Obama's Af-Pak is as Whack as Bush's Iraq

Submitted by Glen Ford on

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
President Obama has reached a watershed in his presidency: he has devolved to the intellectual level of George Bush, while retaining his world class powers of speech. History may remember Obama as just another vapid but predatory imperialist president who happens to be…superficially eloquent. Unfortunately, the clarity of Obama’s diction is not matched by coherence of policy. Af-Pak is at least as whack as Bush’s Iraq.
Obama's Af-Pak is as Whack as Bush's Iraq
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
“More occupation means less occupation.”
Barack Obama’s oratorical skills have turned on him, revealing, as George Bush’s low-grade delivery never could, the perfect incoherence of the current American imperial project in South Asia. Bush’s verbal eccentricities served to muddy his entire message, leaving the observer wondering what was more ridiculous, the speechmaker or the speech. There is no such confusion when Obama is on the mic. His flawless delivery of superbly structured sentences provides no distractions, requiring the brain to examine the content – the policy in question – on its actual merits. The conclusion comes quickly: the U.S. imperial enterprise in Afghanistan and Pakistan is doomed, as well as evil.
The president’s speech to West Point cadets was a stream of non sequiturs so devoid of logic as to cast doubt on the sanity of the authors. “[T]hese additional American and international troops,” said the president, “will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.”
Obama claims that, the faster an additional 30,000 Americans pour into Afghanistan, the quicker will come the time when they will leave. More occupation means less occupation, you see? This breakneck intensification of the U.S. occupation is necessary, Obama explains, because “We have no interest in occupying your country.”
“The U.S. imperial enterprise in Afghanistan and Pakistan is doomed, as well as evil.”
If the Americans were truly interested in occupying Afghanistan, the logic goes, they would slow down and stretch out the process over many years, rather than mount an 18-month surge of Taliban-hunting. The Afghans are advised to hold still – the pulsating surge will be over before they know it.
At present, of course, the Americans have assumed all “responsibility” for Afghanistan – so much so that President Hamid Karzai only learned about Obama’s plans earlier on Tuesday during a one-hour tele-briefing. This is consistent with Obama’s detailed plans for Afghan liberation, under U.S. tutelage. The president is as wedded to high stakes testing of occupied peoples as he is for American public school children. “This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over,” said the Occupier-in-Chief. He continued:
“And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan Ministries, Governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable.”
Such rigorous oversight of their country’s affairs should keep Afghan minds off the fact that they have been fighting to remain independent of foreign rule for centuries, if not millennia. If Obama is right, Afghans might also be distracted from dwelling on the question of who their “Ministries, Governors, and local leaders” are answerable to – the Afghan people or the Americans?
“Obama advises Afghans to be patient and trusting regarding their sovereignty.”
Although President Obama is anxious to bring U.S. troop levels above 100,000 as quickly as possible, he advises Afghans to be patient and trusting regarding their sovereignty. “It will be clear to the Afghan government, and, more importantly, to the Afghan people, that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country." That is, it will become clear in the fullness of time, but hopefully no later than 18 months after the planned surge begins. If all goes well, the Taliban will be dead or nearly so, and the non-Taliban Afghans will be prepared to begin assuming “responsibility for their own country.” If not, then the Americans will be forced to continue as occupiers – reluctantly, of course, since, as the whole world and the more intelligent class of Afghans know, the Americans “have no interest in occupying your country” – unless they have to.
Should the Afghans become confused about American intentions, they might consult with their Pakistani neighbors, for whom President Obama also has plans.
“[We] have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear,” the president declared. “America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan's democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting.”
Obama did not mention that it was the Americans that coerced and bribed the Pakistani military into launching the attacks that displaced over a million people in the Swat region and hundreds of thousands more in border areas. How nice of them to join in humanitarian assistance to the homeless.
The Pakistanis, like the Afghans, were assured the Americans will not abandon them to their own, independent devices. Said Obama: “And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.”
Some Pakistanis might consider that a threat. According to polling by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, only 16 percent of Pakistanis held a favorable view of the United States in 2009. Actually, that’s a point or two higher than U.S. popularity in Occupied Palestine (15 percent) and Turkey (14 percent), the only other Muslim countries on the Pew list.
Not to worry. Obama knows things that escape the rest of us. For example, the fact that “we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World - one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.”
Which means, we can expect those polling numbers to start going up, soon.
“Only 16 percent of Pakistanis held a favorable view of the United States in 2009.”
When Obama isn’t launching bold initiatives and “new beginnings,” he’s busy taking care of U.S. imperial business as usual. Obama is most proud that the U.S. spends more on its military than all the rest of the nations of the planet, combined.
“[T]he United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades,” he told the cadets, “a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.” Others might not view the rise of U.S. hegemony in such a positive light. But they are wrong, said the president. “For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation's resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.”
In Obama’s worldview, it’s the thought that counts. Americans don’t seek world domination; it just comes to them. “We do not seek to occupy other nations,” they leave us no choice. If it were not for American concern for the welfare of all the world’s people, the U.S. would not maintain 780 military bases in other people's countries.
Obama has certainly matured as an American-style statesman in his nine and a half months in office. As a TV Native American might say, “Black man in white house speak like forked tongued white man.” Only better.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com. 

26 Comments

Get mad at how "Liberals" in

Submitted by fionasmith on

Get mad at how "Liberals" in general and African Americans in particular could believe that Booker T would act differently, when BAR and other bloggers, writers, journalists dissected his words during his candidacy and revealed them for the Blue Dog Pablum they are. He promised this Af-Pak nonsense from day one. html validator

forked tongue

Submitted by eshusblues on

Yes, a regular master of herpetological rhetoric.  On the flip side, not even a rattlesnake sheds its skin as many times a year as the president does. 

"Only better." Pretty much sums it up

Submitted by Enlightened Cynic on

Before the illusion and Madison Ave. creation called Obama came into our sphere, African Americans universally, predominantly believed, in the tradition and worldview of Malcom, MLK and countless others, that America was indeed, "the largest purveyor of violence on the planet."  That the primary mission of the US president was to promote, protect and secure White Supremacy.  And that the plight and struggle of African Americas at home was part and parcel of the plight of US Colonialism abroad.
 
How shocking how quickly we've taken leave of our senses.  How petty our sense of history and moral obligation that we will willfully ignorantly, compromise, equivocate, justify and otherwise rational Obama's escalation as anything but part and parcel of the Imperial Venture-- a continuation of the Monroe Doctrine, Wilsonian Democracy, Gun Boat Diplomacy, and American Exceptionalism which is the strongest religion in the USA?  How reprensible are major Black media outlets, Black pundits, politicans, et. al. for White Washing 400 years of American history in exchange for 4 years of a Uncle Tom, weak-kneed, half-Black President whose commonality and support of them is limited to R & B on the iPod and basketball.
 
If GWB did this, the murmerings would reach thunderous proportions.  But because "our guy," "our team," our "tribe" is running the show, morality, ethics, critical thinking, objective analysis, historicism disappear in the twinkling of Obama's speech.  
 
For me, this always goes back to Rev. Wright, what he said, and wrote, the 400 years of historical analysis he summarized, which Obama and the toadies and stooges who saw his Presidency as the culmination of ...."what?"  collectively, with volition, discarded with veangeful, deliberate, spiteful, callow ignorance.
 
Go back and read what Rev. Wright said and compare Booker T's responses.  Booker T, and his no safe-haven for A.Q. meme sounds like a smoother, more articulate version of GWB, but with the same rank shallowness of thought and acuity.   You have the to be the dumbest M. F.r on the planet not to understand that your are destabilizing Pakistan as you so-called stabilize Afghanistan.   Chris Floyd does a remarkable analysis, read the whole thing, here's an excerpt:
 
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1834-...
 
"... As for terrorism, Wright simply referred the questioners to his previous "controversial" sermon on the matter. And here's what he said in that sermon:

I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday.  Did anybody else see him or hear him?  He was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end.   He pointed out, (Did you see him, John?) -- a white man -- he pointed out -- an ambassador -- that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad was in fact true; America's chickens are coming home to roost.

We took this country, by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arawak, the Comanche, the Arapajo, the Navajo.  Terrorism -- we took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear.  Terrorism.  We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians -- babies, non-military personnel.  We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with Stealth Bombers and killed unarmed teenagers, and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard working fathers.  [fullest voice]  We bombed Khaddafi, his home and killed his child.  Blessed be they who bash your children's head against the rocks.

We bombed Iraq, we killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living.  We bombed the plant in Sudan to pay back for the attack on our embassy -- killed hundreds of hard-working people -- mothers and fathers, who left home to go that day, not knowing they'd never get back home.  [Even fuller voice] We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye.  Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school -- civilians, not soldiers.  People just trying to make it day by day.  We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant?  Because the stuff we have done overseas is brought back into our own front yards.

America's chickens are coming home to roost.  Violence begets violence.  Hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism.

A White ambassador said that, y'all, not a black militant. Not a Reverend who preaches about racism; an ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and who's trying to get us to wake up, and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. "

So there you have it. This is what Obama calls "equating the United States' wartime efforts with terrorism."
 
America will always get the politican she deserves.   African Americans better wake up to the fact that that includes them too.   "We don't occupy other countries."  If any Black person or "Liberal" believes that, then they deserve to rot in their ignorance and stupidity.  They deserve to face austerity as both parties forecast cuts in social spending to pay for wars.   They deserve their place in hell for their callow participation in the banality of evil.

Raimondo exposes Obama's rank stupidity & ahistoricism

Submitted by Enlightened Cynic on

AND BLATANT HISTORICAL REVISIONISM.  Who the f***k does this guy think we are?  He offends me with his smug, bullshit, dimwitted, "confidence."  What a tool.
 
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/12/01/obamas-war-speech-an-uncon...
 
Raimondo:  Speaking of fraud, that’s really the basis of Obama’s rationale for the continued occupation of Afghanistan, because, you see, even he admits that al-Qaeda isn’t much of a presence: "Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border." So we’re in Afghanistan in order to fight an enemy that’s in Pakistan? Good luck making that case – which Obama failed to make.
 
In failing to make that case, he also tripped over more than a few contradictions. On the one hand, he averred that "Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown" – but, on the other hand, he tells us: "In short: the status quo is not sustainable." But if the status quo is not sustainable, then something very close to defeat is indeed imminent – so which is it?
 
"Which is it?" is a question that kept popping up – in my mind, at least – the more I listened to this consummate politician make the biggest mistake of his career. Ambiguity and doubt hovered over the podium and inflected his every word, especially these words:
 
"As Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan."
 
Don’t think of it as escalation – because it’s really the first act of withdrawal. The Yanks are coming – and they’re leaving, too. What kind of doubletalk is this."
 
Raimondo is also prescient in fearing, like many others, that this war will spread throughout the region and that the time-table for withdrawal is just a P.R. ploy, spoken by an increasingly punch-drunk P. R. spokesman.
 
Raimondo:
"We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border."
 
In spite of all the folderol about how the US and Pakistan are fast friends and allies, and how we are committed to helping them, subsidizing them, and protecting them, there is no "mutual trust" as Obama would have it, but only mutual contempt and distrust – as Hillary Clinton made clear during her recent trip to Pakistan, where she all but directly accused her hosts of hiding Osama bin Laden. If Obama is seeking "a strategy that works on both sides of the border," then one day he is going to have to cross that border. And I don’t think he’ll hesitate for one moment to widen this war. That’s what this speech, and all this fanfare at the launching of yet another military campaign, are all about: preparing us for a much wider regional war, one that envelopes Pakistan and most of the other Central Asian ’stans. Because as we drive them into Pakistan, and then out of there and into, say, Tajikistan – well, let’s just say there are lots of possible "safe havens" in that part of the world. Out by July, 2011? Don’t bet the ranch on it: by that time we’ll already be in the "tribal areas" of Pakistan, and encroaching on Uzbekistan."
 

A+

Submitted by Dosamuno on

This is an excellent analysis.

Obama is a historical revisionist, that's his job

Submitted by Enlightened Cynic on

Obama falls into a long,  unending line of Empire Spokespersons whose job is to rewrite history under the intoxicating spell of "American Exceptionalism."
 
Thanks for the analysis.  I intend to share it.  It shows what a rank, putrid, historical revisionist (or spokesperson for the Empire) Obama is.  It's pathetic that he would offend critical thinkers' intelligence. 
 
But again, don't get mad at BO, that's ALWAYS been the job of the US President.  Get mad at how "Liberals" in general and African Americans in particular could believe that Booker T would act differently, when BAR and other bloggers, writers, journalists dissected his words during his candidacy and revealed them for the Blue Dog Pablum they are.  He promised this Af-Pak nonsense from day one.  Astonishing. 
 
It has to be one of the greatest feats of psychological brainwashing in the history of the universe--how African Americans are along for the ride.  A great topic for a grad paper:  "How Obama and the Media Whitewashed 400 years of history and captured the Black Vote."
 
It's also clearer than ever than Obama will "outBush" GWB as a militarist.
 
So much for McCain being scarier.
 
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/12/02/obama-quietly-expands-pakistan-war/pr...
Obama Quietly Expands Pakistan War
Posted By Jason Ditz On December 2, 2009 @ 7:21 pm In Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Though he was less specific about his plans in Pakistan than when he unveiled his March escalation, President Obama is poised to use the escalation of the Afghan War as an excuse to further escalate the Pakistan War as well.
 
Amid the vagaries of his speech, Obama made it clear that the Af-Pak philosophy of viewing the conflict in Afghanistan as inextricably linked to the conflict in Pakistan is alive and well, and behind the scenes he is said to have already authorized an expansion of America’s strikes in Pakistan.
 
Convincing the Pakistani government to go along with the conflict in the face of growing popular distrust is easier said than done, but the strategy of forever pressing Pakistan to “do more” seems to already be going into high gear.
 
Since taking office President Obama has dramatically increased the number and severity of the drone strikes against northern Pakistan. He is, however, being pressed to expand the strikes into Balochistan.

 
 
 

The earth burns wherever we go...

Submitted by celestee on

It was very painful/distressing to listen to those words come out of Obama's mouth.
Wherever the USA military goes, the earth burns. Then we blame the “host” country for being too incompetent and corrupt to straighten out the mess our military adventurers made.

...And "we" go everywhere.

Submitted by Dosamuno on

In 1935, the editors of Fortune magazine took it upon themselves to tell their readers what the U.S. has been all about. "It is generally supposed that the American military ideal is peace," they wrote. "But for this high-school classic, the U.S. Army, since 1776, has filched more square miles of the earth by sheer military conquest than any army in the world, except only that of Great Britain. And as between Great Britain and the U.S. it has been a close race, Britain having conquered something over 3,500,000 square miles (9 million square km) since that date, and the U.S. (if one includes wresting the Louisiana Purchase from the Indians) something over 3,100,000."
 

　

McDonalds

Submitted by ellenr on

I know you need $ to survive, but really  -- advertising from McDonald's?!
how many Black people have died due to McDonalds?
McDonald's is a serial killer (of Black people especially).
think about it

what about WINNING!

Submitted by kknepper on

Yes, Barack's a desperate prez right now, but is he desperate to actually WIN THE WAR?? He doesn't mention that now does he...?? Kim

So much for the fear of a McCain Presidency

Submitted by Enlightened Cynic on

Arthur Silver brilliantly breaks it down, read the whole piece:
 
 
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/deadly-liar-and-manipulator...

December 01, 2009


A Deadly Liar and Manipulator
 
To all those who repeatedly claimed that, no matter what "mistakes" he might make and regardless of the scope of the devastating effects of those errors, Obama had to represent a markedly better choice than McCain, take note: in certain respects, Obama is far more dangerous than McCain could have been. For the same reasons, Obama is also more dangerous than Bush was. I remind you that I have written numerous essays damning Bush for almost every single one of his policies. It is hardly the case that I viewed Bush in anything approaching a positive light, however remotely.

In large part, the danger represented by Obama arises from the fact that Obama's election gutted whatever effective opposition might have existed. To their eternal shame, the Democrats never opposed Bush in any way that mattered -- but at least the possibility of opposition had not been obliterated entirely. In the near term and probably for longer, that possibility now appears to have been extinguished. I've been writing about this aspect of Obama and what he embodies for some time; see, as one example, "The Fatal Illusion of Opposition." As I noted in a later article:
 
 

I confess that I am very fearful for the future of this country, even more fearful than I have been in the Bush years. And that, I also confess, is a development I would never have predicted. But there had been the possibility of opposition over the past seven years, although it finally became clear that all such opposition was a deadly illusion, and that the nominal opposition was in certain respects even guiltier than the Bush criminals.

An Obama victory will kill much of the possibility for meaningful political opposition for good -- that is, opposition that might significantly alter the existing system without destroying it (if that is at all possible, which I am almost entirely convinced it is not). But the resentments, the anger and possibly even the hatred will remain, and they may grow. What happens then?

It hardly bears thinking about.

Even given my views over a substantial period of time, I have to admit that I was taken aback by one aspect of Obama's speech this evening on Afghanistan. I wasn't mistaken about the policies he would announce, or the obviously false arguments he would employ to justify those policies. About all that, I was correct in every detail; see the immediately preceding article for the details. Nor was I surprised by the number and comprehensiveness of the lies Obama told. On the occasion of Obama's widely-heralded speech about race in America, I wrote:
 
 

Almost every politician lies, and most politicians lie repeatedly. Yet in one sense, Obama's speech is exceptional, rare and unique -- but not for any of the reasons offered by Obama's uncritical, mindless adulators. It is exceptional for this reason: it is rare that a candidate will announce in such stark, comprehensive terms that he will lie about every fact of moment, about every aspect of our history that affects the crises of today and that has led to them, about everything that might challenge the mythological view of America. But that is what Obama achieved with this speech. It may be a remarkable achievement -- a remarkable and detestable one, and one that promises endless destruction in the future, both here and abroad."

 

I don't agree with the

Submitted by martinhardy on

I don't agree with the strategies of obama.People have choosen him as a president of world super power and there were lot of expectation with him that he will change the policies of bush and will introduce something new.But all go in vain.I was looking for some stuff related to the canadian web hosting and go through this post.Besides this he even didn't change his thinking on the issues of pakistan,afghanistan and iraq.He is just doing bad with all muslim countries.

Obama's Af-Pak

Submitted by thelifeseeker on

What else can you expect from a ZIONIST's puppy?

"What's the big deal?" a la Chris Floyd

Submitted by Enlightened Cynic on

 
http://www.chris-floyd.com/

Savvy to a Fault: Coming to Terms With Imperial Power


Written by Chris Floyd   

Thursday, 03 December 2009 17:17

"How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it." -- Henry David Thoreau

To me, this quote from Thoreau expresses the only rational, moral and humane stance that a citizen can take toward the vast and brutal machinery of the American imperial state in our time. The crimes of this state are monstrous, and mounting. But what is worse is that these crimes are not aberrations; they are the very essence of the system -- they are its goal, its product, its lifeblood.

And what is this crimeful essence? Matt Taibbi described it well in a recent article:

Our Western society quite openly embraces war as a means of solving problems, and for quite some time now has fashioned its entire social and economic structure around the preparation for war.

I believe this is an indisputable fact. Decades of historical evidence give it proof. The last three decades especially have seen the relentless acceleration of this systemic evolution. The quality of life for ordinary Americans, those outside the golden circle of the elite and their retainers, has decayed immeasurably – and measurably. Stagnant wages. Degraded infrastructure. A poisoned food chain. Whole communities -- with all their social, political, cultural and family networks -- gutted by the heedless flight of capital to cheap labor (and slave labor) markets abroad, and by the dissolution of an embodied economic life into the shadow-play of high finance, the ghostly manipulation of numbers that produces nothing of value except gargantuan profits for a very few. A bonfire of public amenities, making daily life harder, harsher, constricted, diminished. Ever-growing social and economic disparity, shrinking the circle of opportunity. Two million citizens behind bars, in prisons overflowing with non-violent drug cases – nightmarish institutions given over to gangs, neglect, punitive regimens and private profit.

Yet this long, grinding process of diminishment and degradation has been accompanied by a never-ending expansion of the war machine into a dominant position over almost every aspect of American life. Not even the ending of the Cold War slowed this excrescence; defense budgets grew, new enemies were found, there were new missions, new commands, new wars. The ruling elite of American society were – and are – obviously willing to let the welfare, prosperity, opportunities and liberties of the common people sink deeper and deeper into the mire, in order to finance a system structured around war, with all the attendant corruption, brutalization and accrual of authoritarian power that war brings.

This is the system we have. It’s right out in the open. There is a deep-rooted expectation – and not, alas, just among the elite -- that the world should jump to America’s tune, by force if necessary. And when, for whatever reason, some part of the world does not jump – or bump and grind – to the Potomac beat, then it becomes a “problem” that must be “solved,” by one means or another, with, of course, “all options on the table,” all the time. And whether these “problems” are approached with blunt, bullying talk or a degree of cajolery and pious rhetoric, the chosen stance is always backed up with the ever-present threat of military action, up to and including the last of those “options” that always decorate the table: utter annihilation.

This is not even questioned, must less debated or challenged. America’s right to intervene in the affairs other nations by violent force (along with a constant series of illegal covert activities) – and to impose an empire of military plantations across the length and breadth of the entire planet – is the basic assumption, the underlying principle, the fervently held faith shared by both national parties, and the entire elite Establishment. And if you want to have the necessary instruments to maintain such a state of hegemony, then you must indeed structure your society and economy around war.
 
In the light of these considerations, it is astonishing to see what has been the main reaction of many leading progressive writers to Barack Obama's murderous escalation of the imperial war in Afghanistan and the dirty war in Pakistan. While voicing their "disappointment" with the decision, they have reserved most of their scorn not for the man who has ordered this new tranche of mass death and inhuman suffering, but for those who have accused Obama of "betrayal."

No, that's not a joke. The new progressive line on the escalation seems to be this: "We knew all along he was going to do it, so what's the big deal?"
 
Read the whole thing...
 

"Liberals" are as whack as Bush's Iraq

Submitted by Enlightened Cynic on

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/liberals_are_useless_20091206/
Quote from Hedges: "The gravest danger we face as a nation is not from the far right, although it may well inherit power, but from a bankrupt liberal class that has lost the will to fight and the moral courage to stand up for what it espouses."
 
Intro:
Liberals are a useless lot. They talk about peace and do nothing to challenge our permanent war economy. They claim to support the working class, and vote for candidates that glibly defend the North American Free Trade Agreement. They insist they believe in welfare, the right to organize, universal health care and a host of other socially progressive causes, and will not risk stepping out of the mainstream to fight for them. The only talent they seem to possess is the ability to write abject, cloying letters to Barack Obama—as if he reads them—asking the president to come back to his “true” self. This sterile moral posturing, which is not only useless but humiliating, has made America’s liberal class an object of public derision.
 
I am not disappointed in Obama. I don’t feel betrayed. I don’t wonder when he is going to be Obama. I did not vote for the man. I vote socialist, which in my case meant Ralph Nader, but could have meant Cynthia McKinney. How can an organization with the oxymoronic title Progressives for Obama even exist? Liberal groups like these make political satire obsolete. Obama was and is a brand. He is a product of the Chicago political machine. He has been skillfully packaged as the new face of the corporate state. I don’t dislike Obama—I would much rather listen to him than his smug and venal predecessor—though I expected nothing but a continuation of the corporate rape of the country. And that is what he has delivered."
 
Check out the article... Pana Semita, I'm sure you can relate.
 

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Submitted by Cynical Negro on

I just read something from the RAND Corporation (A thinkTank that Zbigniew Brzezinski used to Chair) that suggested that it might be beneficial if we stay in Afghanistan for at least another 40 years!

http://www.rand.org/commentary/2009/12/01/RAND.html

I was also watching some footage of Glen Ford spank Michael Eric Dyson lol... That guy is such a joker. A "nuanced" understanding is not needed to decode many of Obama's moves when it concerns black people. In many cases "it is what is."

I also bumped in to this stuff while surfing the net:

Steve Cokely exposes the Boule Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey7gDJfRICA

Steve Cokely exposes the Boule Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw8EcJDazEE

Steve Cokely exposes the Boule Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELuxHKoC0Bk

Is this stuff true? Are there black secret societies?

This only disturbed me because upon further research I learned that W.E.B. DuBois was once quoted as saying that groups like the Boulé were created to “keep the black professional class away from the ranks of Marcus Garvey.”

DuBois, along with Alain Locke - the first black (Cecil) Rhodes scholar - publicly defiled Garvey by calling him a “gorilla, dark, and dumb ass” any chance they got. Locke was quoted as saying, “We hope the white man deliver’s cause we crushed a great black thing, but we know he’ll deliver or our people will attack and plague us forever more.”

Now if all of this stuff is true, then these "brothers" interest were totally in line with J. EDGAR HOOVER's interest in discediting and destroying Garvey.

I also found out that The Boule recently delivered their public policy plan for young black men to the White House.

Does anybody have some useful links ?

National Black Chamber of Commerce

Submitted by Cynical Negro on

It’s Time to End the Wars

The words of the late singer Edwin Starr never said it more direct, “War, what is it good for?  Absolutely nothing!”  The beautiful diva Freda Payne also chimed into this anti-Vietnam War movement with her song “Bring the Boys Home”.  Songs, poems, public protests and 500 body bags a week coming home made this ugly conflict intolerable.  Today, Vietnam is a prime business partner of the United States with its “favorite nation’ status.  Somehow the ugly communist nation has become one of our best friends.  I guess this shows how ridiculous that war was.

The fact was we couldn’t win in Vietnam.  One thing I learned during my tenure at the Infantry Officers Candidate School in Ft. Benning, GA is that you don’t risk your men in a war you cannot possibly win.  So why did we enter into Vietnam?  One of our Tacks (tactical officers) clearly told us one day, “War is now a business and right now business is damn good.”  It was chilling to realize that this Vietnam War which all of us were drafted into was not about national security or democracy.  It was about sales for the Military Industrial Complex.

 That is a group of businesses that make money from its products, technology and services needed during armed conflict.  Many of those profiting directly or indirectly were members of Congress and even a President here and there were benefiting from the deaths of our troops and the needless involvement in serious armed conflict.  It is just amazing how elected officials can make millions from their portfolios as a result of the policy that they make. It is disgusting how the net worth of Senators, Congresspersons and others in the Executive Branch skyrockets from this violent pro-war policy making.  Why do we let it happen?

The term Military Industrial Complex was coined by our great general and president, Dwight D. Eisenhower.  He lamented that we should no longer be caught by surprise as in World War II when we had to turn our industries into war machines and play “catch up” during World War II for the first couple of years.  He said we should have enough industry to keep our war capability strong but that we should not get so far out there that we become so prepared for a war we may help create one.  His farewell speech, January, 1961, was so prophetic.

There was no way we could win in Vietnam.  All of North Vietnam loved its leaders, especially Ho Chi Minh, and more than half of South Vietnam considered him their hero and sought his leadership.  What was left in South Vietnam was a very corrupt regime that we spent an ungodly amount of troops on.  We came into Vietnam after they ran out the Japanese and then the imperialist French.  Sound familiar?  Before you knew it we were making weaponry by the billions, importing drugs into the United States and “spending” about 500 troops per week.  It was absolutely tragic.

Thus, here we are repeating it in Afghanistan.  We followed the Soviet Union who was terribly defeated.  We are fighting the Taliban who we previously armed and trained.  There wasn’t an opium poppy growing in Afghanistan before we got there.  Now they are shipping it out by the billions of dollars.  This is déjà vu.  We can keep throwing troops at Afghanistan but sooner or later we are going to figure out that the Taliban aren’t leaving and we are spending good people for a cause that won’t materialize.  It’s time to get out and let the Military Industrial Complex find another game to play

Oh yes, then there is Iraq.  This war was certainly started for no-bid contracts and big bucks.  There is just no other way to look at it.  The mission here, like Afghanistan, cannot be articulated or measured.  They are wars with no military or diplomatic justification.  Haven’t we lost enough (if not too much) already.  It’s time to tell the beneficiaries of the Military Industrial Complex to rest on their revenues and cease the greed.  The troops are coming home to be with their families and be treated like the unsung heroes they have been.  They have laid it all out for their country even though their country has abused them for the price of “business”. 

We have lost a lot of our own good people and have killed a terrible amount of strangers.  History is not going to be flattering about this.  As General Eisenhower stated, we must control this Military Industrial Complex.  It is important for America to be strong and capable of defending itself.  But when you go making war for business’ sake, you are headed for bad news.  Bring the troops home!!  We messed up and should now realize it.

Mr. Alford is the co-founder, President/CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Inc. 

http://www.nationalbcc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=...