1. Obama and 9/11:
“When I started writing this essay, I thought that Barack Obama had to be a 9/11 truther, because he’s too smart not to be, given all the evidence that’s out there, and knowing (at least what the media tells me, which seems authentic in this case, and from his books) that he is a consumer of a broad base of information.
But I didn’t know that Obama was a 9/11 truther until the first part of this essay was posted at 911 Blogger, and commenters replied with some very interesting information. (Just goes to show the value of networking.)
Early in 2007, when then-Senator Obama could still be approached by a couple guys from Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth with a video camera, and asked about re-opening the 9/11 investigation, Obama replied, “I think that we need to investigate a whole range of options, although I have to admit that, some of the issues I understand that you guys have raised, I’m not entirely confident.”
Of course, the most important clause here is, “we need to investigate.” But Obama’s also providing some revealing information about what he already knows. He’s familiar enough with the 9/11 truth material that he can say that he’s not “entirely” confident with “some” of the issues the movement has raised.
For Christ’s sake, neither am I.
More stunning even than the SS911T video, however, was a letter that Obama sent in February 2007 to an Infowars supporter. It’s worth quoting in full:
Dear Penny,
Thank you for contacting me regarding your belief that the US government was complicit in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. I appreciate hearing your passionate views on this matter.
While I do not believe the US government was complicit in the attacks, I do think it should be held accountable for the unacceptable mistakes it made in the run-up to that terrible day. The blunders that occurred prior to the 2001 attacks were inexcusable and often outrageous. The series of clear warnings about the potential use of hijacked planes as weapons is just one example of why the “surprise” of 9/11 should have been anticipated. In my view, proof of government complicity is not necessary when making the argument that the US should accept some responsibility for what happened on 9/11.
Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
Why would he put the word “surprise” in quotation marks, if he’s not a closet 9/11 truther?
So here’s my take on Barack: I think he’s basically a good guy who wants to do the right thing, but he’s also a pragmatist who has proven beyond measure that he knows how the system works. I think he’s a guy who has chosen to live within the limits set by imperial power, because he knows what that power is capable of when crossed — especially with a guy as popular, and thus dangerous, as Barack Obama. He is a guy who makes compromises with the Empire every day, just like most of the rest of us, including me. He is a guy in an impossible situation. I can’t honestly say that I know what I would do, myself, in his circumstances.“
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19277
2. “Repudiate the Monroe Doctrine
Obama could swiftly improve U.S. relations with Latin America by announcing the death of the Monroe Doctrine and then presiding over its funeral. Such a statement would cost him little domestically and win him praise and appreciation throughout Latin America and much of the world.
Most Americans don’t know the details of this 185-year-old policy and couldn’t care less about it. Latin Americans, in contrast, can not only describe the Monroe Doctrine, they revile it. In effect, it has become nothing more than hollow rhetoric that offends the very people it purports to defend.“
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/brennerlandau.php?articleid=14186
3. “Elizabeth Cheney, Bush Legal Counsel
What a 1988 college thesis by the former vice president’s daughter tells us about the Bush presidency.
In 1988, while Dick Cheney was Wyoming’s sole representative in the House of Representatives, his daughter’s senior thesis was quietly published in Colorado Springs. The 125-page treatise argued that, constitutionally and historically, presidents have virtually unchecked powers in war. Thirteen years before her father became vice president, she had symbolically authored the first legal memorandum of the Bush administration, laying out the same arguments that would eventually justify Guantanamo and extraordinary rendition, wiretapping of American citizens, and, broadly, the unitary theory of the executive that shaped the Bush presidency.“
http://www.slate.com/id/2210084/
4. “Obama’s Defense of Rumsfeld and Yoo
Unless the Supreme Court reverses the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and expressly strikes down the enemy combatant doctrine, under the current state of the law the president, along with the military, have the authority to round up any Americans they choose, including critics, dissidents, newspaper editors, and the like as enemy combatants. As I have repeatedly emphasized over the years, this power constitutes a revolutionary change in the relationship between government and citizen. The power to round up people and incarcerate them indefinitely as enemy combatants, denying them right to counsel, trial by jury, and other due process rights, constitutes the ultimate power that any government can have over its own citizens. It is impossible to reconcile such power with the principles of a free society.
But it get worse. If the Justice Department succeeds with its motions to dismiss Padilla’s civil lawsuits, it will mean that the government will not only have the power to take people into custody and hold them as enemy combatants. It will also mean that the government will be empowered to treat them any way it wants, with impunity. Waterboarding, isolation, sensory deprivation, and sexual abuse and humiliation. It will all be available for use against American citizens taken into custody as enemy combatants because there will be nothing the citizen will be able to do about it. Any lawsuits he later files for what was done to him will be thrown out of court as a threat to national security and to the waging of the perpetual war on terrorism.
While it’s true that Americans will still have the right to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus, such right will be fairly meaningless. After all, don’t forget that Padilla’s and al-Marri’s detention as enemy combatants was upheld by the Fourth Circuit as part of their petition for habeas relief. Once the right crisis occurs and the round-ups begin, the courts are unlikely to second-guess the government’s determination as to who is an enemy combatant and who isn’t, as both al-Marri and Padilla discovered. (As Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel put it so aptly, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”)
So, while we continue focusing on the ever-increasing infringements on economic liberty at the hands of the Obama regime, let us not forget that such infringements pale in significance compared to the power to round up people, torture and sexually abuse them, incarcerate them for the rest of their lives, deny them access to friends and family, and deny them the due process protections of the Bill of Rights.”
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-01-29.asp
5. “Since 2005, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the lives of two soldiers from the Utah National Guard.
Suicide has claimed 10.“
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11620245
6. Shock doctrine:
“Is Obama Adopting the Shock Doctrine Playbook?
Everyone knows that Milton Friedman advocated a kind of “disaster capitalism”.
Specifically, as explained in the Shock Doctrine, whenever a natural, economic, war-related, or other disaster strikes, the Friedmanites pounce and use the opportunity to quickly impose a brand of economic policy which benefits the elite at the cost of everyone else (by increasing unemployment, pushing the cost of essential goods through the roof, and otherwise increasing poverty), while people are still in shock and before they can react.
…
Obama said Wednesday the recession will turn into “a catastrophe” if the economic stimulus is not passed quickly:
“A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future,” he said. “That’s why I feel such a sense of urgency . . . .”
And Obama’s chief of staff – Rahm Emanuel – said recently:
Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.
That is classic shock doctrine: use crises – real or imagined – to ram through your pre-packaged agenda.“
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/02/obama-plays-shock-doctrine.html
7. “Andrew Sullivan notes this article from the BBC, reporting on threats made by the U.S. to punish Britain if British courts disclose what was done to one of its citizens, Binyam Mohamed, a former Guantanamo detainee who is suing the British Government for its complicity in his torture. British judges “said they wanted the full details of the alleged torture to be published in the interests of safeguarding the rule of law, free speech and democratic accountability” — what are those strange things? — but decided not to do so because it was “persuaded that it was not in the public interest to publish those details as the US government could then inflict on the citizens of the United Kingdom a very considerable increase in the dangers they face at a time when a serious terrorist threat still pertains.”
So not only has our own Government erected an impenetrable wall of secrecy around what it has done, but is demanding that other countries do the same, upon threat of being punished. As Sullivan said: ”Torture is a cancer. It spreads through the legal system until it destroys the integrity of all of it. It will also destroy alliances if allowed to spread. The scale of that destruction has yet to be measured or understood. Obama has now drawn a line under it. But that is only the start of a process of recovery.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
8. “The War on Terror is a Hoax
According to US government propaganda, terrorist cells are spread throughout America, making it necessary for the government to spy on all Americans and violate most other constitutional protections. Among President Bush’s last words as he left office was the warning that America would soon be struck again by Muslim terrorists.
If America were infected with terrorists, we would not need the government to tell us. We would know it from events. As there are no events, the US government substitutes warnings in order to keep alive the fear that causes the public to accept pointless wars, the infringement of civil liberty, national ID cards, and inconveniences and harassments when they fly.
The most obvious indication that there are no terrorist cells is that not a single neocon has been assassinated.
…
The US deals with al Qaeda and Taliban by assassinating their leaders, and Israel deals with Hamas by assassinating its leaders. It is reasonable to assume that al Qaeda would deal with the instigators and leaders of America’s wars in the Middle East in the same way.
Today every al Qaeda member is aware of the complicity of neoconservatives in the death and devastation inflicted on Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza. Moreover, neocons are highly visible and are soft targets compared to Hamas and Hezbollah leaders. Neocons have been identified in the media for years, and as everyone knows, multiple listings of their names are available online.
Neocons do not have Secret Service protection. Dreadful to contemplate, but it would be child’s play for al Qaeda to assassinate any and every neocon. Yet, neocons move around freely, a good indication that the US does not have a terrorist problem.
If, as neocons constantly allege, terrorists can smuggle nuclear weapons or dirty bombs into the US with which to wreak havoc upon our cities, terrorists can acquire weapons with which to assassinate any neocon or former government official.
Yet, the neocons, who are the Americans most hated by Muslims, remain unscathed. “
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21906.htm
9. “Freedom Of The Press In The USA?
The Pakistan-born owner of a satellite TV company has pleaded guilty to providing material aid to a terrorist organization by letting customers receive broadcasts from Hizbullah’s television station. “
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21910.htm
