Sunday, December 6, 2009

It's Official - Obama is a Warmonger

It's really no surprise - he made his intentions clear during the campaign. Many of his supporters focused on the "withdraw from Iraq" promises and tuned out the "get tough" rhetoric on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Thus, when Obama announced a major escalation of troop levels in Afghanistan, it caused some surprise and dismay among his supporters.

Sure, this isn't Bush's war. Despite Al-Qaeda’s acknowledged presence in Afghanistan, Bush chose to wage war against Saddam and the people of Iraq. However, war is war, and American bombs are inflicting hell on Afghan people just as surely they did under Bush in Iraq. After suffering so long with Bush fatigue, many of us thought we were voting for change.

So why the warmongering stance from the guy we expected to reverse Bush's policies? Why indeed. What geopolitical strategy or national security interest could possibly be served by chasing Taliban fighters through the mountains and valleys of this country? Obama has been hard-pressed to deliver a cogent answer. His fig leaf invokes "regional stability" and carrying on the so-called "war on terror". So what are the real reasons our soldiers are being sent- besides protecting the opium trade from undue disruption?

In search of clues, let's review a little recent history in that part of the world.

We must recall that the Taliban were considered US allies and intelligence assets during the Soviet Union's ill-fated intervention. Bin Laden was a CIA asset with handlers assigned to him.

During the Clinton administration, a major push was undertaken by a consortium of oil interests to negotiate approval for a gas pipeline across Afghanistan and surrounding territories. In one infamous photo-op, Bin Laden sat with a delegation of Taliban in the presence of Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney was involved in negotiations as chief of Haliburton.

The Taliban ultimately turned thumbs down the deal, which is the primary reason they became candidates for "regime change". Added to this was the fact that they eradicated the poppy trade and put a crimp in the flow of narcotics from the region - don't forget that the "war on drugs" is a phony ruse to maintain control of the drug trade by criminal elements within the PTB. All that was needed was the "new Pearl Harbor" that Cheney wrote hopefully about in 2000 to provide a pretext to take out the Taliban and replace them with trusted CIA asset Harmid Karzai. The pipeline still gets blown up regularly, but the poppy crop is doing rather well now.

OK, so Obama's not stupid, so he must be aware of the real policy objectives in Afghanistan. So why doesn't he just take a stand against that nonsense, as his liberal supporters hoped and expected? Bottom line: The sad fact is that American presidents are not granted much autonomy for decision making. Oh sure, they are allowed enough latitude around the margins of policy decisions to make it look like they are in charge. The press reported that Obama mulled and chewed on the Afghan escalation for weeks, but the only question at stake was how much escalation and for how long. General McChrystal defined terms of the debate by proposing an 80,000 troop increase, so the president could appear to take the "moderate" course of only increasing by 30,000. You can be sure that immediate withdrawal was not on his list of options.

To be sure, the Afghan war is becoming unpopular, and people are beginning to ask and wonder why they voted against warmongering and still got more warmongering anyway. Obama may eventually pay the political price for this, but he must understand that this is how the system works. JFK will forever serve as the example of what happens to presidents that have delusions of actually being in charge of anything beyond choosing drapes for the oval office.

It's vital that Americans wake out of their delusion that they choose our leaders and influence policy. The Right-Left, Liberal-Conservative polemic must be exposed as a fraud. Blowhards such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly may claim to defend our constitutional liberties, but never tackle issues of substance, such as the myriad unconstitutional actions taken under Bush. Instead, they acted as shills for the Republican National Committee and now attack anything Obama. Only true conservatives such as Ron Paul take principled stands of any kind, and of course he is marginalized as a result.

The Left is in sorry shape as well, and now their integrity is tested as Obama ramps up his warmongering, forgets about abolishing the Guantanamo Bay, and generally defends the sanctity of Bush’s dirty secrets. Will they meekly parrot the party line the way Republicans do?

One bright spot is talk show host Thom Hartman. It’s no coincidence that he co-authored a recent book on JFK assassination research. One you understand the fact that powerful forces exist within our governmental corptocracy that can take down a president at will, your view of the system will never be the same.

Let’s face it: The intervention in Afghanistan is just as illegal and based on lies as the Iraq campaign. There is no legitimate reason to send troops into harm’s way and have them return with missing limbs or worse. The so-called terrorist threat is trumped up and fabricated, and 911 was a false-flag operation perpetrated by the PTB to manipulate public opinion. The use of depleted uranium ordinance is contaminating vast areas of Afghanistan and Iraq and sentencing millions (including our troops) to premature deaths from cancer. The mainstream media (MSM) will not report on the DU issue for obvious reasons.

Hopefully, the truth is beginning to emerge.


No comments:

Post a Comment