|
‘The Obama Doctrine’ Is To Whitewash His Foreign Policy
The Atlantic publishes Obama's great whitewashing of his own foreign policy. It is the result of a series of interviews with Jefferey Goldberg written up into one gigantic piece under the headline "The Obama Doctrine". Throughout the piece Goldberg and Obama touch various foreign policy issues, mainly in the Middle East.
The ostensible purpose is to refute hawkish critics of Obama who say that he has not been militaristic enough or was 'leading from behind.' Judging from comments to the piece in various media the readers seem to fall for that. But the real purpose of the piece is to hide the militaristic, dangerous to catastrophic decision Obama has made on many foreign policy issues.
The real Obama has used the military to wage open or hidden wars in more countries than any president since the second world war. Obama has ordered thousands of unknown people be killed by drone strikes in ten or so countries. He has used clandestine means for illegitimate regime change from Honduras over Ukraine to Iraq where, as he admitted in an earlier interview, let the evil of ISIS grow for the sole purpose of ousting Prime Minister Maliki. Instead of making room for the inevitable growth of China, Obama is preparing to wage a preemptive war against it.
The whitewash includes a lot of juicy, diverting quotes that many people will like. It bitches about foreign paid think tanks in Washington and the Saudis. It lambastes Cameron and Sarkozy. It badmouths his own hawkish advisers.
When it discusses why Obama let his 'red line' on chemical weapons in Syria slip and did not bomb the country it tries to paint Obama's decisions on Syria as sensible and reasoned. But what is sensible or reasoned in ordering the CIA to ship thousands of Jihadis, recycled from his war on Libya and earlier conflicts, to Syria? What is peaceful in arming and paying sectarian "rebels" with billions of dollars to overthrow the legitimate Syrian government? The piece does not mention those facts and the interviewer never touches those questions.
Obama criticizes the Saudis and Iran for waging proxy wars in Syria and Yemen. But Iran came in only after Obama and the Saudis waged war on those countries. Without him Yemen would not be bombed and Syria would be peaceful. It is he who enables the Saudi misdeeds.
On Libya the president blames France and Britain for dropping the ball after Ghaddafi was killed. But it was the U.S. that enabled and directed the war, flew most attacks, dropped 7,700 bombs and had its people on the ground training and organizing the Jihadis for attacks on government positions. Here the fake 'leading from behind' is used to blame the allies when the inevitable consequences of the war, the destruction of the functioning state Libya, appear.
In general the piece is somewhat interesting and shows some insight into Obama's thinking. But if you take the hour that is at least needed to read it keep in mind that this was published for a purpose. Obama is preparing his next career step. With the Goldberg interviews and this piece he is attempting to wash the blood off his hands and to whitewash his legacy.
#1 – – – –
Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 11, 2016 12:54:06 AM | 75
“Every country’s battle-ready war ships are challenged by every other country, whenever they enter or approach another country’s territorial waters un-announced.”
This is where your argument breaks down – precisely the problem in the S. China Sea – China going out and building islands to extend its “territorial waters.” What if the US claimed, say, the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean as its “territorial waters” by extending the Florida Keys with a string of fake islands all the way to Yucatan? The US-haters here would be going bonkers, as well they should.
It is only now that Vietnam is beginning to realize how valuable a major US presence, including an airbase, would have been to them during all these years of China’s “inevitable growth,” as b puts it. Germany’s growth was “inevitable,” too, which is why Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill should have had the balls to push back before it was too late.
#2 – – – –
okie farmer | Mar 11, 2016 3:15:59 AM | 77
Daily Mail, is perhaps the most right-wing paper with a large reader audience.
The Daily Fail is a phenomenon. I have read in other sources that the MailOnline is by far the most widely read news website in the world. One reason: it is a porn-mongering tabloid that has no limits when it comes to disgusting gutter-crawling. But it has blind, illiterate monkeys for editors and ESL drop-outs for writers. HuffPo and The Independent are almost as disgusting. Here are some recent examples:
http://logophere.com/Topics2016/16-03/16-03-04-media%20fails.htm
And, yes, the DM is a shrill right-wing rag who’s bias in that direction is almost as boundless and shameful as HuffPo’s in the other.
But durn it all, when something happens almost anywhere in the world, the DM is in there before anyone else even knows there’s a story. And by “in there” I mean on the ground taking photos and getting interviews, not just re-tweeting AP. Somehow the DM paparazzi always get photos of the alleged perps in handcuffs before other outlets can even find the crime scene. CNN comes plodding along 3 days later with “breaking news” derived from the DM, who has already moved on to the next story. Don’t know how they do it.
#3 – – – –
Hoarsewhisperer | Mar 11, 2016 3:26:18 AM | 78
a: “it seems a relatively small price to pay to read the source material out of respect to b.”
b: “I’ve read several articles by Jeffrey Goldberg and, imo, all of them read like April Fools Day jokes.”
As to a: yeah, I don’t think so. What if he links to War and Peace, does that mean I’m gonna’ drop everything and read it? I pay my respects by reading what he has to say and commenting, especially when I disagree. He has a great stable of faithful, admiring commentators, which is respect enuf and is what makes his blog so durn interestin’.
As to b: Frikkin’ bingo, dude! Jeffrey Goldberg’s online crap isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. If I want to read zionist BS, I’ll stick with Abe Foxman or Michael Oren. At least they come right out and put it in your face rather than relying on linguistic deceit.
To be honest, I have turned off the Jewish media almost completely. It’s not that many of them, like Goldberg and Hersh, aren’t smart and talented, and some even have something to say. It’s just that I’m sick and tired of my news being dominated by their viewpoint. I want to hear more from blacks, and Sikhs, and Arabs, and Russians, and Germans (hat tip to b). Can’t remember when was the last time I got a Sikh viewpoint on anything.
Jews represent 3% of the American population and something like 0.002% of the world population — (divide 14 million by 7.2 billion). 85% of major US news anchors are Jews. There’s something about those disparate numbers that just make me uncomfortable, like when Congress was all white males. I am aiming to keep my news from Jews to about 3%, which seems fair. Same for movies and bagel shops. OK, just kidding on the bagel shops.
Posted by: Denis | Mar 11 2016 16:31 utc | 98
|
