Barack Obama has definitely been a disappointment. But does anyone think that he could have in any sense turned around the momentum of the military-industrial-"entertainment" complex in 2 or 3 years?
Can anyone turn it around?

Pilger then comments about Obama engaging in another "insufferable" Presidential campaign.

Perhaps then you prefer Sarah Palin or one of the other completely deranged psychotics that now infest the GOP. For an astute analysis of her influence on USA right-wing politics altogether why not Google the essay on The Daily Beast: Sarah Palin Queen of Right Wing Reaction.

By the war those on the right-side of the culture wars here in the land of Oz have frequently expressed, in their publications, their approval of Palin and what she represents. This includes some of the dreadfully sane people who will be attending the IPA gab-fest The Genius of western Civilisation.

Ho Hum
"Barack Obama has definitely been a disappointment. But does anyone think that he could have in any sense turned around the momentum of the military-industrial-"entertainment" complex in 2 or 3 years?"

Why not? He's the President. Congress never declared war as the Constitution requires, therefore these wars are being carried out under Obama's (unconstitutional) executive authority. We now know that all the reasons for going to war with Iraq were lies. Obama said he stood for change. Apart from changing the paperweights on his desk, what has he done that's substantially any different from George W? Obviously the military industrial complex won't be turned around while ever the Democrats, like all the Republicans except Ron Paul, support a military empire and perpetual aggressive war killing untold numbers of poor third world peasants, and enriching huge corporations sucking on the government teat?

So? Do you support the empire or not? If not, why defend Obama's disgraceful record of extending the empire abroad and police state at home? Wouldn't *stopping warring* be a good start on turning around the momentum of the welfare/warfare state?

Ho Hum,

I suspect Pilger was referring to the " insufferable" nature of American presidential campaigns in general.
Pilger is right that nothing has fundamentally altered except the quality of the rhetoric. The U.S. is still classifying the regimes in the middle-east as "good Arabs" and "bad Arabs" and acting accordingly.

Peter Hume,

This is another rare occasion where I agree with every point you made in your last post. The American government has siphoned off taxpayers dollars and funnelled them straight into the pockets of the giant corporations who have been active in the knocking down and the rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure.

Is Obama his own man, or is he a puppet of the military/industrial corporations?
I lean toward the latter. Eisenhower warned us of what was coming as he left office in 1959. Kennedy MAY have been thinking about addressing the issue, but he was assassinated. His successor, Johnson, rolled over, gave the generals Viet Nam, and the rest is history.
In the US the military corporations seem to rule the day. Israel is in it up to their eyeballs, as is Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States.
It's oil of course, of course. And not just to have, but to be sure no one else (China) gets it instead.
The value added attraction in Libya is their juicy juicy sovereign fund.
Do they really not realise how obvious they are, or do they just no longer care.

My first thought was why hasn't John Pilger retired? Why must we see him on Online Opinion? And then I thought well its harmless entertainment. The posts are more interesting, and far more balanced, than the article.

Hi John, welcome back.

One of the great disappointments with expectations is disappointment. I get this feeling that Obama has disappointed you. Probably because as a Democrat there was an expectation he might behave as you wanted him to behave.

Not only has he disappointed you, he has now forced you to assign him to the depths of Dante’s Inferno along with George W. Bush.

It is clear there are many in this world that have likewise disappointed you. I was thinking of making a list of these miscreants but I couldn’t find room for the International Political Telephone list.

I also thought it might be prudent to try to understand why so many in public officers have disappointed you on such a wide range of critical international issues. This expectation list also has volumetric problems as you might imagine.

In the end it all comes down to those damnable expectations of yours. So what is it about your expectations that the very best of our democratically elected officers find so hard to meet?

I guess in pursuit of causality we have to be realistic and point to the fact that there is only one common factor, John Pilger.

Congratulations, the whole democratic world is wrong and John gets the banana.

This is the worst case of RDS I’ve seen recently. The prognosis is not good and the only medication I could possibly suggest would be massive doses of multi-immune vaccine containing context, relevance, reality and ego suppressants

There is a HUGE difference between Bush and Obama.

I can watch and listen to Obama without feeling an inclination to damage my media such as throwing a brick at the telly (I always felt sympatico for the shoe-thrower).

PS

This must mean there is still hope.

OK - not the most rational of arguments, but that's the best I can do ATM.

Obama is just a more sophistocated version of Bush.Bush brought in the Patriot Act and Obama Preventative Dentention.Obama expanded the wars into Pakistan and Libya.He also gave the US Federal Reserve more powers to destroy the US economy.

Obama is far more dangerous than Bush because people trust him.

I suppose I am not disappointed in Obama because I never had great hopes for him or any other politician. Pilger’s rant says more about his faux political naiveté than about Obama.

I use the expression “faux political naiveté” because I don’t for one moment believe that Pilger is really as naïve as he presents himself. He’s just using his supposed disappointment with Obama for one of his usual anti-American tirades.

For those of us undeceived by political theatre I recommend the worlds of Lord Palmerston:

“…We [England] have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”

Obama is the president of the United States. He is not the president of the world or of Egypt or Israel or any place else. As such he needs to be judged by how well he has looked after America’s interests. On that score, given the constraints under which he has to work and the situation he inherited, I would say he has done a fair job. I’d give him a B-.

Amazing. In a month in which Osama bin Laden has been neutralised, perhaps Mullah Omar has been killed, and Ratko Mladic has been arrested and will shortly face trial for his war crimes, and at a time when the Arab world is rising up in historic revolution, Pilger has a go at Obama.

What is the common thread in all these events ? Either that the US has come out on top, in some way, its policies have been partly vindicated, and its formal democratic principles are something which people in Arab countries are clearly striving for: right or wrong, good or bad, the Arab countries are having their long-overdue bourgeois revolutions, not waiting for the Euro-white working class to lead them to a socialist utopia. B@stards !

Meanwhile, Obama is contantly under pressure from the Right in the US: his birth certificate is a forgery, they would say. His health scheme is a communist plot, they would say.

But Pilger turns his venom on Obama and reserves his cheap shots for a President who inherited a vast range of diabolical problems from an idiot. Cui bono, Mr Pilger ?

Loudmouth.Obama made the US economy much worse.He should have sacked all the old Bush advisors but kept them.Instead of making Wall St and the bankers pay for their mistakes he let them loose to reek more havoc on the US and world economy.Obama is a total failure for the American people but a great success for the banksters and their war mongerers.

Loudmouth,

The Arab countries are embarking on revolutionary action in part as a response to years of IMF and World Bank reforms, the impact of which increased the hardship endured by ordinary people.
Profits from reform and privatisation were funnelled directly to the controlling elite in these countries and to the corporate elite outside their borders.

I don't believe Obama deserves any credit for the uprising, as he represents a country who has backed the likes of Mubarak in a "you-scratch-our-back, we'll-scratch-yours" arrangement for years.

John Pilger certainly takes me out of my comfort zone. I would never presume to argue with this award-winning journalist, author, film-maker because his knowledge and experience would outclass anything I had to offer. The picture he continues to paint is so grim and depressing. But he does (for me at least) make me wonder - where does real power lie? Who makes the decisions? I always thought that the US was ruled by the power elite - that important decisions were made by powerful interests. So how much actual power would a US President have
and can he really be held responsible for decisions that may be out of his control?

Lexi asks:

>>..So how much actual power would a US President have and can he really be held responsible for decisions that may be out of his control?>>

I strongly recommend a recent documentary movie, Inside Job.

Here Katie Couric interviews the producer of the movie, Charles Ferguson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJCWY-_gG2k

Although the movie focuses on US banks you should be in no doubt that similar comments may be made about most major banks in the world. The recent Greek "bailout" was not a Greek bailout at all. It was the German Government roping in the EU to act as debt collector for German bankers who knew exactly what they were doing and paid themselves enormous bonuses for doing it.

We in Australia are very fortunate to have escaped the worst of it thanks in large part to the regulatory reforms of John Howard and Peter Costello.

It seems an awful lot of people are totally missing the point about Obama and US politics. And in fact, politics in general.

Its (the) 'democracy' stupid. Governments can only enact policies that they can sucessfully sell to the general electorate. Obama is enacting policies that he believes are
1) right and
2) has (or will gain) broad community support.

He's realist enough to know that point 2 is the most important one.

As some australian politician put it. Only the impotent are truly pure. Everyone else has to make concessions to get anything done. Complaining about the fact that radical change is not on the agenda merely underlines the lack of understanding of the political reality. Most people don't want radical change. They want more money in their pocket at the end of the week.

This is illustrated perfectly in Australian politics at the moment. A large proportion of Australians sincerely believe that they are battling, despite having more of almost everything than their parent or grandparents did. Cost of living is THE issue of the day.

These are the people you need to win over. Complaining about politicians responding (as is their duty in a democracy) to a keenly felt and highly entrenched attitude is missing the point.

That we can't even get widespread agreement that households on 150 000 dollars a year shouldn't be receiving handouts from the government is staggering. Yet this is where we are at. The welfarism of labour, and the pork barrelling of howard got us here, and its going to be realy hard to find our way back.

Its the entitlement culture.

Hang on Steven,

The greeks borrowed the money. And now they want to avoid the consequences of having to pay it back. The confidence that backs the issuance of sovereign bonds is a VITAL part of our international financial system. Lending money to governements is different to lending money to a business venture. In general, investors get significantly lower returns and in return they don't expect any risk to their investment. (Although there may be a case that those investors who've come in late at high rates of return may well deserve to take a 'haircut' )

the germans, and other fiscally 'responsible' european countries are becoming more and more annoyed that the profligate PIGS (potugal, ireland, greece and spain) have lived beyond their means for too long, and are now wanting to shift the burden of this failure to investors who believed in the security of governement debt. why should the PIGS be allowed to do that?

The Irish are prepared to take German taxpayers money to pay off their debt, yet are demanding that they retain their low corporate tax to attract business away from germany and other european donors. Effectively asking these donors to pay for the privelege of sending business to Ireland? Its ridiculous.

Yes I think PaulL's analysis is right, although the problem of unprincipled pork-barrelling goes way back before Howard. We are looking at the inevitable consequences of democracy. You can't give government open-ended authority for unequal taxing and arbitrary forced redistributions of a thousand kinds, and expect to be able to keep any kind of restraint on it from doing and favouring whomever it wants. The very idea of expedience and pragmatism is opposed to the idea of principle. The welfare state and the warfare state are too sides of the same coin. The only difference is the location of the people they're attacking.

The only way out is on *principle* - the principle of liberty - to restrict the US government to within the limits of the Constitution. If you actually read it, it explicitly lists the permitted powers of government - and explicitly reserves all other powers to the states and the people. Constitutionally speaking, about 95 percent of US governmental activity is illegal.

For the left wing, the question is whether you are so committed to government's economic interventions (which are a disaster anyway), that you are prepared to accept as its price, a fascist empire of perpetual aggressive war abroad, and police state at home.

Lexi
"I always thought that the US was ruled by the power elite - that important decisions were made by powerful interests. So how much actual power would a US President have
and can he really be held responsible for decisions that may be out of his control?"

Just because important decision are made by powerful interests doesn't mean they're not made by the government. Obviously government is a key part of the power elite. And obviously they have enormous power, because that's the only way the non-governmental power interests can get their power.

(cont.)

For example, it's no use blaming the military-industrial corporation for the actions of government in making them rich. If government wasn't buying their stuff, they would have to beat their swords into ploughshares, or go broke, and that is as it should be.

Ron Paul's policy is to end the empire by withdrawing US troops within US borders, and using them only for the defence of the US if attacked. He reckons this would save about a trillion dollars a year. There is no question that the President, as the chief executive and commander-in-chief has the authority to do so even without Congress. But I wonder whether a President who tried it would be assassinated?

For some reason, John Pilger's articles have been getting on my nerves lately. Still, when I see his name, it's like I'm a rubbernecker at the scene of a car crash. I know it's going to be terrible, but I just have to take a look.

What bothers me is not his sentiment about Libya. As with Iraq, I grow increasingly irritated every time a 'leader' in our government (or anyone else's, for that matter) tries to sell me the same old tripe about 'democracy (blah, blah, blah), freedom (blah), liberation (blah)' or 'the common good (blah)' to justify our stance in any of these conflicts.

The no-fly zone is an excellent example. The first I heard of it, it was proposed as a very thinly veiled attempt to neutralise Gaddafi's superior military capabilities, to prevent him from quelling the rebellion in his country. As it gained support, though, it was all about preventing him from butchering innocent civilians. How many innocent civilians were butchered by Libyan fighter pilots is anyone's guess; how innocent a civilian with an assault rifle is also remains open to interpretation. A third question begs answering: how many innocent civilians have died as a result of NATO ineptitude?

So it's not the spirit of Pilger's article that bothers me. It's the arrogance with which he draws long bows and makes wild assertions, assuming that we - the humble public - won't question them. "Freezing" funds amounts to "bank robbery"? The situation in Libya is the same as that which occurred in Kosovo back in the 1990s? The Americans are currently plotting to install a new tyrant in Egypt? Please, Mr Pilger, give us more than your word to work with here! Name names! Offer links!

Perhaps he DOESN'T assume that we won't question him. Perhaps outrage and actual THOUGHT about international affairs is what he's after. If so, good job. I think that might be why I keep coming back for more.

Once upon a time Pilger's articles hardly got a comment.The truth is starting to emerge and thus more are paying attention.

Thanks to everyone who were so kind as to respond to my post. This is an interesting thread and much can be learned from all the various responses. I'm not any sort of expert in international relations but I still can't help wondering - should President Obama be held responsible for the actions he's taken to date? Afterall didn't he inherit an awful mess from the previous administration and then there was the global financial crisis, turmoil in the Middle-East, and so on. I read somewhere that in American politics (or perhaps in politics in general) it takes one term to settle into office, and another to actually try to achieve anything. Perhaps we should wait until Obama's second term in office before criticising him? Just a thought.

Obama has spectacularly failed to champion the interests of universal human rights including the right to a reasonable standard of living for billions of people at home in the United States, or overseas.

Obama is clearly comfortable with superficial and fatally compromised reforms that will in the long term have as little positive effect as no reform at all.

The world under present international leaders is heading into another great depression since none of the pertpetrators of the GFC have been punished. Nor have serious attempts been made to restructure broken global institutions.

Laws been not been put in place to avert catastrophe nor have international and national enforcement agencies been empowered to address the unbridled greed and power of muti-national super corporations that love to play politicians and public opinion through their media interests like pawns in a game of Chess.

Peter Hume.Ron Paul is one of the few honest politicians left in Congress.He wants to end the US Federal Reserve whose existance is against the constitution and bring the troops home.He is hated by his own Party and most of the democrats.Both the major parties are controlled by the major banking interests who have interests in arms,oil,drugs etc.It is corruption beyond anyone's imagination.

Hi Lexi,

I believe Obama was symbolic to many people of a change of guard in American politics.
His rise to prominence was a particularly inspiring moment in U.S and world politics. His speech on election night was uplifting in the extreme.....anyone who could make Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert go misty-eyed was someone to sit up and take notice of.

....problem is that Obama is harnessed to the U.S political system which is in turn beholden to the elite, both corporate and old-school, - change is therefore difficult to bring about without a system of trade-offs (which was in evidence with the new heath deal) between the various power brokers and vested interests.

What is making it difficult for Obama is the fact that he *believes* all the ideas that are causing the problem.

"change is therefore difficult to bring about without a system of trade-offs"
Yes it is but if the President, elected on a popular mandate for significant change, doesn't have the leadership authority, who does? Difficult doesn't mean impossible. The need to uphold the Constitution when faced with the power-plays of vested interests isn't a reason for him not to do his job - it is his job! Even without recourse to Congress, he could make enormous changes by executive order alone - proof of the past slide to unconstitutional government. Nor should we rule out the support of Congress. The very least he should do is seek to persuade them!

But he's not. For example, Ron Paul wants to abolish the Fed, but Obama has opposed even auditing it! Obama recently moved to *increase* the debt ceiling. According to this theory, the whole of the expenditures of the US government are absolutely sacrosanct. There is no way anything could possibly be economised. *All* military expenditure without exception is classified as "non-discretionary*.

So the problem isn't that he is beholden to the power elites. It's that he's beholden to the *beliefs* that are causing these serious dangerous unjust global problems, and which are shared by the orthodoxy on both the left and right wing of politics, Ron Paul excepted. The state knows better than everyone else put together. The state represents the greater good of the community against the selfishness of the individual. If there's any problem, it's because the state didn't do enough, never that it did too much. The Constitution is irrelevant. There are no limits to the power the state *should* have! The state is god.

It's a racket folks! They've lied to you, and have you believed it? Left and right are not opposites, they are two wings of the one predatory class.

Dear Poirot,

I agree with you. President Obama's election gave so much hope to so many people not only in the US but around the globe. Of course it would be extremely naive not to realise that he has to walk a fine line in order to achieve anything. Still, he tries. Whether it's with a new health system, or taking the initiative with the Middle-East conflict. Of course we'd like to see him achieve more - however, he's got strong opposition from the conservatives (Tea-Party mob and others) which make our coutry's opposition look irrelevant.

The whole purpose of theory is to explain and predict reality. So if you had entertained high hopes of Obama, and they have been disappointed, that means your theory is wrong.

Lexi and Quick response persist in hoping that, if only we urge government to use more and more power unconstitutionally, that will surely make for a better society. For where in the US Constitution is the power granted:
a) to "champion the ... right to a reasonable standard of living for billions of people ... overseas"?
b) for "a new health system, or taking the initiative with the Middle-East conflict"?

The problem is, people now project onto government, the expectations for which in former ages they would repose faith in God. My expectations of Obama turned out correct, but I don't have a God-King theory of the state.

There are three basic problems with that approach, apart from its irrationality. Firstly it's unconstitutional, and this obviously doesn't bother you. You advocate arbitrarily violating the freedoms and property of others, knowing it's unconstitutional, only believing it must be good because you *intend* it to be good.

Secondly, once government is enlarged beyond the strict limits provided for it by the Constitution, there's no reason to think it's going to do what you want. And it doesn't - that's what you're complaining about.

Thirdly, when you look on the negative results of your own theory, you don't recognise them as such, and re-urge more of the same measures that caused the problem in the first place.

The *left* needs to understand its part in for the global injustices it condemns.

Let me ask you this: if you could end the American empire, the military-industrial complex, the Fed, the bailouts for billionaires, the wall street cartel, but only at the cost of abolishing all the government departments not *explicitly* permitted by the Constitution, including Education, social security and Medicare, would you be for or against it?

If not, I'm sorry to tell you this, but it's you and your political opinion that's causing the problem.

Peter Hume,

I've just returned back to this thread and read your last post.
My goodness - you certainly assume a great deal about people you don't even know. Frankly, I'm not interested in continuing a discussion when someone stoops to the level of labelling people. That's arguing on an emotional level, and not a mature, intelligent one. I'll leave you to your gruntlement.

Notice how every time the interventionists' advocating aggressive violence as a means to an end is pointed out to them, they act like it's impolite to mention it, or they were entirely innocent of any such suggestions, and immediately personalise the issue?

But you don't want the "new health care system" to be voluntary, do you?

Do you?

You want it to be imposed and enforced, don't you?

Yes? Answer?

And you haven't tried to cite where in the Constitution such action is explicitly authorised, have you? And it's because you know it's not there, isn't it? So you're advocating unconstitutional government, specifically to use aggressive force for redistributions to political favourites, aren't you?

You feel affronted by me for using *words* to point out that the policies you advocate involve *actually and physically violating* the freedom and property of others. If you hadn't thought that that's what you're doing, isn't it time you did? And if you had, isn't it time you re-thought what you stand for?

It is not a long bow to draw to say that those who advocate the welfare state in the USA have only been able to do so by advocating arbitrary and unconstitutional government.

The question is, would you do away with the endless killings, the imperial Caesar, the corruption of the military-industrial complex, the Fed, the banking cartel, and all the high crimes and abuses that flow from unlimited government power, if it could only be done at the cost of your precious handouts?

Peter Hume,

Frankly, I don't know what you're on about. I don't know US politics that well to make all those assertions that you're claiming I made. Asking questions in a discussion should not be taken as an attack of some kind. And I am not an absolutionist on most subjects. I can be persuaded if the arguments make sense to me. Unfortunately, I don't understand what you're on about - so as I stated previosuly - I'll leave you to it.

Lexi.I know exactly what Peter Hume is talking about.Western Imperial corruption/deceptions abounds in a multitude of facits.Where do you want to start? Iraq,Afghanistan,911,Pakistan,Libya,Vietnam? Choose your weapons of deception carefully.

There is not a simpler way of explaining the Political corruption Phenomena and Political Economy , But if any who are willing , at least willing to listen to some Historical events in Europe at the turn of the Century , then you will learn and realise what is happening in Our times , but probably much worse ;
http://mises.org/media/category/252/Mises-The-Last-Knight-of-Liberalism
And you would do well Peter to listen to the Biograph