FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Greenwald writes: "History will surely record that one of the most moronic collective questions ever posed is 'Why do they hate us?'"

President Barack Obama speaks to supporters during a campaign fundraiser in Denver, 05/23/12. (photo: AP)
President Barack Obama speaks to supporters during a campaign fundraiser in Denver, 05/23/12. (photo: AP)


Why Do They Hate Us?

By Glenn Greenwald, Guardian UK

26 December 12

 

Numerous individual events from this week alone signify important trends in US government policy.

his week will likely entail light posting, but here are several items worthy of note:

(1) I can't recall any one news article that so effectively conveys both the gross immorality and the strategic stupidity of Obama's drone attacks as this one from Monday's Washington Post by Sudarsan Raghavan. It details how the US-supported Yemeni dictatorship lies to its public each time the US kills Yemeni civilians with a drone attack, and how these civilian-killing attacks are relentlessly (and predictably) driving Yemenis to support al-Qaida and devote themselves to anti-American militancy:

"Since the attack, militants in the tribal areas surrounding Radda have gained more recruits and supporters in their war against the Yemeni government and its key backer, the United States. The two survivors and relatives of six victims, interviewed separately and speaking to a Western journalist about the incident for the first time, expressed willingness to support or even fight alongside AQAP, as the al-Qaeda group is known.

"'Our entire village is angry at the government and the Americans,' Mohammed said. 'If the Americans are responsible, I would have no choice but to sympathize with al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda is fighting America.'

"Public outrage is also growing as calls for accountability, transparency and compensation go unanswered amid allegations by human rights activists and lawmakers that the government is trying to cover up the attack to protect its relationship with Washington. Even senior Yemeni officials said they fear that the backlash could undermine their authority.

"'If we are ignored and neglected, I would try to take my revenge. I would even hijack an army pickup, drive it back to my village and hold the soldiers in it hostages,' said Nasser Mabkhoot Mohammed al-Sabooly, the truck's driver, 45, who suffered burns and bruises. 'I would fight along al-Qaeda's side against whoever was behind this attack.'"

Similarly, the LA Times has a long article on drone attacks in Yemen and quotes Ahmed al Zurqua, an expert on Islamic militants, explaining the obvious: "The drones have not killed the real Al Qaeda leaders, but they have increased the hatred toward America and are causing young men to join Al Qaeda to retaliate."

History will surely record that one of the most moronic collective questions ever posed is "Why do they hate us?" - where the "they" are: "those we continuously bomb and kill and whose dictators we prop up." Noting the two US drone attacks on December 24 in his country, the 23-year-old Yemeni writer Ibrahim Mothana asked: "Two US drone strikes in Yemen today. Should we consider them a Christmas gift?!" That's exactly what al-Qaida undoubtedly considers them to be.

(2) Speaking of the "why-do-they-hate-us?" question, the Bahraini democracy activist Zainab al-Khawaja has a powerful Op-Ed in the New York Times detailing the extreme brutality and repression of the regime against its own citizens, and explaining the self-destructive though steadfast support for that regime by the US and its close Saudi allies:

"But despite all these sacrifices, the struggle for freedom and democracy in Bahrain seems hopeless because Bahrain's rulers have powerful allies, including Saudi Arabia and the United States.

"For Bahrainis, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference between the Saudis and the Americans. Both are supporting the Khalifa regime to preserve their own interests, even if the cost is the lives and rights of the people of Bahrain.

"The United States speaks about supporting human rights and democracy, but while the Saudis send troops to aid the Khalifa government, America is sending arms. The United States is doing itself a huge disservice by displaying such an obvious double standard toward human rights violations in the Middle East. Washington condemns the violence of the Syrian government but turns a blind eye to blatant human rights abuses committed by its ally Bahrain.

"This double standard is costing America its credibility across the region; and the message being understood is that if you are an ally of America, then you can get away with abusing human rights."

With rare exceptions, the only people delusional and naive enough to believe the US is serious about its "commitment-to-human-rights" rhetoric - as opposed to exploiting human rights concerns as a tool to undermine regimes it dislikes - are found in the west. In the regions where the US enthusiastically supports even the most repressive regimes provided those regimes show fealty to US dictates, the stench of this hypocrisy, of this radical dishonesty, is so potent that it cannot be evaded.

But it is an extraordinary testament to the power of propaganda that one constantly finds westerners claiming with a straight face that the same country that hugs and props up the Saudis, the Bahrainis, the Qataris, the Kuwaitis and so many others is committed to undermining tyranny and spreading freedom and democracy. Or, as Hillary Clinton put it in 2009: "I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family."

(3) The long-time Berlin correspondent for Al Jazeera, Aktham Suliman, recently resigned, and he explains in this rather amazing interview that he did so because the regime in Qatar, which owns the network, has been increasingly shaping and dictating the news network's coverage of events to advance the regime's interests. In particular, he cites Al Jazeera's coverage of the conflicts in Libya and Syria which, he says, has been systematically distorted in order to justify the wars which the Qataris seek against the dictators in those countries which they dislike:

"Of course Muammar Gadhafi was a dictator, and of course he'd ruled for far too long. Of course there was a desire among the Libyans to get rid of him. All that is clear. But it's also clear that killing a dictator, as happened with Gadhafi, is absolutely unacceptable on human rights grounds, revolution or no. And that's not emphasized. That is: We stressed the necessity of a revolution in Libya and the humanity of the revolutionaries, but said nothing about the murder of a dictator.

"What should also give us pause for thought is that it wasn't just Gadhafi who was killed. Many others were killed after him - including, incidentally, the man who shot Gadhafi. He was killed by another group of revolutionaries. That's the actual environment in Libya. And that's exactly what you don't see on today's Al Jazeera. That's not professional.

"In Syria, too, society is divided. You have the pro-Assad people, and those who are against him. However, when you make one side out to be mass murderers and turn the others into saints you're fueling the conflict, not presenting the situation in an appropriate and balanced way. There are murders, injustices and good things on both sides. But you don't see that on Al Jazeera. My problem is and was: When I see Al Jazeera's Syrian coverage, I don't really understand what's going on there. And that's the first thing I expect from journalism."

As was true of Saddam, there is no question that Gadhafi and Assad have committed atrocities. But just as was true in Iraq, that does not justify the grossly simplistic propaganda that distorts rather than clarifies what the realities in those countries are.

(4) Documents just obtained from the FBI by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund reveal, as the New York Times put it, that "the [FBI] used counterterrorism agents to investigate the Occupy Wall Street movement, including its communications and planning" and in general show "how deeply involved federal law-enforcement authorities were in monitoring the activities of the movement." The heavily redacted documents, which can be read here, reveal numerous instances of the FBI collaborating with local police forces and private corporations to monitor and anticipate the acts of the protest movement.

As obviously disturbing as it is, none of this should be surprising. Virtually every seized power justified over the last decade in the name of "terrorism" has been applied to a wide range of domestic dissent. The most significant civil liberties trend of the last decade, in my view, is the importation of War on Terror tactics onto US soil, applied to US citizens - from the sprawling Surveillance State and powers of indefinite detention to the para-militarization of domestic police forces and the rapidly emerging fleet of drones now being deployed in countless ways. As I've argued previously, the true purpose of this endless expansion of state power in the name of "terrorism" is control over anticipated domestic protest and unrest.

It should be anything but surprising that the FBI - drowning in counter-terrorism money, power and other resources - will apply the term "terrorism" to any group it dislikes and wants to control and suppress (thus ushering in all of the powers institutionalized against "terrorists"). Those who supported (or acquiesced to) this expansion of unaccountable government power because they assumed it would only be used against Those Muslims not only embraced a morally warped premise (I care about injustices only if they directly affect me), but also a factually false one, since abuses of power always - always - expand beyond their original application.

(5) At the excellent online journal Jadaliyya, Max Ajl has a very interesting essay that presents a much different view on the debate over the Chuck Hagel nomination specifically, and on US policy toward Iran and Israel more broadly. I don't necessarily endorse his argument, but it's well-argued, provocative and highly worth reading.

(6) After film critics almost unanimously gushed over Zero Dark Thirty and showered it with every accolade they could get their hands on, the list of writers, commentators, officials and others who have denounced the film for its favorable (and false) depiction of torture has grown quite rapidly. Here is the most updated list of just some of those critics; if you read just one of these essays, I'd recommend this by Oscar-winning filmmaker Alex Gibney.

In an LA Times Op-Ed strongly condemning the film, Terry McDermott reports that, at one point, FBI agents were chasing around geese in Central Park because Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, under torture, had told his CIA interrogators that al-Qaida "had explosives stuffed up their ass". Had Zero Dark Thirty included a depiction of that scene, it at least would have been mildly more entertaining, offering some redeeming value for this film. As is, there is basically none.


 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+101 # Michael_K 2012-12-26 14:49
They hate us because:

Johnson; Nixon-Kissinger ; Reagan; Bush 1; Clinton; Bush 2-Cheney; Obama... and whoever comes next in the downward spiral of American leadership.

If we had a soul and conscience left, we'd hate ourselves.
 
 
+3 # CandH 2012-12-27 12:50
"Historically, this latest eruption of American militarism at the start of the 21st Century is akin to that of America opening the 20th Century by means of the U.S.-instigated Spanish-America n War in 1898. Then the Republican administration of President William McKinley stole their colonial empire from Spain in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines; inflicted a near genocidal war against the Filipino people; while at the same time illegally annexing the Kingdom of Hawaii and subjecting the Native Hawaiian people (who call themselves the Kanaka Maoli) to near genocidal conditions. Additionally, McKinley’s military and colonial expansion into the Pacific was also designed to secure America’s economic exploitation of China pursuant to the euphemistic rubric of the “open door” policy. But over the next four decades America’s aggressive presence, policies, and practices in the “Pacific” would ineluctably pave the way for Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 194l, and thus America’s precipitation into the ongoing Second World War.

Today a century later the serial imperial aggressions launched and menaced by the Republican Bush Jr. administration and now the Democratic Obama administration are threatening to set off World War III." http://www.globalresearch.ca/unlimited-imperialism-and-the-threat-of-world-war-iii-u-s-militarism-at-the-start-of-the-21st-century/5316852
 
 
-2 # DevinMacGregor 2012-12-27 14:17
Japan's attack as Pearl Harbor was for its own selfish imperial goals of bringing under its heal all of asia, not due to any wrong doing on our part in the Pacific. It attacked us to get us out of their way to dominate Asia. ANY US presence in Asia whether passing out candy to children would had lead to Pearl Harbor. If we had not refused to sell them oil and cut off their mineral supplies then no Pearl Harbor may have happened as well. The US was going into WWII whether we liked to or not. German Uboats had already been attacking US freighters off our east coast.
 
 
+3 # CandH 2012-12-29 21:50
Sorry, the actual record about Pearl Harbor shows otherwise. Nothing happens in a vacuum and without a myriad of precedents. The propaganda surrounding the US myth you cite is, finally, being debunked on a more open and honest front.

Checkout: Oliver Stone's and Peter Kuznick's new series: "Untold History of the US" http://www.sho.com/sho/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-united-states/home
 
 
0 # Martintfre 2012-12-31 10:47
Partial list -- at least need to go back to 1953 when we overthrew Musideck(sp?) the democratically elected leader of Iran and propped up the Shaw Respigh (again spelling?) who's savak police were more then simply a force for domestic peace.
 
 
+80 # Depressionborn 2012-12-26 18:22
The question is not why do they hate us, that answer is obvious. The question is why are we in the fight. For that, there seems no answer except for profit, which makes no sense.
 
 
+46 # unitedwestand 2012-12-26 23:16
Whose profit? Not the our lowly selves, but war profiteers and the corporations, (oil companies) Haliburton, military, Pentagon. No war has ever been wagered for the good of the people, they have always been for profit or for the powerful, they rest of us, well we just have to bleed or die & collect the crumbs from the wealthy.
 
 
+15 # wantrealdemocracy 2012-12-27 12:59
We have the power to end this. We must stop voting for the bastards that are in charge of our government and who ignore the voice of the people. We need democracy and the only way to change this rotten government is to wrest it back from the banksters. Don't feed the beast!! Take your money out of the banks. Pay with cash as much as you can and keep what you need to pay bills in a local credit union.
 
 
+5 # Michael_K 2012-12-28 09:48
Quoting unitedwestand:
Whose profit? Not the our lowly selves, but war profiteers and the corporations, (oil companies) Haliburton, military, Pentagon. No war has ever been wagered for the good of the people, they have always been for profit or for the powerful, they rest of us, well we just have to bleed or die & collect the crumbs from the wealthy.


"War Is A Racket" by General Smedley Darlington Butler

Read it! It's just as true today as it ever was.
 
 
+15 # Activista 2012-12-26 20:13
"the regime in Qatar, which owns the network, has been increasingly shaping and dictating the news network's coverage of events to advance the regime's interests. In particular, he cites Al Jazeera's coverage of the conflicts in Libya and Syria .."
Hello - QATAR - war propaganda - these are not journalists - these are paid war propagandists.
 
 
+37 # flippancy 2012-12-26 20:49
The voice of reason? That's a stab at irony, right?
 
 
-15 # randyjet 2012-12-26 21:13
This is so silly it is actually funny. Just one little item,the US did NOT kill Qaddafi. It was Libyans themselves who did it. I also recall the Bolsheviks murdered the entire Russian royal family, while it was unfortunate, it was also necessary given the circumstances. If you take up arms, you run the risk of being killed, tough.
 
 
+15 # reiverpacific 2012-12-27 11:06
Quoting randyjet:
This is so silly it is actually funny. Just one little item,the US did NOT kill Qaddafi. It was Libyans themselves who did it. I also recall the Bolsheviks murdered the entire Russian royal family, while it was unfortunate, it was also necessary given the circumstances. If you take up arms, you run the risk of being killed, tough.

So you call drone surveillance and bombings (including within the "homeland") "taking up arms", eh?
Also, Quaddaffi's SON was killed by Reagan's attack on his compound in 1983 and his daughter narrowly escaped the same fate. I guess that doesn't matter a whit?
Now there's a good example of "why they hate us".
 
 
+1 # DevinMacGregor 2012-12-27 14:40
Nice stretch to what he said. We again did not kill Gadhafi. His son being killed in a US airstrike almost 30 years ago is not connected. What you are saying is funny in that it is irony. Note the mention of Gadhafi above was about Al Jazeera's coverage of Libya in that it is parroting the regime that controls it. A regime that wanted Gadhafi gone. A regime that ignores its own behavior and behavior of those it is supporting because of the people it wants gone. The US is being aaid to be hypocrites because we CONDONED the murder of Gadhafi and did not CONDEMN it. He was not killed by US drone attacks. But the people that hate us are more than likely the same ones who killed him. Hence the irony. Or are you implying with your wit that they hate us because we did not kill him in 1983 thus sparing them of all the deaths 29 years later to finally get rid of him? You see people hate us for differing reasons. And a lot of it unfortunately is filled with irony.
 
 
+36 # E-Mon 2012-12-27 00:13
Evil is good and good is evil.... War is peace (if your pockets are being lined).
......"The drones have not killed the real Al Qaeda leaders, but they have increased the hatred toward America and are causing young men to join Al Qaeda to retaliate.".......
This may sound like an utter failure to people like us but to the people behind this it is a smashing success. Exactly what they want to happen.... Perpetual war! War means huge profits and tens of thousands of jobs in the M.I. Complex. Gotta justify that gargantuan defense budget. The M.I. Complex is "too big to fail" like the banks.
 
 
+5 # Doubter 2012-12-27 13:57
What would "we" do if we ran out of enemies and were unable to create new ones?
 
 
+21 # cordleycoit 2012-12-27 00:45
They hate us bexcause we abuse power in stupid ways. Supporting the paricte Princes and any tinpot dictator who will sell us oil. They hate us because we lie. We love torture and inflict it on the Third World. They hate because our economic system loots and corrupts every thin it touches, They hate us for our nonexistent schlock culture that pollutes the minds of children and the enfeebled. They hate us for touching them and shaking hands like we are stealing the very rings off their fingers, ur touch poisons them.
 
 
+15 # EgoSum01 2012-12-27 06:22
After the terrorist attack, everyone was afraid. Any Muslim might be a fanatic terrorist. Islam was branded a religion of hate and violence. Something had to be done. It was made obvious that the old laws were obsolete in the new order. But the news never said why Muslims were angry and radicalized, and had turned to terrorism. Some said it was religion, social injustice, or political ideology caused by bad foreign policy. But that was in the past, and thus past fixing. A quick solution was desired, and quickly passed. Safety was guaranteed.

After the shooting, everyone was afraid. Any gun owner might be a fanatic spree shooter. Guns were branded a tool of hate and violence. Something had to be done. It was made obvious that the old laws were obsolete in the new order. But the news never said why Americans were angry and radicalized, and buying so many guns. Some said it was mental illness, or economic and social frustration caused by bad domestic policy. But that was in the past, and thus past fixing. A quick solution was desired, and quickly passed. Safety was once again ensured.

But over time the news made people aware of ever present fears of attack, and threats of violence, by enemies from within and without. In order to preserve their freedom and way of life, it was ultimately necessary to amputate civil liberties – in order to preserve civil liberty. And so it went, until there was nothing left to preserve – except the power of the State.
 
 
+18 # kalpal 2012-12-27 06:30
The military uses drones to kill simply because they can. There is no other rational purpose involved. America gains nothing by killing civilians in pursuit of Al Qaeda insurgents. The notion that Yemenis are too poor to strike back is as ignorant and arrogant as Americans are generally wont to be.
 
 
+26 # jon 2012-12-27 07:27
And G. W. Bush said they hate us because of our freedom -- hilarious !!
 
 
+26 # futhark 2012-12-27 07:54
In my experience as a public school teacher, I've found that most 3rd or 4th grade children have a pretty good grasp of the concept that they are entitled to resent, hate, and attack anyone who harasses, bullies, or assaults them. Yet somehow the "best and brightest" in the highest administrative levels of our government have forgotten this bit of playground wisdom and think that those who are bullied and assaulted ought naturally to love us the more for it.

kapal, by the way, is correct. The American military machine is so enamored of its technical prowess that it is bound to employ its murderous toys without reference to any ethical compass. The Obama administration has been very remiss in not providing such guidance.
 
 
+17 # Ellioth 2012-12-27 08:00
The question is NOT "why do they hate us". It's more like, "how can we be so ignorant as to not understand why they hate us". American jingoism is a powerful elixer that hides truth, but does not eliminate truth. The next question is, "when will we (America) wake up to the truth about what we have done to this world that we have borrowed from our children?"
 
 
+12 # brenda 2012-12-27 09:47
Seems these days that I don't have a grasp of all this military enforcement either. But one thing I'm sure is going on, is the US Think Tank Military Strategy Mentors and the weapons creators are observing how their munitions are working and what they can do to make them better or proposals for new forms of war weapons. In case you didn't notice, I think the world of robotics has entered the infantry ground fighting effort as well. They now have a possibility of drone soldiers remotely piloted by soldiers from a well fortressed base. Star wars anyone?
The biblical verse that comes to mind is, "Who can make war with the beast?". I'll tell you what. I guarantee the Republican rich will have their hands in it. In truth they are heartless SOB's who enjoy monetary profits.
 
 
+11 # reiverpacific 2012-12-27 10:58
"This double standard is costing America its credibility across the region; and the message being understood is that if you are an ally of America, then you can get away with abusing human rights." [quote from article].
This is nothing new and has been going on since 1953 in Iran and even before in The Phillipines, Mexico, to the indigenous peoples of the "homeland" and much more.
The arrogance of "American Exceptionalism" goes on unabated and the drones are just an acceleration thereof.
It's most discouraging that Obama is knowingly and even willingly helping Al Queda and possibly even the Taliban to recruit young me whose families or fellow citizens have been murdered as "collateral damage" with no attempts at apology or restitution.
Just heard yesterday that all members of a group gathered in Libya were killed by a drone attack who "MAY HAVE BEEN members of al- Qaeda or MAY JUST HAVE BEEN CIVILIANS"!!! Or in other words, who cares? They were just Arabs after all, not really people!
Surgical strikes huh?
And I had hoped that Obama would make the US a bit less hated after the Dimwits criminal cabal.
 
 
+3 # ProfessorJack 2012-12-27 11:02
Of course people anywhere resent being shot, or shot at. This piece suggests that Obama is unaware of the blow-back, and if he knew about it, would plainly order a worldwide stand down, improving the situation at once. Is that your belief?
 
 
-3 # brenda 2012-12-27 13:08
It appears that many civilians in the Middle East actually hide these terrorists and a few very rich support their cause by contributing large sums of cash. The kind of cash that went into supporting the 911 suicide hijackers. That is unfortunate, because it is the terrorists that are holding back the Islamic nation from having streets that are safe. I need to point out that the Radical Extremist Terrorists kill anyone, Muslim or Western World people, who are for anything that is not considered as acceptable to the Radical Extremist Islamists agenda. This includes allowing a democracy to flourish in that nation. Yes we could get out of those two countries if everyone agreed to put down their weapons and make peace. But it's a known fact that the Extremists want to impose their Sharia laws and dress codes on that nation. It's also understood that the Extremists want to bring about war between the East and West. They also believe that they will win this war. They are fools who lack any brains. To kill innocent people is their weapon. I guess President Obama is dammed if he does or dammed if he doesn't support that country with military help.
 
 
0 # DevinMacGregor 2012-12-27 14:57
That is the sad part Brenda. Even though we as in the US need to self reflect many of those that hate us also want to empose their own dictatorship upon their own people. They are not looking at implementing any sort of democracy but establishing conservative religious based regimes. The beef against the Saudis is not simply they do not allow freedoms but they are NOT conservative enough. This is no different in ideology of our own Taliban, the Christian Right. They have without arms taken hostage of our govt right now where as their Islamic counterparts largely do not have control of the "Islamic World" and have been making attacks in every country of that world since 9/11. What we get as well which is unfortunate is the Christian Left who instead of condemning the Christian Right often more than not defends Christianity. Their Muslim counterparts do the same. Because to come out and openly condemn either conservative movement is seen as questioning that faith while others by proxy condone those actions because they believe the overall tone of the rationale bahind the attacks is justified. In short they attach their own grievances to the cause of thse extremists thus legitimixing them.
 
 
0 # futhark 2012-12-28 22:15
brenda, are you still buying into the orthodox "Radical Extremist Islamist terrorists did it" hypothesis for the the 9/11 attacks? More than a decade of research has pretty well shown anyone who is rational and can look at objective evidence that this hypothesis is fatally flawed. Since the 9/11 attacks were the motivation for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the justification for such abominations as the PATRIOT Act, it is worth reexamining what really happened and who are the most likely culprits. They are the very same ones who do not want democracy to flourish in the United States of America. They are the ones who hoped and prayed for a "New Pearl Harbor". They are the ones who had the means and motivation to launch expensive wars of aggression and to further empower the surveillance state apparatus. They are the Neocons.

A good place to start is looking at the organization "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth". Their explosive evidence may change your whole perspective on these issues. 9/11 was an attack on America, but it was an internal coup, not planned or executed by the Islamic bogeymen we have been told over the past 11 years needed to be to hunt down and killed. None of the deadly force exercised by the American military in the past decade has been ethically justified.
 
 
+6 # wrknight 2012-12-27 17:16
It seems many consider this phenomenon to have recent beginnings. They need to read the book "The Ugly American" by Wm. Lederer published in 1958. Even then, the phenomenon wasn't new.

Many in the world hate Americans because of the double standards we apply in our foreign policy. If a country has resources that we can exploit, a friendly government can get away with any human rights abuses. If a country with exploitable resources has an unfriendly government, we condemn any human rights abuses and advocate or even support its overthrow. But if the country has no wealth to exploit, we ignore any human rights abuses by its government.

This has been going on for over a century. It will continue so long as our foreign policy is dictated by the 1% who are in a position to exploit the resources of other countries. That foreign policy will continue so long as the 1% are allowed to purchase the elected officials who sanction their policies. And the exploited peoples of those countries will continue to hate us.

Never forget Pogo's famous quote, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
 
 
+2 # mdhome 2012-12-28 05:30
Maybe the Pogo quote should be modified to "We have met the enemy and he is the 1%"
 
 
0 # wrknight 2012-12-29 15:49
Indeed he is. But it still falls back on the American people who elect politicians that write laws allowing the 1% to exploit whoever, wherever and whenever they want at the expense of everyone else. So while the enemy is the 1%, he is also the rest of us who permit the 1% to get away with it.

We are supposedly a government of the people, by the people and for the people; but when the people refuse to govern, the privileged will happily oblige them.
 
 
+1 # rlhollow 2012-12-27 22:39
In the last 10 years, whenever I view a WW II movie, I always imagine the dialogue of the Nazis includes "Why do they hate us?"
 
 
+1 # paul.baer 2012-12-28 17:35
Why stop (start?) with Johnson? Eisenhower was President when we overthrew (or helped overthrow) Mossadegh in Iran (1953) and Arbenz in Guatemala (1954). Truman backed the pro-fascist Monarchists in the Greek Civil war in 1948 (to say nothing of atom-bombing the Japanese). Roosevelt firebombed Japan and Germany. Being an American president requires you to be a war criminal.
 
 
-1 # Artemis 2012-12-30 12:20
Re: Zero Dark Thirty
Another woman filmmaker bites the dust. Up their with the big boys Bigelow has sacrificed intelligence and decency.
 
 
-2 # Martintfre 2012-12-31 10:45
Obama has killed more innocents then all the rest of the Nobel prize winners combined.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN