- Jan 8, 2011
- Reaction score
You are merely trying to make excuses for a bloody warmonger.Well, I didn’t support Hillary in 2016 because, compared to what Trump said at the time, and my estimate of the situation in large areas of Syria where Hillary was talking about establishing a U.S.-imposed “no fly zone” against the Russians, there was little question in my mind she was at that time the more dangerous candidate. So there is that.I don’t agree with some of that.I agree about Greenwald’s articles being excellent, and that Obama filled the CIA and ruling class’ felt need for refurbishing the U.S. image after the Bush Administration’s Iraq invasion and the financial crash. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. The Democrats old credentials as a party of the (white) working class has passed to the rightwing populists and the Know Nothing “American Party” of Trump. The Democrats in WWI and WWII were perfect governing party to lead popular opinion to support war. That was a task beyond the Republicans in those days. But this is clearly now beginning to change. With a more stable leader than the megalomaniacal incompetent conman Trump, the CIA would have happily embraced a right populist Republican. Trump was just too irrational. He never challenged the perquisites of Wall Street or the MIC.Great column by Greenwald, as usual. He is one of the best journalists we have. There are so few.I want to see the Question Mark Avatar have to earn her keep, so, I'm putting this here-
This, boys and girls is why it's made to appear Trump lost
The Nobel Peace Prize
A Long-Forgotten CIA Document From WikiLeaks Sheds Critical Light on Today's U.S. Politics and Wars
The Agency knew that their best asset for selling their wars was Barack Obama -- the same reason so many in the security state were eager to get rid of Donald Trump.
But it was one WikiLeaks document that particularly caught my attention at first: a classified 2010 CIA “Red Cell Memorandum,” named after the highly secretive unit created by Bush/Cheney CIA Director George Tenet in the wake of the 9/11 attack.
What made this document so fascinating, so revealing, is the CIA’s discussion of how to manipulate public opinion to ensure it remains at least tolerant if not supportive of Endless War and, specifically, the vital role President Obama played for the CIA in packaging and selling U.S. wars around the world. In this classified analysis, one learns a great deal about how the “military industrial complex,” also known as the “Blob” or “Deep State,” reasons; how the Agency exploits humanitarian impulses to ensure continuation of its wars; and what the real function is of the U.S. President when it comes to foreign policy.
The Agency concluded: its best and only asset for doing that was President Obama and his popularity in Western European cities.
But none of this would have worked, in the CIA’s estimation, without having a President who could effectively use his popularity abroad to sell the war not as a barbaric act of endless aggression but as a humanitarian gesture that — like the President himself — was benevolent, noble, and kind. As a result of their positive views of Obama, the agency concluded, the French and Germans would not only “be receptive to [Obama’s] direct affirmation of their importance to the [Afghanistan] mission” — that would be the positive reinforcement — but would also be “sensitive to [his] direct expressions of disappointment in allies who do not help.”
In other words, Obama was like a kind but righteous father whose nobility you believed in even when it came to bombing villages and shooting up schoolyards, and whose moral disappointment (you’re not living up to your duties as an ally) you were eager to avoid. Polling data thus showed that when Europeans were reminded that Obama supported the war in Afghanistan, support increased significantly:
View attachment 421637
View attachment 421638
View attachment 421639
I hope he can continue to expose the powerful for the frauds and killers they are. I fear he will end up like Assange or worse.
His point about Ears is prescient. He was an awful warmongering potus, but the majority of the American public doesn’t know this and refuses to accept it, when it’s revealed to them. They have been duped to believe he’s a nice guy, just as the CIA had planned.
Obama was not a “warmonger” per se, though he certainly was no lamb of peace. His effort to break the logjam in the Middle East proves he had a few positive aims.
O was a terrible warmonger, if you believe a potus has control of the military. He took W’s two wars and made it seven. He dropped more bombs than W. If this doesn’t meet the definition of warmonger, what does? If he weren’t a nice soft spoken “clean” black man but a white R, he would forever be known as a warmonger like W.
In a just world, both W and O are languishing in solitary at Supermax.
As Greenwald’s article states, the MIC or Deep State hated Trump because he wasn’t afraid to criticize our nation’s constant warring. It wasn’t his incompetence, though he clearly was incompetent in a lot of areas. He is the first potus not to start a new war, in a long time. He does deserve some credit for this
But Obama did not capitulate to CIA false flag propaganda tricks or MIC & Republican & Zionist pressure to invade Syria when fake “ red lines” were crossed. One has to be able to see shades of grey here. One cannot say Obama inherited two wars and made them seven, as if all these wars were equal to the invasion and occupation of Iraq!
By 2011 the U.S. troops were officially out of Iraq, but the rise of ISIS by 2014-15 (a different and far more serious danger that grew up as a result of the original 2003 war and occupation) required a new policy which actually saw U.S. special forces and planes fighting essentially on the same side as Iraqi Shia militia armed by Iran and Kurds and Iraqi government soldiers. This was not the same as the original invasion, and carried along with the JCPOA and similar measures, along with an end to sanctions on Syria and Iran, might have had very positive results for the region, with a rebalancing of our policy and permitting a large withdrawal of our forces.
Of course the Obama camp was never free from powerful warmongering elements and Trump soon scuttled any hope of improvements. By the way, I never loved or expected much from Obama, and did not vote for him in 2012.
He did take two wars and make it seven. Where did I say they were all equal? That was you trying to excuse mass murder. A war results in dead innocent people. O murdered lots of innocent people. You can try minimize it, but it won’t work.
While O didn’t act on the CIA false flag to back up his redline statement, he did cause massive problems in Syria including mass murder, a refugee crisis, and allowed ISIS to take hold, and flooded the nation with arms.