The Peace Prize Winner increases the troop presence in Afghanistan, where barely NO al Qaeda remain. Michael Moore and Russ Feingold speak out
by Larry Simons
December 4, 2009
By now, if you haven’t heard that Obama has increased the troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000, you must be living in the same imaginary cave as the deceased Osama bin Laden.
In true Bush-like fashion, the Nobel “Peace” Prize winner said this on Tuesday:
“...it's important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women, and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of passengers onboard one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.”
Ah yes, what would a military plan be without neocon references to 9/11? If the above excerpt sounds frighteningly familiar, it is because it has been said before.
“What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our war against terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September the 11th were trained in Afghanistan's camps. And so were tens of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning.”
[George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, January 29, 2002]
Naturally, Obama fails [as Bush did] to mention why we didn’t just go after those responsible like we did when the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, rather than invade entire countries.
Obviously, the 19 hijackers would be hard to convict since they evaporated on 9/11, but we could be arresting and trying in court members of al Qaeda and bin Laden himself, but even to this day bin Laden has not even been indicted for 9/11, let alone blamed for it. As I speak, bin Laden’s FBI profile still does not mention 9/11 as one of his crimes.
Obama also fails to mention that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, hence nullifying the Bush-like attempts to connect Afghanistan to September 11. But what does it matter really? Just as the Bush supporters ignored things like the Constitution, common sense and logic when it came to accepting his military policies, it appears that the Obama camp is following suit just swimmingly.
Already, liberal bloggers who once basked in Obama’s “let’s end these wars” campaign speeches have now, out of utter panic, sold their souls and consciences [if they ever had either to begin with] to the devil. Their only two choices were to admit their guy is just like Bush, or to play dumb and attempt to convince people that when Obama said in his pre-election speeches that he wanted to “finish the fight in Afghanistan”, that really meant to send additional troops there, not just transfer troops from Iraq to Afghanistan since Obama was against the war in Iraq.
Liberal bloggers are going a step further. Now they are attempting to accuse those Democrats who took Obama’s pre-election words literally [as they should have] of "misquoting" Obama. Crooks and Liars writer John Perr accused Michael Moore of “rewriting history” because the filmmaker wrote this in an open letter to Obama on his blog:
“Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.”
Perr argues that Obama has always stated that he wanted to focus on Afghanistan, and he’s right. But in nearly every single speech, debate or interview in which Obama said our troops should be in Afghanistan, it was within the context of him being against the troops in Iraq, implying that Obama just wanted a troop transfer [from Iraq to Afghanistan].….not 30, 000 additional troops.
It is interesting that Perr did not include this excerpt from Moore’s letter:
“It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That's the way General Washington insisted it must be. That's what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. "You're fired!," said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).”
How dare Moore say that we are a civilian-run government! How dare Moore tell Obama that he should listen to the PEOPLE, not generals, Republicans, his family, his eighth cousin Dick Cheney, Jack Bauer, or whoever the hell else he deems more important that the American people.
Why would Perr leave this out? Because he wants his readers to believe that Obama HAD to listen to generals or his staff…..anyone but the majority of Americans who want both wars over.
Just the other day, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold said the additional 30,000 troop increase “makes no sense”. Talking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Feingold said this:
“Well, it just doesn't add up for me. The president says, we're doing this. We're adding 30,000, 35,000 troops to finish the job. And I ask the question, "What job?" because the president has been so eloquent in pointing out our issue is fighting al Qaeda. The argument falls apart when you realize that al Qaeda does not have its headquarters in Afghanistan anymore. It is headquartered in Pakistan. It is active in Somalia, and Yemen, North Africa, affiliates of it in Southeast Asia.”
“Why does it make sense to have a huge ground presence in Afghanistan to deal with a small al Qaeda contingent, when we don't do that in so many other countries where we're actually having some success without invading the country and attacking those that are part of al Qaeda? It doesn't make sense.”
It makes perfect sense to the people who hold one man [in this case, Obama] and their party in higher esteem than they do their own country or the Constitution.
In February, Obama sent 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and now, starting in 2010, 30,000 more will go, totaling 47,000. 47,000 people to fight just a little over 100 al Qaeda….simply amazing. Why would a Nobel Peace Prize winner actually remove troops and end meaningless, endless wars?
If this troop increase does not make it crystal clear that the position of the President has become nothing more than to be a figurehead who holds no real power, then nothing really does. The bankers and corporations are the real people in power and politicians in general are just symbolic puppets who are put in place to give the appearance that the voices of the American people are actually heard.