Saturday, August 20, 2011

At Least They Believe in Recycling

Well, the good news is that US government officials believe in recycling. I was looking over the news headlines at and I saw a headline about Ghadafi's "last stand" that led to this article on CNN.

Libya rejects rebel claims Gadhafi seeking refuge for his family

The reports come as U.S. officials say the embattled leader may be making preparations for a last stand in Tripoli as a months-long NATO air campaign continues amid reports of rebel advances.
"We believe he could be planning for a last stand," one U.S. official said.

A second U.S. official confirmed a similar concern and said the Gadhafi plan could involve a final military offensive against civilians, launched from his last major strongholds around the Libyan capital.

That seemed awfully familiar, so I typed "Saddam" and "last stand" into Google and found ....

War-gaming Saddam's Last Stand - New York Daily News

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saddam's last stand? - Stronghold of Tikrit may be Saddam's last stand - Apr. 11 ...

IRAQ'S LAST STAND; Saddam's Baghdad barricade. - Free Online Library

Saddam's last stand? Vows for defense of Baghdad should soon be ...

Well, you get the idea. Writing propgaganda for the US government is like writing scripts for pro wrestling. Why write something new when the same few old scripts have been working for ever? Just recycle, then go home in time to see the wifey and kiddies.

The officials, who have knowledge of the situation on the ground, did not want to be named because of the sensitive intelligence matters.

The sure sign its propaganda these days is the unsourced source. Surely one of the lessons to be learned from the lies that led up to the Iraq debacle is not to trust un-named sources on CNN. When Judy Miller was being given what Dick Cheney's office wanted printed in the NY Times, it always appeared as similar unsourced sources. If no one's willing to put their name on it, be very suspicious.

In fact, you should be asking why such esteemed news outlets are still using such unsourced sources after being burned by them so badly in all the lies that led up to the Iraq war. You'd think watching more than a million people die, including more than 4,000 from your own country, as well as watching your own nation waste hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars on a needless war, would at least cause some sort of internal review. I guess not.

The lies that led to the Iraq war have killed more Americans than Osama Bin Laden did on 9-11, but nothing changes.

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Obama and Clinton Call for Yet Another War.

Not satisfied with their wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen (plus a few that don't make the front pages I'm sure), SOS Clinton and President Obama today called for a war against Syria.

Obama Calls for Regime Change in Syria

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton today called for Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad to step down after months of bloody crackdowns on peaceful protesters that have killed as many as 2,000 people. Clinton also announced even harsher sanctions on Syria.

Wait a minute. Are you thinking you don't see the word 'war' in all of that, so it must still be ok, right?

"regime change = war"

That's the equation people need to remember. Countries used to fight little conflicts that could be resolved. They'd fight a border skirmish, then have a peace conference and agree on changing the border or some other sort of reparation for which ever side lost the little war, then they'd declare peace and move on.

The thing is, you can't declare peace when you've said that your aim is to topple the government of the other country. No negotiation is possible then, except surrender. If the other government wants to hold on to its power, and what government doesn't, then the only possible outcome is a fight to the finish until that government is toppled.

"regime change = war"

Obama and Clinton just declared war. Oh, I know, not in any fashion that Thomas Jefferson or James Madison would recognize. Not in that old fashioned sort of way when in our efforts at democracy our representatives would gather and decide that it was the will of the people that we go to war. Nah, nothing like that. This is modern war, declared by executive fiat. Obama in his greatness has declared that Assad must go. Thus we are at war.

Oh, it won't seem like it at first. Since we are still bogged down in this year's earlier executive war in Libya, it appears that 'sanctions' are the first weapon of choice. But, we didn't declare these sanctions because we stated we wanted the Syrians to be less barbaric a government toward its own people. If we had done that, then perhaps there would still be some room for a negotiated peace somewhere down the road. Nope, instead we've stated that the only solution the USA will accept is one of 'regime change' in Damascus.

So, what happens then when the sanctions don't work? We can't back down then, can we? Of course, not, then we'll be told that the 'credibility' of the United States is on the line and we can't let Assad win, so the bombers were begin to target Syria. We'll fire off some more million dollar missiles to make the defense contractors happy.

But, even then, we seem to keep refusing the lesson that goes back to Hitler and the Blitz and which seems to still be true in Libya. That is that you can't win a war just by terror bombing from the air. So, somewhere down the line, we'll be seeing the calls for 'boots on the ground' in Syria.

The point is, Obama and Clinton have declared war in such a way that there can be no peace. There can be no negotiation. Regime change is our war goal, as stated by executive decree.

"regime change = war"

Of course, it won't ever be called a war. Not this one. Not after Libya and not this close to the elections. Nope. But make no mistake, Obama and Clinton just launched the USA into yet another war.

Aren't we all so happy we elected the 'anti-war' candidates in the last election?