Welcome to Orwell’s World

[IndianaGreen]

Published on Tuesday, January 5, 2010 by The New Statesman

Welcome to Orwell’s World

Obama's lies over the Afghanistan war remind us of the lessons of Nineteen Eighty-Four

by John Pilger

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell described a superstate, Oceania, whose language of war inverted lies that "passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past'."

Barack Obama is the leader of a contemporary Oceania. In two speeches at the close of the decade, the Nobel Peace Prize-winner affirmed that peace was no longer peace, but rather a permanent war that "extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan" to "disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies". He called this "global security" and invited our gratitude. To the people of Afghanistan, which the US has invaded and occupied, he said wittily: "We have no interest in occupying your country."

In Oceania, truth and lies are indivisible. According to Obama, the American attack on Afghanistan in 2001 was authorised by the United Nations Security Council. There was no UN authority. He said that "the world" supported the invasion in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks. In truth, all but three of 37 countries surveyed by Gallup expressed overwhelming opposition. He said that America invaded Afghanistan "only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama Bin Laden". In 2001, the Taliban tried three times to hand over Bin Laden for trial, Pakistan's military regime reported, and they were ignored.

"Hearts and minds"

Even Obama's mystification of the 9/11 attacks as justification for his war is false. More than two months before the twin towers were attacked, the former Pakistani diplomat Niaz Naik was told by the Bush administration that a US military assault would take place by mid-October. The Taliban regime in Kabul, which the Clinton administration had secretly supported, was no longer regarded as "stable" enough to ensure US control over oil and gas pipelines to the Caspian Sea. It had to go.

Obama's most audacious lie is that Afghanistan today is a "safe haven" for al-Qaeda's attacks on the west. His own national security adviser, James Jones, said in October that there were "fewer than 100" al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. According to US intelligence, 90 per cent of the Taliban are hardly Taliban at all, but "a tribal localised insurgency see themselves as opposing the US because it is an occupying power". The war is a fraud. Only the terminally gormless remain true to the Obama brand of "world peace".

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/05-2

[dionysus]

1. .

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. John Pilger on Barack Obama: a glossy uncle tom.

As for the 9-11 twoofer stuff... Well, it's 9-11 twoofer stuff.

[IndianaGreen]

3. Obama's foreign policy is far more bellicose than Bush's

Bush was too distracted by Iraq to pay attention to Latin America. Obama is making up for that oversight.

DLCers support the assassination/torture school the US runs in Fort Benning on behalf of Latin American oligarchs, School of the Americas (SOA/ WHINSEC).

Published on Monday, January 4, 2010 by CommonDreams.org

From Coup-lite to Truth-lite: US Policy and Death Squad Democracy in Honduras

by Andrés Thomas Conteris

In the Top Ten Ways You Can Tell Which Side the United States Government is On With Regard to the Military Coup in Honduras, Mark Weisbrot correctly illustrates U.S. backing for the coup regime and its lack of support for democracy. For more than 100 days, I have been holed up inside the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa, accompanying President Manuel Zelaya and covering the story for Democracy Now! and other independent media. In case Mark's points were not convincing, here are 10 more ways to help you decide.

10. The resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on June 30th strongly condemned the coup in Honduras. The United States, however, prevented the UN Security Council from taking strong measures consistent with the resolution.

9. When President Zelaya returned to Tegucigalpa and took refuge in the Brazilian embassy on September 21st, Lewis Amselem, the U.S. representative at the Organization of American States (OAS), called it "foolish" and "irresponsible." Amselem, whose background is with the U.S. Southern Command, is known in the halls of the OAS as "the diplomator." He led the charge for validating the Honduran elections, while most countries opposed recognition of elections held under the coup regime.

8. The U.S. Southern Command sponsored the PANAMAX 09 joint maneuvers from September 11-21 off the coast of Panama with military forces from 20 countries. Even though the U.S. publicly stated that ties had been severed with the Honduran military, the invitation for Honduras to participate in these maneuvers stood firm. The Honduran armed forces finally said they would withdraw from the exercises, only after several Latin American countries threatened to boycott them.

7. Key members of the Honduran military involved in the coup received training at the School of the Americas (which changed its name to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation -- WHISC), including Generals Romeo Vasquez and Luis Javier Prince. Even after the June 28th coup, the Pentagon continued training members of the Honduran military at WHISC in Ft. Benning, Georgia.

More: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/03-7

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. A slur on Obama and a defense of George W. Bush.

And flat out wrong.

You're really grasping at straws.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Sadly, it is all true!

While Bush was busy with his regime change in Iraq, Latin America was swept by a pink revolution. Obama has embarked on a large militarization program in Latin America, building several bases in Colombia in order to reestablish American hegemony in the region, using the failed "War on Drugs" as a pretext.

[dionysus]

6. you've lost your fucking mind.

:rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

7. US builds up its bases in oil-rich South America (The Independent, UK)

US builds up its bases in oil-rich South America

From the Caribbean to Brazil, political opposition to US plans for 'full-spectrum operations' is escalating rapidly

By Hugh O'Shaughnessy

Sunday, 22 November 2009

The United States is massively building up its potential for nuclear and non-nuclear strikes in Latin America and the Caribbean by acquiring unprecedented freedom of action in seven new military, naval and air bases in Colombia. The development – and the reaction of Latin American leaders to it – is further exacerbating America's already fractured relationship with much of the continent.

The new US push is part of an effort to counter the loss of influence it has suffered recently at the hands of a new generation of Latin American leaders no longer willing to accept Washington's political and economic tutelage. President Rafael Correa, for instance, has refused to prolong the US armed presence in Ecuador, and US forces have to quit their base at the port of Manta by the end of next month.

So Washington turned to Colombia, which has not gone down well in the region. The country has received military aid worth $4.6bn (£2.8bn) from the US since 2000, despite its poor human rights record. Colombian forces regularly kill the country's indigenous people and other civilians, and last year raided the territory of its southern neighbour, Ecuador, causing at least 17 deaths.

President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who has not forgotten that US officers were present in government offices in Caracas in 2002 when he was briefly overthrown in a military putsch, warned this month that the bases agreement could mean the possibility of war with Colombia.

In August, President Evo Morales of Bolivia called for the outlawing of foreign military bases in the region. President Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, overthrown in a military coup d'état in June and initially exiled, has complained that US forces stationed at the Honduran base of Palmerola collaborated with Roberto Micheletti, the leader of the plotters and the man who claims to be president.

And, this being US foreign policy, a tell-tale trail of oil is evident. Brazil had already expressed its unhappiness at the presence of US naval vessels in its massive new offshore oilfields off Rio de Janeiro, destined soon to make Brazil a giant oil producer eligible for membership in Opec.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-builds-up-its-bases-in-oilrich-south-america-1825398.html

[ShortnFiery]

10. Roger That IG.

This is a great hobby if only to take breaks from time to time from The Real World ... However, upon return, I never fail to see "ALL the usual detractors" here. Too funny ... they never seemingly take time off?

Such dedication for a mere hobby. :evilgrin:

[cali]

8. Pilger is a liar and as noted not above using ugly racist rhetoric

For example, Pilger is quite aware that when Obama referenced the countries supporting the Afghanistan action, he was referring to the governments of those countries not public opinion polls in those countries.

I have long had little respect for Mr. Propaganda. Now I have nothing but contempt. He can go fuck himself with something rusty.

[IndianaGreen]

9. Our government lies , and lies a lot and often, it matters little who is President

Here is one recent example in which the British government said they had provided the US with specific intelligence on the Detroit bomber, and now our government is denying that this was so:

White House accuses Downing Street of making 'a mistake' over intelligence claim

The White House has accused Downing Street of making a mistake over allegations that Britain told American intelligence agents more than a year ago that the Detroit bomber had links to extremists.

By Robert Winnett, Duncan Gardham and Toby Harnden in Washington
Published: 7:06AM GMT 05 Jan 2010

The Prime Minister's spokesman had indicated that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was named in a file of people based in Britain who had made contact with radical Muslim preachers. The file was said to have been sent to the US authorities in 2008.

However, White House sources disputed the Downing Street account, stating that it was a mistake and no such intelligence information was passed by Britain before the attempted Christmas Day attacks. The White House declined to respond officially.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6934672/White-House-accuses-Downing-Street-of-making-a-mistake-over-intelligence-claim.html

Here is the original story, from The Guardian:

UK intelligence on Detroit bomb suspect was passed on to Americans

US counterterrorism officials were warned Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had links to Islamic extremists in Britain, says Downing Street

Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Monday 4 January 2010 19.00 GMT

UK intelligence that the Detroit plane bomb suspect tried to contact radical Islamists while a student in London was passed on to the US, Downing Street said today.

The name of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was included in a dossier of people believed to have made attempts to deal with known extremists that was shared with American intelligence.

But he was not singled out as a particular risk, Gordon Brown's spokesman said, insisting that Abdulmutallab was not radicalised until after he left the UK in October 2008.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/04/intelligence-detroit-bomb-suspect-passed-to-americans

[cali]

17. that doesn't excuse Pilger lying. duh.

[IndianaGreen]

18. Can you be specific or are you limited to empty slogans?

How did a group of elite politicians and operatives transform a political party?

First, they gave themselves a little bit of distance. After several unsuccessful attempts to influence the party establishment from within, the reformers formed the DLC as an extra-party organization in 1985. This avoided what Bruce Babbitt referred to as the "Noah's Ark problem"---the need to satisfy diverse constituents by taking representative positions on behalf of each one. They could also raise their own money (which DLC honchos like Virginia's Chuck Robb were notably good at), start their own think tank (the Progressive Policy Institute), and publicize their own views without tangling with the cumbersome Party bureaucracy.

Second, they worked the rules. They pressured the party to create a new class of "super delegates" consisting of state party leaders and elected officials who, they hoped, would balance out the interest groups that had come to dominate Democratic conventions. They also lobbied to cluster Southern and Western state primaries on "Super Tuesday," so that candidates who were strong in that part of the country (especially conservative Southern Democrats) would get an early boost that could offset a poor showing in more liberal Iowa or New Hampshire.

Third, they aimed for the top. After the Dukakis/Bentsen defeat in 1988, the DLC decided to groom their own hand-picked candidate for the White House. Baer reports that in 1989 Al From flew to Little Rock and told then Governor Bill Clinton: "Have I got a deal for you... If you take the DLC Chairmanship, we will give you a national platform, and I think you will be President of the United States."

And finally, they squawked when Clinton strayed. Baer describes the rising fury within the DLC when Clinton spent his early political capital on "Old Democrat" issues like gays in the military, Lani Guinier, and universal health care. After the disastrous 1994 elections, Dave McCurdy (an Oklahoma congressman who had lost his job) denounced Clinton as a "transitional figure" and PPI began working on a "Third Way Project" that might be the basis for a third-party movement. An embattled Clinton mended the fence by "triangulating" toward more conservative positions and pushing ahead on welfare reform---and by the 1996 elections, the DLC was confident they had him back in the fold.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/books/2000/0004.pomper.html

[jenmito]

11. Proudly unrec. for the ridiculous opinion piece from commondreams. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

12. Yeah, we've always been at war with Yemen.

If President Obama said the above, so many here would DEEM IT TRUE.

That's just plain SAD. Look within to what you are willing to believe? SAD. :(

[IndianaGreen]

13. We have always been at war with Eurasia, and Eastasia is our ally.

[jenmito]

14. What's SAD is your belief that Obama is in the same crowd as PNAC. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

15. DLC's PPI is the 'D' version of PNAC

The object is to use American military might to expand and protect neoliberal interests in the world.

[jenmito]

21. Obama was against the war in Iraq. And the article claims he said "war is peace"

which he did not say.

[dionysus]

22. b-b-b-ut it's a DLC conspiracy comrade mito! join us, we shall bask in the glow of

anti-obama propaganda comrade, it shall set us freeee!!11!!
:P

[IndianaGreen]

26. I see you had no reply to post #7

What ever become to the discourse some of you are always complaining we are lacking?

[jenmito]

27. You're right...

I'm glad my fellow DUers woke me up! I'm with you all!

[IndianaGreen]

24. Pilger's characterization of Obama's 'War is Peace' Nobel address was spot on

and he was not the only one to take note of it. Here is Robert Fisk's take on it:

Robert Fisk: Obama, man of peace? No, just a Nobel prize of a mistake

The US president received an award in the faint hope that he will succeed in the future. That's how desperate the Middle East situation has become

Sunday, 11 October 2009

Mr Obama advertised the Afghanistan conflict as the war America had to fight – not that anarchic land of Mesopotamia which Mr Bush rashly invaded. He'd forgotten that Afghanistan was another Bush war; and he even announced that Pakistan was now America's war, too. The White House produced its "Afpak" soundbite. And the drones came in droves over the old Durand Line, to kill the Taliban and a host of innocent civilians. Should Mr Obama concentrate on al-Qa'ida? Or yield to General Stanley McChrystal's Vietnam-style demand for 40,000 more troops? The White House shows the two of them sitting opposite each other, Mr Obama in the smoothie suite, McChrystal in his battledress. The rabbit and the hare.

No way are they going to win. The neocons say that "the graveyard of empire" is a cliché. It is. But it's also true. The Afghan government is totally corrupted; its paid warlords – paid by Karzai and the Americans – ramp up the drugs trade and the fear of Afghan civilians. But it's much bigger than this.

The Indian embassy was bombed again last week. Has Mr Obama any idea why? Does he realise that Washington's decision to support India against Pakistan over Kashmir – symbolised by his appointment of Richard Holbrooke as envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan but with no remit to discuss divided Kashmir – enraged Pakistan. He may want India to balance the power of China (some hope!) but Pakistan's military intelligence realises that the only way of persuading Mr Obama to act fairly over Kashmir – recognising Pakistan's claims as well as India's – is to increase their support for the Taliban. No justice in Kashmir, no security for US troops – or the Indian embassy – in Afghanistan.

Then, after stroking the Iranian pussycat at the Geneva nuclear talks, the US president discovered that the feline was showing its claws again at the end of last week. A Revolutionary Guard commander, an adviser to Supreme Leader Khamenei, warned that Iran would "blow up the heart" of Israel if Israel or the US attacked the Islamic Republic. I doubt it. Blow up Israel and you blow up "Palestine". Iranians – who understand the West much better than we understand them – have another policy in the case of the apocalypse. If the Israelis attack, they may leave Israel alone. They have a plan, I'm told, to target instead only US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their bases in the Gulf and their warships cruising through Hormuz. They would leave Israel alone. Americans would then learn the price of kneeling before their Israeli masters.

For the Iranians know that the US has no stomach for a third war in the Middle East. Which is why Mr Obama has been sending his generals thick and fast to the defence ministry in Tel Aviv to tell the Israelis not to strike at Iran. And why Israel's leaders – including Mr Netanyahu – were blowing the peace pipe all week about the need for international negotiations with Iran. But it raises an interesting question. Is Mr Obama more frightened of Iran's retaliation? Or of its nuclear capabilities? Or more terrified of Israel's possible aggression against Iran?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-obama-man-of-peace-no-just-a-nobel-prize-of-a-mistake-1800928.html

[jenmito]

29. Another opinion. Nothing more. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

16. Sincere Question: Does the fact that Obama quoted Mark Twain ...

deem "Mark Twain's Quote" itself more special?

Forgive me, but the fact that you quote Obama using a treasured American Writer's words is DISQUIETING to me. It's as if, when President Obama does it, it's now "most special."

I'm totally creeped out at the thought of such "A Cult of Personality" forming about ONE MERE MORTAL MAN and/or WOMAN. :(

[jenmito]

19. Since Obama, unlike Twain, is part of the govt., YES.

And the fact that you don't see the relevance of a politician saying such a thing as in the quote I posted is sad. :( NOBODY said Obama is NOT mortal.

[ShortnFiery]

34. No, IMO, not apt as we all know that Mark Twain had no love lost for politicians ...

that would include President Obama, the faithful Corporatist above and beyond his ties to the Democratic party.

I shall not often meddle with politics, because we have a political Editor who is already excellent and only needs to serve a term or two in the penitentiary to be perfect.
- Mark Twain, a Biography

[dionysus]

20. i think you're more obsessed with trashing obama daily then any of his supporters are in defending

him.

[ShortnFiery]

31. I think you like to deflect the fact that you would defend just about any action

that a "Democratic Party Led" Government would do, to include invading Yemen. Good for them that they don't have OIL. :evilgrin:

[dionysus]

37. that's as ridiculous a statement as the possibility of us invading Yemen.

:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

41. If Yemen had oil, our military advisers and covert ops would be all over the country in a heartbeat.

Now we just do our chicken-shit "Summary Executions" without trial.

So much about the MORALS of God Almighty USA and our cherishing "The Rule of Law." Such actions are illegal via International Law. In essence we're killing everyone that the Ruling Thugs of Yemen don't like, i.e., we're killing the Thug leaders' political enemies throughout the ME.

American LIVES are more blessed than ME LIVES ... Is it any wonder why "they HATE US?" :(

[Undercurrent]

23. Posting an opinion piece by a racist

on DU.

This is a new low.

"Barack Obama is a glossy Uncle Tom..."

John Pilger 23 Jan 2008
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=471

[IndianaGreen]

25. I am surprised you haven't brought the WSWS

since NONE of you have been able to address the points made in the OP.

[Undercurrent]

28. You want people to read an opinion

piece written by someone who uses racial epithets?

:wtf:

[ShortnFiery]

32. So the fact that they are or were "insensitive" NEGATES anything else

they may wish to contribute. Behaving in a racist manner does not mean that this person may have changed and/or may now be able to contribute to the discussion.

[AVID]

33. the fact that you are a moran negates me taking you serious

[ShortnFiery]

36. The fact that you are incapbale of having a civil discussion makes me wonder

if you may have taken a LEFT turn from FR. They may be missing you? :evilgrin:

[dionysus]

39. don't be a wilting flower, you give as good as you get

;)

[ShortnFiery]

40. Don't go there. You call me derrogatory names and then accuse me of being weak.

I'm not, I'm disgusted. Time for you to WTFU = being rude to me will not send me away.

Time for you to connect the dots ... genius? :evilgrin:

[Vidar]

30. K&R.

[cliffordu]

35. Y.A.O.P.

Yet another Orwell post substituting for actual thought and conversation.

:hurts:

[dionysus]

38. eff you goldstein. damn you all to hell

:evilgrin:
:hi:

[cliffordu]

42. Yowsa!!!