Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Double Bogus When Lit: Obama Campaign Begins, Reality Obliterated

You may have noticed that last week Barack Obama released a document which was purported to be his birth certificate. The document wasn't exactly credible, but then again it didn't need to be. It only needed to exist.

It wasn't supposed to be carefully examined; it was only supposed to be used for political purposes, in much the same way as some other very obvious lies were not supposed to be examined, and have been and continue to be used.

Wherever you look, you see brainless authoritarians spouting ignorant arrogance, from "Anyone who questions Obama's citizenship is a racist" to "This settles the question once and for all, and anyone who still questions Obama's citizenship ought to be ashamed of himself."

Personally, I think anyone striving for the most powerful position in any government ought to be able to provide a full documentary trail of his life, not just a birth certificate, but high school and college transcripts and much more. If a candidate -- let alone a president -- can't do that, it seems suspicious to me, regardless of whether he be black or white, lavender or chartreuse. And if something comes up in national politics that looks suspicious, I think people ought to be able to say so without being called racist.

You may also have noticed Barack Obama several days later, telling a story about the death of Osama bin Laden. That story wasn't credible either, but once again, it didn't need to be.

The official story of the 9/11 attacks, in which Osama bin Laden supposedly played a central role and inside help did not, is a multi-threaded one. And not one single thread of that story is even partially credible. But it doesn't matter anymore, because reality has been obliterated.

It doesn't matter where in the 9/11 morass we turn -- whether we concentrate on the planes, the buildings, the hijackers, the phone calls, the response of the military, the response of the president, the response of the vice-president, the official investigations, the documents produced by those investigations, or the arguments of the people who support the government's story. In any of these cases -- in all of these cases -- we are looking at transparently obvious, officially sanctioned, fiction.

It doesn't matter that the fiction is transparently obvious, because the echo chamber repeats it endlessly until it becomes part of the national landscape. That's what happens to officially sanctioned stories, true or otherwise.

The point is: because the fiction is officially sanctioned, it will not go away. Therefore, to the politicians, it might as well be used. The Obama campaign to get re-elected in 2012 has begun.

Can we expect eighteen more months of similar psy-ops? A year and a half of even more obviously politically slanted manure?

Oh yes. We can expect at least that. You don't suppose the timing of all this is a coincidence, do you?

With major distractional nonsense involving both birth and death coming so close together, it seems as though all we're missing is something about marriage. Maybe there's a great big distracting wedding of some kind in the offing. Keep your eyes open, and so will I.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

NO! I Do Not Support Obama On Regime Change In Libya

Just for the record, I do not consider myself a "Concerned Engaged Enlightened Rule-of-Law Liberal Progressive," although I am very concerned and somewhat enlightened, and once upon a time I believed we lived under the rule of law.

But "Liberal" politics leaves me cold and has done so for many years. And in my opinion, the word "Progressive" has been co-opted by people who don't care about anything in the whole world except getting more of what they want for themselves and the hell with everybody else. (Or maybe that has always been the "progressive" way and I have only recently noticed.)

Nonetheless, it is clear enough for me now and it has been for a long time, and if I were well enough to carry on blogging on politics, terrorism and international relations, I would still be condemning Barack Obama, his associates, his policies, and his supporters.

I would be doing so with the same tone and the same thoroughness that drove away most of my former readers when I started writing about the transparently deceitful utterances of the man who was then threatening to become president.

And my condemnation would include his current mass-murderous campaign in Libya as well as the covert terrorism his administration admits to carrying out in at least 75 other countries.

Not that it matters, or anything. But I wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea.

It may be that the silence of other so-called "Concerned Engaged Enlightened Rule-of-Law Liberal Progressive" bloggers indicates their approval of the "noble Nobel Peace Laureate," or perhaps it simply shows their fear of criticizing him. I cannot speak for them. 

But I would not wish my silence (on Libya or any other subject) to be construed as a sign that I am among them, especially because the opposite is true.

My reduced physical capabilities have forced a shift in focus, and now instead of blogging about politics, terrorism and international relations, I am paying special attention to one story that seems to touch on them all, and weaving my thoughts about all these subjects into the most factual fiction I can manage.

I still hope to make a full recovery, and someday I may be able resume blogging, but in the meantime it would be a serious mistake to take my silence on Libya or any other issue as indicating anything at all. And it would be a horrible blunder to construe my lack of recent blogging as support for the vicious liar who is currently running the imperial machine.

Unfortunately, my current project is taking up what little typing I can do these days. And, even though I say so myself, it's a shame that hardly anybody is reading it, because the people who are reading it are loving it!

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Friday, October 9, 2009

Truth Is Fiction: Peace Prize Fits Obama Like A Velvet Glove

War Is Peace in Orwell's 1984, and the same is true here and now.

In addition, Truth Is Fiction, as demonstrated in Barack Obama's selection as Nobel Peace Prize winner, and as elucidated in the New York Times, which says: "Surprise Nobel for Obama Stirs Praise and Doubts"
“The question we have to ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” the Nobel committee chairman, Thorbjorn Jagland, said in Oslo after the announcement. “And who has done more than Barack Obama?”
Clearly this was one of those unaccountable moments when the list of possible answers was so long that the list itself seemed to disappear. But that's not the first time this has happened to the Nobel committee.

This is the same "Peace Prize", we may remember, that was given to Henry Kissinger, who at the time, as Richard Nixon's Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, was directing a massive American bombing campaign against Southeast Asia, part of a "war effort" that killed at least two million people and led directly to the deaths of at least two million more, not to mention damage to the survivors and their countries. Southeast Asia was only one of Kissinger's killing fields. And Kissinger is only one of the war criminals who have won this "Peace Prize".

With his mythical "withdrawal" from the war crimes in Iraq, his aggressive escalation of the war crimes in Afghanistan, his instigation of more war crimes in Pakistan, and his continuation of the war crimes in Somalia, Barack Obama has clearly "done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world" -- certainly much more than anyone on a list so long it seems to disappear.

Similarly, the list of Obama's efforts in support of the atrocities begun under the George W. Bush administration is a long one. And it must have disappeared as well, since nothing of it is ever mentioned in mainstream news reports.

By going to court to keep evidence of torture secret, for example, Barack Obama has inscribed his own name on the list of American war crime enablers -- a list so long no one can find it anywhere. And this list dates back much further than the Bush/Cheney years, back to a history that seems too awful to be countenanced, most of which has apparently evaporated.

But it's not just about Iraq and Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. The list of countries not currently occupied but still under threat of American force is a long one, and some of the names on it are certainly victims of American interference: Iran, for example, Venezuela, Honduras, Russia, China... The list goes on and on but -- curiously -- it also seems to be invisible whenever the official historians are around.

War Is Peace. Truth Is Fiction. And the fabric of reality is threadbare. Before it vanishes entirely, let us make a few hasty notes:

As the tale of WMD in Iraq clearly demonstrates, the USA is currently engaged in a state-sponsored program of mass murder for fun and profit. One might say the USA is a state-sponsored program of mass murder for fun and profit. Enormous fun for the rubes. Enormous profit for those who pull the strings. Enormous pain and suffering, death and destruction for the rest -- in numbers so large they can't even be seen.

To become a "leader" of the USA, one must excel at the game of politics. Politics in general is the pursuit of power -- normally above all else, inevitably to the exclusion of all else. And politics in the USA is primarily -- or entirely -- the pursuit of power over a state-sponsored program of mass murder for fun and profit.

As the USA is still nominally a democracy, American politics necessarily involves doing one thing while saying another -- constantly, eternally, as a matter of course. And, for structural coherency if nothing else, the pinnacle of this murderous and deceptive power structure must house the mother of all murderous lies. Thus, a Peace Prize for a War Criminal is not only warranted and predictable, but altogether fitting and proper. It's amazing that American presidents don't get Nobel Peace Prizes every year.

None of this depends on Barack Obama personally, or any aspect of his background, or any member or members of his staff. The same could be said of any President in your lifetime who wasn't assassinated in office -- and anyone else who has risen to the top of the system. Indeed, the same could be said of the system itself. And the system is -- and was designed primarily to be -- self-perpetuating.

We appear to be headed for more of the same unless and until we can change the system. And we appear to have no way to change it.

To wit: What are our resources? What are our obstacles? Who are our friends? Who are our enemies?

Speaking of enemies -- enemies of peace, enemies of truth, enemies of humanity -- it is quite clear, is it not, that the Nobel committee is one of them. And so is the New York Times. And so is the president of the United States.

But then, how much of this is news?


To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Lookout, Obama! The Peace Train Goes Sailing Around Martha's Vineyard

Martha's Vineuard is abuzz over a presidential visit for which locals are even sporting caps featuring an image of the presidential pooch.

But according to The Times of London, the presidential vacation comes at a time when Obama is also catching "a cold wave of unrest".
Three of the top five titles on the New York Times nonfiction hard-back bestseller list are currently anti-Obama screeds ...
and of course they are all attacking Obama from the right:
Currently topping the bestseller list is Culture of Corruption, the latest right-wing outpouring from Michelle Malkin, a popular conservative columnist who recently declared of her book: “What I have done is to help shatter completely the myths of hope and change in the new politics in Washington by scouring every inch of this administration, and showing how in a very short span of six months they have betrayed every principle and every promise that they have made.”
That's from Michelle Malkin? Am I the only one who thinks that's funny?
Also selling well is Dick Morris’s new book, Catastrophe, which is summarised as: “Stopping President Obama before he transforms America into a socialist state and destroys the health care system.” Third on the list is Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny, yet another conservative manifesto taking aim at “Barack Nobama”.
Out of the discussion, as always, are much more reality-based criticisms coming from the left, which in my cold opinion are far fewer in number than they ought to be.

I do not expect the corporate media news to mention anti-war protests in conjunction with the presidential family's vacation -- or in any other fashion, for that matter. Nonetheless:

Cindy Sheehan is inviting other proponents of peace to join her for a sail!

It's to be a "shipboard peace summit" and if you read anything about it at all, it'll probably be at some low-traffic blog or another.

Excerpts from Cindy Sheehan:
"I am calling in the Peace Movement to encircle our country with our united demand for an immediate return of all U.S. forces around the globe. Bring every one of our troops home NOW! We need them in our families and towns. We need our troops back to help us fix our broken country. Our ships of state must make their voyage home, with our countrymen out of harm's way."
NOW! Imagine that!!
"This is our time to finally draw an end to America's wars. We must abide by the saying of ancient scriptures: Let peace and peace and peace be everywhere. I declare this to be our new national defense policy."
If only our national defense policy could be so declared.

Want to join Cindy Sheehan aboard a sailing ship of peace?
Sheehan will co-captain daily excursions ... aboard the grand sailing vessel dubbed the SS Camp Casey ... [and invites] peace movement leaders, international news 'anchors' and pro-peace members of the public to sail around Martha's Vineyard [with her] as she holds this seaside peace summit. ...

For information, contact:
Laurie Dobson
lauriegdobson@yahoo.com
207-604-8988

or Bruce Marshall
brmas@yahoo.com
802-767-6079
The full details are here.


To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

ScoopIt! please help to put this article on Scoop's front page!

Friday, August 7, 2009

Obama's Pakistan Campaign: Brilliant President Plus Smart Bombs Equal Humanitarian Success

I note with proud amazement a new article from Dubai's Gulfnews dot com, describing the ongoing campaign of bombing attacks by unmanned planes against Pakistan (which the American government and media will not usually talk about -- officially -- but which are widely understood to be undertaken by the CIA at the direction of the president).

Unofficial government sources have been weighing in lately, all unequivocally in favor of continuing the attacks. For instance, a July 14 editorial in the Wall Street Journal says that
Far from being "beyond the pale," drones have made war-fighting more humane.
This point of view may seem a bit strange, given that the "success" claimed on behalf of the drones has been rather spotty. In fact, according to Pakistani government sources, as of April 8 of this year, US attacks on Pakistan had killed 14 al Q'aeda terrorists and 687 civilians.

The success ratio -- with alleged terrorists accounting for nearly one-fiftieth of the people killed -- may have been slightly over-estimated in this government report, since one of the "high-value targets" allegedly killed in these attacks (and included among the 14) is Rashid Rauf, the alleged leader of (or at least an alleged key figure in) the supposedly dangerous transatlantic-airline liquid-bombing plot (which I have discussed at great length in the past: for a technical overview of the plot, see "Ludicrouser And Ludicrouser: The Alleged Liquid Bombing Plot, Revisited Again"; for an explanation of what this means, see "Inadequate Deception: The Impossible Plots Of The Terror War").

Rashid Rauf was reportedly killed in a drone attack in November of 2008, but his body has never been produced and his family's plea for the return of his remains was ignored by the Pakistani government; Rauf's family and his attorney say he may be dead, but they dispute the claim that he was killed then and in that manner.

You don't have to be a lunatic moonbat conspiracy theorist or a Pakistani terrorist-sympathizer to claim that Rashid Rauf probably wasn't killed in a drone attack. Long War Journal proprietor Bill Roggio, who usually gets inside information before the marginally-less-complicit-but-still-criminal mainstream press, declared back in April that Rashid Rauf is still alive and dangerous and plotting against us all.

If that's true, then the numbers would be more like: 13 terrorist leaders dead, and 688 innocent people. And that's giving the official statistician the benefit of every doubt. As Bill Roggio wrote just a few days ago,
Reports of senior al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in Pakistan have been highly unreliable. In the past, al Qaeda leaders Ayman al Zawahiri, Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, Abu Obaidullah Al Masri, Adam Gadahn, Ibn Amin, and Rashid Rauf have been reported killed in strikes, but these men later resurfaced. Similarly, Sa'ad bin Laden was recently reported killed, but he is now thought to be alive. And Abu Khabab al Masri was reported dead several times before he actually was killed in a July 2008 strike.
Given all the billions we spend on intelligence gathering, and all the billions we spend on developing smart weapons, you might think we should be doing a better job of killing terrorists and sparing innocents. But that's a shallow criticism, because after a shaky start we did start doing a better job, as you can see when I break the statistics down chronologically.

According to the report from Pakistan which I mentioned above,
Two strikes carried out in 2006 had killed 98 civilians while three attacks conducted in 2007 had slain 66 Pakistanis
for a total of 164 civilian deaths -- and no terrorists were among the dead in either 2006 or 2007!

By contrast, according to the same report,
385 people lost their lives in 2008 and 152 people were slain in the first 99 days of 2009 (between January 1 and April 8)
for a total of 537 innocent civilians killed, along with the "14 wanted al-Qaeda operatives".

It may not seem like much, but considering the opening phase of this campaign, these reports reveal a double-dose of success. The total of "wanted al-Qaeda operatives" allegedly killed has ballooned from 0 in 2006-7 all the way to 14 in 2008-9, and at the same time the number of innocents killed per terrorist has dropped from 164:0 (an infinite ratio) to only 537:14 (about 38:1) -- provided of course that Rashid Rauf and all the other terrorists described as dead are actually dead, and were actually terrorists.

Some people may have felt these improvements were good enough, but clearly Barack Obama was not among them. As we know, anything is possible for can-do Americans, and as the newest report from Dubai indicates, we have enhanced our performance significantly since the Pakistani report was compiled in April.

Here's the most amazing part: According to Gulfnews, the number of Pakistani civilians killed since the beginning of 2008 is now only 480! That's down by 57 since the total was 537 in April!

So think about this: In the last four months, we have continued bombing Pakistan, killing (or at least claiming to have killed) more and more "high-value targets", such as Osama bin Laden's son Sa'ad (who in addition to probably surviving the attack in which he was "killed", may not have had anything to do with terrorism at all, other than being sired by an undercover CIA operative), and Baitullah Mehsud (who in addition to probably surviving the attack in which he was "killed", has likely been the CIA's most powerful weapon in South Asia since Osama bin Laden died in 2001).

We have been able to do all this without killing any additional civilians, and -- even more amazingly -- we have managed to revive 57 innocent people who were dead back in April but who are not dead anymore!

This is the sort of "humanitarian intervention" we were always hoping for but could never achieve -- not under Republican scoundrels such as Bush, Bush and Reagan; not under Democratic scoundrels such as Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Of all the presidents in the history of our great nation, only Obama The Wonderful has managed to turn America's awesome firepower into a healing force.

Clearly, none of this would be possible without Obama's brilliance. He's the first President we've ever had who has been smart enough to use our wonderful smart bombs to their maximum humanitarian potential.

Similarly, none of it would be possible without our fantastic remote-controlled planes and the computerized bombs they carry. The Wall Street Journal was right! Drones have made war-fighting more humane!

What? You doubt me? Oh, please!! You'd have to be awfully naive to think we could raise scores of people from the dead with conventional weapons!

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

ScoopIt! please help to put this article on Scoop's front page!

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Too Obvious To Mention: Obama-Era Lies Protect Bush-Era Crimes

Our new transformative president Obama's decision to fight a court order requiring the release of photos depicting the well-documented abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib -- while entirely in character for this transformative new administration -- is being widely described as shameful enough on its own, let alone for a president who portrayed himself as a champion of transparency and accountability in government.

But then again Obama was once a candidate and now he's a president. And when he was a candidate, certain people (like his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright) were portrayed as troublemakers and cast out of the national scene because they dared to point out that Obama was a politician!

Seriously! The campaign pretended the candidate was not a politician. How transparently false is that? Fortunately for Obama, he had to run against a man who was obviously certifiably insane, and a woman who was obviously even crazier. In that respect Obama's victory in the November election was more inevitable than remarkable. So what if he's part black? A green and blue guy could have won that election, if he was a half-decent politician.

And yet somehow it comes as a big surprise that the tales told by a politician when he was a candidate turn out to be false once he gets elected. Thus people are shocked and even mildly disappointed when their man, now in office, turns out to be somewhat different than he was portrayed during the campaign. When will we ever learn? I'll rephrase that: Will we ever learn?

Obama wants to suppress the photos even though their release is required by law, under the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA]. In his defense of his new position, Obama echoes Pentagon claims that the release of the photos would inflame our enemies and endanger our troops. And our old friends, Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman, have gone so far as to craft legislation that specifically exempts from FOIA any photographs
taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States ...

if the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, determines that the disclosure of that photograph would endanger (A) citizens of the United States; or (B) members of the Armed Forces or employees of the United States Government deployed outside the United States.
Glenn Greenwald has been good on this topic, and so has Chris Floyd. I've read some others on the subject, not as many as perhaps I should have, but then again my eyes aren't what they once were. And they've had their fill. Nonetheless, I do report that in all my travels I have not once seen anyone make any hay via the the following obvious points:

First of all, it's the abuse that enrages and inflames people, not the photos. If we really want to avoid inflaming the rest of the world, the way to do that is to stop abusing people. And that means a lot more than the obvious facts that we have to stop smearing prisoners in excrement and dragging them around on leashes, and that we have to stop raping them or forcing them to engage in other sexual practices, and that we have to stop all the other indecent treatment. But we also have to end the despicable practice of indefinite detention without trial, without a hearing, without any evidence, and without any charges.

Aside from moral questions of right and wrong, there's also the obvious (but apparently unmentionable) fact that it's only propagandized and brainwashed Americans who don't know what's been going on at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, and who would be shocked and enraged by the release of the photos. The people in Iraq, for example, and in Afghanistan, and in far too many other countries, know all about the torture that's been happening in the American and American-friendly torture chambers of the world. So how much will they really be inflamed by the photos? And conversely, how much will they be inflamed by the attempt to keep those photos hidden?

Second, if Obama and Graham and Lieberman and their ilk really cared about the safety of "members of the Armed Forces or employees of the United States Government deployed outside the United States", they would not block the release of the photos, but instead they would vow to end the Bush-era wars immediately, and to quit attacking foreign countries that never did anything to us, never could have, and never even wanted to. But of course they will never do any such thing. They are obviously concerned about the safety of the troops, exactly to the extent that the troops further the goals of empire.

And third, if instead of destroying one country after another, based on one lie after another, the US spent its annual hundreds of billions building roads and schools and hospitals, and water treatment plants and electric generating plants, in one country after another, then "members of the Armed Forces" could go get real jobs, because "employees of the United States Government deployed outside the United States" would be viewed outside the United States as friends, not enemies.

It's all so obvious. No wonder nobody mentions it.

What's also obvious is that Obama and the Pentagon don't want to release the photos because of the impact they would have on "the home front", where we're the enemy and the ongoing battle is about control of information.

But here's the rub: what would happen if Americans knew a bit more about what went on during the Bush administration?

Not much, probably. The usual goons would celebrate a few more "Ay-rabs" "getting what they deserve", and the rest of us would hang our heads in shame. But fundamentally nothing would change, not only because most of us don't give a damn, but also because the rest of us have no means by which to change the vicious and corrupt system.

When they hand out the prizes for the most pathetic remnant of a former democracy, we'll be Number One. And that's pretty obvious too.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Come, Let Us Celebrate The Best Of America, Living And Dead

To honor America and observe Memorial Day, let us now savor a few words from an anonymous AP stenographer, courtesy of the Los Angeles Times:

Obama marks Memorial Day with tribute at Arlington
In brief remarks after he laid the wreath and observed a moment of silence at Arlington, Obama saluted the men and women of America's fighting forces, both living and dead, as "the best of America."

"Why in an age when so many have acted only in pursuit of narrowest self-interest have the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines of this generation volunteered all that they have on behalf of others?" he said. "Why have they been willing to bear the heaviest burden?"

"Whatever it is, they felt some tug. They answered a call. They said 'I'll go.' That is why they are the best of America," Obama said. "That is what separates them from those who have not served in uniform, their extraordinary willingness to risk their lives for people they never met."
What kind of people are willing to risk their lives -- and throw away their souls! -- for the likes of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, or Bill Clinton, or George H. W. Bush, or any of their predecessors?

Obama called them "the best"; he forgot to mention that they're also "the brightest".
Obama said he can't know what it's like to walk into battle or lose a child.

"But I do know this. I am humbled to be the commander in chief of the finest fighting force in the history of the world," he said to applause.
This is beneath derision, and it went down swimmingly, of course. I understand completely.

Let's all have big parades to honor our professional and patriotic mass murderers, living and dead!

Let us line the streets to watch the psychopaths and fools -- and those who support the psychopaths and fools -- march by.

Let us complain about how nothing much has changed since the election, how Barack Obama shows the same chicken-hearted reluctance to move that ruined the second Bush-Cheney administration, and how -- despite years of furtive planning -- we still haven't got off our butts and righteously obliterated Iran.

Let us join together and decry the incompetence in the Beltway, which explains why we haven't won yet in Iraq or Afghanistan, and why we may not make any real progress there until after the next election.

Let us weep for the "victims" of the seemingly endless series of "government accidents" which have got us involved in "the wrong wars" at "the wrong times".

But let us never say a word word about the millions of people our heroes have killed over the years; the tens of thousands our heroes have incarcerated and tortured; the tens of millions whose homes and families our heroes have destroyed; the hundreds of millions whose homelands our heroes have violated, overtly or otherwise, and in whose nations "democratic institutions" are allowed to exist only if the "duly elected representatives" find it politically expedient to toe the line.

That's our line, by the way.

So let us celebrate that line, just as we celebrate the psychopaths and fools who enforce it.

Let us wave our flags for those extroardinary people who have made sure -- on our behalf -- that the kids in these pictures, and millions of others just like them, never had a chance.

After all, we wouldn't want to be anti-American, would we?

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

First Principles ... or Why I Cannot Support Barack Obama

Let us begin with the fact that George Bush and Dick Cheney were never legitimately elected to the Oval Office: not in 2000, and not in 2004.

In the American system, the authority of our government is based on the consent of the governed. This consent was not earned in either "election".

Therefore, the Bush-Cheney administrations of 2001-2009 were illegitimate, and the policies implemented by these illegitimate administrations are themselves illegitimate. Period.

If somebody steals your credit card and you report the theft, you are not responsible for purchases made on that card after it was stolen. We reported the theft in 2000; we screamed about the theft in 2004; but it did us no good at all.

The most destructive "terrorist attack" that ever took place on American soil occurred during the first Bush-Cheney administration, and it was never legitimately investigated. The story that was told to explain it is not only false; it's impossible.

Therefore the policies implemented as "reactions" to the "terrorist attack of September 11, 2001" would be illegitimate even if they had been enacted by a legitimately elected government. But they weren't.

Furthermore, many of these same policies contravene both national and international law, and for this reason they would be illegal, and indefensible, even if they were enacted by a legitimately elected government in response to a legitimate threat.

But they were not: all these illegal, immoral, and deeply detrimental policies were enacted by an illegitimate government in "response" to a bogus event.

If we had legitimate opposition politics in this country, it would would begin by calling these policies what they are.

And if we had a legitimate successor government, it would begin by repealing every single one of them, holding accountable those responsible for their implementation, and making amends insofar as possible to those who have suffered the most.

In other words, if a legitimate opposition government had taken power in January, American use of torture against "terror suspects" would be history. All the secret prisons would now be closed. There would be no more extraordinary renditions, and no more military tribunals.

Warrantless surveillance would have been stopped. All American troops would have been removed from both Iraq and Afghanistan, including the "defense" and "security" contractors and clandestine special forces. Rather than propping up puppet governments and blackmailing them at the same time, we would now be financing -- but others would be building -- new infrastructure in both countries. We would also be paying reparations on a scale that would make the bank bailouts look like a drop in the ocean.

And the people most responsible for the abomination that America has become would be in prison by now, if they were allowed to remain alive.

But none of this has happened, and none of it is about to happen, soon or ever.

Instead we have a president who has declared that his first priority is the defense of Israel, and a vice president who has declared that during his 36 years in the Senate, no one has been a better friend to Israel than he has.

Why can't we have a president whose first priority is the defense of our own country?

Why can't we have a vice president who is prouder of having befriended his own nation than of having befriended a foreign one?

And why can't we find a single columnist in a single national publication asking questions like these? Because the system is broken.

We know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. We know that the story about the Iraqi WMDs was chosen for "bureaucratic reasons" -- in other words not because it was true but because it was the story we were most likely to believe. We didn't believe it, on the whole. But the war went ahead anyway.

Far more people believed the 9/11 story about Muslim hijackers and Osama bin Laden and skyscrapers "collapsing" due to "impact and fire", but some of us knew it was false on the day, and it has turned out that we were absolutely correct.

And yet the transparently false story about 9/11 has been used to "justify" all manner of abuses, from illegal surveillance to homeland "security", to an endless limitless war against the rest of the world. No matter how obviously false that story is, no matter how many people have learned since then that the story is false, all this has gone ahead anyway.

I cannot support any of it. I cannot support any politician who supports any of it, let alone a president who continues the worst of it. And I cannot support any journalist who supports that president, or who tells those murderous lies.

In my opinion, the people who support Obama now are at least as bad as -- if not much worse than -- the people who supported Bush when he was doing the things that Obama is now continuing, and expanding. It pains me to think of how much time and energy I spent trying to help some of them.

Even George Bush and Dick Cheney never managed to blackmail the Pakistani army into attacking its own people. And the Obama misery is just beginning.
To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Monday, February 23, 2009

A Simple Question About Presidents And Their Actions

Over the past year or so, as the race for the presidency not-so-gradually became even more obviously farcical than I ever thought it could get, I often found myself overwhelmed by the split capacity of the "progressive-Democratic" writers I had been reading.

They seemed endlessly capable of spotting, and spotlighting, "conservative-Republican" transgressions of various sorts, from mildly aberrant sexual misadventures to truly horrific public policy. And there have been plenty of "conservative-Republican" transgressions, so that part of the "job" has been easy for these writers.

But many of them have been even more capable of ignoring "progressive-Democratic" transgressions of various sorts, up to and including truly horrific public policy. This part of the "job" should have been the hard part, but most of them have managed to make it seem easy as well.

In my opinion, the ascension of and worldwide adoration for Savior Obama has done more damage to the causes of peace, truth and justice than any event since -- and possibly even including -- the so-called "terrorist attacks" that launched the so-called "Global War On Terror".

The American imperial monster lives on, but now -- for far too many people -- its deadly tentacles are heavily masked.

Only the mask is new. The depredations remain the same. Incredibly (or predictably!), Budda Obama's campaign of hope and change and unity is turning out to be the precursor to an administration where change remains something you can hope for, whereas unity is now. And unity, of course, means uniting behind the horrific abuses of the previous administration -- and making those abuses permanent.

But the new mask is perhaps more powerful than any mask previously used to hide the imperial abuses of the American state. It is much more powerful because it's much more personal, existing, as it does, entirely in the splendor of the individual imagination.

I had a short and none-too-pleasant run-in with the mask a few days ago. The father of one of my wife's friends, a very pleasant and intelligent man, was telling me that America was now on a new track, that Obama's decision to retain Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense was a good one, and so on.

I was not in a good mood to hear such things, especially since I had just finished reading Chris Floyd's piece about Obama having ordered 17,500 more troops into Afghanistan. Floyd quoted an article from the New York Times which described a raid on Afghan civilians, apparently by US Special Forces, in which an entire family was gunned down, except for a four-year-old child.

Read this slowly and carefully, if you can stand it:
One day this month, an old man who called himself Syed Mohammed sat on the floor of his mud-brick hut in the eastern Kabul neighborhood of Hotkheil and recounted how most of his son’s family was wiped out in an American-led raid last September.

Mr. Mohammed said he was awakened in the early morning to the sound of gunfire and explosions. Such sounds were not uncommon; Hotkheil is a Pashtun-dominated area, where sympathies for the Taliban run strong.

In a flash, Mr. Mohammed said, several American and Afghan soldiers kicked open the door of his home. The Americans, he said, had beards, an almost certain sign that they belonged to a unit of the Special Forces, which permits uniformed soldiers to grow facial hair.

“Who are you?” Mr. Mohammed recalled asking the intruders.

“Shut up,” came the reply from one of the Afghan soldiers. “We are the government.”

Mr. Mohammed said he was taken to a nearby base, interrogated for several hours and let go as sunrise neared.

When he returned home, Mr. Mohammed said, he went next door to his son’s house, only to find that most of his family had been killed: the son, Nurallah, and his pregnant wife and two of his sons, Abdul Basit, age 1, and Mohammed, 2. Only Mr. Mohammed’s 4-year-old grandson, Zarqawi, survived.

“The soldiers had a right to search our house,” Mr. Mohammed said. “But they didn’t have a right to do this.”

Bullet holes still pockmarked Nurallah’s home more than four months after the attack, and the infant’s cradle still hung from the ceiling.

The day after the attack, a senior Afghan official came to the door and handed Mr. Mohammed $800.

“If you spent some time here, you would see that we are not the kind of people who would get involved with the Taliban,” Mr. Mohammed said. “Anyway, what was the fault of the babies?”
I said a few more harsh words about our new president, but our friend interrupted to say I should "cut Obama some slack" since "he hasn't been in office very long" and therefore, presumably, he hasn't even started to reveal his true agenda.

I showed my disgust and walked away as quickly as I could. My wife was very angry with me, saying I had been rude to her guest, and I suppose she was right about that.

We disagree about whether my rudeness was called for. But had I not turned tail and fled, I would have had to ask him:

How long does a President have to be in office before we can start judging him according to what he actually does?

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Clueless By Design

In the New York Times, Peter Baker and Thom Shanker report:
President-elect Barack Obama has decided to keep Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in his post [...] Democrats close to the transition said Tuesday.
They note that this
will be the first time a Pentagon chief has been carried over from a president of a different party[.]
How audacious!

Is this Change you can Believe in? Or Change you can Hope for?

As an aid to understanding this non-transition, the NYT piece quotes Loren B. Thompson, Chief Operating Officer of the Lexington Institute.

According to Thompson's biography, he
holds doctoral and masters degrees in government from Georgetown University and a bachelor of science degree in political science from Northeastern University.
As Source Watch has noted, Thompson has been quoted in major media, downplaying atrocities committed in Iraq by American troops.

He told the Christian Science Monitor:
You could probably construct an empirical case that US forces are exhibiting more restraint in their treatment of Iraqi civilians than has ever been seen in past wars of similar scale and duration. Almost all of the atrocities that have been alleged involve small units deliberately disobeying rules of engagement and the orders of senior officers.
We know this is not true.

He told the San Francisco Chronicle:
When you look at the circumstances of whom we send and what we expect them to do, it's surprising we don't have more of those cases.
If this is true, it's a powerful indictment. War apologists like to say, in one way or another:
It's a war: What do you expect? Wars inevitably produce atrocities. Get over it.
On the other hand, if all wars produce atrocities, then they shouldn't be waged casually, or on false pretenses, should they?

Regarding the Obama team's decision to keep Robert Gates in charge of the Pentagon, Loren B. Thompson told the New York Times:
I really can’t begin to understand from a political point of view how Barack Obama, a person who got the nomination because he ran against the Iraq war, can keep around the guy who’s been in charge of it for the last two years.
There are plenty of political observers who do understand it, of course, and some who saw it coming a long time ago. But the New York Times cannot possibly quote any of them --- any of us.

Why not? Because we're not part of the established order? Because we might tell too much of the truth?

~~~

Heather Wokusch, at Atlantic Free Press, writes an open letter to the president-elect:
To be honest, Obama, you lost me when you voted for the PATRIOT Act reauthorization in 2006. You lost me again when you voted for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) amendment in 2008. And you lost me every single time you voted for yet more war funding.

Don't even get me started on your vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.

I cast a ballot for you in November ...
And so did millions of others.

And now we will all get what they deserve.

~~~

In honor of the cluelessness around us, and in recognition of the day when we celebrate our genocide against the people who lived in North America before it was "discovered", I've made a list of all the things that we -- as Americans and as citizens of the world -- have to be thankful for today:
1.
2.
3.
Our so-called enemies may have a shorter list.

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Glenn Beck Gets Something Right

I don't agree very often with any of the people who host and contribute to FOX News, but that's not because of any hard and fast rule; it's just because of the things they say.

Usually they feed you one lie wrapped in another, smothered by a third. But every now and then they accidentally allow a little bit of truth to slip into the mix, and that's when they get interesting.

One interesting bit of accidental truth-telling was occasioned by Wednesday's release of yet another "al Qaeda" video, featuring "number two" Ayman al-Zawahri ([Za-WAHR-ee] whose name often appears as "Zawahiri" [Za-wa-HEER-ee] in the reports of the confused western media) .

The new Zawarhi video was brought to you, if you're a subscriber, by the SITE Intelligence Group, remnant of the now defunct SITE Institute, which somehow gets these videos before they become available on the militant Islamic websites that SITE claims to monitor.

SITE is run by Rita Katz, whose father was an Israeli spy executed in Iraq. This, combined with Katz' close connection to the Bush family, may tend to explain SITE's seemingly magical ability to obtain al Qaeda communications before the radical Islamists do so.

In any case, Ayman al-Zawahri is listed as al Qaeda's "number two" because the confused western media cannot bring itself to believe that Osama bin Laden is dead -- even though the actor who plays him in videos doesn't look very much like him!

As has been clear for a long time, Ayman al-Zawahri, like the late Osama bin Laden, is a CIA asset who specializes in psyop propaganda. The psyops are usually a bit tricky. But one common theme is the "terrorist" voicing legitimate complaints against the American leadership, often in elaborate and earthy language. In this instance, Zawahri's words in Arabic are given in English as subtitles, as provided by SITE or al Qaeda -- who can tell the difference?

Sophisticated psyops such as this one are multi-dimensional and multi-purpose, so it's not easy to say precisely what this video is for. But one recurring purpose has always been to paint any legitimate domestic political opposition as totally offside: immoral, treasonous, and in sympathy with -- if not actually in league with -- "the terrorists".

According to the usual pattern, a "terrorist" video makes a splash and then the domestic propaganda machine hosts the echo. Of course, as with all complicated clandestine operations, there are exceptions. Sometimes the expert manipulators get it wrong, and there was a time when SITE released a video to the White House, which leaked it to the world before SITE could plant it on the militant Islamic websites.

That incident resonates with the story about BBC broadcasting the collapse of World Trade Center 7 before it happened.

Q: What's going on here?


A: Just don't ask and you'll be ok!

In the new video, Zawarhi compares president-elect Barack Obama unfavorably with slain civil rights leader Malcom X.

Look closely at the following mainstream news accounts of the video, and see how everything is spun. It helps to keep the following questions in mind:
  • How much of what Zawahri says is true?
  • How much of what they say about Zawahri is true?
  • Where did this video come from?
  • Where did Zawahri come from?
From the Times of London:
Al-Qaeda today invoked the speeches of Malcolm X in a propaganda exercise designed to divide African-Americans, accusing Barack Obama of being a "house negro".
Ask yourself: How could the Times know what the video was designed to do?
In his first video message to Mr Obama since the Illinois senator was elected on November 4, Ayman Zawahiri attempted to vilify the president-elect in comparison with the black power radical, whom he described as an "honourable" African-American.

His message, entitled The departure of Bush and arrival of Obama, appeared to have been carefully choreographed. It was staged in front of pictures of Mr Obama praying at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem during a pre-election visit to Israel, and Malcolm X, who was murdered in 1965.
But Mr Obama's visit to Israel, including a photo-op of him praying at the Wailing Wall, wasn't carefully choreographed -- not at all. That goes without saying ... meaning that no one dares to say it. Such freedom of the press!
As Osama bin Laden's deputy spoke, old footage of the black power leader's speeches was played in the background. In one of the speeches, Malcolm X used the term "house negroes" in reference to domestic slaves who were considered more docile towards their masters than the field slaves.

“It is true about you and people like you ... what Malcolm X said about the house negroes,” he said, naming Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, and his successor, Condoleezza Rice.

“You represent the opposite to honourable Black Americans like ... Malcolm X."
This is all too true. It's all too horribly, bitterly, true. I've been saying it for months, and I have not been alone in this. But anyone who has agreed with me has been roundly ignored.

By putting the truth about Obama in the mainstream media via the mouths of "terrorists", the psyop manipulators are preempting any criticism which might someday be given a national voice ... among other things.
He scolded Mr Obama for “choosing to be an enemy of Islam and Muslims”, saying that the Muslim “nation had bitterly received” the US President-elect's pledge of support for Israeli security and the peace process with the Palestinians.

“You have chosen to stand in the ranks of the enemies of Muslims and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim that your mother is Christian,” Mr Zawahiri added.
All this is true -- visibly, provably true. And even the most mainstream reports don't attempt to deny any of it. They depend on your revulsion: they want you to assume all these things must be false, simply because of who is saying them. And they want you to get angry on behalf of your "leaders", whose legacies are so badly "maligned" by having the truth spoken.
Also in his video, he threatened to work towards Mr Obama's removal if he went ahead with his proposals to withdraw troops from Iraq in order to concentrate on Afghanistan, urging him to remember "the fate" of President Bush, President Musharraf of Pakistan and Afganistan's former Soviet occupiers.

The recording came after an interview, broadcast on Sunday, in which Mr Obama said that he would push ahead with his campaign promise to begin pulling troops out of Iraq and switch the military focus to Afghanistan.

“What you have announced before ... that you will withdraw [US] troops from Iraq [and send them] to Afghanistan is a policy that is doomed to failure,” Mr Zawahiri said in the message, made available by the SITE Intelligence Group.

"If you still want to be stubborn about America’s failure in Afghanistan, then remember the fate of Bush and Pervez Musharraf, and the fate of the Soviets and British before them,” he added.
This is a difficult pill to swallow for Americans who are used to swallowing the propaganda. They don't think America has failed in Afghanistan. Or perhaps I should say they don't realize America has failed there.

Oh well. They'll figure it out eventually.
Mr Obama refused to comment, declining to get into a "tit for tat with a terrorist group", according to CNN.
That's his best move, from his point of view -- probably his only available move.

What else can he do?

Can he say: "Zawahri is right. I am a house negro. My job is to look after the intrests of the rich and powerful. Didn't you know that already? What did you think the President was supposed to do?"

Not if he wants to maintain his aura of audacity and hope and change.

Or can he say, "Zawahri is all wrong. I won't look after the rich and powerful. I will take care of the little guy. I'll stop America's wars of aggression and I'll stop the American elite from preying on their fellow-countrymen, too."

Not unless he wants to get assassinated.
The tape was not unexpected. Intelligence officials and Mr Obama's campaign team have been bracing themselves for terrorist groups to take advantage of the presidential transition period.
Here's another big lie -- another of the endless big lies in the terror myth psyop. Again it's multi-faceted and multi-purposed.

Aside from scaring you, it reinforces the lie that 9/11 was caused by an understandable difficulty inherent in the transition from one administration to another.

And that's why
Both President Bush and Mr Obama have acknowledged that extremists could stage attacks to destabilise the period, which ends when Mr Obama is inaugurated on January 20.
The myth that 9/11 was the unfortunate and innocent result of the understandable difficulty inherent in the transition has been promoted by some very artful dodgers, including Jamie Gorelick and Slade Gorton who wrote about it in the New York Times back in July.

Both Gorelick and Gorton, of course, were among the chief architects of the 9/11 coverup. Here's an excerpt from their NYT psy-op/ed:
One of the observations of the 9/11 commission was that the deeply flawed presidential transition of 2000 and 2001 created a dangerous period of vulnerability.

As always, the crowd coming in was dismissive of the concerns of the crowd going out. There was a mismatch between the concerns of the Clinton national security team and those of the incoming Bush team. While there were briefings between the election and the swearing-in, there was no trust — and thus no effective dialogue — between the members of the two administrations.
Translation: Because the Bush administration didn't trust Bill Clinton, it paid no attention to the Clinton administration's warnings about the imminent threat of a terrorist attack.

This is, once again, part of the whitewash: it's Clinton's fault that Bush decided not to do any domestic counter-terrorism. If Clinton had only kept it in his pants when that little Lewinsky slut was around, Bush and the rest of the country could have trusted him, and the incoming Bush administration would have taken Clinton's concerns seriously. Yeah, right!

Jamie Gorelick was on Obama's short list for appointment as Attorney General. What does that say about Obama? Nothing you didn't already know, I hope. But we digress...

Here's another, somewhat more detailed report, from MSNBC:
CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader slurred Barack Obama with a demeaning racial term for a black American who does the bidding of whites in a new Web message posted Wednesday.
It's interesting to note that all the mainstream reports categorize Zawahri's statements about Obama as racial, when in fact the gist of them is political: This is not about what color Obama is; it's about whose interests he protects. But of course nobody could write that one day and still have a job the next morning. And so we get nonsense like this.
Ayman al-Zawahri's speech was al-Qaida's first reaction to Obama's election victory — and it suggested the terror network is worried the new American leader could undermine its rallying cry that the United States is an enemy oppressor.
In fact the Muslim world is worried -- and rightly so -- about the possibility that America, under the new "black" and "formerly Muslim" president, will be allowed a free hand to commit atrocites against blacks and Muslims even beyond the atrocities committed by the Bush and Clinton administrations.
Obama has been welcomed by many in the Middle East who hope he will end what they see as American aggression against Muslims and Arabs under President George W. Bush.
Their hope is contradicted by his public statements to the contrary -- which proves, as if any further proof were needed, that the power of self-delusion is not uniquely American.
Some believe his race and Muslim family connections could make him more understanding of the developing world's concerns.
They can believe anything they like, of course. Some people believe the sun revolves around the earth.
Al-Zawahri dug into U.S. racial history to try to directly knock down that belief and argue Obama will be no more sympathetic than white leaders to what the al-Qaida leader called "the oppressed" of the world.
MSNBC is apparently incapable of calling oppressed people oppressed, unless the word is in quotes and attributed to somebody else. What else is new?
He said Obama was the "direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the 1960s Muslim African-American rights leader, who is known among some in the Arab world and seen as a symbol of anti-imperialism.

Al-Zawahri also called Obama — along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice — "house Negroes."
They should be flattered. Among all the terms that fit, "house Negro" is probably the most polite.
The video included old footage of speeches by Malcolm X in which he explains the term, saying black slaves who worked in their white masters' house were more servile than those who worked in the fields. Malcolm X used the term to criticize black leaders he accused of not standing up to whites and discrimination.

Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri used the phrase "abeed al-beit," which literally translates as "house slaves." But in the video message, posted on Islamic militant Web sites Wednesday, al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of the speech that translated the phrase as "house Negroes."
Considering that all the house Negroes were slaves and all the house slaves were Negroes, this little discrepancy doesn't seem to make much difference. But this article -- like all mainstream news on this and many other subjects -- is chock full of details that don't make any difference.

Consider the White House response to the video:
In Washington, White House press secretary Dana Perino said the tape is a reminder that al-Qaida is irrational.
There's nothing irrational about the way Perino digs herself into a hole, though, right?
"What we have here is more despicable and pathetic comments by al-Qaida terrorists," Perino said. "And in America, we are going to have a smooth transition from one administration to the next, and that will be a period of change in our country. What won't change is our commitment as a country to fighting terrorism. And I think that these comments just remind everybody of the kind of people that we're dealing with."
The "transition" is going to be "smooth" precisely because Obama has not challenged -- and will not challenge -- the bogus assumptions behind "our commitment as a country" to fighting bogus terrorism, looking for bogus terrorists, and fomenting terror of our own. Therefore it won't be much of a change as far as the rest of the world is concerned.
There was no immediate reaction from Obama's transition team.
As noted.
The 11-minute, 23-second video featured an audio message by al-Zawahri, played over a still image of the al-Qaida No. 2.

The video graphics underlined the contrast al-Zawahri aimed to show: On one side of the screen was a photo of Obama wearing a Jewish skullcap and meeting Jewish leaders. On the other side was a photo of Malcolm X praying in a mosque. Interspersed was footage of Malcolm X talking of a "worldwide revolution" against the "Western power structure."

Al-Zawahri addressed "all the world's weak and oppressed," and warned them: "America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always."
Again, this is exactly true. I wish it were otherwise. But wishes are not the stuff of truth-telling.

Zawahri spoke directly to Obama:
"You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand in the ranks of the enemies of the Muslims, and pray the prayer of the Jews, although you claim to be Christian, in order to climb the rungs of leadership in America," he said.

"It appears that you continue to be captive to the same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims," he said.
It certainly does appear that way. But not to professional spin-merchants, who cannot afford to tell the obvious truth.
Jeremy Binnie, an analyst with Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Center, said al-Zawahri's message suggests al-Qaida leaders are worried "that Obama could be effective in rebuilding America's image."

"They hated Bush, but Bush was good for them in many ways because he was such a polarizing figure. But Obama seems at the moment to be a more uniting figure," Binnie said.
They hated Bush but he was good for them; they hate Obama because he will be bad for them ...
"Al-Qaida very much would like the U.S. to stay with its old policies that put it in opposition to much of the Muslim world."
... They want us to stay in Afghanistan and that's why they want us to leave ...

All this nonsense feeds into the public pronouncements that al Qaeda is "irrational". But al Qaeda is more than irrational. al Qaeda is fictional!

Blind acceptance of the government/media spin is irrational. Belief in the independent existence of al Qaeda is irrational! But MSNBC can hardly say that, any more than Barack Obama can.
Al-Zawahri proclaimed Obama's victory a sign that Americans had realized the failure of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This part is unclear: If Americans realize the failure of the war in Afghanistan, then why did they elect a new president who wants to escalate the war in Afghanistan?

Because American voters are irrational! And that's a fact that cannot be denied.

But it doesn't matter, either, because our electoral system is so compromised that the will of the people doesn't express itself at the ballot box anymore. So we're stuck with what we've got -- for as long as we are willing to stay stuck.

MSNBC's coverage of the Zawahri video concludes as follows:
He urged Islamic militants everywhere to continue their jihad, or holy war, saying, "Your enemy's stagger has begun, so don't stop hitting him."

Al-Zawahri said Obama's plan to shift troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure, because Afghans will resist.

"Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them," he said.

Al-Zawahri specifically addressed al-Qaida fighters in Iraq, saying, "your enemy has admitted defeat," and that as U.S. troops withdraw, "you must persevere, for victory is in an hour of perseverance."

He also told Islamic militants in Somalia, who have been capturing towns in an advance against the tenuous central government, "don't put down your weapons before the Mujahed state of Islam ... has been set up in Somalia."
This summary reveals another aspect of the psy-op: the manipulators are always trying to foment more "terrorist" resistance, in order to "justify" more armed intervention in more foreign countries.

And everything we've read about this video so far amounts to the typical mainstream spin on what is, after all, a transparently thin and mass-murderous sham.

But way off to the side of the mainstream sits FOX News, telling even more outrageous lies, more vicious, more ridiculous lies of the sort which are enabled by all the other lies about al Qaeda and its videos that the mainstream has been telling.

Here's Glenn Beck:
While many Americans want to ignore the threat posed by Islamic extremism and collectively hope it has gone away, Al Qaeda is determined not to let us forget.
On the contrary, the American government and media are the ones who are determined not to let us forget. They're determined not to let us stop and think, either. Otherwise, the mainstream accounts would be telling you about what a farce SITE is, and how disgusting it is to have an Israeli mole doing supposed intelligence gathering for our national government, and much more, too.

But instead, they insist on taking all this stuff seriously.
In their first video release since the election of Barack Obama, Al Qaeda’s No. 2 — Ayman al-Zawahiri — said Obama’s election was “the American people’s admission of defeat in Iraq.” Unless I’ve been holding the graphs of every measurable facet of the war upside down for the last couple of years, I don’t think that we’ve admitted anything of the sort.
It's the unmeasurable facets of the war that are destroying America; it's no wonder they don't show up on FOX news graphs. And it's no wonder Glenn Beck is denying what everyone already knows. That is his job, after all.
He also claimed that Obama’s idea of sending troops currently fighting in Iraq over to Afghanistan wouldn’t work, but we should send more anyway because the “dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious.” Classy guy.
Not half as classy as bombing innocent sleeping children and then denying it, and claiming that the survivors had fabricated the evidence.

Not half as classy as imprisoning hundreds of innocent people for years and years without even giving them a chance to prove their innocence.

Not half as classy as invading sovereign countries based on deliberately fabricated lies.
But the overall message was very clear: the election of Barack Obama changes nothing to our enemies. Zawahiri said Obama appears to “continue to be captive to the same criminal American mentality towards the world and towards the Muslims.” He called Obama “dishonorable” and a “house Negro,” and he said Obama would continue the “crimes of the American Crusade.”

After we’ve been told for months that the election of Obama would magically make our enemies start to like us again, this might surprise some people. But the truth is no change in our voting patterns, no talk of meeting without preconditions, and no blanket promises of diplomacy will be enough to make these people change their minds about us.

Will Barack Obama be as tough as he needs to be? That remains to be seen. There’s not much in his record that makes me believe it, but I hope so. If he is, I’ll be happy to stand with him — because if our enemies aren’t defining us by party, we shouldn’t either.
Here's one point Glenn Beck and I agree about:
no change in our voting patterns, no talk of meeting without preconditions, and no blanket promises of diplomacy will be enough to make these people change their minds about us.
Assuming that by "these people", Beck means the people who actually do hate us, and not the actors in the psyop drama, then why do they hate us?

It's because of what we have done to them, and to their families, and to their countries.

Promises of diplomacy won't make any of that damage go away.

Talk of meetings without preconditions won't bring millions of innocent people back from the dead.

Changing our voting patterns won't help any of those people at all -- especially when we shift our support from a president who has spent the past eight years increasing the military budget and using it to get his way in the world, to a president-elect who pledges to increase the military budget and use it to get his way in the world.

If we were sufficiently color-blind to see beyond Obama-is-black and Bush-is-white, and also to see beyond Obama-is-a-Democrat and Bush-is-a-Republican, what would we be left with? Two guys with funny-looking ears who will tell any lie at all, in a quest to become "the most powerful man in the world", and who are quite willing to use that power to ruin the lives of millions of innocent people.

And instead of being shocked and appalled at Zawahri, all of America would be shocked and appalled at Glenn Beck.

If, if, if: We're in fantasy land again.

Here's the one other bit of Beck's column that I partially agree with:
if our enemies aren’t defining us by party, we shouldn’t either.
I don't agree completely, because it doesn't matter to me how "our enemies" are "defining us". I don't even believe that one person can "define" another. But that's beside the point. The point is: I care about what people do, not what party they join.

And that's what matters to the people of Afghanistan, and Iraq, and Somalia, and Pakistan, and all the other countries where the American military routinely uses its exceptional might, against innocent unarmed people, with unmitigated hubris -- as if somehow it were our right to destroy lives and homes in any foreign countries we choose.

When bombs start falling, the people being shredded and crushed and burned to death don't much care who the president is, or what color his skin is, much less what political party he belongs to. Of course they hate America. You'd hate America too, if America did things like that to you.

But you wouldn't expect to hear such things from FOX News, would you?

To comment on this post, please click here and join the Winter Patriot community.