On the eve of the September 11th terrorist attacks on United States soil 13 years ago, President Barack Obama addressed the nation in a prime time television speech to rally support for more open ended war. He became the fourth consecutive U.S. president to announce plans to bomb Iraq, and made it clear that his administration now plans to expand this “war on terror” into Syria. It is also the one year anniversary in which Obama first addressed the nation about his plans to bomb Syria because of their alleged use of chemical weapons, though those plans were put on hold for various reasons. In the tradition of his predecessor, President George W. Bush, Mr. Obama framed this as protecting America from future terrorist attacks: in other words, more pre-emptive strikes. His rhetoric was remarkably similar to the fear mongering of the former Bush administration, though toned down slightly from the bold face lies of America facing “a mushroom cloud” in the form of a nuclear attack. But in essence, Obama was selling us a war in Syria, just as W. Bush sold us a war in Iraq, under the guise of protecting us from future attacks.
In the president’s own words last night, he acknowledged that currently, ISIL (or ISIS) does not have immediate plans to attack us:
“If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies.”
From these two cleverly contrived sentences, where Obama says ISIS “could” threaten the United States, and that “we have not yet detected. . .” planned attacks, the president stokes fears already being promoted in the U.S. mainstream press, that some American and European citizens have joined ISIS in Iraq and Syria already, and “could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.”
So “if” we don’t go on the offensive, ISIS “could” attack us, though we haven’t “yet” any evidence of this.
Sounds like more pre-emptive, fearmongering “bullshit” to me.
On my blog last year on June 18th, I wrote an article titled “War All the Time: Syria, Here We Come” where I speculated and warned about U.S. plans to intervene more aggressively in the civil war in Syria. By September 13 of last year, I called the Obama administration’s calling off of plans to bomb Assad, due to Syria’s agreement to disarm their chemical weapons stockpile a “pause in our march to war in Syria.” My prediction is proving true. Turns out that was approximately a one year pause. Last year, our need to bomb in Syria was framed as a “humanitarian” intervention because of the innocent civilians suffering there, after chemical weapons attacks allegedly launched by Assad’s regime (this has still not been proven, and there is more evidence now that suggests this was a lie). This year, capitalizing on the widely broadcast brutality of the be-heading of two American journalists by ISIS in a video released by the group, the need to bomb Syria is now based on the supposed grave and future danger that ISIS will pose to the United States, “if left unchecked.”
Graphic images and videos of deplorable violence, such as the ISIS be-headings of journalists, move public opinion. The continuous talk among American pundits and politicians about the brutality of ISIS, along with self-promoting videos by the group being posted on the internet, have no doubt moved American opinion more towards war. Recent polling from CNN, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and other news organizations all show around 60 percent of Americans favoring airstrikes against ISIS. The desire for justice and revenge is understandable, but it is cynically exploited by U.S. and world leaders all the time to rally one’s tribe, and dehumanize one’s foe. Hillary Clinton is certainly aware of this, when in addition to blaming world opposition to Israel’s latest slaughter in Gaza on anti-Semitism, she complained that Hamas was inviting journalists into Gaza to view the carnage, and that it was “the old P.R. problem that Israel has.”
The majority of Americans don’t know much about the civil war in Syria, and the mainstream media goes out of its way to avoid providing too much detail or perspective. The facts and details are readily available in the newspapers for people willing to look more deeply into the conflict, but most people get their news from television, where pundits dutifully promote the propaganda of our politicians, often times allowing their blatant lies to go unchallenged, and repeated over and over again as if they are facts. The most recent example I saw was last night on MSNBC’s coverage after the president’s speech, in which Senator Sore Loser, John McCain, again told Andrea Mitchell that part of ISIS’s gains in Iraq was because Obama had refused to leave a residual force in Iraq. I’ve explained so many times now that I’ve lost count, how this is simply not true: Bush negotiated the withdrawal before Obama took office; Obama wanted to leave a residual force but Iraq wouldn’t accept it. This lie was uttered again by a supposedly credible official who almost became president instead of Obama. McCain’s lie was unchallenged, again, as usual. And of course, McCain failed to mention that the reason we needed to keep a military presence in Iraq to keep the peace was because we invaded Iraq in the first place, under W. Bush’s leadership, with a “yes” vote by McCain. Hillary Clinton spews the same line of bullshit in her never ending quest to become president. She too voted for the Iraq invasion, that left a power vacuum for Al Qaeda in Iraq, to fill. Before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that was sold on the lies of “weapons of mass destruction,” there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq. ISIS is now the group formally known as Al Qaeda in Iraq, as acknowledged by all. But the warmongers’ narrative starts with “we shouldn’t have pulled out of Iraq (10 years later)” instead of the obvious “we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place.”
The Syrian civil war is a proxy war more than a civil war, with many allies and Western powers contributing to the horrific bloodshed by 3 years of arming numerous “opposition” groups, composed of many of the “terrorist” that we claim to fear. Until recently, President Obama has appeared to want to keep the U.S. out of as much direct intervention in the war as possible, amid cries from McCain, Senator Lindsay Graham, and his former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, for more involvement, and more arming of the various groups attempting to overthrow Assad. But his apparent reluctance aside, Obama did previously say that “Assad must go” when he was last contemplating bombing him. This is the root of the civil war in Syria, the desire of Assad’s enemies, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, the U.S., the U.K and other allies, to see his regime toppled. What has resulted is a melting pot of Islamic extremist and foreign fighters, fueled with money, arms and training from Assad’s enemies, destroying the country of Syria and ruining hundreds of thousands of lives in the process.
Now, part of Obama’s strategy for the proclaimed goal of degrading and destroying ISIS, is more direct U.S. engagement and support of the “Free Syrian Army.” His previous concerns about not being able to differentiate who we might be arming to overthrow Assad have been set aside. Now U.S. officials are claiming to have “vetted” the opposition groups that are fighting Assad. And don’t worry, there will be no American combat troops, or “boots on the ground,” not counting of course the more than 1000 “advisors” on the ground already, with more to come. We will just bomb and advise, and help train the failed Iraq security forces that we already trained once, and arm the Kurds who in previous years we were complicit in their slaughter from both Saddam Hussein and Turkey, and we will aid the now “vetted” opposition forces in Syria.
All Obama is asking for is congressional blessing – which he claims he doesn’t need, just wants, and more money from U.S. taxpayers to fund this new conflict which he, his administration officials, and others say will last years – not months. And of course he wants the backing of America’s citizens, whom ” our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden” because ” we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity.” To make us feel good about the bombing campaign already begun again in Iraq, that was framed partly as a humanitarian mission to save refugees trapped on a mountain top in Iraq from ISIS advances, Mr. Obama told us: ” here’s what one of them said: “We owe our American friends our lives. Our children will always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to protect innocent people.”
Of course, that “long journey” was made over a decade ago when the U.S. first invaded Iraq. You may also recall that the United States bombed Libya three years ago for the “humanitarian purposes” of protecting innocent civilians from being “slaughtered” by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces. This humanitarian mission in which we helped our allies conduct, of course led to the desired result: the once friendly dictator Qaddafi was overthrown. Specifically, Qaddafi was murdered in the streets by an angry mob, and that act of graphic violence was also captured on video and broadcast widely on the internet, and hailed as a victory for Libyans, thanks to benevolent help from the U.S. and other Western allies like France and Britain. Just two days ago, the New York Times reported on the wonderful new life Libyans are enjoying, with a third of its population, almost 2 million people, seeking refuge in Tunisia from the horrific violence now unleashed since our humanitarian intervention. Details of that success surely merit as much attention as Obama’s quote from the grateful Iraqis saved from the mountaintop by us, so here is a link to that article that you may copy and paste to your browser:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/10/world/africa/libya-refugees-tunisia-tripoli.html?mabReward=RI%3A7&module=WelcomeBackModal&contentCollection=Middle%20East®ion=FixedCenter&action=click&src=recg&pgtype=article
It will be interesting to see how congress decides to act on President Obama’s request for support for more years, blood and treasure to be spent to “protect” us from this new terrorist group that supposedly makes Al Qaeda look like choir boys. The republican leadership in both the Senate and House seem reluctant to want to even call a vote. Senator Fish Face, Mitch McConnell and the Weeper of the House, John Boehner, have both offered nothing but criticism of Obama’s handling of it so far, but offering no specific ideas of their own, and no promise of a vote for congress to do what was once considered its constitutional duty – since the Constitution actually says it is their duty and power – to declare war. They’d much rather play Monday morning quarterback than stake a position on the eve of mid-term elections. Of course, McCain and Graham can be counted on as a “yes” vote. Hillary Clinton is already saying we should have gone to war sooner. Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein of California was recently on “Meet the Press” on August 31, joining in on blaming Obama for ISIS, saying “I think I’ve learned one thing about this president, and that is he’s very cautious. Maybe in this instance, too cautious.” Apparently, less cautious leadership like hers is what’s needed – after all, she was decisive when she voted “yes” for the Iraq War, just as Hillary Clinton, and all the other current warmongers did. Former Vice President, Darth Vader (sometimes called by his maiden name of Dick Cheney) met with G.O.P. leaders Tuesday, a day before Obama’s national address, to criticise and blame the current mess on Obama. It’s simply amazing that so many of the assholes who voted for the Iraq War, both republicans and democrats (Hillary and Feinstein) are blaming the current crises in Iraq and Syria on the Obama administration and offering their advice of “war! war!” as if we should listen to them again.
The question is, will Americans buy into the propaganda being offered by the current president, again, to start a pre-emptive war to protect us from terrorism? Not enough Americans were sold on bombing Syria last year for humanitarian purposes, so this year Obama is selling the tried and true currency of fear. Don’t buy into it. Its just more of the same old bullshit lies about our true motivations for war, dressed up by the lofty words of a better spoken president.