Andrew Korybko
Oct 23, 2024
Kamala expects Polish Americans – many of whom are already several generations removed from Poland, don’t speak Polish, and never even visited there – to “be more Polish than native-born Poles and the Polish government” when it comes to the NATO-Russian proxy war in Ukraine.
Politico published a critical piece last week about how “Kamala Harris is warning Polish Americans not to vote for Donald Trump. Many will.” They comprise 5.69%, 7.61%, and 8% of the population in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin so they can make or break the election. Kamala has tried winning them over to her side by fearmongering that Trump will sell out Ukraine and then let Putin attack Poland next, but most Polish Americans care more about socio-economic issues than foreign ones.
She’s therefore making a mistake by pandering to what her campaign wrongly expects Poles to care about, namely helping Ukraine and containing Russia, when even Poland at the state and civil society levels is no longer as gung-ho about those goals as before. Regarding the first, its Defense Minister admitted in late August that his country maxed out its military support for Ukraine, while its Foreign Minister suggested last month that the state should cut benefits for conscription-aged Ukrainian males.
As for the second, a recent survey from a publicly funded research center revealed that two-thirds of Poles demanded that conscription-aged Ukrainian males be deported to fight and only less than half supported continuing the conflict. Nevertheless, Kamala expects Polish Americans – many of whom are already several generations removed from Poland, don’t speak Polish, and never even visited there – to “be more Polish than native-born Poles and the Polish government” when it comes to this proxy war.
That’s another mistake because most don’t self-identify with their ethno-national group as strongly as African Americans do so they’re much less influenced by appeals to their group’s perceived interests. Even those that do identify in that way don’t usually care more about foreign affairs than socio-economic ones, and among the miniscule minority that does, they’re informed of their ancestral homeland’s evolving approach towards this issue, which differs from how Kamala has presented it as proven above.
Moreover, this miniscule minority knows that outgoing conservative-nationalist President Andrzej Duda favors Trump with whom he’s formed a closed friendship while incumbent liberal-globalist Prime Minister Donald Tusk detests him, so “ancestral loyalty” in this election also has a partisan dimension. By condescendingly treating Polish Americans as a homogenous blob of easily manipulatable Russophobes, however, Kamala is ignoring the real issues that’ll determine who they’ll vote for.
Those of them who she’s trying to court from those three swing states reside in the Rust Belt, which naturally predisposes them to prioritize socio-economic issues over foreign ones much more than average voters do because of how deeply they’ve been affected by them. Even Politico’s piece mentions how some Polish Americans are complaining about all the money that the US already gave to Ukraine so Kamala’s fearmongering about Trump cutting it off might actually win them over to his side.
They’d prefer for this money to remain inside the US and reinvested into improving the lives of fellow Rust Belt residents regardless of their partisan disposition or ethno-national identity. Considering how important of an issue this is to them, many naturally support Trump over Kamala since the latter shares responsibility with Biden for the downturn in their living conditions over the past four years, hence why her campaign is desperately trying to distract them with counterproductive foreign policy pandering.
https://korybko.substack.com/p/kamalas- ... urt-polish
******
Kamala Harris: The War Hawks' Candidate
21 Oct 2024 , 5:10 pm .
It is curious that progressives agree on a common cause with war criminal Dick Cheney (Photo: The New York Times)
With just a few weeks to go before the US presidential election, some former officials in the country's establishment have publicly expressed their support for Kamala Harris' candidacy.
On this phenomenon, James Carden, a political analyst and former advisor to the State Department's Bilateral Commission on U.S.-Russia, published an article on September 25 entitled "When hateful foreign policy elites rally around Harris ," in which he argues why the opinion of these former officials who have made "some of the bloodiest and stupidest national security decisions in recent times" should not be considered.
The author cites two letters in which more than 100 prominent Republican figures linked to the national security sphere support Vice President Harris.
"We are former national security and foreign policy officials who served in the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and/or Donald Trump, or as Republican members of Congress. We have served in the White House, the Departments of Defense, Treasury, State, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, and other agencies, and in Congress," one of the letters reads , adding that they support the Democratic candidate because they believe she can "promote and defend American security and values."
Brief context
The Democratic nomination for the presidential elections on November 5 has been marked by several events. At the beginning of August, it was determined that Kamala Harris won the party's presidential nomination. This occurred after months of uncertainty revolving around Joe Biden's mental health, doubts that actually arose from the beginning of his mandate, which grew as the deterioration became undeniable.
Biden's image finally collapsed, and therefore that of his party in general, when the first televised Trump-Biden face-to-face was held on June 27. A decadent and senile image of the current president was perceived , and although there was no solid argument in either candidate, the Republican referred to the economic collapse, the migration crisis and the failed US foreign policy, weak points of the Democratic administration.
Biden was perceived as incapable of articulating ideas due to his deteriorating physical and psychological state, which some analysts called a "collective suicide" for the ruling party. Former President Barack Obama came to the defense, arguing that it was a "bad night" of debate, but it nonetheless reignited the debate over finding a replacement.
At first, the fact that Kamala Harris is the first African American woman and the first Asian American to lead a presidential ticket was used as a novelty to boost the Democratic Party. However, this has not been enough to lift the polls. At the beginning of October, the polls indicated that Donald Trump and Kamala Harris were in a technical tie. Today, that trend continues or the Democrat leads by a very narrow margin.
Warhawks to the rescue
Given this background, it is not difficult to understand why the US foreign policy establishment published these open letters signed by hundreds of former national security officials almost simultaneously.
James Carden points out that many of these endorsements come from individuals who have been architects of wars and interventions, which even Democrats have openly criticized as stains on recent American history.
The letter details that the first letter was signed by more than 100 former Republican officials, students of all the administrations of that party from Reagan to Trump on national security issues, who "strongly oppose the election" of the latter even though "they expect to disagree with Kamala Harris on many domestic and foreign policy issues."
Given that these are "respectable" former officials, one would expect them to back up their decision with solid arguments; however, the resources used are commonplaces that are easy to dismantle, such as "Trump's susceptibility to flattery, his manipulation of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, his unusual affinity with other authoritarian leaders, his disregard for the norms of decent, ethical and legal behavior, and his chaotic decision-making in matters of national security."
First of all, we must mention the double standards of these hawks who benefited from endless wars for 20 years straight.
Carden notes that the first letter also includes sensible and responsible pillars of the Washington establishment , including former Defense Secretary and U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel and former FBI and CIA director William Webster, but they are overshadowed by the fact that most of the signatories "carry with them the scent of the war party, the consensus party, or even the neoconservatism of the 9/11 era."
What is even more surprising is that, unlike before, the liberal media took this support as a "victory" for Harris' campaign. It is curious that "progressive" sectors agree on a common cause with war criminal Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, both officials from the Bush Jr. era.
The need to maintain the status quo in Washington is so great that they forget about Cheney's criminal past and present him as a guardian of American values, even though history indicates that these are precisely the imperial values that underlie them.
It is ironic that they denounce Trump's "unethical behavior and disregard for the time-tested principles of constitutional government of our Republic," but they worked alongside those already named and former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and former chief John Ashcroft during the Global War on Terror.
Eliot Cohen, a former U.S. State Department counselor; Eric Edelman, who led the National Defense Strategy and called for increased military spending for a multitheater war against China and Russia; Michael V. Hayden, the former director of the NSA and CIA and one of the principal architects of the warrantless surveillance program of American citizens; and John Negroponte, the first Director of National Intelligence and one of the architects of the bloody interventions in Latin America under President Reagan, are also listed as signatories of the letter in support of Harris.
Regarding the second letter , with 700 signatories and a more partisan focus, James Carden says that it is a "more serious effort" that appeals to the democratic values of the United States embodied by Harris, while former President Donald Trump "endangers them." "She understands the reality of American military deterrence and promises to preserve the status of the armed forces as the most lethal force in the world," argue the retired military officers, front-line officers and diplomats.
That it is a "slightly more serious" effort does not indicate that the signatories are morally clean enough to be considered examples of good governance. The fact that Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, Victoria Nuland, Michael McFaul and Leon Panetta appear as signatories is already indicative that this letter also includes a large number of war criminals.
"The inclusion of several of the most reckless and irresponsible civilian national security leaders of our time only serves to dilute the seriousness of the message: any letter in which they appear is one that can and should be safely ignored," Carden says.
The fear of Donald Trump's return to the presidency has brought together progressives, liberals and the militaristic elite that has led wars and interventions in other countries to preserve and defend the supposed values that they want to take away from them, as if the Republican did not have the same imperial impulses that have dominated American politics in recent centuries.
https://misionverdad.com/globalistan/ka ... -la-guerra
Google Translator
("It is curious that progressives agree on a common cause with war criminal Dick Cheney" No, it's not curious, it's class interest.)
******
New York Times Attacks “Peace-peddling” Jill Stein as the Presidential Race Comes Down to the Wire
Ann Garrison, BAR Contributing Editor 23 Oct 2024
The New York Times scapegoats Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein as polls indicate a dead heat between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.
On October 20, the New York Times published “Jill Stein Won’t Stop. No Matter Who Asks .” Its reporter Matt Flegenheimer writes, “For the last eight years, Ms. Stein has taken her place as a peace-peddling, Democrat-bashing, Republican-aided, formerly Russian-boosted villain of the left (and champion, admirers say, of the farther left) while Mr. Trump’s opponents relitigate his rise and move desperately to prevent his return.”
The absurdities and glaring contradictions in this hit piece presumably have the blessing of the Times editorial board, which endorsed Harris on September 30.
Jill Stein is “peace-peddling”?
Imagine that. It would be comical if it didn’t indicate this country’s commitment to perpetual war and military industrial profit.
“Democrat-bashing”?
Is the Democratic Party now a hallowed institution beyond criticism? Is it not bashing the Republicans daily and running a negative ad blitz against Jill Stein? Are Stein and the Green Party supposed to sit back passively and take it?
Is the Harris campaign, with its billions of dollars, its army of consultants, and its huge advertising budget unable to credibly, logically defend itself against the critique of a medical doctor carrying the “People, Planet, and Peace ” banner of the Greens, which has raised well under $2 million in the current campaign season?
“Republican aided”?
On October 21, the Washington Post ran a report headlined “Harris hits three states with Liz Cheney .” The vice president has the support of Liz and Dick Cheney and that of Condoleezza Rice, among other high-profile Republicans, and she’s vowed to include a Republican in her cabinet. How dumb does the Times think its readers are? And/or how dumb are they? Their allegation against Dr. Stein is that some Republican-affiliated lawyers helped with her legal battles to gain ballot access, particularly in Nevada, where the state gave the Green Party the wrong signature-collecting forms, then refused to add her name to the ballot because the Greens had used them.
“Formerly Russian-boosted”?
The Times reporter repeats the endlessly recycled charge that Jill Stein visited Moscow and sat at a dinner table with Vladimir Putin—as she did—despite its own 2015 report, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deals ."
"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One,” that report reads, “Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”
Shouldn’t profiting off a deal to transfer ownership of fissile material used to manufacture nuclear weapons be of more consequence than a bit of dinner table chat in the interest of transboundary understanding?
“villain of the left (and champion, admirers say, of the farther left)”?
This seems to assume that the Democratic Party is by some calculation “the left,” despite its complicity in the proxy wars in Ukraine and West Asia and in the 2010 bank bailout, the largest upward transfer of wealth in American history, which led to the financialization of real estate and the current housing crisis. The Democratic Party is “the left” even though Biden-Harris have overseen record oil-drilling leases , and imposed more crippling sanctions all over the world, most of all in Africa. Sad to say, that does seem to be what’s left of “the left,” aside from the “farther left” allegedly now represented by the tiny but persistent Green Party.
Vice presidential candidate Butch Ware has said that Greens are actually “centrist” in that they stand for what the majority of Americans want—peace, health care, decent education, affordable housing, clean energy, and more—while the two major parties are extremists.
Stein voters will not elect Donald Trump
The central allegation in the New York Times hit piece is, of course, that Dr. Stein may cost Vice President Harris the election, as Stein allegedly did Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The central flaw in this endlessly recycled argument is the assumption that Stein voters would vote for Harris if they couldn't vote for Stein when there's no evidence of that. I know a lot of Green voters but only one who got so scared of Trump that he decided to vote for Harris.
I live in a state so blue that the tiny sliver of Green voters has no impact beyond political expression, but I’m in contact with swing state Green voters, none of whom would vote for either of the duopoly’s presidential candidates if they couldn’t vote for Stein, Cornel West, or Claudia de la Cruz in the states where a third party managed to get on the ballot.
The claim that Stein could cost Harris the election might be slightly more plausible this time because of the Muslim and Arab American voters who have traditionally voted overwhelmingly Democratic and who may make the difference, especially in Michigan, by refusing this time. But would they vote for Harris if they couldn't vote for Stein, West, or De la Cruz? It certainly doesn't seem so. "Abandon Harris," a group quoted in the NY Times piece, first began organizing as "Abandon Biden" last November. They launched a campaign to defeat first Biden, then Harris, in the swing states, which they defined as a moral imperative, a campaign against genocide, ten months before endorsing Jill Stein .
And how can anyone tell Muslim and Arab American voters that they should vote for Harris when they're seeing whole family lines savagely wiped out in Gaza and Lebanon with 2000-lb. US bombs and even white phosphorus, which causes deep, severe burns, penetrating even through bone?
There are two million Palestinians trapped in Gaza, probably minus some hundreds of thousands by now given that many are no doubt buried under the rubble. The vast majority can't leave either by land or by sea because Israel controls all the exits. They're trapped in a concentration camp with our bombs raining down on them, and now they're dying of hunger and thirst. Some ten kids are having one or both legs amputated every day. How does this differ from a Nazi concentration camp?
Nevertheless, the Muslim and Arab American vote isn't uniform in refusing to vote for Harris. A mostly Muslim and Arab American group calling itself "The Uncommitted " withheld their votes from Biden in the primary and then held a sit-in on the steps of the Democratic National Convention because the Dems let the Israeli American relative of a hostage speak but refused to let a Palestinian American speak. The Uncommitted ultimately said they wouldn't endorse Harris but thought it was important to stop Trump, which was essentially endorsing Harris.
In September a group of leading Muslim American scholars and imams signed a letter calling on Muslim voters to spurn Harris and vote for Stein or one of the other third-party candidates. This week a group of approximately 50 Black Muslim leaders signed a statement saying the same.
Also this week, Michigan’s American Arab and Muslim Political Action Committee endorsed Stein.
There are an estimated 2.5 million Muslim voters in the US and an estimated 2.5 million Arab American voters who no doubt largely overlap. The key swing state of Michigan contains the largest Lebanese American community, and the city of Dearborn has the largest concentration of Arab Americans in the country. The New York Times hit piece acknowledged that there are more than 300,000 Michigan residents with Middle Eastern or North African ancestry.
If Kamala Harris loses Michigan and therefore loses the election, and/or if she loses because of the Muslim and Arab American vote in other swing states, she’ll have only the Biden/Harris genocide to blame, not Dr. Jill Stein.
The Times on Green Party presidential candidate Butch Ware
Stein's running mate, Butch Ware , is a history professor and polyglot specializing in Africa and Islam who teaches at the University of California, San Diego. He did his doctoral research in West Africa, studying the Islamic/Sunni/Sufi pacifist movement founded by Shaykh Ahmadou Bamba, who led a nonviolent struggle against French colonialism. The Times notes without comment that he calls Harris the “Black face of white supremacy” and likens Barack Obama to a “house negro.” I had to explain to alarmed relatives that these expressions are common to Black intellectuals who think that both Harris and Obama are committed to white supremacy to the detriment of Black Americans and Africans, and that the “house negro” reference harkens back to Malcolm X's famous speech "The House Negro and the Field Negro ," in which Malcolm said he was a field negro.
I also explained that October 20 was the anniversary of the execution of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi at the end of the NATO bombing war on Libya and on the orders of Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Libya was the most prosperous country in Africa, and it's been a wreck ever since. Gaddafi's crime was nationalizing Libyan oil; US oil companies moved in amidst the chaos that followed his assassination. That's just one reason, I explained, why many Black intellectuals refer to Obama as a “house negro.”
The Times also noted that David Duke had endorsed Stein, so I also had to explain to relatives that she disavowed the endorsement, which she had never sought. Many thought it was a psyop to damage Stein, and it may well have been, but David Duke is reported to have said he supported her because she's the only candidate opposing US wars in the Middle East and I can't argue with that, however reprehensible he is.
Will the hit piece have any consequences?
Will the New York Times hit piece change anyone’s mind? Not likely. Will it persuade traumatized Muslim and Arab Americans to vote for Kamala Harris? There isn’t even any argument that they should.
Will it shame anyone into voting for Kamala Harris instead of “peace-peddling, Democrat-bashing, Republican-aided, formerly Russian-boosted villain of the left” Jill Stein? There’s nothing there to convince them, just a lot of smears.
The hit piece seems more like a scream as this closest-ever presidential election comes down to the wire. Whenever they lose, the Democrats rush to scapegoat the Green Party rather than considering their own failings, which in this case are most obviously the devastation of Gaza and Lebanon to the horror of many but most of all to the Muslim and Arab American communities.
The New York Times has given Democrats a headstart on the shaming and blaming in the very real possibility that they’ll lose.
https://blackagendareport.com/new-york- ... -down-wire
The Green Party of the USA is indeed centrist as despite it's environmental mission it refuses to condemn and utterly repudiate capitalism as the source of most environmental woes. Which just goes to show how far right the Democratic Party is.
