Obama as liar. Why should we be surprised? Was he meant to be different and better just because he's half-black or something? He grew his political wings in the extremely messy cocoon of Chicago politics, after all.
So he told his people of the USA, and the world for that matter, that US military involvement in Iraq was over. It's all finished. If only! That's bunk. Well, it's a strong word to use, but frankly it's a lie and Obama knows it.
I quote from one response to his presidential speech of a few days ago, released from the website www.alpheus.org :
Naperville, September 2, 2010
"More War Lies"
Tuesday evening US President Barack Obama gave a televised speech from the Oval Office announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq. "Operation Iraqi Freedom is over."
The presentation was calm, smooth and and sounded confident, even "paternalistic" as some commentators observed. One would like to belief the president, the 'pater familias' of the western world.
But on closer inspection the speech is problematic. It is silent on numerous important issues like the cruel death and destruction visited upon Iraq by the US forces and the many lies and manipulations regarding WMDs and supposed Iraq-al-Quaida links leading up to this elective, illegal war.
For a critical assessment of the president's speech see David Swanson's article for Global Research.
Even more problematic is the fact that both the president's speech and US foreign policy are based on the conclusion that al-Qaida and only al-Qaida were responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks.
These conclusions are not universally shared and are actually vigorously challenged by many US and foreign experts to the point of positing that there is hardly an Osama bin Laden organization to speak off and that at least the bringing down of the three World Trade Center buildings indicate the involvement of domestic elements.
The forensic evidence of high-tech explosives found in WTC dust samples is addressed by a peer-reviewed paper, which was published in 2009. A Utah newspaper covered its release.
In 2004 the BBC broadcasted a three part documentary titled "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear." The same country, which gave us Orwell's warning for the emergence of a lying, manipulative, surveillance state including a fabricated terrorist enemy, now gives us the frank admission that we've possibly entered that nightmare scenario.
Good night and good fortune
===
President's full speech on the end of combat mission in Iraq
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/08/31/VI2010083106574.html===
More War Lies
by David Swanson
Global Research, September 1, 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20862Excerpt: Lies aren't used just to start wars, but also to escalate them, continue them, and even reduce or end them. And we got a pile of war lies from the president Tuesday evening.
Obama claimed the war on Iraq was initially a war to disarm a state. Really? And then "terrorist" Iraqis attacked our troops in their country. Yet if they had done that in our country, I suspect they would still be the terrorists. And then it became a civil war which we were innocently caught up in. Uh huh.
U.S. participants in this crime are heroes, always and everywhere. That's sacred. The troops' mission has involved protecting the Iraqi people, and by golly they've done a superb job, as long as we don't mention the complete devastation of Iraq, the million dead, the millions of refugees, and the intense resentment of those remaining toward our country for what we've done to theirs.
===
Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say
By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret News, April 7, 2009
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705295677/Traces-of-explosives-in-911-dust-scientists-say.html?pg=1%A0%3CbrExcerpt: The newest research, according to the journal authors, shows that dust from the collapsing towers contained a "nano-thermite" material that is highly explosive. Although the article draws no conclusions about the source and purpose of the explosives, Jones has previously supported a theory that the collapse of the WTC towers was part of a government conspiracy to ignore warnings about the 9/11 terrorists so that the attack would propel America to wage war against Afghanistan and Iraq.
Let's add a bit more than is there above from the Swanson article:
The Iraqi people now (dead, in exile, in a ruined nation) have a chance that they supposedly didn't have before we destroyed their country, a country that was actually a better place to live in in every way in 2003 than it is now, and in 1989 than in 2003. To hear President Obama, this war has been for the benefit of the Iraqi people, and these wars have been about al Qaeda and 9-11.
Obama slid into nonsense about al Qaeda after discussing Iraq and before mentioning Afghanistan, a Bushian maneuver if ever I saw one:
"No challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al Qaeda."
Never mind that al Qaeda barely existed before these wars became recruiting tools. "We will disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda" in Afghanistan, the president promised, even though al Qaeda isn't there. Troop reductions in Afghanistan will begin next August, he said, although the prepared transcript said July, and will be determined by conditions on the ground, even though Afghanistan is not yet as bad as Iraq is.
Obama modeled the future bloodletting in Afghanistan on the myth of the successful escalation in Iraq, ignoring factors that have contributed to the reduction of violence in Iraq, including the promise of complete withdrawal, the beginning of withdrawal, and prior to those factors the incredible level of death and displacement, negotiations and bribes. The test for a "surge" in Afghanistan failed in Marja, and Obama simply behaves as if it succeeded.
And here at home "it is time to turn the page." Never mind the commission of the supreme international crime of aggression. Never mind the mass murder. Obama said he talked with George W. Bush earlier in the day. Obama lied that the two of them had never agreed on the war, a war Obama voted to fund repeatedly in the Senate. And he lied that Bush was committed to U.S. security, knowing full well that this war has made us all less safe.
"There were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hope for Iraq's future."
Except for the majority of Americans who believe the war never should have begun, that it should be immediately ended, and that its architects -- starting at the top with Bush, not the bottom with the troops -- must be held criminally accountable. Participation in this crime is not a service to anyone.
The most honest part of the speech was this:
"We have spent over a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation's long-term competitiveness is put at risk."
That's a remarkable point for the president to dare to make. But there was no mention of the hundreds of billions yet in the works to be wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Pakistan and numerous other countries deserving of our favors.
The big lie, of course, is that the combat mission is, once again, completed. The soldiers in Iraq and the mercenaries and contractors are there for combat. That there are fewer soldiers is movement very much in the right direction, and very much to be applauded, but pretending that those remaining are something else is not accurate. Many of them may see less combat, but I'll believe they're not there for combat when their weapons are taken away.
The big question, of course, is what will be done about the deadline of December 31, 2011. Here's what Obama said on this key point:
"Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq's Security Forces; supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians -- diplomats, aid workers, and advisors -- are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. And that is a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today. This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq -- one based upon mutual interests, and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission."
Violence will not end. We just won't call it combat. It'll be an overseas contingency. But what about all U.S. troops leaving by the end of next year? Obama doesn't seem to hedge on this the way he does later in the speech on a future withdrawal from Afghanistan, saying that will be "subject to conditions on the ground." And that's a good thing. The same day as this speech, the war-loving Washington Post printed a column by Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to 2009, which pushed for a longer occupation with these words:
"And it may be that a new Iraqi government will request a U.S. military presence beyond the end of 2011. If so, I hope we will listen carefully."
Maybe we should start listening very careful right now. The president speaks of a long-term partnership with Iraq. How do you have that if you're gone? The answer may be that you aren't gone, that you maintain a significant military force in the country consisting of mercenaries employed by the State Department.
Politicians, huh? How rare to get one who speaks the truth. And America hasn't got one now.
V
So he told his people of the USA, and the world for that matter, that US military involvement in Iraq was over. It's all finished. If only!
Iraq was initially a war to disarm a state. Really? And then "terrorist" Iraqis attacked our troops in their country. Yet if they had done that in our country, I suspect they would still be the terrorists. And then it became a civil war which we were innocently caught up in. Uh huh.
U.S. participants in this crime are heroes, always and everywhere. That's sacred. The troops' mission has involved protecting the Iraqi people, and by golly they've done a superb job, as long as we don't mention the complete devastation of Iraq, the million dead, the millions of refugees, and the intense resentment of those remaining toward our country for what we've done to theirs.
I can't keep up with you, V! On another thread you're saying that we need to bomb Iran because of their weapons of mass destruction! How would the repercussions from that action be any better than what has happened in Iraq? The consequences of a war on Iran would be catastrophic.
Some time ago, when Obama was running for president, you said you considered him to be like 'something consisting of slime', so I don't suppose this latest comment on his character is being made from a position of complete objectivity. 🙂
As far as I can recall, Obama was not in power when Iraq, WMDs etc, kicked off. How come it's all his fault now? And, according to you V, Tony Blair is now on the money when he calls for Iran to be bombed. (But hey, I forgot, only a few really bad people are going to get killed when that happens because of the well known pinpoint bombing capacity of the western military. And anyway, it serves them right for working in nuclear facilities in the first place.) I don't know any of these politicians personally and I accept that politics is a sleazy business. But I'd rather see Obama in power than Bush. Next up Sarah Palin if you're lucky, V. Then your wish will probably be granted and the bombers will go in.
As far as I can recall, Obama was not in power when Iraq, WMDs etc, kicked off. How come it's all his fault now? And, according to you V, Tony Blair is now on the money when he calls for Iran to be bombed. (But hey, I forgot, only a few really bad people are going to get killed when that happens because of the well known pinpoint bombing capacity of the western military. And anyway, it serves them right for working in nuclear facilities in the first place.) I don't know any of these politicians personally and I accept that politics is a sleazy business. But I'd rather see Obama in power than Bush. Next up Sarah Palin if you're lucky, V. Then your wish will probably be granted and the bombers will go in.
Obama voted to fund the war or insertion against Iraq long before he was president.
Perhaps my main point this morning, is that he's trying to come across as so different to Bush, as the "peace-maker". The war in Iraq is "over". Only personnel "advising and assisting" will remain. LOL. It is as the article says, good that official US operations against Iraq will now end. The lie is in that they have not ended, which is the point in case anybody believed what they heard him say: they are simply reduced.
He even utterly lies about the fact that the Allies were there because of "al-Qaeda" - which never existed in Iraq before the Allies went in. Arguably, it doesn't exist there now.
I'm sad that so many politicians frankly find it hard to tell blunt truth.
I don't find that you are discussing this subject on facts or topic-based at all, just personally-based, which is no basis at all when so many lives are involved.
V
I can't keep up with you, V!
Try harder.
On another thread you're saying that we need to bomb Iran because of their weapons of mass destruction! How would the repercussions from that action be any better than what has happened in Iraq? The consequences of a war on Iran would be catastrophic.
The consequences of Iran having a production-line of nuclear bombs is not catastrophic, then?
You are confused. Primarily I'm clearly saying that Iran should just stop - then all potential hostilities would never occur. The UN and EU is asking them to stop, with vigour.
Secondly, it's a bit to do with semantics, sure, but it would NOT be a "war" as per vs. Iraq. No need for invasion at all: there are only two nuclear facilities so far, another eight planned. Those are all that need flooring. Only two so far - not a nation! Likelihood is that Israel will do it anyway within 12-18 months, according to research into political feelings there.
Iraq had no WMDs - it was, as you know, a fantasy. Iran clearly does intend to produce nuclear weapons. I'd call that a bit of a difference. And it's not a "war" lasting years - it might be done within hours. Only the facilities would be the targets.
Of course, if some want unregulated nuclear bombs circulating around the world, that's up to you. Iran also intends to place them in space: meaning they can just be dropped onto any city at a moment's notice. This is OK, is it? 😮
V
Aw, V, with all this doom and gloom you're putting into the ether, who knows what will happen? But one thing is certain and that is NOTHING is certain.
Those are all that need flooring. Only two so far - not a nation! Likelihood is that Israel will do it anyway within 12-18 months, according to research into political feelings there.
I can't believe you really think that there would be no consequences of a military strike, even a pinpoint one on Iran. I honestly think you need to move out of your head and into your heart.
Of course, if some want unregulated nuclear bombs circulating around the world, that's up to you. Iran also intends to place them in space: meaning they can just be dropped onto any city at a moment's notice. This is OK, is it? 😮
This is such a specious argument; the question has been asked before: what would you have us do? Run around like headless chickens, weeping and wailing because in some unspecified future Iran is going to have nuclear bombs circulating in space. Oh purleeease! I was more worried when George Bush was within spitting distance of a nuclear button than I am now. I honestly thought you had more inner resources than you persist in displaying with this constant warmongering. What will be will be. That's all that I need to know anyway.
it would NOT be a "war" as per vs Iraq... it's not a "war" lasting years - it might be done within hours.
You know that Iran and it's allies would agree to that do you? That's all right then. :rolleyes:
Who do you propose gets bombed next? North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba? Or don't they have enough oil to make it worth while?
I think there's a general consensus that the USA, with some help from us via Blair, probably went into Iraq with the real motive of getting at the oil. As well as establishing a larger presence in that general region. That's why any politician (such as Obama) who says the invasion was to "disarm" Iraq, or to go after a mythical Iraqi-based al-Qaeda, is plain and simply - lying. I'm most disappointed in Obama over that.
[In my first post I quote Govert Schuller, who additionally points out that the WTC attack was seemingly aided and abetted by some US sources to ensure a motive to invade Iraq existed.]
Not all these insertions are about oil, though. I'm not aware that we're getting anything good or useful out of being in Afghanistan (though i'm open to correction)?
Same with Iran. The public will not back invasion and the US military is over-stretched. There will be no invasion, surely, and hence no oil.
But this is serious business. The Iranian regime are not civil or logical even in the sense that the old USSR was. The idea of Iran having nukes orbiting in space seems much more of a threat to me than even the Soviet Union was. The USSR understood "MAD". I'm not sure the present Iranian regime would care about consequences.
Iran is already supplying training and the arms to Syria (vs Israel), and many of the roadside bombs our own troops have been prey to in Afghanistan and Iraq. All we are looking at here is that the supply of conventional explosives may become a supply of nuclear explosives.
It's not "scare-mongering" - it's what Iran is actually gearing up to do, at least to have the capability. Why are they doing it? Why don't they stop? Geo-politics just happens to interest me. 🙂 I'm not emotional about the subject at all, within: I am simply noting with interest that we are likely to see strikes against Iran, maybe next year.
V
Not all these insertions are about oil, though. I'm not aware that we're getting anything good or useful out of being in Afghanistan (though i'm open to correction)?
There's a plan to build a pipeline to transport oil from Azerbajan, and also the Trans Afghanistan gas pipeline is planned to run from the Caspian Sea. Both projects were conceived by the Unocol oil company in the late 90s. Unocol has now merged with Chevron.
I'm not emotional about the subject at all, within: I am simply noting with interest that we are likely to see strikes against Iran, maybe next year.
'Noting with interest'? You've been saying it would be a very good idea.
it's what Iran is actually gearing up to do, at least to have the capability. Why are they doing it? Why don't they stop?
Perhaps they think that someone would like to bomb them?
Venetian, I dont often venture onto the Current Affairs pages, but perhaps you should stop reading the opinions of organisations like http://www.alpheus.org/html/aboutalpheus.html as they seem to be making you rather paranoid (or was it you who wrote that piece?)
Obama voted to fund the war or insertion against Iraq long before he was president.
Barack Obama was not a senator at the time of the voting of the Iraq War Resolution, but repeatedly voiced his disapproval of it both before and during his senatorship, saying at an anti war rally in Chicago on October 2, 2002: "I am not opposed to all wars. Im opposed to dumb wars." He also spoke of the "undetermined length... undetermined cost, [and] undetermined consequences" which even a successful war would bring.
In 2007, he defended voting for funding the Iraq war, asserting that he has always made clear that he supports funding for US troops despite his consistent opposition to the war.
"I have been very clear even as a candidate that, once we were in, that we were going to have some responsibility to make it work as best we could, and more importantly that our troops had the best resources they needed to get home safely,"
Here is how others see his recent speech:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/02/obama_delivers_on_his_iraq_promises_106978.html
Judy
Hi Judy,
Alpheus.org is not an "organisation" as such, just an individual's website. But he's an academic, so gets info from all over the place. I agree with much of his writing, not all. The site was originally set up to kind of blend the subjects of esotericism (occult societies) and history. Govert is in particular an expert on the life of Krishnamurti. 🙂
V
I'm not even going to attempt to follow this thread. I find it extremely insulting to refer to my President as a liar, and then to use the thread to perpetuate the conspiracy theory. I'm not claiming Obama is a saint, but he is trying very hard to do the right thing in the extremely poisonous environment that is U.S. politics - especially with the very mean-spirited Right.
If you are trying to drive me away from HP, you are coming very close to succeeding...
There was a time when I had a great deal of respect for members of HP. For many here, that time has long gone...
I don't know about lies and all that - I treat most words from politicians as less than fully open and honest - seems to come with the job.
in terms of Iran having nuclear weapons - I believe they are fully entitled to seek to arm themselves to a similar level as the potentially hostile states in the area - and that means Israel. 'WE' gave Israel nuclear weapons, 'WE' caused the instability that this 'gift' carries with it, and now 'WE' seek to dicatate that Iran should stand defenseless against a state that has them. If Israel was disarmed of nuclear weapons I suspect Iran's stance would be more easily changed.
chris
Scott,
You just have to consider the source and ignore those who only want to stir the pot! =) They have the right to say whatever they want, too.
In the end, some have enough ego that they don't care what you think anyway~