Posts
L’art brut dans l’œil de 303
12 hours ago
Barack Obama to Cindy Sheehan: Get Lost. PLUS: Obama's strategy for the "War on Terror"
By Mary Rizzo • Sep 6th, 2009 at 10:38 • Category: Analysis, Biography, Counter-terrorism, No thanks!, Mary's Choice, Newswire, War
PLUS, AFTER THIS ARTICLE, "TALKING POINTS ON THE NOW HISTORICAL CAMP LE JEUNE SPEECH" DON'T MISS IT!!!
WRITTEN BY John Walsh
At Obama's Summer Place with Cindy: "Leadership" of Peace Movement, MIA
I spent but a short time with Cindy Sheehan as she carried her antiwar protest from an earlier time at Crawford, TX, to Martha's Vineyard, vacation spot for Obama and many other Democrat Party elite. As Cindy remarked, the real story was not that she was protesting Obama's wars but that the "leadership" of the peace movement did not support her protest. When the target was Bush in Crawford, she was all the rage with antiwar celebrities, but not so now that the target is Barack Obama. While there is considerable enthusiasm for her anti-Obama protest on the part of the rank and file in the anti-war movement, a refusal of its "leaders" to notify their members far and wide, high and low, crippled the action.
As a result of this betrayal, the numbers at Martha's Vineyard were not large. But Cindy and her fellow anti-warriors were undeterred. While I was there, she mounted a spirited march down the road to Obama's place, no more than a quarter mile away from where she stayed. The purpose was to present the President with a poster of Cindy bearing a signed plea to end the wars. The considerable armed force at the gate and the Secret Service officers would not even bring out the lowliest of staffers to receive the poster. Clearly the message from Obama was "Get lost, Cindy." And we were quickly told to move a considerable distance down the road. At least in Crawford it had been possible to demonstrate at the checkpoint to the site – not so at Obama's place. Thus, did Obama greet a mother whose son was lost in the wars, which he continues and enlarges by the day.
The site chosen by Obama for his vacation appeared restful, even idyllic, that afternoon though the house itself was a considerable distance away from the road, hidden from view. But the image of the "antiwar" candidate lounging comfortably by the ocean, his family nearby, while ordering the deaths, by drones and assorted other killing instruments, of people half a world away, complete innocents, unknown to this man or his advisers, was disturbing indeed. What sort of man could do this? Does Obama bring his much ballyhooed "coolness" down a degree or two for cold blooded murder? Are these wars a matter of conscience or patriotism for Obama? If that were so, does one suppose in a future imperial war that Obama will urge his daughters to volunteer to die in some Muslim land any more than did Bush offer his daughters? Is there no shame to this poltician, Obama, who rose to high office on the yearning of so many for peace? How long will we allow the soothing words of this latter day Elmer Gantry to cover up his deeds?
Despite the silence of the antiwar misleaders, news of Cindy Sheehan's presence did make the rounds of Cape Cod and the Islands. And who knows but that it might have gone further. Was Obama going to be caught unprepared? A cynic or a realist, or merely someone familiar with the Obama PR machine, might be pardoned for thinking that a plan was in place — and executed in the form of an anti-Cindy mom. And so it came to pass that, while there was no time for Cindy, the Obamas did make it a point to pay a highly publicized visit to another mom, Lisa X, who had lost her son in Obama's AfPak war. This young man Obama had happened to encounter earlier this year at Camp Lejeune. The Cape Cod Times reported the meeting thus:
So, yesterday afternoon, the family drove from Yarmouthport to Coast Guard Air Station Cape Cod. They waited about two hours at the base. … The Obamas entered. …. President Obama called them all by their first names, Lisa said. "It was like seeing a friend you hadn't seen in a couple months," Lisa said of the nearly 10-minute meeting.
President Obama offered his condolences. "He told us whatever decisions he makes, he has Nick (and others serving) in mind," Lisa said. Earlier this year, Nicholas X met President Obama and shook his hand. The president gave a speech at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. Shortly after, Nicholas decided he wanted to be part of the new offensive in Afghanistan, his father told the Times in July.
Lisa said her son called her right after the meeting. "He shook his (President Obama's) hand and called me moments later and said, 'Mom, the President was amazing, his hand was the softest thing I've ever touched, like a baby's bottom,'" Lisa recalled.
She made sure to tell President Obama that yesterday, drawing a laugh from him. Lisa X said her family is "still pretty numb and raw" over losing Nicholas. But she thought of his likely reaction to the family meeting the Obamas. "He is probably laughing hysterically … and proud."
Such an account should break your heart and stir your anger at this hypocritical politician. The more so if, as one might suspect, this encounter made cynical use of this grieving woman's trust. That soft hand of Obama's is soaked in considerable blood now, some of it Nicholas X's, no less than the rough hands of Bush and Cheney. Obama's message is clear. Sacrifice your child and endure without complaint the "numb and raw" emotions that come of your grief. And then Barack Obama will glad hand you for "nearly ten minutes" and get some good press — after you cool your heels for two hours awaiting the cool, great man. But protest the senseless death of your son, and you get the bum's rush at Obama's gate. Thus, does the erstwhile "antiwar candidate" (How silly that phrase sounds now!) treat Cindy Sheehan whose like he once called on to join him in making peace. And the "leaders" of the antiwar movement are nowhere to be seen or heard.
John V. Walsh can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.comhttp://www.uruknet.info/index.php?p=m57655&hd=&size=1&l=e
Link: dissidentvoice.org/2009/09/barack-obama-to-cindy-sheehan-get-lost/
Thoughts on Obama's Speech at Camp Lejeune, NC
Submitted by Dianne on February 28, 2009 - 7:43pm.
Here are a few "talking points" for activists in response to Barack Obama's speech last week [NYTimes link to transcription] which laid out his strategy for the "War on Terror."
1. In President Obama's Feb. 27 speech at Camp Lejeune, SC he spoke directly to soldiers about how they endured "tour after tour of duty," fighting "against tyranny and disorder." Nowhere in the speech is no mention of President Bush's justification for the drive to war–that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction." Of course we all know now that reason was concocted in order to sell the war! President Obama, who spoke out against the war when he was a state senator in Illinois, knows that too. Yet he goes on to say that the troops can begin to leave because the situation has improved: "the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007" has been "dealt a serious blow." But neither sectarian killing nor Al Queda existed in pre-U.S. invasion Iraq. They were the consequence of a U.S. occupation.
2. Later in the speech Obama, still addressing the troops, stated "We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein's regime and you got the job done. We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government-and you got the job done." This total justification for being cop of the world despite having not having even the fig leaf of any legal authority to take on that role is disturbing.
3. President Obama plans to remove U.S. combat troops within 19 months, leaving something on the order of 30,000-50,000 troops. He did not even mention that there are another 150,000 U.S. "contractors" who have been responsible for killing and torturing Iraqi civilians. The continuing presence of U.S. troops and hired guns will only fuel violence within Iraq and prevent the Iraqi people from rebuilding their country. U.S. troops and all "contractors" should withdraw on an expedited schedule in order to remove the #1 cause of the violence, the presence of an occupying force.
4. President Obama presented the U.S. occupation as a benign force that must stay in order to stabilize Iraq. What are the reasons for the instability? Obama lists these as displacement and poverty, government inability to deliver basic services and that some of its neighbors are working to undermine it. The picture that is painted is disingenuous. The primary reason for the instability is the U.S. invasion and destruction of the infrastructure, and tolerating looting following the invasion. (As then U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld remarked about the looting, "Stuff happens.) Instead of taking responsibility for what another administration did-or repudiating what was done–Obama paints a picture of a country that is poor. In fact, even following the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, when there was a 10-year blockade imposed by both U.S. and European governments through the United Nations, the country's infrastructure was more functional than today, six years after Washington launched its illegal attack.
5. President Obama states that "America has a strategic interest-and a moral responsibility–to act. However he never states what that strategic interest, presumably it is to "help" the Iraqi people. However people all over the world–and even a great many Americans–realize that Washington desires to control the Middle East's oil and oil routes. That's why U.S. foreign policy supports the repressive and fundamentalist Saudi Arabian regime, that's why Bush really went into Iraq, that's why Washington is frightened at the rise of Iran's power in the region. (Many Americans might feel that since Washington caused such destruction, we have an obligation to stay and fix it as if we were the elephants that entered into the china shop. We certainly have a moral responsibility, but that doesn't mean training the army and police. Rather it means providing the reparations money necessary to resettle the displaced and rebuild what has been destroyed.)
6. President Obama has promised to expand the health care services for wounded soldiers. This is important, particularly because he acknowledges "the signature wounds of this war: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury…." But there is nothing in the speech to acknowledge that war trains soldiers to be violent. Many, when they return home, are unable to adjust, causing tremendous damage to themselves, their families and the entire society.
7. In fact, one of the saddest parts of Obama's speech is the section that states he is increasing the military. We cannot afford the tremendous economic and emotional burden of the military machine we currently have. If there is to be a serious attempt to rebuild the country's infrastructure, to expand job and educational opportunities, we need to cut the military budget, not expand it!
8. The Feb. 26th speech is a cover up. It covers up the real history of U.S. invasion and occupation, it covers up the main source of violence in Iraq, it pretends that the deaths of U.S. soldiers there was in the cause of freedom and friendship with the Iraqi people, it denies Washington's intentions.
9. Further the speech promises a comprehensive U.S. approach to the region and offers three elements: refocusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, developing a strategy to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world. Notice that there is no mention of Palestinians anywhere in the speech.
- a. Given the deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan (followed by at least 13,000 more) and the continued use of drones to bomb suspected al Qaeda targets in Pakistan, the first of the three elements seems to be more of the same process of invasion, occupation and destabilization that will bring more violence to those countries.
b. When the shah ruled Iran, the country received the latest U.S. military technology and was encouraged to develop nuclear weapons. But that was when Iran was safely within Washington's sphere of interest. Ironically, Washington's overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iran's fiercest enemy, along with the UN overthrow of the Taliban, (another thorn in their side), has increased Iran's power in the region. Given Iran's strength, a direct U.S. attack could have serious consequences as even President Bush understood when he nixed Israel's plans against Iran. Both in the case of Iran and Syria it is in Washington's interest to work out some diplomatic accommodation; here is where U.S. interests and those of Israel may divide.
c. Other administrations have aimed at an Israeli/Palestinian agreement and have been unable to do so. While the outline of such an agreement is easy enough to s–: Israel would pull back to the pre-1967 lines, refugees displaced since in 1948 would have the right of return (land or compensation), and there would be a recognition of Israel and Palestine as states–but it's clear that Israel prefers to maintain the fiction that there is no negotiating partner.
10. The problem with the February 27th speech is that it appears Obama is taking responsibility for continuing the U.S. policies he has inherited.That means it is incumbent on all elements in the antiwar and social justice movements to oppose this prettification of war, occupation, torture and destruction and demand that the wars be ended and the troops brought home.
http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/2080
Mary Rizzo is an art restorer, translator and writer living in Italy. Editor and co-founder of Palestine Think Tank, co-founder of Tlaxcala translations collective. Her personal blog is Peacepalestine.
Email this author | All posts by Mary Rizzo
