Cute, cuddly, harmless-looking, liberal Barack Obama. Now there's a guy to get the U.S. back on track! He'll surely bring an end to the mindless massacring of innocent civilians for profit that has come to define the "war on terror", and the American people need never again be stirred out of their mind-numbing complacency by stories of small brown children being decapitated by a brave American teenager with a .50 caliber machine gun.
I mean, Viet-nam and My Lai was containable, it was successfully pitched as an "American tragedy", but this Iraq business is getting out of hand! After all, the harsh realities of war 'over there' are meant to stay 'over there', not ooze out of the carefully manipulated American daily broadsheets and into the fragile mind of the average American.
And what about Gaza? It's one thing for the Israelis to dismember hundreds of Palestinian children with Hellfire missiles, but they shouldn't be doing it with OUR Hellfire missiles, given to them free of charge!
But Obama's the man to fix all that, right? He'll stop the Republican rot! Or am I missing something?
Yeah, you guessed it, I'm missing something.
Obama: I would invade Pakistan over terror[Remember the "without permission from that country's government" bit]
UK Times online
Aug 01 2007
"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama yesterday attempted to refute claims that he was soft on national security by promising he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists - even without permission from that country's government.- Advertisement -
Standing in front of a Stars and Stripes flag, Mr Obama said: "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."The problem you see, and Obama knows it, is that being a 'liberal' just doesn't cut it anymore, in fact, it never did. Liberals are just not "presidential", and even Obama, the Muslim "son of a Kenya goat herder" (or not), knows that if you want to be the POTUS, you've gotta get your hands dirty, preferably with the blood of innocent people - especially if they're Pakistani Muslims.
Now, it may well be true that a significant majority of ordinary Americans have turned against the war in Iraq and are beginning to think that letting Bush send their wired, trigger-happy, hormone-laden-beef-fed "life's a first person shooter video game" teenage sons to liberate the oldest culture on earth, was perhaps not such a good idea, but Obama knows something that the American people don't: what the American people think and want just doesn't cut it anymore, it never did. In fact, the American people are kind of irrelevant, especially if you want to live long enough to see out a full term in the White House.
No indeed, forget about the plebs, the surest way to keeping that fat chair in the Oval Office is to repeat, word for word, what the Neocons and their Zionist masters say, because they're the ones who define the nuances of U.S. foreign policy these days and whether a sovereign nation needs to be 'freedomified', or if a swift bunker buster enema would be more effective to eradicate the scourge of a few bearded jihadis who nevertheless threaten the lives of freedom-loving people everywhere and also "attacked us on 9/11".
So that's exactly what Obama did in 2007; he just said what arch Neoconservative Bill Kristol said two weeks before:
Neocon Bill Kristol expects Bush to attack PakistanAnd what exactly is thing that Kristol and Obama feel that they have to do in Western Pakistan? According to Seth Jones, a South Asia specialist at the RAND Institute such an attack "would lead to major riots throughout Pakistan and the Arab world, and it would lead to certainly a major insurgency against US forces."
July 12, 2007
A Fox host then cited a new report that "al Qaeda ... is running from Iraq, apparently to Pakistan" and asked "did this report come out on purpose so that we will have the right ... to go after Pakistan now?"
Kristol responded, "I think the president's going to have to take military action there over the next few weeks or months. ... Bush has to disrupt that sanctuary."
"I think, frankly, we won't even tell Musharraf," Kirstol continued. "We'll do what we have to do in Western Pakistan and Musharraf can say, 'Hey, they didn't tell me.'"
There are those who suggest that most U.S. politicians are entirely beholden to the Ziocons and their assorted Israel lobby groups because, at one time or another, they all have been photographed 'in flagrante' with anything from a 'Washington madam' to Republican Congressman Mark Foley. I tend to agree, not because I'm a cynic, but because it's very probably true.
Incidentally, Obama's speech, was allegedly:
"designed to shore up his credentials as a potential commander-in-chief by backing a pre-emptive military action which even President Bush has so far refused to order"which is just more evidence that America really is totally and utterly screwed (to use the vernacular), because while the entire world hates Bush and his handlers and recognises them as the psychopathic child-killers that they are, the sadly accurate consensus in the clinically insane world of American politics is that the only way 'selectees' like Obama was able to secure the Presidency after Bush's 8 years of bloodletting, was not to call for an end to war (as the American people want) but to upstage Bush in terms of murderous rampaging, and to do it according to the Ziocons' script. And it appears that the formerly liberal democrat Obama isn't about to shrink from the task.
Scared yet? You should be.