Doublethink (Part 3)

“It was always at night — the arrests invariably happened at night. The sudden jerk out of sleep, the rough hand shaking your shoulder, the lights glaring in your eyes, the ring of hard faces round the bed. In the vast majority of cases there was no trial, no report of the arrest. People simply disappeared, always during the night.”   

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 1, p. 19-20 by George Orwell.[1]

Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’.        

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 3, p. 32 by George Orwell.

An Obama Presidency and the Promise of the Return to the Rule of Law

Two days after Obama (D) assumed the Presidency, he announced his plan to close the prison camps in Guantanamo within a year, but never closed them.  This  foreshadowed his August 31, 2010 speech when he would announce the ending of combat operations in Iraq without intending to end them.[2] 

On January 22, 2009, the former professor of Constitutional Law and freshly inaugurated President decreed that from now on detentions and interrogations would be conducted lawfully, and the prison at Guantanamo would be closed.  The President also commissioned a study(pdf) to decide what to do with the prisoners in Guantanamo.[3]

President Obama was fulfilling promises that candidate Obama had made.  He had promised change: he would close down Guantanamo upon taking office.[4][5]  When candidate Obama responded to a 2007 Boston Globe questionnaire about executive power:

“5. Does the Constitution permit a president to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants?

“No. I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.”[6]

Obama’s Promise to Close Down Guantanamo: Flushed Down the Memory Hole

Many of the voting proletariat actually believed candidate Obama: they believed an Obama administration would restore the rule of law by closing the prison at Guantanamo and ending the torture of suspected terrorists.

How have Obama’s promised changes worked out thus far?

Nearly two years after Obama’s decree, the prison at Guantanamo is still open.  In fact, 50 of the prisoners are slated to be held indefinitely without trial.

Obama has also continued the Bush (R) administration policy of kidnapping and transporting  captives to other countries where rules against torturing prisoners are lax.  This practice is euphemistically termed “rendering.”  But don’t worry, they won’t do it very much—they promised, and “US officials are confident” that the prisoners won’t be tortured:

“The Obama administration subsequently said it would continue to send foreign detainees to other countries for questioning, but rarely — and only if U.S. officials are confident the prisoners will not be tortured.”[7]

But if they are tortured (which of course they won’t be), well Big Brother can’t reveal his secrets:

“A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that former prisoners of the C.I.A. could not sue over their alleged torture in overseas prisons because such a lawsuit might expose secret government information.”[8]

Despite the noise it makes, the Obama administration, like the Bush administration, is also not the great protector of habeas corpus that it pretends to be.  Two Yemenis and a Tunisian captured outside Afghanistan and held in Bagram for more than six years without trials want a civilian judge to review the evidence against them and order their release, under the constitutional right of habeas corpus:

“The Obama administration, like the Bush administration, has rejected this argument. Officials say the importance of Bagram as a holding site for terrorism suspects captured outside Afghanistan and Iraq has risen under the Obama administration, which barred the Central Intelligence Agency from using its secret prisons for long-term detention and ordered the military prison at Guantánamo closed within a year.”[9]

Corpses instead of Habeas Corpus

The former professor of Constitutional Law has also made himself judge and jury, approving the assassination of US citizens without due process (video).  In April 2010, Obama authorized the CIA to assassinate a US citizen without due process.  But again, don’t worry—according to CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano:

"This agency conducts its counterterrorism operations in strict accord with the law."[10]

And if they “lawfully” assassinate people, the administration won’t have to worry about any messy discussions about whether to put them on a plane flight to Syria for torture or to imprison them.[11]  If they “lawfully” assassinate people, the administration certainly won’t have to worry about anyone demanding their right to habeas corpus.  Assassination is just another way to flush them down the memory hole.

Did you vote for Obama because you opposed the Bush administration policies in Guantanamo and in the Middle East?

If you still support the President, how do you rationalize your double-thinking?

________________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, p. 19-20.

[2] “Obama Issues Directive to Shut Down Guantánamo,” By MARK MAZZETTI and WILLIAM GLABERSON, NY Times, January 21, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all on September 21, 2010).

[3] Upon becoming President, Obama issued three executive orders addressing imprisonment without benefit of habeas corpus:

• Executive Order 13491—Ensuring Lawful
  Interrogations (pdf)
• Executive Order 13492—Review and
  Disposition of Individuals Detained at the
  Guanta´namo Bay Naval Base and Closure
  of Detention Facilities (pdf)
• Executive Order 13493—Review of
  Detention Policy Options (pdf).

 Executive Order 13491
Can you spot the loopholes?

Sec. 2.  Definitions.  As used in this order:

(g)  The terms "detention facilities" and "detention facility" in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.

Sec. 4.  Prohibition of Certain Detention Facilities, and Red Cross Access to Detained Individuals.

(a)  CIA Detention.  The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future.

Executive Order 13492
Sec. 2. Findings.

(c) The individuals currently detained at Guanta´namo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness of their detention.

Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guanta´ namo.

The detention facilities at Guanta´namo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order.
If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guanta´namo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.

NOTE (From Wikipedia): “On May 20, 2009, the United States Senate passed an amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 2346) by a 90-6 vote to block funds needed for the transfer or release of prisoners held at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp.  As of July 2010, 176 detainees remain at Guantanamo.”

The prisoners are a “hot potato” for Obama.  On December 15, 2009 he issued a Presidential Memorandum ordering preparation of the Thomson Correctional Center, Thomson, Illinois to receive Guantanamo prisoners.

Executive Order 13493
Created a task force to write a report.  The Guantanamo Review Task Force issued its Final Report January 22, 2010, but didn’t release it publicly until May 28, 2010. The report recommended:

• releasing 126 current detainees to their homes or to a third country (Today even Bush administration officials admit that most Guantanamo prisoners are “innocent.”)
• 36 be prosecuted in either federal court or a military commission
• 48 be held indefinitely under the laws of war
• 30 Yemenis were approved for release if security conditions in their home country improve.

[4] “Obama to order Guantanamo Bay prison closed,” January 12, 2009, By Ed Henry CNN Senior White House Correspondent, (Accessed at http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-12/politics/obama.gitmo_1_president-elect-barack-obama-plans-prison-at-guantanamo-bay-military-prison?_s=PM:POLITICS on September 21, 2010).

[5] “Blueprint for Change Obama and Biden’s Plan for America” (pdf)  p. 71, (Accessed at http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf on September 11, 2010).

On page 71 of their campaign “Blueprint for Change,” Obama and Biden promised to:

“…reject torture without exception or equivocation, including so-called ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ like waterboarding; restore the Rule of Law by closing Guantanamo and restoring habeas corpus; and provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track down terrorists without undermining our Constitution or civil liberties.”

[6] “Barack Obama's Q&A,” By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff, December 20, 2007, (Accessed at http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/ on Sept. 24, 2010).

[7] “Appeals court lets government halt torture lawsuit,” By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press, September 8, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/09/08/financial/f111944D71.DTL on Sept 9, 2010).

[8] “Court Dismisses a Case Asserting Torture by C.I.A.,” By CHARLIE SAVAGE, NY Times, September 8, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09secrets.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all on Sept. 23, 2010).

“Among other policies, the Obama national security team has also authorized the C.I.A. to try to kill a United States citizen suspected of terrorism ties, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas corpus lawsuits challenging the basis for their imprisonment without trial, and continued the C.I.A.’s so-called extraordinary rendition program of prisoner transfers — though the administration has forbidden torture and says it seeks assurances from other countries that detainees will not be mistreated.”

[9] “U.S. to Expand Detainee Review in Afghan Prison,” By ERIC SCHMITT, NY Times, September 12, 2009, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/world/asia/13detain.html?_r=1 on September 21, 2010).

[10] “Muslim cleric Aulaqi is 1st U.S. citizen on list of those CIA is allowed to kill,” By Greg Miller, Washington Post Staff Writer, April 7, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html?hpid=topnews on Sept. 22, 2010).

[11] “Appeals Court Rules in Maher Arar Case: Innocent Victims of Extraordinary Rendition Cannot Sue in US Courts,” November 03, 2009, Democracy Now, (Accessed at http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/3/appeals_court_rules_in_maher_arar on Oct. 3, 2010).

Doublethink (Part 2)

“Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames.”

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 4, p. 36 by George Orwell.[1]

The Search for Iraqi WMD Flushed Down the Memory Hole

Within 18 months of the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Bush (R) administration segued to an invasion of Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein’s use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).  But when President Obama (D) declared the end of US combat in Iraq over seven years later on August 31, 2010, he didn’t dare mention the original reason for the preemptive invasion of Iraq—the search for WMD.

Did Obama remind anyone of how Condoleezza Rice (R), then-National Security advisor and later Bush administration Secretary of State,  made headlines in 2002 by warning about a “mushroom cloud” from Iraqi WMD?  Did he remind everyone how 9/11 was linked to non-existent WMD in Iraq in the minds of many Americans?

Obama couldn’t tell you that the Bush administration lied to Americans about the reasons to invade Iraq.  If he did, how could he justify his leaving 50,000 troops and 100,000 mercenaries stationed in Iraq?  The lie that the war was about WMD had been flushed down the memory hole.

Instead Obama talked about how “our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future.”

Bush followed a similar theme in his May 1, 2003 speech:

“In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment — yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage — your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other — made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.”

Because the real reason the US preemptively invaded Iraq—the search for WMD—had been flushed down the memory hole, history has been rewritten so that now, liberating Iraq was the reason the US invaded. 

President Obama said he was “awed” by the sacrifice of US troops who “defeated a regime that had terrorized its people.”  According to the latest spin, Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime terrorized his people, so he had to be removed.  Obama couldn’t mention US contributions to terrorizing the Iraqi people.  He couldn’t mention the US contributions because they are all destined for the memory hole:

• The only WMD Hussein possessed were chemical weapons (pdf) known by, and their use against Iranians and Kurds accepted by the US under the Reagan (R) administration when it supported Iraq in its war against Iran.[2][3]
• The 13 years of US-supported UN sanctions on Iraq from 1990 to 2003 that contributed to an estimated 500,000 Iraqi deaths before the US invasion.[4]
• The torture and abuse of Iraqis by their “American liberators” at Abu Ghraib after US troops deposed Hussein. 
• The WikiLeaks video showing two Apache helicopters flown by “American liberators” killing civilians in Iraq in 2007.

If Obama mentioned any of the above, how could he pretend that the sacrifice of US troops in Iraq was to liberate Iraq? 

If he mentioned any of the above, how could he justify leaving (“non-combat”) troops in Iraq?

“He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.”    

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 3, p. 32 by George Orwell.

________________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, p. 36.

[2] "De-classified Report" (PDF), House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, June 21, 2006, (Accessed at http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/DNILetter.pdf on Oct 1, 2010).

[3] “U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES,” George Washington University, National Security Archive, (Accessed at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm on Sept. 30, 2010).

[4] Estimates of how many Iraqis died because of the UN-sanctions vary.  Some are over one million.  Critics dispute the claim that sanctions killed any Iraqis:

• They claim that instead Hussein’s government caused their deaths by misusing resources.
• They also claim that they were UN sanctions, not US sanctions, so don’t blame the US.

Critics ignore the purpose of sanctions (embargoes)—to make life so uncomfortable for people in a country that they force their government to submit.  The following US State Department summary ignores that fact and practices doublethink:

1. It pretends that sanctions aren’t intended to harm civilians in a country.

2. It ignores the question of why anyone should expect Hussein’s or any tyrannical government without a free market to be good and efficient at taking care of people even before sanctions are imposed.

Impact of Sanctions

Summary

Sanctions were imposed on Iraq by the international community in the wake of Iraq's brutal invasion of Kuwait. They are intended to prevent the Iraqi regime access to resources that it would use to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction. Sanctions can only be lifted when Iraq complies fully with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

Saddam Hussein's regime remains a threat to its people and its neighbors, and has not met any of its obligations to the UN that would allow the UN to lift sanctions.

The international community, not the regime of Saddam Hussein, is working to relieve the impact of sanctions on ordinary Iraqis.

Impact of Sanctions

Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

________________________________________

The following state department Executive Summary also practices doublethink.  Again, if Hussein is so bad and his government is a dictatorship, then why expect him to be efficient at distributing resources?  It takes a free market for that.  Hasn’t the US learned that any and all foreign aid to dictatorships gets “taxed” by a huge middleman commission to the foreign government?

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S IRAQ

Prepared by the U.S. Department of State
Released September 13, 1999
(Updated 3/24/00)

(PDF version - 2.62MB)
Click here to get a free Adobe Acrobat Reader for PDF files.

---

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present the facts concerning Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

There are a wealth of charges and counter-charges concerning actions undertaken by Saddam and by the international community towards Iraq.

Based on publicly available information, the facts contained in this report demonstrate that under the regime of Saddam Hussein, Iraq continues to repress its people, threaten the region, and obstruct international efforts to provide humanitarian relief.

We are helping the Iraqi people in their efforts to bring about a regime that is committed to living in peace with its neighbors and respecting the rights of its citizens.

We want to see Iraq return as a respected and prosperous member of the international community, and as the evidence shows, this is unlikely to happen as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.

As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, we are determined to contain the Iraqi regime and prevent it from threatening the region or its own people. We will also continue our efforts to increase humanitarian relief for the people of Iraq, over the obstructions of the regime.

________________________________________

This US State Department page on the Hussein regime’s Misuse of Resources also ignores the fact that non-free market economies are inefficient.  Imposing an embargo only makes things worse.

Misuse of Resources by the Regime

Summary

Rather than spend money to help its people, Iraq's leaders enrich themselves.

Mismanagement

With Iraqi oil revenues burgeoning, it's hard to understand why the people of Iraq aren't better off. The reason is because the government of Iraq is mismanaging the oil-for-food program, either deliberately or through incompetence.

• Despite reports of widespread health problems, the government has still not spent the full $200 million for medical supplies allocated under phase five of the oil-for-food program (which ended in May). Only 40% of the money was used to purchase medicines for primary care, while 60% was used to buy medical equipment.

• While the average Iraqi needs basic medicines and medical care, the government of Iraq spent $6 million on a gamma knife, an instrument used for complicated neurosurgery that requires extremely advanced training to use. Another several million was spent on a MRI machine, used for high-resolution imaging. Such exotic treatment is reserved for regime bodyguards and other members of the elite. This total of $10 million could instead have benefited thousands of Iraqi children if it had been spent on vaccines, antibiotics, and the chemotherapeutics necessary to treat the large numbers of children that are allegedly dying due to lack of medicine.

Personal Enrichment

While the people of Iraq go wanting, their leaders enrich themselves.

• In July 1999, Forbes Magazine estimated Saddam Hussein's personal wealth at $6 billion, acquired primarily from oil and smuggling.

• Medicines received through the oil-for-food program are sold by the regime to private hospitals at exorbitant prices.

• Members of the government and top military and security officials are provided with extra monthly food rations, Mercedes automobiles, and monthly stipends in the thousands of dollars. By comparison, the average monthly government salary is 6,500 dinars, or about $3.50.

Saddam's Excesses

In addition to the revenues generated under the oil-for-food program, the government of Iraq earns money from other sources which it controls. Rather than spend these funds to help the people of Iraq, Saddam Hussein chooses to build monuments to himself. In addition, he deprives those in need of water and other scarce resources in order to favor elites and other supporters of the regime.

• Saddam celebrated his birthday this year by building a resort complex for regime loyalists. Since the Gulf War, Saddam has spent over $2 billion on presidential palaces. Some of these palaces boast gold-plated faucets and man-made lakes and waterfalls, which use pumping equipment that could have been used to address civilian water and sanitation needs.

  
  Photo 2: Saddamiat al Tharthar, Iraq, a resort city built for Regime VIPs, April 1999. View larger image

• In April 1999, Iraqi officials inaugurated Saddamiat al Tharthar. Located 85 miles west of Baghdad, this sprawling lakeside vacation resort contains stadiums, an amusement park, hospitals, parks, and 625 homes to be used by government officials. This project cost hundreds of millions of dollars. There is no clearer example of the government's lack of concern for the needs of its people than Saddamiat al Tharthar (see photo 2).

• In July, Baghdad increased taxes on vehicle ownership and marriage dowries, after earlier increases in taxes, fees, and fuel and electricity prices. This is in part what pays for Saddam's palaces. Saddam also uses food rations, medical care, and other state resources to buy the loyalty of his inner circle and security forces.

• Iraq is facing its worst drought in 50 years. As a result, the government is restricting the planting of rice and told farmers not to plant summer crops without permission from the Ministry of Irrigation. The water levels of the reservoirs supplying Saddam Hussein's region of Tikrit, however, were at normal seasonal levels, while the flow of water to the southern cities was dramatically lower than during the previous two years. Saddam is diverting water to serve his political objectives, at the expense of the general population.

Here’s another US State Department link defending the UN-sanctions on Iraq.  Yes they’re UN sanctions.  But who doesn’t think the US was directing the UN on the Iraq embargo and the 1992 Gulf War?  And why do you think the US State Department put out so many pages supporting the “UN sanctions”?

Iraqi Obstruction of Oil-For-Food

Summary

Thanks to the oil-for-food program, the people of Iraq, especially those in the north, are getting needed foods and medicines.

The program would be even more effective if the Iraqi regime were cooperating. Iraqi obstruction of the oil-for-food program, not United Nations sanctions, is the primary reason the Iraqi people are suffering.

Oil-for-Food Program Helps Iraqis

Doublethink (Part 1)

“Then the face of Big Brother faded away again, and instead the three slogans of the Party stood out in bold capitals:

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 1, p. 17 by George Orwell.[1]

Slogans from Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four are absurd—oxymoronic gibberish—contradictory words that don’t belong in the same sentence together except as an example of opposites.  Double talk.

How does war equal peace?

Or freedom equal slavery?

Is we ever stronger when we is ignorant?

The slogans are born of “doublethink”: a word Orwell coined for a technique his fictional future dictatorship used to control its citizens.  The dictatorship controls citizens’ access to facts, limits their vocabularies, and clutters their minds with inconsistencies.  Those ruled in Orwell’s novel live with their heads filled with contradictory concepts for so long that they lose the ability to distinguish fact from fiction.  They can’t think clearly—which makes it very easy for their rulers to lie to them.

Doublethink goes beyond gullibility.  Double-thinkers willingly switch off their reason.  Point out the lies and they get angry—not at the liar for deceiving them, but at the messenger for stating the obvious—they’ve been believing a lie.

But Nineteen Eighty-Four  is only a story.  Doublethink doesn’t happen in real life does it?

PACIFICATION

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM

FIGHT FOR PEACE

VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE

DEFICIT SPENDING

SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND

Pacification—In military terms, pacify: “to hit an area as hard as possible in order that it would be reduced to rubble—that is, ‘pacified.’”[2]  E.g. “Pacify Fallujah.”

Operation Iraqi Freedom—The US “liberated Iraqis” with a preemptive invasion of Iraq.  But wait, weren’t they fighting for “our freedoms” too?

Fight for Peace—President George W. Bush congratulated US military personnel on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln: “In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world.”

Voluntary Compliance—You’re free to pay your income taxes voluntarily.  You’re not coerced, right?

Deficit Spending—When the Federal Government pays its bills, it does it with no money.

 Social Security Trust Fund—The Social Security Trust Fund cannot be trusted, and it isn’t funded.  There is no trust fund with money in it.  It’s all IOUs written by one part of government to another.[3]

 

War is Peace or “Mission Accomplished” Take Two

 

On August 31, 2010, President Obama (D) declared: an “end of our combat mission in Iraq.”[4]

 

On May 1, 2003, in front of a “Mission Accomplished” banner, then-President George W. Bush (R) declared: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”[5]

On August 31, 2010, Obama disclosed that a “transitional force of US troops” would remain in Iraq.  Translation: troops remain in Iraq.

 

On May 1, 2003, Bush stated: “And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.”  Translation: troops remain in Iraq.

Obama’s historic speech fulfilled his campaign promises to remove combat troops from Iraq by “the summer of 2010” and also to keep “a residual force” in Iraq.[6][7]

Does it sound contradictory that Obama ran for President promising to withdraw troops from Iraq while also promising to leave troops in Iraq?  Together the two promises meant Obama would leave troops in Iraq, he just wouldn’t call them “combat” troops.

Both Bush and Obama have told American citizens that combat operations are over in Iraq, yet both have left combat troops in Iraq after announcing the end of combat operations.

 

Over 3,000 US soldiers and uncounted Iraqis have died in in Iraq since Bush announced the end of major combat operations.  Twelve days after Obama announced the end of combat operations in Iraq for US troops, US troops were still engaged in combat operations.[8]  Fifteen days later, US combat troops killed seven civilians in a combat raid near Fallujah.[9]

Fifty thousand US troops remain in Iraq with an additional 100,000 US mercenary soldiers after Obama announced the end of “our combat mission.”  The Iraqi Defense Minister, Abdul Obeidi says US troops may be in Iraq forever:

"Maybe endlessly," said Obeidi when asked how long U.S. support may be necessary. "As long as I have an army and I'm a Third World country, and I can't pretend that I'm better than that … I will need assistance.”[10]

Are we already double-thinkers?  Our leaders apparently think so.  For them: War is Peace.
_______________________________
[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, p. 17.
[2] JFK: the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy, by By Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Kensington Publishing Corp., N.Y., 1996, p. 250.
[3] Comeback America: Turning the Country Around and Restoring Fiscal Responsibility, By David M. Walker, Random House, N.Y., 2009, p.72, (Accessed at http://books.google.com/books?id=7Ga0TEYaScIC&lpg=PR2&ots=TjzWPcLWpF&dq=Comeback%20America%3A%20Turning%20the%20Country%20Around%20and%20Restoring%20Fiscal%20Responsibility&pg=PA72#v=onepage&q&f=false on Sept. 27, 2010).
[4] “Obama Declares an End to Combat Mission in Iraq,” By HELENE COOPER and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG,  August 31, 2010, NY Times, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/world/01military.html?_r=1&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all on Sept 3, 2010)
[5] “Text Of Bush Speech; President Declares End To Major Combat In Iraq,” By Jarrett Murphy, May 1, 2003, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml on Sept. 29, 2010).
[6] “Blueprint for Change Obama and Biden’s Plan for America” (pdf)  p. 69, (Accessed at http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf on September 11, 2010).
[7] “Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the End of Combat Operations in Iraq,” August 31, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/31/remarks-president-address-nation-end-combat-operations-iraq on September 11, 2010).

“Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission:  advising and assisting Iraq’s Security Forces, supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilians.  Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year.  As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians -- diplomats, aid workers, and advisors -- are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world.  That’s a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.”

[8] “More Post-Combat U.S. Gunfire in Iraq,” By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, NY Times, September 12, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html?_r=1&hp on Sept 12, 2010).
[9] “Iraqi-U.S. Raid Near Falluja Leaves 7 Dead,” By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS and DURAID ADNAN, NY Times, September 15, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/world/middleeast/16iraq.html?_r=1&th&emc=th on September 18, 2010).
[10] “Iraqi official foresees a U.S. military presence until 2016,” By Liz Sly, Los Angeles Times, September 8, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-troop-presence-20100909,0,954392,print.story on Sept. 29, 2010).

They’re Here

No not Poltergeist, but be just as wary.  The honeymoon’s over and primaries for the mid-term election season are coming up.  Typically at mid-term elections, voters sway toward “opposition” politicians promising an alternative to whichever party holds power in Washington, D.C.

Free to Choose, as Long as It’s More of the Same

The mid-term elections serve a useful purpose for the ruling class: by pretending to offer a change, they help maintain social stability when the cattle are threatening to stampede.  Pretending voters have a choice is another bait and switch trick our rulers play to channel our energies and tranquilize the herd.  There really is no difference between the pols in power and the candidates opposing them.

The trick depends on voters having short memories.  For this election, voters dissatisfied with both Rs and Ds are drawn to the Tea Party movement.  In this election, a Tea Party endorsement is obligatory for “opposition” candidates to prove to the gullible that they’re outsiders.

Even insider incumbent US senator for Arizona, John McCain, a career politician running for re-election as a member of the “opposition party,” has a Tea Party endorsement.  McCain (R) found one organization in the Tea Party movement to endorse his candidacy.  McCain hopes the endorsement will help voters forget 2008, when McCain joined then-Senator Obama (D) to support the $700 billion TARP bailout during the Bush (R) administration.

Politicians in America, no matter their stripe, all share one core belief: someone has to rule and it might as well be them.  Every mid-term election is the same—only the rhetoric changes.  Since Ds currently hold power, it’s the “opposition” R-candidates who are energized these days.

The Only Solution Offered is More Government

"Opposition” candidates rely on hot button issues to get voters emotional enough to overlook the similarity of a candidate’s views to those of the incumbent.  In this mid-term election, particularly in a border state like Arizona, the candidates focus on emotional issues:

• Protecting our borders from being overrun is hot this campaign.  The Rs want to “keep us safe” with a wall similar to the Great Wall of China, and want citizens to celebrate their freedom by making everyone carry their citizenship papers.  The Ds want “open borders” supported by “open taxpayer pockets” for federally-mandated socialist handouts to any who make it across the border.  Everyone is too excited to see that both solutions give more power to Big Brother.
• The cost of healthcare is still sizzling hot.  Rs don’t want cuts to socialist Medicare; Ds support even more government control with socialist Obamacare.  Both sides talk about the cost of healthcare, yet neither side addresses the morality or efficiency of the federal government manipulating the price of healthcare or how much it costs taxpayers for Medicare and Obamacare.
• Fiscal responsibility is another hot issue.  Rs want to extend the Bush tax cuts; Ds want to increase taxes to reduce the deficit.  “Fiscally responsible” Rs never address the cost  of US troops all over the world.  Profligate Ds never seem to consider cutting federal spending to reduce the deficit.  Both sides advocate increased spending of some kind by the federal government.
• What’s gone cold is foreign policy.  Since both Bush (R) and Obama (D) support un-Constitutional wars in the Middle East, foreign policy isn’t much of an issue in this mid-term election.  All the candidates pay the obligatory lip service to national security and “protecting” Americans from terrorism.

The Sky is the Limit

I recently attended a “meet and greet” at an acquaintance’s home to listen to an R-congressional candidate ready to climb the next rung up the political ladder in Arizona’s 3rd district.  The 3rd district has 10 candidates vying for the R nomination to run for Congress.  With Obama in office, I expected an “opposition candidate” to make noise about limited government.

The candidate I met didn’t disappoint (video).   Calling herself “a limited government Republican” and “a proud supporter of John McCain for President” at the Republican National Convention in 2008, I wondered how she reconciled McCain’s TARP vote with her “limited government” outlook?

Those two descriptions usually can’t apply to the same person.  But she honestly is for “limited government”—it’s just that for her and most of the other candidates, the sky is the limit.

Meat on the Hoof

This candidate explained that the local newspaper endorsed her over her nine opponents, describing her as an “independent thinker.”  As an example of her independence, she pointed to her ability to make difficult choices—like supporting the recent Arizona sales tax increase in these hard economic times.  For a “limited government Republican,” what must have made the choice difficult was how to explain why a “limited government Republican” supported increased government.

She obviously thinks that not only is she more qualified to manage our money than we are, but that we need to pay even more to the government.  She’s not alone.  The ruling class often makes “difficult decisions” about why the ruled must pay more.  A taxpayer is just meat on the hoof to most politicians.

The main message of this particular candidate is her record as an efficient government bureaucrat.  Steepling her fingers, this candidate explained why she deserved our money and our votes.  I was naive enough to think a candidate might listen to future constituents.  But does a cowboy let the cows decide where the herd is headed?  Smart and capable—she doesn’t need anyone telling her different.  She promised that she’d do a better job managing resources plucked from the herd compared to everyone else.

Yes, the “opposition” candidates are here again.  They come in through your television, making lots of noise about change.  Beware, lest they wreak havoc in your neighborhood.

Power and Perception

“There is no difference between us.  The only difference is that the folks with money want to stay in power.” 

Shirley Sherrod speaking about  black and white people during her March 27, 2010 speech at a Georgia chapter of the NAACP (See 23:35 in full length video).

Perception Rules

In her NAACP speech last March, former USDA administrator Shirley Sherrod described how she overcame her prejudice toward a poor white farmer—realizing the differences that divide aren’t about color, but about power.  Bob Herbert summarizes in his July 23, 2010 NY Times column:

“The point that Ms. Sherrod was making as she talked in her speech about the white farmer who had come to her for help was that we are all being sold a tragic bill of goods by the powerful forces that insist on pitting blacks, whites and other ethnic groups against one another.”[1]

Because those in power must maintain the perception that they do not tolerate discrimination, the Obama administration  threw Sherrod under the bus and forced her to resign on July 19th after Andrew Breitbart took a segment of her speech out of context and posted a two minute and 36-second video clip on the internet.  The NAACP came down hard on Sherrod;  NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous supported Sherrod’s forced resignation.[2]

Once the entire video of Sherrod’s talk was posted, President Obama (D) and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack apologized.[3]  The NAACP said they were “snookered” by Fox News.  The new perception was that Sherrod was not a bigot.

The Rest of the Story

Ironically, in the very speech now perceived to “prove” Sherrod is not a bigot, Sherrod can be seen using the same demeaning and divisive technique of labeling political opponents as racists to devalue their message.  At 23:50 into the full length video of her March 27th NAACP speech, Sherrod doesn’t hesitate to dismiss opponents of Obama and Obamacare  as racists:

“I haven’t seen such mean-spirited people as I’ve seen lately over this issue of healthcare.  Some of the racism we thought was buried has surfaced.  Now we endured eight years of the Bushes and we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because we have a black President.”

For Sherrod, people can’t possibly disagree with her “black President” unless they’re prejudiced.  Sherrod belittles members of the tea party movement, calling them racist, thus invalidating their point of view in the public eye.

Perception and Reality

The perception in the news media is that Shirley Sherrod is not a racist.

The reality is that for Shirley Sherrod, everything is about race.[4]

The perception in the news media is that Shirley Sherrod had an epiphany of a brotherhood of races.

The reality is that Sherrod’s epiphany was a brotherhood of races cared for by Big Brother—and you must love Big Brother—unless of course, you’re a racist.

The perception in the news media is that those in power do not tolerate discrimination.

The reality is that the Shirley Sherrod incident was a hiccup in the the regular use of discrimination and accusations of racism by those in power as a tool to divide and control Americans.  Those in power manage the perception that they do not tolerate discrimination, but that their opponents are bigots.[5]  A week before the incident, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)  called on a growing movement of Americans dissatisfied with the government—the tea party—to stop supporting bigots in their midst.

Divide and Rule

Sherrod believes in big-government—her loyalties have been bought and paid for by government handouts.  For her, as for most people, government is part of the landscape to be used for her own goals.

Will Sherrod and other Americans ever open their eyes to see that the “folks with money” who threw Sherrod under the bus come in all colors?

Will Americans ever see that whether or not someone is labeled a racist today is often a convenient tool those in power use to divide people and manipulate their perceptions?

_____________________________

[1] “Thrown to the Wolves,” By Bob Herbert, NY Times, July 23, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/opinion/24herbert.html?th&emc=th on July 25, 2010).

[2] “Shirley Sherrod, ex-USDA worker: White House forced me to resign over fabricated racial controversy,” by Aliyah Shahid, DAILY NEWS, July 20, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/07/20/2010-07-20_shirley_sherrod_exusda_worker_white_house_forced_me_to_resign_over_fabricated_ra.html on July 31, 2010).

[3] “With Apology, Fired Official Is Offered a New Job,” By Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Shaila Dewan, and Brian Stelter, NY Times, July 21, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/politics/22sherrod.html?th&emc=th on July 25, 2010).

“She said she would like to have a conversation with Mr. Obama, but does not believe he owes her an apology.”

[4] In Sherrod speech video:

2:04: Wants “people of color” in government jobs.

30:29: Laments money handouts not going to black businesses.

31:40: Tells how kids can become government bureaucrats for life.

32:14: Discusses how many “people of color” work in a government building.

36:15: “Second black President of the United States”

[5] Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayer can make racist comments and still become a Supreme Court Justice.

What is Affirmative Action if not a form of discrimination?

Advice from a Patriot

“But they should have kept at home, we should then never have gone after them to kill them in their own country.” [1]  American Revolutionary war soldier Joseph Plumb Martin on dead Hessian invaders killed at the Battle of White Plains fought October 28, 1776.

Enlisting when he was 15 years old in 1776 with the Connecticut regulars, Joseph Plumb Martin served seven years during the American Revolutionary War.  Martin wrote his memoirs, A Narrative of a Revolutionary Soldier, in 1830.[2]

In 1776, Martin fought in the battle of White Plains in New York.  Two years later he was stationed in the same area and visited the graves of some of the fallen:

“…I, with some of my comrades who were in the battle of the White plains in the year ‘76, one day took a ramble on the ground where we were then engaged with the British and took a survey of the place.” [3]

While looking at the graves, Martin’s conscience bothered him, and he felt regret for the Hessians killed, whom he viewed as just as human as his dead American friends:

“We saw a number of the graves of those who fell in that battle; some of the bodies had been so slightly buried that the dogs or hogs, or both, had dug them out of the ground.  The sculls and other bones, and hair were scattered about the place.  Here were Hessian sculls as thick as a bomb shell;—poor fellows! they were left unburied in a  foreign land;—they had, perhaps, as near and dear friends to lament their sad destiny as the Americans who lay buried near them.” [4]

Today the tables are turned: American soldiers are not fighting invaders on American soil to gain their liberty, instead Americans slaughter civilians in foreign lands to “keep us safe.”[5]  American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq, while not in red coats, nor buried in shallow graves in a foreign land, are the invaders, and many decent Americans are dying in far off lands, as did the Hessians Martin fought over two hundred years ago.

Today the tables are turned: our representatives do not boldly proclaim their actions to the world with a Declaration of Independence, instead the US government hides behind a cloak of secrecy, jailing those who would dare tell the world what the US government does in foreign lands.  On July 5th, 2010, the US military jailed Army Specialist  Bradley Manning  in Kuwait on charges that he leaked a classified video showing a 2007 helicopter attack that killed a dozen civilians in Iraq, including two Reuters journalists, and seriously wounded children.

Joseph Plumb Martin, an American Patriot, has good advice for all Americans when he considers the Hessians buried at White Plains:

“But, the reader will say, they were forced to come and be killed here; forced by their rulers who have absolute power of life and death over their subjects.  Well then, reader, bless a kind Providence that has made such a distinction between your condition and theirs.  And be careful too that you do not allow yourself ever to be brought to such an abject, servile and debased condition.” [6]

_____________________________

[1] Joseph Plumb Martin, A Narrative of a Revolutionary Soldier, Signet Classic, 2001, pp 116.

[2] Martin’s memoirs were originally published anonymously as A narrative of some of the adventures, dangers, and sufferings of a Revolutionary soldier, interspersed with anecdotes of incidents that occurred within his own observation.

[3] Martin, p. 116.

[4] Martin, p. 116.

[5] “Wikileaks Soldier Reveals Orders for "360 Rotational Fire" Against Civilians in Iraq,” By Ralph Lopez, June 17, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.opednews.com/articles/Wikileaks-Soldier-Reveals-by-Ralph-Lopez-100616-298.html on July 6, 2010).

[6] Martin, pp. 116-117.

Happy Independence Day

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”  Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution

We rolled into Sacramento International Airport a little late.  In the past I wouldn’t be concerned, it’s a small airport and I could easily check in and walk to the gate in the fifty minutes before my flight was scheduled to leave.  Now, according to Homeland Security, I was late because with all of the “security measures” added since 9-11, travelers must get to the airport at least an hour before departure.

At the curb, drivers waiting to pick up arrivals from the airport moved their idling vehicles occasionally, trying to give the appearance of movement to the authorities in charge of curb security.  Security measures instituted since 9-11 and the war on terrorism prohibit cars from lingering at curbside, so people don’t park, and instead there’s usually a traffic jam as arriving cars try to drop off departing travelers and waiting vehicles keep moving to avoid the authorities.

On the sidewalk, everyone trying to catch a plane was in a hurry.  The only people not looking harried wore blue shirts or jackets: one fingered his holstered walkie talkie as he patrolled the walkway, while another rode a Segway in circles on the sidewalk.  Wait, was he Paul Blart Mall Cop?

Moving through the terminal, I saw more blue-shirted TSA employees standing about than passengers.  At the TSA checkpoint, I zigzagged through an empty cattle line so I could show my papers.  (REAL ID (pdf) anyone?)

In front of the metal detector,  I removed my shoes, dropping them into a grey bin along with my other property so the blue-shirted TSA agents could x-ray it—another security measure since 9-11 and the unending war on terrorism.

As I stand on the threshold of the metal detector, two blue shirts at the x-ray machine examined the insides of my bag.  When it’s my turn to pass through the metal detector, I’m summoned by another blue shirt.  After passing through the detector, I wait until my shoes are deemed safe to put on my feet again.  After lacing them back up, I had to wait while the two blue shirts at the x-ray machine called over a supervisor for instructions on how to deal with my laptop.  I hadn’t opened the carrying case for examination!

The supervisor and a fourth blue shirt, wearing rubber gloves, opened my carrying case.  They explained that I had a checkpoint-friendly bag and “trained me” so I would know for the next time how to properly present my laptop for their examination.

After they x-rayed my baggage, I knew it might not be over.  I’d purchased a one-way ticket; that’s a red flag as a potential terrorist threat.  I knew there was a possibility I would be singled out for a pat down search, or perhaps be given the option of a total body scan x-ray machine.  Lucky for me, apparently Sacramento Airport doesn’t use total body scan x-ray machines yet, so I didn’t have to worry about potential threats to my health or privacy from the TSA as it “keeps me safe” in the unending war on terrorism.[1][2]

But I wasn’t singled out.  After getting through the TSA line and collecting all of my property, I thought: “I made it.”  All that remained was to board the plane.  Or so I thought.

Just as passengers started to board, three blue shirts appeared, standing at the gate, staring at the passengers.  The jaw muscles of one flexed as he clenched and unclenched his jaw, ogling boarding passengers.  The trio stopped one passenger in the line who smiled feebly as they checked his backpack.

After nearly everyone had gone down the ramp, I walked past the three blue-shirted monkeys when I heard a voice state to my back that it wanted to look through my bag.[3]  I turned, trying not to look angry, and dropped my bag at his feet.  They’d already x-rayed it, what more did they want?  One of the three wore rubber gloves; he unzipped my bag, lifted one item out, replaced it, then zipped the bag, and handed it to me—another thorough security measure to protect us all in the unending war on terrorism.

Why did they stop me?  Because they could.[4]  And because I let them.

The first ten amendments of the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, are considered to be the epitome of American freedoms.  Schoolchildren learn that the fourth of those amendments protects Americans from “unreasonable searches and seizures.”  The wording of the amendment begs the question: what is “unreasonable” (video of 3-yr old crying while frisked by TSA at Tenn. airport)?

As they say on the talk shows leading up to July 4th: “Remember to thank a veteran for fighting for your freedom this Independence Day.”
__________________________________
[1] “Are Total Body Scanners Safe? The Jury Is Still Out,” by Dr. Elaina George, Accessed at http://biggovernment.com/egeorge/2010/01/11/are-total-body-scanners-safe-the-jury-is-still-out/ on June 21, 2010).
[2] "Cancer Risks Debated for Type of X-Ray Scan," By MATTHEW L. WALD, NY Times, January 8, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/health/09scanner.html?th&emc=th on January 9, 2010).
[3] “TSA Snafu Grounds Nine Planes at O'Hare Field,” By JOSEPH RHEE, BRIAN ROSS, and ERIC LONGABARD, August 19, 2008, (Accessed at http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5613502&page=1 on July 1, 2010).
[4] “TSA vs. passenger tussle caught on tape, now focus of lawsuit,” By Bea Chang, 7/11/2008, (Accessed at http://www.kare11.com/news/national/national_article.aspx?storyid=517608&catid=18 on July 1, 2010).