tagged w/ Military Industrial Complex
-
A new poll shows deep support among liberals for the very Bush/Cheney policies they once pretended to despise
BY GLENN GREENWALD
During the Bush years, Guantanamo was the core symbol of right-wing radicalism and what was back then referred to as the “assault on American values and the shredding of our Constitution”: so much so then when Barack Obama ran for President, he featured these issues not as a secondary but as a central plank in his campaign. But now that there is a Democrat in office presiding over Guantanamo and these other polices — rather than a big, bad, scary Republican — all of that has changed, as a new Washington Post/ABC News poll today demonstrates:
The sharpest edges of President Obama’s counterterrorism policy, including the use of drone aircraft to kill suspected terrorists abroad and keeping open the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have broad public support, including from the left wing of the Democratic Party.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that Obama, who campaigned on a pledge to close the brig at Guantanamo Bay and to change national security policies he criticized as inconsistent with U.S. law and values, has little to fear politically for failing to live up to all of those promises.
The survey shows that 70 percent of respondents approve of Obama’s decision to keep open the prison at Guantanamo Bay. . . . The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.
Repulsive liberal hypocrisy extends far beyond the issue of Guantanamo. A core plank in the Democratic critique of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties assault was the notion that the President could do whatever he wants, in secret and with no checks, to anyone he accuses without trial of being a Terrorist – even including eavesdropping on their communications or detaining them without due process. But President Obama has not only done the same thing, but has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping or detention: he has asserted the power even to kill citizens without due process. As Bush’s own CIA and NSA chief Michael Hayden said this week about the Awlaki assassination: “We needed a court order to eavesdrop on him but we didn’t need a court order to kill him. Isn’t that something?” That is indeed “something,” as is the fact that Bush’s mere due-process-free eavesdropping on and detention of American citizens caused such liberal outrage, while Obama’s due-process-free execution of them has not.
Beyond that, Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds. He has refused to disclose his legal arguments for why he can do this or to justify the attacks in any way. He has even had rescuers and funeral mourners deliberately targeted. As Hayden said: ”Right now, there isn’t a government on the planet that agrees with our legal rationale for these operations, except for Afghanistan and maybe Israel.” But that is all perfectly fine with most American liberals now that their Party’s Leader is doing it:
Fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year. Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.
The Post‘s Greg Sargent obtained the breakdown on these questions and wrote today:
The number of those who approve of the drone strikes drops nearly 20 percent when respondents are told that the targets are American citizens. But that 65 percent is still a very big number, given that these policies really should be controversial.
And get this: Depressingly, Democrats approve of the drone strikes on American citizens by 58-33, and even liberals approve of them, 55-35. Those numbers were provided to me by the Post polling team.
It’s hard to imagine that Dems and liberals would approve of such policies in quite these numbers if they had been authored by George W. Bush.
Indeed: is there even a single liberal pundit, blogger or commentator who would have defended George Bush and Dick Cheney if they (rather than Obama) had been secretly targeting American citizens for execution without due process, or slaughtering children, rescuers and funeral attendees with drones, or continuing indefinite detention even a full decade after 9/11? Please. How any of these people can even look in the mirror, behold the oozing, limitless intellectual dishonesty, and not want to smash what they see is truly mystifying to me.
[edited for length]
As this post demonstrates, long before Barack Obama achieved any significance on the political scene, I considered blind leader loyalty one of the worst toxins in our political culture: it’s the very antithesis of what a healthy political system requires (and what a healthy mind would produce). One of the reasons I’ve written so much about the complete reversal of progressives on these issues (from pretending to be horrified by them when done under Bush to tolerating them or even supporting them when done by Obama) is precisely because it’s so remarkable to see these authoritarian follower traits manifest so vibrantly in the very same political movement — sophisticated, independent-minded, reality-based progressives — that believes it is above that, and that only primitive conservatives are plagued by such follower-mindlessness.
The Democratic Party owes a sincere apology to George Bush, Dick Cheney and company for enthusiastically embracing many of the very Terrorism policies which caused them to hurl such vehement invective at the GOP for all those years. And progressives who support the views of the majority as expressed by this poll should never be listened to again the next time they want to pretend to oppose civilian slaughter and civil liberties assaults when perpetrated by the next Republican President (it should be noted that roughly 35% of liberals, a non-trivial amount, say they oppose these Obama policies).
One final point: I’ve often made the case that one of the most consequential aspects of the Obama legacy is that he has transformed what was once known as “right-wing shredding of the Constitution” into bipartisan consensus, and this is exactly what I mean. When one of the two major parties supports a certain policy and the other party pretends to oppose it — as happened with these radical War on Terror policies during the Bush years — then public opinion is divisive on the question, sharply split. But once the policy becomes the hallmark of both political parties, then public opinion becomes robust in support of it. That’s because people assume that if both political parties support a certain policy that it must be wise, and because policies that enjoy the status of bipartisan consensus are removed from the realm of mainstream challenge. That’s what Barack Obama has done to these Bush/Cheney policies: he has, as Jack Goldsmith predicted he would back in 2009, shielded and entrenched them as standard U.S. policy for at least a generation, and (by leading his supporters to embrace these policies as their own) has done so with far more success than any GOP President ever could have dreamed of achieving
Full column, unedited at source link:
http://shar.es/f9F1MA new poll shows deep support among liberals for the very Bush/Cheney policies they... more
-
-
War Profiteering MIC Stooge SMACKDOWN!
http://youtu.be/0noh3D-rFkA
-
-
If you happened to be walking around Lower Manhattan this morning, you might have noticed the anti-Monsanto chants echoing from Foley Square. In a protesting trifecta, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Big Food, and Food Democracy Now joined forces to support family farmers as the first phase of their federal court case against food industry giant Monsanto. The crowd of around 200 people included farmers from as far away as Maine as well as local food activists and chefs.
The case against Monsanto (Organic Seed Growers Trade Association et al. v. Monsanto) aims to protect farmers against aggressive lawsuit and crop contamination from Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds. Organic and non-GMO crops can be severely damaged by the introduction of GMO seeds and farmers whose crops have been infiltrated are vulnerable to lawsuits from Monsanto who owns a vast majority of the genetics on commodity crops such as corn, soybeans and cotton.
Farmers’ fear of being sued by the multi-billion dollar company is not unfounded. According to Monsanto, since 1997, it has filed 145 lawsuits against farmers and settled 700 other disputes out of court.
Today in Federal District Court in Manhattan, Judge Naomi Buchwald will hear complaints from farmers and determine whether or not their case against Monsanto will move forward. Protestor and organic farmer Deb Taft of Mobius Fields in Westchester, New York said she was “cautiously optimistic” about the outcome of this morning's hearings.
Many protestors felt it was an accomplishment in itself that the case has made it to Federal District Court. An unnamed protestor and chef at a local private school said he came out to stand with farmers who finally got their day in court. He has been wary of Monsanto since the mid 1980s, when the issues of genetically modified organisms were mostly talk, rather than reality.
While all of the protestors united around their distrust of and frustration with Monsanto, their specific reasons for being there were varied. Some were concerned with the lack of seed choice now that Monsanto has put many local providers out of business while others were concerned with Monsanto’s global presence (Monsanto is currently being sued for biopiracy in India).
Protestors pointed to a long history of infractions on the part of Monsanto, which they demonstrated by creating a human timeline of the company’s history. Monsanto genetically modified its first plant in 1982, but the company’s story goes back to the beginning of the 20th century. John Francis Queeny, a pharmaceutical industry veteran, founded the company in 1901 and in 1902 Monsanto sold its first product to Coca-Cola — saccharin, the artificial sweetener that has been linked to cancer. Protestors this morning also referenced Monsanto's role as one of the companies that manufactured Agent Orange, an herbicide used by the U.S. Army in Vietnam that has been proven to caues severe health damage and birth defects.
But the protestors main focus today was the effect that that GMOs have on biodiversity and farmer livelihood. Andrew Faust, a permaculture teacher and founder of The Center for Bioregional Living in Ellenville, New York, urged consumers to use their buying power to boycott Monsanto products. Currently, advocacy groups working under the slogan “Right to Know” are lobbying for GMO labeling, which is already required in the European Union and China, and which Monsanto is fighting against.
According to a tweet from someone present in the courtroom, the judge will give her ruling on this morning’s hearings, which ended around 11:30 am, by March 31st. Those interested in supporting the farmers' cause can sign Food Democracy Now!’s pledge to support America’s farmers and donate to the Right to Know campaign.
More at the linkIf you happened to be walking around Lower Manhattan this morning, you might have... more
-
-
Interesting data. Click the link for interactive map.
***
MapLight has conducted an analysis of campaign contributions from companies and organizations to the sitting members of Congress from each state.
In collaboration with Tableau Public, MapLight has presented this research data in a visualization, displaying logos of each state’s “owner,” making it possible to see which groups are seeking to influence members of Congress across the country.
Clicking the logo on a state will show the top five contributing organizations to all members of Congress from that state.
Companies Listed as a Top 5 Contributing Organization in the Most Individual States
EMILY's - $2,735,595
Goldman Sachs - $744,650
Honeywell - $1,110,623
Club for Growth - $2,550,430
National Beer Wholesalers Association - $823,700
JP Morgan Chase- $380,477
National Association of Realtors - $883,000
AT&T - $1,027,593
Northrop Grumman - $351,100
A link to a spreadsheet of this data can be found at link
A link to this Tableau data visualization can be found at link
A link to this press release can be found at linkInteresting data. Click the link for interactive map.
***
MapLight has conducted... more
-
-
Just read this on RT...Paying attention yet? Follow the link and see what we are saying about possible war.Just read this on RT...Paying attention yet? Follow the link and see what we are... more
-
-
"US 'turns page on a decade of war' ... The United States is "turning the page on a decade of war", President Barack Obama said, as he unveiled a major strategic review that will cut $489 billion in defence spending over the next ten years ... As the wars of the September 11 era pass, Mr Obama said America should abandon its traditional capability of fighting two major wars at once and focus on becoming a "leaner and smarter" fighting force with an emphasis on counter terrorism, reconnaissance, cyber warfare and maintaining a nuclear deterrent. In a rare appearance in the Pentagon press briefing room, Mr Obama however insisted that the US military would comfortably maintain its military supremacy, with proposed spending still larger than that of the next 10 countries combined." – UK Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: We've changed. We're gonna be more powerful but more gentle, too. We're going to emphasize the efficiency of killing rather than its scope.
Free-Market Analysis: The Obama administration has announced a new page in a decade of war. But is this really the case? We would argue that this downsizing is noteworthy because it acknowledges that the pretense of using "citizen armies" to realize the New World Order is actually drawing to a close.
What Obama is enunciating is nothing more than a dominant social theme, in our view. The idea is to indicate to the West and to America in particular that the country's war-fervor is abating. The US will continue to be triumphantly powerful but it won't be so brash or quite so destructive.
But really nothing much has changed in terms of power elite goals. What IS changing is the way force is going to be distributed and applied.
There is going to be a transition to a more secretive military methodology, in our view. It's already happening. The powers-that-be will seek to advance their agenda via mercenaries and intelligence agencies and to fund these activities via drug dealing and various other black ops.
Is there any other choice? The Anglosphere power elite that seeks to run the world cannot likely wean itself from its military methodologies. Its command-and-control agenda rests on the threat of violence and increasingly on its actuation.
Western economies are seemingly almost entirely in the thrall of this elite. Using the wealth of central banking, it has over time created a worldwide economy that is driven by war and directed by a few select, titanic corporations that are basically the handmaidens of Washington DC and the City of London.
It would seem to be the most successful, hidden dictatorship in the history of humankind. The secrecy – especially in the 20th century – allowed the entire world to be steered in a certain direction, toward world government. This strategy is still in effect even though it has been blown open by the Internet and the increasingly powerful "Reformation" that it is causing.
What we call the Internet Reformation is evidently and obviously shaking the power elite. This powerful entity has thus been increasingly forced to show its hand in numerous ways, both legislative and military. We have come to call it "directed history." The goal is global governance and events are "arranged" to facilitate it.
Throughout the 20th century, the "globalization" trends expanded. The state was to be celebrated in all ways. What was independent and inchoate was to be made dependent and ritualized. What was art was depersonalized in order to celebrate the efficacy of the state, as was architecture. Psychology was introduced to increase the efficiency of manipulations of the middle class. Money was drained of value and increasingly controlled behind the scenes by forces bent on inflation and currency debasement....
Continued at:
http://thedailybell.com/3438/The-Elites-Military-Problem"US 'turns page on a decade of war' ... The United States is... more
-
-
Dagum
-
added this
-
1 month ago
- |
-
Hello Governments, Political parties, corporations, law enforcement,
And people of the world.
We Are Anonymous.
On January 1st 2012 at 12:00 A.M.
Every last piece of information on you corrupt individuals we have acquired through our individual skills will be leaked all across the web.
EVERYWHERE.
Chat spam, Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, Mocospace, Tinychat, Dating sites, Youtube... EVERYWHERE.
What is the point of this?
Well it's to show you we still run this.
You take our speech. You take our internet.
You take our Bill of Rights. You take our Constitution.
We Fight Back.
Get Ready for a New Year.
2012 The Year of Anonymous.
Operation Hiroshima Engaged.
We Are Anonymous.
We Are Legion.
We Do Not Forgive.
We Do Not Forget.
Expect Us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0m3d7CxJXgHello Governments, Political parties, corporations, law enforcement,
And people of... more
-
-
I really love that aircraft, but I love the sales pitch that I saw on the various TV shows that put it in the best light. I didn't know it was killing people that flew it. Also note, this is something House Rep. BOehNER (R-OH) felt was worth fighting for; our tax dollars going to his puppet-masters for a toy that kills our people. I'm sure he knew of the problems, and if he didn't, even worse!I really love that aircraft, but I love the sales pitch that I saw on the various TV... more
-
-
Ron Paul opposes killing Muslims on behalf of Israel so only Zionists who support the mass murder of Iranians and other Arabs Muslims shall be invited to the Republican Jewish Congress debate.
***
On Wednesday, Dec. 7, the Republican Jewish Coalition will host a presidential-candidates forum featuring Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum. Not invited is the GOP candidate currently polling around third in New Hampshire and second in Iowa: Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). The explanation:
Paul was not invited to attend the RJC's candidates forum because the organization - as it has stated numerous times in the past - "rejects his misguided and extreme views," said [RJC Executive Director Matt] Brooks.
"He's just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization," Brooks said. Inviting Paul to attend would be "like inviting Barack Obama to speak."
Brooks gave a more detailed critique of Ron Paul back in May:
"As Americans who are committed to a strong and vigorous foreign policy, we are deeply concerned about the prospective presidential campaign of Congressman Ron Paul. While Rep. Paul plans to run as a Republican, his views and past record place him far outside of the Republican mainstream. His candidacy, as we've seen in his past presidential campaigns, will appeal to a very narrow constituency in the U.S. electorate. Throughout his public service, Paul has espoused a dangerous isolationist vision for the U.S. and our role in the world. He has been a virulent and harsh critic of Israel during his tenure in Congress*. Most recently Paul gave an interview in which he voiced his objection to the recent killing of Osama Bin Laden.
Brooks added, "We certainly respect Congressman Paul's right to run, but we strongly reject his misguided and extreme views, which are not representative of the Republican Party."Ron Paul opposes killing Muslims on behalf of Israel so only Zionists who support the... more
-
-
"...
The US Senate Armed Services Committee said its researchers had uncovered 1,800 cases in which the Pentagon had been sold electronics that may be counterfeit.
In total, the committee said it had found more than a million fake parts had made their way into warplanes such as the Boeing C-17 transport jet and the Lockheed Martin C-130J "Super Hercules".
It also found fake components in Boeing's CH-46 Sea Knight helicopter and the Theatre High-Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) missile defence system.
..."
Months ago, heard a discussion of the problem of computer parts from China in US weapons systems, planes, missiles. Only it wasn't so much about the Chinese as the US corporations, contracted by DOD to build such items just doing on the cheap, using Chinese computer chips. And the concerns were not just about parts that were not up to specs and subject to failure under normal military use, but of back doors and other built in hacks.
DOD is not serious about security. They are serious about funneling money to MIC. Guess there are better retirement packages for money funnelers than for the real patriots who actually want to defend the nation?"...
The US Senate Armed Services Committee said its researchers had uncovered... more
-
-
But a new report shows the US defense establishment is in much better shape than it claims: The DOD has blown roughly $1 trillion on shiny new tanks, ships, and jets since the 9/11 attacks—and it's often done so with dollars that were supposed to be spent on those troops on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Not only have we blown money on defense spending, rather than spend it on the troops, we have spent it on buying new weapons at massively inflated prices.But a new report shows the US defense establishment is in much better shape than it... more
-
-
kvb1
-
added this
-
3 months ago
- |
-
Weaponized UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), also known as drones, have their own caucus in Congress, and the Pentagon’s plan is to give them their own state as well.Weaponized UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), also known as drones, have their own... more
-
-
Firoze Manji: Nothing in international law allows regime change and assassination of a leader.
He also talks about oil, unholy alliances, privatization, European banks and the vast amounts of fossil water under the Nubian Aquifer... the real prize.Firoze Manji: Nothing in international law allows regime change and assassination of a... more
-
-
"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is flagrantly advocating for war profiteers at the expense of real security for the American people. He’s trying to browbeat Congress and other officials into continuing to send huge sums of our money to war profiteers who are killing jobs and ripping off the taxpayer. Panetta is likely to repeat more misleading spin when he testifies before Congress on Thursday. Our new video busts his scare tactics and talking points–please watch it and share it."
http://warcosts.com/panetta/"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is flagrantly advocating for war profiteers at... more
-
-
On the eve of the 10th anniversary of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, thousands of Afghans staged a rally in Kabul to protest the occupation of their country.
The protesters condemned the US forces for killing innocent civilians and supporting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. They also demanded an immediate withdrawal of the foreign troops from Afghanistan.
The US and its allies including Britain invaded Afghanistan in 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Press TV has conducted an exclusive interview with Fredrick Toben, an Australian author and political commentator, to talk about the consequences of the invasion for the Afghan people and the world at large.On the eve of the 10th anniversary of the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, thousands of... more
-
-
-
http://rtruth.blog.com/2011/09/12/collateral-damage-uncovering-haarp/
HAARP with its 180 transmission towers, that combine to emit a massive beam, of power and light, In a burst lasting more than a few minutes, it slices through the Ionosphere like a scalpel made of microwaves. This produces a long incision in this vital layer of the atmosphere. HAARP then heats large sections of the Ionosphere until they bulge to form a ‘curved lens’. This ‘curved lens’ reflects HAARP’s massive energy beams, back to earth to destroy selected targets. Presumably without leaving even a trace of what caused the devastation. Except for the strange circular cloud formations that occur once the ‘curved lens’ is created. Think about the movie Independence Day when the White House was obliterated by the alien Spaceship hovering above. Well HAARP works like that beam from the spaceship. However you don’t need to hover over your target or even be seen. HAARP directs the beam from space and you can’t even prove it was HAARP. Wow! Thats scary at the same time.http://rtruth.blog.com/2011/09/12/collateral-damage-uncovering-haarp/
HAARP with... more
-
-
mab001
-
added this
-
5 months ago
- |
-
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is researching how much taxpayer money in the Defense Department is being spent on turning American troops into practicing Christians. Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks discuss.
Read more here: http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/a_peek_at_the_militarys_budget_fo...
"So much for the Separation of Church and State??? Why Christianize them at my expense most people already have the religion there family raised them on, is that Not good enough???The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is researching how much taxpayer money in... more
-
-
KB723
-
added this
-
6 months ago
- |
-
By Glenn Greenwald
The Los Angeles Times examines the staggering sums of money expended on patently absurd domestic "homeland security" projects: $75 billion per year for things such as a Zodiac boat with side-scan sonar to respond to a potential attack on a lake in tiny Keith County, Nebraska, and hundreds of "9-ton BearCat armored vehicles, complete with turret" to guard against things like an attack on DreamWorks in Los Angeles. All of that -- which is independent of the exponentially greater sums spent on foreign wars, occupations, bombings, and the vast array of weaponry and private contractors to support it all -- is in response to this mammoth, existential, the-single-greatest-challenge-of-our-generation threat:
"The number of people worldwide who are killed by Muslim-type terrorists, Al Qaeda wannabes, is maybe a few hundred outside of war zones. It's basically the same number of people who die drowning in the bathtub each year," said John Mueller, an Ohio State University professor who has written extensively about the balance between threat and expenditures in fighting terrorism.
Last year, McClatchy characterized this threat in similar terms: "undoubtedly more American citizens died overseas from traffic accidents or intestinal illnesses than from terrorism." The March, 2011, Harper's Index expressed the point this way: "Number of American civilians who died worldwide in terrorist attacks last year: 8 -- Minimum number who died after being struck by lightning: 29." That's the threat in the name of which a vast domestic Security State is constructed, wars and other attacks are and continue to be launched, and trillions of dollars are transferred to the private security and defense contracting industry at exactly the time that Americans -- even as they face massive wealth inequality -- are told that they must sacrifice basic economic security because of budgetary constraints.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.htmlBy Glenn Greenwald
The Los Angeles Times examines the staggering sums of money... more
-
-
In 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explained to Democracy Now's Amy Goodman that the government planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Iran.
President Obama has done his part by initiating the war in Libya under a phony humanitarian crisis as well as keeping the Iraq war going.
Interesting how Syria is all of the sudden having this a presumably real humanitarian crisis, and of course Israel gets to kill as many Arab Christians and Muslims as they want, plus build a wall dividing the Arab and Christian population as well as forced segregation, but there's no humanitarian crisis in Gaza or the West Bank.In 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explained to Democracy Now's Amy... more
-
