Before another Nobel Peace Prize is handed off to our Prince of Peace,
let's understand that absolutely no one really believes that Obama
ended any war, anywhere.
But the Industrial/Military Empire feels the need to use its puppet
journalists and its mealy mouth mass media to keep the crap flowing.
In between banks of commercials, selling us on the need for more junk
than there are land fills to hold, the Empire's media tucks in "News"
spots telling us that we are no longer at war. Most folks miss these
short breaks in the advertising, because they are fast forwarding,
after having recorded the program.
There are a few brave souls out in La La Land who have pointed out the
Prince's lie, but they seldom break through the brown fog of the mass
media.
Remember that old tale of the boy who cried wolf? Well, the Masters
of the Empire don't recall it. But they are setting themselves up for
a very similar outcome. One fine day they and their Hucksters and
prancing puppets will tell one fat lie too many, and the entire town
will send them packing.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/8/15, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> Timm writes: "Afghanistan, Iraq, the illegal conflict with Isis, secret
> drone strikes across the Middle East: Youwould think Congress might want to
> vote on the Forever War. But you would be very, very wrong."
> > Although the U.S. formally declared an end to the war in Afghanistan,
> 10,000
> troops will remain there for the foreseeable future. (photo: Lucas
> Jackson/Reuters)
>
>
> The Greatest Trick Obama Ever Pulled Was Convincing the World America Isn't
> Still at War
> By Trevor Timm, The Guardian
> 07 January 15
>
> T he holiday headlines blared without a hint of distrust: "End of War" and
> "Mission Ends" and "U.S. formally ends the war in Afghanistan", as the US
> government and Nato celebrated the alleged end of the longest war in
> American history. Great news! Except, that is, when you read past the first
> paragraph: "the fighting is as intense as it has ever been since the
> U.S.-led invasion in 2001," according to the Wall Street Journal. And about
> 10,000 troops will remain there for the foreseeable future (more than we
> had
> a year after the Afghan war started). Oh, and they'll continue to engage in
> combat regularly. But other than that, yeah, the war is definitely over.
> This is the new reality of war: As long as the White House doesn't admit
> the
> United States is at war, we're all supposed to pretend as if that's true.
> This ruse is not just the work of the president. Members of Congress, who
> return to work this week, are just as guilty as Barack Obama in letting the
> public think we're Definitely Not at War, from Afghanistan and Somalia to
> the new war with Isis in Iraq and Syria and beyond.
> Thirteen years on, the near limitless war authorization Congress passed for
> the Afghanistan war remains in place, with no sign that Congress wants to
> even debate revoking it. This is what will allow US troops to continue
> fighting, despite the mission supposedly being "formally" over. Just a
> month
> before Obama made his farcical announcement last week, he signed a secret
> order to ensure US troops continue to engage in combat missions against
> various "militant groups" in Afghanistan for all of 2015.
> Another place the United States is Definitely Not at War? Pakistan, where,
> according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the US conducted
> multiple drone strikes between Christmas and New Year's Eve, killing at
> least nine people. We don't know who died, but the Associated Press assured
> us they were "militants", despite the US government's definition of
> "militant" having been manipulated beyond comprehension.
> Another six "militants" were reportedly killed in a drone strike in
> Pakistan
> on Sunday, the targets apparently having nothing to do with al-Qaida - they
> often never do, as we learned from new Snowden documents published by Der
> Spiegel over the holiday break. (There was yet another American drone
> strike
> in Somalia on 30 December.)
> The US Congress, of course, has steadfastly refused to attempt to place any
> real legislative limits on drone strikes, even those that have killed
> American citizens - which, as various scholars have been screaming for
> years, represent an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment.
> Meanwhile, the Defense Department quietly announced a few days before
> Christmas that, later this month, another 1,300 troops will deploy to Iraq
> in its ever-expanding undeclared war on Isis. A Pentagon spokesperson
> emphasized these are Definitely Not Combat Troops, despite the US
> government's current definition of "combat" being so narrow that it's
> "rejected by virtually every military expert" - not to mention that the
> troops already in Iraq are already under "regular" fire, according to CNN.
> The US continues to launch airstrikes against Isis and various other groups
> in Syria as well.
> As the new Congress opens in Washington on Tuesday, it once again has the
> opportunity to formally debate and actually vote on the war against Isis, a
> constitutional obligation from which America's politicians shamefully slunk
> away, preferring instead to campaign for re-election - free of difficult
> decision-making. Now, almost five months in to a war the administration
> freely admits will last for years if not decades, hardly anyone seems to
> care what legal experts across the political spectrum believe: this war is
> without precedent - and it's illegal without Congressional approval.
> Now, the US Congress is not exactly a body known for its nuance and
> restraint, and there are many reasons why war against Isis remains a
> terrible idea, but if either the Republican-controlled House and Senate
> want
> to make an actual case for war, then that is their prerogative. But vote on
> it. Because the Obama administration has already gone down a dangerous path
> wherein the executive branch can unilaterally carry out virtually any war
> it
> wants without any official input from Congress.
> Given the GOP's newfound hatred of executive power, which the party seem to
> have conveniently forgotten was pioneered during every Republican
> administration since Nixon, you'd think Washington's new majority might
> want
> to take this tiny step of debating and voting on the Isis war, as is their
> own constitutional duty.
> Republicans would do well to use the president's own words against him. As
> Barack Obama himself told the Boston Globe back in 2007:
> The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally
> authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping
> an
> actual or imminent threat to the nation.
> Since virtually the entire US intelligence community agrees that Isis, no
> matter how awful and heinous the group may be, does not imminently threaten
> the mainland United States, maybe Congress can start off the new year by
> doing its job and actually voting on something required of them months ago.
>
> Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
> valid.
>
> Although the U.S. formally declared an end to the war in Afghanistan,
> 10,000
> troops will remain there for the foreseeable future. (photo: Lucas
> Jackson/Reuters)
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/06/obama-america-still-at-
> war-congress-illegalhttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/06/oba
> ma-america-still-at-war-congress-illegal
> The Greatest Trick Obama Ever Pulled Was Convincing the World America Isn't
> Still at War
> By Trevor Timm, The Guardian
> 07 January 15
> he holiday headlines blared without a hint of distrust: "End of War" and
> "Mission Ends" and "U.S. formally ends the war in Afghanistan", as the US
> government and Nato celebrated the alleged end of the longest war in
> American history. Great news! Except, that is, when you read past the first
> paragraph: "the fighting is as intense as it has ever been since the
> U.S.-led invasion in 2001," according to the Wall Street Journal. And about
> 10,000 troops will remain there for the foreseeable future (more than we
> had
> a year after the Afghan war started). Oh, and they'll continue to engage in
> combat regularly. But other than that, yeah, the war is definitely over.
> This is the new reality of war: As long as the White House doesn't admit
> the
> United States is at war, we're all supposed to pretend as if that's true.
> This ruse is not just the work of the president. Members of Congress, who
> return to work this week, are just as guilty as Barack Obama in letting the
> public think we're Definitely Not at War, from Afghanistan and Somalia to
> the new war with Isis in Iraq and Syria and beyond.
> Thirteen years on, the near limitless war authorization Congress passed for
> the Afghanistan war remains in place, with no sign that Congress wants to
> even debate revoking it. This is what will allow US troops to continue
> fighting, despite the mission supposedly being "formally" over. Just a
> month
> before Obama made his farcical announcement last week, he signed a secret
> order to ensure US troops continue to engage in combat missions against
> various "militant groups" in Afghanistan for all of 2015.
> Another place the United States is Definitely Not at War? Pakistan, where,
> according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the US conducted
> multiple drone strikes between Christmas and New Year's Eve, killing at
> least nine people. We don't know who died, but the Associated Press assured
> us they were "militants", despite the US government's definition of
> "militant" having been manipulated beyond comprehension.
> Another six "militants" were reportedly killed in a drone strike in
> Pakistan
> on Sunday, the targets apparently having nothing to do with al-Qaida - they
> often never do, as we learned from new Snowden documents published by Der
> Spiegel over the holiday break. (There was yet another American drone
> strike
> in Somalia on 30 December.)
> The US Congress, of course, has steadfastly refused to attempt to place any
> real legislative limits on drone strikes, even those that have killed
> American citizens - which, as various scholars have been screaming for
> years, represent an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment.
> Meanwhile, the Defense Department quietly announced a few days before
> Christmas that, later this month, another 1,300 troops will deploy to Iraq
> in its ever-expanding undeclared war on Isis. A Pentagon spokesperson
> emphasized these are Definitely Not Combat Troops, despite the US
> government's current definition of "combat" being so narrow that it's
> "rejected by virtually every military expert" - not to mention that the
> troops already in Iraq are already under "regular" fire, according to CNN.
> The US continues to launch airstrikes against Isis and various other groups
> in Syria as well.
> As the new Congress opens in Washington on Tuesday, it once again has the
> opportunity to formally debate and actually vote on the war against Isis, a
> constitutional obligation from which America's politicians shamefully slunk
> away, preferring instead to campaign for re-election - free of difficult
> decision-making. Now, almost five months in to a war the administration
> freely admits will last for years if not decades, hardly anyone seems to
> care what legal experts across the political spectrum believe: this war is
> without precedent - and it's illegal without Congressional approval.
> Now, the US Congress is not exactly a body known for its nuance and
> restraint, and there are many reasons why war against Isis remains a
> terrible idea, but if either the Republican-controlled House and Senate
> want
> to make an actual case for war, then that is their prerogative. But vote on
> it. Because the Obama administration has already gone down a dangerous path
> wherein the executive branch can unilaterally carry out virtually any war
> it
> wants without any official input from Congress.
> Given the GOP's newfound hatred of executive power, which the party seem to
> have conveniently forgotten was pioneered during every Republican
> administration since Nixon, you'd think Washington's new majority might
> want
> to take this tiny step of debating and voting on the Isis war, as is their
> own constitutional duty.
> Republicans would do well to use the president's own words against him. As
> Barack Obama himself told the Boston Globe back in 2007:
> The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally
> authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping
> an
> actual or imminent threat to the nation.
> Since virtually the entire US intelligence community agrees that Isis, no
> matter how awful and heinous the group may be, does not imminently threaten
> the mainland United States, maybe Congress can start off the new year by
> doing its job and actually voting on something required of them months ago.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blind-Democracy mailing list
> Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
> https://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
No comments:
Post a Comment