Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Why Doesn't Obama Want Us to See What's in the Photos?
Obama's shift, announced Wednesday, drew swift condemnation from the American Civil Liberties Union, whose 2004 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the Bush administration's Department of Defense led a federal court in New York to order the photos released. A federal appeals court upheld the decision in September, and refused to rehear the case on March 11.
A handout photo from SBS TV received in 2006 allegedly shows a hooded and bound prisoner being attacked by a dog in Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail. (AFP/HO/File) The Obama administration had agreed earlier to release at least 44 photos by May 28. The administration now has until June 9 either to reargue the case before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York or petition the U.S. Supreme Court.
Obama made a brief statement on his decision late Wednesday afternoon. He said he'd concluded that the photos wouldn't add useful knowledge about detainee abuse but would "further inflame anti-American opinion and . . . put our troops in greater danger."
He emphasized that the Pentagon has investigated the incidents and applied sanctions where appropriate. He also stressed that he's made it clear that abuse of detainees is prohibited and "will not be tolerated."
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that "as commander in chief" Obama was obliged to ask his legal team to make a new argument for withholding the pictures for the sake of national security.
"The argument that the president has asked his legal team to make is not an argument that the previous legal team made in that case," Gibbs said.
The shift comes amid a fierce debate over U.S. detainee policy.
Obama has called for closing the detainee prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and is under pressure to endorse a full-blown public accounting of Bush-era interrogation techniques widely denounced as torture.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney, meanwhile, has been leading a defense of the Bush administration's practices and accusing Obama of undermining the nation's security by shutting Guantanamo and releasing Bush-era legal memos on interrogation techniques.
The issue comes at a crucial juncture for U.S. policy toward the Muslim world, with the Obama administration pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq in order to boost U.S. forces who are fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, confronting the growing al Qaida-backed Islamic insurgency in nuclear-armed Pakistan, struggling to revive moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations and working to forge an international front against Iran's nuclear program.
The request for what's effectively a legal do-over is an unlikely step for a president who is trained as a constitutional lawyer, advocated greater government transparency and ran for election as a critic of his predecessor’s secretive approach toward the handling of terrorism detainees.
Eric Glitzenstein, a lawyer with expertise in Freedom of Information Act requests, said he thought that Obama faced an uphill legal battle. "They should not be able to go back time and again and concoct new rationales" for withholding what have been deemed public records, he said.
The timing of the president's decision suggests that a key factor behind his switch of position could have been a desire to prevent the release of the photos before a speech that he's to give June 4 in Egypt aimed at convincing the world's Muslims that the United States isn't at war with them. The pictures' release shortly before the speech could have negated its goal and proved highly embarrassing. Even if courts ultimately reject Obama's new position, the time needed for their consideration could delay the photos' release until long after the speech.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero accused the Obama administration of adopting "the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration." He said that "when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up."
Military Families United, an advocacy organization, released a statement praising Obama's decision: "The president today chose to put the safety of our troops before the demands of an activist agenda. These photographs serve no purpose other than to embolden the enemy with propaganda to use in their recruitment of future jihadists, hinder our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan and risk the lives of our troops."
Several lawmakers, mostly Republicans, who've objected to more public airing of details of harsh detainee interrogations, applauded the president. They said that no good would come from releasing the photos and worried that they'd further inflame anti-U.S. anger among Muslims.
Democrats in Congress were curiously silent. Neither House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California nor Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont, two of the most outspoken advocates of further investigation into allegations of detainee abuses, issued initial reactions.
The administration's shift also renewed speculation about the nature and severity of the abuse and cultural insensitivity revealed in the photos.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a military lawyer and reservist who's served in Iraq and Afghanistan and supports Obama's new stance, said he'd seen some unreleased photos and that they involved nudity, but he declined to elaborate.
A U.S. official who's knowledgeable about the photographs told McClatchy that at least two of them depicted nudity; one involved a man suggestively holding a broomstick; one showed a detainee with bruises but offered no context for the condition; and another involved hooded detainees with weapons pointed at their heads.
"It’s inappropriate, not so much abusive," the official said in describing the picture of the hooded detainees. He spoke on the condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to the news media.
In his statement, Obama, too, said the photos were "not particularly sensational."
U.S. officials said the photographs were included as evidence in cases brought against American service personnel that had been closed.
Jameel Jaffer, the director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said the release of the photos was important because they'd "provide further evidence that abuse (of detainees) was systematic" and extended beyond Abu Ghraib. Photos of U.S. troops abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib caused an outcry in 2006.
Gibbs denied that Obama was acting under pressure to change his position from military officials. However, lawmakers knew of concerns from Defense Secretary Robert Gates; Gen. Ray Odierno, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq; outgoing Afghanistan commander Gen. David McKiernan; and Gen. David Petraeus, the chief of U.S. Central Command.
"The timing could not be worse in terms of stirring things up," said a senior U.S. military official, who also asked not to be identified because he wasn't authorized to speak to the media. "You're in a very exposed position when you're building up, and even more so when you're withdrawing forces, and the last thing you want to do is poke the hornet's nest, which is what this (releasing the pictures) would do."
The senior military official said he hadn't seen the pictures. However, he added, "even if they're just more of the same,” like the already released Abu Ghraib photos, "that's not what we need."
The controversy could come into play in confirmation hearings for Lt. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, whom Obama tapped to replace McKiernan in Afghanistan. McChrystal led the Joint Special Operations Command in 2003 and 2004, when military interrogators were using extreme methods on suspected al Qaida detainees.
(William Douglas, David Lightman, James Rosen, Marisa Taylor and Steven Thomma contributed to this report.)
- Posted in
46 Comments so far
Show All-- Democrats in Congress were curiously silent. --
That's why we voted so many into office last election. For the silence.
It's so peaceful that way. Besides, there's nothing wrong with US now that the Dems are in control...Shhhhh-hhh There there...everything is better now.
Whips and chains! Whips and chains! So much fun, but shhhh, we can't let the common herd know, they're not sophisticated enough to appreciate it.
Gag!
George Bush's and now Obama's POLICIES are what is putting troops and even our country in great danger both in terms of it's image and the level of disgust and hatred for us but also economically with the continued theft of treasury monies.
Obama should have no right to block release of the pictures. This is most certainly an unforgivable act. He should reverse the policies and turn our enemies into our brothers. But his actions have proved that he doesn't care one bit about things such as human rights. Those pictures should expose the horror of Bush and serve as a demarcation line between the old and new ways.
Just as Bush should have made vast improvements in the power of the USA following the fall of the Soviet Union but he chose to go a dark idiotic path, Obama should show how wonderful the best of the USA is and how utterly wrong Bush was. But yet daily he repeats the mantra supporting the fake war on terror (oh just don't SAY "war on terror") and torture (yes it goes on unabated he has the bush neocon trolls in charge-- and he doesn't give a SH*T that these people are suffering) and subversion of our democracy by hiding information, pictures, you name it and telling us lies just the same way Bush did.
He tells us just how wonderfully successful the mass murder torture and ethnic cleansing (referred to as "The Surge")in Iraq against those horrible rebels who dare to fight for their own country against the psychopaths who have hijacked the USA. I mean how dare they.
And Obama has even recently said we should be giving the Mexican government(put into place by Bush they actually lost the election) military weapons and tools we used against the rebels in Iraq "so extremely successfully". Breaking down doors, murdering and torturing people, hanging them by their feet, starving entire towns to death. What a glorious success. And Obama doesn't even care about the people of Iraq Afghanistan or Pakistan to have people of his own choosing running the situation. Bush had Republicon political hacks running Iraq not the Generals. He controlled every aspect of it for evil purposes.
Obama tells us after the election that he wholly agrees with the people running Bush war efforts? The entire nation is rightfully against the war in Iraq AND Afghanistan and Obama who promised he would change the rules of engagement and make every effort at diplomacy and engagement with the rebels has done nothing but murder people with remote control aircraft and uphold his rights to secrecy and protect the Bush emails. In short, he lied to us on all the critical issues.
The Great Deceiver 2?
Obama is finally coming into sharp focus and I still remain hopeful. Perhaps the truth is something I can't handle. I'm giving him through the Summer before I end any support.
The differnce between bush and Obama seems to be that Obama is the better lier. We are not hearing much about the poor bastards that where killed by our freedom fighters last weekend and ever day since he came into office riding the wave of promises of ending the war.
It all makes me want to just stop watching. You ever wonder how many enemies that could be converted into friends with the obscene amount of money the military uses,abuses. Does no one remember Eisenhower's warning about the military industial complex. Seems that the 300 million amerikans are involved in a huge ponzy scheme that is about to unravel. Sorry to ramble!!
Stop blaming Obama. It was the Bush Administration who committed atrosities. And THEY will never pay, photos or not -- the public will keep letting Cheney and Rice yammer away; all of them will live in comfort and wealth writing memoirs.
-Stop blaming Obama. It was the Bush Administration who committed atrosities. And THEY will never pay
Gasp! the audacity of your hope, it cuts me to the quick!
Last I heard we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan using tax money to kill kids and seems that Obama is in the office of President of the USA.. He ran for office saying he was going to stop this slaughter. Just when do you think this becomes Obama's war? Look up at the clock, It is Obama's war!!!!
Shall I make a "Leave Obama Alone" video for you?
They are one Big Happy Family that can't investigate the BIG picture, so let's waste our time arguing over little details.
No News/Old News strategy!
From the article:
"...Obama, too, said the photos were not particularly sensational."
Yet we're to believe that "...they'd further inflame anti-U.S. anger among Muslims," so they're being withheld to insure "the safety of our troops."
(insert the befuddled mug of Jon Stewart here for full effect)
If these people spin any faster, they'll disappear up their own arses with a loud pop.
Deepa
"He (Obama) emphasized that the Pentagon has investigated the incidents and applied sanctions where appropriate. He also stressed that he's made it clear that abuse of detainees is prohibited and "will not be tolerated.""
-The ground reality is that Pentagon was also involved in authorizing torture. How can "torturer" become an INVESTIGATOR of its own policies or what it legalized???
-Obama "made it clear that abuse of detainees is prohibited and WILL NOT BE TOLERATED".
Can any sane person believe Obama's crap-talk? What is he doing now in the light of revelations of prisoners' abuse in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq, Afghanistan...by the American soldiers and CIA personnel with the authorisation by the White House, Pentagon, (In)Justice department...? He is protecting the AMERICAN TORTURERS IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND PROTECTING AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND IMAGE. Doesn't the same become a pretext even in the future for continuing same torture policies and protecting American torturers?
In this context Howard Zinn's words are very relevant: "And in this "Young People’s History" that we are launching tonight at the 92nd Street Y, we have a lot of these sort of dramatic words by people who have been dissidents and resisters in history...we don’t present the history of victimization; we present the history of people fighting back...we want to give Americans a history which shows them that it’s possible to fight back, that you don’t have to depend on the President and Congress and the Supreme Court. In fact, you had better not depend on them, because they’re not going to solve the fundamental problems that we have in our society. We can only do it ourselves, when we organize, when we act, when we protest. And so, we’re trying to, yes, energize people by learning a history that is provocative and that is inspirational."
Most likely these photos would gag a maggot -- showing the most horrific things that those psychopaths could imagine in their worst nightmares -- and the American people must be 'protected' from seeing them (since those who were tortured have long known what happened). Imagine the worst you can think of, then descend fromt there -- things which make the photos already seen seem like child's play at a Sunday picnic. 'Child's play' indeed -- Hersh has already reported about the screams of the little boys while being raped.There are written reports of some these things -- the worst of them generally go unreported because the victims try to block them from their minds, or are still locked up, or dead. That's what they don't want Americans to know about.
Please stop with the "democrat" and "republican" rhetoric, it is one party of, by, and for the corporation. The fact is, if a population can be kept ignorant, it can be more easily controlled. If the public sees the atrocities, the public may demand action, which would not be good for business profit. President Obama has always known that it is about profit; not morality, not justice, not truth. Turn on your favorite TV show, have a drink, and forget about what has occured and continues to occur in the middle east.
'the public may demand action'............may, being the operative word.
if they haven't demanded action by the photos they've already seen, then i doubt anything else will get them off their backsides, switch off their tv's, pour their drinks down the sink and demand anything other than a pay rise.......
ignorance is bliss.................
Mc Chrystal was in charge of the coverup of the Death of football star Tillman by his own troops at close range.
If telling the truth will harm our troops that is the central argument for not using torture. It appears Obama is simply another puppet standing up for criminals.
"Not particularly sensational"? In other words "You wouldn't want to see them anyway, trust me".
Trust a government that keeps secrets? I don't think so.
We've got it all now, disappearings, secrets kept for no other reason than the fact that they might be embarrassing, torture,imprisonment without trial----a secret police state.
When comments like this disappear it will be official.
-When comments like this disappear it will be official.
Hey, I wrote the same thing, Nietzsche, and now my post is gone! what gives!?
For the Democratic voters in the audience, I feel obliged to explain that the above is meant to be funny.
Sorry, it's not.
It's way too late to worry about other countries losing respect for the US. Our lack of morality, respect for the rule of law, transparency, decency, compassion have become synonymous US foreign policy.
This sounds like George Bush. You gotta do better than this Mr. President.
if you show these photos there will be no choice but to put bush/cheney/ rumsfeld on trial. and to hang them. that's why obambi doesnt "want to go there."
Deepa
To the above list add: Pelosi, Congress, Military, CIA.... That means, the entire political, military, Intelligence establishment will be behind bars.
-the entire political, military, Intelligence establishment will be behind bars.
perhaps some timeshare arrangement could be worked out. politicians in jail mondays, the military tuesdays, it is doable...remember...Yes we can!
I think there might be room for them all if we turn loose the pot smokers.
POT FOR PEACE
That is likely why there is no overriding push for a complete investigation of what exactly happened.
I, for one believe low world opinion of the US is spot on, and we have strayed far from our so called founding ideals. I fear the photos, whenever released, may pose a sad example of just how far.
It wouldn't take a very wide cast net in the country's capitol, I fear, to come up with a boatload of electeds and their helpers complicit in war crimes.
Juan Cole has a funny piece today (though it's meant to be serious) in which he contorts Obama's refusal to release the photos into a well-intentioned effort to withdraw from Iraq.
Cole is imaging why Obama is blocking the release of the photos:
Obama: You're saying you might not be able to get out of the cities by July 1 of this year, or might not be able to get combat troops out by September 1 of next, if these photos are released?
Odierno: It is a real possibility.
Obama: I want our combat troops out of Iraq on the current timetable.
Odierno: I'm not sure it is realistic, sir. It sure as hell isn't if those pictures rile the Iraqis up. '
COLE: If that is the way the conversation went, and this is pure speculation, it would make some sense of Obama's reversal. That is, he really doesn't want to do anything to send Iraq back into insurgency and tie down US troops there."
You see, Obama is always a decent and moral guy (even when he is protecting torturers) At least Cole admits this might be just wishful thinking.
COLE: "If this consideration did drive the reversal of position, I think it is unfortunate."
Yeah, Prof. Cole it sure is "unfortunate", another word would be "criminal".
This treasonous and vile act of presidential hubris, accompanied by the suspicious death of an early and noted victim of our torture, gives me pause.
The lackeys calling in to talk shows discussing this issue all sound alike and very organized, as if it was a political campaign and the volunteer workers were helping. Sound familiar?
On page A19 of today's NYT, the right wing conservative think tank, Accuracy in Media, paid for and published a full page ad puporting to be sponsored by 'Torture Truth Project', a project of AIM.
T O R T U R E
Throughout The Entire World
The Word 'Torture' Means Intense,
Lasting, Brutal Physical Agony
Why Is The U.S. News Media Eagerly
Spreading An Incalculably Harmful Lie
That Can Only Motivate Terrorists To
Further Attacks On America?
A Grassroots Plea To
The U.S. News Media
Stop Misleading The World
That Our Country Condones Torture
*You now know as a result of the recent release of what you
choose to call "The Torture Memos" that these are the 14
interrogation techniques permitted by the United States:
*Sleep deprivation...Dietary manipulation... Abdominal
slaps.. Facial slaps... Attention grasps...Facial holds...
Forced nudity..Water dousing..Stress positions not designed
to produce pain.. Cramped confinement in a dark space...
Confinement with insects such as a caterpillar... Pushing
against a wall..Wall standing...Pouring water on a person's
face to induce the feeling of drowning(waterboarding)
*As you know, waterboarding has not been used for 5 years and
was used on only 3 detainees. Our own troops are subject to
waterboarding as part of their training.
*By your continual use of the word 'Torture' to describe these
interrogation techniques you have been misleading the world
that the United States condones techniques of barbarous
cruelty. The consequences could be horrendous.
IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH
We are losing the goodwill of people across the world and you
are aiding al Qaida in recruiting terrorists for future
attacks on America.
Torture Truth Project
A project of Accuracy in Media, Inc.
4455 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20008/(202)364-4401
So you guys wanna see the pictures. Just Google "new Torture Pictures leaked". They were leaked this am to Sidney Morning Herald. Disgusting, sick and criminal. From Bush to the low level soldiers. Time for investigations and Justice.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/here-are-few-of-torture-photos-obama.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11923.htm
I have seen 7 of the unreleashed photos on the MSNBC site yesterday, from sources in Austrialia (a govenment news agency). They are more horrible that the ones already released.
The unreleased ones are really horrible; one is a "prisoner in Abu Ghraib jail was left to die by U.S. soldiers in Baghdad in 2004, according to the Australian government-funded Speacial Broadcasting Servive."
Another shows a "prisoner covered (painted, I would say) in feces in Abu Ghraib jail after supposedly being tortured by U.S. soldiers in Baghdad in 2004" (feces rubbed into his face, nose,eyes, ears, mouth and hanging from is face and hair).
Another looks like the guy was beaten with a stick that had a nail attached to it,the holes on his naked buttocks are large and bleeding.
Another "shows a psychologically disturbed prisoner...with padding around his right arm in Baghdad in 2004." I find this one very distrubing, the fear expressed by his posture is distrubing.
The guy lying on the ground left to die as blood is flowing from his head looks extremely hopeless!
We must remember these human beings have not been found guilty of anything!
Rememeber that these are still not ALL of the torture pictures that were taken.
If these are indeed worse then what we have already seen as one has suggested, then there are others WORSE then that.
According to Mr Hersh these include the sodomizing of little boys.
But as long as they are supressed you can hold your head High right Mr Obama?
"New boss just like the old boss."
Peter Townshend of the Who.
"Republicans, .... said that no good would come from releasing the photos."
Republicans think:
Investigating Crimes Against Humanity
US and International Law
The Constitution
Habeas corpus
Geneva Conventions
A Free Press
"NO GOOD"
Looks like Barack has learned that the Pentagon runs the country, just like the Military runs Pakistan.
They probably threatened Sasha and Malia with a "car accident" if he didn't play ball. Too young for the standard 'heart attacks' or 'suicide'.
I remember when Carter first got elected, he kept warning people that the President of the United States cannot change that much in this country, that he was not the most powerful man in the USA by a long shot... he hinted that the Military, Oil companies, large corporations have a stranglehold on this Nation that no 8 year President could ever untangle...
If you take on the Powers That Be directly, you get crushed. You have to do it incrementally, changing the Evening News little by little, the donor base for future elections, the bureaucrats in place to get ready for future incremental improvements, strengthen good organizations, weaken bad ones. In the epic struggle of Good vs. Evil, even if Obama was 100% "good", he could only do so much in each four year term. If he can turn the Ship of State 3 degrees to the left each term, that's a good start...
The main thing is to avoid backsliding - you can't let people like Limbaugh/Cheney/Romney argue that see, Democrats can't change squat, so vote for Us, you'll get a slight tax cut, plus there is DANGER ! We will kill people to make you safe.
The worst attitude to take is that Obama is no different than McCain would have been. McCain would be pushing the Ship of State 3 degrees to the right each term, and if he had another heart attack, Palin would be driving it into the rocks...
Obama Doesn't Want Us to See What's in the Photos
- because that would embarrass his military and civilian death squad leaders.
Ultimately, I'd say, the reason for banning the release of these photos is ... RE-ELECTION. Obama doesn't want anything to jeopardize his re-election in 2012.
The solution? Junk the four-years-plus-option-of-four-more-years and go over to the Confederate term limit -- the president and vice-president serve one term of six years' duration. No more, no less. One term. Six years.
The shame on all of us is that this "news" story is five years old.
The US Senate viewed these photos on May 14, 2004, and Justin Raimondo writes eloquently of that session, "Abu Ghraib and the Pornography of Power."
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2574
Senators who viewed these photos described them as pornography, yet they and we continue to fund this madness.
OK you armchair politicians out there in la-la-land. Unless you're privy to the information our presidents are, there's plenty of historic information available to help you learn to read between the lines and think outside the box enough to halfway figure out who's running this show. You can at least try to do that, can't you? It should be obvious to any one of you who have, that the policy changes we're seeing in Obama, and have seen in other presidents, at least since Eisenhower, are the result of his new found reality that American leaders no longer run the country. They are instead, pitchmen, controlled by the fascist banking overlords who script the song and dance that keeps the people distracted and convinced that they still live in a democracy. And if Obama even bats an eye or attempts to reveal any of this to the public, he knows all too well he'll be honored with a parade in Dealey Plaza.
Do any of you still honestly buy into that lame Bush pretzel incident? How about the 9/11 Commission Report?
George W. Bush was the greatest puppet of them all and isn't guilty of any crimes he's being accused of. Instead, it has been their most fervently dedicated inside man, Dick Cheney, whom we're told mysteriously nominated himself as Bush's vice, that did all they asked with no reluctance whatsoever and who has actually been closely involved with them at the highest levels for most of his life.
It's time the American people realize this fascist cabal of miscreants wields absolute control over every aspect of our government, our lives and the major events that dictate our thoughts and emotions. The historic effectiveness of control by religion is running thin and can no longer be counted on as the only means to which they can hold onto power. Fear, through the murder and mayhem of the expendable, is fast becoming their tool of choice to wrest control of this over populated world.
We no longer live in a democracy, of the people, by the people, for the people, only the carefully crafted illusion of one.
To begin, have a read here: http://jordy.gundy.org/federal-reserve-financial-overlords/
Conspiracy theories you say? Yeah, OK. Just forget I said anything and put your head back up your simple, pawn, ass.
You must be new here...
:) Joe
I wonder if he's read any articles, or comments yet ;)
The thought that Obama is trying to prevent an embarrassment at upcoming speech to Muslims in an interesting one but I don't think it's well supported.
As long as he continues Bush's policies of invading and occupying Muslim countries, he has no credibility in the Muslim community. His determination to expand military actions in Afganistan is the problem not these pictures. The summary justice of US drones in Pakistan is the problem not a reminder of the horrors of Bush's prisons.
I think it likely that he is afraid that it will cause domestic unrest. Americans were promised an end to criminal militancy of the last administration. They didn't support Bush's wars and they don't support his.
The ugly face of war that never should have happened is going to send his approval ratings into Bush territory if he doesn't pull US troops out. He is deluding himself into thinking he can win some sort of victory and doesn't want to be forced to quit. It's a folly that will destroy his presidency. Maybe that's the idea.
When I voted for Obama last November, it was with the greatest possible skepticism; I had long ago come to the bitter realization that government and governance in the United States serve only one purpose -- the propagation of capitalism -- which means not only the absolute protection of the ruling class but the total disempowerment and subjugation of all the rest of us. Having repeatedly witnessed these outcomes over half a century and at every level of government -- I am a former print journalist and an involuntarily retired writer and photographer -- I presumed without much thought that Obama would follow in the oppressive footsteps of every post-Franklin-Delano-Roosevelt Democratic president save John Fitzgerald Kennedy, methodically (and as diligently as any Republican) undermining or betraying the values of the New Deal.
Precisely because Obama is indeed doing as I supposed he would do -- and also because there has been such unprecedented Orwellian revision of U.S. history in recent years -- it is probably necessary to review the treacherous nature of the footsteps Obama follows.
No sooner was Roosevelt dead (12 April 1945) than his successor Harry S. Truman began preparing the vicious purge of leftists -- not just Communists but socialists of every sort and nearly all intellectuals -- that the U.S. government started literally hours after World War II ended. That the purge peaked a decade later in the depredations of the notorious Sen. Joseph McCarthy, Republican of Wisconsin, conveniently enabled the Democrats to disassociate themselves from it.
Next on the list of Democratic betrayer-presidents came Lyndon Baines Johnson, who posed as the peace candidate (1964) even as he and his henchmen were plotting the entirely bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident to escalate Vietnam into a full-scale war.
Then there was Jimmy Carter, the bible-thump Southern Baptist Theocrat who pretended to be a liberal-minded Democrat (1976) but once elected revealed his true colors by beginning the methodical destruction of the socioeconomic safety net and banning -- forever, as it has turned out -- federal funding for abortion.
Finally there was Bill Clinton (1992), whose “welfare reform” climaxed the destruction inflicted by Carter, Reagan and Bush II. With his Big-Business media-allies agitating maximum hatefulness against welfare recipients -- with compliant journalists concealing the fact the real “welfare queens” were not the poor but the welfare bureaucrats who from 1970 through 1990 had hiked administrative costs by 5,390 percent (not a typo) even as they slashed the dollar value of stipends and services by 66 percent -- Clinton parlayed the deftly manufactured malice and contempt into the industrial world’s most unapologetically vicious socioeconomic-service system: ultimately an unforgiving apparatus for euthanasia by neglect and abandonment. Specifically intended to rid capitalism of its “unprofitable” peoples, it is thus truly a U.S. adaptation of the Nazis’ Final Solution.
As to why I exclude the Kennedys from this roll-call of betrayer-presidents, I offer the evidence contained in a superb work of investigative reporting and historical research by James W. Douglass. His book, the best ever written on the Kennedy presidency, is entitled "JFK and the Unspeakable"; despite at least 16 weighty academic and political endorsements, word of its existence has been methodically suppressed by the Big Business Media, though fortunately it is readily available through online book sellers. In essence, Douglass argues that Kennedy was slain not for any one of the usually proffered motives but because he dared defy the ruling-class mandate that government is to serve only ruling-class interests: that is, the interests of capitalism, of infinite greed elevated to maximum virtue, and the corollary fact that in a world of dwindling resources, capitalism achieves maximum profit only through maximum subjugation of its working class -- ultimately the enslavement of every one of us who is not part of the increasingly hereditary plutocracy.
Which brings us back to Obama. As I said during and after the election, I voted for him not because I had become one of his mindlessly chanting cultoid disciples of “hope” and “change we can believe in” but because I recognize the extent to which the nation has been economically shipwrecked and that, as one of the shipwreck victims, my only option was to clutch at whatever flotsam might keep me alive. Hence I metaphorically swam toward Obama only to discover -- as so many of us have during the past weeks -- that what I believed to be potentially life-saving debris was in fact the dorsal fin of a shark.
Which brings me back to my opening point: that the sole purpose of government and governance in this nation is the propagation of capitalism. Which in turn means, just as I said before, the absolute protection of the ruling class by any and every possible means: whether by the Big Lie of bipartisanship in a de facto one-party state; the Big Lies of false election rhetoric; the (accelerated) looting of the nation implicit in bailouts; the no-doubt pre-arranged obstruction of Employee Free Choice and healthcare reform; or -- more recently -- the defiant restoration of the tyrannies of Bush II. Hence Obama: “change (the ruling class) can believe in” -- that is, a change in the Big Lie used to seduce the electorate into submission -- in other words, change we might as well forget about. Unless of course these circumstances become a teachable moment in which we can no longer deny the truth of class struggle and thus -- at long last (and before we are stripped of even the illusion of liberty) -- respond to our circumstances accordingly.
>>Which brings me back to my opening point: that the sole purpose of government and governance in this nation is the propagation of capitalism.
YEP.
CORRECTION: The reference in my sixth paragraph to pre-Clinton presidents should read "...destruction inflicted by Carter, Reagan and Bush I..." My apology for the typing error and any confusion it might have caused.