|
There isn't a Biggest Story for Today, yet.
|
|
There isn't content right now for this block.
|
|  |
By Murray Polner
February 08, 2010 - hnn.us
Suddenly and surprisingly, we have a Bush-like Obama Doctrine. To the applause of liberal hawks and formerly critical neocons, the president declared in his Nobel Peace Prize speech that the U.S. will continue to wage war—though naturally, only “just” war—anywhere and against anyone it chooses in a never-ending struggle against the forces of evil. His antiwar supporters can take seats on the sidelines. It’s all reminiscent of John F. Kennedy and the prescient George Ball, and afterward Ball and Lyndon Johnson. In the early ’60s, JFK—reluctantly, we are told by his admirers—decided to send 16,000 “trainers” to Vietnam to teach the South Vietnamese how to play soldier and to stop the Communists from sweeping over Southeast Asia. Vast quantities of money and assorted advisers were shipped without accountability to the corrupt gang of thugs running and ruining that country.
|
By William Blum
December 10, 2009
All the crying from the left about how Obama "the peace candidate" has now become "a war president" ... Whatever are they talking about? Here's what I wrote in this report in August 2008, during the election campaign:
We find Obama threatening, several times, to attack Iran if they don't do what the United States wants them to do nuclear-wise; threatening more than once to attack Pakistan if their anti-terrorist policies are not tough enough or if there would be a regime change in the nuclear-armed country not to his liking; calling for a large increase in US troops and tougher policies for Afghanistan; wholly and unequivocally embracing Israel as if it were the 51st state.
Why should anyone be surprised at Obama's foreign policy in the White House? He has not even banned torture, contrary to what his supporters would fervently have us believe. If further evidence were needed, we have the November 28 report in the Washington Post: "Two Afghan teenagers held in U.S. detention north of Kabul this year said they were beaten by American guards, photographed naked, deprived of sleep and held in solitary confinement in concrete cells for at least two weeks while undergoing daily interrogation about their alleged links to the Taliban." This is but the latest example of the continuance of torture under the new administration.
|
|
World Focus: Barack Obama, The Nobel Peace Prize and the Wrong discussion
|
|
By Iniko Ujaama
October 10, 2009
I realise the discussion is out of focus and they have us debating about the wrong things. Perhaps the more peripheral issue is whether Obama deserves their prize (assuming it is worth anything). Had we not had so much respect and admiration for such awards we would not be having the same discussion.
Barack Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I think many factors would influence our response to this occurrence. Many people are debating whether he 'deserves' the award and I for some time today engaged in this debate also. But upon reflection, much is overlooked which forms the bases for even having such a discussion. First, I think this discussion presumes a certain meaning and significance to the award which must be clarified (or at least a common ground established) before the discussion could be engaged productively.
|
By Lloyd Whitefield Butler, Jr.
July 17, 2009 - talkzimbabwe.com
In 1863, the Negro was told that he was free as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation being signed by Abraham Lincoln. But he was not given any land to make that freedom meaningful. It was something like keeping a person in prison for a number of years and suddenly discovering that that person is not guilty of the crime for which he was convicted. And you just go up to him and say, 'Now you are free,' but you don't give him any bus fare to get to town. You don't give him any money to get some clothes to put on his back or to get on his feet again in life.
THE Honourable Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America made the following statements to the African world during an AllAfrica interview and his recent lecture to the Ghanaian Parliament:
|
By William Blum
May 05, 2009
www.killinghope.org
Okay, at least some things are settled. When George W. Bush said "The United States does not torture", everyone now knows it was crapaganda. And when Barack Obama, a month into his presidency, said "The United States does not torture",(1) it likewise had all the credibility of a 19th century treaty between the US government and the American Indians.
When Obama and his followers say, as they do repeatedly, that he has "banned torture", this is a statement they have no right to make. The executive orders concerning torture leave loopholes, such as being applicable only "in any armed conflict".(2) What about in a "counter-terrorism" environment? And the new administration has not categorically banned the outsourcing of torture, such as renditions, the sole purpose of which is to kidnap people and send them to a country to be tortured. Moreover, what do we know of all the CIA secret prisons, the gulag extending from Poland to the island of Diego Garcia?
|
By Chris Floyd
February 25, 2009
chris-floyd.com
It would be superfluous in us to point out that a plan to "end" a war which includes the continued garrisoning of up to 50,000 troops in a hostile land is, in reality, a continuation of that war, not its cessation. To produce such a plan and claim that it "ends" a war is the precise equivalent of, say, relieving one's bladder on the back of one's neighbor and telling him that the liquid is actually life-giving rain.
But this is exactly what we are going to get from the Obama Administration in Iraq. Word has now come from on high – that is, from "senior administration officials" using "respectable newspapers" as a wholly uncritical conduit for government spin – that President Obama has reached a grand compromise with his generals (or rather, the generals and Pentagon poobahs he has inherited -- and eagerly retained -- from George W. Bush) on a plan to withdraw some American troops from the country that the United States destroyed in an unprovoked war of aggression. Obama had wanted a 16-month timetable for the partial withdrawal; his potential campaign rival in 2012, General David Petraeus, wanted 23 months; so, with Solomonic wisdom, they have now split the difference, and will withdraw a portion of the American troops in 19 months instead.
|
By Ron Jacobs
January 23, 2009
counterpunch.org
The American people did not elect the Pentagon. They elected Barack Obama based a good deal on his promise to get US troops out of Iraq sooner rather than later. Since he was elected, Mr. Obama has hedged on this promise. Since he was inaugurated, the Pentagon and its civilian boss Robert Gates have hedged even more. Now, they insist, US troops should remain until the Iraqis hold a national election that is as of today not even scheduled. Then, even after that election is held, the departure of some US troops should depend on the outcome of the election. In other words, the Pentagon and Defense Department are telling Mr. Obama that no US troops should leave Iraq unless the election results meet the expectations of Washington.
|
By Ayinde
January 25, 2009
rastafaritimes.com
The Obama administration could be a case of the medicine being worse than the sickness, unless it addresses the abuses of the past Bush regime. Obama spoke of a new era of responsibility in the White House and we should hold him to his word.
Under the previous Bush administration, we witnessed the lack of limits that allow the U.S. governmental power to be abused. Whether or not the U.S. government had prior information and was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, it seized the event and the fear it generated to politicize its anti-Muslim, anti-non-White, pro-Christian agenda under the guise of a War on Terror that has had a far-reaching, negative impact in a multitude of countries worldwide. They manufactured evidence in order to get Congress' approval along with influencing a "coalition of the willing" to wage war on Iraq. The ongoing Iraq war, so far, has resulted in over 1,300,000 Iraqis being killed, hundreds of thousands seriously injured and destruction to the infrastructure of Iraq. Around 4,000 US military personnel have also been killed and countless others injured.
While Obama has suggested a withdrawal from Iraq, he has not suggested the same regarding Afghanistan. Four days in office and he has ordered his first strike in Pakistan.
|
Moving Beyond Hope
By Ron Jacobs
November 11, 2008
counterpunch.org
I can't deny the exhilaration I felt on Tuesday, November 4th when the presidential election was called for Barack Obama. When people in my working class multiethnic neighborhood started setting off firecrackers and shouting out their windows, my housemate's daughter joined them. The feelings most of us felt on knowing that the reactionary Bush regime was on its last legs were genuine emotions of hope and relief. Our job now is to turn the critical support that Obama received from many on the left into a movement that strives to return the focus of the movement away from the man and his victory and towards ending the war/occupations, etc. To do this, we must engage the issues. The most important issues are the issues of imperial war and capitalist failure. We should understand the difference between the symbolism of a black man winning the presidency of the United States and the reality of a moderate liberal free marketeer who believes that there is a war on terror and that it can be won by killing Afghanis and other people whose religion and culture are used to define them as the enemy.
|
by Kevin Alexander Gray
June 15, 2008
blackagendareport.com
“[Obama] has to convince white folk that he’s 150 percent with them. So we should just all be quiet and let him do what he has to do.”
A lot of black people I know have hit the mute button. When Hillary brings up working class white voters, when commentators say we’re in the post-racial era, even when Barack had to kick his preacher to the curb. “Where were Obama’s friends?” The Wall Street Journal‘s Daniel Henninger asked. Quiet, quiet, quiet.
The current undertone in the black cultural cosmos reflects the old adage, “If you can’t say some good, don’t say anything at all.” The way to show racial solidarity? Shut up.
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
|
There are currently, 17 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
|
|
