enhanced_deficit
06-03-2013, 06:02 PM
You would think they have learnt some lessons. NYT's notorious scumbag is in the bag again. Obama seems to just go along like an obedient puppet as long the fund raiser business is good.
Syria War Moving Outward, Obama Looks Inward (http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/global-news/3246-syria-war-moving-outward-obama-looks-inward)
Monday, 03 June 2013 00:00 Phyllis Bennis
Most, though not all, of the calls for intervention come from the same people who led the calls for invading Iraq – neo-cons and other hard-line militarists, pundits and Congressmembers, mainly Republicans but plenty of Democrats too, including the “humanitarian hawks,” those who never saw a human rights crisis that didn’t require US military involvement to solve. It’s not a coincidence that many of the loudest voices – people like Republican Senator and defeated presidential contender John McCain and others – have been calling for direct intervention and regime change for more than two years now, starting way before any allegations of chemical weapons ever surfaced.
The drumbeat is spreading. Former New York Times editor Bill Keller, reprising (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/opinion/keller-syria-is-not-iraq.html) his 2003 “reluctant” support for the Iraq war, once again supports US armed intervention in Syria. Why will this time be better? Well this time, unlike Iraq ten years ago, Syria represents a
“genuine, imperiled national interest, not just a fabricated one. A failed Syria creates another haven for terrorists, a danger to neighbors who are all American allies, and the threat of metastasizing Sunni-Shiite sectarian war across a volatile and vital region.”
OBAMA DEBATES, WONDERS, CONSIDERS…AND CONTINUES THE WAR
President Obama’s much-awaited speech on drones, assassination policy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university) and the global war on terror raised critical issues that the administration had previously refused to talk about. What he said was mostly pretty good – however late in coming. He said that the endless borderless limitless “global war on terror” would in fact have to end. At some point. Even if the reason was more to benefit people here than the real victims of the war. Quoting James Madison, the president said “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” That was still pretty impressive.
He admitted that U.S. counter-terrorism strategy had indeed resulted in civilian casualties, acknowledging that “any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies” and that “those deaths will haunt us.” He conceded that the U.S. has to address “the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism – from North Africa to South Asia” because “force alone cannot make us safe.”
The most perilous, more because of what it says about congressional opinion than about what’s likely to happen any time soon, was the May 22nd passage of Senate Res. 65 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.res.65:) – by a vote of 99 to 0. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution is primarily about increasing sanctions against Iran – dangerous enough, since ratcheting up sanctions into law makes serious negotiations almost impossible. But Res. 65 does something else. It emerged back in March as a key component of AIPAC’s lobbying effort for this year. It not only called for stronger anti-Iran sanctions, but went on to urge the president that, “if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide …diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.” In other words, if Israel decides to go to war, the United States should obediently follow along. (The final language of “legitimate self-defense” was a last-minute amendment – but there is no definition of what might constitute legitimate self-defense, leaving the Senate to apparently accept Israel’s determination.)
http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/global-news/3246-syria-war-moving-outward-obama-looks-inward
Syria War Moving Outward, Obama Looks Inward (http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/global-news/3246-syria-war-moving-outward-obama-looks-inward)
Monday, 03 June 2013 00:00 Phyllis Bennis
Most, though not all, of the calls for intervention come from the same people who led the calls for invading Iraq – neo-cons and other hard-line militarists, pundits and Congressmembers, mainly Republicans but plenty of Democrats too, including the “humanitarian hawks,” those who never saw a human rights crisis that didn’t require US military involvement to solve. It’s not a coincidence that many of the loudest voices – people like Republican Senator and defeated presidential contender John McCain and others – have been calling for direct intervention and regime change for more than two years now, starting way before any allegations of chemical weapons ever surfaced.
The drumbeat is spreading. Former New York Times editor Bill Keller, reprising (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/opinion/keller-syria-is-not-iraq.html) his 2003 “reluctant” support for the Iraq war, once again supports US armed intervention in Syria. Why will this time be better? Well this time, unlike Iraq ten years ago, Syria represents a
“genuine, imperiled national interest, not just a fabricated one. A failed Syria creates another haven for terrorists, a danger to neighbors who are all American allies, and the threat of metastasizing Sunni-Shiite sectarian war across a volatile and vital region.”
OBAMA DEBATES, WONDERS, CONSIDERS…AND CONTINUES THE WAR
President Obama’s much-awaited speech on drones, assassination policy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university) and the global war on terror raised critical issues that the administration had previously refused to talk about. What he said was mostly pretty good – however late in coming. He said that the endless borderless limitless “global war on terror” would in fact have to end. At some point. Even if the reason was more to benefit people here than the real victims of the war. Quoting James Madison, the president said “No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” That was still pretty impressive.
He admitted that U.S. counter-terrorism strategy had indeed resulted in civilian casualties, acknowledging that “any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies” and that “those deaths will haunt us.” He conceded that the U.S. has to address “the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism – from North Africa to South Asia” because “force alone cannot make us safe.”
The most perilous, more because of what it says about congressional opinion than about what’s likely to happen any time soon, was the May 22nd passage of Senate Res. 65 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:s.res.65:) – by a vote of 99 to 0. The sense-of-the-Senate resolution is primarily about increasing sanctions against Iran – dangerous enough, since ratcheting up sanctions into law makes serious negotiations almost impossible. But Res. 65 does something else. It emerged back in March as a key component of AIPAC’s lobbying effort for this year. It not only called for stronger anti-Iran sanctions, but went on to urge the president that, “if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran's nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide …diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.” In other words, if Israel decides to go to war, the United States should obediently follow along. (The final language of “legitimate self-defense” was a last-minute amendment – but there is no definition of what might constitute legitimate self-defense, leaving the Senate to apparently accept Israel’s determination.)
http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/global-news/3246-syria-war-moving-outward-obama-looks-inward