Thursday 6 august 2009 4 06 /08 /2009 03:41


 

He's just another power junky. Just another silk scarf monkey. You'd know it if you saw his stuff. The man just isn't big enough. - Eagles, King of Hollywood.  

Anytime he gets the opportunity, Dick Cheney will tell you how much the American people should be grateful that he was in the Bush Administration following the events of September 11, 2001.  You see Cheney believes his approach on enhanced interrogation kept the country “safe” from another terrorist attack.  That this assertion doesn’t logically follow never prevents Cheney from repeating it anytime he has the opportunity.  It goes something like this: "We were under a great deal of stress and had to do something to protect the country.  We had to go on the "Dark Side" for some of the things we did.  But why are people complaining.  We kept the country safe, no attacks since September 11, 2001.   Oh and yes the President did know about everything and signed off on it. It sure is great to be back on the interview shows though.  And I'm not just on FOX news either!" 

The preceding quotes are slightly superfluous as I'm just summarizing in my own words what I've heard so many times from the former vice-president since leaving office.  There is more here for those who need it.  As happy as he was to be on Face the Nation, Cheney's real moment - his Limbaugh Moment that is - came when Rush Limbaugh said that he, that is Limbaugh, considered Cheney one of the best examples of what a good Republican should be.  The plot to this however has Cheney thinking we are required to remember the years he and G.W. Bush were in the Executive Branch.  If not, terrible things will happen.  Actually one would like to forget a lot of what they did. 

Reality has certain persistence qualities though and it still comes around on a regular basis.  There is now an ongoing hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee's Panel on Administrative Oversight and the Courts and the issue isn’t how “safe” we were with Bush and Cheney but perhaps how lucky we were. It seems that the FBI was involved in interrogation of so-called detainees and was obtaining good information in the process.  This is something the FBI does well.  Its agents are trained in interrogation scenarios.  Apparently what happen though is the CIA got involved and guess what, they started doing things like waterboarding and the information, aka actionable intelligence, simply stopped flowing.  

Former State Department counselor Philip D. Zelikow and retired FBI agent Ali Soufan told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee about their unsuccessful attempts to block or reverse detainee interrogation techniques that included waterboarding and repeatedly slamming detainees into flexible walls.

Soufan left a secret overseas prison in 2002 after registering concerns to his superiors at the bureau about CIA contractors engaged in what he called "amateurish, Hollywood-style interrogation methods." Zelikow and his colleagues had forcefully argued that the Bush White House should halt the practices. He said he wrote a memo challenging the legality of the interrogation techniques. The most controversial of those techniques -- waterboarding -- had ended in 2003. He said administration officials tried to destroy the memo, which is still classified, in early 2006.

Also on the table was the effectiveness of the harsh interrogation tactics. Soufan, who investigated the East Africa embassy bombings, said the "enhanced interrogation techniques" were ineffective and unreliable and, "as a result, harmful to our efforts to defeat al-Qaeda."

There are specific examples of information that was obtained from the FBI before Bush, Cheney and the CIA got involved. Actionable intelligence was obtained from Abu Zubaydah before waterboarding. It led to the arrest and prosecution of Jose Padilla and the identification of the so-called 9/11 "mastermind" Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Once waterboarding started on Zubaydah, nothing of additional significance was discovered.  These are facts and can't be disputed. Why is Cheney trying so hard to imply something else, specifically the effectiveness of torture?  I'll discuss this a bit later. 

Of more concern to former members of the Bush Justice Department are the professional standards they may have violated in memos they authored that attempted to paint the techniques utilized in the interrogations with legal stature. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) is leading a hearing of the subcommittee for Administrative Oversight of the Judiciary Committee.  It has been on CSPAN and you can glean information from the videos that I have attached here.

I'm not going to repeat what anyone who is interested can find there. What the hearings are about though is the Bush Office of Legal Council; the attorneys who work in it are responsible for providing legal guidance to the President.  The torture memos came from the OLC.  And those who wrote them could face disciplinary action or something even worse.  You see, these judicial opinions were pathetically bad. 

The methods that this legal cover was prepared for were never intended to obtain intelligence: indeed their purpose was to force false confessions and were part of a DOD program known as SERE.  According to Cheney, something of value was obtained from methods intended to obtain false information.   Interesting.  Something of value was obtained? 

Could be, however was it about September 11 and another terrorist attack on the United States or were these efforts aimed at possibly revealing something else the G.W. Bush presidency so desperately sought.  As my story's title suggests, what Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld were so frantic to find was a justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  Although it appears very unlikely they ever found the Iraq Al Qaeda Connection (as clearly none existed), they still proceeded with the invasion.  And the waterboarding continued as well.

But anyone can see where this story is going. Read Torturing Abu Zubaydah “to achieve a political objective” and you will understand my point more lucidly.  I really wouldn't be surprised if Dick Cheney's big mouth doesn't eventually end up getting him in a whole lot of trouble.  

By Barry Wright - Posted in: Essays - Community: Science and Critical Theory
Write comment - See the 0 comments - Share
Thursday 6 august 2009 4 06 /08 /2009 03:14


The single event which provided the intelligence that President Lyndon Johnson used to start the series of escalations of overt U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, was at least partially fraudulent as reported at the time.  It took place in August 1964. 

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was two separate occurrences involving naval forces of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin that prompted the first large-scale involvement of U.S. armed forces in Southeast Asia.The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Southeast Asia Resolution (better known as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression," including the commitment of U.S. forces without a declaration of war. The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for escalating American involvement in the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam). It gave the President the exclusive right to use military force without consulting the Senate, although based on a false pretext, as he later admitted.

The Vietnam war was viewed by decision makers in the Pentagon and State Department as well as the Whitehouse as part of the Cold War.  And Democrats especially were quite concerned about not "losing" any more territory to "the Communists."  Thus by 1967 over 500,000 American troops were deployed in country and American KIA were about 300 a week. And things were going bad in a hurry. 

In fact, in just a few months in 1968, it seemed the country was coming apart.  Nobel Peace Laureate Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee.  Robert Kennedy who had become a candidate for President was also assassinated in Los Angeles after winning the California Primary and emerging as the likely nominee of the Democratic Party for the November Election.  Events in Vietnam such as the Tet Offensive and the siege at Khe Sanh had shown that the American strategy there was failing and a majority of Americans had turned against the war and wanted the U.S. involvement ended.  The number of Indochinese that were killed by 1968 by realistic estimation was somewhere over a million.  The United States wasn't just killing Vietnamese.  We were also bombing Cambodia and Laos.  This shows how far Lyndon Johnson unilaterally extended presidential power.  Congress declares war not presidents.

Shattering events weren't limited to the United States.  In Czechoslovakia, reformist Premier 
Alexander Dubček attempts at de-Stalinization resulting in a Soviet led Warsaw Pact invasion and Red Army tanks sitting in Prague.  A General Strike occured in France accompanied by student protests over a variety of issues.  While their stated goals were largely anarchistic,  Indochina was an issue with the French students.   

Nothing progressive resulted from any of the events discussed in the two previous paragraphs and no one was predicting that the 
Berlin Wall would be taken down in anything resembling the foreseeable future.

In the United States,  Noam Chomsky's book At War With Asia addresses issues regarding U.S. Southeast Asia policy at the time of the Vietnam war and what the consequences might be.  It is still relevant today as it was when written.  

The intellectual culture in the United States Chomsky argues is largely subservient to power. He is particularly critical of social scientists and technocrats who he believed were providing a pseudo-scientific justification for the crimes of the state in particular those relating to the Vietnam War. He notes that those who opposed the war on moral rather than technical grounds are "often psychologists, mathematicians, chemists, or philosophers...rather than people with Washington contacts, who, of course, realize that 'had they a new, good idea about Vietnam, they would get a prompt and respectful hearing' in Washington."

The topic was inspired by articles of Dwight Macdonald published after the Second World War who "asks the question: To what extent were the German or Japanese people responsible for the atrocities committed by their governments? And, quite properly...turns the question back to us: To what extent are the British or American people responsible for the vicious terror bombings of civilians, perfected as a technique of warfare by the Western democracies and reaching their culmination in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, surely among the most unspeakable crimes in history."

At any rate, the American involvement in Vietnam didn’t end in 1968.  The last Americans didn’t leave Vietnam until 1975. Over 58,000 U.S. troops were killed and as already mentioned, millions more in all of Southeast Asia.  The magnitude of the current U.S. military operation in Central Asia isn’t remotely close.  And yet we have reached a point of departure for the American military effort in Afghanistan and Iraq as surely as such an instant was encountered in 1968 and Vietnam.  From this point onward, nothing is as it was before.   Like Vietnam, the invasion of Iraq was based on false intelligence.

Iraq was not part of Bush’s War on Terror, rather it should not have been.  The terror that existed in Iraq since 2003 came largely from an American occupation and the resistance to it.  It took perhaps 4 years for the majority of the U.S. population to comprehend that Vietnam was a no win situation.  Regarding Iraq, close to a majority of the U.S. population had reached that conclusion by 2004 and by the time of the 2008 national election, a significant majority of the country understood the scam Bush and his inner circle had been pulling off really from the beginning of his presidency and voted accordingly.

And yet the legacy of the Bush administration is still not close to being fully resolved.  The new president from the other major political party, in office only since the end of January,  has had time for nothing other than deal with the massive and multi-dimensional disaster the previous administration brought on the United States and in fact the whole world.  Is progress being made?  It is difficult to say and harder still to measure.  What seems clear is that since early 2002 the former president, vice-president and a large portion of the cabinet were engaged in an operation of deceit, lies and illegality that has no analog in the country's history.  

The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.  Such information would've provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush's main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. In fact, no evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam's regime.

What now seems clear is that the Bush administration has conducted a worldwide operation of torture.  Prominent epicenters are located in a prison in Iraq known as Abu Ghraib and another prison in Guantanamo Cuba. Additionally the purpose of the torture was to obtain justification for a war of aggression against a member nation of the world organization of countries known as the United Nations or simply the UN.  According to the accepted principles of this organization as well as the rules of international law, by definition, there is never a justification for a war of aggression. Nevertheless it is obvious that invading Iraq was at the top of the agenda from the beginning of the Bush presidency.  Even when the government knew the reasons they used to justify the invasion of Iraq were not true, they continued to torture selected persons in the hope that they would say under extreme duress that such conditions did exist.  To say it differently, torture was conducted to force the admission of false information from individuals simply to end the torture they were subjected to.

I have detailed elsewhere what I think should be done with the September 11 perpetrators.  It wouldn't be pleasant.  But that isn't the issue here.  You see, September 11 wasn't the reason for invading Iraq, it was merely the excuse. 

The White House and the CIA denied a report that the Bush administration concocted a fake letter that showed a link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and al-Qaida as a justification for the Iraq war on Tuesday.  The allegation was raised by journalist Ron Suskind in a new book, “The Way of the World”. The letter supposedly was written by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, director of Iraqi intelligence under Saddam Hussein. “The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” Suskind wrote. “It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al-Qaida, something the vice president’s office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link.”  

I realize that I could now rest my case if I so desired as overpowering evidence exists that everything I’ve written here is factual.    The only remaining issue is what should now be done. Probably the best one can expect would be discovering and documenting the truth to the fullest extent that can be achieved.  The past eight years have indeed been unsettling. 

By Barry Wright - Posted in: Essays - Community: Science and Critical Theory
Write comment - See the 0 comments - Share
Thursday 6 august 2009 4 06 /08 /2009 03:03


If it be now, 'tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all. Hamlet 5.2.209.

While the situation in Iraq is still relatively calm when compared to the situation there 3 or 4 years ago, there are signs emerging that as American troops withdraw from the urban areas, ethnic conflict is, somewhat subliminally perhaps, returning to the scene.  Something that dramatically turned things around in Iraq was known as “The Awakening.”  The Awakening was composed of former Sunni insurgents that the Americans organized and paid to fight against Al Qaeda.  Members of “The Awakening” have maintained for some time that as more power is returned to the elected Iraqi government, which is decidedly non-Sunni, adverse events might begin to happen to them.

Many leaders of the Awakening, mostly former Sunni insurgents who joined hands with U.S. forces to fight the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, have long had a contentious relationship with Iraq's Shiite-led government. But the weekend battles have sparked fresh frustration and mistrust of both the U.S. military and Iraq's mostly Shiite security forces, according to interviews with Awakening leaders.

In an insurgent war the best one can hope for is for peace and stability to be achieved and the violence associated with the insurgency to disappear, that is, for the insurgency to disappear.  One problem though is that an insurgency can go into hiding at a time of its choosing.   Disappearing back into the general population is part of any insurgent strategy.  If this is what has happened in Iraq, what now appears subliminal may once again take on larger proportions. Thomas E. Ricks has maintained for some time that the war in Iraq isn't over, in fact, the main events may not even have happened yet. From researching his book on the Iraq War, he states in a recent column in the Washington Post:

Many of those closest to the situation in Iraq expect a full-blown civil war to break out there in the coming years. "I don't think the Iraqi civil war has been fought yet," one colonel told me. Others were concerned that Iraq was drifting toward a military takeover. Counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen worried that the classic conditions for a military coup were developing -- a venal political elite divorced from the population lives inside the Green Zone, while the Iraqi military outside the zone's walls grows both more capable and closer to the people, working with them and trying to address their concerns.

In 2007, Mr. Ricks compared the situation in Iraq as being like the third act of a five act Shakespearean tragedy, a situation where it was still not certain what the outcome would be and that the final outcome itself was still some distance away.  In spite of this, some Americans seem surprised that President Obama’s Iraq troop withdraw plan has 35,000-50,000 Americans still in Iraq in late 2011. 

It is clear that Obama Iraqi policy is part of a much larger Middle East Strategy that includes Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Israel and its neighbors.  Syria in particular has been mentioned.

The White House has tough diplomatic choices to make in the next few months. Assad has told the Obama Administration that his nation can ease the American withdrawal in Iraq. Syria also can help the U.S. engage with Iran, and the Iranians, in turn, could become an ally in neighboring Afghanistan, as the Obama Administration struggles to deal with the Taliban threat and its deepening involvement in that country—and to maintain its long-standing commitment to the well-being of Israel. Each of these scenarios has potential downsides. Resolving all of them will be formidable, and will involve sophisticated and intelligent diplomacy—the kind of diplomacy that disappeared during the past eight years, and that the Obama team has to prove it possesses.

Delusional mutterings from the world’s most evil person Dick Cheney allegedly “portrayed Obama to the Israelis as a “pro-Palestinian,” who would not support their efforts (and, in private, disparaged Obama, referring to him at one point as someone who would “never make it in the major leagues”)” fortunately seem a more apt description of what he sees when he looks in a mirror – it is a question of course whether he sees anything.  Regardless any sane person certainly hopes that the Obama administration will indeed explore areas that have been missing for some time in American foreign policy efforts.

It surely must, as the future will either see progress toward solutions to the most difficult issues the United States and the world face or degenerate into a series of processes that so far have only been hinted.  Movement toward concluding the United States involvement in Iraq on favorable terms may provide an early indication on how regional and global issues may or may not be easily resolved as well. 

By Barry Wright - Posted in: Essays - Community: Science and Critical Theory
Write comment - See the 0 comments - Share
Thursday 6 august 2009 4 06 /08 /2009 02:56

 It has long been argued that the United States had the opportunity to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and deal a decisive blow to al Qaeda at Tora Bora, a battle in the mountainous terrain along the eastern border of Afghanistan.  Why it didn't is a story in itself.   

The Taliban were defeated in a few months primarily by troops of the "Northern Alliance"  and supportive efforts of U.S. and NATO air forces.  U.S. and NATO ground forces were also involved as were operational agents of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency Hamid Karzai is currently the president of Afghanistan.

To further summarize what has occurred:

In the fight for Tora Bora, corrupt local militias did not live up to promises to seal off the mountain redoubt, and some colluded in the escape of fleeing al Qaeda fighters. Franks did not perceive the setbacks soon enough, some officials said, because he ran the war from Tampa with no commander on the scene above the rank of lieutenant colonel. The first Americans did not arrive until three days into the fighting. "No one had the big picture," one defense official said.  The Bush administration has never acknowledged that bin Laden slipped through the cordon ostensibly placed around Tora Bora as U.S. aircraft began bombing on Nov. 30. Until now it was not known publicly whether the al Qaeda leader was present on the battlefield.  But inside the government there is little controversy on the subject. Captured al Qaeda fighters, interviewed separately, gave consistent accounts describing an address by bin Laden around Dec. 3 to mujaheddin, or holy warriors, dug into the warren of caves and tunnels built as a redoubt against Soviet invaders in the 1980s. One official said "we had a good piece of sigint," or signals intelligence, confirming those reports.  "I don't think you can ever say with certainty, but we did conclude he was there, and that conclusion has strengthened with time," said another official, giving an authoritative account of the intelligence consensus. "We have high confidence that he was there, and also high confidence, but not as high, that he got out.

It isn’t exactly true that U.S. forces weren't provided the opportunity to deal a blow to Al Qaeda and even find bin Laden:

The best chance at killing or capture (of bin Laden) may have been deep in the past. Below the white peaks of the Spin Ghar near the Pakistani line, Osama bin Laden was spotted, in late November and early December 2001, along with at least 1,000 of his Qaeda fighters. The American high command believed this was it but didn't want to put its soldiers -- even Delta Force, renowned for risk-taking -- in severe danger; didn't want British special forces -- who also had teams in the area, eager to move in -- to claim the war's greatest prize; and couldn't compel Pakistan to close off the frontier. (Why the Americans didn't block the frontier themselves has never become clear, though the perils of landing helicopters at high altitudes in terrible weather probably played a part.) Without much support on the ground, with only the troops of Afghan warlords to rely on, a bombardment from American jets merely chased bin Laden between the ridges, most think, and across the border. 

"Across the border" means into the Tribal Areas of Pakistan.

While what is stated above is still true, significant changes in U.S. policy brought about by a new administration as well as events in Afghanistan and Pakistan, make this an opportune time to look again at Central Asia, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Before proceeding, the following needs to be understood.

1.  The U.S. and NATO are conducting military operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

2.  Current intelligence indicates that the strongest elements of Al Qaeda are located in Pakistan's Tribal Areas. 

3.  The Taliban and Al Qaeda are mutually supportive.

4. Facing impeachment, Pervez Musharraf resigned as president of Pakistan.

5.  Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was likely to win the 2008 General  Election in Pakistan and become president but was assassinated two weeks before the election.

6.  Asif Ali Zardari is now the president of Pakistan.

7.  Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state.

At this time, the National Security of the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan seem inexorably linked. The circumstances in Central Asia are critical.  The Taliban are waging war in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The Pakistani army is severely challenged in the Tribal Areas, an area the Taliban have infested.  U.S. President Barack Obama has set a high priority on stabilizing both governments.  With the concurrence of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and General David Petraous, the head of U.S. Central Command, President Obama has deployed additional troops to Afghanistan; 17,000 U.S. are slated for a combat role, another 4,000 as advisers.   He is also asking Congress for 17 billion USD to assist the government in Pakistan.  The purported mission scope is to strengthen the governments in both countries so they can deal with the challenges they face themselves. Changes in U.S. strategy are also apparent.  Top American commander in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan has been replaces by Lt. General Stanley McChrystal, whose expertise in special operations proved valuable in turning around what was perceived as a rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq in 2006. Emphasis will be on protecting the civilian population as well as dealing with threats to the established government, a focus that seemed to work in Iraq.

McChrystal did make one mistake.  While in charge of special operations in Afghanistan, he reported the death of Army Ranger and former NFL star with the Arizona Cardinals Pat Tillman resulted from enemy hostilities.  A Pentagon investigation concluded that Tillman was killed from "friendly fire."  McChrystal's new job is not likely to be an easy one. The situation in Pakistan is even more ominous.  After the brutal changes in government, the new president is struggling with the Pakistani military in dealing with Taliban incursions into the Tribal Areas.  Moreover Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state.

Members of Congress have been told in confidential briefings that Pakistan is rapidly adding to its nuclear arsenal even while racked by insurgency, raising questions on Capitol Hill about whether billions of dollars in proposed military aid might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed the assessment of the expanded arsenal in a one-word answer to a question on Thursday in the midst of lengthy Senate testimony. Sitting beside Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, he was asked whether he had seen evidence of an increase in the size of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal. “Yes,” he said quickly, adding nothing, clearly cognizant of Pakistan’s sensitivity to any discussion about the country’s nuclear strategy or security.

It is already known that the United States has taken steps to help keep Pakistani nuclear weapons secure.  The Taliban insurgency has been as close as 150 km to one of Pakistan's nuclear stockpiles. However a military response alone will not be adequate. The U.S. effort is also going to have an increased diplomatic component.  Asking greater commitment from European NATO allies will certainly become one looming facet. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has held meetings with the presidents of both Afghanistan and Pakistan, realizing that U.S. National Security is so closely tied to what happens in those two countries.  

And so it is a great privilege to welcome President Karzai and President Zardari. I have known President Zardari for a longer period of time, going back many years now. And I was a great admirer and a friend of his late wife, who I thought was an extraordinary leader. And I am pleased to welcome him here as the democratically elected president of his country.  We have made this common cause because we face a common threat, and we have a common task and a common challenge. We know that each of your countries is struggling with the extremists who would destabilize and undermine democracy. An ancient Afghan proverb says “Patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet.” We know that this consultation is part of a continuing process. It began with our first trilateral. It continued with the international conference in The Hague, with the Tokyo donors conference, and now we are once again meeting here in Washington. 

Sounds good, however:

As the Obama administration expands U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, military experts are warning that the United States is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse that of the Iraq war.

There is a lot at stake for the nations involved.  President Obama is trying to initiate new ideas instead of prolonging the policy failures of the past but as yet it hasn't been clearly stated or estimated what the costs of dealing with unfavorable conditions that now exist will be.   We should not go down this road again.

By Barry Wright - Posted in: Essays - Community: Science and Critical Theory
Write comment - See the 0 comments - Share
Thursday 6 august 2009 4 06 /08 /2009 00:18

 
As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness. - Justice William O. Douglas  

Certainly, the patriotic upsurge following upon September 11, had an American character. But the key to the curtailment of fundamental law, which you’ve referred to, to the breach of the Geneva Convention in Guantanamo, to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, etc., I would locate elsewhere. The militarization of life domestically and abroad, the bellicose policies which open themselves up to infection by their opponent’s own methods, and which return the Hobbesian state to the world stage where the globalization of markets had seemed to have driven the political into the wings, all this the politically enlightened American populace would have overwhelmingly rejected, if the administration had not, with force, shameless propaganda, and manipulated insecurity, exploited the shock of September 11. For a European observer and a twice-shy child such as I, the systematic intimidation and indoctrination of the population and the restrictions on the scope of permitted opinion in the months of October and November of 2002, (when I was in Chicago), were unnerving. This was not “my” America. From my 16th year onward, my political thinking, thanks to the sensible re-education policy of the Occupation, has been nourished by the American ideals of the late 18th century.  - America and the World A Conversation with Jürgen Habermas

My God, it’s full of stars – 2001: A Space Odyssey

If you recall, then Senator Barack Obama won a huge mandate to become the president of the United States on November 4, 2008. His margin of victory was + 6.7% garnering 52.6% of the popular vote and in the Electoral College it was an equally stunning triumph of 365 to 162 electors.  Additionally with 65 days remaining before his Inauguration in January 2009, he is receiving praise and congratulations from governments and people all over the world. It seems that hope is indeed still alive. And apparently evil still enjoys good health as well.

You see in the United States, the picture was much different.  Numerous hate crimes and racial attacks were occurring all over the country apparently motivated by the results of the election.  The kind of campaign the John McCain and Sarah Palin ran certainly had a contributory role to the madness that was seen and documented. That's right, this came about over the results of an election where all the votes were counted.  I’ve said enough about what I think of John McCain.  I think it is time to look at someone else in this drama.

The frantic attempt to slur Senator Obama and his supporters that everyone saw before the November 4 election is exactly what one expected from secessionist Sarah Palin, the ”real” Sarah Palin, as she and John McCain blindly wound down their dysfunctional campaign to nowhere. 

Fast forward to August 2009:  Legitimate government in the United States is presently challenged by actions that are attacks against elected leadership, that leadership's political party, its legitimate opposition and the civilian population of the country.  It is making the prospect of a peaceful transition between administrations – a process still in a state of progress –  considerably more difficult that it should and is creating a environment of hate, rendering efforts for dealing with the real problems the country faces practically impossible. I'm sure it didn’t required much provocation to start this process.

The seditionist leanings now turned loose on the country are all putting great strain on the Constitutional processes that make the United States a democracy and a government founded on the principles of law as opposed to terror.  Yes I mean exactly what I say. I would add that when the information stream from campaigns refer to the opponent as "unamerican", "socialist", "Osama Obama", the obsession use of his middle name by those who seek to subvert democracy and other actions that engender fear building on existing American stereotypes, it isn't totally unexpected to find occurrences like this. In fact, someone with any facility of memory can think of things much worse.  Tea baggers, birthers, jello-man Limbaugh and Fox News bring everything into the present tense.

American political campaigns seem to fall into this modality far more often than what one finds in other industrialized democratic societies. It does harm not only to individual victims but to the world’s image of the United States. I have seen evidence of this myself from comments appearing on stories I have placed on NowPublic regarding subjects as innocent as Global Warming and thoughts on how the new president might choose members of his Cabinet.  Here is a comment from a NowPublic member that was placed on my story John McCain's Thinly Veiled Terrorism.  Very original thinking here.

The ignorant and gullible voted for Obama.  He will fail.  Mark my words everyone who voted for this man will regret it.  Go out and rent Omen III.  He is opening the way for the Antichrist.  I will never call him President.  This is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Such a strange set of beliefs are expressed. Obsessive paranoid delusions attributing importance to a really bad Hollywood movie?  Statements and beliefs about the Antichrist?   

And here is this gem of logic from a "not verified" NowPublic Member. 

forthebetta (not verified)

at 18:00 on November 15th, 2008

global warming is a hoax.
it was warmer a thousand years ago.
it was warmer most of the time since the last great ice age.
in fact, if it did warm 3 degrees, life on earth would flourish.  the last great ice age ended with a 20 degree warming in 50 years.  if people try to tell me that 1 degree warmth in 130 years is a problem or "man-made", or that it will warm another 3 degrees in the next 40 years and the earth couldn't handle it, they are f***ing brain-washed and need to do their own research instead of believing corrupt skull&bones members.

"f***ing brain-washed"?  "***"???  Well apparently this person is deficient in spelling skills or just can't think of another word to use that isn't an obscenity. 

And am I one of the NowPublic "skull&bones members" this person is referencing and just what does "not verified" mean?  Eventually I withdrew everything I had published on NowPublic. 

There is more.  In Idaho, a state that I am very familiar with, it is reported that second and third grade students were chanting "assassinate Obama" on a school bus.  Second and third grade students on a school bus are doing this?  Hmm...it might be informative if the names of the parents of these second and third grade students were revealed.  This could be investigated and discovered. I had an Obama08 sign on my car and I frequently find myself being closely followed by the local police force and other members of the Ontario, Oregon community my wife and I live in. In addition to police cars, large, old and mangled pickup trucks seem to be a vehicle of choice for these folks.  When the price of gasoline reaches $20 a gallon perhaps they will be walking.

In any case, we pay substantial property taxes here which supposedly supports police protection from criminal elements but as the saying goes, "sometimes one can’t tell the cops from the robbers."  FYI:  Ontario, Oregon is very close to the Idaho border – and Idaho is a very Red State. In preparing for "anticipated" events that some believed would occur on January 1, 2000, in Idaho people weren't buying extra food, water and batteries, they were buying all the extra ammunition they could find and afford.  Those with the most ammo they were certain would not find obtaining food and water to be a problem at all.  

After leaving college and before I took my first job with the State of Alaska I ran a business owned by my father for about 10 years.  One night someone fired rifle shots into the front window.  It's the second picture from the top.  These people do things like this when they are drunk.  This could be described as a "beer and whisky courage" kind of place. I don't know what the motives were, I don't think they were political.  It was many years ago.

The strange thing was that before this election there were a lot of Obama/Biden signs in people's yards.  I think they were mostly in the part of town that I live in but still I've never seen anything like that before. Oregon is a Blue State but that distinction comes from the voters in the Willamette Valley, Portland south to Eugene.  There are two mountain ranges between where I live and there.  It's 350 miles or so.

Here is a list of additional incidents that have been documented since the election:

University of Alabama professor Marsha L. Houston said a poster of the Obama family was ripped off her office door. A replacement poster was defaced with a death threat and a racial slur.

Crosses were burned in yards of Obama supporters in Hardwick, N.J., and Apalacan Township, PA.

At Standish, Maine, a sign inside the Oak Hill General Store read: "Osama Obama Shotgun Pool." Customers could sign up to bet $1 on a date when Obama would be killed. "Stabbing, shooting, roadside bombs, they all count," the sign said. At the bottom of the marker board was written "Let's hope someone wins."

Racist graffiti was found in places including New York's Long Island, where two dozen cars were spray-painted; Kilgore, Texas, where the local high school and skate park were defaced; and the Los Angeles area, where swastikas, racial slurs and "Go Back To Africa" were spray painted on sidewalks, houses and cars.

What is clear is that there are a lot of extreme right wing elements in this country historically and right now who are capable of anything. Putting bombs in churches, shooting real bullets into groups of unarmed people, things like that. It seems pretty obvious that the President of the United States, his government as well as his supporters are potential targets for actions spawned from this demented paranoia. 

That John McCain and Sarah Palin fanned the flames of this potential for reasons they thought might bring political fruit to their otherwise disastrous campaign is equally obvious.  If Obama thinks McCain can play a progressive role in the U.S. Senate during his presidency, he has certainly bought into something that I haven’t seen. Mr. President, look at what is happening to you and those who supported you.  Is more corroboration required?  This was written in the Baltimore Sun in October 2008:

John McCain and Sarah Palin, you are playing with fire, and you know it. You are unleashing the monster of American hatred and prejudice, to the peril of all of us. You are doing this in wartime. You are doing this as our economy collapses. You are doing this in a country with a history of assassinations.

As a country, the United States has come a long way since the  19th Century and even further since the middle of the 20th Century in dealing with its racist and violent past. The 2008 election was in many ways a test of the values of the nation and its citizens. While the vast majority of the country affirmed its ideals, there is ample evidence that violence and racism still have remnants. It may take another century before we really live up to what we say we are. As for the present, Good Night and Good Luck. 

By Barry Wright - Posted in: Essays - Community: Science and Critical Theory
Write comment - See the 0 comments - Share

Overview

Create a blog

Calendar

March 2010
M T W T F S S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
<< < > >>

Free text

Profile

  • : Barry Wright
  • Barry Wright
  • : Man
  • : Oregon USA
  • : USA News History Europe Politics
  • : I grew up in a small town but went to college in large urban areas, have graduate degrees in Computer Science and Systems Theory from Rutgers University and worked as a Lead Software Designer/Developer until I retired in 2007.

Categories

Create your blog on OverBlog - Contact us - Terms of Use - Report abuse