Fear Rules

punditman says...Don't succumb to the fear. So now Haliiburton is building detention centers in Florida with no one there and no signs? Punditman is emailing someone he knows in Tallahassee...

Who Spent All That Money For What?

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

The power of irrational fear in the US is extraordinary. It ranks up there with the Israel Lobby, the military/security complex, and the financial gangsters. Indeed, fear might be the most powerful force in America.

Americans are at ease with their country’s aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan, which has resulted in a million dead Muslim civilians and several million refugees, because the US government has filled Americans with fear of terrorists. “We have to kill them over there before they come over here.”

Fearful of American citizens, the US government is building concentration camps, apparently all over the country. According to news reports, a $385 million US government contract was given by the Bush/Cheney Regime to Cheney’s company, Halliburton, to build “detention centers” in the US. The corporate media never explained for whom the detention centers are intended.

Most Americans dismiss such reports. “It can’t happen here.” However, In northeastern Florida not far from Tallahassee, I have seen what might be one of these camps. There is a building inside a huge open area fenced with razor wire. There is no one there and no signs. The facility appears new and unused and does not look like an abandoned prisoner work camp.

What is it for?

Who spent all that money for what?

Keep Reading...

Obama the imperialist

Change? In foreign policy, hardly. The new president is in the classic liberal interventionist mould

The first Democratic president in the modern era to be elected on an anti-war ticket is also, to the relief of neocons and the liberal belligerati, a hawk. Committed to escalation in Afghanistan, his foreign policy selections also indicate bellicosity towards Sudan and Iran. During his first week in office he sanctioned two missile attacks in Pakistan, killing 22 people, including women and children. And his stance on Gaza is remarkably close to that of the outgoing administration. The question now is how Obama will convince his supporters to back that stance. Bush could rely on a core constituency whose commitment to peace and human rights is, at the very least, questionable. Obama has no such luxury. In making his case, he will need the support of those "liberal hawks" who gave Bush such vocal support.

It is tempting to dismiss the "pro-war left" as a congeries of discredited left-wing apostates and Nato liberals. Their artless euphemisms for bloody conquest seem especially redundant in light of over a million Iraqi deaths. Yet their arguments, ranging from a paternalistic defence of "humanitarian intervention" to the championing of "western values", have their origins in a tradition of liberal imperialism whose durability advises against hasty dismissal. In every country whose rulers have opted for empire, there has developed among the intellectual classes a powerful pro-imperial consensus, with liberals and leftwingers its most vociferous defenders.

Liberal imperialists have resisted explicitly racist arguments for domination, instead justifying empire as a humane venture delivering progress. Even so, implicit in such a stance was the belief that other peoples were inferior. Just as John Stuart Mill contended that despotism was a "legitimate mode of government in dealing with the barbarians" provided "the end be their improvement", so the Fabians contended that self-government for "native races" was "as useless to them as a dynamo to a Caribbean". Intellectuals of the Second International such as Eduard Bernstein regarded the colonised as incapable of self-government. For many liberals and socialists of this era, the only disagreement was over whether the natives could attain the disciplined state necessary to run their own affairs. Indigenous resistance, moreover, was interpreted as "native fanaticism", to be overcome with European tuition.

Keep Reading...

punditman says...
It is true that Bush was profoundly unpopular, but thanks to the propaganda system, even at the height of US aggression most people didn't pay much attention to all his "collateral damage" in Iraq and Afghanistan. To no surprise, early indications are that they are paying even less attention to the deaths of innocents abroad under the overly popular Obama regime. This will change only if people stop seeing Obama as the peace president.

Punditman thinks you can kiss goodbye to any hope of the Obama administration taking Bush to task for breaking international law by willfully leading the US into war in Iraq under false premises (lies). By continuing such a policy "responsibly," is he not complicit? And this says nothing of his fetish for attacking Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Lying Liars: To Make Iraq An American Colony

by Mentarch

Two items.

First one: the long-awaited Senate Select Intelligence Committee report is out, confirming what everyone in the reality-based progressive community has known for a long time - that the Bush administration (including President Bush and V.-P. Cheney) made public statements to promote their invasion of Iraq which they knew full well were not supported by available intelligence.

(i.e. they "lied their asses off")

Among the report's conclusions:

* Claims by President Bush that Iraq and al Qaida had a partnership "were not substantiated by the intelligence."

* The president and vice president misrepresented what was known about Iraq’s chemical weapons capabilities.

* Rumsfeld misrepresented what the intelligence community knew when he said Iraq's weapons productions facilities were buried deeply underground.

* Cheney's claim that the intelligence community had confirmed that lead Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 was not true.

In addition, a companion report found that a special office set up by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld undertook "sensitive intelligence activities" that were inappropriate "without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department."

(In other words: they cooked the intel - again, nothing new revealed here, except that it is now "official")

Second item - Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control:

A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November.

(...) Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.

But the accord also threatens to provoke a political crisis in the US. President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated. But by perpetuating the US presence in Iraq, the long-term settlement would undercut pledges by the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama, to withdraw US troops if he is elected president in November.

(...) The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.

Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans.

(...) The US is adamantly against the new security agreement being put to a referendum in Iraq, suspecting that it would be voted down. The influential Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has called on his followers to demonstrate every Friday against the impending agreement on the grounds that it compromises Iraqi independence."

I think there can be no more doubt now that the Iraq war was not only about securing oil resources, but owning them permanently.

Taking the two items above, it is safe to conclude that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. lied their collective asses off to procure a new colony for the U.S.A. - and its very first one in the 21st century at that.

One small step for American Imperialism, a giant leap for the neocons' wet dreams.

I wonder if they'll be doing the same with Afghanistan ... or perhaps they prefer Iran?

In any case, I will join in the sarcasm of The Station Agent and make the suggestion of simply annexing Iraq and make it a state (with the huge, new embassy there becoming the state house) - and therefore be done with this.

Or maybe going about it this way would be too obvious?

Regime change indeed ...


P.S. See also this!