Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWar & Torture: Subterfuge and the Science of Repeating Lies
It is apparent that regardless of who is in power, conservative ideals are firmly entrenched not simply in the American psyche, but are an integral part of U.S. policies. One could blame liberals for not having a backbone when combating conservatives, but chances are that the real reason may be even more onerous; one likely explanation is governmental psychological warfare.
Why did Congress last week quietly approve almost another $100 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Why are displaced Mexican migrants scapegoated for all the ills of U.S. society? Why does the United States escape blame for its insatiable thirst for drugs [in fueling the drug wars in Mexico]? Why is the United States always supposed to side with Israel, without ever having a debate? Why does “war as peace” continue to be U.S. policy?
With President Obama, things were supposed to be different; the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were supposed to come to a screeching halt. Guantanamo would be immediately closed down and torture would unequivocally be denounced and those flouting U.S. and international laws would finally be held to account in a court of law.
Instead, we see vacillation or escalation on virtually every front. Just on economic grounds alone, one would think that shutting down both wars would be a no-brainer. So the question is logical; with Obama in the White House and Democrats in control of Congress, why do conservative ideals and policies – such as the right to permanent war – continue to be entrenched throughout the U.S. political landscape?
Most assuredly, the answer lies in the lies that this nation has swallowed as part of its national narrative. For example, several years ago, as I was finishing up my PhD studies, one of my professors was explaining how language and minds can be manipulated – simply by the words we employ and the order in which they are employed. Such a sophisticated process can pre-determine not only what we think and discuss, but when we do this. Who delivers the words and ideas can also influence how people will feel towards any given issue. One example is the use of Colin Powell [and his contrived account] to convince a skeptical world before the UN about the need to invade Iraq [Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld and Rice had zero credibility].
As the seminar professor was explaining this process, I raised my hand: “This sounds like psy-ops – like CIA work.”
At this, the professor laughed: “You must not be too familiar with our field. The great majority of all mass communications research is funded by the defense department.”
This confirmed what I had always suspected; this would explain how the Iraq War was sold – through an unquestioning media that simply acted liked stenographers – repeating complete fabrications, affirmed by “military experts” (in the employ of Defense contractors) that even grade school children could see through. Yet that would not have been enough to have convinced a skeptical public.
For such a special operation to work, fear, hate and ignorance had to be thrown into the mix, helping to advance the nonsensical argument that Iraq constituted a grave threat to the world. Yet, on the heels of the Cold War – in which the United States was pitted against a superpower that actually had a nuclear arsenal of thousands – Americans were supposed to be afraid of a country that, in effect, used slingshots as part of its air defense. While fear, hate and ignorance usually work in any society, all this was not enough to sell this war.
To sell the war – in fact, to sell the notion of a right to permanent worldwide war (The so-called War on Terror) – required bringing in three additional factors: God, hyper-nationalism and a “homeland.” If Bush could convince the public that God was siding with the United States against fanatical Arab/Muslim terrorists who were responsible for 9-11, then all that remained was to convince the public that it was their patriotic duty to support the president in this God-inspired civilizational war to protect the Fatherland against infidels. This civilizational Jihad or Crusade included warring against Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11 and that had not ever been a threat to the United States (see Rumsfeld’s “religious” memos to Bush in this week’s issue of GQ.)
This war – for the hearts and minds of Westerners – appears to have failed except amongst the FOX-TV-viewing public and its right-wing radio auxiliaries.
And yet, even with a change in administrations, conservative ideals and the conservative agenda continue to dominate the national agenda. Specifically, in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan – the wars continue and Dick Cheney and his ultra-conservative cohorts continue to dictate the nation’s political agenda. The reason: think psy-ops and think subterfuge. While we discuss the proprieties of torture and other enhanced interrogation techniques – we never get around to discussing illegal wars that have resulted in the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands and the displacement of millions. Within this context, we ignore the larger crimes against humanity by the Bush administration and instead debate whether torture works or not.
In a nation of laws – beyond a bad cliché, “going forward” – or not pursuing justice – has now become “conventional wisdom.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi advanced this nonsensical conservative idea when she refused to hold impeachment hearings. In a poetic sense of justice, her strategy of “not looking back” is coming back to bite her. Rather than the architects of the criminal war being investigated, she now is on the hot seat. It is possible that this same “going forward” agenda – which has also been accepted by President Obama – may come back to derail the president’s seemingly naïve agenda.
18 Comments so far
Show All_ A _ L _ L _,
The author Roberto Rodriguez, once again saddles up that sucker punch illusion that so often is perpetuated w/o critical attention.
He obliviously states:
"To sell … the notion of a right to permanent worldwide war … required bringing in three additional factors:
God,hyper-nationalism, and a “homeland.
If Bush could convince the public that God was siding with the United States against fanatical Arab/Muslim terrorists who were responsible for 9-11, …"
This assumed linchpin is w/o merit to so dramatically reshape everythng about our American lives -- and the World's too -- especially now in hindsight, that all of the supporting "facts" ( really just neoCONing lies ) have completely unraveled and there is absolutely no proof of it at all .
Can you recall reading of active nano thermite high explosives found in the WTC dusts, and if not Google, the peer reviewed scientific evidence for controlled demolition ?
The author continues ( with the house of cards, built upon that shakily saddled run away bronco ) :
"… then all that remained was to convince the public that it was their patriotic duty to support the president in this God-inspired civilizational war to protect the Fatherland against infidels. This civilizational Jihad or Crusade included warring against Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11 "
AS IF, Afghanistan had anything to do with it ?
The author continues:
"… and that had not ever been a threat to the United States (see Rumsfeld’s “religious” memos to Bush in this week’s issue of GQ.) "
The billions of Muslims of our world have never declared a religious Jihad against the West, and the CIA's Osama Bin Laden patsy is a total fabricated joke.
This century of war and Global War OF Terror, is a pretext to replace the previously illusionary cold war pretext.
Awaken to the attempt to create a new world order, and learn to reject its silly assumptions that are killing us …
Namaste
The article uses the expression "conservative ideals" several times. There is nothing "conservative" in the actions being discussed, and "ideals" have no part in any of it.
-30-
He's mostly right, but Obama never promised to end the Afghan war. He referred to it (oxymoronically, in my book) as "the good war." He promised to win it, whatever that means and however that would be done; he's escalated, but has yet to articulate a strategy. Most progressives embraced Obama because he was the closest thing we were likely to get, but he's no progressive. He's a centrist in American terms, which means a semi-moderate right winger by European standards. He's liberal on abortion issues, rhetorically moderate on gay issues, and very conservative on economic, labor, foreign relations and military issues.
Denial is a powerful defense mechanism, and there remain some liberals who are convinced that Obama is one of us, and who keep inventing epicycles to explain his far-right policy decisions. But like addicts who keep on using, the denial precludes changing for the better.
D r _ B R I A N,
Well said, and thank you.
Aristotle although a genius in many ways, was crippled by his binary logic of the excluded middle. Something is either "A" or "not A", and there is literally no-thing in between ( shades of gray ). It took several millenniums to only partially un-learn this profound discrepancy of everyday thinking.
Similarly, USA politics is crippled by a new formulation of quasi-binary logic, the false choice between Republicans and Democrats -- as if they really cared for the diversity of people's actual needs.
The reality is that D vs. R polices and positions are really quite similar, although they are framed to appear to be widely representative of the entirety of political spectrum of beliefs of Americans. The truth is that vast areas of political spectrum are essentially hidden from popular representation ( and media expression ), as these are the areas where collectively people would benefit most ( and corporations the least ).
So today we face the 'law of the excluded spectrum' ( of what is truly wanted ), through the manufactured consensus that says that what politicians do pay attention to is important to us -- and that is the crucial lie ( mis-representation ).
Yes, we're collectively in denial at this process of being so completely hoodwinked and bamboozled -- into accepting what the corporation's greedy and inhumane interests demand.
Namaste
Another term for the real power behind the throne is the military-industrial complex. No one, at least through the two major parties, can be in position to be president without being vetted by the system. I think it's positive that Obama supporters are bumping up against that hard truth. A dilemna, though, is that with a good cop/bad cop political system, there is a bit of truth to the notion that things will be less bad with the good cop in charge. Less regressive judges appointed, less overt racism, etc.
But also, as can be seen now, the no-go lines of the establishment become clear. Permanent war, a surveillance state, torture, no unions, no single-payer health care. These are bi-partisan efforts.
A good recent book - James Douglass "JFK and the Unspeakable" - attempts to show just how this state of affairs has come to pass. Much of the information he has accessed became available through de-classification policies instituted by the good cop Bill Clinton. The bad cops are deeply opposed to such policies. That was maybe the best thing that Clinton ever did.
Roberto Rodriguez is on point with his analysis which basically is the manufacturing of consent.
I think in the final analysis, the problem is the lack of courage in leadership to say where we went wrong. If our recently elected president used his power to call for a special announcement on national television and then proceeded to outline how we lost our way and how he was going to change the direction of our ship, he would give the american people the courage to accept a new narrative.
But neither our president nor anyone with the power to set the agenda have any courage to put their political life on the line, in order to advance a new vision of where this country should go. In this modern era we do not have any true statespeople. All we have are presiders who's interests are in protecting there careers.
Conservatism in the form that exists now does not have the vision to guide our precious earth. What is conservatism's aim. The destruction of whole people's and cultures to capture the few mad people who we helped create.
I am very disappointed in President Obama. He could have tapped a few progressive giants in the area of economics, diplomacy, health, civil rights, environment and anti-poverty.
We are losing a big chance in history to change course and steer ourselves toward continued life for all and away from destruction.
Obama always made it perfectly clear that he would prosecute war in Afghanistan instead of the war in Iraq, and from the start included Pakistan in his bellicose rhetoric. Liberals voted for this when they voted for him. The absence of rational debate concerning his actual policies, buried by the personality cult still being spun around him, ensured this state of affairs. Elections should never, ever, be personality contests.
*RE:"Subterfuge and the Science of Repeating Lies"
*SEE “Focus Grouping War with Iran” by Laura Rozen, 11/19/07
*EXCERPT: …Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, the founder and president of the Israel Project, contacted Mother Jones and said that her group had commissioned the focus group and that it was designed by Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm. The Israel Project is a nonprofit group that supports Israel and conducts extensive polling on American public attitudes toward Israel and the Middle East. Its board of advisers includes 15 Democratic and Republican members of the House and the Senate, plus actor Ron Silver.
Mizrahi says that her group and Freedom’s Watch share a common interest in “thwarting the threat of Islamic extremism” and in “dealing with the threat of Iran.” But Freedom’s Watch “in no way is directing our work, and it’s not funding our work.” She pointed out that the Israel Project is not “involved with Iraq,” a major concern of Freedom’s Watch. But the two outfits, she said, “shared information” produced by this focus group. …[snip]
…”Of all the focus groups I’ve ever been to,” Sonnenmark wrote in a subsequent email to a group of fellow volunteers for the 2006 Senate campaign of Jim Webb, “I’ve never seen a moderator who was so persistent in manipulating and leading the participants.” (Webb is lead author of a Senate letter warning President Bush not to attack Iran without congressional approval...) The gist of the event was “anti-Iranian,” says Sonnenmark…
….Sonnenmark left the session wondering if foreign policy hawks would soon be pushing publicly for military action against Iran using language that had been tested on her. But, she says, “It is not going to be so easy this time around.”
*ENTIRE ROSEN ARTICLE -
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/11/focus-grouping-war-iran
I concur with the poster who pointed to the fact that the then Sen. Obama did not promise to end the Afganistan war immediately. But those who believe that Obama has been told what the limitations of his presidency are, are the truely naive. We are just past the 100 days in office, and we want one man to undo what took George W. Bush and Co. eight years and a tragedy like 9/ll to do. Give the man a break! But, by all means keep stating what the peace-loving, tax-paying public elected him to do.
If Senator Obama did not know what they limitations of his presidency were, before he started running for the office, then he, and his supporters, are the truely naive ones.
The man wants a break? Earn it.
If you think America got this way simply because of eight years of BushCo and 911, you are the one who's naive. I suggest you do a little research on PNAC, AIPAC, and especially Shock Doctrine.
I suggest that you paint a picture of what you really want. It seems that the good old days were not so good, but if that is all the public remembers, then they will just settle for the good old days. This is, afterall, a learning moment.
Good article, trots out what I think most of us already know.
BUT let's be honest, does anyone really believe that what gets reported in both MSM and "real" media is really what's going on? Do you really believe organizations like AIPAC, Bilderbergers, Chicago School adherents, neocons, would do things out in the open? Do you really think anyone like a President, US or otherwise, represents a major impediment to their plans? I don't.
These are groups that think nothing of ruining entire countries for profit or for some underlying agenda.
So I imagine Kucinich himself could have gotten elected. Shortly after he would receive notice: "this is how's it's going to be, and here's the latitude we're giving you. Behave or else..."
So the question is logical; with Obama in the White House and Democrats in control of Congress, why do conservative ideals and policies – such as the right to permanent war – continue to be entrenched throughout the U.S. political landscape?
More and more, Obama reminds of Mr. Kurtz in "Heart of Darkness." The intelligent agent for civilization who turns out in the end to be nothing more than a nihilistic savage sitting on his porch, watching with amusement as the grass grows up through the skeleton's rib cage.
This article is fatally flawed, and is a good example of the severe disorientation of Obama supporters who believed his promises of change and hope. Did you not hear him say before he was elected that he would ESCALATE the war in Afghanistan? From where does such a line as this come: "With President Obama, things were supposed to be different; the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were supposed to come to a screeching halt..." Obama never said any such thing, and also never pledged to IMMEDIATELY shut down Guantanamo. This is a total misrepresentation of the historical record.
It gets even more incredeble when one connects some of these right wingers all the way back to the Vietnam fiasco.
Electing BO--always wondered why the repubs could only come up with McCain--it seemed a very unbalanced contest??
I believe that this was an engineered attempt to continue with killing and robbing people of another culture and land--by putting on a new face, and a new hope for the same old POOP! It was so sneaky--it just had to be the..........
The actions of our government can only be explained by the fact that we no longer have any vestiges of democracy in our nation. If only the people who believe the lies on Fox news approve the actions of our government, that means the great mass of the people in the United States do not support the actions of our elected officials.
My Representative is now referring to herself as Member of Congress', she is no longer our Representative in Congress. It is nice to hear an elected official speaking the truth, but the fact that she no longer feels any need to heed our advice on how she should vote is tragic. Our democracy is over.
This situation has come about by the two party strangle hold on our elections. We have to choose the lesser of two evils. We believe what the candidates say in the heat of the campaign. We trust that Obama will bring us change we can believe in. We thought he was going to end the wars and stop the torture. We thought we would get the insurance companies out of our health care system and spend our health care funds on health care.
I'm sorry I can't come up with some suggestion as to what we can do about this dreadful situation. My despair is too deep and profound at this time.
A suggestion: if democracy is dead in the U.S., then you don't "have to choose the lesser of two evils." If it is futile to vote for a D or an R, then the futility of voting Green is no longer an issue. Looked at in another way, if democracy will not be resuscitated by either of the "major" parties, then persons who want a resuscitation have virtually no choice but to vote third party.