.. ask me no questions; I'll tell you no lies.
subtitle: in conspiracy vs. cock-up, always favour the cock-up[1].
-=*=-
In arguably[2] the most monumental - and murdering - cock-up of all time, B, B & H 'sent' the US, UK and Aus (plus a few other psychophantic[3] odds'n sods, all collectively 'the koalition of the killing') off to disarm Saddam of his (non-existent!) WMDs, with which Saddam, in alliance with al-Qaeda (back then not involved/connected at all; each lie more unbelievable than the other), i.e. this wholly imagined concoction allegedly threatened the world in general, and Bliar in particular, him announcing his famous 45mins from annihilation.
935 lies have been collected and collated; undoubtedly there were more, see for example Howard's 'human-shredding machine.'
-=*=-
OK, I hear you mutter, so Q: why 'most monumental?'
A: Well, consider the following Q/A model:
Q: Why do crims try to rob banks?
A: Because that's where the money is.
Ha ha; but not really all that funny. However, following that model, a new Q/A:
Q: Why did they lie to us?
A: To conceal horrendous crimes - what else, daaarlings?
This, then, was/is the (evil!) genius of B, B & H, they and their hubris[4] have brought the whole charade undone. And what a monumental - and criminal - charade it is.
Because? Well, it isn't just murder for oil in Iraq that was disclosed, but further investigations reveal Israel's murder for land and water, and the (mainly US, some UK + minor others) globalized capitalism's rip-off resource-harvesting (aka "Economic Hit Men") scams, all together murder for spoil.
And again, not 'just' that; they, the filthily hubristic B, B & H enabled us to see that the very foundation of our nations, the much ballyhooed democracy - is a sham.
-=*=-
An aside on 'murder for oil.' In my blogging since 1st hearing of the utterly dreadful "Shockin' Whore" then being mooted for Iraq (with the equally chilling US grunts' "Let's go play in Iraq!" - in order to 'pink-mist' hapless collaterals), many have tried to nay-say the US' plan for eventual oil-theft, but none have disproved it. That is, in a nutshell, because it's simply not disprovable; it's what's gunna happen - unless the brutal occupation of Iraq is stopped, and US forces completely ejected. Make no mistake; it may well be, that the US is *partly* in Iraq to enable Zionist dreams of a "Greater Israel" to fester, but consider Sun Tsu[5], Ch#2 "... and how success requires making winning pay."
They (the US administration) said that Iraq would pay for its reconstruction via its oil revenues; but what they always tried to deny was what they planned all along: to grab the lot, integrating their filthy capitalism 'from the sand to the sea;' to suck as much oil - and $s out'a Iraq as they possibly could. One (possible) side-effect of this could be to 'control' who may buy the oil; so much for so-called 'free' markets. Finally, it only makes 'good' (rip-off!) capitalist sense, so denying 'murder for oil' is a crime of the order of denying the holocaust.
Once more for emphasis: it's simply inconceivable, that the US would do anything, let alone murder 100s of 1000s, if not 1.2mio+ Iraqis, if they didn't think they could make their crimes pay. That is, after all, exactly what (US-style, but not only US) capitalism is all about.
-=*=-
Now back on track: democracy. At this point, you might care to read (all!) of this, War Is a Government Program by Sheldon Richman.
(I doubt if all will read the cited article, so let's see; the following «text» is from the article:)
1. «War is politics.» {Me: Not too controversial...}
2. «Politicians start wars for political reasons. (This is not to imply that economic reasons aren't involved.)» {Me: Again not too controversial... and see 'economic reasons,' aka murder for oil.}
3. «Ruling classes hold power so that they may live off the toil of the domestic population.» {Me: Ooops! 'Ruling?' The shit, so's to say, has hit the fan. Further, 'live off' - what?}
"Houston! We have a problem!"
I reiterate: this is the (evil!) genius of B, B & H, they have let the cat out'a the bag, as mentioned above, our democracies are sham. Boo! Hiss!
To round this off, there are at least three prerequisites for a properly functioning democracy, 1) a switched-on (i.e. involved) and fully informed electorate, 2) full and free information flows and 3) a valid choice of honest representative-candidates.
As the illegal invasion of Iraq, now turned brutal occupation, each more murdering than the other - and the Israel debacle now 60+ years long, all examples of murder for spoil show, our so-called leaders are actually rulers, criminally exploiting 'the system' for nefarious purposes, usually self-enrichment.
(And speaking of debacles, what about Iemma's electricity fiddle?)
The crimes of our putative leaders (and the so-called shadowy élite) are hidden by the lies pushed/assisted by the (venal!) MSM - and the TV-comatozed sheople® doze on.
Is that (murder for spoil, etc.) honest?
Is that (rip-off capitalism) fair?
Shouldn't the crimes now be stopped?
It is said, that in a democracy, the sheople are sovereign.
Shouldn't we now move heaven and earth, to make that so?
-=*end*=-
PS How? Just how can we save our once jewel-like planet?
a) Get a morality, see my attempted formalisation the chezPhil morality.
b) Demand honesty, from the MSM (AusBC!), from business and from our so-called leaders.
c) Demand honest representation (or devolve to direct citizen government - by CIRs, say.)
After all, daaarlings, it's 'only' our democratic right.
Just whose country/planet is this, anyway?
-=*=-
Ref(s):
[1] cock-up
noun Brit. informal something done badly or inefficiently: we've made a total cock-up of it [POD]
[2] arguably
Øadverb
these criteria are exceedingly vague and arguably provide too much scope for judicial interpretation
POSSIBLY, conceivably, feasibly, plausibly, probably, maybe, perhaps, potentially; debatably, contestably, controversially.
[New Oxford Thesaurus of English]
[3] psychophantic, from psycho + sycophant:
psycho colloq. —n. (pl. -s) psychopath. —adj. psychopathic. [abbreviation] [POD]
sycophant n. flatterer; toady. sycophancy n. sycophantic adj. [Greek sukophantes] [ibid.]
[4] hubris
n. arrogant pride or presumption. hubristic adj. [Greek] [ibid.]
[5] Sun Tzu, The Art of War:
«Ch#1; Laying Plans: explores the five key elements that define competitive position (mission, climate, ground, leadership, and methods) and how to evaluate your competitive strengths against your competition.
Ch#2; Waging War: explains the economic nature of competition and how success requires making winning pay, which in turn, requires limiting the cost of competition and conflict.»
[wiki/Sun Tzu]
3 comments:
"All the news that fits" ... the proud claim of the paper of record, staunchly defending democracy by informing the public .. oh, wait a minute, perhaps not always so as Chris Floyd and Glenn Greenwald examine the work of Michael Gordon and some "deja vu all over again". For Gordon is seems to have become "All the news that's a fit up."
Yet he's still writing, still spinning .. Grandma Jefferson in the comments to Floyd's article:
It's practically word for word ante-bellum Iraq, with the same amount of credibility. Anybody who buys into this orgy of bullshit has had their brains sucked out ages ago.
But, that's the problem, isn't it.
That's one explanation which is supported by evidence. There's vested interest as well.
Now to aspects of the Bush administration's behaviour and that underpinning of democracy, the rule of law.
Marjorie Cohn and Michael Washburn.
A case in question.
And the language that they use ... A lengthy piece about the use of violent language.
"But for the sky there are no fences facing ..." From Tom Dispatch, William J. Astore on the ambitions of the USAF or reaching for the stars, but is it good? Remember Lord Acton, and what of the human element?
And a reminder of the ambitions of the neocons. Delusional and dangerous - to life, limb, system ... and planet.
G'day Phil, more on the ambitions and deceit of the neocons - this from Glenn Greenwald. It begins with material about that arch-conniver and warmonger, Michael (Forgeries R Us) Ledeen, an extract:
So Bamford's claim was "embarrassing" because "anyone even vaguely familiar with Michael's work knows that he has opposed military action against Iran." Got that?
Here's Ledeen yesterday, writing in National Review's Corner (h/t sysprog):
Time to Attack Iranian Terror Camps? [Michael Ledeen]
So says John Bolton, and he's right. As you know, I have been proposing this for years. I always thought it was only a matter of time before we were compelled to take this action, which is a legitimate form of self-defense. And while we're at it, we should do the same thing to the Syrian camps as well. It isn't "sending a message," it's acting to protect our guys by fighting back in the proxy war the mullahs have been waging since 1979. Faster, please?
More amazingly, a mere two weeks before McCarthy and Levin wrote that "anyone even vaguely familiar with Michael's work knows that he has opposed military action against Iran," Ledeen himself wrote at The Corner that "I would insist that my soldiers have the right of 'hot pursuit' into Iran and Syria, and I would order my armed forces to attack the terrorist training camps in those countries."
And people still cite lying neocons!
Of course, they have further ambitions - the death, destruction and chaos of Iraq seems not to concern them, perhaps such things do not intrude into their reality - and their sights are fixed on Iran:
This isn't just a matter of documenting guilt with regard to what happened with Iraq. The Washington Post's David Ignatius today became just the latest establishment spokesman to warn (or celebrate) that "judging from recent statements by administration officials, there is also a small, but growing, chance of conflict with Iran."
The neoconservative war-lovers behind this effort have not changed, nor have their tactics. They realize, as many of them acknowledge, that they will have four more years in power if John McCain is elected. But they also realize that he may not be, and that their last hope for their long-desired attack on Iran lies in convincing the current administration to provoke one before its tenure ends. As much as one wishes it weren't true, as much as the fixation on petty election issues might obscure it, the truly depraved extremist group that brought us the invasion of Iraq still exerts substantial influence and is quite busy trying to exert it.
"just the latest ...". Indeed, there is growing concern that the Bush administration will attack Iran. Recall my earlier links of material about Iran's diplomatic efforts and the responses received from some quarters, notably those needing energy supplies. That will not have pleased the US or Israel.
On the matter of energy, increasing power and influence is flowing to those who have the resources, others are not so fortunate as Michael T. Klare explains.
Nineteen years ago, the fall of the Berlin Wall effectively eliminated the Soviet Union as the world's other superpower. Yes, the USSR as a political entity stumbled on for another two years, but it was clearly an ex-superpower from the moment it lost control over its satellites in Eastern Europe.
Less than a month ago, the United States similarly lost its claim to superpower status when a barrel crude oil roared past $110 on the international market, gasoline prices crossed the $3.50 threshold at American pumps, and diesel fuel topped $4.00. As was true of the USSR following the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the USA will no doubt continue to stumble on like the superpower it once was; but as the nation's economy continues to be eviscerated to pay for its daily oil fix, it, too, will be seen by increasing numbers of savvy observers as an ex-superpower-in-the-making.
That the fall of the Berlin Wall spelled the erasure of the Soviet Union's superpower status was obvious to international observers at the time. After all, the USSR visibly ceased to exercise dominion over an empire (and an associated military-industrial complex) encompassing nearly half of Europe and much of Central Asia. The relationship between rising oil prices and the obliteration of America's superpower status is, however, hardly as self-evident. So let's consider the connection.
And Klare's considerations are recommended.
Of course, the US won't like this either, and, as ever, beware the waning hegemon. Especially one where delusional sociopaths wield such power and influence.
G'day Phil, "words that are used for to get the ship confused ..."
Add to the lies, the euphemisms and it is so much easier to mislead. In a piece from Chris Floyd on what is in store for Sadr city there is a link to an article about the language used written by David Bromwich. I highlight it as it is well worth reading. Although those who most need to read it would likely fail to understand it due to a complete subjugation of intellect and objectivity to fear , prejudice and ignorance. The article begins:
In Tacitus' Agricola, a Caledonian rebel named Calgacus, addressing "a close-packed multitude" preparing to fight, declares that Rome has overrun so much of the world that "there are no more nations beyond us; nothing is there but waves and rocks, and the Romans, more deadly still than these—for in them is an arrogance which no submission or good behavior can escape." Certain habits of speech, he adds, abet the ferocity and arrogance of the empire by infecting even the enemies of Rome with Roman self-deception:
A rich enemy excites their cupidity; a poor one, their lust for power. East and West alike have failed to satisfy them.... To robbery, butchery, and rapine, they give the lying name of "government"; they create a desolation and call it peace.
The frightening thing about such acts of renaming or euphemism, Tacitus implies, is their power to efface the memory of actual cruelties. Behind the façade of a history falsified by language, the painful particulars of war are lost. Maybe the most disturbing implication of the famous sentence "They create a desolation and call it peace" is that apologists for violence, by means of euphemism, come to believe what they hear themselves say.
So familiar as we look around us.
On to Floyd:
George W. Bush and David Petraeus are preparing to make a new Fallujah in Sadr City, home to two million Shiites in Baghdad. Thousands of people are already fleeing the area before the full-scale slaughter and destruction begin. As in Fallujah, the multitudes who cannot escape will be trapped in a "free fire zone", subjected to ruthless bombardment and ground assault. Thousands -- perhaps tens of thousands -- of innocent civilians stand in the shadow of imminent death.
The assault is part of the run-up to the coming attack on Iran -- an attempt to secure the rear of that new front by destroying Iraq's Shiite nationalist forces. It is also part of an on-going effort to eliminate the strongest rival to the Shiite extremists that Bush has installed in office in Iraq, before the conquered land's fall elections.
The preliminary assault on Sadr City has already begun, of course. As the BBC notes, in the last seven weeks around 1,000 people -- most of them civilians -- have already been killed by the Bush-Petraeus "surge" into the area. Petraeus is frantically building high-walled ghettos in Sadr City, slicing neighborhoods in half, sundering families, destroying communities and livelihoods. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is circulating leaflets in Sadr City districts, warning the people to leave -- or else.
This, you understand, is liberation. This is freedom. This is the glorious "surge" to victory. As Tacitus noted: (here follows the quote above about the Romans' self-deception. This is how it fits.
More on the media manipulation issue from Glenn Greenwald - this on massaging the message on Gitmo.
The game is much easier if you have willing accomplices. And the suckers easier to reel in. It's when they not only close their eyes but also stick their heads firmly up ...
Post a Comment