Excerpt: "During President Barack Obama's first term, he generally was careful in making comments about world affairs - not that he was always completely honest but he was circumspect about outright lying. Over the past two years, however, he appears to have lost any such inhibitions."
President Obama addresses the United Nations. (photo: AP)
Obama's Propagandistic UN Address
27 September 14
�
uring President Barack Obama�s first term, he generally was careful in making comments about world affairs � not that he was always completely honest but he was circumspect about outright lying. Over the past two years, however, he appears to have lost any such inhibitions.
That�s the case even when he is engaged in something as serious as addressing the United Nations General Assembly on issues of war or peace as occurred both last year and this year. In September 2013, Obama made what he knew was a deceptive comment about the mysterious Sarin gas attack in Syria a month earlier. He did something similar on Wednesday in describing the Ukraine crisis.
Regarding the Sarin case, Obama knew before his 2013 speech that many of his own intelligence analysts believed Syrian rebels were behind the Aug. 21 attack that killed several hundred people outside Damascus. These analysts suspected the incident was part of a scheme to blame the government of President Bashar al-Assad and get the U.S. military to attack Assad�s forces. [See Consortiumnews.com�s �Fixing Intel Around Syria Policy� and �Was Turkey Behind Syria-Sarin Attack?�]
Despite this knowledge, Obama delivered a formal address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2013, declaring: �It�s an insult to human reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.�
Similarly, Obama knew the complex reality in Ukraine when he took to the podium on Wednesday. He knew that the crisis was instigated not by Russia but by the European Union and the United States. He knew that the elected President Viktor Yanukovych had been targeted for �regime change� by officials within the U.S. State Department, led by neoconservative Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who literally hand-picked the new leadership with the aid of U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who described the need to �midwife this thing.�
Obama knew that Nuland had told Ukrainian business leaders that the U.S. government had invested $5 billion in support of their �European aspirations� and that the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy had subsidized scores of �non-governmental organizations� to help destabilize the Yanukovych government. He also knew the key role played by Ukraine�s neo-Nazi militias in seizing presidential buildings on Feb. 22 and forcing Yanukovych�s officials to flee for their lives.
Obama was aware, too, that the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine had rejected this coup regime and rose up in resistance to the imposition of what many saw as illegitimate authority. He knew that the people of Crimea � faced with this coup regime in Kiev � voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, a move the Russian government supported and accepted.
Obama knew that the Kiev regime brutalized southern and eastern Ukraine, with the regime�s activists burning alive dozens of ethnic Russian protesters in Odessa and its military killing thousands with heavy weaponry fired into towns and cities of eastern Ukraine. The coup regime in Kiev even dispatched Nazi militias, such as the Azov battalion, to engage in bloody street fighting � the first time since World War II that any government had deployed armed Nazi forces to attack a European population. Obama knew that, too. [See Consortiumnews.com�s �Ukraine�s �Romantic� Nazi Storm Troopers.�]
Obama also knew that some of his own intelligence analysts had concluded that extremist elements within the Ukrainian government were probably responsible for the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on July 17, possibly using anti-aircraft missiles deployed close to rebel-controlled territory and aided by one or more Ukrainian fighter planes in the air. Obama knew, too, that the Ukrainian military attacked the crash site, driving investigators away and apparently setting fire to a wheat field containing remnants of the plane. [See Consortiumnews.com�s �Flight 17 Shoot-down Scenario Shifts.�]
Obama�s Ukraine Tale
Yet, this is how Obama presented the Ukrainian crisis to the world: �Recently, Russia�s actions in Ukraine challenge this post-[World War II] order. Here are the facts. After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled. Against the will of the government in Kyiv, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands.
�When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border.
�This is a vision of the world in which might makes right � a world in which one nation�s borders can be redrawn by another, and civilized people are not allowed to recover the remains of their loved ones because of the truth that might be revealed.
�America stands for something different. We believe that right makes might � that bigger nations should not be able to bully smaller ones, and that people should be able to choose their own future. And these are simple truths, but they must be defended. America and our allies will support the people of Ukraine as they develop their democracy and economy.
�We will reinforce our NATO Allies and uphold our commitment to collective self-defense. We will impose a cost on Russia for aggression, and we will counter falsehoods with the truth. And we call upon others to join us on the right side of history � for while small gains can be won at the barrel of a gun, they will ultimately be turned back if enough voices support the freedom of nations and peoples to make their own decisions.�
Becoming Bush
An honest person would have described all these events very differently, including what �America stands for.� There could have been at least some acknowledgement of how the United States in the post-World War II era has often relied on �the barrel of a gun� � or cruise missiles and smart bombs � to impose its will on other countries, including �regime change� in Iraq in 2003 and in Libya in 2011.
Obama could have acknowledged, too, that the United States has often used coups d�etat to unseat governments not to its liking, even when the leaders have been popularly elected. A partial list would include Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Allende in Chile in 1973, Aristide in Haiti twice, Chavez in Venezuela briefly in 2002, Zelaya in Honduras in 2009, Morsi in Egypt in 2013, and now Yanukovych in Ukraine in 2014.
But instead Obama chose to present a simplistic, propagandistic version of what has transpired in Ukraine. Essentially he�s saying: It�s all Russia�s fault and everyone on the U.S. side is a good guy, on �the right side of history.�
It is interesting, however, that Obama did not come out directly and implicate Russia and the eastern Ukrainian rebels in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Given his access to detailed U.S. intelligence on the topic, he should have been able to point the finger directly, if indeed that�s what the facts showed. Instead, he played word games to create the impression that the rebels and Russia were to blame without actually spelling out any evidence against them.
This was similar to how President George W. Bush gave speeches in 2002 and 2003 juxtaposing the names Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to create the perception among Americans that the two were joined at the hip when they were, in fact, bitter enemies. Now, President Obama has come to replicate these Bush-like deceptions.
There is also new evidence of how the supposedly �popular� government in Kiev has been developing its democracy � by incarcerating people who dare to protest against its policies. As the New York Times� Andrew E. Kramer reported on Thursday, the Kiev regime has been padding its prisoner exchanges by throwing in political dissidents arrested far from any battlefield.
Kramer wrote: �The Ukrainians, � widely understood to be lacking enough prisoners of their own to effect a one-for-one exchange, set free a motley group of men, women and teenagers wearing tracksuits or dirty jeans, and taken, they said, from jails as far away as Kiev. �Soon enough, many of them were objecting to anybody who would listen there on the highway that they had never fought for pro-Russian separatists, and in fact had no idea how they ended up in a prisoner exchange in eastern Ukraine. �
�In interviews at their point of release and in a dormitory where former detainees are housed in Donetsk, a dozen men freed in exchanges over the weekend by the Ukrainian Army gave similar accounts. Some said they were arrested months ago in other parts of Ukraine for pro-Russian political actions, such as joining protests calling for autonomy in eastern Ukraine or for distributing leaflets.�
In other words, the Kiev regime does not only send Nazi storm troopers to attack people in eastern Ukraine but it jails citizens elsewhere who pass out leaflets.
Recognizing some of these darker truths � rather than simply reciting a litany of shiny propaganda � could have given President Obama�s UN address more credibility. Perhaps the old Obama would have made a stab at greater intellectual honesty but the new one has taken on the personality of his predecessor, who famously didn�t do nuance.
|
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. |
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
Who, among the US's highest regarded economists has not quietly approved of endless deficit spending for military adventurism around the globe, while aggressively restraining themselves from calling this horror show the global disaster that it is? Who among the US's highest regarded economists has loudly blown the whistle on the US economy's rapidly expanding ecological disaster while the narrowly defined "finance-centri c" economy rapidly expands from exploiting all of our natural and human resources, that financial expansion precisely due in every regard to that very same expanding ecological disaster?
As we have been far too patient and generous and restrained with our political elites, so we have been with our economic theory elites and our legal/judicial elites. Like the academics traditionally have increasingly become, those elites have allowed themselves to become too comfortable with & polite to others in their heartless "class" of elites to any longer imagine the urgently needed honesty and straight talk we all must practice for the planet to remain humanly inhabitable.
His support of deficit spending, against a tidal wave of opposition from the right, has been to increase job creation and reduce the impact of the recession on working stiffs.
This guy should not be the target of your criticism, although I agree that your criticism applies to most other "economic theory elites".
I think (but I don't know, of course) that most people wish the U.S. had never gone into Iraq in the first place, much less stayed there longer.
The world would be better off if the U.S. ruling class did not intervene wherever "U.S. interests (i.e., power and profit) were at stake.
Now the U.S. decries the lack of strong leadership among the "moderate" Islamic factions. If Saddam could see the U.S. stuck in the quicksand of the Middle East at present and likely continuing for decades to come, he'd be laughing his ass off.
Who are these "Most People" Kemo Sabi?
I never wanted us there in the fist place and do not want us going back.
And, why are you ignoring the Status of Forces Agreement in which the US HAD to leave Iraq when we did. (Signed by Geroge W)
My seat-of-the-pan ts is that inflation is way more than is pretended by the government. Their stats have not been trustable since Raygun. For one...they leave out everything that people with very little money buy almost exclusively...
Look at the high budget deficit after World War II ended, and how high employment not only drastically decreased it, but also expanded and enriched the U.S. middle class until the Chicago school economists took over under Nixon and then dominated under Reagan.
Deficit spending is the way out of an economic depression such as the one we are in, if it creates jobs (yes, government jobs as FDR created). Those newly-employed workers will then spend and pay taxes, which will bring down the deficit.
There is work to be done in repairing, rebuilding and modernizing our crumbling infrastructure; making our homes and businesses more energy efficient; expanding sustainable, non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy sources; and educating and hiring more teachers and doctors and nurses.
Neither major political party is interested in learning from the New Deal, because they have both been taken over by Wall Street and corporations.
But a Manhattan Project for sustainable, non-greenhouse gas-emitting, non-nuclear energy sources is what we need now, not wasting tens of billions of dollars bombing ISIS in Iraq and Syria to fulfill the neocon dream of regime change throughout the Middle East (except in Israel).
But if you take into account using debt as an instrument of investment, eventually you pay it off and make a profit; i.e., the return in tax revenues from a stimulated economy pays you back.
Given the current economic policies of the administration, the economy is unlikely to be restored in the near future. Nothing is being done to boost wages or create jobs for the chronically unemployed, who are not figured into the current official unemployment figure, which is way too low to be believable.
You seem to count on this worst-case scenario for your prognostication of doom. That covers only one of many possibilities, depending the next couple of elections and government action.