Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Obama Raises American Hypocrisy To A Higher Level

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...



Dees Illustration

Paul Craig Roberts

What does the world think? Obama has been using air strikes and drones against civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and probably Somalia. In his March 28 speech, Obama justified his air strikes against Libya on the grounds that the embattled ruler, Gadhafi, was using air strikes to put down a rebellion.

Gadhafi has been a black hat for as long as I can remember. If we believe the adage that “where there is smoke there is fire,” Gadhafi is probably not a nice fellow. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the current US president and the predecessor Bush/Cheney regime have murdered many times more people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia than Gadhafi has murdered in Libya.

Moreover, Gadhafi is putting down a rebellion against state authority as presently constituted, but Obama and Bush/Cheney initiated wars of aggression based entirely on lies and deception.
Yet Gadhafi is being demonized, and Bush/Cheney/Obama are sitting on their high horse draped in cloaks of morality. Obama described himself as saving Libyans from violence while Obama himself murders Afghans, Pakistanis, and whomever else.

Indeed, the Obama regime has been torturing a US soldier, Bradley Manning, for having a moral conscience. America has degenerated to the point where having a moral conscience is evidence of anti-Americanism and “terrorist activity.”

The Bush/Cheney/Obama wars of naked aggression have bankrupted America. Joseph Stiglitz, former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, concluded that the money wasted on the Iraq war could have been used to fix America’s Social Security problem for half a century.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/28/iraq.afghanistan 

Instead, the money was used to boost the obscene profits of the armament industry.

The obscene wars of aggression, the obscene profits of the offshoring corporations, and the obscene bailouts of the rich financial gangsters have left the American public with annual budget deficits of approximately $1.5 trillion. These deficits are being covered by printing money. Sooner or later, the printing presses will cause the US dollar to collapse and domestic inflation to explode. Social Security benefits will be wiped out by inflation rising more rapidly than the cost-of-living adjustments. If America survives, no one will be left but the mega-rich. Unless there is a violent revolution.

Alternatively, if the Federal Reserve puts the brake on monetary expansion, interest rates will rise, sending the economy into a deeper depression.

Washington, focused on its newest war, is oblivious to America’s peril. As Stiglitz notes, the costs of the Iraq war alone could have kept every foreclosed family in their home, provided health care for every American child, and wiped out the student loans of graduates who cannot find jobs because they have been outsoured to foreigners. However, the great democratic elected government of “the world’s only superpower” prefers to murder Muslims in order to enhance the profits of the military/security complex. More money is spent violating the constitutional rights of American air travelers than is spent in behalf of the needy.

The moral authority of the West is rapidly collapsing. When Russia, Asia, and South America look at Europe, Australia and Canada, they see American puppet states that contribute troops to the aggressive wars of the Empire. The French president, the British prime minister, the “president” of Georgia, and the rest are merely functionaries of the American Empire. The puppet rulers routinely sell out the interests and welfare of their peoples in behalf of American hegemony. And they are well rewarded for their service. One year out of office former British prime minister Tony Blair had a net worth of $30 million.

In his war against Libya, Obama has taken America one step further into Caesarism. Obama did Bush one step better and did not even bother to get congressional authorization for his attack on Libya. Obama claimed that his moral authority trumped the US Constitution. The hypocrisy reeks. How the public stands it, I do not know: 
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and--more profoundly--our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
This from the Great Moral Leader who every day murders civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia and now Libya and who turns a blind eye when “the great democracy in the Middle East,” Israel, murders more Palestinians.

The American president, whose drones and air force slaughter civilians every day of the year went on to say Libya stands alone in presenting the world with “the prospect of violence on a horrific scale.” Obviously, Obama thinks that one million dead Iraqis, four million displaced Iraqis, and an unknown number of murdered Afghans is just a small thing.

The rest of Obama’s speech showed a person more capable of DoubleSpeak and DoubleThink than Big Brother and the denizens of George Orwell’s 1984.

How does a person as totally absurd as Obama expect to be taken seriously?



Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Obama: 'we stopped massacre in Libya'

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Editor's Note: Says a president who had to apologize for more Afghan 'kill team' photos on the very same day.

Tomahawk missile launch/Wiki commons image
AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A defiant President Barack Obama told Americans he had stopped a "massacre" in Libya, but bluntly warned that trying to oust Moamer Kadhafi by force could repeat the carnage of Iraq.

"As president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action," Obama said, mounting a robust defense of his decision to rain air strikes on Kadhafi's troops in a UN-mandated bid to protect civilians.

Obama spoke after Libyan rebels, enabled by pounding air attacks by international fighter jets, grabbed back government-held territory, and on the eve of a major international conference in London dedicated to Libya's future.

The president, in a major televised address at the National Defense University in Washington, also denied he had ceded leadership to US allies and had failed to lay out a clear strategy for war-weary Americans.
"In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly Zone with our allies and partners," Obama said.

Faced with a man who compared his people to "rats" and who had hanged "civilians in the streets," Obama said he had seen no choice but to act against Kadhafi's forces as they bore down on the key city of Benghazi.


He said the city could have suffered "a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."

"I refused to let that happen," said Obama, who came to power vowing to get US troops home from Iraq and eventually Afghanistan, but has found himself launching a new military adventure abroad on his own watch.

"To brush aside America's responsibility as a leader -- and more profoundly -- our responsibilities to our fellow human beings ... would have been a betrayal of who were are," he said.

The president said US "interests and values" were at stake in the crisis, in an apparent response to those who question whether Libya represents a vital threat to the United States.

Obama did not, however, sketch an end game for the conflict, as critics warn that he may have taken sides in an intractable Middle Eastern civil war, and fear a blow to US credibility unless Kadhafi is ousted.

He made clear he wants Kadhafi gone, but warned that pursuing a military quest for regime change would backfire and exact a terrible price.

"If we tried to overthrow Kadhafi by force, our coalition would splinter."

"We would likely have to put US troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air.

"To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq.

"Regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya."

Top international powers including Britain and France meet in London on Tuesday to assess the success of the coalition effort against Kadhafi and to consider how to oust the long-time leader with non military means.

Protesters take part in an anti-war
demonstration in front of the
White House in Washington, DC,
© AFP Jewel Samad
Before making his speech, Obama spoke by videoconference with the leaders of France, Britain and Germany to review the progress made by the coalition, White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

The United States and its partners have levied punishing financial and diplomatic sanctions on the Libyan regime, seized billions of dollars in assets and are policing an arms embargo.

Obama said a "badly weakened" Kadhafi could hang on for some time, saying Libya would remain "dangerous" with him still around.

But he warned Kadhafi was on the wrong side of history.

"The transition to a government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task," Obama said, adding that it was up to the international community to join the United States in a rebuilding effort.

The president also sought to explain his criteria for committing US power abroad, as analysts seek an "Obama doctrine" as revolt sweeps the Middle East.

He said he would never shrink from using force decisively and unilaterally if the US homeland was threatened, but said America could also deploy its military in situations when it was not at risk, for instance to prevent genocide.

But he said he would seek the support of allies in such cases, telling Americans who have seen a decade of war: "The burden of action should not be America's alone."

Obama's speech was partly an answer to a storm of criticism in recent days, especially from lawmakers who argued they were not fully consulted on the Libyan operation.

Republican Senator John McCain welcomed Obama's explanation of the US intervention in Libya, but said his comment that regime change by force was not on the table was "puzzling."

"Kadhafi must have been somewhat comforted by that," Obama's 2008 general election foe told CNN.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license


wind turbines

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Monday, March 28, 2011

Liberals Willing to Trade Blood and Treasure for Oil Company Profits Under Obama

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...



US Navy/Wikimedia Commons image
Eric Blair
Activist Post

It's perplexing to see a high level of support for the unprovoked bombing of Libya on so-called "progressive" websites.

There has been an endless stream of humanitarian propaganda flowing from these sites trying to convince average liberals that the "human thing to do" is to rain down tomahawk missiles with depleted uranium to bring freedom and democracy to an oppressed people.

Huffington Post ran a piece by Ed Schultz titled Why I Support President Obama's Decision to Invade Libyawhere he described his reasoning as follows:

...President Obama explained this won't be a long-term operation. 
Matter of days, not a matter of weeks. Not even months. 
...He's (Obama) trying to give the rebels, those who want democracy, a fighting chance at just that and trying to stop Gaddafi -- this is the human thing to do -- from slaughtering his own people.
By the very use of the word "invade" in the title, Schultz would seem to understand that the continued military support is likely to last for quite some time.  Indeed, this was confirmed on Sunday morning when Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hinted that the operation could indeed last for months, which seems to debunk Schultz's main argument that it's only a days-long conflict.  This justification is reminiscent of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld falsely stating that the Iraq war would be quick and easy -- only cost a couple of a billion dollars that would be paid for by Iraqi oil.

Additionally, Schultz and others making the "humanitarian" argument that we needed to prevent Gaddafi from slaughtering his own people is convoluted at best, if not a blatant hypocritical contradiction.  It has become clear that the United States and their imperial partners, Britain and France, are picking and choosing which civil uprisings and which dictators to support with no genuine concern for democracy or civil rights.

Everyone with an objective view knows by now that this intervention is about protecting oil resources and making sure Israel survives these revolutionary times in the Arab world. Whether it's control over Egypt's Suez Canal, Libya's sweet crude, or propping up the tyrannical Saudi regime in the face of protesters there, this selective military action in Libya seems to be exactly what liberals screamed about during Bush's preemptive oil wars.

In an informative article this weekend, Mike Rozeff wrote about the pre-Bush history of the same plans for the oil-rich Arab world:
A RAND document reviews the U.S. oil policy in the mid-East and associated regions. It points out (p. 60) that President Carter enunciated this policy on January 23, 1980 in his State of the Union Address: 
'Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.'
Even before this, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in September of 1978 issued a strategy assessment in which it wrote of 'continuous access to petroleum resources' as priority #1 in the region, along with seeing that Israel survived. In 1979, the military put together a 'Rapid Deployment Force (RDF), which soon gained full, unified command status as the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM).'
Rozeff makes a compelling argument why the United States will spare no expense to ensure the control of oil in the Arab world no matter what the consequences may be:
Hence, there is no question that the U.S. considers the uninterrupted oil flow from this region as a vital interest. The U.S. has made war over Kuwait in 1990, in Iraq in this century, and now in Libya. It has gone into related areas such as Somalia, Yemen, and Afghanistan. It has confronted Iran for decades. It has armed and aided all sorts of dictatorial regimes in the region. 
The U.S. government has done all of these things under the doctrine that oil flows must not be interrupted. It has acted strongly even when such an interruption was a remote prospect. It acted under false pretexts in Iraq. It has imposed sanctions on Iran. It has threatened war on Iran over its nuclear activities on more than one occasion. 
The U.S. is acting now in Libya. Although Libya poses little risk of interrupting U.S. oil supplies, the U.S. wants to control the outcome in Libya. The U.S. must demonstrate control if it is to maintain control in neighboring regions such as Saudi Arabia where revolts, possible revolts, and revolutions are likely.
It may be even worse than Rozeff reports, as it seems more appropriate to say that U.S./NATO are doing the dirty work for the multinational oil companies rather than "national interests."  It's clear that these borderless companies are the ones who benefit from the drilling contracts when the military dust-ups settle.  For example, the UK people didn't exactly benefit from BP's massive drilling contracts in Iraq that also earned ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair handsome consulting kickbacks.

Furthermore, the average price for oil prior to America's undeclared wars between 2001-2002 was less than $23 per barrel.  After America invaded Iraq, the price of oil skyrocketed relatively quickly to peak at $147 in 2008, leaving some to speculate that this spike in society's life-blood was the real trigger for the economic collapse in the fall of that same year.  Regardless, it is obvious that a 500% increase in oil price in just five short years was not exactly protecting the "vital interests" of the American people who endured the brunt of the fuel increases, the subsequent bailout of the global economy, while also paying for the war tab.

Now, Huffington Post and others are trying to justify this expensive and unconstitutional new war front, while at the same time slamming domestic spending cuts brought on by deficits primarily caused by bloated and unnecessary defense/war/surveillance spending.  In the name of humanitarian intervention, these so-called progressives have become no different than the war-mongering Neocons they so despised.  Perhaps their stunning hypocrisy makes them even worse than Neocons.  Regardless, what's clear is that they all serve the same masters for the same end result no matter what labels or excuses are given.

However, it's encouraging that the general progressive public don't seem to be buying into the establishment-liberal support for the new "invasion".  Judging by the 1400-plus comments responding to Schultz's article, about 90% of them are challenging Schultz, and those who support his position are universally panned by other commenters.  After all, the hypocrisy of this preemptive military strike is so blatant -- the lack of Congressional approval makes it clearly illegal -- and the cost of more foreign intervention during rabid spending-cut debates at home proves where their alliances truly stand.

Establishment progressives can no longer hide behind phony labels.  They have officially joined the ranks of the War Party serving up American blood and treasure to support profits for the military-industrial complex and Big Oil, while compromising on austerity cuts at home.





Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner
order non hybrid seeds

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Could Obama be Impeached over Libya? Let's ask Biden (Video)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Youtube


RELATED ARTICLE:
Obama Starts Another Illegal War, Rangel Calls for Draft


Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner
order non hybrid seeds

Monday, March 21, 2011

Farrakhan Shreds Obama: "Who the Hell Do You Think You Are?"

Youtube


RELATED ARTICLE:
Obama Starts Another Illegal War, Rangel Calls for Draft

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner
order non hybrid seeds

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Quote of the Day: Obama Prosecutes Himself



Activist Post

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
-- Sen. Barack Obama, 12/20/2007.
RELATED ARTICLE:
Obama Starts Another Illegal War, Rangel Calls for Draft

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner
order non hybrid seeds

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Our Time of Universal Deceit Needs An Orwell


Paul Craig Roberts
VDare

If we were to be blessed with a 21st century George Orwell, he would coin a new “speak” to apply to “support the troops.” Would he call this “Deceptive Speak”?  Or would he be more clever?

The words certainly deserve an Orwellian name.  The catch-phrase was rolled out the minute the war started, which makes one wonder about its public relations origin.  Who can oppose supporting the troops, at least before we learned from WikiLeaks and Abu Ghraib of the intentional killing of civilians and torturing of whoever happened to be rounded up in the various sweeps? All for the fun and games of it.

“Support the troops” originated in the public relations department of the military/security complex. What “support the troops” really means is to support the profits of the armaments industry and the neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony.

“Support the troops” is a clever PR slogan that causes Americans to turn a blind eye to the brutal exploitation of our soldiers and military families for profit and for an evil ideology.



Our soldiers and military families are paying for the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neocon wars with lives, limbs, post-traumatic stress, suicides, broken marriages, children without fathers, wives without husbands, and parents without sons and daughters.

“Support the troops” is one of the most cruel hoaxes in human history, and yet the vast majority of the population has fallen for it. “War Is Peace.”

When a people are so gullible, it is little wonder that they can be marched off to unaffordable open-ended wars based on nothing but lies, deceptions, and fabrications.

America produces an endless supply of material for a new Orwell.  Imagine what an Orwell could do with Hillary’s recent speech on America’s firm commitment to dissent and the First Amendment. CIA veteran Ray McGovern stood with his back to Hillary in an act of dissent from the Obama administration’s policy of coercing Internet companies into helping to eliminate WikiLeaks as a source of information.  McGovern was dragged beaten and bloody from the room, while Hillary continued praising America’s commitment to dissent and freedom of information.

To capture this level of hypocrisy requires a George Orwell. “Dissent Is Subversion.”

“Globalism” is another doctrine that needs Orwell’s illumination. Globalism, which presidents since Clinton have told us we can’t do without, enriches transnational corporations and turns workers into serfs who cannot earn enough to pay their bills.  “Poverty Is Wealth.”

The police state measures that accompany the fake “war on terror” subject Americans to far more danger and insecurity than could ever be realized from terrorists other than those of the state itself.   “Captivity Is Freedom.”

In his marvelous book, The Emotional Lives Of Animals, Marc Bekoff describes the devastating impact on animals of being kept in small cages.  US soldier Bradley Manning has been kept illegally in an even smaller cage for eight months with no end in sight. At his press conference on March 11, one reporter found the courage to ask President Obama about the conditions of Manning’s confinement.  The great and noble president of the United States replied that he had asked the Pentagon and was assured that the conditions of Manning’s confinement “are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards.” Only a George Orwell could do justice to an American president who thinks that keeping a US soldier in conditions worst than those that drive caged animals insane is “appropriate.”

The US government, which is profligate in its wars, profligate in tax cuts and bailouts for the mega-rich, and profligate in giving unlimited monopoly power to unregulated  financial institutions, blames the resulting financial crisis on “handouts” to the poor and “entitlements” to the elderly.  Such deception needs more than exposure.  It cries out for a 21st century Orwell.

Paul Craig Roberts  was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term.  He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.

RELATED:
Obama: Torturer-in-Chief


Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner
order non hybrid seeds