Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Dis is a Debate?

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2012

Secret Debate Contract Reveals Obama and Romney Campaigns Exclude Third Parties, Control Questions

As President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney prepare for their second debate tonight at Hofstra University on Long Island, we speak with George Farah, author of "No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates." The debate will feature questions from the audience that have been pre-selected by moderator Candy Crowley of CNN — a detail revealed when Time magazine published the contract secretly negotiated by the Obama and Romney campaigns and the Commission on Presidential Debates. [includes rush transcript]

GUEST:

George Farah, founder and executive director of Open Debates. He is also author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.DONATE >

Transcript

NERMEEN SHAIKH: President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney will hold their second debate tonight at Hofstra University on Long Island. President Obama faces increasing pressure after what many deemed a lackluster performance during the first debate in Denver, Colorado, earlier this month. The Romney campaign has since received a boost in the polls and raised a record $170 million in September. Recent polls show the rivals are tied: an ABC News/Washington Post survey released Monday suggested 49 percent of voters are for the Democratic president while 46 percent support his Republican rival. On the campaign trail over the last week, Obama slammed Romney for recanting on many of his previous positions.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: These days, Mitt Romney is for whatever you’re for. Suddenly he loves the middle class, can’t stop talking enough about them. He loves Medicare, loves teachers. He even loves the most important parts of "Obamacare." What happened?

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Meanwhile, Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan campaigned in his home state of Wisconsin and attacked the president for his handling of the national debt.

REP. PAUL RYAN: The president came into office saying he would cut the deficit in half in his first term. He has given us four years of trillion-dollar deficits. He has added almost more public debt than almost all previous presidents combined.

AMY GOODMAN: During this election season, as the Republican and Democratic candidates square off in the official debates, Democracy Now! has broken the sound barrier by expanding the debates to include the voices of third-party presidential contenders who were shut out, giving them equal time to respond. Tonight’s debate is the first this election to use the town hall format, featuring questions moderator Candy Crowley of CNN, she selects from the audience—a detail revealed when Time magazine published the contract secretly negotiated by the Obama and Romney campaigns that dictates the term of the 2012 presidential debates.

Tonight, Democracy Now! will continue our expanded coverage, this time from Hofstra University, where the debate is being held. We’ll host a community roundtable with guests from Long Island, then air the full, uninterrupted debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney. From 10:30 to 11:00, we’ll broadcast post-debate analysis.

And tomorrow on Democracy Now! we’ll play excerpts of the town hall meeting today and include third-party candidates also, in addition to Mitt Romney and President Obama, answering the questions. Our guests in studio will be Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate; as well, we’ll be joined by Rocky Anderson, the Justice Party presidential candidate; and Virgil Goode of the Constitution Party.

But right now, to talk more about the debates themselves, we’re joined now by two guests. George Farah is the founder and executive director of Open Debates. He’s also author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates. And we’re joined by Glenn Greenwald on the West Coast, columnist and blogger for The Guardian newspaper, author of With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful.

We welcome you both back to Democracy Now! George, let’s begin with you. Last night, the contract between the campaigns was released for this debate. Talk about it. How long is it? What did you learn? How significant is it?

GEORGE FARAH: This is a 21-page contract that was negotiated by the Republican and Democratic parties, by the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign, and it dictates the terms of the presidential debates that we’re seeing this election season. This contract was not made public in 2008. It was made public in three prior election seasons only because we got copies from whistleblowers. So this is a fantastic primary document to see just how much the Republican and Democratic campaigns manipulate the process.

And there are some fascinating provisions that are harmful to our democratic process. First and foremost, the contract actually says that the candidates cannot participate in any other debate with any other candidate and the other sponsor. We had 27 Republican primary debates. Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated seven times in 1858, but we’re only having three presidential debates, precisely because the candidates have contractually prohibited themselves from participating in any other forum.

And it gives the Commission on Presidential Debates a de facto monopoly over our most important election forums. Instead of allowing other organizations, like the League of Women Voters, to host exciting debates that might include some possible third-party voices, the commission is in total control of this process and allows the Republican and Democratic nominees to negotiate these very kinds of detailed contracts that eliminate spontaneity from some of the formats and exclude all viable third-party voices.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: George Farah, can you explain how was this contract revealed, if in the previous instances it was only through whistleblowers?

GEORGE FARAH: Time magazine’s David Halperin [sic] actually managed to get a copy of the contract. We don’t know how, but it was leaked. It wasn’t by virtue of the commission operating with transparency.

AMY GOODMAN: Mark Halperin.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Mark Halperin, right?

GEORGE FARAH: I’m sorry, Mark Halperin, yes. The commission survives on a lack of transparency. In fact, the commission was denying this contract even existed. Mike McCurry, the former press secretary to President Bill Clinton, is one of the co-chairs of the Commission on Presidential Debates, and he repeatedly denied the very existence of this contract. When we confronted the executive director of the commission, Janet Brown, about the existence of a contract that’s dictating the terms of the debates, she said there is no such contract, the commission is not a party to it. Once some of the features of the contract started to come out, the commission then said, well, the contract is only about podium heights and temperatures in the auditoriums and whether the candidates can wear risers in their shoes, but denied that there was any substance.

Now that we’re actually seeing the contract, we’re seeing that for tonight’s town hall format there are extraordinary restrictions that are preventing there from being more unpredictable questions. We’re seeing the exclusion, of course, of all third-party voices according to the candidate selection criteria. And we’re seeing the prohibition on additional debates. We’re facing an unemployment crisis. We’re facing complex foreign policy issues. Why are we rationing debates, which are really the best antidote to money in our political process?

AMY GOODMAN: You’ve been on before talking about the Commission on Presidential Debates, what this is, but if you can once again just review how we came to this point in electoral politics, how the League of Women Voters had control of these debates wrested from them?

GEORGE FARAH: The League of Women Voters ran the presidential debate process from 1976 until 1984, and they were a very courageous and genuinely independent, nonpartisan sponsor. And whenever the candidates attempted to manipulate the presidential debates behind closed doors, either to exclude a viable independent candidate or to sanitize the formats, the League had the courage to challenge the Republican and Democratic nominees and, if necessary, go public.

In 1980, independent candidate John B. Anderson was polling about 12 percent of the polls. The League insisted that Anderson be allowed to participate, because the vast majority of the American people wanted to see him, but Jimmy Carter, President Jimmy Carter, refused to debate him. The League went forward anyway and held a presidential debate with an empty chair, showing that Jimmy Carter wasn’t going to show up.

Four years later, when the Republican and Democratic nominees tried to get rid of difficult questions by vetoing 80 of the moderators that they had proposed to host the debates, the League said, "This is unacceptable." They held a press conference and attacked the campaigns for trying to get rid of difficult questions.

And lastly, in 1988, was the first attempt by the Republican and Democratic campaigns to negotiate a detailed contract. It was tame by comparison, a mere 12 pages. It talked about who could be in the audience and how the format would be structured, but the League found that kind of lack of transparency and that kind of candidate control to be fundamentally outrageous and antithetical to our democratic process. They released the contract and stated they refuse to be an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people and refuse to implement it.

And today, what do we have? We have a private corporation that was created by the Republican and Democratic parties called the Commission on Presidential Debates. It seized control of the presidential debates precisely because the League was independent, precisely because this women’s organization had the guts to stand up to the candidates that the major-party candidates had nominated. And instead of making public these contracts and resisting the major-party candidates’ manipulations, the commission allows the candidates to negotiate these 21-page contracts that dictate all the fundamental terms of the debates.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But who runs the commission, and who funds it?

GEORGE FARAH: The commission is co-chaired by two individuals: Frank Fahrenkopf and Mike McCurry. Frank Fahrenkopf is the former chair of the Republican Party and the nation’s leading gambling lobbyist. He’s the president of the American Gaming Association. And Mike McCurry is the—yeah, Mike McCurry is the former press secretary to Bill Clinton.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, it’s a good bet for both parties.

GEORGE FARAH: Exactly. And he’s also the—lobbying on behalf of the telecommunications industry. These are men who have demonstrated repeatedly a willingness to sacrifice our democratic process for what they perceive to be either financial interests or political interests. And the commission is largely financed by private corporations. The entity that’s given the most amount of money to the Commission on Presidential Debates is Anheuser-Busch. Our presidential debates are brought to you by Bud Light. And they’ve given millions of dollars to the Commission on Presidential Debates, in which—

NERMEEN SHAIKH: But what do these corporations stand to gain for funding the commission on the debates?

GEORGE FARAH: First, the just nice advertising, of course. They get to—you know, Philip Morris sponsored one of the presidential debates, paid $250,000 and got to hang its banner in the post-debate spin room that was seen throughout the country. But more importantly, they get access, and they get to show support for both major parties.

AMY GOODMAN: The major parties on their podiums have Bud Light on the podium?

GEORGE FARAH: Not yet. We’re getting there. We’re getting there, Amy. But they get to show support for both major parties. How often can corporations find a way to make a single donation that strengthens both the Republican and Democratic parties and get a tax deduction for that kind of donation? So it’s a rare contribution. And it also gives them access. They get to go to the actual debate themselves and rub shoulders at private receptions with the campaigns and their staff.

AMY GOODMAN: The CEOs of these companies.

GEORGE FARAH: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: Like the International Bottled Water Association.

GEORGE FARAH: Exactly. It’s fascinating that liquids are the principal sponsorship of the presidential debates this year.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, after the contract was revealed yesterday, a member of the commission, a Newton Minow, and the former chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, defended the criteria at least for the exclusion of the vast majority of candidates. He said, "There are 410 candidates. Let me repeat," he said, "410 candidates for president registered with the Federal Election Commission. Do you really want to have 410 candidates in the debate?" Is that right that there are that many, and that’s what—if inclusion were not restricted in the way that the commission has restricted it, would all of these candidates have to participate in the debate?

GEORGE FARAH: Absolutely not. And this is part of the commission’s propaganda. They like to say every four years that hundreds of candidates run for president every four years, including Joe Crustacean the Crustacean Liberation Party that wants lobsters to colonize the moon. He runs every four years. But these candidates are not on enough state ballots to come close to having a mathematical chance of winning the White House. If you just say, "Let’s include all the candidates in this election cycle that are actually on enough state ballots to have a chance to actually win the White House," we have four, maybe five, candidates in total, and that’s including Obama and Romney. We had seven, eight candidates in the Republican primaries. So, even having the most liberal candidate selection criteria would only result in five candidates.

And if you ask the American people—if we’re going to use polling to actually determine who gets to participate in the debates, which is what the commission does—the commission says a candidate must reach 15 percent in the polls to participate in the presidential debates, which, if you apply that criteria historically, excludes every third-party candidate for the last 100 years from any conceivable presidential debate. But if we’re going to use polling criteria, why not simply ask the American people, "Who do you want included in the presidential debates?"

AMY GOODMAN: Speaking on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Monday, Mark Halperin said both the Obama and Romney campaigns had expressed concerns about the role of the moderator in tonight’s town hall session.

MARK HALPERIN: Candy Crowley, who’s moderating the town hall on Tuesday, has got a unique challenge, as compared to the other moderators. The commission and the campaigns want this to be driven by the questions that come from the people chosen by Gallup to ask questions, citizens who are likely voters. And both campaigns have been struck, as has the commission, by some of the interviews that Candy has done talking about her role and what she envisions her role to be. The campaigns and the commission envision a much more limited role than they’ve heard her describe. And things are a bit in flux. It’s clear that the campaigns have asked the commission, as I report, to check with Candy, to say, you know, "Do you get the fact that we think this should be very a limited role—very few follow-ups, basically just traffic cop after an audience question?" And it remains a little bit unclear at this point about if she envisions this role the way the commission and the campaigns do or whether she wants to play a more active role in following up after they’ve answered the question from the citizen.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Mark Halperin of Time, who released the contract between the Obama and Romney campaigns, George Farah, talking about the candidates’ concerns about the role Candy Crowley will play.

GEORGE FARAH: The town hall debate we’re going to see tonight is the most constrained and regulated town hall debate in presidential debate history. The first town hall debate was introduced in 1992, and no one knew what anyone was going to ask, none of the audience members were going to ask. The moderator could ask any follow-up questions. It was exciting, and it was real.

Well, President George H.W. Bush stumbled in response to an oddly worded question about the federal deficit, and the candidates—the campaigns have panicked and have attempted to avoid that kind of situation from happening again. In 1996, they abolished follow-up questions from the audience.

In 2004, they began requiring that every single question asked by the audience be submitted in advance on an index card to the moderator, who can then throw out the ones he or she does not like. And that’s why the audience has essentially been reduced, in some ways, to props, because the moderator is still ultimately asking the questions.

And this election cycle is the first time that the moderator herself is prohibited from asking follow-up questions, questions seeking clarification. She’s essentially reduced to keeping time and being a lady with a microphone.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s interesting you say that, because Carole Simpson was just on, from ABC, talking about the role of women in these debates. You had Martha Raddatz, who was the questioner of the vice-presidential candidates, not the presidential candidates, and then Candy Crowley holding the microphone. Now, of course, she can choose the questions this morning, as she’s going to be reviewing them. And the person who’s called on, I suppose, doesn’t have to ask that question, who—

GEORGE FARAH: We don’t know, exactly. Who knows what kind of spontaneity is going to happen? But there is something ugly about having the League of Women Voters losing control of the presidential debates to the commission, co-chaired by two men who then reduce all female moderators to kind of sideshows and trivializing their role in the actual presidential debates.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to break, come back to this discussion. We’re talking to George Farah. He’s executive director of Open Debates. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. We’ll be joined by Glenn Greenwald, as well, when we come back.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

syria again


New post on nsnbc

Syria ‘interested in exploring’ truce

by nsnbc

Syria 'interested in exploring' truce The Syrian government is interested in exploring a ceasefire in the 19-month conflict as proposed by international envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Maqdisi said on Tuesday. But he stressed that for a halt to the violence, the rebels and their backers would need to be involved too. "In [...]

Read more of this post

nsnbc | October 16, 2012 at 20:00 | Categories: Global News | URL:http://wp.me/p1sRhy-3v3

Monday, October 15, 2012

Pollster Ratings v4.0: Methodology

Pollster Ratings v4.0: Methodology

This is a quick start into understanding the polls.  People just quote them and, obviously, do not understand them one bit.  Be sure to check out the footnotes.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

The Next Debate or Salafist Nato


THE ABSURD TIMES









Illustration: Our illustrator gives us a peek at the forthcoming film on "Deliverability," Romney's life story.  Will he deliver on foreign policy?  We tell him how, below.

    The stupidity of our foreign policy can not be underestimated.  At the same time, there is no greater hope for Obama that the complete and utter ignorance of the Republican party.  In fact, if he wins the election, as seems likely, he will have the Republicans to thank for it.

    The debate scheduled for Tuesday is supposed to be on Foreign Policy.  Romney managed to alienate almost every country well-disposed to the United States the last time he went abroad and he talks of Russia being our greatest foe.  He was forced to modify that, and, well, modification and change is Romney's forte.  He can revise or change any policy he ever had and deny it with a straight face, leaving Obama very confused.  However, this time, he needs to know something.

    So how can he sound as if he knows what is going on in the world?  All he has to do is read the following essay on Syria.  He won't, of course, because it makes too much sense and is too accurate.  Furthermore, he feels he has to appear to be tough on non-capitalist governments.  Still, here it is. 



nsnbc - no spin news by Christof Lehmann at www.nsnbc.wordpress.com

Washington’s Salafist Quagmire in Syria.
The Obama administration and the Turkish government of Prime Minister Erdogan are faced with a Syrian quagmire which is prompting them to send a signal to Saudi Arabia. Riyadh´s support of fundamentalist Salafi Jihadi groups in Syria is becoming increasingly counter productive. Riyadh is not only creating a public relations dilemma for Washington and Ankara, the influx of fundamentalist Salafists which have been streaming to Syria over recent months is making it increasingly difficult, if not impossible to build a coherent and credible Syrian opposition that could be used as an argument for regime change.
Two defeated campaigns of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in June and July failed to secure the city of Aleppo and depleted the FSA of its best trained and best armed Syrian and foreign fighters. The defeat also made it impossible to emulate the strategy that had been successful in Libya. To secure Aleppo as a seat for a Transitional Syrian Government that could have called on the international community, that is the USA, NATO and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states, to implement a No-Fly-Zone and to provide other military support.
The defeat of the campaign for Aleppo has changed both the military and political dynamics of the Syrian crisis. Saudi Arabia increased its support of fundamentalist Salafist groups to compensate for the FSA´s losses. Since the end of July and the beginning of August there has been a significant influx of Saudi sponsored foreign fighters and in particular an influx of fundamentalist Salafist fighters in Syria. A recent report issued by the International Crisis Group recognizes the influx and a cohort of both military, political and security problems it implies.
The problem for Washington and the pro-opposition coalition is that a coherent and political opposition has failed to manifest. The National Transitional Council of Syria has always been an incoherent group that was plagued by internal rivalries. Since the failed campaign for Aleppo it has more or less entirely collapsed. The influx of Salafist groups which are fighting in Syria has also led to, that ever more radical elements are demanding political influence, and Washington has difficulties to overtly negotiate with known terrorist groups about the future of a free and democratic Syria.
The lost battles for Aleppo and the subsequent influx of Salafists has also been noticed by prominent commanders within the Free Syrian Army. On 28 September the prominent FSA commander Captain Khaled Abdel Rahman al-Zamel, accompanied by ten other FSA officers, took part in a conference of Syrian opposition groups who are seeking a Syrian solution to the crisis and who are tolerant of the Baath Party and President al-Assad.
Syrians have closely followed the protracted civil war in Lebanon and the devastation of Iraq first by the USA and allies, and subsequently by religious fanaticism and terrorism. Both the military and the political Syrian opposition are becoming increasingly concerned about the prospect of Syria degenerating into a spiral of religious and ethnic violence.
Washington seems to have interpreted the trend correctly. Knowing that the influx of Salafists and other radicals is making it difficult to argue for the overt support of an almost non existing political opposition and to argue for a continuation of material support for known terrorist organizations it is asking Saudi Arabia to back off a little.
The recent aggravation of border incidents between Syria and Turkey could indicate a change of strategy. Lacking a credible political opposition to support and not being able to overtly support organizations that are otherwise designated terrorist organizations, it is not unlikely that a direct military confrontation between Turkey and Syria is the next best option. It is however, questionable whether Erdogans AKP government can rally the support of Turkey´s population behind a military campaign against Syria. An escalation of the border clashes into an full scale military confrontation would most likely be met with massive popular opposition that could lead to the fall of the AKP government. A subsequent military disengagement would be equivalent to a defeat of Turkey and NATO.
The Turkish parliament´s decision on 4. October to allow cross border military operations, after a mortar shell that was fired from within Syrian territory killed a Turkish family of four was met with massive protests and demonstrations in Ankara and in cities throughout Turkey. The Turkish population is becoming increasingly worried by the influx of Salafist and other extremist fighters who either use Turkey as base of operations or as transit for waging Jihad in Syria. Critique has further increased after it transpired that the mortar that was used in the attack is identical to a model Turkey provided for the FSA. Turkey has also been widely critisized for endangering air-safety by forcing a Syrian A-320 Airbus to land in Ankara.
Regardless whether the support of Salafists by Saudi Arabia continues overtly or covertly, it is presenting both Washington, Turkey and other ”Friends of Syria” with a serious quagmire.
There is no credible political opposition that supports the continuation of a military campaign, and a continuation of a military campaign with the help of imported extremists is likely to undermine both the political and the armed Syrian opposition.With winter approching, it looks as if the Arab Spring in Syria is turning into NATO´s Fall.
Christof Lehmann

Die Debatte für Dienstag soll auf Foreign Policy sein


Die absurde TIMES









Illustration: Unsere Illustratorin gibt uns einen Vorgeschmack auf die bevorstehende Film auf "Zustellbarkeit" Romney Lebensgeschichte. Wird er auf die Außenpolitik zu liefern? Wir sagen ihm, wie unten.

    Die Dummheit unserer Außenpolitik darf nicht unterschätzt werden. Zur gleichen Zeit, es gibt keine größere Hoffnung für Obama, dass die vollständige und vollkommene Unkenntnis der Republikanischen Partei. In der Tat, wenn er die Wahl gewinnt, was wahrscheinlich ist, wird er die Republikaner zu verdanken.

    Die Debatte für Dienstag soll auf Foreign Policy sein. Romney schaffte es fast jedes Land zu entfremden in die Vereinigten Staaten das letzte Mal ging er ins Ausland wohlgesonnen und er spricht von Russland ist unser größter Feind. Er war gezwungen, dass zu ändern, und, na ja, ist die Modifikation und Veränderung Romney Stärke. Er kann überarbeiten oder zu ändern jede Politik, die er je hatte, und es leugnen mit ernstem Gesicht, so dass Obama sehr verwirrt. Doch diesmal muss er etwas wissen.

    Also, wie kann er klingen, als ob er weiß, was los ist in der Welt? Alles, was er tun muss, ist lesen Sie die folgenden Essay über Syrien. Er will natürlich nicht, weil es zu viel Sinn macht und zu genau. Außerdem fühlt er sich er zu sein scheinen auf nicht-kapitalistischen Regierungen hart. Dennoch ist es hier.


nsnbc - kein Spin News von Christof Lehmann am www.nsnbc.wordpress.com
Washington Die Salafisten Quagmire in Syrien.
Die Obama-Regierung und die türkische Regierung von Ministerpräsident Erdogan mit einem syrischen Morast, die sie veranlasst, ein Signal an Saudi-Arabien zu senden konfrontiert. Riyadh Unterstützung der fundamentalistischen Salafi Jihad-Gruppen in Syrien zunehmend kontraproduktiv. Riyadh ist nicht nur die Schaffung eines öffentlichen Beziehungen Dilemma für Washington und Ankara, ist der Zustrom von fundamentalistischen Salafisten, die nach Syrien wurden Streaming in den letzten Monaten macht es zunehmend schwierig, wenn nicht unmöglich, eine kohärente und glaubwürdige syrischen Opposition, die als verwendet werden könnten aufbauen ein Argument für einen Regimewechsel.
Zwei besiegt Kampagnen der Freien Syrischen Armee (FSA) im Juni und Juli konnte die Stadt Aleppo zu sichern und erschöpft die FSA seiner besten ausgebildete und am besten bewaffneten syrischen und ausländische Kämpfer. Die Niederlage machte es auch unmöglich, die Strategie, die erfolgreich in Libyen hatte emulieren. Um Aleppo als Sitz für einen Transitional syrische Regierung, die die internationale Gemeinschaft, dass die USA, die NATO und Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Mitgliedsstaaten aufgerufen hätte sichern, um eine No-Fly-Zone zu implementieren und andere militärische Unterstützung .
Die Niederlage der Kampagne für Aleppo hat sowohl die militärische und politische Dynamik der syrischen Krise verändert. Saudi-Arabien erhöht seine Unterstützung der fundamentalistischen Salafisten-Gruppen für die FSA die Verluste zu kompensieren. Seit Ende Juli und Anfang August gab es einen signifikanten Zustrom von Saudi gesponserten ausländischen Kämpfern und insbesondere einem Zustrom von fundamentalistischen Salafisten Kämpfer in Syrien. Ein kürzlich veröffentlichter Bericht der International Crisis Group ausgestellt erkennt den Zustrom und eine Kohorte von sowohl militärischen, politischen und sicherheitspolitischen Probleme impliziert.
Das Problem für Washington und die pro-Oppositionskoalition ist, dass eine kohärente und politische Opposition zu manifestieren fehlgeschlagen. Der Nationale Übergangsrat von Syrien ist seit jeher eine inkohärente Gruppe, die durch interne Rivalitäten geplagt wurde. Seit der gescheiterten Kampagne für Aleppo hat es mehr oder weniger vollständig zusammengebrochen. Der Zustrom von salafistischen Gruppen, die in Syrien kämpfen hat auch dazu geführt, dass immer mehr radikale Elemente fordern politischen Einfluss, und Washington hat es schwer, offen mit bekannten Terrorgruppen über die Zukunft eines freien und demokratischen Syrien zu verhandeln.
Die verlorenen Schlachten für Aleppo und der anschließenden Zustrom von Salafisten wurde auch von prominenten Kommandeure in der Freien Syrischen Armee bemerkt worden. Am 28. September wird die prominente FSA Kommandanten Kapitän Khaled Abdel Rahman al-Zamel, von zehn anderen FSA Offiziere begleitet, nahm an einer Konferenz der syrischen Opposition, die nach einer syrischen Lösung der Krise sind und die sind tolerant der Baath-Partei und Präsident al-Assad.
Syrer haben eng die langwierigen Bürgerkrieg im Libanon und die Zerstörung des Irak zuerst von den USA und Verbündeten folgten, und anschließend durch religiösen Fanatismus und Terrorismus. Sowohl die militärische und die politische syrische Opposition zunehmend über die Aussicht von Syrien ausarten in eine Spirale der religiösen und ethnischen Gewalt betroffen.
Washington scheint zu interpretieren den Trend richtig eingestellt. Wissend, dass der Zustrom von Salafisten und andere Radikale macht es schwierig, für die offene Unterstützung einer fast nicht vorhandenen politischen Opposition zu argumentieren und für eine Fortsetzung der materiellen Unterstützung für bekannte terroristische Organisationen danach gefragt Saudi-Arabien ist nach hinten sich ein wenig streiten.
Die jüngste Verschärfung der Grenze Zwischenfälle zwischen Syrien und der Türkei könnte auf eine Änderung der Strategie. Fehlt eine glaubwürdige politische Opposition zu unterstützen und nicht in der Lage, offen unterstützt, die ansonsten terroristische Organisationen bezeichnet werden, ist es nicht unwahrscheinlich, dass eine direkte militärische Konfrontation zwischen der Türkei und Syrien die nächste beste Option ist. Es ist jedoch fraglich, ob Erdogans AKP-Regierung die Unterstützung der türkischen Bevölkerung hinter einem Feldzug gegen Syrien zu sammeln. Eine Eskalation der Grenzstreitigkeiten zu einem Endwert militärischen Konfrontation würde höchstwahrscheinlich mit massiven Widerstand der Bevölkerung, die zum Sturz der AKP-Regierung führen könnten erfüllt werden. Eine anschließende militärische Rückzug wäre gleichbedeutend mit einer Niederlage der Türkei und der NATO.
Das türkische Parlament die Entscheidung über 4. Oktober zu ermöglichen grenzüberschreitende militärische Operationen, nach einer Granate, die von innen syrisches Territorium getötet türkischen Familie von vier mit massiven Protesten und Demonstrationen in Ankara und in Städten in der ganzen Türkei erfüllt gefeuert wurde. Die türkische Bevölkerung ist zunehmend besorgt über den Zustrom von Salafisten und andere extremistische Kämpfer, die entweder die Türkei als Basis für Operationen oder als Transitland für den Waginger Jihad in Syrien. Kritik hat weiter zugenommen, nachdem sich herausstellte, dass der Mörtel, der bei dem Angriff verwendet wurde gleich zu einem Modell der Türkei für die FSA vorgesehen ist. Die Türkei hat auch weithin zu gefährden Flugsicherheit, indem ein syrischer A-320 Airbus in Ankara landen kritisiert.
Unabhängig davon, ob die Unterstützung der Salafisten von Saudi-Arabien offen oder verdeckt bleibt, wird sie präsentiert sowohl Washington, der Türkei und anderen "Friends of Syria" mit einer schweren Sumpf.
Es gibt keine glaubwürdige politische Opposition, die die Fortsetzung einer Militäraktion unterstützt und eine Fortsetzung der militärischen Kampagne mit Hilfe von importierten Extremisten ist wahrscheinlich sowohl die politische und die bewaffneten syrischen opposition.With Winter approching untergraben, scheint es, als ob die Arabischer Frühling in Syrien ist in der NATO Fall drehen.
Christof Lehmann

Friday, October 12, 2012

The Peace Prize -- Tarik Ali





   
    At the awards ceremony, there were noticeable gasps when it was announced that the European Union received the Nobel peace Prize.  I mean, why not give it to Obama again so he can continue his weekly kill panels with a clear mind?   Why not Henry Kissinger for all the good work he did for Coca Cola in Chile?  Why not Hitler for pacifying so many people?

    Well, The truth is, getting over the assassination of ArchDuke Ferdinand was quite a feat and it is about time they were recognized!  Why Angela Merkel herself has brought peace to many women accused of being plump.

    One day, maybe Paul Ryan will be in line, eh?

    Only grouches like Tarik Ali would be so upset (along with most of the literate world):


FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2012

Tariq Ali: European Union Awarded Nobel Peace Prize Despite Ties to NATO, Crippling Austerity Cuts

The European Union was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize earlier today for its historic role in uniting the continent. Committee chair Thorbjoern Jagland praised the EU for transforming Europe "from a continent of wars to a continent of peace." The selection surprised many as it comes at a time when much of Europe is facing an economic crisis that threatens the EU’s future. Just this past week, thousands of Greeks protested in Athens against a visit by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has pushed Greece, Spain and Ireland to enact deep austerity measures. For more, we go to London to speak with Tariq Ali, political commentator, historian, activist and editor of the New Left Review. "My initial response was to burst out laughing, because this Nobel Peace Prize committee, basically run by clapped-out former politicians in Norway, never fails to amuse and disappoint," Ali says. "To give the prize to the European Community at a time, effectively, when economically it is promoting unemployment, creating real class divides in virtually every country in Europe, where it has led to enormous violence on the streets of Greece, because of the policies being pushed by the EU ... it’s a complete and utter joke." [includes rush transcript]
GUEST:
Tariq Ali, British-Pakistani political commentator, writer, activist, and editor of the New Left Review. Author of numerous books, including The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad.
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.DONATE >

Transcript

AMY GOODMAN: We’re on the road in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on our 100-city tour. Check our website at tour.democracynow.org.
We begin today’s show with the selection of the European Union for winning the Nobel Peace Prize for its historic role in uniting the continent. Committee chair Thorbjoern Jagland praised the EU for transforming Europe "from a continent of wars to a continent of peace."
The selection of the European Union surprised many, as it comes at a time when much of Europe is facing an economic crisis that threatens the EU’s future. Just this past week, thousands of Greeks protested in Athens against a visit by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, who has pushed Greece, Spain and Ireland to enact deep austerity measures.
For more on this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, we go to London, where we’re joined by Tariq Ali, political commentator, historian, activist and editor of the New Left Review. He is the author of over 20 books, including The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power. He joins us by Democracy Now! video stream.
Welcome to Democracy Now!, Tariq.
TARIQ ALI: Hi, Amy.
AMY GOODMAN: When you got up this morning and heard the news that the Nobel Prize committee has honored the European Union, given it the Nobel Peace Prize this year, your response?
TARIQ ALI: My initial response, Amy, was to burst out laughing, because this Nobel Peace Prize committee, basically run by clapped-out former politicians in Norway, never fails to amuse and disappoint. I mean, they constantly behave like this. Their prize choices over the last 20 years have been laughable, in some cases monstrous.
To give the prize to the European Community at a time, effectively, when economically it is promoting unemployment, creating real class divides in virtually every country in Europe, where it has led to enormous violence on the streets of Greece, because of the policies being pushed by the EU—democratically, there’s a huge deficit. The vote cast in the whole of Europe, member of the EU, has gone down 40 percent over the last 20 years. I mean, about 43 percent of the people vote. And in fewer numbers, the young barely bother to vote at all. The constitution was rammed through at a time, several years ago, when not even the politicians who signed it had read it. And the third policy of the EU, which is not talked about much, that it is now almost a duty of every country joining the EU to automatically become part of NATO. So giving the EU the prize is also rewarding NATO. And it’s worth remembering that virtually every major EU country has troops in Afghanistan. Every major EU country has supported and ratified the occupation of Iraq, even though some opposed the war.
So it’s a complete and utter joke, especially at this time, when there’s complete turmoil on the streets of southern Europe. And it just shows that these Norwegian former politicians who comprise the committee are completely out of touch. And I’m sure there will be anger in Norway itself, as there usually is when they announce the peace prize.
AMY GOODMAN: The Norwegian Peace Council has called for the resignation of the head of the Nobel Committee after it awarded the peace prize to the European Union. The Norwegian Peace Council said, "Granting the EU the Nobel Peace Prize for 2012 indicates its highly political dimension, awarding it to a project that for the past year has proven to represent the opposite of peace. The EU suffers from an extensive democratic deficit, with violations of human rights along increasing social inequality." That statement from the Norwegian Peace Council, Tariq Ali.
TARIQ ALI: Amy, the Norwegian Peace Council has criticized the peace prize in the past. In fact, Alfred Nobel specified that the peace prize should only be given to those who are actively promoting the cause of peace, which the EU doesn’t do, either in the Middle East—for instance, it has backed and supported everything the Israelis have done as far as the occupation of Palestine is concerned. It has tried to isolate the elected Palestinian government in the past. It has carried on supporting NATO—and it’s part of it—and the war in Afghanistan. So, it’s—the question is, is the Nobel Prize committee on a suicide [inaudible], because this decision will not be popular even amongst many, many Swedish—Norwegian members of parliament. I was there a few years ago when they gave it to Obama, and about 10,000 people demonstrated against that, because Obama had just said he was going to escalate the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
So, the peace committee itself now, the Nobel Prize committee, has become a version of the EU. It’s undemocratic. It’s self-appointed. There’s no accountability whatsoever. And something needs to be done to change it. In the case of the prize committee, it should be internationalized. It can’t just be these deadbeat politicians.
AMY GOODMAN: Panos Skourletis, the spokesperson for Greece’s main opposition party, Syriza, said, "I just cannot understand what the reasoning would be behind it. In many parts of Europe, but especially in Greece, we are experiencing what really is a war situation on a daily basis, albeit a war that has not been formally declared. There is nothing peaceful about it," he said. Tariq?
TARIQ ALI: Well, Greece is, of course, a classic case in point, Amy, because not only have they created a situation by their demands, the German banks, in particular, backed by the French banks and the politicians who defend the system, they’ve made the life of virtually every Greek, right up to the middle classes, barring the very rich—which is miserable. I’ve been to Greece often over the last year and a half, and the situation is really bad now. And more to the point, that when there was a chance that the Syriza leader, Alexis Tsipras, might be elected—they came very close to it—every EU politician, including the recently elected François Hollande of France, went on Greek television and appealed to the Greek people that "if you vote for Syriza, you will be crushed. This is a suicidal thing. Greece will be destroyed." These threats worked, and the elderly, in particular, didn’t vote for Syriza, but the young did. And so, this open intervention, anti-democratic, in the elections of a Greek—of a European Union country had a very negative impact.
The question is, Amy, why did this committee behave like this? And it’s because it’s totally out of touch. It doesn’t care. It feels it can be part of the prize committee forever. They nominate each other. And I think this time, though we’ve said this before, they’ve gone too far, and people will be very angry.
AMY GOODMAN: European Commission President Barroso praised the Nobel Committee’s decision. This is what he said.
JOSÉ MANUEL BARROSO: We must never forget that, at its origins, the European Union brought together nations emerging from the ruins of the devastating Second World War and united them in a project for peace built on supranational institutions representing the common European interest. The European Union, then European Community, has reunified countries split by the Cold War and has made it around the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, justice, the rule of law and respect for human rights.
AMY GOODMAN: That was the European Commission president, Tariq Ali.
TARIQ ALI: Amy, Barroso was a leader of Portugal during the Iraq war and decided to back the war, against the wishes of a majority of the Portuguese people. For him to stand up and talk about defending human rights, when he participated in a war which led to the death of over a million people, is just outrageous. Not only outside the European Union, inside the European Union, Barroso, as well as the other leaders of the EU, have sanctioned new laws which have suspended habeas corpus, which have limited civil rights and human rights of European citizens, which have participated in renditions and handing over European citizens to be tortured in other parts of the world or to be sent to Guantánamo. So this, all this, rings very hollow.
And as for the absurd remark that the European Union has united Europe after the war, this is total nonsense. The European Union didn’t exist after the war. What actually helped Western Europe, not Eastern Europe, what helped Western Europe after the Second World War had nothing to do with Europe. It was the United States. It was the Marshall Plan, which poured in money to build Western Europe, as part of their contribution to this side of Europe, compared to the east, which was under Soviet control. So, why bring the EU in after the war, when it didn’t exist? It has largely been moved forward after the Cold War to effectively try and keep Europe under some form of control. And it’s not working. The whole of Europe now knows that, and European citizens in different parts of Europe will be laughing at this decision.
AMY GOODMAN: Tariq Ali, I want to thank you for being with us, British-Pakistani political commentator, historian, activist, filmmaker, novelist, editor of the New Left Review, author of over 20 books, including The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we expand the debate. We bring two third-party vice-presidential candidates into the vice-presidential debate that was held last night in Kentucky. Stay with us.

The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Peace Prize


Bei der Preisverleihung gab es spürbare keucht, als bekannt wurde, dass die Europäische Union den Friedensnobelpreis erhalten. Ich meine, warum nicht geben Obama wieder so kann er seine wöchentliche Kill-Panels mit einem klaren Geist weiter? Warum nicht Henry Kissinger für all das Gute Arbeit, die er für Coca Cola in Chile getan hat? Warum nicht Hitler befrieden so viele Menschen?

    Nun, das ist die Wahrheit, immer über die Ermordung des Erzherzogs Ferdinand war ein Kunststück, und es ist an der Zeit wurden sie erkannt! Warum Angela Merkel selbst hat Frieden zu viele Frauen ist plump vorgeworfen gebracht.

    Eines Tages, vielleicht Paul Ryan wird im Einklang sein, eh?

    Nur grouches wie Tarik Ali wäre so upset (zusammen mit den meisten der gebildeten Welt):

FRIDAY, 12. Oktober 2012
Tariq Ali: Europäische Union ausgezeichnet Friedensnobelpreis Trotz Enge Beziehungen zur NATO, Crippling Sparmaßnahmen
Die Europäische Union wurde mit dem Friedensnobelpreis ausgezeichnet früher heute für seine historische Rolle in der Vereinigung des Kontinents. Vorsitzende des Ausschusses Thorbjoern Jagland lobte die EU für die Transformation von Europa "aus einem Kontinent der Kriege zu einem Kontinent des Friedens." Die Auswahl hat viele überrascht, da sie zu einem Zeitpunkt kommt, wenn viel von Europa steht vor einer Wirtschaftskrise, die die Zukunft der EU droht. Gerade in der vergangenen Woche, protestierten Tausende von Griechen in Athen gegen einen Besuch von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel, die Griechenland, Spanien und Irland geschoben hat, um tiefe Sparmaßnahmen erlassen. Für weitere Informationen, wir nach London gehen, um mit Tariq Ali, politischer Kommentator, Historiker, Aktivist und Herausgeber der New Left Review zu sprechen. "Meine erste Reaktion war, brach in Gelächter aus, weil diese Friedensnobelpreis Ausschuss, im Wesentlichen durch marode ehemalige Politiker in Norwegen laufen, immer wieder zu amüsieren und zu enttäuschen," Ali sagt. "Um den Preis für die Europäische Gemeinschaft zu geben in einer Zeit, effektiv, wenn es wirtschaftlich ist die Förderung der Arbeitslosigkeit, die Schaffung eines echten Klasse teilt sich in nahezu jedem Land in Europa, wo es zu einer enormen Gewalt auf den Straßen von Griechenland geführt hat, wegen der Politik durch die EU geschoben ... es ist eine vollständige und vollkommene Witz. " [Beinhaltet Ansturm transcript]

GUEST:
Tariq Ali, britisch-pakistanischen politischer Kommentator, Schriftsteller, Aktivist und Herausgeber der New Left Review. Autor zahlreicher Bücher, darunter The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, Krieg im Ausland.

Links
Friedensnobelpreis Ankündigung
Tariq Ali Website
Empfehlungen der Redaktion
Joseph Stiglitz über "The Price of Inequality: Wie heute gespaltenen Gesellschaft ist gefährdet unsere Zukunft"
6. Juni 2012 | STORY
Tausende Surround spanischen Parlament in Bid-to "Occupy Congress" und Stop Austerity
26. September 2012 | STORY
"Eine politische Implosion": Anti-Austerity Parteien gewinnen Historic Französisch und Griechisch Wahlen
7. Mai 2012 | STORY
Sollte die NATO gibt es? Phyllis Bennis vs Ex-CIAer Stan Sloan Allianz Zweck, Afghan War die Zukunft
22. Mai 2012 | STORY
Leymah Gbowee, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in Liberia Anteil Friedensnobelpreis mit jemenitischen Tawakkul Karman
12. Dezember 2011 | STORY

RUSH TRANSCRIPT
Das Transkript ist kostenlos erhältlich. Allerdings helfen Spenden Sie uns bieten Untertitel für Gehörlose und Schwerhörige auf unseren TV-Sendung. Vielen Dank für Ihre großzügige contribution.DONATE>

Abschrift
AMY GOODMAN: Wir sind auf dem Weg in Albuquerque, New Mexico, auf unserer 100-Stadtrundfahrt. Besuchen Sie unsere Website unter tour.democracynow.org.

Wir beginnen die heutige Show mit der Auswahl der Europäischen Union für den Gewinn der Friedensnobelpreis für seine historische Rolle in der Vereinigung des Kontinents. Vorsitzende des Ausschusses Thorbjoern Jagland lobte die EU für die Transformation von Europa "aus einem Kontinent der Kriege zu einem Kontinent des Friedens."

Die Auswahl der Europäischen Union hat viele überrascht, da sie zu einem Zeitpunkt kommt, wenn viel von Europa steht vor einer Wirtschaftskrise, die die Zukunft der EU droht. Gerade in der vergangenen Woche, Tausende von Griechen in Athen gegen einen Besuch protestierten von der deutschen Kanzlerin Angela Merkel, die Griechenland, Spanien und Irland geschoben hat, um tiefe Sparmaßnahmen erlassen.

Für weitere Informationen zu den diesjährigen Friedensnobelpreis wir nach London, wo wir von Tariq Ali, politischer Kommentator, Historiker, Aktivist und Herausgeber der New Left Review beigetreten sind zu gehen. Er ist der Autor von mehr als 20 Bücher, darunter The Duel: Pakistan auf dem Flight Path of American Power. Er tritt uns Democracy Now! Video-Stream.

Willkommen bei Democracy Now!, Tariq.

Tariq Ali: Hallo, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Wenn du heute Morgen und hörte die Nachricht, dass das Nobelpreiskomitee hat die Europäische Union, da es den Friedensnobelpreis in diesem Jahr Ihre Reaktion geehrt?

Tariq Ali: Mein erste Reaktion, Amy, war es lachte, weil diese Friedensnobelpreis Ausschuss, im Wesentlichen durch marode ehemalige Politiker in Norwegen laufen, immer wieder zu amüsieren und zu enttäuschen. Ich meine, sie ständig zu verhalten wie diese. Ihren Preis Entscheidungen über die letzten 20 Jahre waren lächerlich, in einigen Fällen monströs.

Um den Preis für die Europäische Gemeinschaft zu geben in einer Zeit, effektiv, wenn es wirtschaftlich ist die Förderung der Arbeitslosigkeit, die Schaffung eines echten Klasse teilt sich in nahezu jedem Land in Europa, wo es zu einer enormen Gewalt auf den Straßen von Griechenland geführt hat, wegen der Politik ist geschoben von der EU-demokratisch, es gibt ein riesiges Defizit. Die Abstimmung in ganz Europa, Mitglied der EU, gegossen hat um 40 Prozent in den letzten 20 Jahren verschwunden. Ich meine, rund 43 Prozent der Menschen Stimme. Und in weniger Zahlen, die junge kaum die Mühe, überhaupt abzustimmen. Die Verfassung wurde rammte durch zu einer Zeit, vor einigen Jahren, wenn nicht sogar die Politiker, die es unterzeichnet es gelesen hatte. Und die dritte Politik der EU, die nicht über ist viel, sprachen, dass es jetzt fast eine Pflicht eines jeden Landes den EU-Beitritt automatisch Teil der NATO geworden. So gibt die EU den Preis lohnt sich auch der NATO. Und es ist daran zu erinnern, dass praktisch alle großen EU-Land Truppen in Afghanistan hat. Jede größere EU-Land unterstützt und die Besetzung des Irak ratifiziert, obwohl einige gegen den Krieg.

Es ist also eine vollständige und vollkommene Witz, vor allem in dieser Zeit, wenn es komplett Turbulenzen auf den Straßen im Süden Europas. Und es zeigt nur, dass diese Norwegian ehemaligen Politikern, die im Ausschuss enthalten komplett out of touch sind. Und ich bin sicher, es wird Ärger in Norwegen selbst sein, denn es ist in der Regel, wenn sie den Friedenspreis zu verkünden.

AMY GOODMAN: Der norwegische Friedens-Rat hat den Rücktritt des Leiters des Nobel-Komitees aufgerufen, nachdem sie den Frieden ausgezeichnet in die Europäische Union. Die norwegische Peace Council sagte: "Die Erteilung der EU den Friedensnobelpreis für 2012 zeigt seine höchst politische Dimension, die Vergabe zu einem Projekt, dass im vergangenen Jahr bewiesen das Gegenteil von Frieden stellen hat. Die EU leidet an einer umfassenden demokratischen Defizit, mit Menschenrechtsverletzungen auf zunehmende soziale Ungleichheit. " Diese Aussage aus dem norwegischen Peace Council, Tariq Ali.

Tariq Ali: Amy hat die norwegische Peace Council des Friedenspreises in der Vergangenheit kritisiert. In der Tat, festgelegt Alfred Nobel, dass der Friedensnobelpreis sollte nur für diejenigen, die aktiv gefördert werden die Sache des Friedens, die die EU nicht tut, entweder im Nahen Osten zum Beispiel hat es gesichert und unterstützt alles, was die Israelis gegeben werden soweit die Besetzung Palästinas angeht getan haben. Es wurde versucht, den gewählten palästinensischen Regierung in der Vergangenheit zu isolieren. Es hat sich auf die Unterstützung durchgeführt NATO-und es ist ein Teil davon und der Krieg in Afghanistan. So ist es-ist-die Frage, ist das Nobelpreis-Komitee auf eine Selbstmord [unverständlich], weil diese Entscheidung nicht selbst unter vielen, vielen schwedisch-norwegischen Abgeordneten beliebt. Ich war dort vor ein paar Jahren, wenn sie es gab Obama, und etwa 10.000 Menschen gegen das demonstriert, weil Obama gerade gesagt hatte, er wolle den Krieg in Afghanistan und Pakistan zu eskalieren.

So hat der Frieden Ausschuss selbst jetzt, das Nobelpreiskomitee, werden eine Version der EU. Es ist undemokratisch. Es ist selbst ernannte. Es gibt keine Rechenschaftspflicht immer. Und noch etwas muss getan werden, um es zu ändern. Im Falle des Preiskomitees, sollte es internationalisiert werden. Es kann nicht nur diese deadbeat Politiker.

AMY GOODMAN: Panos Skourletis, der Sprecher größten Oppositionspartei Griechenlands Partei Syriza, sagte: "Ich kann einfach nicht verstehen, was die Argumentation würde dahinter sein In vielen Teilen Europas, vor allem aber in Griechenland, die wir erleben, was wirklich ist ein Krieg. Situation auf einer täglichen Basis, wenn auch ein Krieg, der bisher nicht offiziell erklärt. Es gibt nichts friedlichen darüber ", sagte er. Tariq?

Tariq Ali: Nun, das ist Griechenland, natürlich, ein klassisches Beispiel dafür, Amy, denn nicht nur haben sie eine Situation, die durch ihre Forderungen, die deutschen Banken, insbesondere durch die Französisch Banken und den Politikern, die das System zu verteidigen gesichert wurden haben sie das Leben von nahezu jeder Grieche, bis hin zu den mittleren Klassen, abgesehen von den sehr Reichen-was ist miserabel gemacht. Ich habe in Griechenland oft in den letzten eineinhalb Jahren gewesen, und die Situation ist wirklich schlimm. Und mehr auf den Punkt, dass, wenn es eine Chance, dass die Syriza Führer Alexis Tsipras, könnte gewählt-sie kamen sehr it-jeder EU-Politiker zu schließen, einschließlich der kürzlich gewählte François Hollande in Frankreich, ging auf griechische Fernsehen und appellierte zu den griechischen Menschen, dass "wenn Sie für Syriza abzustimmen, wählen Sie zerkleinert. werden Dies ist eine selbstmörderische Sache. Griechenland zerstört werden." Diese Drohungen gearbeitet, und die älteren Menschen, insbesondere nicht für Syriza stimmen, aber der junge tat. Und so, diese offene Intervention, anti-demokratischen, bei den Wahlen von einem griechisch-eines Land der Europäischen Union hatte eine sehr negative Auswirkungen.

Die Frage ist, Amy, warum dieser Ausschuss so zu verhalten? Und es ist, weil es total ist out of touch. Es kümmert sich nicht darum. Es fühlt sich aber auch Teil des Preises Ausschuss für immer sein. Sie benennen sich gegenseitig. Und ich denke, dieses Mal, obwohl wir das vorhin gesagt, sie haben zu weit gegangen, und die Menschen werden sehr wütend bin.

AMY GOODMAN: Präsident der Europäischen Kommission Barroso lobte die Nobel-Komitee die Entscheidung. Dies ist, was er sagte.

José Manuel Barroso: Wir dürfen nie vergessen, dass bei seinen Ursprung, der Europäischen Union zusammengeführt Nationen, die aus den Trümmern des verheerenden Zweiten Weltkrieg und vereint sie in einem Projekt für den Frieden auf supranationale Institutionen, die die gemeinsame europäische Interesse gebaut. Die Europäische Union, damaligen Europäischen Gemeinschaft, hat Länder durch den Kalten Krieg geteilt wiedervereinigten und hat es um die Werte der Achtung der Menschenwürde, Freiheit, Demokratie, Gerechtigkeit, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Achtung der Menschenrechte.

AMY GOODMAN: Das war der Präsident der Europäischen Kommission, Tariq Ali.

Tariq Ali: Amy war Barroso ein führender Anbieter von Portugal während des Irak-Krieges und beschlossen, den Krieg zu unterstützen, gegen den Willen der Mehrheit der portugiesischen Bevölkerung. Für ihn aufzustehen und reden über die Verteidigung der Menschenrechte, wenn er in einem Krieg, die zum Tod von über einer Million Menschen geführt teilgenommen haben, ist nur unverschämt. Nicht nur außerhalb der Europäischen Union haben in der Europäischen Union, Barroso, sowie die anderen Führer der EU, neue Gesetze, die Habeas-Corpus ausgesetzt haben, die Bürgerrechte und die Menschenrechte der EU-Bürger beschränkt haben, die teilgenommen haben, sanktioniert Überstellungen und Übergabe europäischen Bürger in anderen Teilen der Welt gefoltert zu werden oder nach Guantánamo geschickt werden. So dieses, all dies, Ringe sehr hohl.

Und wie für die absurde Bemerkung, dass die Europäische Union vereinten Europas nach dem Krieg, das ist totaler Unsinn. Die Europäische Union hat nach dem Krieg nicht existieren. Was tatsächlich geholfen Westeuropa, nicht Osteuropa, was westliche Europa geholfen nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg hatte nichts mit Europa zu tun. Es war in den Vereinigten Staaten. Es war der Marshall-Plan, der in Geld gegossen, um Westeuropa zu bauen, als Teil ihres Beitrags zu dieser Seite von Europa, verglichen mit dem Osten, die unter sowjetischer Kontrolle. Also, warum bringen die EU nach dem Krieg, wenn es nicht existiert? Es wurde weitgehend nach vorne nach dem Kalten Krieg zog, um effektiv zu versuchen und halten Europa unter irgendeiner Form von Kontrolle. Und es funktioniert nicht. Ganz Europa weiß jetzt, dass, und die europäischen Bürger in den verschiedenen Teilen Europas wird in dieser Entscheidung lachen.

AMY GOODMAN: Tariq Ali, ich Ihnen dafür, dass Sie mit uns danken, britisch-pakistanischen politischer Kommentator, Historiker, Aktivist, Filmemacher, Schriftsteller, Herausgeber der New Left Review, Autor von mehr als 20 Bücher, darunter The Duel: Pakistan auf dem Flight Path of American Power.

Dies ist Democracy Now! Wenn wir wieder kommen, erweitern wir die Debatte. Wir bringen zwei Drittanbietern Vize-Präsidentschaftskandidaten in den Vizepräsidenten Debatte, die in der vergangenen Nacht in Kentucky wurde. Bleiben Sie mit uns.

Der ursprüngliche Inhalt dieses Programms ist unter einer Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License lizenziert. Bitte zuschreiben legale Kopien dieser Arbeit democracynow.org. Einige der Arbeit (en), dass dieses Programm integriert, kann jedoch separat lizenziert werden. Für weitere Informationen oder zusätzliche Berechtigungen, kontaktieren Sie uns.