Abby Martin hosts an epic conversation with the prolific Dr. Cornel West on everything from the prison industry and institutionalized racism, US empire and imperialism, corporate greed, the notion of ‘conscious capitalism’ and gearing for the revolution on Breaking The Set.
***
Dr. Cornel West on ‘Breaking the Set’
***
BREAKING THE SET — US Congressman, Dennis Kucinich, and Breaking the Set’s Abby Martin discuss accountability on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war, Obama turning the US ‘Orwellian’, civil liberties, GMOs and other issues that have set him aside from the average establishment politician.
***
Congressman Dennis Kucinich on BTS
***
Abby Martin: “I’m really excited right now to introduce one of the few politicians I actually admire. I’m talking about Congressmand Dennis Kucinich, one of the most honest, credible politicians who ever served, a man who spent his 18-year tenure fighting for the issues, that Americans care the most about. From thewar in Iraq to the food we eat, Kucinich has always stood on the right side, the side of truth, which is why I’m honoured to have the chance to speak to Congressman Kucinich, himself. I first asked him about oil being a motivating factor in the Iraq War, particularly, in light of Bush’s former speechwriter coming out to validate that claim. And here’s what he had to say.”
Dennis Kucinich (c. 0:42): “Well, right from the beginning, it was very clear that there was no legitimate reason to go into Iraq. The only compelling reason would be to try to help corner the market on oil. It didn’t work out that way for those who thought that it would. But the fact of the matter is oil was so well-known to be the motivating factor, that when I ran for President in 2004, going across the country, I’d ask audiences, ‘Tell me what this is about, what this war is about, in three letters.’ And thousands of people would respond, simultaneously, OIL! It was never a secret.”
Abby Martin (c. 1:19): “Right. In 2007, Congressman, you actually introduced articles of impeachmentagainst George Bush and Dick Cheney. When you look at things like Nixon being ousted for wiretapping, Clinton being [impeached] for an affair, how is it that these two men could not be held accountable for initiating an illegal war based on known lies?”
Dennis Kucinich (c. 1:40): “Well, I think we have to place the responsibility for that on the shoulders of Democratic leadership because we could have moved forward with an impeachment, but the Democratic leadership wouldn’t do it. Now, there has to be accountability in a democracy. It is widely understood today that the war was based on lies. So, then, should not the thousands of Americans being killed, tens of thousands being injured, maybe a million innocent Iraqis died, perhaps, damage, in the hundreds of billions of dollars to Iraq—shouldn’t there be some accountability?
“So, what I’ve called for is a process of truth and reconciliation, like South Africa had many years ago, where leaders are required to come forward and state their role in the decision-making process. And, if they lie, then they’re subject to perjury charges. We need to clear the air in America. We need the truth. And it is time, since everyone knows it was based on a lie, then what’s wrong with calling those, who lied to us, forward to, not only, require an explanation, but also to clear the air?”
Abby Martin (c. 2:45): “Absolutely, I remember Pelosi, at the time, saying impeachment was off the table.”
Dennis Kucinich: “Right.”
Abby Martin: “I mean, could it be the Democrat leadership was scared they would open up their can of worms and somehow be complicit in the lies?”
Dennis Kucinich: “Well, you know, two-thirds of the Democrats voted against going to war. But the third, that did vote for it, were involved—as were their counterparts in the Senate—in establishment-type politics, that favoured war. Some of the leading senators, who have become exalted public figures, took a stand for that war. And they’ve never been held accountable, even politically. And, interestingly enough, it would seem as though to be qualified to speak on foreign policy—even still today—that you have to have been for the war, even though it was based on lies. That’s the kind of upside-down thinking, that continues to guide foreign policy decisions in Washington, D.C.”
Abby Martin (c. 3:37): “Well, speaking of upside-down policy, Obama’s reason for not prosecuting—or even investigating—the Bush officials was because he wanted to look forward, not backward. However, I can’t help, but wonder, why he continues to look backward to prosecute those who exposed war crimes, as whistleblowers, instead of the war criminals.”
Dennis Kucinich: “No good deed remains unpunished. And those who were the whistleblowers are being punished. Those who took us into a war based on lies are being celebrated. This inversion of reality isOrwellian. It needs to be, um, reckoned with. And that’s why I call for this period of truth and reconciliation. And, you know what? Isn’t all law enforcement about looking backwards?”
Abby Martin: “Right. Exactly.”
Dennis Kucinich: “Hello.”
Abby Martin: “Exactly. I couldn’t agree more. Let’s talk about the Afghanistan war, in terms of looking backwards. It was sold to us as a war of necessity in a post-9/11 world. Of course, Bush, at the time, had a 95% approval rating [after 9/11]. I don’t blame people for voting for it, thinking that we needed some form of retaliation [for 9/11]. But don’t you find the logic flawed now, looking back? Do you regret your vote to invade and occupy a country to find one man?”
Dennis Kucinich (c. 4:43): “No, we did not, Congress did not vote to invade and occupy. They voted to give the President the ability to respond to the attack on 9/11. And, frankly, I think it was appropriate thatthe United States struck at the training camps and made the point that you are not going to attack the United States with impunity—stop there, end of story—not to invade and occupy and, basically,try to break a country, that hasn’t been successfully conquered in modern times.
“So, this, too, points to the serious flaws in our foreign policy. We have an obligation to defend this country. And I don’t take a backseat to anyone in saying that if Americans are attacked, we have a right to defend ourselves. But it was absolutely—it was criminal to go and think we’re gonna knock off Afghanistan, occupy it, control it, remake a country where a lot of it is just a box of rocks.
“And what do we think—who do we think we are? This was a major flaw. It’s hubris, arrogance. And we need some explanation to the American people.”
Abby Martin (c. 5:55): “Absolutely. Let’s talk about your Presidential run in 2008. Both, you and Ron Paul were pretty much the leading anti-war figures, of course, on both sides of the spectrum, of both parties. I remember leftists and Libertarians, at the time, calling for you guys to be running mates because you were so united against the wars and for the restoration of our civil liberties.
“Now, these factions are so divided. They’re more divided than ever before. And it just seems like, without any representation, to have us—these dividing factions—fighting each other, instead of the forces we should be fighting against is really counter-intuitive. How do you think it got this way? And how can we unite these factions to really focus on cohesive, unified opposition again?”
Dennis Kucinich (c. 6:34): “Well, I think what Ron Paul and I proved is that there is plenty of space in American politics for a new movement, which goes across partisan lines, which embraces the concerns of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, that’s based on the truth, on protecting the Constitution, taking care of our practical aspirations here, at home, and in sharply curtailing this aggression, that America has practised around the world.
“So, I think Ron Paul and I have been able to demonstrate this capacity of creating new possibilities. And, frankly, since the two parties continue to fail to address America’s economic problems, I think the American people, increasingly, will be looking, to alternatives, as we move toward the future.”
Abby Martin (c. 7:24): “I call it the two-party dictatorship, Congressman. Let’s talk about civil liberties, which is something that you had been very vocal about in your entire term. Rand Paul, his epic filibuster, not really supported by a single Democrat, I mean, how is that drones and due process are partisan issues now?”
Dennis Kucinich: “Well, they shouldn’t be. What happens in Washington is this: Whatever party holds the White House, their supporters in Congress try to protect the president of a party. But the president isn’t just the president of a party. He’s a president of the United States. And members of Congress aren’t just partisan participants in a process, they are United States Congresspersons. And what we have to remember is that, both, myself and Ron Paul—Rand’s father—raised this issue of the drones in the Congress relentlessly, brought a resolution in front of the Congress, forced a committee to have to consider to it.
“And, you know, finally people are starting to understand there are Constitutional issues here. And good for Senator Rand Paul for raising the issue on the floor of the Senate, but we haven’t resolved it. Other countries are gonna start to use drones. Imagine for a moment that if China thought—or any other nation—thought they could invade US airspace with a drone, as we invade other people’s airspace. We wouldn’t stand for it. How can we expect other countries to continue to standby, while we violate their sovereignty and their territorial integrity? And, then, on the domestic level, we gotta worry about the domestic use of drones. It won’t be long—mark my words—that law enforcement, domestically, will start using these drones to go after suspects using armed force.”
Abby Martin (c. 9:00): “Yeah, and they are counter-intuitive abroad. I mean, it doesn’t take a genius to see that killing people with drones is not a good way to fight, quote, ‘terrorism.’
“You served an epic 18-year run in Congress. You were one of the most vocal leaders against the establishment line time and time again. When you were redistricted, did you feel you were deliberately gerrymandered out of office because of your politics?”
Dennis Kucinich: “By the Democrats, not by the Republicans.”
Abby Martin: “Wow.”
Dennis Kucinich: “It was Democrats in the Ohio legislature who went out of their way to totally distort the map in Ohio and to cut my district up into four pieces, making it impossible for me to win.
“Now, I can tell you, I don’t have any—that’s just a fact. I’m not bitter about it. You know? I still have a home in Washington and a home in Cleveland. I can occasionally see the light of the Capitol on. I just wanna know who’s home.”
Abby Martin: “Unbelievable when your own party turns against the ideals, that this country was founded on.
“When you did leave, Congressman, the media portrayed you as fringe. I mean they even called you the Congressman with the most wacky ideas. Yet, the majority of Americans support what you stood up for. How is it that this depiction is even allowed to exist? And what damage does it do when people feel they are marginalised for sharing views, that you had?”
Dennis Kucinich: “Well, one, it doesn’t hurt my feelings. Two, it never changed my position. When you stand up for the truth, it’s very easy to understand that you take on certain interest groups, who are gonna try to marginalise you.
“It is interesting, as you point out, that someone would try to characterise, as fringe, having opposed the war in Iraq based on facts, having challenged those who made the decisions, that cost our troops, and our Nation, and the Iraqi people so dearly, having challenged other wars, and have proven to be right again and again and again. But you know what that means. If the truth is at the fringe, then what position is being celebrated?”
Abby Martin: “Exactly. And speaking from an inside perspective—you’ve been inside the system for so long—when you look at things like Monsanto, like Vermont not even being able to pass a labelling law because of the fear of a lawsuit from Monsanto—I mean, you were also one of the only people to try to get GMOs labelled.”
Dennis Kucinich: “1999.”
Abby Martin: “What does this say? Do corporations, essentially, have more power than voter resolutions and—”
Dennis Kucinich: “Yes.”
Abby Martin: “—how do—”
Dennis Kucinich: “Yes, after Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United [v. Federal Election Commission], corporations took enormous power over our government. Monsanto, look, they were able to get the Bush Administration, in its waning days, to be able to claim—the first Bush Administration—to be able to claim in 1993 that genetically modified organisms were the functional equivalent of conventional food. No science based on that at all. But the dollar bill has a science all of its own.
“And, so, now, you have hundreds of millions of acres of crops, that have been planted with genetically modified organisms used to do that. We can’t—our markets are closing in Europe, as a result. People don’t want these crops to come in. And, even more than that, we have no idea, as to the effects with respect toallergenicity, toxicity, functional characteristics, antibiotic resistance. We’re part of a grand experiment now in our food. You know, this is another one of the reasons why I eat organic and I’m a vegan.”
Abby Martin: “Indeed. Thank you for bringing those fringe ideas to the mainstream and standing up to the truth, that so many of us don’t have a voice to share in the system. Thank you so much, Congressman Kucinich.”
Dennis Kucinich: “Thank you.”
Abby Martin: “I’m a huge fan.”
Dennis Kucinich: “Thank you.”
Transcript by Felipe Messina for Media Roots and Breaking the Set.
MEDIA ROOTS — Abby Martin raises the important question, in the finest spirit of Nina Simone, of an artist’s duty toward humanity. Here, she showcases some of her political artwork and explains art’s importance in reflecting the zeitgeist of today’s society.
MR
***
Abby Martin on an Artist’s Duty
***
MEDIA ROOTS — Abby Martin breaks through the veil of establishment myths surrounding the late President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, by highlighting the criticisms and achievements of his 14-year presidency and outlining why he was such a threat to the status quo. (Transcript included below.)
MR
***
***
Tune in from 6-6:30 or 9-9:30 EST M-F on your local cable station
OR watch live @http://www.RT.com/usa
OR SUBSCRIBE to the official YouTube channel @http://www.youtube.com/BreakingTheSet
LIKE Breaking The Set @http://fb.me/BreakingTheSet
FOLLOW Abby Martin @http://twitter.com/AbbyMartin
***
UPDATED 10 MAR 2013 13:53 CST
Abby Martin: “Alright, guys. By now, I’m sure you’ve heard the news of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez passing away. He lost his two-year battle with cancer on Tuesday, March 5th, at the young age of 58. Although he gave a voice to Venezuelan people in a way unlike any other Venezuelan leader, during his 14-year leadership, Chávez was a controversial and polarising figure on the world stage, who was, both, hailed and smeared.
“Now, if you’re looking at the rhetoric from the US establishment, you’re only getting the side of the story, that paints Chavez as a ruthless dictator, a tyrannical socialist, and a madman dead-set on destroying America. See for yourself.”
FOX NEWS (woman with blonde hair): “Well, it’s being called the Tour of Tyrants, Iran’s Mahmud Ahmadinejad and Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez making a joint appearance yesterday. You’re seeing a video that, joking about Iran’s nuclear programme and US anger.”
CBS NEWS (male voice): “A problem? It’s coming at the hands of a man the US describes as nothing short of a dictator, Hugo Chávez.”
Abby Martin: “Strong words from media organisations, who had already made up their minds about what type of leader Chávez was.
“So, how is the same establishment press running with the news of his death? Let’s find out.”
NBC NEWS (woman with blonde hair): “We move on now to the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez who lost his two year battle with cancer on Tuesday. He was a polarising and outspoken figure.”
FOX NEWS (male voice): “He referred to the US as the evil empire and famously branded US President George W. Bush as the devil during an address at the United Nations. And he warned his countrymen frequently of an impending US invasion of Venezuela.”
CBS NEWS (male voice): “Adding to the tension was Chávez’s long list of dubious friends, like a who’s who of American enemies, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.”
CNN NEWS (male voice): “The price of his socialist agenda? Hugo Chávez, himself. Term limits were abolished. Even his critics admit he could have gone on winning elections indefinitely. His biggest failure may be his unilateral success, a legacy of one. Before his death, critics said Chávez was leading Venezuela in the control of narco-traffickers.”
NBC NEWS (woman with blonde hair) (c. 2:18): “And this morning US officials are wondering how his passing will impact relations with the oil giant.”
Abby Martin: “Yes, of course, the big question: What’s gonna happen to the oil? Can you make it anymore obvious? Look, I’m not gonna sit here and glorify Venezuela or Hugo Chávez, or socialism, for that matter. In fact, there are many legitimate criticisms to be had. Take, for example, the heightened rates of violence and censorship and prosecution of political dissidents.
“But you’ll hear the less appealing aspects of Chávez ad nauseum from the corporate press. So, my job is to tell you what they won’t. And I’m gonna lift the veil on the most egregious myths said about the Venezuelan president.
(c. 2:59): “So, let’s get back to the subject of oil. After all, Venezuela has the largest reserves of crude oil in the western hemisphere. And the bold move by Chávez to nationalise the nation’s petroleum resources has been one of the biggest points of contention.
“The seizures of foreign- and corporate-controlled lands in the country, along with the redistribution of wealth amongst the populace are notions, that do not sit well with many. Unlike other developing nations, that allow multinational corporations to sell off the country’s natural resources, Chávez began to initiate incremental steps, giving the state full control over its oil reserves.
“With these funds, the government was able to instate various programmes of social development, narrowing the country’s wealth disparity and developing Venezuela into a principal player in the international community.
“Despite what you’ve heard about Hugo Chávez, it is undeniable that, under his leadership, the poorest in the country were empowered.
“In 2009, the Center for Economic and Policy Research published a report on Venezuela’s economic expansion. It highlighted that, under Chávez, the country’s GDP nearly doubled in only five years; extreme poverty was down by 72%; child mortality down by a third. There was unprecedented access to universal health care. And college enrolment was on the rise.
(c. 4:20): “Still, the myth we hear is one of a socialist comandante who manipulated the poor with handouts to gain their loyalty and support. But, in reality, he helped the poor enormously. It’s just a fact, that doesn’t bode well with the people supporting corporate domination over the region.
“Another media talking point is that Chávez was a ruthless dictator, who redrafted the Constitution to dissolve term limits to insure his perpetual, tyrannical reign. Dictator? Not so much. Chávez won the seat of President four separate times, often by an overwhelming majority. The last election, alone, drew over 80% voter turnout. It was a process that, former US President, Jimmy Carter characterised as being, quote, ‘the best in the world.’
The referendum in question, to dissolve term limits was voted on and passed by over 50% of the people in the country. So, when it comes to democratic participation, Venezuela puts the US to shame. You won’t find that kind of enthusiastic voter turnout anywhere in this country.
“Chávez also has been painted as a conspiracy theorist and a loon for his questions of the Bush Administration’s role in 9/11 and for accusing the US of assassination and coup attempts to unseat him.
“But is it really so ludicrous to imagine that scenario, given the CIA’s sordid history of assassinations and coups across Latin America and against leaders, that didn’t quite fall in line with American interests? In fact, there’s mounting evidence linking the Bush Administration to a 2002 coup, that briefly did oust Chávez. And officials at the Organisation of American States have said that the US was not only aware of the coup, but that they, in fact, sanctioned the coup.
“By dismissing Chávez as a dictator like the media machine tends to do, we’re ignoring all of these valid points. That same media machine ignores the impending tyranny in this country, the soft fascism leading to the indefinite detention of US citizens in 12 years of endless war.
“When you look at who Chávez was, lumped in with the likes of Fidel Castro, Muammar Gaddafi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Saddam Hussein, they share a commonality. They all opposed the US corporate imperialist take over of the planet.
“Going forward, keep this in mind: When a leader is vilified and demonised, it usually signifies they’re a threat to the status quo. So, regardless of what you’ve heard or what your personal thoughts are about Hugo Chávez, he simply cannot be dismissed as a tyrant because his voice of opposition, and others like him, serves a necessary divide to prevent global corporate enslavement and tyranny.”
***
Transcript by Felipe Messina for Media Roots and Breaking the Set.
***
MEDIA ROOTS — A month ago, Luke Rudkowski of WeAreChange and Abby Martin of Media Roots confronted Senator Rand Paul on camera at the Capitol building as he left a press conference. The question they both asked him repeatedly is why he endorsed Mitt Romney if he stands in opposition to almost every Libertarian principle that both he and his father, Ron Paul, hold so dear. Rand’s handler tried to shield Paul from Luke and Abby but failed to do so, creating a few cringe worthy moments that made Rand seem like an utter coward. He silently looked down in embarrassment without even giving them a glance as he skirted away.
Some people may say that any form of ‘ambush’ journalism is unfair; since you don’t have permission to confront someone, don’t expect a friendly attitude or response. However, in the past, a pre-Senate Rand Paul was spotted on the street by WeAreChange and asked about Bilderberg. He seemed eager to speak candidly about the subject, throwing out a lot of anti New World Order rhetoric.
When Abby’s video hit YouTube, the comments and reactions were evenly split. Some WeAreChange fans said they were okay with his endorsement, and that Rand Paul had to ‘make a deal’ in order to gain ground for their cause. Others were furious at Abby and Luke for challenging ‘one of their own.’ Overall, many expressed the thought that Rand had sold out and betrayed his own father by catering to the Republican establishment. Rand and Ron have been big allies with WeAreChange’s philosophical agenda for years, dovetailing off of WeAreChange’s association with the Alex Jones and Infowars. To those unfamiliar with these different groups’ involvement in underground politics, WeAreChange acts as emissaries of the confrontational style of journalism Alex Jones has been known for, i.e. bullhorning in public buildings and confronting politicians about the New World Order. Arguably, Alex Jones is following in the footsteps of Bill Cooper and David Icke with a heavy philosophical dose of the John Birch Society.
I started listening to Alex Jones in early 2004, and from the very first broadcast he spoke very favorably of one politician in particular, a Congressman named Ron Paul. At the time I knew of people like Cynthia McKinney and Dennis Kucinich, but had no knowledge of anyone on the ‘right’ who held strongly to some of my personal beliefs about foreign policy, freedom and civil liberties. After doing a bit of research on Ron Paul, he seemed like the real deal. It made sense why Alex Jones was such a fan since Jones considered himself a ‘paleo conservative,’ neither Republican nor Democrat.
Many years later, Paul’s son, Rand, came onto the scene and became a U.S. Senator in Kentucky; this was directly after the media coverage of the Tea Party movement had reached its peak. Originally, the Tea Party phenomenon was started by 9/11 ‘truthers’ who were fans of Ron Paul and Libertarianism in general because of its focus on restoring liberties and cutting back on military intervention. Eventually, the Tea Party was co-opted by the likes of Fox News and the RNC which turned it into a mainstream commodity to package and sell. Rand stood side by side with the Tea Party and even considered himself one of the first Tea Party Senators. His father, Ron Paul, seemed generally pleased at its success–the Tea Party’s growing appeal would only catapult him to more fame.
Slowly it became clear that Rand was following in his father’s footsteps in a lot of ways, sometimes being one of the few Senators to vote “no” on a bill simply because of a possible threat to civil liberties. However, it was also clear from the beginning that he was different from his father and didn’t have enough political cache to speak ill of American foreign policy or the War on Terror. He definitely didn’t risk saying anything remotely close to his dad’s statements about 9/11 being a result of CIA blowback.
Alex Jones still promoted Rand, along with his father Ron, regardless of their differences on 9/11 and the War on Terror. WeAreChange and the Infowars community seemed to be mostly excited about Ron and his son becoming such well known fixtures in the mainstream media and Republican party. But there were exceptions–early on I noticed that certain fans became leery of these events, wondering why elements of the RNC would accept Rand and his father with open arms unless there was a bigger chess game at play.
The attention reached its peak during the 2011 Republican presidential primaries, when Ron Paul collected over 200 delegates. Just like in 2008, Ron Paul hinted at running third party if he lost the primary, but didn’t end up launching a third party bid after losing the nomination. After discovering that Mitt Romney was the clear victor, it’s most likely that both Pauls were asked by their ‘friends’ in the Republican party to endorse him for president. Apparently, Rand felt compelled to do just that. Less than a month after the dust had settled, he went on television to announce his endorsement for the war mongerer.
Was he offered a sweet deal or did he go into it with the underlying understanding that if he solidified his friendship with the Republican overlords it would pay off in the long term? Surely he knew that the liberty movements’ reaction would range anywhere from mildly unhappy/confused to feeling betrayed–but he decided to do it anyway. Or, is a third possibility conceivable–that Ron and Rand Paul have been used as tools by the Republican party for longer than the Romney endorsement; now they may actually be inadvertently helping this so called ‘New World Order’ they both profess to oppose?
If you have been following the history of the evolution of the Pauls as I have, you can see that Abby and Luke’s video confrontation at the Capitol asking Rand about his curious endorsement of Romney blew up the internet with a heated albeit much needed debate. Many Paul fans feel as if they have been mislead, and that the Pauls are playing into the hands of the very untrustworthy establishment that has shut out their movement for so long. Can we blame them?
UPDATE: A week after this confrontational video was broadcast, Abby’s workplace, Russia Today, received an ominous phone call from a Senate committee staffer who represents mainstream media access to the Capitol building. This representative implied that Abby had trespassed (she did not, they were both credentialed press for the event) into the Capitol to ‘harass’ Rand Paul. It turns out that it was Rand Paul’s staff that put the pressure on this committee to try to strip Abby of her press credentials and intimidate her. Luckily, the Rand Paul campaign was extremely naive and had no idea that Abby only becomes stronger and more aggressive in the face of adversity and threats. Rand Paul has opened a can of worms on this that they will not be able to close. Trying to get a journalist in trouble or even fired from their organization for simply asking a question is one of the sleaziest and oldest tricks in the book; we are even surprised that politicians still employ these strong arm techniques instead of more subtle and nuanced approaches.
I’ve been on the fence for a long time about what the Pauls are really trying to accomplish. Now that we know for sure that Rand Paul tried to threaten and intimidate Abby simply for asking him why he endorsed Mitt Romney, I think I can safely hop to one side of the fence–the side in which Rand and possibly Ron Paul are clearly working on behalf of the “establishment.”
Robbie Martin for Media Roots
To hear Abby and I discussing these events on our most recent podcast click here, or stream below
Media Roots Radio – Rand Paul Crackdown, Gay Rights, Illuminati & NWO Distraction by Media Roots
***
