This smells like 2003 all over again. An overhyped threat and complacent media, what could go wrong? Kudos to Greenwald for penning this, and the other journalists who questioned the administration's narrative. It's just another branch in Obama's sad saga, a supposed agent of change who picked up right where his predecessor left off.
"Don't be so indecisive! If you'd acted sooner we wouldn't be in this mess!" "Hey, don't go bombing people that we haven't heard of yet!" Jeez, make up your minds.
It is not about an over-hyped threat. It is about a very real threat that the President said was destroyed for most of2012. All that happened was that the Al Qaeda leadership moved,,,Obama then declared them destroyed and then, when they sort of ignored that bit of silliness, renamed them!
Does it really matter? There's a whole phone book of terrorist groups with the same basic objective. It's silly to focus on any particular one when there are countless others doing the same things. That's like thinking that if you eliminate the Second Platoon in Bravo Company in the Third Battalion of the First Brigade in the Third Division in the V Corps of the Fifth Army that you've won the war.
the point is our president unilaterally began bombing syria for a group, if it exists, consists of about a dozen people on the premise that they represented a clear and present danger to our national security. I get that you dont give a (*)(*)(*)(*). This president can do no wrong... some of us believe in tue rule of law. Aif they are a ghost entity... itmatters, regardless of your opinion.
This is just the first Trojan Horse the military-industrial complex will trot out as a pretext to eventually start bombing and possibly invading Iran. Everything that is happening right now is perfectly in line with what General Clark said years ago: [video=youtube_share;r8YtF76s-yM]http://youtu.be/r8YtF76s-yM[/video]
LOLOLOL! That was 2001, He says in 5 years. He was right about Iraq and wrong about Syria, Lebanon, Sudan,Libya, Somalia and Iran. Wesley makes up (*)(*)(*)(*) for dramatic effect to his media appearances.
That interview is from March 2007. Maybe that "five year plan" was part of the Bush doctrine, but fortunately we have a new President who isn't interested in such senseless escalation. Keep your paranoia on the back burner a little longer.
So it's taking the neocon criminals a little longer to accomplish their objectives than they originally thought. What of it?
I guess you've been living under a rock for the past six years, because Obama has already managed to effectuate regime change in Libya while repeatedly attempting the same in Syria. Moreover, he's escalated the perpetual war on terror in Somalia with "advisors" and bombing campaigns. Once they scratch those countries off the list, Sudan and Lebanon will likely follow, as there is already a substantial US covert and diplomatic presence in both countries. Then it's on to the crown jewel, Iran. And all the while, troglodytic democrat sycophants will bury their heads in the sand and dream of change that never was and never will be.
You bet. I'll add your prediction to the list that includes the one about Obama taking everyone's guns, Obama imposing nation-wide martial law, the stock market crashing, and another U.S. civil war. I'm happy to continue living under a rock while others get spun up over things that aren't going to happen.
No Wesley makes (*)(*)(*)(*) up for the media. Remember his 9/11 story claiming the White House called him right after 9/11 and later he had to admit no such call was made.
Are you being purposely obtuse, or is this just what cognitive dissonance looks like? Obama has already effectuated regime change in Libya, is presently attempting the same in Syria, and has escalated our involvement in Somalia with the deployment of "advisors" and increased drone strikes. In other words, the things you claim won't happen are already happening or poised to happen in the near future.
I judge claims on an individual basis. His claim concerning the neocon agenda is playing out just as he said it would, except on a longer timeline. Everything that is happening right now is a pretext to invade or bomb Iran down the road.
I don't get it Ethereal, you seem like such a smart guy, but you inexplicably embrace such fringe ideas. Most of the posters in this forum who buy into those views can't put a coherent sentence together... it seems like you should know better. Your assessment of Libya doesn't even make sense. The Libyan government was overthrown by rebels in a civil war, remember? Are you proposing that Obama orchestrated the entire revolution? The U.S. backed the no-fly zone after France, Britain, Lebanon, Nigeria, South Africa, and the Arab League endorsed it. Obama didn't drive this regime change, he only hopped on the Winners' Train as it was leaving the station. What's more, according to Robert Gates's memoir, Obama was the holdout for Libyan intervention in his administration. Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton won him over. Ironically, if Bush had gone in and bombed Gadaffi into oblivion, the right-wingers would all applaud his kick-assedness, just like they do with Bush's ouster of Saddam from Iraq. But because Libya happened during the administration of a President they don't like, they want to vilify him for it. The blame-Obama-for-everything-that's-bad modus was already old two years ago. Wrong. The U.S. does not want Assad to be overthrown by the rebels in Syria, but we also don't want to back Assad because they guy is as bad an egg as the rest of them. All we want the Syrian rebels to do right now is help defeat ISIS because the Iraqi Army has proven themselves incapable. When ISIS is back in its box, what we want in Syria is for Assad to willingly step down while sponsoring free and open elections for new leadership. That is an unrealistic dream, but all the alternatives are lose-lose solutions.
It does seem like Obama is somewhat reticent to go along with the criminal machinations of the neocons, that is true, but he has surrendered almost every time to their demands, and that makes him just as culpable in my book. Likewise, you are too smart to believe that any of those nations would have effectuated regime change in Libya without the private or public authorization of the US government. The US provided the bulk of the munitions, command and control, and logistical support needed successfully impose a no-fly zone over Libya. This is all part of the neocon agenda to destabilize the region and project corporate hegemony. And what of Bush? He's a dupe at best and a criminal at worst, just like Obama. ISIS will never be back in its box. They are a decentralized ideological movement, just like AQ, and they will be the perfect and perpetual pretext for military intervention wherever they happen to show up, which is exactly what the neocons want.
I agree with your distaste for the neoconservatives, but I suppose I give more credit to Obama for assessing the facts, weighing the alternatives, then making the decision, even if it's politically unpopular and against his own initial instinct, rather than merely "surrendering." His real mistake, in my opinion, has been in how he's gone about getting buy-in. He does a better job gaining consensus among foreign governments than he does within his own government. What's more, while the neocons were pro-intervention in Libya, not all pro-interventionists were neocons. After all, the true neocons wanted more U.S. force in Libya and wanted far more say in the formation of the post-revolution government. Rice and Clinton wanted to project humanitarian assistance, not raw U.S. power, which is why we did only as much as we did and then got out. Dick Cheney is an unapologetic neocon, and by extension so was Bush. We are still suffering from the effects of their doctrine and the image of the U.S. they carried to the world. But I think their mindset is shared by a minority in American politics today. For now I'm convinced that current and future U.S. leaders are not interested in expanding our influence in the Middle East by any means other than diplomacy. We will deal with the ISIS and AQ type terror groups, but leave the governments to figure out how to govern themselves.
I wish that were true, but the CIA is effectively running wild all over the globe, toppling governments, funding amorphous militant groups whose allegiance to the US is tenuous at best, farming out morally and legally dubious operations to unaccountable, ostensibly private corporations, and otherwise attempting to push the world to the brink of widespread conflict. Of course, you won't find much indication of this in the mainstream media, unless you take seemingly disparate facts and events from multiple sources and tie them into the overarching narrative of CIA criminality and war-mongering, at which point the big picture begins coming together. Obama is just a figurehead, really.
