President Obama yesterday spoke in defense of the Iran deal at American University, launching an unusually blunt and aggressive attack on deal opponents. Obama’s blistering criticisms aimed at the Israeli government and its neocon supporters were accurate and unflinching, including the obvious fact that what they really crave is regime change and war. About opposition to the deal from the Israeli government, he said: “It would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally.”
Judged as a speech, it was an impressive and effective rhetorical defense of the deal, which is why leading deal opponents have reacted so hysterically. The editors of Bloomberg View — which has spewed one Iraq-War-fearmongering-type article after the next about the deal masquerading as “reporting” — whined that Obama was “denigrating those who disagree with him” and that “it would be far better to win this fight fairly.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pronounced himself “especially insulted” and said Obama’s speech went “way over the line of civil discourse.” Our nation’s Churchillian warriors are such sensitive souls: sociopathically indifferent to the lives they continually extinguish around the world (provided it all takes place far away from their comfort and safety), but deeply, deeply hurt — “especially insulted” — by mean words directed at them and their motives.
Beyond accurately describing Iran deal opponents, Obama also accurately described himself and his own record of militarism. To defend against charges that he Loves the Terrorists, he boasted:
As commander-in-chief, I have not shied away from using force when necessary. I have ordered tens of thousands of young Americans into combat. …
I’ve ordered military action in seven countries.
By “ordered military actions in seven countries,” what he means is that he has ordered bombs dropped, and he has extinguished the lives of thousands of innocent people, in seven different countries, all of which just so happen to be predominantly Muslim.
The list includes one country where he twice escalated a war that was being waged when he was inaugurated (Afghanistan), another where he withdrew troops to great fanfare only to then order a new bombing campaign (Iraq), two countries where he converted very rare bombings into a constant stream of American violence featuring cluster bombs and “signature strikes” (Pakistan and Yemen), one country where he continued the policy of bombing at will (Somalia), and one country where he started a brand new war even in the face of Congressional rejection of his authorization to do so, leaving it in tragic shambles (Libya). That doesn’t count the aggression by allies that he sanctioned and supported (in Gaza), nor the proxy wars he enabled (the current Saudi devastation of Yemen), nor the whole new front of cyberattacks he has launched, nor the multiple despots he has propped up, nor the clandestine bombings that he still has not confirmed (Philippines).
[As the military historian and former U.S. Army Col. Andrew Bacevich noted in the Washington Post after Obama began bombing Syria, “Syria has become at least the 14th country in the Islamic world that U.S. forces have invaded or occupied or bombed, and in which American soldiers have killed or been killed. And that’s just since 1980.” That is the fact that, by itself, renders tribalistic Westerners who obsessively harp on the violence of Muslims such obvious self-deluded jokes.]
Two recent foreign policy moves are major positive items on Obama’s legacy: normalization of relations with Cuba and agreeing to this deal with Iran. But, as he himself just proudly touted yesterday, the overall record of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate is one of violence, militarism and aggression that has left a pile of dead bodies of innocent people. That Obama feels the need (or desire) to boast about how many countries he’s bombed, and that the only mainstream criticisms of him in the Iran debate is that he is too unwilling to use more aggression and force, says a lot about Obama, but even more about U.S. political culture. And none of what it says is good.
If it were up to the journalists, we would stand by and do nothing. Just like Chamberlain. “Churchillian.”
What I understand from the above is that Obama ordered the bombing in these nations, act to go to war are not the presidents decision firstly, he however has the power to call them off, when peace is eminent, typically. And the only time military in the history of America had it acted without congress approval was during the Iraq war, the last one, when following 911 incident, pretending to neither be a threat yet to threaten America while it was in pursuit of those whom attacked it, also deprived UN inspectors from inspecting for Atomic warfare, did invade Iraq as pursuant of criminals whom had attacked. Much is twisted in the perceptions of the powers of the president, and the facts are he may neither ever order anything like bombing other nations…it is up to the elected body congress to make that decision.
Glenn and TI have certainly seen this and probably will comment. As for everyone else, here’s more proof that Obama is turning into General Strelnikov.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/opinion/the-pentagons-dangerous-views-on-the-wartime-press.html
PS. Special attention to Glenn, ondelette, Mona. NYT article’s first hyperlink is to a much larger new DoD document on “the law of war.” Huge implications.
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf
Kevin Gosztola weighed in:
http://shadowproof.com/2015/08/10/pentagon-war-manual-gives-military-license-to-target-attack-journalists/
It’s not just press freedom. This new DoD document may distort anything the U.S. military has to do that touches international humanitarian law or customary law of war. We need to go through all 1,176 pp. and see what’s lurking. TI needs to devote at least one full article to that.
WHY DO I SEE THE JOKER (batman character)
EVERY TIME I SEE OBOOGER’S PICTURE..?
It’s a shame that only recently has Obama learned to be a maverick in the white house where previously he didn’t put his foot down on tough issues. For what he’s worth, this deal is a trump card for him in my eyes; but of course the next president is likely to be republican in which case the deal is dust.
Odi et amo obscurum per obscurius… Quam pura nites!
It truly stuns and amazes me to pure pile of shit people buy into about to Obama, Bush, Clinton, and more. Will anyone with open eyes watch Citizen Four or The Untold History of the United States? Of course not. No one will ever admit or accept that the number of millions that want us all dead are directly due to our own actions (or inactions). It never ceases to amazes me. Just because Bill O’Riely or Wolf Blitzer doesn’t tell you it’s gospel from ivory towers, any other thought, belief, or comprehension of blatant evidence right in front of us all, is considered conspiracy or treason. I tel, you all, if a drone with a giant US Flag flew past you, tosses cluster bombs or fire bombs, and see your own children, brothers, sisters, parents, or friends were burnt alive or blown into bloody chunks in front of you, and what would you do? I’d want us dead too, and completely justifiably. You think our President or Congress cares about any of us? Unless your net worth is more than ten million dollars, they don’t. Besides, the President and Congress are nothing more than political theater, nothing more than paid actors in place to distract us and keep us all fighting amongst ourselves, instead of holding the Fed, the Wall Street Tycoons, or the Pentagon accountable to their own actions, which causes nothing but endless pain, suffering, and grief to us all. Black, White, Hispanic, or Asian, it doesn’t matter. It effects us all, and creates for hate and disgust against us than any terrorist ever has. WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE!
Some boastful Nobel Peace prize fellow!
Still, I am not impressed. How come is bravado changes to indoor temper tantrums, faces and funny language calling them “friends” and “enemies” at the same time in the same sentence when it comes to China and Russia?
Oh, well, “we” have to be “responsible” …
Satyagraha,
RCL
Indeed, none of what it says is good. We’re a long way from the corner of Hope and Change.
– – –
Once I was young and impressive,
I wrote about hope and about dreams,
Once I was even progressive,
Gave speeches with all the hip themes,
But now I am in the White House,
And that’s why I sent the Marines,
So love me, love me, love me,
I’m a liberal.
So I lead the Democrat Party,
I want the unemployed to have dreams,
I want all the children to go to school,
I want to clean up all our streams,
But don’t ask me to clean up Wall Street,
‘Cause I’ve got elections to fund,
So love me, love me, love me,
I’m a liberal.
Once I went to law school at Harvard,
I taught constitutional law,
I learned due process from Lawrence Tribe,
I’m truly a real know-it-all.
So that’s why I ordered those drone strikes,
For I am the wisest of all,
So love me, love me, love me,
Yes, love me, love me, love me,
I’m a liberal.
— apologies to Phil Ochs
I think Phil wouldn’t mind at all. It just shows that 50 years has come and gone, but some things have not changed. 1965 or 2015 insanity is still insanity.
The real tragedy expressed in this article and the other one about “free speech” is that they had to be written at all.
The (not so) great charade continues!
We are supposed to feel good about a “deal” with Iran which is based upon
lies about Iran being a threat when
the nations which are the real threats are barely able to tolerate
the deal which their misrepresentations and misrepresentatives
are the sources of
because the corporatized militarism (fascism) which is central to their
identities demands submission from Iran,
one way or another.
Obama’s goal is the same as his more vicious colleagues’ goal.
He makes that clear when he uses his own murderous behavior
as a badge of proof.
Should we turn right or should we turn right? – those are the choices
Obama and all his ilk are offering.
If the “deal” passes the corporate congress, it will be used for accusations
of “violation” aimed at Iran.
A lousy charade.
ATT lenk: Consider this if you care to …
Thanks to Reliance on “Signature” Drone Strikes, US Military Doesn’t Know Who It’s Killing
Tuesday, 04 August 2015 00:00
By Adam Hudson, Truthout | Report
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32166-thanks-to-reliance-on-signature-drone-strikes-us-military-doesn-t-know-who-it-s-killing
Greenwald’s pile of bullshit
“he twice escalated a war that was being waged when he was inaugurated (Afghanistan), another where he withdrew troops to great fanfare only to then order a new bombing campaign (Iraq), two countries where he converted very rare bombings into a constant stream of American violence featuring cluster bombs and “signature strikes” (Pakistan and Yemen), one country where he continued the policy of bombing at will (Somalia), and one country where he started a brand new war even in the face of Congressional rejection of his authorization to do so, leaving it in tragic shambles (Libya).”
Afghanistan: Use of force by the US has been requested by the elected government of Afghanistan and the traditional loyal Jirga. American forces have targeted the Taliban. Yes, Greenwald, the Taliban who would not allow kids to go to school and become lawyers like you, who’d not allow journalists to challenge their governments like you do and more importantly who would not allow women to receive health care! Can you provide the readers evidence that Afghan troops run by an elected government that have requested US assistance are targeting Afghan innocent civilians and not the Taliban?
Iraq: Use of force has been requested by the elected government of Iraq and the Kurdish authorities because both entities are unable to stop a well trained and well equipped terrorist group openly committing genocide live for the world to see! Any evidence that US troops are targeting innocent civilians in Iraq, Syria and not ISIL fighters?
Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia: Two countries where both governments and tribal leaders have consistently repeated they are UNABLE to stop the terrorists on their territory who plan, attack and massacre not just a few US citizens, but thousands of innocent Muslims.
Libya: Use of force requested by the United Nations to stop a mad dictator. Any evidence that the US (West) is responsible for tribal conflicts that existed hundreds of years ago?
“The best defense against bull shit is vigilance, so if you smell something, say something” Jon Stewart
Vigilance is not even needed in this case. This is not just the lowest level of journalism. Crucial information is carefully withheld from the reader. Context is completely absent. This is just a huge pile of Bull Shit!
I take it the majority of people in those countries welcomed the bombs and aggression….
Go to Kurdistan and ask them. All expenses on me.
You just summed up your own comment.
“This is just a huge pile of Bull Shit!”
So, make sure you spread all your face with it as you enjoy doing whenever Greenwald shits on your face.
So puppets we put in want our support,while the people they rule condemn and protest the puppets.
I have a feeling you will die in the coma you are in,if you haven’t woken up yet.
Yankee come Home,they don’t want US there,only the Zionists do.
Oh yeah, the Zionists. Of course the Zionists. What would dolts like you do without the Zionists? There’s always the bicycle riders.
One can always find a convenient justification for violence. And since the Korean war, we have used every one under the sun. BTW, who armed the “well trained and equipped terrorist group”? Maybe not directly, but they (ISIS) has plenty of US supplied weapons with which to carry out their terrorism. I would love to hear of just one example where a country was left better off than it was before they were bombed or invaded by the US (and its allies, of course)? Is Iraq a better place today than it was in 1990 or 2002? How about Libya? How about the fact that the west has essentially destabilized an entire region, with spillover into Europe?
But, I do agree that some of the article’s wording should have had more context.
“I would love to hear of just one example where a country was left better off than it was before they were bombed or invaded by the US (and its allies, of course)?”
Germany, Italy, Japan, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo. About Afghanistan? I let you do your own research regarding education, health care, human rights, women rights in that country.
You have pulled this out of your ass. If *you* knew anything about, e.g., Afghanistan you would never point to it as a success. Your comments are all heat and no light.
So, please you, who “KNOW” a lot about Afghanistan, teach us about how Afghanistan was under the Taliban and how it is now. Be specifics please. Tell us how the education, health care, freedom of speech, freedom of journalists, freedom of assembly were before and after the US invasion. Educate us so we can decide whether Afghanistan was “better” under the Taliban.
Jackass, *you* are the one making all the claims. It is up to you to back them up with evidence.
You spent too much time bathing in Greenwald’s bull shit. So let’s review the debate one more time:
Winplr: “I would love to hear of just one example where a country was left better off than it was before they were bombed or invaded by the US (and its allies, of course)?”
Lenk: “Germany, Italy, Japan, Panama, Bosnia, Kosovo. About Afghanistan? I let you do your own research regarding education, health care, human rights, women rights in that country.”
This is YOU: “You have pulled this out of your ass. If *you* knew anything about, e.g., Afghanistan you would never point to it as a success. Your comments are all heat and no light.”
You accused me of being ignorant of the Afghanistan’s society. So, stating that Afghanistan got better after US intervention was a statement “pulled out of my ass”. Yet, after accusing me you are saying that I am the one who has to present evidence. Okay, so let’s see the scientific data on Afghanistan. These are well known data available to the world. However, fools like you who depend on Greenwald’s pile of shit are unable to study factual information before they open their mouth.
Healthcare:
Pre-natal care: 2001: 16% of women. 2010: 60% of women
Pregnancy related deaths: 2001: 1,600 deaths per 100,000 births. 2010: 327 deaths per 100,000
Child mortality: 2001: 133 deaths per 1000. 2013: 97 per 1000
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.MORT
https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan/health
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/02/28/afghanistan-better-access-to-health-care-saves-lives
Acces to Education: 2001: less than 1 million. 2013: 8 million
https://www.usaid.gov/afghanistan/education
Freedom of expression: “The Taliban had turned Afghanistan into “a country without news or pictures”
RSF, 2000
The Afghan media now has “unprecedented freedom,” Kabul Weekly, 2003
http://en.rsf.org/afghanistan-afghanistan-2003-annual-report-02-05-2003,06370.html
Now, tell us how Afghanistan got worse.
Afghanistan is yet under Taliban rule with the possible exception of certain areas of Kabul. They seem to be able to carry out attacks at will, and this is after well over 10 years of US help. As an American, I feel that American lives have been needlessly lost trying to help a country that cannot be helped, at least militarily.
“Afghanistan is yet under Taliban rule with the possible exception of certain areas of Kabul”
This is my friendly advice. If you do not believe anything about news reports, United Nations reports, NGO’s reports, NATO’s reports, US government reports, then go on site to check yourself. Your statement is factually incorrect. The Taliban controls many RURAL areas mostly in the southern parts of Afghanistan and border areas with Pakistan. Afghanistan is not under Taliban rule. Most of the international forces are gone and yet the Taliban is unable to take over major towns because 1) the Afghan military although poor and inefficient does not want them to succeed and 2) most Afghans do not want the Taliban.
“As an American, I feel that American lives have been needlessly lost trying to help a country that cannot be helped, at least militarily.”
Let history be the judge: would all these kids be able to go to school without American lives? would all these women and infant receive healthcare without American lives?
Much of rural Afghanistan and Pakistan are comprised of century old fierce and independent clans and tribes. They live in a 4th century mindset and culture. Schooling where it exists is comprised of all male Madrassas boarding schools where repetitious reciting chapters of the Koran equals an “education”. These countries have strategic geopolitical value because of location and have a substantial natural resources. These wars have only hardened their resolve and the ultra orthodox fringe that has a stranglehold on the nation. A monumental waste of money and American lives. And a breeding ground of virulent anti Americanism.
You missed Grenada …
you can’t be serious. Reagan invades a small country on a trumped up rumor. They did get a nice airport out of the deal, however.
Nice, I can now comment without javascript. I can’t reply, but I’ll totally take it. Getting tired of my SSL being broken. :)
‘Anti-American’ dudes indicted for stocking up on weapons prior to Jade Helm, etc: http://www.rt.com/usa/311789-nc-jade-helm-fbi/
Stellar! On point and not holding back. Please, keep it up!
Another one out of the ballpark by the great Glenn Greenwald.
Bite us if you dare, little wayward, piggies: :-P
Iran negotiations: The women who made the Iran nuclear deal happen
By Suzanne Kianpour
BBC News, Washington
6 August 2015
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33728879
BBC NEWS online: [Bread and Circuses, Mr. Rubio? Clown, you!]
The crowd became hostile when Mr Trump said he would run as an independent, an admission that enraged Mr Paul. “He buys and sells politicians of all stripes,” said the senator.
One of the loudest rounds of applause was for Mr Rubio when he mocked Hillary Clinton, who leads the Democratic field.
“First let me say, I think God has blessed us. He’s blessed the Republican Party with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.”
The more and more I learn about US history and what America does to places everyday, the more I am convinced that terrorism is justified against the US government.
I think the terrorists attacking the US should not just be Muslims and Islamic extremists, but also your everyday American who are sick and tired of the criminal cartel that is Washington DC who is trying to enslave the world and take away everyone’s freedom.
With a government that commits these kinds of actions, why is setting off bombs in Washington DC to kill politicians and other police state slime such a bad thing?
If this was a perfect world, the criminal clique in Washington would have been dispensed with years ago.
I look forward to finding out if you get your door kicked in for this.
Your name explains all.
I think you missed my biting tone with regards to the current machinations of the US government.
I don’t know, the comment has a bit of that too-straight-forward FBI sting feel to it also – and federal agencies are probably fishing for any reason to send FLM/TI NSLs requesting username / email addresses…
True. Especially given the rather unusual full name being used (which I don’t recall having seen on here before, albeit it may have been and I didn’t notice).
Is it terrible that I’m trying to prevent people from biting? These days I can’t even tell…
Well, it is the 70th Anniversary of America dropping the first ever nuke on Hiroshima. At least Obama is keeping up with American tradition.
Fabulous article! Thank you for being a voice of reason.
That’s true. He not only brings a new (Orwellian) meaning to peace, but he’s also willing to use the old memory hole. I posted this elsewhere, but it’s apropos here. He said, a few days ago, “We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks.” From the official WH transcript:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/01/press-conference-president
It really does sound like Mr. Peace Prize tried to rationalize war crimes. “I understand why it happened. I think it’s important when we look back to recall how afraid people were after the Twin Towers fell.” Against our values, and we don’t do it now &c. No mention of going back and investigating, let alone prosecuting, just “we won’t do it in the future”.
A crime is a crime. The only question now is: who are accessories after the fact, and whether we will again say of some future atrocity that “it’s important when we look back to recall” how afraid/self-righteous/rationalistic/expedient we were.
Marvelous. Thank you, coram nobis! ox ;-) (Now one year later…)
Press Conference by the President | whitehouse.gov 08/01/14
[Q&A Excerpts]
On Brennan and the CIA, the RDI report has been transmitted, the declassified version that will be released at the pleasure of the Senate committee.
I have full confidence in John Brennan. I think he has acknowledged and directly apologized to Senator Feinstein that CIA personnel did not properly handle an investigation as to how certain documents that were not authorized to be released to the Senate staff got somehow into the hands of the Senate staff. And it’s clear from the IG report that some very poor judgment was shown in terms of how that was handled. Keep in mind, though, that John Brennan was the person who called for the IG report, and he’s already stood up a task force to make sure that lessons are learned and mistakes are resolved.
With respect to the larger point of the RDI report itself, even before I came into office I was very clear that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values. […]
But having said all that, we did some things that were wrong. And that’s what that report reflects. And that’s the reason why, after I took office, one of the first things I did was to ban some of the extraordinary interrogation techniques that are the subject of that report.
And my hope is, is that this report reminds us once again that the character of our country has to be measured in part not by what we do when things are easy, but what we do when things are hard. And when we engaged in some of these enhanced interrogation techniques, techniques that I believe and I think any fair-minded person would believe were torture, we crossed a line. And that needs to be — that needs to be understood and accepted. And we have to, as a country, take responsibility for that so that, hopefully, we don’t do it again in the future.
– President Barack Obama
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/08/01/press-conference-president
Can someone please explain “extraordinary interrogation” vs. “enhanced interrogation”. I like to make ‘n keep relevant notes.
The Hoffman Report: After Years of Lies, Who Holds the APA Accountable?
By John M. Grohol, Psy.D.
[Excerpt]
The problem started first with a relaxing of ethics by the APA in 2002, and then with an APA Presidential Task Force’s report in 2005, which stated in part:
It is consistent with the APA Code of Ethics for psychologists to serve in consultative roles to interrogation- or information-gathering processes for national security-related purposes. While engaging in such consultative and advisory roles entails a delicate balance of ethical considerations, doing so puts psychologists in a unique position to assist in ensuring that such processes are safe and ethical for all participants.
I’m not sure how anyone at the APA ever thought such a statement was in any way keeping with the role of psychologists. Or that a task force where 6 of the 10 members had connections to the defense or intelligence communities would be unbiased and objective. It took the APA over 8 years to rescind this report and completely renounce psychologists’ role in torture interrogations! All the while, APA’s leadership, press office, and even its members, were made to look foolish, reporting the same denials, year after year.
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2015/07/11/the-hoffman-report-after-years-of-lies-who-holds-the-apa-accountable/
Today’s story about the APA vote.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/07/psychologists-torture-vote-interrogation
“Extraordinary” interrogation seems to be whether or not it’s admissible as evidence in U.S. military courts.
http://lawofwar.org/interrogation_techniques.htm
Enhanced interrogation is the usual Bybee-Yoo general run of torture, it would seem. Two different euphenisms for a range of torture; apparently it’s just whether the waterboarding includes fabric softener or not. Either way, it used to be both inadmissible and illegal.
everyone please read:
Obama speech on Iran: Collapse of nuclear deal will mean war
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/06/iran-a06.html
WoW.. You spoiled supremacist entitled boys want it one way all the time.. your own.. While you languish at your desks or on your sofas with pot bellies playing arm chair president, thinking to yourselves.. Shite .. I know how I would deal with this or that, yet your hired killers (police) are running around murdering citizens .. because .. yeah .. you all dealt thwit that too.. . Fact is, It was every previous racist idiots you all elected that got America into this mess and every American war fuckfest in the first place.. Except this time.. the bad boys are really effing bad.. and guess what ..You lazy entitled idiots should have been more careful of the seeds that have been sewn… You all sat idly by and let the racist warmongers you voted for, fake you into wars, take away your rights and your privicy and now, it’s all Obamas fault?… Holy Shite!.. what a country full of effing idiots Americans are.. Top to bottom.. Ivy league or community college.. A gaggle of effing iditots! …. Did you think it would really be possible to run around the world killing other peoples children and families without them ever fighting back .. There is a great line from Platoon delivered by the great Willam Dafoe.. We been kickin everybody elses ass for a long time .. I guess its about time we got ours kicked.. Bend over America..
A Practical Guide to American Fascism [Ouch!]: The Psychopathology of Liberalism
NORMAN POLLACK
AUGUST 6, 2015
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/06/a-practical-guide-to-american-fascism-the-psychopathology-of-liberalism/
Glenn over all is correct in both is praise of Obama defending the Iran Deal and his criticism of the militaristic actions he has taken(Drones, targeted assassinations, etc). Unfortunately I think it says more about American society and the structures and institutions in Washington than it does about Obama himself.
Given things like the Military Industrial Complex, Lobbyists and Special Interests Groups that run Washington, a RightWing Congress as well as a political climate in America where the public supports militaristic actions(85% support Drones, 77% support the ISIS campaign, 62% support Israel, etc) Anyone who occupies the White House is inevitably gonna take some militaristic action.
Jimmy Carter was the most pacifist president compared to others and even he did things like order Operation Cyclone in Afghanistan(which led to the formation of the Taliban and Al Qaeda) approved weapons sales to El Salvador when it had a military Junta(resulting in Archbishop Oscar Romero’s assassination) and unknown to people continued covert and economic pressure on Jamaica during the 1970’s against Michael Manley resulting in political instability.
If we had an ideal world where Gandhi was the President, Chomsky was the Vice President, Martin Luther King Jr was Secretary of State and Norman Finkelstein the U.S would still be militaristic and imperialistic in their foreign policy. Which just shows that we are dealing with structures here and not just individuals.
Having said all this….give the “structures” Obama has to operate under I still think he is a overall pretty good president inspite of my many disagreements with a lot of his policies.
Click on The USS Liberty. She is the icon of America. Her heroic crew saved themselves from the corrupt governments that sought to sink them. We the People are the Crew of the USS Liberty. We will survive only if the truth gets out and We can bear to speak it and to inoculate ourselves with it so as to trigger an immune response against it. We must occupy the systems and recreate them from within. I am talking about millions of people doing billions of things to make a world of difference. If You do not believe that can and must work, then You do not believe in America or Ameri – cans.
Oh, Greenwald will like this one, see if you can spot why:
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Palestinian-strikes-2-Israelis-with-vehicle-in-West-Bank-terror-attack-411359
I assume because attacking illegally occupying soldiers is an act of defense of territory or war, not “terrorism”.
Attacking an illegally occupies armed forces is not terrorism.
what’s the endgame here ?
From the “Good luck with that” dept:
and from the “Then you’ve got nothing to worry about” dept:
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Aharoni-Israel-must-untangle-its-narrative-of-that-of-the-Palestinians-411285
On what grounds are they objecting to Benzi Gopstein’s calls to burn down churches? We see the Israeli army use everything from bombs, to bulldozers to destroy non-Jewish buildings, what’s the problem? Isn’t he simply voicing support for government policy?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11786802/Burning-of-Christian-churches-in-Israel-justified-far-Right-Jewish-leader-says.html
from BBC
Perhaps if Israelis were half as concerned for Arab lives as they are for Jewish lives they would have the tools for dealing with the rest of the world.
Instead the dominant voice in Israel screams for war.
If Orthodox Jews treated their women as human beings then perhaps they might learn to treat Arabs as human beings. Oh well, leopard, spots …
It doesn’t only happen to the chosen people. It is generic cult like behaviour. the difficulty leaving such a situation, being ostracised. Plus there’s an awareness now that mental illness is so prevalent, even among atheists who are destined to burn in hell. We all know people going through stuff like this, the trick is how to see the signs, help people while they’re still alive.
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-opinions/1.667721
JLocke … Your take on Jews, cults, mental health, atheists and destiny? Love thy neighbo(u)r as thyself ;-)
“It doesn’t only happen to the chosen people. It is generic cult like behaviour. the difficulty leaving such a situation, being ostracised. Plus there’s an awareness now that mental illness is so prevalent, even among atheists who are destined to burn in hell.”
http://risenetworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/love-thy-neighbour.jpg
Exactly. Orthodox who live in enclaves separate from the world are a small minority of Jews. Moreover, leaving such protective and culturally different cocoons is traumatic not just for them, but also for ex-Amish, for nuns leaving cloistered convents & many others — it’s not remotely confined to “XOs.”
Approximately twenty-two veterans commit suicide every day in the U.S. Do you have a cocoon clad theory for that occurrence too? Open mouth, insert …
What? The discussion in this sub-thread is about self-segregated, culturally distinct communities and the difficulty in adjusting to the outside world many experience when leaving them. Is this such an unfamiliar topic for you that a non sequitur seems the apt reply?
Gee Mona, are you saying if the young victim hadn’t left her cult things would be rosy?
All cults are destructive to society. You are simultaneously explaining and dismissing the fundamental problem with your “difficulty in adjusting to the outside world many experience when leaving them” excuse.
Many people deal with bipolar disorder without committing suicide. Perhaps if the Hassidic community was not so vicious towards its women … imagine how they feel about gentile women and their babies. Well, look at Palestine and you’ve got an answer.
Joanne was waiting, justifiably, for a forthcoming assertion regarding suicide in the military.
Isn’t the military a cocoon of sorts? It is not small, but it is certainly an insular, culturally distinct community.
Only in Greenwaldia could a nutball Jew-baiter unintentionally spark a thoughtful, interesting discussion.
Gator90, honey. If you haven’t learned how to connect the dots by now, try following the thread … from the beginning.
From the New York Times:
“Aipac responded forcefully on Wednesday to the president’s characterization of its campaign of opposition to the deal.
“To remove any misinformation or confusion, Aipac took no position whatsoever on the Iraq war, nor did we lobby on this issue — this is an entirely false and misleading argument,” said Marshall Wittmann, the group’s communications director.”
– “Aipac took no position whatsoever on the Iraq war”
Anyone in Aipac who wasn’t lobbying for war would’ve lasted about as long as a Philip Morris lobbyist pushing people to stop smoking.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/moran-down
thanks JLocke
That’s false no matter how many times it’s repeated. If the war is just (ad bellum) – if our violence is a defensive response to terrorism – then we will legitimately “harp on the violence” of our enemies. Our conduct in the war is a separate question, and even for that it’s not sufficient to merely look at the number of countries attacked, though it may be enough to consider the number of non-combatants killed and injured on each side. (Is that supposed to be implied?)
But it seems that many, if not most, humans are willing to condone any degree of violence by their side in a war for which the cause is just. A very common attitude is “If you start the fight, you deserve whatever you get.” It’s absolutely true that whenever there’s a fight we all want to know who started it. That question is always asked. And, of course, each side will claim that the other is responsible; the side that initiated the violence will always say it was threatened, and was responding in self-defense (maybe by defending “vital interests”). But that doesn’t mean that the question can be ignored; if neither side can be justified, then that’s the answer that must be given. Only after the question of just cause is answered will it be possible to make an effective moral argument against the conduct of one or both sides in a war.
(But I doubt an effective argument can ever be made. If truth is the first casualty of war, reason isn’t far behind. War seems like a disease that has no cure and must run its course. Prevention would definitely be the best strategy.)
Damn right. Those Iraqis caused 9/11 and they deserved what they got. And by God it was proportionate. It is just that the proportionality constant was something like 100. Not our fault.
Come on, Mike.
In this instance, barncat is objecting to a small piece of hyperbole which serves to weaken a message. The overall message is good, but I actually agree – however nitpicky – that it could be stronger. I think the passage in question might have been better if written as follows:
Or some such. IANAE. ;-}
Anyhow, when I read barncat now – after having had a convo with him/her about why s/he participates in comment sections, I view the nitpickery a bit differently than I did before. Yes, it can be annoying when it seems to take away from the overall message, but I think that barncat truly wants to make that message – as incredibly important as it is – better, as opposed to taking anything away from it or eroding it.
Just my own 2 farthings. :-)
You think this is nit picking?? Greenwald means exactly what he wrote. That is his argument. That is what he believes. If he really wanted to express the idea that you did in your correction, you think he wouldn’t have been careful to do so? I can’t imagine why you would think that.
Of course it is and of course you are. It is 90% of what you do here– picking nits real and often manufactured.
“by itself, renders” and “contributes to rendering” are two entirely different things. I don’t consider what he did, when it comes to changing meaning and assuming original intent, nitpicking at all.
Only in the sense that you choose to construct a critique of a very narrow portion of the overall piece. I’m sorry (truly) if I used a word choice that is, admittedly, a bit inflammatory considering exchanges around here that no one ever seems to be able to lift themselves above.
I have met Glenn twice. I have had time to observe his conversational style as well as his writing style, though I certainly don’t know him intimately. It is prone to flourishes like this -as is that of many, many people – that might be extracted if he were to subject himself to editing (which he has chosen, for good reasons imho, to avoid). In the end, I think your critique in this instance was valuable and said so, that you chose to focus solely on one ill-advised word in responding to me sort of makes my point about forests and trees.
I disagree. The same sentence could read: “That is the fact that, standing alone, renders tribalistic westerners who obsessively harp on the violence of Muslims such obvious self-deluded jokes.” And it’s true.
We can agree to disagree. I think there are other qualities that render them self-deluded jokes, not the least of which is their personalities, which contribute nothing to their arguments whatsoever.
I personally find Glenn’s hyperbole refreshing. It’s about time someone served these assholes a heaping helping of the shit they toss in others’ teeth. I can also, however, see the argument that it might, at times, detract a bit – mileage varying depending on consumer – from his over-arching point(s).
He gets carried away sometimes, this just isn’t one of them. His tendency toward absolutes can get him in trouble —
Um, Glenn isn’t the only one who sometimes gets caught up in absolutes. Just sayin’…… ;-}
But have a care — I only permit a limited amount of that.
Ommitted winky accepted, you’re not my mother, Mona, and I can always edit the pepper jelly mailing list. Disagreement is healthy as well as human. ;-}
!!!
In all seriousness, it’s a pet peeve and I virtually (ahem) never do it. Perhaps you mistake my vehemence and take-no-prisoners style for using absolutes, but it is actually rare from me.
I dunno. Your insistence in stating this just isn’t one of them struck me as a bit absolutish, but it’s the inner toobz so who knows. :-)
Mona,
Now that’s funny. No prisoners = no absolutes.
Check +.
Hyperbole;Thy name is Zion.
Additional thought:
The same sentence could read: “That is the fact that, standing alone, renders tribalistic westerners who obsessively harp on the violence of Muslims such obvious self-deluded jokes.” And it’s true.
It may be true for Glenn, you and even me that this fact – alone – renders them self-deluded jokes, but I’m not sure that assumption would hold true for everyone observing. That may be why barncat objected to it, though s/he’d have to confirm.
People often need multiple reasons/arguments/etc to convince them to alter their perceptions. That is, I suspect, one of the reasons why Glenn continues to write repeatedly about many of the same issues. Change only happens over time and with constant attention to a myriad of details.
Right, that’s exactly why I objected. That fact alone will be enough for no one (except absolute pacifists). If it’s enough for you and Greenwald, it’s because you’ve already made a decision regarding the just cause of US violence, and you’re applying it implicitly. How many countries did the US invade in WWII? Is that the only question you need to ask to make a judgment on the morality of US violence in WWII?
As for whether it’s “hyperbole”:
As any normal person would, Bradshaw wants to consider whether there is just cause for US violence, apart from the quantity of violence. Greenwald replies as if the question of just cause is meaningless or irrelevant. This is consistent with what he wrote in the column (referencing the same op-ed by Andrew Bacevich). Greenwald is expressing the opinion that US violence can be judged (compared to the violence of Muslim extremists) solely on the basis of its quantity. It’s not hyperbole.
barncat, when I wrote Glenn, you and even me I was being rhetorical to set up my point. That’s why I wrote the following in my comment to Mona at 2:31pm,
We can agree to disagree. I think there are other qualities that render them self-deluded jokes, not the least of which is their personalities, which contribute nothing to their arguments whatsoever.
I am holistic in how I view argumentation. I would probably not be a great debater for that reason. I am uninterested in getting into granular dissections of the sort you engage. That’s not a judgement, by the way, just a comment on how I absorb information.
The fact that you took one small piece of something I said out of the context of the conversation I was actually trying to have and turned it into a soliloquy – however interesting – about the US and WWII takes me off track and makes it increasingly difficult to follow what you’re getting at, not less so. We probably ought to just drop it, but thanks for the interaction.
No, that is flatly either a lie or a bizarre mistake.
You initially claimed this about Glenn’s words under discussion:
You didn’t say it was inapplicable to some or many; you claimed it was “false.” It is not false.
You are a nitpicking fuckwit — it’s almost all you do here.
Hijackers in the September 11 attacks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia.[1] The others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt and Lebanon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
Ask yourself why the Zionist MSM has refused to tie Saudi Arabia to the attacks,and why they have not pursued one link in examining the day that changed everything?
The Israelis and Saudis are tied at the hip today,which leads to their linkage on that black day,where the govt.let Israeli and Saudis leave America.
Release the 28 pages.
But it seems that many, if not most, humans are willing to condone any degree of violence by their side in a war for which the cause is perceived as just.
I took the liberty of adding a couple of words that I think really should have been present in that statement. The way our major media works and, to whatever degree (a changing target I think), succeeds, it is the perception they manufacture that matters as opposed to the truth about whether actions are just (or not).
(But I doubt an effective argument can ever be made. If truth is the first casualty of war, reason isn’t far behind. War seems like a disease that has no cure and must run its course. Prevention would definitely be the best strategy.)
Again, here I would substitute the word honest for effective, though I take you overall point. As was seen in the run up to the Iraq war, untruthful arguments can, indeed, be effective. This is one powerful reason why it’s so important to continue efforts to call them out and dismantle them in public to remove their effectiveness, even when done with more hyperbole than some may wish to see. Like so many diseases, war has no single, effective cure. It must be treated holistically if we wish to see change. And that requires enormous push back by large numbers of people on many fronts.
I thought it could be inferred from the context that the justness was being perceived by humans from the point of view of “their side”, but I agree it would have been better had I made it clearer.
I disagree here. The effectiveness of untruthful arguments is dependent on the same dynamic I’m describing. What they all do is first provide a justification for the war itself. That’s the key. And that’s what Greenwald is consistently refusing to deal with.
@Pedinska — I was referring back to “an effective moral argument against the conduct of one or both sides in a war.” What I meant is that once people are sold on the just cause, it’s doubtful that they can be convinced of the unjust conduct of their own side (I should have been clearer). But that was in parentheses, and my main point is that it’s impossible to do so if the question of just cause is ignored.
Thanks for the additional explanations.
I’d swear Ondy wrote that. He’s the only one to constantly blame Glenn for not doing enough.
Oh please.
Yes, it’s theoretically possible that a nation that fights multiple wars is justified in doing so.
That doesn’t change the fact that a nation that does that is very violent.
But when we’re talking about using military violence in 14 different countries in less than 40 years in just one region of the world, then it’s impossible in all but the most abstract ways that the country is anything other than extremely violent.
Who’s denying the (extreme) violence? The question – which you seem determined at all costs to avoid – is justification. That is the distinction we make between our violence and their violence. That is what you eventually need to address. Look at the Twitter exchange again:
That’s how all human beings react to violence. We want to know what motivated it, and we want to determine whether it was justified. (The exception would be absolute pacifists.) Do you want to say that the violence committed by the US “in less than 40 years in just one region of the world” cannot possibly be justified solely on the basis of its quantity? That’s a different statement than the one in your reply to me, and no one’s going to buy it. As I said, those who buy it will have already decided on the justification. Was the violence we committed in WWII necessarily unjustified because of its quantity?
In the recent Tony Blair column, you wrote:
It’s the same problem. You’re trying to equate our violence with theirs without considering justification. You seemed to be taking a half step by adding “affirmation” to “causation” but it’s not enough if we consider our own violence to be justified. Our moral superiority is only negated if our violence is no more justified than theirs is. (That’s true if neither side is justified.)
Asked and answered. It only takes one Iraq war to blow the USS Justification out of the water. And, Frankly, none of the others look pure either.
Who the hell is John Bradshaw,and why is his opinion valuable?Justified by malevolent lying interventionist Zionist criminals only,or their dupes and fellow travelers like traitor Chuck Shomer.
-”If the war is just (ad bellum) – if our violence is a defensive response to terrorism – then we will legitimately “harp on the violence” of our enemies. Our conduct in the war is a separate question,…But it seems that many, if not most, humans are willing to condone any degree of violence by their side in a war for which the cause is just. A very common attitude is “If you start the fight, you deserve whatever you get.””
Hitler would agree. Back in the day, he had “Dershowitz levels” of certainty that the Jews were a threat to the people of Germany. He also had “Dershowitz levels” of respect for the law. He was content to use minimum force to remove the threat, although perhaps as you say, since the Jews “started it” (by as we would say now,…”not recognizing” Nazi Germany) nobody wanted to take the risk, any more than Dershowitz would want America to hold fire and risk Israel being destroyed by Iran’s hypothetical arsenal.
A defensive response to terrorism doesn’t automatically make it “just”. The Iraq war is a straightforward example. The example Chomsky likes to use is the bombing of the main Sudanese pharmaceutical plant in 1998, which is considered retaliatory.
I can’t think of very much the US has done in the Middle East that might be considered “just”.
It started in 1948 with the dispossession of the Palestinians,and the Zionist states atrocities.And continues to this day,the Israeli expansion program,from the Nile to the Euphrates.I mean,it’s not obvious?
You know, that’s really a phenomenal statement. And, to make that statement as a boast, or a defense of one’s record, makes it Phenomenal^OrderOfMagnitude.
For a Leader Of The Free World™ to make that claim, I cannot imagine a more damning admission of failure.
I blame video games. At one time, the US took its commitment to war seriously. Now, it starts a war, gets bored and then starts a new one. A while back, I planned to do something about this national attention deficit disorder. But then I got distracted by other things and nothing ever came of it.
Yeah, that phrase, and its blithe delivery, sent a chill all the way to my tailbone.
It may be evidence of failure to us – and was incredibly jarring in a speech designed to tout the virtues of diplomacy – but to them it’s a sign of chest-beating, manly potency. And the fact that it seems to be a requirement to even come close to succeeding in a Presidential race, is a damning indictment of the rest of the country.
Seems to be a feature. Peace prize speech justifying war; speech justifying unlimited spying standing in front of the Bill of Rights…
It’s right up there with “we tortured some folks”!
*only coram nobis knows how future PBS ‘Presidential Historians’ will play it.
Yes, exactly, bahhummingbug. I had the same visceral response to both. As in, You’re okay with this? Talk about banal. As though it were some commonplace, mutually acceptable, throwaway line not worthy of a footnote.
I’ve ordered military action in seven countries.
How nice for you.
Peace is about trying to place yourself in a better strategic situation to fight the next war.
On one hand, it could be argued that starting a war with Iran, while still fighting in Afghanistan and bombing in Syria and Iraq would be stretching the resources of the United States a bit thin.
On the other hand, Iran, once sanctions are lifted, will increase oil sales to China and perhaps they will eventually form a strategic partnership, challenging US dominance of the Middle East. So in future, under a peaceful scenario, the US may be in a weaker strategic position.
Perhaps there is a simple solution that will satisfy everyone. The president also reminded his audience that his administration has provided ‘unprecedented levels’ of military and intelligence assistance to Israel. Let Israel attack Iran. That would satisfy their hawks and the Republicans in Congress. The United States could concentrate on finishing up its current wars. There is even a precedent – Saudi Arabia has actually deployed some of its own arsenal of US weapons to start a war in Yemen. This is a natural step in the evolution of the Middle East. Saudi has upped its game and Israel and Egypt need to follow suit. With the Israel-Iran, Egypt-Iraq and Saudi-Yemen wars in progress, the US could continue to sell them weapons and provide some logistical support, but could also turn its attention to other parts of the world.
“Perhaps there is a simple solution that will satisfy everyone.” ?
You’ve got to be kidding!?! … We can all pivot toward Asia. Lol!
– ‘Let Israel attack Iran. That would satisfy their hawks and the Republicans in Congress.”
You left out the hawks in Iran, they would also be pleased, everybody wins!
It’s funny how Glenn rips into government officials. Zero regard.
I think he practices knife fighting in his spare time.
Brazilian jew jit sew … no holds barred./
*in any case, I don’t think Obama’s ‘handlers’ are going to call on Glenn to burnish his legacy!
Brazilian jew jit sew
You spelled sue wrong. You and Mabel been hanging out again? ;-}
Ain’t seen Mabel in a while? … (probably out gallivanting.)
It was probably Glenn’s story on minks being offed…
Damn, I blew the punchline. I should have said, “…Glenn’s story on mink offing…”
The use of sue could be considered antisemitic,as many Jews sue.The truth is not their ally.(Zionists only)
“Two recent foreign policy moves are major positive items on Obama’s legacy: normalization of relations with Cuba and agreeing to this deal with Iran.”
Re: ‘deal with Iran.’ Why not Kerry’s legacy, or five U.N. Security Council member states legacy?
http://www.voanews.com/content/un-security-council-expected-to-approve-iran-nuclear-deal/2870048.html
“…the overall record of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate is one of violence, militarism and aggression that has left a pile of dead bodies of innocent people. That Obama feels the need (or desire) to boast about how many countries he’s bombed, and that the only mainstream criticisms of him in the Iran debate is that he is too unwilling to use more aggression and force, says a lot about Obama, but even more about U.S. political culture. And none of what it says is good.”
THIS we can always agree upon Glenn. THIS is why you are the most relevant journalist working today.
Bold and bodacious, Glenn Greenwald. I continue to consider him *fondly* as one of my bros. :-)
Glenn, do you think the mullahs secretly have their sights set on nuclear weapons?
Do bears shit in the woods? Despite getting almost everything they wanted out this shoddy deal the mullahs still proclaimed they intend on continuing their hatred of and conflict with the USA and Israel and their allies . They also had another session of “Death to America and Israel” on what they term Al Quds day, which celebrated their intention of taking Jerusalem.. Join the dots.
“Israeli President Rivlin: Netanyahu’s Anti-Iran Drive Isolates Israel:”
“I have told him, and I’m telling him again, that struggles, even those that are just, can ultimately come at Israel’s expense.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/israel-rivlin-netanyahu-iran_55c362b6e4b0f1cbf1e3cff1?sbkv5cdi
There are Iranian fatwas on having and using nuclear weapons. And as The New Yorker documents, the “Death to America!” chants are driven by rational reasons and don’t quite mean what you think they do:
Moreover, even if Iran had a nuclear weapon, it would be suicide for it to use it. What Israel actually fears, is that an Iranian bomb would greatly shift the balance of power in that part of the world.
Exactly.
But I do not know about the rest. Did not Ondelette prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that nobody in Iran cares what the US did in 1953? Did he not show that subjecting the Iranian people to more than 25 years of the Shah is no different from anything else that nations do to each other in the course of a conflict? No?
Oh, that’s right! Ondy must not have sent that memo to Mr. Nahavandian, who, you know, lives there.
And as The New Yorker documents, the “Death to America!” chants are driven by rational reasons and don’t quite mean what you think they do:
As if there aren’t nutters on all sides and in every culture/nation who don’t chant worse on a daily basis. :-s
Knucklehead,you aint preaching to no choir here,if they take Jerusalem,good on them.(Why would Iran want Jerusalem anyway?)First Jerusalem and then Israel!And you’d only have yourselves to blame ,and your hubris that has made you mad.
Alan Dershowitz has an article in Jpost where he accuses Obama of using ad hominems:
In it Dershowitz makes the often repeated claim that he was against the US invasion of Iraq:
This claim that Dershowitz “was opposed to the invasion” was dealt with rather well by Tim Wilkinson in CounterPunch in 2007:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/01/31/a-hawk-in-drag/
Dershowitz quoted:
HAHAHAHA. This is what that hypocritical jerk had to say about Greenwald early in the Snowden stories:
Physician, heal thyself, dude.
You gotta love the fact that this guy was actually employed as a law professor in America:
He makes what presumably passes as a compelling legal argument that Israel or the US should nuke Iran, because, he argues, if in an alternate reality Churchill had had the bomb, and had nuked Berlin, it would have saved 50 million lives, which Dershowitz says, is something neither Churchill nor history would ever know, because, “history is deaf dumb and blind”.
Once again, I find it hilarious that I’m living in a world where a respected “law professor” makes his living arguing that Israel should ignore international law, and nuke a capital city on the say so of Dershowitz, who is certain, CERTAIN!, such a mass killing will prevent millions of deaths in an alternate reality that history will never know. It doesn’t matter what the law says, it doesn’t matter what the experts say,
…Dershowitz is “certain”. So what if you go down in “history” (what’s that, anyway?) as a mass murdering war criminal?….in your very own alternative reality, you’re a hero who’s saved millions of imaginary lives! The “law professor” is certain of it.
I really think the US supreme court should take this…reasoning? and run with it:
Judge – “Yes on the one hand we have the facts, the evidence, the record of the case, but what I find more compelling is Mr Dershowitz’s certainty that if we don’t find in his client’s favour, an awful tragedy, will, travel from another “what if” universe, into our own.
Why doesn’t Dershowitz, if he is so certain of his ability to weigh the ethics of killing millions of people against other imaginary deaths, start with something smaller? Why doesn’t he lead by example, find ONE person who’s death will save….let’s make it easy on him, two people? Why doesn’t he try that one on in an American court, and if the judge buys it. Then try killing ten, a hundred, a thousand…when Derschowitz can convince a judge that his killing (with the weapon of his choice) of a thousand people is justified because he was certain that other more numerous deaths of (presumably more important) people, then I’ll have no objection to the Dershowitz “certainty principle” being enshrined into international law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbzd0QIKACo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbzd0QIKACo
Despite or perhaps because America claims to be a free democracy you still see craven idiots being elected to power. As Jesus said, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” America is the only nation on earth hat has an invocation to God on its money being “IN God we trust.” Makes you wonder doesn’t it? Which God are they trusting?
Makes you wonder doesn’t it? Which God are they trusting?
One needn’t wonder unless, of course, one isn’t merely wondering, but rather insinuating. A simple search of the internet yields a definitive answer (bolding mine):
It’s quite clear from the above that devout persons with increased religious sentiment during the Civil War were Christian. And the devoutly religious currently agitating most loudly today within the US are same.
If you believe that moonie loonies are Christian,your religious meter is haywire.They are heretics,expressing apocalyptic nonsense,far from the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Jesus didn’t say that: it’s from 1 Timothy, and is likely written by Paul. /pedant
Not to mention that it’s “The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” /doublepedant
“To defend against charges that he Loves the Terrorists, he boasted:” ? Really? … first I’ve read about.
‘As commander-in-chief, I have not shied away from using force when necessary…’ ? Biggest; baddest; sicko; mofo in the …
[NATO?] Commander in Chief. The supreme commander of the armed forces of a nation or, sometimes, of several allied nations:
The president is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force.
If Glenn was president, we would not end up we the hippie haven. Those whose strategy was say no to Obama on everything would fight even harder against Glenn.
Love ya, Glenn. I read this site daily. But cmon brother, face facts. Like it or not we live in a violent country and peaceniks like us cannot realistically expect America to turn into freedom love fest overnight.
The only way to change something you disagree with is to push against it. It can be done. If we ended slavery we can end the United States “Endless War” program – something that didn’t exist prior to WWII. Thankfully, Glenn never lets up in his outrage and is one the few people whose principles preclude allegiance to either political party. I sense it infuriates him that many of the people that support President Obama’s military actions, or look the other way, would be screaming from the rooftops if he was a Republican. The Rachel Maddows and Paul Krugmans and Talking Points Memo would be incensed if the drone program was being executed by a President McCain or President Romney. The hypocrisy that will make the Professional Left™ irate during the next GOP administration needs to forever be viewed in the context of how they individually gave President Obama a free pass for mass murder between 2009 and 2016.
“something that didn’t exist prior to WWII.”
“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
? Smedley D. Butler,
I’m not sure what that has to do with what I said. The thrust of the nation’s energies prior to WWII was not in the “Endless War” program that now defines the United States.
For chrissakes this nation has since its inception tinkered in foreign countries, but we were not a world-conquering military strength in the 1930’s when Germany was conquering Europe. Plus, the vast majority of Americans did not want to get involved in what was happening overseas. The US government now talks about “invasions” and “keeping the nuclear option on the table” with the flippancy of buying insect repellent — with zero concern for the mass murder we inflict.
That was my point.
“About opposition to the deal from the Israeli government, he said: “it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally.”
With a ‘friend’ like Israel, who needs enemies?
As the French have pointed out, there is not the only option of going to war if Obama’s bad deal doe not through, there is in fact the possibility of a better deal that does not include war. Even Netanyahu said the same in his speech to the Jews of America today.
You’ve made that comment down the thread. Don’t you have a copy of TODAY’s script yet, Mike the Zionist?
All of this fuss about the deal is about opposition to a slow repeal of an unilateral act of war in exchange for the surrender of legimate rights. So opposing it means preferring war, agreed.
a true tragedy.
Sickening. Just reminds me how everything Cornel West said (and is still saying) about Obama after he was elected is 100% correct.
It’s a fucking joke that people in this country still have the balls/ovaries to wonder why or how people in the ME could hate our guts after everything we’ve done/are doing to them. Like you have to either 1) not have a pulse or 2) be an uneducated fool who’s incredibly devoid of facts and history.
3;Or a Zioliar.
George W. Bush was widely ridiculed for his administration’s “Axis of Evil” branding, but that was only 3 countries. Of those 3, Bush only invaded 1.
Obama bombed 7 countries. But since he didn’t make a silly PR campaign, we’ll never know if he missed a few from his wish list.
Obama is a peace-loving and reasonable president (to partisan Democrats) and a wimpy capitulating pacifist (to partisan Republicans). Yet the reality should produce the opposite reactions. The power the of partisan lens is strong.
Seven is a holy number. Why? Because it is holy.
I would add too about our Churchillian warriors, the fact that they spend a good part of the last decade attacking the motives of people who opposed the Iraq War, their hurt feelings right now are pathetically hypocritical.
Back in 2003, we were all told that the choice was binary, it was war and no war. An unambiguously false choice, but that’s how the war-mongers presented it. The situation today actually is binary. There is either a deal, or there is no deal. There’s no middle ground or alternative path; with no deal, we remain in the status quo, with Iran isolated and suspicious (especially) of the West.
So I was very happy to see Obama turn the rhetorical tables on the war-mongering class. It’s still debatable exactly how different Obama is from them, but he certainly knows how to push their buttons.
As the French have pointed out, there is not the only option of going to war if Obama’s bad deal goes through, there is in fact the possibility of a better deal that doe not include war. Even Netanyahu said the same in his speech to the Jew of America today.
I’m not at all persuaded by the idea that a “better deal” is possible than the one currently on the table. This deal took years to thrash out. The idea that we’d quickly get a fresh, better deal if this one is rejected seems incredibly far-fetched.
I agree war is not a certainty, but the status quo, continued Iranian isolation and even deeper suspicion, that’s definitely going to happen without the deal.
“Rivers of blood can never bring peace, only obedience.” – which is what they crave. Pure domination, it’s dead obvious. And even if they conquered the whole world, not even that would suffice. Nothing.
I just can’t believe these people get away with what they do. Murdering millions of people for ages now and nobody bats an eye. They discuss deaths with their morning coffee. They are playing God, literally. As if they were more than anybody else, just flesh and blood.
Why hasn’t anybody called for proper counter-measures? Is it really that difficult to dispose of people, especially nowadays with all the tactical units at disposal? I’m not talking about waging a war against the US, which is exactly what they are trying to provoke, but silent assassinations of key targets would open their eyes and help them understand that they have to cease fire, else there will be consequences.
This is indeed a mystery. While I do not know whether assassination could be effective for any good use, it certainly has been overwhelmingly effective in other hands. After the death of Abraham Lincoln, it was nearly a century before Southern blacks were anywhere near the status that he seemed to be creating for them. And the death of Yitzhak Rabin pretty much sealed the fate of the Palestinians. So I don’t know why we have hundreds of ISIS members wandering around the U.S. but none of them even try to do anything that would have strategic significance. I should be glad for it – I might even give a nod to certain spook agencies I generally distrust – but without understanding it I can’t really know what is going on; for all I know some key people are being killed and the general public just isn’t being told while those in power negotiate a separate peace. Then again, contrary to all expectations, maybe ISIS just really aren’t very good terrorists!
Seven countries–that is speaking directly to the neocons who wanted to attack seven countries in fives years and failed to do it. And now look at Obama, he got it done!
Yeah! What a guy hey? A real Murican
The partisan nature of the success of the PNAC/neocon agenda means one never actually has to contemplate the sound of only one hand clapping.
Clever! [Two hands clapping.]
The use of the word neocon indicates an eight year old’s mentality.