- Obama's March 28 television address wreaked of hypocrisy,
lies and disdain for basic democratic values, making an indefensible case
for naked aggression against a non-belligerent country. America's media
- On March 28, New Times writer Helene Cooper headlined,
"Obama Cites Limits of US Role in Libya," saying:
- Obama "defended the American-led military assault
in Libya on Monday, saying it was in the national interest of the United
States to stop a potential massacre that would have 'stained the conscience
of the world,' " even though no threat existed until:
- -- Washington showed up with co-belligerents France and
- -- beginning in 2010, armed and funded so-called "rebels"
who, in fact, are cutthroat killers, rapists and marauders, terrorizing
every area they control, including their Benghazi stronghold; and
- -- support them with daily "shock and awe"
terror attacks, causing increasing numbers of deaths and injuries, as well
as destruction and contamination of all areas struck by depleted uranium
bombs, missiles and shells, spreading radiation over wide areas.
- Despite Pentagon denials, conservative estimates put
civilian deaths at over 100, besides combatants killed and unknown numbers
murdered by rebel allies. Since March 19 air attacks began, nearly 1,500
sorties have been flown, that number to rise exponentially as daily strikes
continue under US command, running all NATO operations under AFRICOM's
General Carter Ham. Alleged new commander, Canada's Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard,
is his subordinate, a Pentagon figurehead.
- The alleged handover is fabricated. NATO is code language
for America/the Pentagon. Obama lied announcing otherwise, saying Washington's
role will be limited to stop potential "slaughter and mass graves"
in Benghazi. In fact, he supports and/or ignores rebel terror killings
against defenseless civilians, making him complicit in their crimes, besides
widespread ones caused by NATO, America's missile. US attacks, in fact,
will continue throughout the campaign, perhaps lasting months at an enormous
cost, besides hundreds of billions annually in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Making an indefensible case, Obama said:
- "For more than four decades, the Libyan people have
been ruled by a tyrant - Muammar Gaddafi," ignoring the numerous regional
and global ones America supports, including rogue Israeli regimes, lawlessly
terrorizing Palestinians for over six decades with generous US support
- Addressing the issue, Obama's Deputy National Security
Adviser, Denis McDonough, said:
- "I think it's very important that we see each of
these instances....in the region as unique. We don't get very hung up on
the question of precedent....because we don't make decisions about questions
like intervention based on consistency or precedent. We make them based
on how we can best advance our interests in the region."
- Precisely true on the last point. However, policy decisions
are very consistent. Allies are supported whether despots or democrats.
Outliers are opposed, even benign ones posing no threat to America or neighbors.
The rule of law is a non-starter. So are democratic values, "principles
of justice and human dignity."
- Only imperial aims matter, especially resource and human
exploitation adventurism for money and power. For generations, they've
guided US policies, notably since WW II, at home and abroad.
- Yet pseudo-left apologists back Obama's Libya war, its
faux "humanitarian intervention" to save lives, including darling
of the left Rachel Maddow, defending the indefensible, pretending Obama's
different from Bush when, in fact, he's worse, waging four, not two wars.
- He also:
- -- supports others in Palestine, Yemen and Somalia;
- -- operates US Special Forces in at least 75 countries
- -- backs killing US citizens abroad lawlessly;
- -- endorses holding detainees indefinitely without charge;
- -- practices torture as official US policy; and
- -- backs the worst of despotic states, notably in Saudi
Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt under a military junta, Algeria under a military
dictatorship (Abdelaziz Bouteflika more figurehead than president), other
GCC states, besides others in Africa, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.
- Yet Maddow and other faux liberals call Obama a peace
president. No matter how great the body count, she's firm saying "he
appears to be walking more of that walk as well as talking that talk."
- He indeed talks plenty while letting imperial forces
reign death and destruction on non-belligerent nations, spends hundreds
of billions of dollars, then claims we're too broke to address vital homeland
needs, especially social ones and crumbling infrastructure.
- Cheerleading Print Media Support
- For decades, The York Times endorsed all US imperial
wars, the tradition maintained on March 28 in an editorial headlined, "President
Obama and Libya," saying:
- Obama "made the right, albeit belated, decision
to join with allies to try to stop (Gaddafi) from slaughtering thousands
of Libyans," despite clear evidence that Washington, France, Britain
and rebel killers initiated attacks. Love or hate him, Gaddafi justifiably
responded in self defense.
- However, despite Obama's willful deception and lies,
The Times claimed he "made a strong case for why America needed to
intervene in this fight - and why that did not always mean it should intervene
in others," notably against subservient despots, no matter how much
"violence on a horrific scale" they cause.
- "Most important," said The Times, Obama "vowed
that there would be no American ground troops in this fight." A previous
article explained otherwise, accessed through the following link:
- Numerous reports, in fact, suggest a ground assault is
planned for late April-early May if air and rebel attacks don't oust Gaddafi,
what most experts believe unlikely.
- On March 28, New York Times writers Kareem Fahim and
David Kirkpatrick suggested as much, headlining "Rebel Advance Halted
Outside Qaddafi's Hometown," saying:
- "....the American military warned on Monday that
the insurgents' rapid advances could quickly be reversed without continued
coalition air support," quoting General Ham saying more, in fact,
may be needed, stopping short of suggesting ground forces deployed offshore
- Whatever lies ahead, no matter how bloody and destructive,
The Times insisted Obama "made the right choice to act."
- So did the Washington Post, its editorial opinion headlined,
"Mr. Obama and Libya: Where's the strategy to preserve success?"
- Obama "was right to act, and he deserves the credit
that he claimed....He was right" saying "we must stand alongside
those who believe in the same core principles of freedom and nonviolence,"
ones, in fact, America spurns at home and abroad, especially during direct
or proxy imperial wars.
- On March 29, a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined,
"Obama, Libya and the GOP," saying:
- Obama "made a substantial case for his Libya intervention,
(and) we welcome the effort....The credibility of US power is essential
to maintaining our influence in a Middle East that is erupting in popular
revolt against decades of injustice," much, in fact, America caused.
- US media opinions mostly expressed support. The Los Angeles
Times said "no one can complain that he didn't make a thoughtful,
compelling case for his decision to intervene." The Philadelphia Daily
News endorsed "the Obama Doctrine....a rationale for the use of US
force, (his Monday speech perhaps) the beginning of a saner foreign policy."
- The Chicago Tribune wondered whether a "humanitarian
mission (set) a precedent that will be used to demand American involvement
in other places." The Boston Globe endorsed his "swift Libyan
intervention (wrongly calling it) the first time Obama has ordered US troops
into a new conflict, (then saying it's) a key test of his presidency and
a moment that allowed him to delineate his most comprehensive vision yet
for America's role in the world and the role of the military abroad."
- According to the conservative Center for Strategic and
International Studies' (CSIS) Stephen Flanagan, Obama "laid the beginnings
of an Obama doctrine. He said that there are instances where our safety
is not immediately threatened but our interests and values are, and in
those cases....we will act, particularly when we can act with a broad international
coalition" of willing co-belligerents plus others bullied and/or bribed
to join or endorse imperial aggression against another targeted country.
- Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) on "Public
TV's Libya Limits"
- America's Public Television (PBS) and National Public
Radio rely heavily on government and corporate funds. As a result, they
provide managed news like major media networks, suppressing hard truths
on vital issues.
- PBS' Libya reporting is instructive, FAIR saying:
- "Over the past two weeks, the (flagship) NewsHour
has featured an array of current and former military and government officials
in discussion segments - leaving little room for antiwar voices, US foreign
policy critics and legal experts."
- NPR and PBS are similar, supporting state and corporate
policies throughout their histories, depriving listeners and viewers of
real news, information and opinions on vital issues.
- The 1967 Carnegie Commission report (creating PBS) envisioned
a "forum for debate and controversy (to) provide a voice for groups
in the community that may be otherwise unheard." NPR's founding mandate
was similar, yet both operations represent power, money and privilege,
not popular interests they were established to serve.
- A Final Comment
- In his book "The Next Decade," Stratfor Global
Intelligence founder George Friedman "consider(s) the relation of
the American empire to the American Republic and the threat the empire
poses to the republic('s)" survival, given its addiction to war and
abandonment of the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 provision letting
Congress alone declare it. It was last done on December 8, 1941 against
- As a result, seven US decades of wars have been lawless.
Moreover, no nation may attack another except in self-defense or until
the Security Council acts - lawfully according to the UN Charter. In authorizing
a no-fly zone (an act of war), SC members acted illegally, brazenly violating
international law, letting America and co-belligerents France and Britain
wage imperial war against a nation posing no threat to them or neighboring
- Friedman stressed the importance of congressional declarations
of war, "requir(ing) meticulous attention to the law and proprieties."
However, he stopped short of addressing international law or explaining
the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Under it, every treaty America ratifies
automatically becomes US law, the UN Charter, of course, included. No congressional
or presidential act may contravene it, what, in fact, happens regularly,
especially on matters of war.
- As a result, in a recent interview, University of Illinois
Professor of International Law Francis Boyle was blunt, calling Obama's
war on Libya "plunder and aggression, (the) first major outright power
grab by the United States and the major colonial, imperial powers against
Africa in the 21st century." For sure, it's not the last.
- Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at
firstname.lastname@example.org. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com
and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the
Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays
at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs
are archived for easy listening.