in how their tax dollars are spent and what the priorities of government and the public sector must be. We the people must now set our demands to ensure and promote the public good.
Now, as we ponder the importance of this moment to do good and serve the needs of the people, some politicians have already figured out their answer for us: win or steal the next election, prepare for more war, and leave it to others to try and figure out what to do next. While banks are failing all around us and the U.S. taxpayer is drenched with news of billion-dollar bailouts for *selected* companies, the Congress, which has utterly failed in its twin responsibilities of setting policy and Executive Branch oversight, plans to adjourn instead of setting new policies; lessening the impact of the economic freefall on innocent victims; or stopping war, expansion of war, new war, and occupation.
In a dizzying turn of recent events, we have all witnessed the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage providers, investment banks Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, and insurer American International Group (AIG), and other companies. So far, at least eleven banks have filed for bankruptcy this year. The case of the AIG bailout is particularly curious as Merrill Lynch was denied taxpayer largesse. I wonder if AIG was the selected company for bailout because of its relationship to the U.S. intelligence community and what others would discover if AIG’s books were opened in an audit. The last person to get close to AIG and its shady operations was Eliott Spitzer.
But some more fundamental issues must be explored here, relating to the underlying assumptions that have guided U.S. political and economic activity, particularly over the last eight years.
The Bush Administration’s “anything goes, just don’t get caught” attitude has set the tone for what we are witnessing today. To be sure these problems didn’t start in January of 2001, but they sure were allowed to accelerate during the George W. Bush Administration. For example, what tone was set when the Administration shipped $12 billion to Paul Bremer’s provisional government in Iraq in cash on wooden pallets for Iraq reconstruction? No wonder $9 billion of it was “lost.” What I’m constantly reminded of is that the money didn’t just vanish, somebody got it. Now it’s up to us to find out who!
However, the Administration’s blatant disregard for good governance, the rule of law, standards of moral and ethical conduct, and even etiquette, when coupled with a laissez-faire, “go-along-to-get-along” attitude from Congress meant that no holes were barred and no hands were on the deck–a sure prescription for disaster.
In my reading over the course of the last few years, I had to become somewhat conversant with the language of the new economy: bundled mortgages, securitization, SPEs, SIVs, derivatives. But in addition to the old concepts that always seemed to be with us–predatory lending, redlining, no affordable housing amid “the housing bubble,”– it soon became clear that basically folks had figured out a way to make money off of a ticking time bomb. Kind of like prisons for profit. And even though the Enron scandal was supposed to have cleaned up a lot of this, unfortunately, even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regularly engaged in some of these practices and that’s why you and I own them today. I believe it is true that the very foundations of the U.S. economy and conventional political behavior have been shaken. Now is not the time for business as usual. And although this is by no ways exhaustive, here are a few things that I think the Democratic-led Congress could work on now instead of adjourning:
1. enactment of a foreclosure moratorium now before the next phase of ARM interest rate increases take effect;
2. elimination of all ARM mortgages and their renegotiation into 30- or 40-year loans;
3. establishment of new mortgage lending practices to end predatory and discriminatory practices;
4. establishment of criteria and construction goals for affordable housing;
5. redefinition of credit and regulation of the credit industry so that discriminatory practices are completely eliminated;
6. full funding for initiatives that eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in home ownership;
7. recognition of shelter as a right according to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights to which the U.S. is a signatory so that no one sleeps on U.S. streets;
8. full funding of a fund designed to cushion the job loss and provide for retraining of those at the bottom of the income scale as the economy transitions;
9. close all tax loopholes and repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of income earners;
10. fairly tax corporations, denying federal subsidies to those who relocate jobs overseas repeal NAFTA.
And since the Congress plans to adjourn early and leave these problems to The Federal Reserve, The Federal Reserve should operate in the interests of the U.S. taxpayer and not the interests of the private, international bankers that it currently represents. This, of course means that The Federal Reserve, too, must undergo a fundamental ownership and mission change.
This crisis does not have to be treated as merely a “market correction,” or the result of a few rotten apples in an otherwise pristine barrel. This crisis truly represents the opportunity to introduce fundamental changes in the way the U.S. economy and its political stewards operate. Responsible political leadership demands that the pain and suffering being experienced by the innocent today not be revisited upon them or the next generation tomorrow. But sadly, instead of affirmative action being taken in this direction, the Bush Administration ratchets up the drumbeat for war, Republican Party operatives busily remove duly-registered voters from the voter rolls, and our elected leaders in the Congress go home to campaign while leaving all of us to fend for ourselves. For the Administration and the Democrat-led Congress, I declare: MISSION UNACCOMPLISHED. For the public whose moment this is, I say: Power to the People!
Please visit www.runcynthiarun.org and read our platform. If you like it, please make a donation so we can spread the news and . . . seize the time!
Comment by Ray — 4 October, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Yesterday’s vote in the House of Representatives to support the bailout of Wall Street to the tune of $700 (or is it $800) billion shows currently it is the Democrats who are more in tune with the interests of US finance capital than the Republicans. Most Democrats in the House voted for the bailout whereas most Republicans voted against.
Of course those (both Democrat and Republicans) who opposed the bailout hardly did so for progressive reasons. They represent the rage of ‘middle America’ against the casino capitalism of Wall Street. Or to put it differently they represent the small business owners (the petty bourgeoisie) who oppose the US governemnt bailing out the big banks when no one will bail out their own businesses if they go under - as undoubtedly many will.
Where is political representation for the US working class in all this?
Comment by Patrick Scott — 4 October, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
#17 - Unlike whom? You? BTW you are David Ellis and I claim my fifty pounds.
Comment by Voltaire's Priest — 4 October, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
#22 Nope. I am. You are going to have to face it that quite a few people are against bombing Iran even if the AWL genies arses are for it.
Comment by David Ellis — 4 October, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
imatrot, don’t worry about Andy calling you “ultra-left”. It’s his thing. Not crossing picket lines for socialism with Ken: ultra-left. Not voting for 42 days: ultra-left. Don’t think Chinese sweat-shops are socialism: ultra-left.
Anyway, no need to worry. Obama will win this election, and then he will proceed to start wars, fail to pass any “health care reform” (he’s now running cable ads touting how his plan is not “government-run health care and higher taxes”), give more money to his hedge fund buddies and generally make Andy’s US friends look like fools - again.
Meanwhile, those fools will tell you not to rock the boat, give Obama time, think of the midterm elections, think of 2012,…
Comment by christian h. — 4 October, 2008 @ 4:05 pm
Christian
i diodn’r say that iamatrot is an ultra-left. I said that anyone who thinks there is no difference between Obama and McCain is an ultra-left.
Quite simply, it matters who wins, because mcCain would start more wars, appoint more conservative supreme court judges, and has a disastous health care reform plan that will force millions of Americans out of their current company health schemes.
Not to think any of that matters because neither Obama not mccain is a socialist would be pure ultra-leftism.
Comment by Andy Newman — 4 October, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
Andy, as you may have noticed, I was engaging in some, let’s say, creative name-calling. Or do you actually support crossing picket lines?
Seriously, though, I don’t think it is useful or right to throw around terms like “ultra-left” so much. I think it’s fairly clear that voting for candidate A over candidate B simply because A isn’t as bad as B is a simplistic strategy, and disagreeing with it in any given case doesn’t constitute ultra-leftism.
To expand on this a little (and I’m not saying anything you don’t know):
(a) There’s a limit to what any given person is willing to accept from candidate A, eve if he isn’t as bad as candidate B. I suppose this is true for you as much as anyone. Where the line is is up for debate, but that it exists should not be.
(b) We agree the left is weak in the US. Therefore, it needs to be built. As long as we’re shackled to supporting Democrats because they are not Republicans, this won’t be possible.
(c) The Democratic party cannot be “moved to the left”. This is an illusion. Therefore the default position should be to oppose it.
I could go on, but the point is that a decision like this cannot be made in the abstract. It has to be arrived at after careful consideration in the concrete historical and political situation. Coming to a different conclusion from yours isn’t ultra-left. It’s simply a difference in judgment.
For what it’s worth I’ll repeat what I wrote in a comment here some time ago: if I had a vote and lived in a close state that could decide the election, I’d give it to Obama. I will not, however, argue for expending scarce energy and resources on campaigning for him, and I understand those who come to a different decision.
Comment by christian h. — 4 October, 2008 @ 4:40 pm
Many years ago in the UK a group called the scaffold had a hit with ‘Do you remember’?
Well it seems like Mr. Newman does not remember what it is like with the Dems running the show.
Do you remember Clinton’s humanitarian bombing of Serbia?
People were just collateral damage.
Do you remember the Clinton ordered missile on Sudan? atthttp://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/23/sudan.apology/ack on Sudan?
This led to the deaths of thousands.
Do you remember the deaths of 500,000 children because of Clinton era sanctions against Iraq?
Do you remember the. ……, oh what’s the point?
I’m sure all those who died in other countries and those who have suffered in the US were very thankful that it was the Democrats who killed them and not the Republicans.
Like Eugene Debs said “I’d rather vote for something
I want and not get it, than vote
for something I don’t want,
and get it.”
Regardless of who wins the election we are going to need build a movement that is going to stop the wars, fight for health care, jobs, education and so on.
As Howard Zinn said “What matters most is not who is sitting in the White House, but “who is sitting in” — and who is marching outside the White House, pushing for change.”
If you met a seven foot 395 pound thug who said, Well, I’m going to hit you.
But you have a choice; will it be my left hand or right hand?
So what would you democratically choose?
I doubt if you would remember.
Alternatively you could come up with a different solution!
Comment by Peter Hine — 4 October, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
#22:
Buuh? OK, I’ll confess that I do not know what a “genie’s arse” is. Nevertheless I’m against any sort of bombing of Iran, and I have no idea what you or your pseudonym “nuke matgamna” were doing suggesting otherwiae when you obsessively trolled our site 24/7 for the past month. You also appear to think we’re an “AWL site” when in fact there is only one AWL member (star though he is) who writes there.
Comment by Voltaire's Priest — 5 October, 2008 @ 2:05 am
Interesting article on New Left Review about US Elections and the politics of Diversity and the Obama and Clinton campaigns
‘Tears and triumphs for race and gender have dominated discussion of the 2008 US election. Walter Benn Michaels argues that the Obama and Clinton campaigns are victories for neoliberalism, not over it—serving only to camouflage inequality.’
http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2731
Comment by Ray — 5 October, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Andy,
I posted a comment accusing you of shit-stirring by suggesting that the AWL somehow support McCain, for some reason the comment was removed, but your stupidity remains up at #19.
Either withdraw such obvious rubbish or post something to substantiate it- don’t simply remove any comment which objects to your lies.
Comment by martin ohr — 5 October, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
Martin Ohr (28) Andy (19) asked: “Is the AWL backing McCain?” Perhaps this is because the Weekly Worker has accused the AWL of speculating on a nuclear attack on Iran by Israel. I don’t know either way, but if the AWL does, however hypothetically, support a nuclear attack on Iran by Israel, then for Andy to speculate that the AWL might also support McCain may well be inaccurate, but is hardly “obvious rubbish.”
Comment by Karl Stewart — 5 October, 2008 @ 7:15 pm
Does the AWL support Labour?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 5 October, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
The AWL doesn’t support a strike by Israel on Iran but will excuse it when it happens. The reason they don’t support it, therefore, is because it would be bad for Israel’s reputation. They do not oppose it because of the death and destruction it would cause but because they are concerned for the reputation of Zionism. Matgamna is preparing his little cult to defend Zionism against the `kitsch left’ in the event of it perpetrating an international outrage.
Comment by Nuke Matgamna — 5 October, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
Martin
You know full well that the AWL’s alpha male, Sean Matgamna, has written that he would support an Israeli bombing of Iran.
John McCain, is the man who thinks it funny to sing “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the beach boys song.
So it is not unreasionable to ask whether the AWL’s ultra-Zionism would lead the to support the most Zionist US presidential candidate.
Comment by Andy Newman — 5 October, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
I certainly backing Cynthia, good on ecology, peace and socialism as far as I am concerned, looks like she is the victim of smears….have listened to her speak she sounds sound to me, so I am happy to put this down as an out of context comment…’keep the oil in the soil’ and plenty of other stuff from her and Rosa mark them as powerfull candidates.
I guess the AWL be backing some one else for President..other than Cynthia….
Comment by Derek Wall — 5 October, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
Hi Derek, Is the main reason the greens oppose nuclear power due to fears over dwindling supplies of uranium?
Comment by Karl Stewart — 5 October, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
no…if you read Jewish Socialist I have an article on nuclear power, dirty, dangerous, expensive but I think subject for another thread on another day…still catching up with lots of tasks by the way having spent some time on getting my amigo out of jail in Cusco…
Comment by Derek Wall — 5 October, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
#33
You are still David Ellis, and I claim my second fifty pounds.
Comment by Voltaire's Priest — 5 October, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
Re: Andy Newman’s statement “Sean Matgamna has written that he would support an Israeli bombing of Iran”: that is a lie, plain and simple. Read the article, Newman! You may not like its contents, but Matgamna makes it abundantly clear from the opening lines, that he *opposes* an Israeli attack on Iran. This is so clear that any “misunderstanding” on that point (such as Newman’s and the CPGB’s) can only be put down to either an inability to read plain English… or bad faith.
Judge for yourselves:
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/07/28/discussion-article-what-if-israel-bombs-iran
Comment by Jim Denham — 5 October, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
oh fucking come on jim, let it rest you pillock. The AWL support a military attack on Iran and thats jsut the end of it. I am aware that a few of you oppose this line!! but for fucks sake the idiot who runs AWL is a pro imperialist. The AWL are scabs and war mongers. They seem to have replaced the old RCP (Living marxism) as the locus of rotton psuedo left politics which in realtiy backs the imperialists.
Comment by ll — 6 October, 2008 @ 12:36 am
I don’t like the leninists of the awl and hold no brief for them but it is worth actually looking at what matgamna actually said:
“An attack on Iran will most likely lead to great carnage in the Middle East, and beyond, as supporters of Iran resort to suicide-bombings in retaliation. There might well be large scale Iranian civilian “collateral” casualties. An attack would strengthen the Iranian regime and license a smash down on its critics, including working class critics, inside Iran. It would throw Iraq back into the worst chaos.
Yet the plain fact is that nuclear bombs in the hands of a regime which openly declares its desire to destroy Israel are not something Israel will peacefully tolerate. They will act to stop it while it can still be stopped without the risk of a nuclear strike against Israel.
Unless work on an Iranian nuclear bomb has definitively ended Israel will bomb Iran, with or without the agreement of the USA and NATO.
In the last reckoning here, Israel is no state’s puppet. It has pressing concerns of it’s own, and will act on them.
In 2007, Israel attacked a nuclear weapons site in Syria. It attacked nuclear installations in Iraq in the 1980s, when the US was backing Saddam against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, eliminating Saddam’s attempt to develop nuclear weapons.
In Israeli eyes the facts and alternatives here are stark.
Recall what the Iranian leader Ahmedinejad said in December 2006:
“Thanks to people’s wishes and God’s will, the trend for the existence of the Zionist regime is [going] downwards and this is what God has promised and what all nations want. Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out”.
Israel, the Jewish state as such, is clearly what “Zionist regime” means here. In the context of Iran being close to having nuclear weapons, he is talking about the nuclear obliteration of Israel. That is how most Israelis took it.
Israel will act to stop this Muslim fundamentalist regime acquiring the possiblilty of inflicting nuclear death on the Jewish nation (and the Israeli Arab minority which would also be victims of a nuclear attack).
We as socialists want Ahmedinejad to be sent to hell not by the Israeli and American armies and airforces, but by the Iranian working class and the oppressed nations in the Iranian state. We would like to see the Israeli ruling class go on the same trip as Ahmedinejad.
We do not advocate an Israeli attack on Iran, nor will we endorse it or take political responsibility for it. But if the Israeli airforce attempts to stop Iran developing the capacity to wipe it out with a nuclear bomb, in the name of what alternative would we condemn Israel?
The inalienable right of every state to have nuclear weapons — and here a state whose clerical fascist rulers might see a nuclear armageddon, involving a retaliatory Israeli nuclear strike against Iran in the way a God-crazed suicide bomber sees blowing himself to pieces —?
Because Israel has nuclear weapons, and therefore the Arab and Islamic states should have them too —?
Because we are unconditional pacifists? We think military action is never justified, and therefore Israel has no right to attack Iran, not even to stop it acquiring the nuclear means to mount the ultimate suicide bomb attack on Israel —?
Because we would prefer to live in a world where such choices would not be posed, where relations between states and peoples are governed by reason, and strictly peaceful means —?
Because for choice we would live in a world where the workers of Israel, Iran, Iraq were united in opposition to all their rulers, and strong enough to get rid of them and bring to the region an era of socialist and democratic peace and understanding —?
Because Israel would in attacking Iran be only an American imperialist tool, against a mere regional power; and that cancels out the genuine self-defence element in pre-emptive Israeli military action against Iranian nuclear weapons —?
Because Israel has no right to exist anyway, and therefore no right to defend itself —? (This will in fact be the underlying attitude of most of the kitsch left.)
Because the Iranian government, Islamic clerical fascist though it is, is an “anti-imperialist” power and must be unconditionally supported against the US, NATO, Israel —?
Because Israel refuses to dismantle the Jewish national state peacefully and agree to an Arab Palestinian state in which Jews would have religious but not Israeli-national rights, and therefore socialists, “anti-racists”, and anti-imperialists must be on the side of those who would conquer and destroy it, even, in this case, with nuclear weapons —?
Because we don’t deal in vulgar practical choices but in pure historical essences such as “anti-imperialism” —?
The harsh truth is that there is good reason for Israel to make a precipitate strike at Iranian nuclear capacity.
Socialists should not want that and can not support it. Our point of view is not that of Israeli or any other nationalism. We want Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian and other workers to unite and fight for a socialist Middle East.
However, least of all should we back Ahmedinejad, or argue, implicitly or openly, that homicidal religious lunatics have a right to arm themselves with nuclear weapons — and that those they say they want to destroy should be condemned for refusing to stand idly by while they arm themselves to do the job.
The latter, expressed in duff “anti-imperialism”, pretend, one-sided, pacifism and hysterical appeals to “international law” and “the UN”, will be the response of the kitsch left to an Israeli attack. International socialists should have no truck with it.
The left needs to discuss these issues in advance, while a, comparitively, calm discussion may still be possible …”
Comment by darren redstar — 6 October, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Why are my posts being removed?
Comment by martin ohr — 6 October, 2008 @ 10:37 am
Martin
It is a standing policy of this blog to delete all comments that discuss our moderation policy, beacsue they quickly descend into circular and fractious arguments.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 October, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Yes darren #41
In the article you post, Matgamna clearly justifies a nuclear attack by Israel following the doctrine of pre-emptive first strike.
he knows enough “marxism” to cloud the issue wiith weasel words, but he clearly argues that Israel shoudl not be condemned if it actually attacked Iran, in repsonse to Iran arming itself so that it could potentially attack Israel.
Exactly the same argument could have been used - for example - to give left cover to a NATO pre-emptive nuclear attack on the USSR.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 October, 2008 @ 11:29 am
#34 Andy,
You are a liar, no-one in the AWL has written “he would support an Israeli bombing of Iran.” quite the opposite in fact.
This is a typical diversion to begin an attack on the AWL in a completely un-related post.
Your accusation of ‘ultra-zionism’ is frankly bizarre. Again reading any of the thousands of articles on the AWL website regarding palestine/Israel would show that: we support palestinians 100% in seeking to obtain a just settlement. We favour for -tactical purposes- a two-state solution based on the pre-’68 borders and subtantial reparations from the Israeli government to allow Palestine to be a viable state- as a way of removing the national question as a barrier to working-class unity in the region, the end game states need not be decided on now or made a pre-condition to an immeadiate solution. If this makes the AWL ‘ultra-zionist’ then then what does it make the 80% of Palestinians (and Israelis) who -according to opinion polls- support the same solution?
Back to the US elections, Andy is it true that you -and Respect- are supporting Obama? What is his position viz ‘zionism’? Continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? Imperialism? etc etc.
Comment by martin ohr — 6 October, 2008 @ 11:55 am
Andy you stated that Matgamna has stated that he would support the bombing of Iran, when in fact he clearly states the opposite.
You continue to claim that that in fact by these words he actually means the opposite of what he writes.
How much clearer can you get than this:
“We as socialists want Ahmedinejad to be sent to hell not by the Israeli and American armies and airforces, but by the Iranian working class and the oppressed nations in the Iranian state. We would like to see the Israeli ruling class go on the same trip as Ahmedinejad.
We do not advocate an Israeli attack on Iran, nor will we endorse it or take political responsibility for it…
…Socialists should not want that and can not support it. Our point of view is not that of Israeli or any other nationalism. We want Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian and other workers to unite and fight for a socialist Middle East”
Comment by martin ohr — 6 October, 2008 @ 11:59 am
Stop whinning Martin. Its laughable. The article was a deliberate provocation, an attempt to draw a line between members of the AWL and its increasingly deranged politics and the rest of the left. Don’t be surprised if people respond.
Comment by johng — 6 October, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
Martin
You are being boring
darren has posted an article here at #41 from Matgamna, where Sean says:
“if the Israeli airforce attempts to stop Iran developing the capacity to wipe it out with a nuclear bomb, in the name of what alternative would we condemn Israel?”
That is the AWL would not condemn an Israeli attack, and Sean explains how Israel is justified “for refusing to stand idly by while” Iran gains nuclear weapons.
Sean is far from third-campist, in that he explicitly takes sides with Israel against the Islamic republic of Iran. In a context where Iran has never in its modern history started a war with anyone (though admittedly it did come close to threatening to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan), and where Israel has started many wars, and actually has nucear weapons.
Why assume that Israel’s intentions are defensive, and Iran’s are offensive? What Sean does is spin the idea of a military offensive as pre-emptive defence, which is clearly giving ideological left cover to blatant imperialist agression.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 October, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
Yes VP, you can have the second fifty but not the first.
The Matgamna Doctrine is to excuse a pre-emptive strike on Iran by Israel. But why are the AWLers here not simply agreeing with their boss when they already agree with his imperialist stance on Iraq? It can’t be shame. They crossed that threshold many moons ago.
Comment by David Ellis — 6 October, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
Andy,
you are misreading what sean writes, when he says: “… in the name of what alternative would we condemn Israel?” he goes onto to list a the possible spurious reasons that the left in britain will use to condemn Israel and then dismisses them. The article concludes as it starts by saying that we oppose Israel bombing Iran. It’s clearly summarised by the following passages -clearly in the third camp tradition:
“We as socialists want Ahmedinejad to be sent to hell not by the Israeli and American armies and airforces, but by the Iranian working class and the oppressed nations in the Iranian state. We would like to see the Israeli ruling class go on the same trip as Ahmedinejad.
We do not advocate an Israeli attack on Iran, nor will we endorse it or take political responsibility for it…
…Socialists should not want that and can not support it. Our point of view is not that of Israeli or any other nationalism. We want Israeli, Palestinian, Iranian and other workers to unite and fight for a socialist Middle East”
But to go back; your original lie was that Matgamna supports an attack on Iran- despite him saying quite clearly the opposite.
You used this lie to backup the scurilous claim that AWL might support McCain.
You then furter justified this this by saying that since AWL are hyper-zionists we would support the most zionist candidate in the US elections.
Each time I responded you deleted my comments in which I pointed out that. 1) You are actually supporting a ‘zionist’ and ‘pro-war’ candidate in Obama and 2) If the AWL are hyper-zionist then what does it make the 80% of palestinians which support the same twin-state solution of the immeadiate conflict as us?
What it sad is that you are prepared to dish out such rubbish, and then don’t have the courage to defend yourself when someone responds.
Stop deleting, start debating.
Comment by martin ohr — 6 October, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
Martin
I have no interest in debating with you.
Comment by Andy Newman — 6 October, 2008 @ 12:55 pm