Doublethink (Part 5)

“Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.”    

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 3, p. 31-32 by George Orwell.[1]

Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld (R), then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan (R), in Baghdad on December 20, 1983 (video).

“Yet, while we condemn what has happened in Afghanistan, we are not without hope. To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson -- that there are things in this world worth defending.

“To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors.”

President Ronald Reagan (R) on March 21, 1983 praising Afghan freedom fighters, now known as al Qaeda, in their fight against Russian invaders in Afghanistan.[2]

What changed Reagan’s “freedom fighters” to terrorists? 

The War Moves to Eastasia…

Nineteen Eighty-Four is a world of continual war with changing alliances and enemies.  A nation always at war has no time for liberty, much like the US as it transforms itself to a surveillance state with the TSA and the USA PATRIOT Act to “protect” the nation from its enemies. 

Nineteen Eighty-Four’s Ministry of Peace “concerned itself with war” analogously to the US Department of Defense concerning itself with offense—aka preemptive war and invading foreign nations. 

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, Oceania’s enemy continually changes between Eurasia and Eastasia, just as the US continually changes enemies and allies, and which country it occupies in the Middle East:

• In 1953 during the Eisenhower (R) administration, the CIA helped overthrow Iranian Prime Minister Mosaddegh and install the Shah—Iran had been an enemy, after 1953 it became an ally.
• In 1959 during the Eisenhower administration, Saddam Hussein was part of a failed “CIA-authorized six-man squad” to assassinate then-Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.  Hussein was an ally to the US and worked with the CIA.
• In July 1979, the Carter (D) administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski had the brainstorm to fund al Qaeda in Afghanistan and lure the Soviet Union into war there—al Qaeda was an ally, but they were called the mujahideen.  The CIA-funded program, Operation Cyclone, used Pakistan’s ISI to funnel money and arms to the mujahideen.
• During the 1979 Iranian revolution, the US-supported Shah was overthrown, the US embassy was overrun, and the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1981 made Iran an enemy and Iraq an ally of the US.
• From 1981 to 1988, the Reagan (R) administration continued Operation Cyclone to support the mujahideen, and supplied aid to Pakistan, too.  President Reagan dedicated the space shuttle Columbia to the “Afghan freedom fighters” trying to force Russian invaders out of Afghanistan (video).
• The Reagan administration supported Iraq in its war against Iran with chemical and biological weapons, military training, and military support—Iran was still the enemy.  During this time the US military shot down an Iranian Air A300 passenger plane, mistaking it for an F-14 Iranian fighter.  Hussein was still a US ally (video).
• From August 20, 1985 – March 4, 1987, the Reagan administration shipped arms to Israel for transfer to Iran in an attempt to improve relations and to gain the release of six hostages held in Iran—Iran was an enemy, but the US supplied them with weapons in their nine-year war against our “ally” Iraq.
• During the George H. W. Bush (R) administration, the US with UN help, "liberated” Kuwait by embargoing Iraq in August 1990, and attacking Iraqi forces in Kuwait in February 1991—Iraq was the new enemy and Hussein was the new Hitler.
• From 1993 through 2000, the Clinton (D) administration continues the Iraqi embargo, as does the George W. Bush (R) administration until 2003—Iraq remained the enemy.  Hussein was still evil.
• In 2001 during the George W. Bush administration, the US invades Afghanistan—the Taliban and al Qaeda (mujahideen) become the enemy—they’ve always been the enemy—get your memory under control.
• In 2003 during the Bush administration, the US invades Iraq—Iraq was the enemy—Iraq always was the enemy.
• In 2009, the Obama (D) administration moves the focus of the war against terrorism back to Afghanistan—al Qaeda is still the enemy—they always have been.
• Recently the Obama administration moved its war to Pakistan with drone strikes and men on the ground, and into Yemen, too.[3][4]  Al Qaeda is the enemy.

…and “Collateral Damage” Moves With It

Since the endless US “war on terrorism” supposedly started because of US civilians killed on 9/11, shouldn’t we expect more trouble to result if the US itself kills civilians?  Isn’t it reasonable to expect that people in other countries will get very angry if their children are slaughtered?  Wouldn’t one expect moving US military activity to Pakistan and Yemen to increase antipathy to the US?  

The December 25th, 2009 underwear bomber  from Nigeria:

“Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, charged with the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253, told FBI agents there were more just like him in Yemen who would strike soon.”[5]

Or after the attempted Times Square bombing in N.Y.:

“The man who attempted to detonate a truck filled with explosives in Times Square told a judge that the C.I.A. drone campaign was one of the factors that led him to attack the United States.”[6]

Here are reports of recent drone attacks in Pakistan:

• From Reuters Aug 23, 2010 - “US Drone strike kills 20 people in Pakistan” where seven civilians (four women and three children) were killed.
• From Antiwar.com Sept 8, 2010 – “Children Among 24 Killed as US Drone Strikes Rock Pakistan Strikes Destroy Homes, Car in North Waziristan” where four children were killed.
• From Dawn.com Sept 24, 2010 – “Three drone strikes in North Waziristan; 18 killed” where four children were among the 18 killed.

When Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was asked about the civilian deaths from drone strikes in Pakistan, she rivaled former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in callousness:

“Asked repeatedly about the drones, a subject that involves highly classified CIA operations, Clinton said only that ‘there is a war going on.’”[7]

Albright (video) infamously said the estimated 500,000 civilian deaths in Iraq during the US-sponsored embargo of that country before 9/11 were “worth it.” 

On June 24, 2010, the US Congress approved sanctions on Iran (video) similar to the 13-year embargo on Iraq before the US invasion in 2003. 

Is Iran the next Eurasia?

If you hated the Bush wars and voted for Obama, do you still pretend that voting for Obama made any difference?

“War prisoners apart, the average citizen of Oceania never sets eyes on a citizen of either Eurasia or Eastasia, and he is forbidden the knowledge of foreign languages. If he were allowed contact with foreigners he would discover that they are creatures similar to himself and that most of what he has been told about them is lies. The sealed world in which he lives would be broken, and the fear, hatred, and self-righteousness on which his morale depends might evaporate.”

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 2 Chapter 9, p. 162 by George Orwell.

________________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, p. 31-2.

[2] “Message on the Observance of Afghanistan Day,” March 21, 1983, (Accessed at http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/32183e.htm on Oct. 6, 2010).

On March 21, 1983, President Reagan said the following:

“Today, March 21st, is New Years Day in much of the Moslem world. New years, of course, should be an occasion for celebration. But for the Moslem people of Afghanistan, whose country was attacked and is occupied by the Soviet Army, it is a bitter reminder of a national calamity that befell their nation more than 3 years ago. To focus the world's attention on this crime against an innocent and brave nation, we observe today the second annual Afghanistan Day.

“In Afghanistan, tens of thousands of people have been killed, millions have lost their homes and their livelihood. Others have been subjected to torture and other atrocities, and many have been victims of the grisly chemical and biological weapons, including yellow rain -- weapons the Soviets have used in violation of solemn international agreements. The consequences of this calamity extend to Pakistan, which has assumed the burden of sheltering and feeding nearly 3 million refugees.

“Yet, while we condemn what has happened in Afghanistan, we are not without hope. To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom. Their courage teaches us a great lesson -- that there are things in this world worth defending.

“To the Afghan people, I say on behalf of all Americans that we admire your heroism, your devotion to freedom, and your relentless struggle against your oppressors.

“The Soviet people have known great suffering -- more than other people. They should be able to sympathize with the terrible suffering of the Afghan people. To the Soviet leaders, I urge you in the name of humanity to end the bloodshed so that an independent Afghanistan can again take its place in the community of nations. The West has no designs upon Afghanistan. We do not threaten you there or anywhere on the globe. All we seek is the restoration of peace and freedom for a noble and brave people whom we remember today.”

Note: The President's message was taped at 11:12 a.m. in his study adjoining the Oval Office at the White House.

[3]  “U.N. Report Highly Critical of U.S. Drone Attacks,” By CHARLIE SAVAGE, NY Times, June 2, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/world/03drones.html?pagewanted=all on Sept. 24, 2010).

[4] "Obama Says Al Qaeda in Yemen Planned Bombing Plot, and He Vows Retribution," By PETER BAKER, NY Times, January 2, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/politics/03address.html?th&emc=th on January 3, 2010).

[5] “Abdulmutallab: More Like Me In Yemen,” By BRIAN ROSS and RICHARD ESPOSITO, ABC News, Dec. 28, 2009, (Accessed at http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/abdulmutallab-yemen/story?id=9430536&page=1 on October 3, 2010).

[6] “C.I.A. Steps Up Drone Attacks on Taliban in Pakistan,” By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT, NY Times, September 27, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/world/asia/28drones.html?_r=1&th&emc=th on Sept 28, 2010).

[7] “Pakistanis confront Clinton over drone attacks; Clinton confronted by Pakistanis over Predator drone attacks _ 'executions without trial',” ROBERT BURNS, AP News, Oct 30, 2009, (Accessed at http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/10/30/pakistanis-confront-clinton-over-drone-attacks-6/ on Sept 24, 2010).

Doublethink (Part 4)

“The songs, the processions, the banners, the hiking, the drilling with dummy rifles, the yelling of slogans, the worship of Big Brother — it was all a sort of glorious game to them. All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals.”   

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 2, p. 24 by George Orwell.[1]

Remembering 9/11

On September 11th, 2010 across the US, Americans commemorated the anniversary of 9/11  with US flags, speeches, flowers floating in reflecting pools, and patriotic songs.  The President spoke at the Pentagon, and his wife, with her predecessor, spoke at Shanksville, Pa.  There was also the obligatory anti-Moslem controversy over the mosque at the World Trade Center site, and the pastor who wanted to burn the Koran.[2]

Our rulers can’t let us forget “the day America changed forever” because they use the terror of that day to justify invading two nations and seizing more power here at home by tightening the chains on American citizens.  The US government, like Orwell’s Big Brother, keeps its citizens’ “ferocity… turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals.”

US is in a State of National Emergency

With the remembrances of the victims comes the continual reminder of an evil that killed nearly 3,000 US civilians.  The US has been in a state of National Emergency since September 14, 2001 because of it.  President Obama quietly extended the state of National Emergency for its 10th year.  He conveniently notified Congress on September 10th, when most Americans are distracted with upcoming September 11th memorials.[3] 

If anyone even chanced to notice the quiet departure of more of our liberties amidst all the patriotic memorializing of the nearly 3,000 Americans victims, who would dare question the President?

Be Afraid

Our rulers want us to “rally round the flag” while looking outwards for foreign enemies.  They want us terrified so that we ignore, or even support, their removal of many of our freedoms  over the last nine years.  Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano marked the ninth anniversary of 9/11 in New York vowing to keep up the fight against terrorists:

“We can’t guarantee there won’t be another successful terrorist attack.  The threats we face are evolving, and enemies like Al Qaeda and its affiliates are determined. … Today, on the eve of the ninth anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in our nation’s history, I can pledge to you this: We will do everything in our power to prevent attacks and to prepare ourselves.”[4]

They need us to be afraid.  They need us to stay fearful and support wars in foreign countries:

• They need us to support the war in Afghanistan which Obama escalated to fight al Qaeda terrorism. 
• They need us to support the war as they move it to Pakistan. 
• They need us to support it as they try to move it to Iran.
• They need us to be afraid despite CIA chief Leon Panetta’s estimate that there are no more than 100 al Qaeda members in Afghanistan.[5]

Terrorism vs. Collateral Damage

Why do you think we’re repeatedly reminded of the nearly 3,000 US civilians killed on 9/11, but not that the US military killed more than 3,000 civilians in Afghanistan in the first six months of what is now a nine-year war to avenge the deaths of 9/11?[6][7]

Why is it that when Americans civilians are killed, they’re victims of terrorism and when foreign civilians are killed, they’re merely collateral damage?

Is it possible that people who lose family members to “collateral damage” might get angry enough to become “terrorists”?  Who then fathers terrorism?

12-year old Ali, an Iraqi victim of US rockets in 2003, wasn’t terrorized, just damaged collaterally.[8]

Can you see a difference between terrorism and collateral damage?  If you can, you’re on your way to understanding doublethink as well as Syme, a character in Nineteen Eighty-Four: 

“'Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking — not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.’

“One of these days, thought Winston with sudden deep conviction, Syme will be vaporized. He is too intelligent. He sees too clearly and speaks too plainly. The Party does not like such people. One day he will disappear. It is written in his face.”

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 5, p. 47 by George Orwell.

________________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, p. 24.

[2] “On Sept. 11 Anniversary, Rifts Amid Mourning,” By ANNE BARNARD and MANNY FERNANDEZ, NY Times, September 11, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/nyregion/12sept11.html?_r=2&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all on Sept. 24, 2010).

[3] “Letter from the President on the Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks,” Sept. 10, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/10/letter-president-continuation-national-emergency-with-respect-certain-te on Sept. 24, 2010).

September 10, 2010

Dear Madam Speaker:    (Dear Mr. President:)

Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. Consistent with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register the enclosed notice, stating that the emergency declared with respect to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, is to continue in effect for an additional year.

The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2010, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat.

                       Sincerely,

                       BARACK OBAMA

[4] “Janet Napolitano vows to keep up fight,” By MIKE ALLEN, 9/10/10, (Accessed at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41967.html on Sept. 24, 2010).

[5] “New Estimate of Strength of Al Qaeda Is Offered,” By DAVID E. SANGER and MARK MAZZETTI, NY Times, June 30, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/world/asia/01qaeda.html on Sept. 25, 2010).

Apparently if 50-100 al Qaeda is an acceptable justification for escalation of the war in Afghanistan, Panetta estimated 300 al Qaeda in Pakistan to justify US drones in Pakistan.  (Shades of Cambodia and Laos in the 1970s…)

If you’re ready for triple-think:  “The Imperial Anatomy of Al-Qaeda. The CIA’s Drug-Running Terrorists and the ‘Arc of Crisis’ Part I,” by Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global Research, September 5, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=MAR20100905&articleId=20907 on Sept. 24, 2010).

[6] “Tighter Rules Fail to Stem Deaths of Innocent Afghans at Checkpoints,” By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr., NY Times, March 26, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/asia/27afghan.html?_r=1 on September 21, 2010).

[7] “US forces 'kill 8 children' in night raid on village in Afghanistan,” Scotsman, 31 December 2009, By JEROME STARKEY in KABUL, (Accessed at http://news.scotsman.com/world/US-forces-kill-8-children.5947753.jp on Sept. 21, 2010).

[8] “Blood Brothers,” By TOM NEWTON DUNN, The Sun, 03 Apr 2010, (Accessed at http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/2919198/Victims-of-Iraq-war-meet-amputee-British-soldiers.html on Sept. 30, 2010).

Then twelve year old Ali, is now 19 and adjusted to his life without arms.  His doctor thought he would die within weeks after the rocket attack that killed most of his family (his aunt survived).  I’ve quoted liberally from the article in the New Yorker as I’m sure it will be instructive in distinguishing the vast difference between victims of terrorism and those who are merely “collateral damage”:

“Dr. Saleh stopped to talk briefly with three European doctors from Médecins Sans Frontières, the nongovernmental organization that had been in Iraq for several weeks, assisting Iraqi doctors.

“One of Dr. Saleh’s assistants, a young woman, had pulled some images up on a computer screen in his office. Dr. Saleh invited me to look at them with him. The first image the assistant showed us was of a boy lying naked in the emergency operating theatre. A catheter and tube was attached to his penis. The child’s legs were smooth, but his entire torso was black, and his arms were horribly burned. At about the biceps, the flesh of both arms became charred, black grotesqueries. One of his hands was a twisted, melted claw. His other arm had apparently been burned off at the elbow, and two long bones were sticking out of it. It looked like something that might be found in a barbecue pit.

“The child’s face was covered by an anesthesia mask. ‘This is Ali,’ Dr. Saleh said. ‘He is twelve. He was wounded in a rocket attack the night before last in the southeastern part of Baghdad, about fifteen minutes from here. Ali lost his mother, his father, and his six brothers and sisters. Four homes were destroyed; in one of them, the whole family was killed, eight people.’

“It was hard to imagine that the person in the photograph could be alive, but Dr. Saleh said that Ali was still conscious. ‘I don’t think he will survive, though,’ he said in a flat tone. ‘These burned people have complications after three or four days; in the first week they usually get septicemia.’ His assistant was pulling up new images on her monitor. They showed Ali again, on the same bed and in the same position as before, but this time without his charred appendages. Both arms had been amputated, and the stumps were wrapped in white bandages. His torso was covered in some kind of clear grease. The mask had been removed from his face, and he appeared to be sleeping. He had a beautiful head, with the feminine features of a prepubescent boy. In another picture, Ali was awake, staring at the camera with large, expressionless eyes.

“Dr. Saleh’s assistant breathed in sharply and put one hand over her mouth. Then she brought up some images of Ali’s family just after the bodies had arrived at the hospital’s morgue. It was difficult to make out what had once been human beings. Cloth stuck to the bodies, bits of bold red-and-green fabric with flower designs. There seemed to be some straw mixed in, and I asked Dr. Saleh if they had been farming people. He said yes, and pointed out Ali’s mother. Her face had been cut in half, as if by a giant cleaver, and her mouth was yawning open. In other pictures, which Dr. Saleh said were of Ali’s father and a younger sister, all I could see was a macabre collection of charred body parts and some red flesh. The body of his brother was all there, it seemed, but from the nose up his head was gone, simply sheared off, like the head of a rubber doll. His mouth, like that of his mother, was open, as if he were screaming.

“‘Have you seen enough?’ the assistant asked me quietly. I didn’t say anything, so she showed me more pictures. After a few minutes of this, Dr. Saleh said, ‘O.K. This is just part of the tragedy.’ He asked me if I wanted to see Ali.

“I followed Dr. Saleh to the burn unit, where some men helped us on with green smocks, face masks, gauzy hair nets, and shoe coverings. Then we walked down a bare and quiet hall that reminded me of a prison corridor. The only thing on the walls was a framed portrait of Saddam Hussein. Dr. Saleh opened a door and we went into a small room where an older woman in a black abaya, Ali’s aunt, was sitting in a chair. A tiny window in the far wall of the room let in some sunlight. The aunt was sitting next to a bed on wheels that had a hooplike structure over it. Dr. Saleh carefully pulled back a coarse gray blanket, and I saw Ali’s naked chest, his bandaged stumps, and his face. His large eyes were hazel, flecked with green. He had long eyelashes and wavy brown hair. I didn’t know what to say.

“Dr. Saleh asked Ali how he felt. ‘O.K.,’ he said. Wasn’t he in a lot of pain, I said to Dr. Saleh, in a whisper. I spoke in English. ‘No,’ he replied. ‘Deeply burned patients don’t feel much pain because of the damage to their nerves.’ I stared at Ali, who looked back at me and at Dr. Saleh. His aunt got up and stood behind the head of the bed. She said nothing.

“I asked Dr. Saleh to ask Ali what he was thinking about. Ali spoke for a moment in Arabic, in a boy’s soft, high-pitched voice. ‘He doesn’t think of anything, and he doesn’t remember anything,’ Dr. Saleh said. He explained that Ali did not know that his family was dead. I asked Ali about school. He was in the sixth grade, he said, and his favorite subject was geography. As he spoke, his aunt stroked his hair. Did he like sports? Yes, he replied, especially volleyball, and also soccer…

“…Dr. Saleh rubbed his eyes and cleared his throat several times. We went back to his office, and he washed his face in a sink. ‘So it’s untrue what they say about doctors being able to suspend their emotions,’ I said.

“He looked at me. His eyes were pink. ‘We are human beings,’ he replied. He explained that Ali knew that he had lost his arms, but that he had not acknowledged it yet: ‘He is conscious. He can see the stumps.’ Ali would likely die within three weeks.”[9]

[9] “Letter from Baghdad, War Wounds; Bombs fall and the lights go out” by Jon Lee Anderson, New Yorker, April 14, 2003, (Accessed at http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/04/14/030414fa_fact1?currentPage=all on Oct 1, 2010).

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?