In a revealing tweet last October, BBC diplomatic correspondent, Bridget Kendall, commented acerbically on a press conference given by Russian president Vladimir Putin:
We thought aloud on Twitter that we couldn’t recall any BBC journalist accusing Obama of ‘bragging’ about anything. One of our Twitter followers tried to help us out:
It’s true that Putin likes to portray himself as a bare-chested, judo wrestling, fighter pilot. But then Thatcher was famously filmed clinging to the commander’s cupola of a charging tank with a Union Jack fluttering at her side. Declaring ‘Mission Accomplished’ in Iraq from an aircraft carrier, George Bush made a grandiose landing in a military jet with ‘George W. Bush – Commander-In-Chief’ emblazoned on the plane’s nose. Is the current US president different? Is it just that he keeps his shirt on and is above bragging? In November 2013, the Washington Times reported that Obama had been overheard ‘bragging to administration aides about his ability to kill people with drones’. The president’s exact words:
While the US was bringing disaster to Libya in 2011, Obama bragged:
Citing journalist Seymour Hersh and others, Gareth Porter has supplied a different version of events:
Indeed, not only was Obama not motivated to avert mass killing, as so many corporate journalists have claimed, he pursued illegal regime change against the advice of his most senior military advisers:
The results of this regime change policy, in both Libya and Syria, have been simply catastrophic. This month, in his final State of the Union address, Obama took his braggadocio to another level:
Sounding like a left parody of imperial power, Obama said:
Justice is a warm gun and a double head tap. If Putin bragged about being ‘good at killing people’, of ruining whole countries, and paraded extrajudicial killing as ‘justice’, the likes of Bridget Kendall would denounce him as a sociopath. This never happens because Obama and the Official Enemy are perceived through two separate media lenses – one, dark and damning, for ‘them’; the other, rose-tinted and admiring, for ‘us’. Thus, in a response to his latest speech in the Guardian, Lucia Graves somehow found the president’s rhetoric ‘lofty and seemingly above the fray’. Obama ‘defined himself more abstractly as against fear’. American fear, that is – not the fear of nations facing American ‘justice’ and the associated ‘path to ruin’. At the extreme end of the media ‘spectrum’, while offering mild criticism, Guardian leftist Owen Jones linked to Obama’s State of the Union speech, commenting:
Jones claims he intended to represent the views of others with these opening comments. But later in the same piece he wrote:
Obama, as ever, is to be viewed as ‘well-intentioned’. By contrast, Jones wrote a piece this week under the title: ‘Putin is a human rights abusing oligarch. The British left must speak out.’ This piece began rather differently:
Russia ‘is ruled by a human rights abusing, expansionist, oligarchic regime.’ Jones has surely never referred to the corporate oligarchy that runs the US as a ‘regime’. Three-time US presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, on the other hand, has said:
Standing ‘Aloof’The Western political and corporate media establishment simply has too much invested in Obama’s status as a ‘Good Guy’ for him to be subject to liberal sneers. The public has to support his wars, and his wars have to be sold as ‘humanitarian interventions’ driven by ‘our’ altruistic ‘responsibility to protect’. So his bragging remains invisible to British liberals. The corporate journalist being, after all, a master of the art of ‘denying a knowledge he would have, if he only wanted to have it’. (Erich Fromm, Beyond The Chains Of Illusion, Abacus, 1989, p.94) This doesn’t mean Obama can’t be criticised. It’s fine to criticise him for being too passive, pacifist; too humble in ‘leading’ the ‘free world’. In a Guardian piece last October titled, ‘Syria’s horror shows the tragic price of western inaction,’ Natalie Nougayrède wrote:
Paul Mason argued similarly this month in in the Guardian that Obama ‘stood aloof from the Syrian conflict’. In the aftermath of the November 13, 2015 Paris attacks, The Times noted Obama’s ‘prolonged inaction against President Assad in Syria’. (Leader, ‘Nous Sommes Tous Français,’ The Times, November 16, 2016) The Sun also lamented Obama’s ‘incredible complacency’ and ‘catastrophic failure to lead the western world.’ In September 2014, a Guardian leader asked of ‘Obama’s plan to contain Isis’:
The Guardian claimed that the US was not part of a conflict it had merely been trying to ‘influence’:
By contrast, Seymour Hersh reported that, in 2013, ‘the CIA-sponsored secret flow of arms from Libya to the Syrian opposition, via Turkey, had been underway for more than a year (it started sometime after Gaddafi’s death on 20 October 2011)’. Hersh added: ‘although many in the American intelligence community were aware that the Syrian opposition was dominated by extremists the CIA-sponsored weapons kept coming, presenting a continuing problem for Assad’s army’. The Irish Times supplied some detail: ‘the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money, and the CIA takes the lead in training the rebels on AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missiles’. Hersh reported an ‘active effort’ made ‘by the US military to mitigate Obama administration regime change policies’ in Libya and Syria. A former senior adviser to the Joint Chiefs told Hersh:
Hersh cited Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii and member of the House Armed Services Committee:
In the Guardian, Simon Jenkins commented on the rationale behind UK support for US-led ‘interventions’ in Iraq and Libya:
‘Humanity’ was all there was. And so, when it comes to Obama, a ‘humanitarian’ is all we are allowed to see – well-intentioned, keen to avoid violence, even as he ruins whole countries. The change from George W. Bush is real but dismal – Obama’s advisors learned the lesson that US credibility and security are not best served by being seen to lead efforts to overthrow governments. Others – France, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – now assume that role for the cameras while the world’s leading rogue state continues to lead behind the scenes. DE |
This Alert is Archived here:
Contact Us: