tv Breaking the Set RT November 4, 2013 6:00pm-6:31pm EST
there is just too much threat today society. that. patriot soldiers i'm abby martin and this is breaking the set you know the last thing i ever ever expected to come out of a nobel peace prize winners mouth is this i am really good at killing people yes folks according to a new book double down our beloved president constitutional lawyer nobel laureate brock obama apparently loves to brag about how well he can execute human beings with drones now i know you're thinking it's probably the republicans making him say such things cause you know he can't look weak on defense but shockingly no it's all the credit of barry you see during the two thousand and twelve election journalists
mark halperin and john heilemann were reporting on obama's campaign and it was during this time that the drone king reportedly boasted to his aides about his kills since becoming manager of the us empire obama's rapidly increased the use of drones abroad and his hundreds and hundreds of strikes have put bush's measly fifty two drone attacks shane see thousands of dead when women men and children don't lie they also can't speak or defend themselves in any way now for those of you who are still not offended at the president's disregard for human life and think this is just the way politics works and that every president has blood on their hands let me remind you of this one of the chief architects of the drone program john bellinger so that the reason why obama has ramped up the use of these killer robots is to avoid the bad press of guantanamo bay so you know what i'll give it to him he is really good at killing people because if there's one thing voters hope for when
a unique look at the successes and failures of grassroots movements but one man has been studying the process of revolution for decades his name is jean sharp he's a three time nobel peace prize nominee and author of several a claim to books exploring the notion that revolution can and should be accomplished in nonviolent means according to sharp nonviolence means much more than just chant in the streets he says quote nonviolent action is a means of combat as is war and involves the matching of forces in the waging a battle requires wise strategy and tactics and demands of its soldiers courage discipline and sacrifice genes writings are also the inspiration for a film that delineates the elements necessary for a revolution. up . right up.
to be counted as. any threat. to a tire in america i would say means were affected in this way relevant it means out of this very small office we produce work that that threatens regimes . i think that's pretty cool. the woman in that film is jeans protege jamila ricky she's the executive director of the albert einstein institution an organization founded by jean to study the process of social change i spoke with her earlier and asked her first storable example of a revolution arising through entirely peaceful means. well action has a very very long history and has been used in many many different countries in different parts of the world. polish solidarity struggle was nonviolence and was successful the serbian struggle was also violent and as well as the
successful in the struggle against milosevic and which culminated in the ouster of morsi the chin in year two thousand also the also the independent movement in india and struggle and in the indian subcontinent against british rule and on and on those are the struggles that really i think most people know about besides those struggles there are thousands and thousands of you going back to ancient rome where people did use nonviolent means and we're talking about not simply protests and demonstrations parents and non-cooperation economic political types is not cooperation it's in order to withdraw their support from a particular system that they didn't agree with where it was successful genes writing from dictatorship to democracy is often a reference as the inspiration for successful revolutions but there's been a lot of books written about revolution what is it about this book that's so
influential. races not just one but great actually. series of works and really the one that's going to gain the most attention is called for me it's democracy which was originally written for burmese dissidents but which later on did go on to spread around the world to to many of the countries where people felt the need for it so i think what's different about this book is that it is it's it's sure it's eighty seven pages it's a very detailed analysis even in those eighty pages it's quite dense but it's also very easy to meet in easy to understand the concepts are very basic there the idea that power in any society in any regime whether age democracy or even in the most authoritarian system comes from various institutions and groups in society in instances institutions choose to hold and sever them sources of power that that. or governments cannot survive i think it is that idea that is so
basic and easily understandable. that i think has really lends itself to be the spread of the book so it's easily read it's easily translated and i think that the basic analysis is accurate and i think that is really what makes it different and can you give us some guidelines really briefly like what one of the first steps it depends on this idea is power analysis which i explained and it is the idea of you know where where does power reside in society resides in these various is touche and these institutions exists then you know it's important that people make them stronger and if they do not in treating independence to sions that are independent of the regime or the government really strengthens society and groups in in the population to act for particular objectives so action works by
severn by severing and disrupting those or since. so the basis is that you have to understand your site you have to analyze and analyze your strengths and weaknesses analyze use the strengths and weaknesses of your opponent and then match your own strengths to the weaknesses of your opponent whether they're born in the government . or a corporation or some other oppressive system and central to all of this is the idea that those struggles that existed for centuries they have often been improvised with very little tax planning almost no strategic planning and that it helps to have a plan that if there is more likely to be successful if you come up with a strategy that is really based on your strengths and weaknesses and they're really . developed actions based on what is likely to bring you closer to your objectives and not simply focus on protests and not simply focusing on purchasing particular
policies but actually creating the change and we can. j.f.k. famously said of those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution and never have all of a american political status and i've already made it clear that they won't allow peaceful revolution considering the events of occupy wall street or do you think that that movement lacked that grand strategy that you speak of i think occupy wall street was in many ways simply a display of anger and dissatisfaction with the status quo or the current institutions that are designed to protect people people are finding that they are not working and our leadership is also has you know people are valued and they have fields you know population and so what are people to do and so there was this sort of idea that if we occupy public spaces that somehow the desired these going to materialize and i think relying whether it's occupy wall street or whether it's the
syrian nonviolent resistance movement if you rely. excessively. and protests and demonstrations i think that's unwise and that maybe needs to happen is a assessment of their situation that can help to move you away from. the methods that are not mine to work and i think protest is simply symbolic so what it does is expresses dissatisfaction and it says that this certain group of people in this public space are have particular grievances but it doesn't do much to provide an alternative or to actually meeting the system that people are fighting against i agree the vast majority has to be the organizing behind the scenes not necessarily what we see in the streets of your office studies nonviolent resistance of course not only as an alternative to violence but as an alternative to pass the past fifty what conditions are needed for people to reject apathy and
actively engage in change. that's a great question agni i think we're often asked this because people come to our office and say you know when our society they just don't care how can they be made to care and you know there's a general sense of apathy here there's a lot of young people just don't care as opposed to you know people in other other generations and i think that what i found in my work is actually the condition that's often mistaken for apathy is actually a feeling of helplessness that people actually don't feel a change is possible so when you have that condition then people are not going to engage in political action and so i think just the recognition that there is a means available to people as an alternative to violence as an alternative possibility that can be effective that with wise planning and careful thinking and courage that people can develop strategies that can be effective to exacts with the wider concerns that we have inside each and we found just that that awareness alone
. does a lot in terms of opening people's eyes to what's possible and. in the many cited for political change now it's not simple obviously it does take a lot of work and insurance brokers but it is possible and i think that people need to learn more and learn more about their own history learn about the ways and change has been needed in the past and the lessons and can still make what we're doing today work for thank you so much for coming on breaking down this extremely important subject to miller a cab executive director of the albert einstein institution. thanks very much it's . so had i sit down with president nixon advisor roger stone don't miss it.
i'm the president and i think a society that case i think corporation trying to convince us to consume it can do . the bankers try to get all that all about money and i'm actually sick for a politician writing the laws and regulations to tax well pretty well behaved out. there just to flood threat is it a. topic that. but
. with all the theories surrounding the j.f.k. assassination fifty years later there's one that stands out from the rats it's called the man who killed kennedy in a case against jay and is written by nixon's presidential advisor roger stone now if you've never heard of roger stone your in for treat not only did he serve under nixon reagan and bush sr is also self-proclaimed g.o.p. hit man it's not a phrase to use dirty tricks to get his way politically well he joined me earlier to talk about his new book and his role in perpetuating dog and pony politics i first asked him what the strongest piece of evidence is that implicates l.b.j.
and kennedy's murder. probably the fingerprint of of a hit man named malcolm x. wallace that is found on a cardboard box on the sixth floor of the texas school book depository it's the only print other than the prints of lee harvey oswald that i believe were planted there so that is probably your strongest piece of evidence secondarily johnson's mistress of twenty one years madeline duncan brown who bore him illegitimate son said that lyndon johnson told her on the eve of the assassination after tomorrow i won't have to deal with those kennedy s.o.b.'s no more and then lastly i think when the presidential motorcade pulled into dealey plaza in dallas when vice president johnson's car made one hundred twenty degree turn into dealey plaza
lyndon johnson before the first shot has been fired is on the floor of his car he hits the deck there's photographic evidence that proves this so i would say both before during and after the assassination lyndon johnson's actions betray the fact that he is in fact the man you'll king a conspiracy or in this case a plot that includes the cia organized crime and big oil oil texas. a lot of people have written books alleging that l g b b j was behind the assassination what makes your book different i have a lot of first hand information meaning i had the opportunity to spend substantial amount of time with president richard nixon to ask him about his views of the kennedy assassination he was of course in dallas he has recorded on the white house tapes the watergate tapes as saying the warren commission was the greatest hoax
ever perpetrated he told me directly. lyndon johnson and i both wanted to be president the difference was i wasn't willing to kill for it additionally have confirmations from embassador john davis lodge who was the brother of henry cabot lodge j.f.k. some bass or two to vietnam attorney general john mitchell tony salerno the head of the genovese c. crime family here in new york told me directly that it was carlos marcello working with the cia and lyndon johnson who killed j.f.k. so i have a lot of first hand information in my book i think it's very important to know that in the immediate aftermath of the assassination lyndon johnson tried to create the false impression that the russian government had killed kennedy he told earl warren the chief justice of the u.s. supreme court who was reluctant to chair the warren commission he was only persuaded because johnson convinced him the russians had killed kennedy and if the
truth got out it would parsipur to world war three this was a lie that johnson told over and over there was no truth to it we now know that when kennedy was killed nikita khrushchev wept fidel castro who was with an american when he got the news kept repeating over and over again this is very bad news this is very bad news no i don't think that the russian state was involved in any way in the assassination i think johnson lied about this roger i want to move on to your own career in politics you've called yourself your own words a g.o.p. hit man what is that term mean and why do you use the title to describe yourself. well it's it was meant kind of euphemistically at the time but i look i'm not a conspiracy theorist i am a hard political realist i have been on a national american presidential campaigns i started with richard nixon in one thousand nine hundred sixty eight i worked for ronald reagan i worked for george
h.w. bush i worked on the recount in florida for george w. bush i think a very realistic about american politics you did everything in your power to make sure the opponent and when during your time serving under nixon you engaged in such activities as hiring spies to work opposition campaigns making fake donations topic and candidates and the name of communist organizations and spiking on radical groups why did you find it necessary to engage in such dirty tricks. well those activities of call in one thousand nine hundred two were all perfectly legal it is only in the post the post watergate reforms they became an illegal illegal i was nineteen years old there was a culture around nixon of if you won't do this we'll find somebody that will as i have written i found a number of the things that they asked me to do that they ordered me to do. juvenile not particularly effective in terms of winning votes almost thirty years
later i found out that most of these missions i was sent out on were dreamed up by a white house speechwriter pat buchanan so again those are perfectly legal activities and i admit they don't match say robert kennedy who has a million pieces of it virulently anti-catholic literature printed and mails it to every catholic household in west virginia put a uber humphrey's campaign address on it to make it look like it came from humphrey politics ain't beanbag and it is it is a contact sport in the united states being such a staunch advocate of nix and i know that you have backed peace. his face on your back his approach the president seemed largely in part because you said you rejected a leader as and however roger how can you say that reasoning to defend a president who clearly some self above the law. i don't defend him i think that he was brought down by as is own hand i think that he was both
a very great and very flawed this is a man who could open the door to china this is a man could who could negotiate an arms reduction agreement with the soviet union this is a man who could give us who could desegregate the public schools in the united states who who passed affirmative action who passed the first environmental protection legislation so in many ways very great he was also brought down by his own paranoia there was no reason to wiretap the watergate he was leading his opponent by twenty votes but there was i think as the basis on the basis of his narrow loss in the one nine hundred sixty election which i believe was stolen from him by lyndon johnson by the democratic machine in illinois i think it bred in him a certain paranoia and in the end he was brought down by his own hand so i'm not
oblivious to his flaws i admire him not for his political tactics as much as i admire him for his personal resilience this is someone who gets knocked down and defeated and comes back he he says in one thousand nine hundred sixty two when he ran for governor of california and last gentleman this is my last press conference you won't have nixon to kick around anymore in only six years later he is raising his hand to be sworn in as president in our eight states you mentioned some liberal things that he kind of implemented i mean we're talking about the e.p.a. overseen the integration and public schools affirmative action policies you think that nixon could win a republican primary today. absolutely not i think that he would be appalled at the state of today's republican party and nixon understood that to win elections you needed to have the conservatives you couldn't win without the conservatives but you could not win with just the conservative politics is about admission and not
subtraction so he he saw the disaster of one thousand nine hundred sixty four in the nomination of barry goldwater in which moderates were encouraged to leave and were offended and he understood that you had to reach beyond that only four years later he built a winning coalition i don't think he could be nominated in today's republican party i don't think ronald reagan could be nominated in today's republican party i think social dogma has become too important a piece of the republican cosmos and i think that we are going to limit ourselves as a party if we keep becoming more and more and more exclusionary let's move on to your role in the controversial two thousand presidential election you mentioned earlier kind of in a boastful way that you were a major force in stopping the recount of ballots in miami dade county why are you so desperately trying to subvert the democratic process and is this really something very proud of. first of all i reject your characterization of surviving
the democratic caucus we are going for the third recount of the same ballots they had already been counted twice without any change the democrats in miami dade county wanted to recount them a third time this was an obvious attempt to create new votes to try to divide what voters were doing it was a violation i think of the process now and i do think that if al gore had asked for a recount in every one of of florida's counties he might well have become president instead he asked for. recounts in selective counties where he thought that he could pick up the. what's so i would argue that that we ensured that there was not of abuse of the process i was involved in the brooks brothers riot absolutely because two democratic officials were attempting to take a sheaf of absentee ballots into a room with no windows
a new door no doors and no neutral observers no no reporters no republicans no neutral observers and therefore that violates florida's sunshine law which which prohibits that so yes i have no regrets about the specific role i played i was not a supporter of the of the war in iraq it is one of the great i think mistakes of the of the bush administration of that bush administration so from that point of view i may have a tinge of regret but it wasn't about the tactics it was about the fact that once he became president i disagreed with a number of the policies of george w. bush and so you agreed with the supreme court decided not presidential election. it was a political decision but this is politics and i think at the end of the day we'll never really know i reject the argument that all these voters respond because of
the use of the butterfly ballot and some voters inadvertently voted for pat buchanan when they meant to vote for al gore and joe lieberman the butterfly ballot that's being criticized has been in use by the chicago democratic machine for twenty years prior to that so there was nothing wrong with that ballot it's very simple there's an arrow in a hole if you're too stupid to know how to vote with simple instructions and perhaps you're too dumb to vote no i don't think there was i don't think there was anything fraudulent about that election all right i think we're very very close yeah i guess half a million votes. is not that close to me you seem to be a huge fan of political theater or what you call political performance. art why do you think that this is a healthy way to approach politics in this country and how can we ever expect real progress that people like you create politics like a game when so many people are suffering. because politics is about being interesting because if you turn on the television at night with the advent of cable
there are hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of channels and therefore when you add network t.v. on top of cable on top of the internet on top of magazines covering every subject imaginable it's very hard to get enough repetition and to stand out so i mean i'm interested in making politics interesting in making politics entertaining politics is show business for ugly people politics is about being interesting and therefore standing out and drawing public attention to your message there's nothing illicit about it it is it is street theater as it were for the purpose of gaining attention to communicate a message go ahead put out a white paper on your environmental positions you will bore both the media and the voters to death and no one will pay attention well i certainly agree it is hollywood for ugly people roger stone thanks so much for coming on author former
nixon adviser really appreciate your time. to be here. thanks for joining us tonight have a great novel see you tomorrow. we'll . technology innovation all the developments around russia. the future of coverage. wealthy british style. time to. market why not. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy
with mike stronger for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to kaiser report on our. i know c.n.n. m s n b c news have taken some slightly but the fact is i admire their commitment to cover all sides of the story just in case one of them happens to be accurate. that was funny but it's close and for the truth and might think. it's because one whole attention and the mainstream media works side by side the joke is actually on we're going to be coming. at our teen years we have a different price. because the news of the world just is not this funny i'm not laughing dammit i'm not i. but i think.