RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Greenwald writes: "Long before Americans were introduced to the new 9/11 era super-villains called ISIS and Khorasan, senior Obama officials were openly and explicitly stating that America's 'war on terror,' already 12 years old, would last at least another decade."

Hillary Clinton. (photo: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images)
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images)


ALSO SEE: Rich Republicans Can't Wait
to Give Their Money to Jeb Bush

Key Democrats, Led by Hillary Clinton, Leave No Doubt That Endless War Is Official US Doctrine

By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept

07 October 14

 

ong before Americans were introduced to the new 9/11 era super-villains called ISIS and Khorasan, senior Obama officials were openly and explicitly stating that America’s “war on terror,” already 12 years old, would last at least another decade. At first, they injected these decrees only anonymously; in late 2012, The Washington Post - disclosing the administration’s secret creation of a “disposition matrix” to decide who should be killed, imprisoned without charges, or otherwise “disposed” of - reported these remarkable facts:

Among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al-Qaida continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight. . . . That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism.”

In May, 2013, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on whether it should revise the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). A committee member asked a senior Pentagon official, Assistant Secretary Michael Sheehan, how long the war on terror would last; his reply: “At least 10 to 20 years.” At least. A Pentagon spokesperson confirmed afterward “that Sheehan meant the conflict is likely to last 10 to 20 more years from today — atop the 12 years that the conflict has already lasted.” As Spencer Ackerman put it: “Welcome to America’s Thirty Years War,” one which – by the Obama administration’s own reasoning – has “no geographic limit.”

Listening to all this, Maine’s independent Sen. Angus King said: “This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I’ve been to since I’ve been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution today.” Former Bush DOJ lawyer Jack Goldsmith – himself an ardent advocate of broad presidential powers – was at the hearing and noted that nobody even knows against whom this endless war is being waged: “Amazingly, there is a very large question even in the Armed Services Committee about who the United States is at war against and where, and how those determinations are made.”

All of that received remarkably little attention given its obvious significance. But any doubts about whether Endless War – literally – is official American doctrine should be permanently erased by this week’s comments from two leading Democrats, both former top national security officials in the Obama administration, one of whom is likely to be the next American president.

Leon Panetta, the long-time Democratic Party operative who served as Obama’s Defense Secretary and CIA Director, said this week of Obama’s new bombing campaign: “I think we’re looking at kind of a 30-year war.” Only in America are new 30-year wars spoken of so casually, the way other countries speak of weather changes. He added that the war “will have to extend beyond Islamic State to include emerging threats in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and elsewhere.” And elsewhere: not just a new decades-long war with no temporal limits, but no geographic ones either. He criticized Obama – who has bombed 7 predominantly Muslim countries plus the Muslim minority in the Phillipines (almost double the number of countries Bush bombed) – for being insufficiently militaristic, despite the fact that Obama officials themselves have already instructed the public to think of The New War “in terms of years.”

Then we have Hillary Clinton (whom Panetta gushed would make a “great” president). At an event in Ottawa yesterday, she proclaimed that the fight against these “militants” will “be a long-term struggle” that should entail an “information war” as “well as an air war.” The new war, she said, is “essential” and the U.S. shies away from fighting it “at our peril.” Like Panetta (and most establishment Republicans), Clinton made clear in her book that virtually all of her disagreements with Obama’s foreign policy were the by-product of her view of Obama as insufficiently hawkish, militaristic and confrontational.

At this point, it is literally inconceivable to imagine the U.S. not at war. It would be shocking if that happened in our lifetime. U.S. officials are now all but openly saying this. “Endless War” is not dramatic rhetorical license but a precise description of America’s foreign policy.

It’s not hard to see why. A state of endless war justifies ever-increasing state power and secrecy and a further erosion of rights. It also entails a massive transfer of public wealth to the “homeland security” and weapons industry (which the US media deceptively calls the “defense sector”).

Just yesterday, Bloomberg reported: “Led by Lockheed Martin Group (LTM), the biggest U.S. defense companies are trading at record prices as shareholders reap rewards from escalating military conflicts around the world.” Particularly exciting is that “investors see rising sales for makers of missiles, drones and other weapons as the U.S. hits Islamic State fighters in Syria and Iraq”; moreover, “the U.S. also is the biggest foreign military supplier to Israel, which waged a 50-day offensive against the Hamas Islamic movement in the Gaza Strip.” ISIS is using U.S.-made ammunition and weapons, which means U.S. weapons companies get to supply all sides of The New Endless War; can you blame investors for being so giddy?

I vividly recall how, in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s killing, Obama partisans triumphantly declared that this would finally usher in the winding down of the War on Terror. On one superficial level, that view was understandable: it made sense if one assumes that the U.S. has been waging this war for its stated reasons and that it hopes to vanquish The Enemy and end the war.

But that is not, and never was, the purpose of the War on Terror. It was designed from the start to be endless. Both Bush and Obama officials have explicitly said that the war will last at least a generation. The nature of the “war,” and the theories that have accompanied it, is that it has no discernible enemy and no identifiable limits. More significantly, this “war” fuels itself, provides its own inexhaustible purpose, as it is precisely the policies justified in the name of Stopping Terrorism that actually ensure its spread (note how Panetta said the new U.S. war would have to include Libya, presumably to fight against those empowered by the last U.S. war there just 3 years ago).

This war – in all its ever-changing permutations – thus enables an endless supply of power and profit to flow to those political and economic factions that control the government regardless of election outcomes. And that’s all independent of the vicarious sense of joy, purpose and fulfillment which the sociopathic Washington class derives from waging risk-free wars, as Adam Smith so perfectly described in Wealth of Nations 235 years ago:

In great empires the people who live in the capital, and in the provinces remote from the scene of action, feel, many of them, scarce any inconveniency from the war; but enjoy, at their ease, the amusement of reading in the newspapers the exploits of their own fleets and armies. To them this amusement compensates the small difference between the taxes which they pay on account of the war, and those which they had been accustomed to pay in time of peace. They are commonly dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory from a longer continuance of the war.

The last thing the Washington political class and the economic elites who control it want is for this war to end. Anyone who doubts that should just look at the express statements from these leading Democrats, who wasted no time at all seizing on the latest Bad Guys to justify literally decades more of this profiteering and war-making.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+35 # randi1randi1@yahoo.com 2014-10-07 15:23
This "War" is intended to bring subversive elements, i.e., people who don't like that the US has occupied their country but have no political voice, into line with US foreign policy initiatives, primarily the exploitation of other people's natural resources or use of their country as a base of operations against others whom the US wishes to exploit. When did this all take hold? At least since the end of WWII, or maybe since the defeat of the Spanish in 1898. The US has the military and economic resources to subdue almost anyone in the world, and they won't relent until someone forces them to do so.
 
 
+7 # Helen Marshall 2014-10-08 10:18
It began with the assault of the European settlers on the Native Americans already present, killing the bison, distributing smallpox-laden blankets, etc. We have never truly even acknowledged what was done to these peoples, much less considered some kind of recompense.
 
 
+32 # politicfix 2014-10-07 17:56
Things have gone downhill since the assassination of JFK, and now we're slipping backwards on every level. There is so much selfishness, greed, from the Radcons, corporations, financiers, touts in the government who promote the financier's agenda, and even our Supreme Court, that it'll never be enough money and control for these parasites. Yes, parasites....Th ey absorb everything and produce nothing. They believe they must live even if everything, and everybody must die. So stop the big thief at the top and you will automatically stop the little thieves at the bottom.
 
 
+11 # bmiluski 2014-10-08 11:01
Things did NOT start going downhill since the assissination of JFK. Things started going downhill with the election of Ronald Reagan. A "B" actor playing the role of president.
 
 
+10 # dquandle 2014-10-08 11:24
Vietnam, which Kennedy started, and Johnson continued, at about 2,000,000 Vietnamese dead and 50,000 or so Americans, was pretty goddamned "downhill". For that matter, mass murder by A-bomb, dropped twice by a "Democrat" for no other reason than to scare a Soviet bogeyman into existence, was a horrendous abyss, never mind downhill…

Reagan was appalling, but his murderous vileness was shared equally by the sickening "Democrats" under whose current reign, the war against the world, described above, continues and escalates.
 
 
+30 # MsAnnaNOLA 2014-10-07 19:44
Well we don't have to vote for hawks.there is bound to be at least one candidate in the running that is not for endless war. All we need is one. I for one don't care what party they are from anymore. I refuse to vote for someone advocating endless was regardless if I want a woman president. We can do better.
 
 
+11 # ritawalpoleague 2014-10-08 07:33
We MUST do better, than accepting the warhawk and fossil 'fooler' caca that of course Hillary will be the Dem. nominee and get elected pres. in '16. There is a far better solution, and that is encouraging Vermont's Independent Sen., Bernie Sanders, to run as a Dem.. Bernie is a people and environment server and protector, unlike Hill the Shill, who is a warhawk and self server. Period.

SANDERS PANDERS NOT, TO THE 1%
 
 
-3 # brux 2014-10-08 07:53
>> hawks.there is bound to be at least one candidate in the running that is not for endless war.

Possibly, but there is no chance the American people will elect him or her. There is a reason for that.

The answer is for the military state and the social state to find a compromise existence, not wait for one to extinguish the other - first of all, it will not happen, but secondly it would be bad if it did.
 
 
+38 # AUCHMANNOCH 2014-10-07 20:02
This is not a 30 year war on terror - this is a 100 year war and America's armed police forces and America's spy agencies will ensure that the American people will be too afraid to rebel or make any meaningful fuss about the war or anything else that pisses them off.

OCCUPY was simply a warm up exercise. Police force training in Israel in 'crowd control' is just part of the preparations for the ongoing squashing of democracy and the more tightly (than now)continued rule of the military industrial elite.

"we have met the enemy and he is us."
 
 
+5 # brux 2014-10-08 07:57
>>> and America's spy agencies will ensure that the American people will be too afraid to rebel or make any meaningful fuss about the war or anything else that pisses them off.


I agree, so what is the sensible solution? To render unto Caesar, that is, for everyone to understand that the "defense department" is not going anywhere - and the object is to keep it from going too overboard .... and the major object of Liberals and Progressives should be economic and social - that is, Universal Single Payer for all, Free Education, Guaranteed Jobs, Living Wage .... this is what always happens, Liberals concentrate on stuff they cannot control - and thus lose.

To repeated do the same thing that does not work is called insanity.
 
 
+22 # Billy Bob 2014-10-07 20:14
This is why someone needs to challenge Killary in the primaries. We don't have the luxury of sitting on the sidelines and complaining that no one takes the 3rd parties seriously. If you seriously want to stop the neo-con / PNAC agenda, it's time to get behind any candidate who will challenge Killary IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.

Like it or not, this will not get any better, unless there's a Democrat in office working for our interests. There will not be a Green Party president. Sorry. It's just not going to happen. It's time to grow up, face reality, and work together to stop this agenda before it destroys us and our children's futures.
 
 
+12 # jimallyn 2014-10-08 00:27
Quoting Billy Bob:
There will not be a Green Party president. Sorry. It's just not going to happen. It's time to grow up, face reality, and work together to stop this agenda before it destroys us and our children's futures.


People like you are the problem here. Nothing will change until we stop voting for Democrats and Republicans and start voting for Greens and Socialists. And the sooner people like you acknowledge that, the better off we will all be.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2014-10-08 08:32
Yep, It's pretty much all my fault. It's my fault that 3rd parties have split the vote in nearly every presidential election since 1968, and still haven't produced one president, or even one liberal candidate (outside the Democratic Party) who could generate more than 3 percent of the vote.

MY FAULT.

Apparently, I'm the one responsible for the invention of math.

This is nothing personal. It IS math. It goes something like this:

The conservative ideology represents 1/2 of the pie. ALL OF THEM vote Republican. They get 1/2 of the pie.

Liberal ideology represents the other 1/2. They all argue about who "should" get that 1/2, and instead of working together, they divide their 1/2 into 3 or 4 more sections.

Since we live in a country where the winner takes all, GUESS WHO WINS AND GETS THE WHOLE PIE.

That's right, WE LOSE.... AGAIN!

And, it's ALL MY FAULT.

You just continue fueling your own sense of self-gratificat ion, while the rest of us deal with the consequences of another conservative president, that COULD HAVE been avoided, if "people like YOU" would have gotten involved in the primaries, rather than sitting on your self-righteous asses until election day, and then blaming the rest of us for not joining your little Pity Party of the few, proud, 3% voters who refuse to deal with reality.

Apparently, you're too rich for this election to have much impact on your daily lives.

I wish I was. Unfortunately, I'm not.

Don't blame me. Blame MATH.
 
 
+5 # bmiluski 2014-10-08 12:26
If the Greens and the Socialists want to be elected they need to start at the grass roots level.
 
 
+17 # sfintersect 2014-10-07 21:38
The primary problem is that War is so profitable for deep political pockets and corporate ptofiteers who make th municians and otherwise greece the wheels of war, and given the choice will always go for greed over the health and wellbeing of the country.
 
 
+2 # sfintersect 2014-10-07 21:38
The primary problem is that War is so profitable for deep political pockets and corporate ptofiteers who make th municians and otherwise greece the wheels of war, and given the choice will always go for greed over the health and wellbeing of the country.
 
 
+22 # beachboy 2014-10-07 22:59
Despite many good people in the US, this tragic and stupid arrogance as world dominator and abuser is the final position of the US elites, before the fall. We all, worldwide, are suffering from it, and are going to suffer more under it: The result of capitalism, coupled with ignorance and arrogance. Failed state.
 
 
+17 # curmudgeon 2014-10-08 00:08
Orwell must be spinning in his grave...

Who would have thought of '1984' as a blueprint?

A harbinger of futures past - mebbe...BUT a blueprint?
 
 
+13 # futhark 2014-10-08 02:06
In 2008, after 35 years of voting almost straight Democratic, I woke up to the fact that the Democratic Party is only the left hand puppet of the Plutocratic Party, which alternates support for Demonrats with Rethuglicans in order to give the simulacrum of democracy, but always making sure that their agenda is served. John Kerry's wimp-out in Ohio in 2004 demonstrated he was a puppet of the plutocrats. The best alternatives for peace were Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and the Green Party, all of whom received my support in 2008. My lifetime best presidential vote was for Cynthia McKinney in 2008, as she had the critical thinking skills and courage to speak out against not only the endless war and Zionist aggression, but also openly questioned the neocon orthodox hypothesis for the 9/11 attacks that helped get us into this mess in the beginning. Vote Green!
 
 
+5 # caphillprof 2014-10-08 05:17
I am certain this will all end badly, but I wonder how. Will external forces band together to inflict a deadly blow on the U.S. mainland. A blow that results not in a renewal of war but a U.S. surrender? Or will it be internal, will the masses rise an exact a social cleansing of the Hamptons, Silicon Valley and Fairfax County? Or will it be a combination, a one two punch aimed squarely at the Washington DC permanent government and their Wall Street enablers? How will this end other than badly?
 
 
+10 # Inspired Citizen 2014-10-08 05:22
The collapse of the empire is primed to coincide with the collapse of the climate on Earth. It is going to end very badly if the post-capitalist left doesn't somehow come to power in the oligarchic American system, an extremely low probability.
 
 
+9 # Inspired Citizen 2014-10-08 05:20
The Soviet Union peacefully deconstructed their empire, an extremely rare event in history. The US seems hell-bent on going down fighting, possibly taking millions of lives with it as the sun sets on the American empire.

Voting Green won't be enough and Sen. Sanders probably won't raise enough cash to compete with #CorruptClinton .
 
 
+18 # JimMichie 2014-10-08 05:45
Hillary, the hawk, Clinton is every bit as much a war-monger as Barack Obama and George W. Bush. The Democratic party is anything but democratic. America once was a developing democracy. Jimmy Carter was the last president to work on the development side. Both Obama and George W. Bush has turned America into a rapidly developing FASCIST EMPIRE!
 
 
+5 # Artemis 2014-10-08 06:10
MDWOE - most dangerous woman on earth.
 
 
+3 # fredboy 2014-10-08 06:56
War is industry now.

Even the markets depend on it.

Hillary lost me back in Arkansas when she turned her back and tolerated--and even supported--her husband's womanizing. Disgraceful. Zero morals. I believe she has and will turn her back on us and our national needs and interests.
 
 
+6 # RLF 2014-10-08 08:18
China makes everything else...we only make war and war supplies. We have to convince young people not to join the killing machine because it has nothing to do with fighting for freedom...just the opposite.
 
 
+2 # bmiluski 2014-10-08 12:29
Fo Fred........I suppose by your reasoning that women who stay with men that beat them also have zero morals.
 
 
+4 # fredboy 2014-10-08 14:03
No, that is idiotic. Women who stay with men who beat them--and men who stay with women who beat them--may have numerous influences that prompt such tragic decisions.

But a woman or a man who tolerates blatant infidelity is different. Especially when a child is present and becomes aware of such activities. Questions of honor, loyalty, and other factors arise.

I've investigated and written about both. The former is tragic, the latter disgraceful.
 
 
-1 # bmiluski 2014-10-09 08:41
fredboy.....the re is no differenc. There is NOTHING honorable or loyal about a man who beats a woman especially when there is a child involved. Who will, most likely, grow up to physically abuse their partner.
 
 
+7 # thekidde 2014-10-08 07:04
To quote Buffy Saint Marie "Fuck the war and bring our brothers home".
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2014-10-08 08:37
I LOVE Buffy Saint Marie.

Unfortunately, she was referring to people who didn't want to go to war, but were drafted.

Those days are long gone. The Pentagon "learned the lessons of Vietnam", which, to them, means:

-MORE PROPAGANDA

-------

We have almost no serious mainstream reporting about our new wars for profit.

Instead, we have insidious video game campaigns to brainwash & recruit younger and younger children to the cause, so they can learn early that "making people splatter is FUN".
 
 
+9 # walt 2014-10-08 07:33
There is no doubt. Hillary is a neocon war hawk and a Wall Street supporter.

If Americans want to see the "change we can believe in" that Obama failed to deliver, Clinton should NOT be the candidate for 2016. We are tired of fighting wars in the Middle East with our lives and tax dollars because Netanyau's Washington lobby demands it. It's time to get out of that mode and focus on the USA and our people. That would never happen with Hillary as president.
 
 
+5 # RLF 2014-10-08 08:19
It is not Netanyahu's war, it is the war of every american that demands the right to drive a giant SUV a hour to work and back every day.
 
 
+3 # brux 2014-10-08 07:40
>> Endless War Is Official US Doctrine

We learned a long time ago about what the world is like and what countries do, and we came to the conclusion that the only way to maintain our common defense is to be prepared. Already we would have eventually been over-run and taken over by Germany and Japan had we not entered WWII and acted.

Admittedly the US has gone way astray, but I worry to lose the baby with the bathwater should be become isolationist. The is US is an empire, which is the only consistent way it can do all this stuff.

The military is under civilian control and there is no draft, so - - - the Progressive direction should be to compromise and make sure that social programs have their space and that defense programs have theirs and both need to respect the other.

The problem is that extremists in the defense department want everything. The other problem is that the people do not focus on what is important and are scattered all over the place - really in total doing nothing to look after their interests.
 
 
+7 # John Escher 2014-10-08 08:05
Another fantastically good article from Glenn Greenwald. My only substantial questioning of the points it raises is whether we-- i.e., the power-mad politicians of this country who supposedly represent us-- are linked to the beheadings and maybe are behind them.

Am I being too dramatic? Perhaps.

But admiration of these dopes all of whom belong to the Republican party whether Democrats in name is the biggest problem this country faces.

The same sort of politicians led to the end of ancient Greece. Very simply, they make bad decisions.

We must not forget the Hillary who threatened to "obliterate" Iran. Nor the Leon who stood before a bunch of soldiers in Iraq and told them that our invasion of that country was due to 9/11 events. Very simply again, these people, like the Republicans they emulate, are dopes.

Easier to understand is the fearful Barack Obama, our first black president. Why shouldn't he be fearful?

I'll give him that. But his imposition of fear and hysteria on this country has been most unfortunate.
 
 
+7 # Kootenay Coyote 2014-10-08 10:07
i.e., War = $$$ x 1%.
 
 
+2 # Activista 2014-10-08 13:46
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/04/war-makes-us-poor/

Defense spending means that the government is pulling away resources from the uses determined by the market and instead using them to buy weapons and supplies and to pay for soldiers and other military personnel. In standard economic models, defense spending is a direct drain on the economy, reducing efficiency, slowing growth and costing jobs."
... the military-indust rial complex is killing America ... we forgot why Soviet Union disintegrated ... excessive military spending ..
 
 
+3 # fredboy 2014-10-08 14:05
If the "war" (yeah, right) is making money, the Clintons and Repugs are all for it.

I'm still putting my money on a bet that most Dems will prove they are really Dims and will vote for Hillary. Then they will whine their asses off when she fucks their kids' and grandkids' futures.
 
 
0 # MsAnnaNOLA 2014-10-09 08:22
What is the strategy? Strategery? Seriously how can our supposed leaders say with a straight face that we MUST have indefinite war? How can we just stand buy and listen to this drivel. It is utterly preposterous. A long war with no strategy, we already did that it was called Vietnam and it was an unmitigated disaster.
 
 
0 # The Voice of Reason 2014-10-09 18:05
Death profits. Bad karma at its worst. But when does the boomerang ever cut these bastards down at the knees?

What we need is a government that can't be corrupted. How could that ever come about. Let's see ... incorruptible ... can't be by us mere mortals who are prone to evil. Even this great democracy is based on the principle that government is corrupt and all we can do is try to lessen the corruption by splitting the branches.

But incorruptible ... who is there among us that can fill that category. Hmmmmm who indeed.

Oh that's right, someone who is truly divine! Not some religious leader bullcrap. You think Christian leaders are kooky, these Islamic leaders have control of governments, militaries, and oil. They can put people to death for having bad breath and your RSinners don't blink an eye.

But a divine government ... now that's something to go for. Only cares about making everyone wealthy (not rich, wealthy) and bringing the entire human race on the same level.

Any takers?
 
 
0 # RnR 2014-10-10 05:23
ZOG = Zionist Occupied Government
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2014-10-29 23:33
Quoting Glenn Greenwald:
I vividly recall how, in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s killing, Obama partisans triumphantly declared that this would finally usher in the winding down of the War on Terror. On one superficial level, that view was understandable: it made sense if one assumes that the U.S. has been waging this war for its stated reasons and that it hopes to vanquish The Enemy and end the war.

But that is not, and never was, the purpose of the War on Terror. It was designed from the start to be endless. Both Bush and Obama officials have explicitly said that the war will last at least a generation. The nature of the “war,” and the theories that have accompanied it, is that it has no discernible enemy and no identifiable limits. More significantly, this “war” fuels itself, provides its own inexhaustible purpose, as it is precisely the policies justified in the name of Stopping Terrorism that actually ensure its spread (note how Panetta said the new U.S. war would have to include Libya, presumably to fight against those empowered by the last U.S. war there just 3 years ago).


(Continued)
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2014-10-29 23:36
#

The first of those two paragraphs should read, "...I vividly recall how, in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s (SO-CALLED) killing, Obama partisans triumphantly declared that this would finally usher in the winding down of the War on Terror..."; because it was NOT bin Laden who was assassinated, but someone who looked somewhat like him (OBL himself died from kidney failure in December of 2001---and he is nothing but the "'cause célèbre' bogeyman, scapegoat, fallguy and patsy" to blame the beginnings of the endless war on, and to blame its continuance based on his alleged terrorist successors, all enemies which were created by the U.S. deep state shadow government through "al CIAduh(!)". Otherwise, why the hiding of the body, burying him at sea in completely un-Islamic fashion, and destroying the evidence, etc.?

(Continued)
 
 
0 # John S. Browne 2014-10-29 23:37
#

No, OBL's alleged assassination was a show-killing "in the fullness of time", to kill him off just when the orchestrators of the endless war deemed it the best opportunity to off him for the most "positive effect" in order to stir "'patriotic' sentiment", boost "Odrona's" popularity, and encourage endless public support for the perpetual war, imperialism, hubris, empire-building , destroying U.S.- and Western- national sovereignty, bringing them under international government and its ensuing global subjugation, enslavement and absolute hegemony, cementing a world government into place, as well as seeking to ensure public capitulation to the ceaseless evisceration of human rights and civil liberties, and True Liberty and Freedom, both at home and abroad, and to seek to ensure all of the foregoing.

#
 

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