Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
Popular content
Today's Top News
Seven Years of War in Iraq: Still Based on Bush and Cheney’s Torture, Lies
Friday marked the seventh anniversary of the illegal invasion of Iraq, but by now, it seems, the American people have become used to living in a state of perpetual war, even though that war was based on torture and lies. Protestors rallied across the country on Saturday, but the anti-war impetus of the Bush years has not been regained, as I discovered to my sorrow during a brief US tour in November, when I showed the new documentary film, "Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo" (directed by Polly Nash and myself) in New York, Washington D.C., and the Bay Area.
Some activists were still burnt out from campaigning for Barack Obama, others thought the new President had waved a magic wand and miraculously cured all America's ills, while others, to the right of common sense and decency, were beginning to mobilize in opposition to a President who, to be frank, should have been more of a disappointment to those who thought that "hope" and "change" might mean something than to those who supported the Bush administration's view of the world. Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan, endorsed indefinite detention without charge or trial for prisoners at Guantánamo, and shielded Bush administration officials and lawyers from calls for their prosecution for turning America into a nation with secret prisons, an extraordinary rendition program, and a detention policy for terror suspects based on the use of torture.
Nevertheless, the Republicans' assault on decency, common sense and the law, in relation to terrorism, escalated in the wake of the failed Christmas Day plane bombing, with a high-level revolt against trying those accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks in federal courts, and a renewed onslaught on President Obama's already tattered plans to close Guantánamo. On the anniversary of the war, headlines were dominated not by anti-war protests, but by the disgusting behavior of the Tea Party activists, whose bitter, negative campaigning against Obama, which has always demonstrated a thinly-veiled racism, plumbed new depths when protestors hurled racist and homophobic abuse at members of Congress.
African-American Congressman Emanaul Cleaver (D-MO) was spat on by a Tea Party protester, Congressman John Lewis (D-GA), a protégé of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was called a "nigger," and gay Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) was called a "faggot." Congressman James E. Clyburn (D-SC), who helped lead sit-ins in South Carolina in the 1960s during the civil rights movement, told NBC News:
It was absolutely shocking to me. Last Monday, I stayed home to meet on the campus of Pomford University, where 50 years ago, as of last Monday, March 15th, I led the first demonstrations in South Carolina, the sit-ins. Quite frankly I heard some things today that I haven't heard since that day. I heard people saying things today I've not heard since March 15th, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus. This is incredible, shocking to me.
It is enough of a sign of madness that the Tea Party brigade, who oppose healthcare reform, have been sold a lie by the very corporations who mercilessly exploit them, essentially by stirring up fears of "communism" and "socialism" that Europeans and sensible Americans find bewildering and illogical, but it is no less dispiriting that their pointless hatred overshadowed countrywide calls for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan may originally have had some sort of acceptable rationale, but it was a lost cause almost as soon as it began, when America failed to win the crucial struggle for hearts and minds, killing thousands of Afghan civilians in bombing raids, imprisoning others in vile conditions in prisons at Kandahar and Bagram (where some died), and sending others to Guantánamo.
Another major reason for the failure in Afghanistan was the administration's intention - instigated as early as November 2001 - to move on to Iraq, and while the Chilcot Inquiry in Britain revisited the roots of the Iraq war in recent months, demonstrating, without a shadow of a doubt, that it was an illegal war decided as early as April 2002, when Prime Minister Tony Blair committed the UK to full participation, an often overlooked side-effect of this decision involved, in the most cynical manner, the exploitation of prisoners seized in the "War on Terror" to provide cover for the planned invasion.
As I explained in an article last April, entitled, "Even In Cheney's Bleak World, The Al-Qaeda-Iraq Torture Story Is A New Low":
In case anyone has forgotten, when Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the head of the Khaldan military training camp in Afghanistan, was captured at the end of 2001 and sent to Egypt to be tortured, he made a false confession that Saddam Hussein had offered to train two al-Qaeda operatives in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Al-Libi later recanted his confession, but not until Secretary of State Colin Powell - to his eternal shame - had used the story in February 2003 in an attempt to persuade the UN to support the invasion of Iraq.
That attempt, of course, was successful, but it is no less shocking now than it was then that those who manipulated Powell - Vice President Dick Cheney and his close circle of advisors - used the CIA's post-9/11 torture program not to protect American from terrorists, but to launch an illegal war. As I also explained last April, with reference to an interview conducted by Jane Mayer of the New Yorker with Dan Coleman of the FBI, an old-school interrogator opposed to the use of torture, who was pulled off al-Libi's case when senior officials decided to send him to Egypt:
As Mayer explained, Coleman was "disgusted" when he heard about the false confession, telling her, "It was ridiculous for interrogators to think Libi would have known anything about Iraq. I could have told them that. He ran a training camp. He wouldn't have had anything to do with Iraq. Administration officials were always pushing us to come up with links, but there weren't any. The reason they got bad information is that they beat it out of him. You never get good information from someone that way."
As I also explained:
This, I believe, provides an absolutely critical explanation of why the Bush administration's torture regime was not only morally repugnant, but also counter-productive, and it's particularly worth noting Coleman's comment that "Administration officials were always pushing us to come up with links, but there weren't any." However, I realize that the failure of torture to produce genuine evidence - as opposed to intelligence that, though false, was at least "actionable" - was exactly what was required by those, like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, "Scooter" Libby and other Iraq obsessives, who wished to betray America doubly, firstly by endorsing the use of torture in defiance of almost universal disapproval from government agencies and military lawyers, and secondly by using it not to prevent terrorist attacks, but to justify an illegal war.
This was a point that Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's Chief of Staff, confirmed to me in an interview last year. Speaking about the Bush administration's focus on interrogating prisoners seized in the "War on Terror," Col. Wilkerson told me:
[T]hey wanted to put together a pattern, a map, a body of evidence, if you will, from all these people, that they thought was going to tell them more and more about al-Qaeda, and increasingly more and more about the connection between al-Qaeda and Baghdad.
I even think that probably, in the summer of 2002, well before Powell gave his presentation at the UN in February 2003, their priority had shifted, as their expectation of another attack went down, and that happened, I think, rather rapidly. I've just stumbled on this. I thought before that it had persisted all the way through 2002, but I'm convinced now, from talking to hundreds of people, literally, that that's not the case, that their fear of another attack subsided rather rapidly after their attention turned to Iraq, and after Tommy Franks, in late November [2001] as I recall, was directed to begin planning for Iraq and to take his focus off Afghanistan.
I commend the actions of the anti-war protestors in Washington D.C. on Saturday who, as the Associated Press explained, "stopped at the offices of military contractor Halliburton - where they tore apart an effigy of former Vice President and Halliburton Chief Executive Dick Cheney," but as this anniversary passes and Dick Cheney remains free to continue espousing his vile, self-serving rhetoric, the sad truth is that, seven years on, Cheney's crimes cannot be viewed in isolation, but must stand as an indictment of everyone, from the President down, via lawmakers, the media and the American people, who are prepared to accept this darkest of truths: that in 2002, the Vice President of the United States used an illegal torture program not to protect Americans from future terrorist attacks, but to launch an illegal war that, to date, has led to the loss of 4,386 American lives and the lives of at least 100,000 Iraqis, and possibly as many as a million.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


37 Comments so far
Show AllSo it's Monday and that means that we talk about stopping one of the 'wars' that vex us.
- The war in Afghanistan -
Now, is he talking about the war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban? Yes? The war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban that we fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan and other places, as well?
I ask, because Kucinich's idiotic resolution called for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, leaving unmentioned the war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban that is fought in Pakistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Is the war we fight in Pakistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban a different war than the war we fight in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban?
And this war or these wars is or are a different war than the war we fight in Iraq against al-Qaeda? (which has also been fought in Syria).
Oh, right, they are all different wars against al-Qaeda, because somehow people think that stopping 2 or 3 or 195 separate wars against terrorists will be easier than stopping 1 war.
Yemen is part of which war against al-Qaeda, Afghanistan or Iraq? Oh, wait, that's the war we protest on Thursday afternoons, right after Somalia.
I continue to suggest that ideas like ending the 'war in Afghanistan' will continue to fail. Progressives frame their issues in a manner guaranteed to fail for 8 years, for 100 years.
Afghan patriots and freedom fighters don't like al-Qaida, and they don't like us. They're as happy shooting american state mercenary terrorists as shooting al-quida's wannabe terrorists. They've been defending that land for 6000 years, and they'd be happy to turn our stupid, ignorant, vicious or poverty stricken mercenary soldiers into fertilizer.
- the American people have become used to living in a state of perpetual war -
Shouldn't he use the word 'wars'? The author's framing of this issue is so illogical that he can't help but contradict himself.
He talks about separate conflicts yet turns around and calls it all 'perpetual war', in the singular.
That's what I'm talking about. Perpetual war, the DAFT war, not 195 separate conflicts in separate countries (and space, to be prepared).
Roll all our troubles into the ONE and only perpetual war, the DAFT war against future terrorism.
Stop it by repealing a small nefarious law hiding in our books like bad code in a computer system (America has a bad code in its legal system).
Show America how DAFT this Public Law 107-40 is. If you want to exit our perpetual war.
"- the American people have become used to living in a state of perpetual war -
Shouldn't he use the word 'wars'?"
No, Andy is living in England and has presumably been influenced in the native use of the English language.
- Seven Years of War in Iraq -
And as for Iraq, evidently we must review again:
The war began in 2003 and ended in 2003.
Is this some sort of attempt at a mulligan? Does the author suggest that we continue to fight a war that ended 7 years ago, as if we're trying for a 'better' score? What, does he want us to dig up Saddam and hang him again?
America's war goals were achieved when Saddam's regime was toppled. In fact, our war goals were achieved before the invasion took place. The invasion was illegal and unnecessary.
I continue to suggest that stopping multiple wars, especially ones that don't exist anymore, is a failing strategy.
The Iraq war is over, it's an occupation now*
* except for all the troops that the generals want to keep there for 'counter-terrorism' against 'al-Qaeda in Iraq', which I insist is part of the DAFT war, not the continuing-even-after-victory Iraq war against Saddam's government, and certainly not part of the war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Or is this all the war in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban that is also fought in Pakistan against al-Qaeda and the Taliban and in Iraq against al-Qaeda, and in Yemen and other places as well?
It's all DAFT.
No, these wars were based on Bush/Cheney lies, but now they are based on Obama/Biden lies. Different political parties, but both owing allegiance to money from the Military Industrial Complex.
I agree with you Jimmy, that it was Bush/Cheney’s war and now it is Obama/Biden’s WAR!!!! They are the ones at the helm of this great ship the United States. They are the ones who could if they really wanted truth and justice would do the right thing and charge them with war crimes. They are the ones who are failing to teach the American people a very important Civic’s lesson.
Let us not forget the Congress in this role either. They are the ones (Democratic Controlled) who funded and continue to fund this WAR!!!!! They talk about how they are against the war, but they lack the backbone to ACT in the best interests of the American people.
Both Parties have a role in the Iraq War. Both Parties must be made to give an accounting for their actions or lack of actions.
Chrisy
Exactly, I guess many folks did not notice that Obama's "West Point Speech" repeated the Cheney/Bush lies verbatim. In a way Obama is worse as he not only effectively pardoned Cheney and the Gang, but he is continuing the lies and even going further than Cheney and the Gang.
If I did not know better, I would think Cheney is still running the show.
Revised Headline:
Seven Years of War in Iraq: Still Based on U.S. Leadership Torture, Lies
It's not personal. Just business as usual.
PLEASE stop re-writing history. The war began in 1991 and the US has been bombing there ever since. This is very important information because it disables the arguement that the war is a response to 9/11. In fact, it is just the opposite. 9/11 was Blowback to the bombing.
The bombing continued under the Clinton administration a fact conveniently forgotten by most dems.
"9/11 was blowback to the bombing [of Iraq begun in 1991]. The bombing continued under the Clinton administration, a fact conveniently forgotten by most dems."
Sorry, rosemarie. Neither Saddam Hussein, the Baath party, the government nor the people of Iraq were involved in plotting, supporting, or actually carrying out the 9/11 attack. 9/11 was blowback all right - blowback against years of US/Zionist policies in the Middle East, and/or blowback against clandestine CIA black ops in the Muslim world generally. But blowback against the Persian Gulf war? Blowback against the US/UK "no fly" zones over Iraq? Osama bin Laden and Zwahiri in some dark, decade long international alliance with Saddam's military or intelligence services? Nope.
In fact, it's ironic that you draw the Iraq/911 "blowback" linkage, because such a cause-and-effect connection was exactly what Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfowitz, and the other GWOT ideologues so desperately tried to establish in the immediate aftermath of the WTC attack, hoping to rally public support for a grand march to force regime change in Baghdad. CIA analysts were intensely pressured to manufacture just such a link. Ultimately, Libi's false, rendition/torture-induced confession was the best evidence the neocon hawks could ever conjure up.
Second, "most dems" did not "conveniently forget" President Clinton's sporadic air attacks in Iraq anymore than they forgot the air war in Bosnia, the cruise missle strikes in Sudan, or Secretary of State Madeline Allbright's awful off hand comment about how US sanctions imposed against the Baath regime during the 1990's caused the death of as many as a half million Iraqi children. The Clinton administration however - when compared to the Bush/Cheney era - exercised relative restraint when it came to sabre rattling militaristic rhetoric or actual bloodletting overseas.
Let us give some credit where credit is due. Bill Clinton and Al Gore at least made repeat references extolling the virtues of the a peace dividend. Hardly anyone in elected office in either major political party speaks up openly for peace today.
Bill from Saginaw
- PLEASE stop re-writing history. -
from Wikip:
The term "World War I" was invented by Time magazine in its issue of June 12, 1939.
Just like at grade school. Some people can do things, and others can't, all based upon who they are. Being so insignificant an insect can be a downright detriment sometimes, I tell you.
I could photoshop a pix of me on a white horse, selling beverages and ideas because only by doing something for profit can someone prove to America their trustworthiness or something like that.
Alas, I am locust and care not to profit. I only give away ideas.
I protest against these words which are almost always included in articles about Afghanistan:
"The war in Afghanistan may originally have had some sort of acceptable rationale,..."
NO. This is the lie. There was NO acceptable rationale. It was wrong and evil from the get go. Vengeance was the excuse for the real agenda: regional dominance and war contracts and pipelines.
"... but it was a lost cause almost as soon as it began,..."
The word "almost" must be stricken from the record.
"... when America failed to win the crucial struggle for hearts and minds, killing thousands of Afghan civilians in bombing raids, imprisoning others in vile conditions in prisons at Kandahar and Bagram (where some died), and sending others to Guantánamo."
This part is more like the truth except it's cloaked with the lies uttered before it, constantly, over and over like a drumbeat, for brainwashing.
Imperialism is not the sole domain of the Republicans. The Democratic party adheres to the neoliberal and imperialistic dogmas every bit as much as their so called opposition.
I caught Obamas man behind the curtain, Zbigniew Brzezinski on the Real News yesterday. When I closed my eyes and just listened to the words I could swear that I listening to Cheney,Wolfowitz, Krystal etal. There was absolutly no difference from the imperialistic rhetoric espoused by any of them.
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=512
I know what you mean. Even before he was elected, I was in the bank on-line while they had CNN on overhead. I just heard the tone and some of the words, and I thought, "What crappy Repukican is talking now?" I looked up and it was Obama. I was never fooled by his face. His words and actions were another story.
Pres. Obama said: "Our war is against al-Qaeda and its affiliates".
Do we protest that war as part of the protest against the 'war in Afghanistan'? Or will that be yet another separate protest?
A local Congress-troglodyte said: "we have Islamo-fascists who want to kill Americans" (Duncan Hunter, CA-52*)
What day do we protest against the war against Islamo-fascists, I want to have my signs ready.
-- PLEASE stop re-writing history. The war began in 1991 --
Yet another war to protest against.
I continue to suggest that stopping 1 war could be done, if we but agree to aim at the same target this election year for Congress, not the President.
* Duncan Hunter the son, not his father who tried to sneak legislation into the Military Appropriations Act of 2006 without anyone knowing, legislation that would cut off funds for the people in Iraq investigating fraud and corruption.
2010: Re-elect Duncan Hunter's son
Primogeniture is a good thing for democracy, really!
and another thing!
- the disgusting behavior of the Tea Party activists, whose bitter, negative campaigning against Obama, -
Progressives should make sure that they get on the correct side of history (at the risk of 're-writing it', of course).
Stop aiming at Obama. Bad, bad idea.
Congress should be the target for the ire and wrath of the American people, who yearn for change...
...and voted for change in the White House in 2006...
...but not for change in Congress, yet.
You're right, of course. But 'tis the common fate of kings in their roles as head-of-state. In the historical context of U.S. affairs from the outset, the symbolism of poor old porphyric George III of England comes to mind. The actual manipulators acting in his name received scarcely a mention.
When the head-of-state role is combined with those of head-of-governement and commander-in-chief within a single "unitary executive" office, especially one with no day-to-day parliamentary accountablitity, it does tend to concentrate blame as well as credit from the general populace. Definitely unfair, but hardly surprising.
In any case, perhaps it's more important to distinguish between the will of ordinary Americans and their "paid sponsor" leadership in general.
I quote a writer named Ian Murphy:The benevolence of America’s “troops” is sacrosanct. Questioning their rectitude simply isn’t done. It’s the forbidden zone. We may rail against this tragic war, but our soldiers are lauded by all as saints. Why? They volunteered to partake in this savage idiocy, and for this they deserve our utmost respect? I think not.
The nearly two-thirds of us who know this war is bullshit need to stop sucking off the troops. They get enough action raping female soldiers and sodomizing Iraqi detainees. The political left is intent on “supporting” the troops by bringing them home, which is a good thing. But after rightly denouncing the administration’s lies and condemning this awful war, relatively sensible pundits—like Keith Olbermann—turn around and lovingly praise the soldiers’ brave service to the country. Why?
What service are they providing? I don’t remember ordering 300,000 dead Iraqis—although I was doing a lot of heavy narcotics back in ‘03. Our soldiers are not providing a service to the country, they’re providing a service to a criminal administration and their oil company cronies. When a mafia don orders a hit, is the assassin absolved of personal responsibility when it’s carried out? Of course not. What if the hit man was fooled into service? We’d all say, “Tough shit, you dumb Guido,” then lock him up and throw away the key.
As a society, we need to discard our blind deference to military service. There’s nothing admirable about volunteering to murder people. There’s nothing admirable about being rooked by obvious propaganda. There’s nothing admirable about doing what you’re told if what you’re told to do is terrible.
Public Law 107-40:
The US military was given the mission to prevent future terrorism by future enemies that would be named by future Presidents.
'those' is the enemy, and a President will tell us who 'those' are.
This is DAFT.
The military was given an unachievable and insane mission. They are honor-bound to obey orders, no matter if the orders are as insane as those of the British Army on July 1, 1916* when 60,000 men were killed or wounded, most in the space of 15 minutes and for a momentary territorial gain.
* it's always fine to criticize foreigners, so that's why I chose this particular 'path of glory'. I could just as well repeat some of Billy Mitchell's complaints about American ignorance, incompetence and promotion-chasing in World War I, which is what we called that war against a common enemy (and not the War in France against Germany).
It's an interesting question whether a specific military mission can override a more general military oath "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." Could it rightfully include, for example, killing countrymen in the exercise of their contitutional rights to freedom of expression?
It seems Mr. Worthington forgot all about Obama's "West Point Speech".
Do folks in the US have the shortest political memories on earth?
We’re All Serfs Now empirePie March 22cnd, 2010
Consumer hood, the new personhood;
the hooded consume, consumed comsumer
cattle prodded with some laser light;
take the jolt you’ll be alright.
It’s slip slide sublime,
crack slipped plastic, levered on the prime.
It’s up to you to do the time
so step in line,
goose step for the Xe, for the Hal,
a bit of prodding and you’ll do fine.
Cuddle the cuties in some sweat shopped hoodies,
greed is good;
greed is God;
In greed we trust.
Convert to gold.
Empathy is the new mould.
mold your calf, but: ‘don’t have a cow’
we’re all serfs now
Don’t forget the Apocalystick lick.
Us simmering toadies like the stick.
RE: "The war in Afghanistan may originally have had some sort of acceptable rationale, but it was a lost cause almost as soon as it began, when America failed to win the crucial struggle for hearts and minds..."
This comment represents a big problem of the Left. The only difference between the "rationale" for war on Afghanistan vs war on Iraq, is that the lies for Iraq were more transparent. But the war on Afghanistan was no more justified.
Noam Chomsky noted before the invasion that the US' rationale for invading Afghanistan was analogous to something like "there's a dangerous criminal in your neighborhood, therefore, we have to take out the whole neighborhood!"
Wars are conducted between states. If Osama bin Laden was truly responsible for 9/11, then 9/11 should have been seen as a CRIMINAL act, not an act of war. Therefore the proper response to 9/11 would have been an international police action. The government of Afghanistan at the time even offered to hand over OBL, if the US could provide some evidence of his guilt. But of course the US refused, because that didn't fit US elite goals for the region: Afghanistan was only the first step in dominating the oil-rich Middle-East.
That Mr. Worthington still allows some legitimacy for the original invasion, shows how shallow is the analysis for much of the left, and a good explanation for why the peace movement is so splintered where some groups like Code Pink (who often do great work) end up defending the US occupation in Afghanistan.
Can you imagine what would happen to antiwar demonstrators if they acted in the same manner as the teabaggers? They would be gassed, clubbed and possibly Kent Stated. Why doesn't anyone disperse those creeps?
excellent! if anyone had assaulted any republican leader, that poor bastard would have had it by now. democrats and leftists are jsut not mean enough!
please, don't ever put the words Democrats and leftists in the same sentence. They're exactly the opposite. You're free to put Republican and Democrat in the same sentence, however, they're the same.
bligh4
Find the closest male relative in Saddam's psychopathic family and give the damn place back to him.
On Oct. 9, 1990 a letter was sent to me from Senator Alfonse D'Amato's office regarding my letter opposing the Iraq war. This might have been another war that Americans thought was just, but it was not. Iraq would not have invaded Kuwait if America threatened to support Kuwait against Iraq. What Albright said was that it was a matter between Iraq and Kuwait,we would not interfere. The letter from D'Amato explained how:" America sold Saddam the chemicals that created this Frankenstein monster." The same weapons that we trained him to use on his own people, and then used as a reason to invade Iraq. He then went on to build the Iraqi military up as this great "formidable opponent" If you were old enough to remember that first gulf war you saw the antiquated tanks, the disloyal army that surrendered immediately, and were shot down, (as the troops said), like a turkey shoot.I could not believe that the U.S. government could convince congress that Saddam was so powerful that America needed to starve the children in Iraq for about 13 years and then invade that destitute nation smothered with the corpse of Iraqi children. Saddam was terrified of America after the first gulf war. He was absolutely no threat and no more of a monster than any presidential administration that engages in undeclared wars, torture,and depleted uranium bombs, just for money.
Thanks for reminding us genie. I sure do wish more people noticed all that ugly history. there was no reason for the u.s. to do more than maybe maintain a blockade. under no circumstances was the violence and criminal assault on Iraqi conscripts ever justified.
also thanks for mentioning the sanctions horror. i don't think many people even know it happened.
"Iraq Inquiry asks to question George Bush's senior officials"
The Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War could take an explosive new twist after it emerged that leading figures in George Bush's administration have been asked to give evidence to it. (telegraph.co.uk)
{Waterboards anyone?}
*Comment deleted by site administrators for violating our Comment Policy*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
bligh4
Wow, racist anyone?
Since when mentioning someone's race or pointing out that Obama's an Uncle Tom is racist? Get real.
bligh4
Great. I'll go down to city hall and call our mayor a "house nigga" and accuse her of "serving her white masters" and see what she says. Who knows? she may not think that is racist at all.
Mumia Abu Jamal, using Malcolm X's phrase, applied the term "House Negro" to Obama over a year ago. When you read the transcripts of X's speeches where he explains the difference between a "house Negro" and a "field Negro" this makes more sense.
So, using the term "house nigga" is not accurate and distasteful, however the overall message remains hard to dispute. Uncle O'Tomma might be a juvenile and tasteless term, however for many, it describes Obama.
neotom would be a nice compromise. face it. if obama looked and sounded like jesse jackson, mccain would be president, even if obama carried the same message. obama has always had to edit himself to advance, and he continues to do so, even thogh he's now the top banana. whites equate assertive blacks with militancy, and obama has instinctively avoided giving out those signals. a master politician, but a failed president. so far.