Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Monday, March 09, 2009
Great Question
"All the hardcore, Jim Jones kool-aid drinking Obama supporters never really cared about ending the wars. They just wanted a Democrat to micromanage them. Obama has made it abundantly clear his policies are no different than Bush's. So why then, did all these Obamabots hate Bush so much?" ••• JesseKantstopolis, who wrote it as a comment on this excellent YouTube video on March 4, 2009.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Already - Three Promises Broken (at the very least)
My own commentary follows the four news clips.
Palitone Press, January 25-30, 2009
For those of us who stand outside the pathetic sham that is American two-party politics and study it objectively, the future under the faux intellectual, Barack Obama, and his cabinet of warmongers is ENTIRELY predictable (almost as if we are reading directly from "the establishment's" game plan — which, basically, we are). But trying to point this out to Americans who unquestioningly believe in that sham is like trying to talk sense to members of a cult who are excessively arrogant and self-righteous due to their cult's long history and almost universal acceptance.
The first time you try to convince members of this cult to, at the very least, investigate objectively all cult leaders — including their favorite ones — in order to discover that they are all frauds, the "cultists" look at you with smiles (or frowns) of supreme condescension, as if you are either a harmless, but deluded, blasphemer or a potential nuisance. If you continue to try to convince them, they will become annoyed and ignore you. If you persist beyond that, they will become openly hostile and shut you out completely. No amount of rational debate or proof is going to convince them to doubt their favorite leaders or their own deeply ingrained, highly partisan perceptions of reality. To them, the phrase, "open-minded, scholarly investigation," is just a trick to get them to read the "loony, biased opinions of deluded fringe groups."
"Luckily," the newest cult leader (Obama) has already started to break his promises to his devoted cultists (even if they refuse to see it), as we tried to tell them he would. Severe disillusionment among his followers is predicted for the not-too-distant future. This I welcome, as disillusionment often leads to a recognition, once and for all, that American two-party politics is, indeed, a sham — a sinister sham.
Update: According to the January 26, 2009, edition of the London Daily Mail, Fifteen percent of Americans appear to have become disillusioned with Obama already. Contrary to what most Obama supporters may think, I think these people have given him more than a fair chance. He just blew it in record time. However, I realize that he has promises to keep to the sleazy establishment that put him in the presidency. Making promises to them is like making promises to the Mafia. You break them at your own risk. That is the sham that is two-party politics.
P.S. Of course, it is always possible (actually, highly probable) that millions of liberals will either deny, ignore and/or justify Obama's broken promises throughout his entire presidency, just as millions of fanatical conservatives continued to deny, ignore and/or justify Bush's actions throughout his entire presidency. As always, in such cases, the permanent beneficiary is our massive, increasingly Orwellian federal government, that continues to function like clockwork, regardless of party.
----------
Obama airstrikes kill 22 in Pakistan
The Sunday London Times, January 25, 2009
Islamabad is the first to get a taste of the president’s ‘tough love’ policy. ... The airstrikes were authorised under a covert programme approved by Obama, according to a senior US official.
----------
US pours cold water over hopes of Iran deal
The London Times, January 30, 2009
The White House warned Iran last night that military action is still one of its options despite the "hand of friendship" offered by President Obama.
----------
In America, Speaking the Truth is a Career-Ending Event
Counterpunch, January 26, 2009
Paul Craig Roberts
The Bush regime was a lawless regime. This makes it difficult for the Obama regime to be a lawful one. A torture inquiry would lead naturally into a war crimes inquiry. General Taguba said that the Bush regime committed war crimes. President Obama was a war criminal by his third day in office when he ordered illegal cross-border drone attacks on Pakistan that murdered 20 people, including 3 children. The bombing and strafing of homes and villages in Afghanistan by US forces and America's NATO puppets are also war crimes. Obama cannot enforce the law, because he himself has already violated it.
----------
I Told You So----------CounterPunch, January 23, 2009
By Ron Jacobs (retitled by MW of Palitone Press)
...Since he was elected, Mr. Obama has hedged on this promise [to bring the troops home from Iraq]. Since he was inaugurated, the Pentagon and its civilian boss, Robert Gates, have hedged even more. Now, they insist, US troops should remain. ... Even if Barack Obama overrides the Pentagon and Mr. Gates ... there will still be around fifty thousand US troops in Iraq. This is because Obama's call to bring all troops home from Iraq that began his campaign somehow morphed into a call to bring home only those troops determined to be "combat troops."
Palitone Press, January 25-30, 2009
For those of us who stand outside the pathetic sham that is American two-party politics and study it objectively, the future under the faux intellectual, Barack Obama, and his cabinet of warmongers is ENTIRELY predictable (almost as if we are reading directly from "the establishment's" game plan — which, basically, we are). But trying to point this out to Americans who unquestioningly believe in that sham is like trying to talk sense to members of a cult who are excessively arrogant and self-righteous due to their cult's long history and almost universal acceptance.
The first time you try to convince members of this cult to, at the very least, investigate objectively all cult leaders — including their favorite ones — in order to discover that they are all frauds, the "cultists" look at you with smiles (or frowns) of supreme condescension, as if you are either a harmless, but deluded, blasphemer or a potential nuisance. If you continue to try to convince them, they will become annoyed and ignore you. If you persist beyond that, they will become openly hostile and shut you out completely. No amount of rational debate or proof is going to convince them to doubt their favorite leaders or their own deeply ingrained, highly partisan perceptions of reality. To them, the phrase, "open-minded, scholarly investigation," is just a trick to get them to read the "loony, biased opinions of deluded fringe groups."
"Luckily," the newest cult leader (Obama) has already started to break his promises to his devoted cultists (even if they refuse to see it), as we tried to tell them he would. Severe disillusionment among his followers is predicted for the not-too-distant future. This I welcome, as disillusionment often leads to a recognition, once and for all, that American two-party politics is, indeed, a sham — a sinister sham.
Update: According to the January 26, 2009, edition of the London Daily Mail, Fifteen percent of Americans appear to have become disillusioned with Obama already. Contrary to what most Obama supporters may think, I think these people have given him more than a fair chance. He just blew it in record time. However, I realize that he has promises to keep to the sleazy establishment that put him in the presidency. Making promises to them is like making promises to the Mafia. You break them at your own risk. That is the sham that is two-party politics.
P.S. Of course, it is always possible (actually, highly probable) that millions of liberals will either deny, ignore and/or justify Obama's broken promises throughout his entire presidency, just as millions of fanatical conservatives continued to deny, ignore and/or justify Bush's actions throughout his entire presidency. As always, in such cases, the permanent beneficiary is our massive, increasingly Orwellian federal government, that continues to function like clockwork, regardless of party.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Amidst All the Lies... A Hint of Truth...
Finally!
"The Lying Warmonger Times" (aka The New York Times) has published a tiny hint of truth, in which they "finally" expose a certain group of liars (while mostly absolving or feigning ignorance regarding the third -- and, by far, guiltiest -- party in the conspiracy). This group of liars has turned my stomach every time I've seen their smug faces on TV for the past five and a half years. Here is just a brief bit of that "tiny hint of truth":
Thankfully, Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com discusses the third guilty party to which I refer above (I've added the bold emphasis):
"The Lying Warmonger Times" (aka The New York Times) has published a tiny hint of truth, in which they "finally" expose a certain group of liars (while mostly absolving or feigning ignorance regarding the third -- and, by far, guiltiest -- party in the conspiracy). This group of liars has turned my stomach every time I've seen their smug faces on TV for the past five and a half years. Here is just a brief bit of that "tiny hint of truth":
In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay... The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo...
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance... Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air... Collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants...
The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation. These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated...
Click here to read the rest.
Thankfully, Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com discusses the third guilty party to which I refer above (I've added the bold emphasis):
In 2002 and 2003, when Americans were relentlessly subjected to their commentary, news organizations were hardly unaware that these retired generals were mindlessly reciting the administration line on the war and related matters. To the contrary, that's precisely why our news organizations -- which themselves were devoted to selling the war both before and after the invasion by relentlessly featuring pro-war sources and all but excluding anti-war ones -- turned to them in the first place...
I could see from the very start (long before the war started) that the media was doing this. So why, then, were the majority of Americans unwilling and/or unable to see it? It was so blatantly obvious! Is it, in part, because they have been subjected for the past sixty years to too many blindly patriotic, mindless movies featuring such "kill-them-first-and-ask-questions-later" stars as John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and Steven Seagal? Is it because, in their blind rage, they wanted to get revenge on someone, anyone, no matter who the guilty parties involved really are? This is a question that has caused me no end of intense frustration for the past five and a half years.
In my opinion, the CORPORATE media (for what corporations wouldn't manipulate the output of what they consider to be their very own "PR departments"?) is, by far, the guiltiest of all three guilty parties.
Why are they the guiltiest?
Because if they had been doing their jobs for the past eight years (actually, the past 95 years), we wouldn't have this sort of government (which is quickly approaching fascist) and this nearly unfixable economic, diplomatic and military mess in which we are now mired. Nor would we have the small group of handpicked, corporate stooges that run for president every four years, thus ensuring that the bad guys are never replaced, and our criminal foreign policy is always seen as "just and decent."
Why again is the media the guiltiest of the three?
Because, due to their willful complicity in all of this unconstitutional mess, most Americans of the 21st century are not only uninformed and filled with incredibly stubborn, misplaced pride (and excessively hedonistic desires), but are also stupider than fence posts. We have the media to thank for our idiotically mindless -- and depressingly unconstitutional -- brand of patriotism more than we do the government or those traitorous retired generals.
P.S. Of course, our horribly federalized, completely shallow, politically and "patriotically" correct (to a fanatical degree), incompetent educational system has primed all of us to be completely receptive to the lies (and hedonistic pleasures) broadcast by the CORPORATE media. I worked in that federalized educational system for five years and saw it first hand!
P.P.S. And, no, I don't believe in religious-based local education either. That warps most people just as badly as does the federal education system.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)