By William Blum
December 10, 2009
Trinidad and Tobago News Blog
www.trinidadandtobagonews.com/blog
All the crying from the left about how Obama “the peace candidate” has now become “a war president” … Whatever are they talking about? Here’s what I wrote in this report in August 2008, during the election campaign:
We find Obama threatening, several times, to attack Iran if they don’t do what the United States wants them to do nuclear-wise; threatening more than once to attack Pakistan if their anti-terrorist policies are not tough enough or if there would be a regime change in the nuclear-armed country not to his liking; calling for a large increase in US troops and tougher policies for Afghanistan; wholly and unequivocally embracing Israel as if it were the 51st state.
Why should anyone be surprised at Obama’s foreign policy in the White House? He has not even banned torture, contrary to what his supporters would fervently have us believe. If further evidence were needed, we have the November 28 report in the Washington Post: “Two Afghan teenagers held in U.S. detention north of Kabul this year said they were beaten by American guards, photographed naked, deprived of sleep and held in solitary confinement in concrete cells for at least two weeks while undergoing daily interrogation about their alleged links to the Taliban.” This is but the latest example of the continuance of torture under the new administration.
But the shortcomings of Barack Obama and the naiveté of his fans is not the important issue. The important issue is the continuation and escalation of the American war in Afghanistan, based on the myth that the individuals we label “Taliban” are indistinguishable from those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, whom we usually label “al Qaeda”. “I am convinced,” the president said in his speech at the United States Military Academy (West Point) on December 1, “that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak.”
Obama used one form or another of the word “extremist” eleven times in his half-hour talk. Young, impressionable minds must be carefully taught; a future generation of military leaders who will command America’s never-ending wars must have no doubts that the bad guys are “extremists”, that “extremists” are by definition bad guys, that “extremists” are beyond the pale and do not act from human, rational motivation like we do, that we — quintessential non-extremists, peace-loving moderates — are the good guys, forced into one war after another against our will. Sending robotic death machines flying over Afghanistan and Pakistan to drop powerful bombs on the top of wedding parties, funerals, and homes is of course not extremist behavior for human beings.
And the bad guys attacked the US “from here”, Afghanistan. That’s why the United States is “there”, Afghanistan. But in fact the 9-11 attack was planned in Germany, Spain and the United States as much as in Afghanistan. It could have been planned in a single small room in Panama City, Taiwan, or Bucharest. What is needed to plot to buy airline tickets and take flying lessons in the United States? And the attack was carried out entirely in the United States. But Barack Obama has to maintain the fiction that Afghanistan was, and is, vital and indispensable to any attack on the United States, past or future. That gives him the right to occupy the country and kill the citizens as he sees fit. Robert Baer, former CIA officer with long involvement in that part of the world has noted: “The people that want their country liberated from the West have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. They simply want us gone because we’re foreigners, and they’re rallying behind the Taliban because the Taliban are experienced, effective fighters.”
The pretenses extend further. US leaders have fed the public a certain image of the insurgents (all labeled together under the name “Taliban”) and of the conflict to cover the true imperialistic motivation behind the war. The predominant image at the headlines/TV news level and beyond is that of the Taliban as an implacable and monolithic “enemy” which must be militarily defeated at all costs for America’s security, with a negotiated settlement or compromise not being an option. However, consider the following which have been reported at various times during the past two years about the actual behavior of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan vis-à-vis the Taliban, which can raise questions about Obama’s latest escalation:
The US military in Afghanistan has long been considering paying Taliban fighters who renounce violence against the government in Kabul, as the United States has done with Iraqi insurgents.
President Obama has floated the idea of negotiating with moderate elements of the Taliban.
US envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, said last month that the United States would support any role Saudi Arabia chose to pursue in trying to engage Taliban officials.
Canadian troops are reaching out to the Taliban in various ways.
A top European Union official and a United Nations staff member were ordered by the Kabul government to leave the country after allegations that they had met Taliban insurgents without the administration’s knowledge. And two senior diplomats for the United Nations were expelled from the country, accused by the Afghan government of unauthorized dealings with insurgents. However, the Afghanistan government itself has had a series of secret talks with “moderate Taliban” since 2003 and President Hamid Karzai has called for peace talks with Taliban leader Mohammed Omar.
Organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross as well as the United Nations have become increasingly open about their contacts with the Taliban leadership and other insurgent groups.
Gestures of openness are common practice among some of Washington’s allies in Afghanistan, notably the Dutch, who make negotiating with the Taliban an explicit part of their military policy.
The German government is officially against negotiations, but some members of the governing coalition have suggested Berlin host talks with the Taliban.
MI-6, Britain’s external security service, has held secret talks with the Taliban up to half a dozen times. At the local level, the British cut a deal, appointing a former Taliban leader as a district chief in Helmand province in exchange for security guarantees.
Senior British officers involved with the Afghan mission have confirmed that direct contact with the Taliban has led to insurgents changing sides as well as rivals in the Taliban movement providing intelligence which has led to leaders being killed or captured.
British authorities hold that there are distinct differences between different “tiers” of the Taliban and that it is essential to try to separate the doctrinaire extremists from others who are fighting for money or because they resent the presence of foreign forces in their country.
British contacts with the Taliban have occurred despite British Prime Minister Gordon Brown publicly ruling out such talks; on one occasion he told the House of Commons: “We will not enter into any negotiations with these people.”
For months there have been repeated reports of “good Taliban” forces being airlifted by Western helicopters from one part of Afghanistan to another to protect them from Afghan or Pakistani military forces. At an October 11 news conference in Kabul, President Hamid Karzai himself claimed that “some unidentified helicopters dropped armed men in the northern provinces at night.”
On November 2, IslamOnline.net (Qatar) reported: “The emboldened Taliban movement in Afghanistan turned down an American offer of power-sharing in exchange for accepting the presence of foreign troops, Afghan government sources confirmed. ‘US negotiators had offered the Taliban leadership through Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil (former Taliban foreign minister) that if they accept the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan, they would be given the governorship of six provinces in the south and northeast … America wants eight army and air force bases in different parts of Afghanistan in order to tackle the possible regrouping of [the] Al-Qaeda network,’ a senior Afghan Foreign Ministry official told IslamOnline.net.”
There has been no confirmation of this from American officials, but the New York Times on October 28 listed six provinces that were being considered to receive priority protection from the US military, five which are amongst the eight mentioned in the IslamOnline report as being planned for US military bases, although no mention is made in the Times of the above-mentioned offer. The next day, Asia Times reported: “The United States has withdrawn its troops from its four key bases in Nuristan [or Nooristan], on the border with Pakistan, leaving the northeastern province as a safe haven for the Taliban-led insurgency to orchestrate its regional battles.” Nuristan, where earlier in the month eight US soldiers were killed and three Apache helicopters hit by hostile fire, is one of the six provinces offered to the Taliban as reported in the IslamOnline.net story.
The part about al-Qaeda is ambiguous and questionable, not only because the term has long been loosely used as a catch-all for any group or individual in opposition to US foreign policy in this part of the world, but also because the president’s own national security adviser, former Marine Gen. James Jones, stated in early October: “I don’t foresee the return of the Taliban. Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling. The al-Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”
Shortly after Jones’s remarks, we could read in the Wall Street Journal:
“Hunted by U.S. drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, al-Qaida is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistan and U.S. officials. … For Arab youths who are al-Qaida’s primary recruits, ‘it’s not romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding,’ said a senior U.S. official in South Asia.”
From all of the above is it not reasonable to conclude that the United States is willing and able to live with the Taliban, as repulsive as their social philosophy is? Perhaps even a Taliban state which would go across the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, which has been talked about in some quarters. What then is Washington fighting for? What moves the president of the United States to sacrifice so much American blood and treasure? In past years, US leaders have spoken of bringing democracy to Afghanistan, liberating Afghan women, or modernizing a backward country. President Obama made no mention of any of these previous supposed vital goals in his December 1 speech. He spoke only of the attacks of September 11, al Qaeda, the Taliban, terrorists, extremists, and such, symbols guaranteed to fire up an American audience. Yet, the president himself declared at one point: “Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe havens along the border.” Ah yes, the terrorist danger … always, everywhere, forever, particularly when it seems the weakest.
How many of the West Point cadets, how many Americans, give thought to the fact that Afghanistan is surrounded by the immense oil reserves of the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions? Or that Afghanistan is ideally situated for oil and gas pipelines to serve much of Europe and south Asia, lines that can deliberately bypass non-allies of the empire, Iran and Russia? If only the Taliban will not attack the lines. “One of our goals is to stabilize Afghanistan, so it can become a conduit and a hub between South and Central Asia so that energy can flow to the south …”, said Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs in 2007.
Afghanistan would also serve as the home of American military bases, the better to watch and pressure next-door Iran and the rest of Eurasia. And NATO … struggling to find a raison d’être since the end of the Cold War. If the alliance is forced to pull out of Afghanistan without clear accomplishments after eight years will its future be even more in doubt?
So, for the present at least, the American War on Terror in Afghanistan continues and regularly and routinely creates new anti-American terrorists, as it has done in Iraq. This is not in dispute even at the Pentagon or the CIA. God Bless America.
William Blum is the author of:
- Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
- Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower
- West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
- Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
Source: killinghope.org
Trinidad and Tobago News Blog’s URL for this article:
www.trinidadandtobagonews.com/blog/?p=2035
Today has been Obama Day. Even his detractors had laudatory things to say about him.(Palin, Ginrich) He was greeted by a cheering crowd in a candlelight procession outside his window in Oslo, and a statue of him was recently unvieled in Indonesia, of Obama as a ten year old. Yes We Can, and he will.The world loves him, let us believe in the decency of his intentions, and the strength of his character.Begone, you miserble detractors.
The problem with Obama is that his foreign policy is no different from Bush’ and this is why people like Palin and Ginrich are saying laudatory things about him.His speech to the military to announce his intentions to increase troops in Afganistan could have been made by Bush himself. His invocation of World War Two to justify his war in Afganistan should create some discomfort.Let’s hope for a favorable end, because his policies otherwise are what we all expected and wanted.
Afghans Angry at Obama’s Nobel Win
December 10, 2009
by Al-Jazeera-English
In making Obama the third sitting US President to win the award, the Norwegian Nobel Committee praised Obama’s co-operative approach to global issues.
But many critics say that Obama’s resume is too thin to stand scrutiny with other Nobel peace laureates.
And for many Afghans, Obama’s strategy of even more troops does not fit into their vision of what will bring peace. From Kabul, Steve Chao reports.
Robert Fisk – Obama is a Disaster
Posted December 10, 2009
Robert Fisk makes a few observations about Obama, Imperialism, Afghanistan and the Middle East.
Edwards’ response reminds me of those who say that the CHOGM was a success and prove that by pointing out that many visiting leaders indicated this, so naive or rather dotish. Whilst they continue to burn tires because we have no water, they try to shoot down criticism of those they blindly support by using words like detractors, obstructionist etc. FOOLISH I say, just FOOLISH.
TMan, to say that Obama’s policies are no different from Bush’s is but to simplify this issue. I eh no expert, but I am of the opinion that this reflects the policies of the United States rather than that of an individual President. We must be mindful that the US system is far difference to, for instance, ours. We have a system where a PM, like the present, can wake up one morning and decide to give us three smelters, five Desal plants, a Rapid Rail, five Water Taxis etc. TMan you must understand that things would not just change overnight, but once we have someone who understands that change is needed, we are on our way. I believe Obama is one who understands that change is needed in how the US views and deals with the world in terms of foreign policy.
Obama is a leader in whom many have placed a tremendous burden to change the world. In T&T, he had overwhelming support including me (but for very different reasons) but what amasses me were the reasons for supporting him, more on that another time, except to say that it is the type of support that has us in the state we are in today (blind loyalty).
Edwards is neither dotish nor a dreamer. I am a pacifist who sent money to help the ANC defeat the members of the Brederbond. A just war, I believe in just wars. I have always said that I would not go willingly to war’ but I stand, me and my 69 year old self, ready to defend my country if it asks that of me. I do not quarrel with my neighbors. Not one has heard my voice raised in anger in the twenty years I have lived where I live, even my dog is a pacifist. Now, let someone try messing with me and mine, I would kill them without hesitation, or have them killed without blinking.
Where America’s interests are concerned.I am a diehard. Look at the six Muslim students whose parents reported them missing from Washington DC. They disappeared into Pakistan to try to join jihadist groups, to do America harm.One left a recording of his intentions. The Government of Pakistan arrested them.Now, if in turning them over to US Marshals to be escorted home to be tried in the US, some “accident” should happen that costs them their lives, I would not even blink. Born in the US, and enjoying every priviledge that American citizenship grants, including the ability to bring your aged relative here and have him, her benefit from our free services for the elderly, they leave this, to go elsewhere to try to destroy their own country.
If we had firing squads in this country, I would urge Pres. Obama himself to fire one shot.
For a more balanced view, instead of ingesting the hate spewed by those above, please go to http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions, and read the comments of Robinson, Parker and one other opinion writer, for today, Dec.11.
I have always admired trinicenter.com’s balanced reporting, but like so much of the rest of the world, it is being hijacked, apparently, by haters.A pity.
I doubt trinicenter.com would pander to Linda Edwards’ views alone. I also doubt that she is the best judge on what is a balanced view.
Linda Edwards, you have not pointed out any factual errors in in the article, but you call it hating. It is as if everyone is supposed to drink the Obama Kool-Aid. He serves the same Israeli and American oligarchy that the other US presidents serve.
Humanitarianism has never been the US policy in the world at large and with Obama at the helm, nothing has really changed. Instead, he spews rhetoric that some interpret to be about peace while fermenting coups and escalating a war to advance the American and Israeli elites’ agendas.
Look at Obama’s response to the Honduras coup. He claims to be in support of the democratically elected leader but his actions support those who staged the coup. The same coup mongers overthrew the democratically elected president, Zelaya because he was close to Chavez and raised the minimum wage among other things and not because he tried to illegally extend his term in office as they alleged. Look at the lies Obama spewed in an attempt to justify the escalation of this unjustified war in Afghanistan. Look at the unwavering support for Israel in spite of its genocidal behavior towards the Palestinians. Look at his unwillingness to lift sanctions against Zimbabwe. These are just some examples of his poor leadership that is not much different than Bush. Obama acts similar to all extremist, White supremacist (mis-)leaders, but because he satisfies the illusion of being a Black president some people expect all of us to give him a pass.
I wish trinicenter.com could simply publish the entire Nobel speech, instead of allowing those who allegely run think tanks, but are not accountable to anyone for their actions, speak for Mr. Obama.I do not expect trinicenter.com to “pander” to me. All the public affairs pieces I write-see commentary in today’s Newsday, on education, are shared with multiple outlets in TnT.Some choose to publish, some not.Now, go to the international section and scan the headlines.
Instead of using every opportunity to promote yourself as some do-gooder or writer extraordinaire, try to stay on point with this thread and show what is erroneous in the article and with my comment.
In my view, Obama is not about change in any real sense. He was promoted by the American oligarchy because they felt he could advance the same agenda as Bush but in a less exposing way. All that has really changed so far is the tone of the rhetoric.
What is Obama’s obsession with Iran while Israel – the military outpost of the US in the Middle East – is allowed to have unchecked nuclear weapons? Why does Obama continue the tactics of attempting to block UN resolutions that condemn Israel’s actions in Palestine?
You would not be able to hide indefinitely from the reality of Obama’s actions. What is becoming obvious is that some people were not on principle against the US actions of aggression and manipulation in the world at large. You all were simply against the very overt and brazen manner in which Bush was going about advancing White power.
The reality is that “Black” Obama serves the same oligarchic interests as Bush.
I would not even try to bother, the dotishness just continues, people believe that because they elect someone that looks like them, all the problems fades away. In T&T we have these idiots on both sides of the “political divide” that are blindly loyal to the leader that looks like them. And until this change we would continue to be taken for a ride whilst the bandits plunder our resources.
They do not demand accountability, but complain about the basics. I hope that Ms. Edwards could do some educating so that these idiots could understand what it means to exercise a vote, providing she did not support Obama for the reason trinbagonians support their leaders.
By the way what is this violence about sounds like a psychopath to me, I mean for someone who’s neighbours don’t even hear her to “I would kill them without hesitation, or have them killed without blinking.” and “some “accident” should happen that costs them their lives, I would not even blink” this sounds like a serious infection of sorts, somebody call 911.
Actually Linda sounds like George Bush in his ” we will hunt them down, find them and kill them”speech, as he adopted his John Wayne stance.
I wont hunt you down,promise, but try not to come to my door. I am not a do gooder idiots, but fifty one years in public service in three countries, with public service awards in two of them, and sitting on boards and committees focussed on international issues, does give me some expertise. Bellyful talk is bellyful talk. Some of you were spouting rubbish when I designed and executed a volunteer remedial reading programme for children in the Laventile area in 2006.(Go back and check A SMALL BEGINNING, I did this at my own expense, and persuaded three others to come from the USA also at their own expense, to assist. Compared to that, and the countless pieces I have written on events in TnT since 1984, what on earth have you three poster done? So, I do not need to answer anything, or to prove anything. I simply state my position.If you do not like it, no one is holding a gun to your head and dragging you to a computer. I suggested checking the International section. When there are eight pieces listed, and five are anti-Obama one wonders in whose pocket the whole organization is. Who funds the group?Unless of course being anti is a valid position in inself. Goodnight children. I’m done here.
Linda Edwards, being dogmatic and belligerent does not change the facts about Obama. And, I am not engaging you in any bragging contest.
Why is it acceptable for this Obama administration to be involved in attempts to destabilize Cuba while Obama is doing his ‘Orwellian speak’ about normalizing relations with them? This is no different to the US’s actions in Haiti, Bolivia, Venezuela and Iran (just to name a few countries that were earmarked for destabilization by the US).
Cuba Detains a U.S. ‘Contractor’
If this was being done under Bush, you would have easily condemned it.
Here is another newsworthy item: The US, under this Obama administration, refuses to allow inspections of its WMDs.
US refuses to allow UN inspectors to investigate its WMDs
and,
WMD treaty violations and inspection refusal for biological, nuclear, chemical weapons. Iran? No, US
Perhaps if Bush was in power, you would have grasped more easily the hypocrisy and possible illegality of some of these actions.
Why was it wrong for Bush to lie in an attempt to justify wars, but okay for Obama to lie in an attempt to justify the escalation of these wars.
Obama Lied: Taliban Did Not Refuse to Hand Over Bin Laden
So it appears that on principle you have no problem with these (mis-)leaders lying and unjustifiably waging wars. You prefer that we cover-up Obama’s wrongdoings while giving prominence to and basking in the illusion of his “blackness” and Orwellian rhetoric.
PS: I doubt that age is the yardstick for measuring intelligence and this ongoing, vainglorious listing of your social endeavors does not make your comments here any more valid.
“In T&T we have these idiots on both sides of the “political divide” that are blindly loyal to the leader that looks like them. And until this change we would continue to be taken for a ride whilst the bandits plunder our resources. eader that looks like them.”
Mr. Amps please.. I know the plight of the African Guyanese is deliberately ‘white-outed’ from the Trinbagonian media.. Now Linda have me wondering bout Trinicenter… NAH.
Anyway, next year is the year of the Nook, the death of print media.
But mramps, it’s about survival.
“One area in which Africans are victimized is in development allocations and thus depriving Africans of the means of earning a living and driving them into poverty thereby injuring their ife prospects. If you cannot work, you cannot ive. Since the PPP came to power in 1992 a myth was formulated that Africans do not repay loans. That myth became the justification for banks denying loans to Africans, but loans are readily made available to East Indians.”
http://bajan.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/indian-racism-against-afro-guyanese-in-guyana/
I have followed Linda’s comments and on average have found them to be fair and balanced. However, I found her recent comment somewhat disturbing to say the least. Her comment sounds like something one would hear on Fox News from some far-right, religious fundamentalist, Republican. I am appalled that she does not believe in justice for all people.
Martin, my tolerance ceases when young knuckleheads, apparently bored with their studies at university, go off to Pakistan to seek out a jihadist group to join, to try to bring down the country of their birth. All theories end at that point. One of the last cities such people tried to attack was Dallas- less than four hours from where I live.He was caught with a fake bomb given to him by a government agent. He went to the building to blow it up. The dud failed. When I am in Tnt, I live behind an electronic gate,I am not pleased with that but it seems neccessary.I have very little patience with people who may think it funny to organize gun running efforts into TnT, or to put explosive in trash cans around town. Such sickies need to be summarily shot, if we are sure who they are. Like mad dogs, there is no helping them. If we are not sure who they are track them down,try them and get rid of them.All over the world it seems there is a Cops vs bandit war going on, and the cops are taking big hits.These terrorist wannabees from DC were turned over to the police because one left a suicide note for his parents.His parents reported him.Sorry if I burst any bubbles of people who believed in me, but the thousands of people who gather at large venues throughtout the world have a right to be safe in their enjoyment of sports or whatever else brings them together, so is the little old lady related to me, living out her 97th year in her cottage in Arima.
Linda Edwards, it seems as though your tolerance ‘ended’ when you saw your favorite president being criticized.
Americans have planned and bombed buildings in the US without known help from non-Americans long before Obama became president. Americans have gone to Pakistan and Afghanistan and joined some of these Muslim groups who fight to liberate their country from US aggression and invasion even before Obama became president. We were critical of Bush while all of this was going on. We knew the actions of the US government contributed to these ills. So I believe that the cause of your unreasoned conduct now is that Obama is the target of criticism.
The only thing that has really changed is the face of the US presidency. Obama has accepted the pro-war baton, continuing these wars with the same bogus excuses as Bush. And, over time, more Americans will be incensed by the hypocrisy and brutality of the US government and may be tempted to or may even carry out acts of terrorism in the US.
There are many people who are aggrieved by the actions of warmongering governments. There are the families and friends of innocent people who are killed overseas by the US bombings, which are tolerated as collateral damage. There are the families and friends of US soldiers who are incensed when they discover that their loved ones did not die for some noble cause as some of them believed when joining the US army. There are the soldiers who are exposed to depleted uranium and those who are further mentally disabled after carrying out acts of torture and murder in the name of corporate America.
People have reason to be angry with the US and some have been expressing this anger in destructive ways in the US long before Obama became president.
Obama’s actions have done nothing to stem that. Instead, he has escalated these unjust wars and occupations. He is trying to ferment an uprising in Cuba and Iran. His administration at best, gave tacit support to the coup in Honduras, and by the deeds of his administration, they have disregarded the views and sensitivities of the majority of nations in Latin America. There is so much information out there that shows that this Obama administration is contributing to the insecurity of many nations, including the US, by their reckless disregard for the truth and the lives of people who are just pawns in their empire building exercise.
Is Obama totally to blame for all of this? No. But he has taken on the responsibility to lead and he is now responsible for the actions of the US government. He cannot be spared because of the illusion of his ‘blackness’.
Here yuh pedaling backwards over stuff already covered.
This from an Indian friend of mine, from the real India, not Caroni.”All of Idnia wa delihted whe n he lit a deya at the White House. People kept calling each other to see if they saw it. The whole country was touched.I tell you this man is making a difference” Shalu K.
Allyu tink Bush knew what a deya is? May the lights of Divali, the crescent and star , the mennorah of Hannukah, the seven candles of Kwanzaa, and the candles lit by all traditional Christions, lighten the life of people like you. May you no longer walk in the darkness of anger, hate and frustration.
I agree with the overall sentiments folks. Nixon I am not a crook can use ping pong diplomacy to speak to Red China back in the day , and end the shameful Vietnam war on his watch.
Reagan could lie to Congress, while engaging in covert arms for drugs schemes between Iran and Nicaragua. King G.H Bush can via the CIA ,help set up Panama strong man Noriega drug enterprise , then in the name of national interest ,kidnap , convict , and jail him back in the USA when he George is President later.
His son George W can for eight years , walk the White House lawn and occasionally kiss the big toe of the Saudi King ,while driving Iraq back to the stone age all in the name of democracy, as Bin Laden US Bank accounts gather interest , and Wahabi Islamic fundamentalism spreads globally.
Why are we therefore asking the first African /Caucasian American President of the United States, to end his inherited bloody war ,and in the process accept responsibility and the indignity of loosing it on his watch?
It won’t happen , so long as Michelle Obama continue to have a say . You guys did not study psychology, and should note that the women in his life has always played a significant role. I am enjoying this Obama power play really, and do not want this to be the last of it’s kind due to naive missteps on his part. African American should not only be relegated to overpaid media clowns ,entertainers , and clueless sporting icons.
For the record , the only difference between a Liberal ,and a Conservative is that one would shoot you in the head , while the other would poison you. Unfortunately,America , and by extension the world at large would always be screwed by elite political leaders, irrespective of their colour.
Hey guys, if its no trouble, could you all say where you are blogging from, thank many.
Linda Edwards, the only person who is displaying hatred and ignorance on this thread is you. I made my arguments and if you could have reasonably challenged them, you would have. Instead, you have embarked on a course of distraction and have projected your poor character.
I thought that there was a strong defense for Obama maintaining a similar dictatorial and warmongering foreign policy as Bush. Generally speaking, I find that many of Obama’s supporters react as though he was sent from heaven to deliver us with his speeches and with his presence. They are as fanatical as Bush’s supporters, and in some cases, more dangerous than them.
I see people condemning others for their blind loyalty to political parties, and you have displayed the same sycophantic conduct in defense of Obama. Fair criticisms are responded to with smokescreens, unnecessary hostility, and mean-spiritedness, which is the norm with fanaticism. It is interesting to see the kind of character that boasts so much about doing social works.
Hey Neru, you are so damn right, these fanatics believe that once someone that they support is elected, all the problems fade away, I too like many in T&T supported Obama, but should I just now close my eyes because he was elected, no I can’t, we must continue with the vigilence that we had with someone else in office. Applying this to T&T, we have those who condemned corruption under one party, and rightly so, but those very individuals defends to death the corruption under another party, which they support, that does not compute no matter how you try.
I thought I was challenging the Blum piece.
If a man could go to a church for twenty years,savor and welcome the doctrines of Black Liberation Theology advocate Rev Wright during this time. Find his way politically in a welcoming community in poor Chicago South side where he met his black wife .He was married, and christened his kids in the man church , then in true Machiavellian fashion dropped him like a hot potato once the going got rough , what do we expect? Come on guys , it’s call politics, or rather skillfully crafted , prudent ,chess playing.
It would take more than Obama’s one year in office to eventually eradicate the disastrous right wing agenda, fostered for eight years under Prince George W. Bush and his Neocon handlers. It would take more than eight years to counteract 200 years of politics in America. Give them time, and learn, as you too hope for meaningful changes in our neck of the woods.
As for our society, complaining simply because one can , yet timid to take a stab on meaningful changes are no different to local characters mud mass Jouvet morning skits that are geared to entertain the masses.
Obama has been in office for less than a year. He inherited much of what he is being faulted for not resolving from the 8 years of George Bush’s presidency. I would argue that the people who making judgements about him at this early point are just acting out the prejudiced stereotypes they have in their heads. You can take them out of the environment where pattern of judgement formation is standard, but you cannot take the pattern out of them.
Look, Obama’s election was not only a discomfort to the white right wing, it also offended the right wings of other ethnicities whose rabid antipathy is no less vicious and automated than their white counterparts. Personally I voted for him because he was the best candidate out ther at the time. But as Neal skillfully intimated, his Brutus like conduct with respect to Reverend Whyte convinced me that the platform of changes he ran on was just a matter of politican expediency.
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA35) on Obama’s Afghanistan speech
The inside story is that Rev. Wright was in agreement that Obama should leave his church, to take the steam out of the bigots who had hundreds of ads screaming that line, over and over. This was distracting from the campaign. That public show of distance was needed. Since then, The Obamas attend various churches in Washington DC,but have not joined any other church. Rev. Wright has retired and is writing a book.
When people want to hate, they look for every excuse. There are still people in the US who daily question whether Obama should have been allowed to run for President, even though the first court challenger was defeated. There are still those who claim that he is a Muslim, and plans to hand this country over to Muslim radicals. Those not living here, or not reading the papers daily, MAY BE UNAWARE OF THE LEVEL OF VICIOUSNESS THAT AFFECTS THESE PEOPLE. Others, repeat the robotic comments without checking any of it.
I think it is very important to separate the criticism of Obama by bigots in the USA from the criticism of Obama’s foreign policy by many on this blog and elsewhere.First of all, the Blum article is factual since it accurately chronicles decisions made by the Obama administration which are vigorously supported by the Right Wing media and the Republican party. When people like Palin and other ardent Bush supporters come out publicly in favor of Obama’s foreign policy, describing it as a continuation of the Bush doctrine, one knows that something is wrong!
Passionate criticism of Obama’s foreign policy decisions should not be construed as a total condemnation of his administration. On most fronts,especially the economic stimulus and medicare, Obama deserves the B+ which he assigns himself. For effort, he deserves an A+.Many of us agree with the logical and well informed analysis of his foreign policy by Heru.Many deduced from his campaign platform that his foreign policy decisions might have been different. We are disappointed.This does not mean that we do not support the President.It simply made us realize that the Military, CIA and FBI often wield more power than the President of the United States of America and on foreign policy decisions he gets an F.
Darn, and to think how much better the world would be today if the immoral Mc Cain , and Palin the educationally challenged, Alaskan Moose Barbi, were in charge of American domestic and foreign policy today.
The former wanted to “bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran,” claims to have no clue about economics even as he served as a Senator for over a hundred decades, did not know that there were differences between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. God forbid that this ignoramus had one of Dick Cheney’s infamous heart attacks ,it would have left the much adored Palin in charge with her enormous foreign policy experience, and vast community college brilliance. She remember, thinks that Alaska being near to Russia gives her huge insights on the former evil empire, and that Africa is a country, a state ,or what ever her twisted mind conjured up before she dumped the constituents of the Alaskan State ,to push a boring memoir ,in her bid for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.
With rabid anti Obama characters like T-Man lurking, makes one wonder what they really understand about the subtle intricacies of global politics , or better yet, really desire for their alleged ,beloved Trinidad and Tobago ,eh?
President Obama won the election because he allowed people to believe that he would change things without giving specifics. Nothing is going to change because he wants to live and see his daughters grow. How well do you think he is protected if party crashers can gain entrance to a formal event at the White House. He is not going to change anything that big business doesn’t want him to change. I can only laugh at Danny Glover and Others who have been hoodwinked, bamboozled, and led astray. President obama wants his uneducated and downtrodden to compete for jobs and share public services with illegal immigrants. What Bush Policies has he diverted from?
The more things change, the more they seem to stay the same.
We do not have to give Obama an unspecified amount of time to gauge whose interests he serves. His administration’s actions in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Zimbabwe and Honduras demonstrate enough.
–Heru
Honduras: US Legtimises Coup
THE victory of the right wing candidate preferred by the oligarchy and the military, Porfirio “Pepe” Lobo, in the elections held on November 29 did not come as a surprise. A majority of the people had abstained from voting, heeding the calls by the democratically elected president, Manuel Zelaya, trade unions and civil rights groups to boycott the polls held under the barrel of the gun. The Obama administration was, however, quick to give the elections the stamp of legitimacy. After the June 28 military coup, Washington had, after initially hesitating, reluctantly added its voice to the international condemnation that followed. With the other members of the Organisation of American States (OAS), the Obama administration had demanded the restoration of Zelaya to the presidency. But in the last few months, it was clear that Washington had started backtracking on its commitment to restore democracy and the rule of law in the Central American nation.