Posted by: quiscus | May 6, 2011

May 6, 2011

1.  “The Phony Anti-War Movement
The new study was put together by Michael Heaney, of the University of Michigan, and Fabio Rojas, of Indiana University. It shows, essentially, that many Democrats were motivated to pick up peace placards and shout anti-war slogans more by their dislike of George Bush and the Republicans, than for genuine opposition to America’s multiple wars around the globe – wars that Obama expanded upon, while adding his own, new theaters of war. Professor Heaney puts it this way. “The antiwar movement should have been furious at Obama’s ‘betrayal’ and reinvigorated its protest activity. Instead,” says Heaney, “attendance at antiwar rallies declined precipitously and financial resources available to the movement have dissipated.” The professor concluded that, “The election of Obama appeared to be a demobilizing force on the antiwar movement, even in the face of his pro-war decisions.”

In other words, much of the anti-war movement was phony, a cynical gathering of partisan Democrats who were really never all that concerned for the victims of U.S. imperial warfare, or for the huge dislocations that the national security state places on the U.S. economy. No, they just wanted their guy, the Democrat, to win. Once Obama was safely in the White House, the anti-war movement was all but dismantled, having served its partisan political purpose.For the phony anti-warrior, imperialism with a Democratic face, is just fine.”
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/phony-anti-war-movement

2.  “Colonel Wilkerson: “Let Me Waterboard Donald Rumsfeld and Then We’ll See If He Says It’s Torture or Not!”
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson – the number two man at the State Department under Colin Powell – said today:

Let me waterboard Donald Rumsfeld and then we’ll see if he says it’s torture or not!

Wilkerson also says that that many of those being held at Guantanamo Bay are innocent (see this and this), that waterboarding didn’t produce any actionable intelligence and that Rumsfeld and his cohorts are only defending torture to try to escape prosecution

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/colonel-wilkerson-let-me-waterboard.html

3.  “Nailing Osama Bin Laden: Was it a military or a media operation? Why now?

The tip on bin Laden’s whereabouts came in back in 2010. You have to assume the house was under surveillance. If they thought they “bagged him” they would be watching closely and choosing the right time to deep six the target (I actually  wrote this lead paragraph sentence before reading this “Breaking News” from the Washington Post:  “CIA had secret outpost in Abbottabad”).

“The CIA maintained a safe house in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad for a small team of spies who conducted extensive surveillance over a period of months on the compound where Osama Bin Laden was killed by U.S. special operations forces this week (U.S. officials).”

Both Afghan agents and Pakistani intelligence now say they told the US about the house as early as 2001.

So, they knew he was there. That was a reason drones weren’t used.

The CIA wanted a more controlled high profile and dramatic intervention for public consumption, for what, in the end, was a marketing campaign— marketing the centrality of the agency’s role in a war whose main audience is not on the battlefield, but in the homeland.

The target was not “the terror mastermind” but the American people. It was an exercise in political mobilization and perception management. It was the ultimate media operation

Politically— and yes, there was a political agenda here too: the bin Laden operation was part of a chain of calculated presidential promoting exercises including the announcement of his re-election campaign and massive fund-raising effort, his deals with the Repugs on the budget, the release of his birth certificate, his interview with Oprah, his shakeup of sorts of the Pentagon, his bringing the CEO of GE and William Daley into the White House, on and on.

The “new” Obama wants to be seen as a warrior, not a wuss, as long as he is not forced to go after Wall Street. Right now, his victory is viewed widely for what it is; vengeance. Or in the words of the street, “payback.”

Nailing Bin-Laden has to be seen in the context of his Spring offensive grounded in symbolic advances, to get his poll numbers up and his campaign rolling, to make him look invincible, and to “triangulate,” by moving to the center and pre-empting/co-opting the right.  He now has Bush and Cheney praising him.

Concludes Roberts, “Obama needed closure of the Afghan war and occupation in order to deal with the US budget deficit. Subsequent statements from Obama regime officials suggest that the agenda might be to give Americans a piece of war victory in order to boost their lagging enthusiasm. The military/security complex will become richer and more powerful, and Americans will be rewarded with vicarious pleasure in victory over enemies.”

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24662

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: