[News] 45 Top Lies From Obama’s UN Speech
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Wed Sep 25 12:38:38 EDT 2013
September 25, 2013
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/25/45-top-lies-from-obamas-un-speech/
*The Fog Machine*
45 Top Lies From Obama’s UN Speech
by DAVID SWANSON
1. President Obama’s opening lines at the U.N. on Tuesday looked down on
people who would think to settle disputes with war. Obama was
disingenuously avoiding the fact that earlier this month he sought to
drop missiles into a country to “send a message” but was blocked by the
U.S. Congress, the U.N., the nations of the world, and popular
opposition — after which Obama arrived at diplomacy as a last resort.
2. “It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking.”
Actually, it took one. The second resulted in a half-step backwards in
“our thinking.” The Kellogg-Briand Pact banned all war. The U.N. Charter
re-legalized wars purporting to be either defensive or U.N.-authorized.
3. “[P]eople are being lifted out of poverty,” Obama said, crediting
actions by himself and others in response to the economic crash of five
years ago. But downward global trends in poverty are steady and long
pre-date Obama’s entry into politics. And such a trend does not exist in
the U.S.
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/09/17/223373452/poverty-rate-unchanged-in-2012>
4. “Together, we have also worked to end a decade of war,” Obama said.
In reality, Obama pushed Iraq hard to allow that occupation to continue,
and was rejected just as Congress rejected his missiles-for-Syria
proposal. Obama expanded the war on Afghanistan. Obama expanded, after
essentially creating, drone wars. Obama has increased global U.S. troop
presence, global U.S. weapons sales, and the size of the world’s largest
military. He’s put “special” forces into many countries, waged a war on
Libya, and pushed for an attack on Syria. How does all of this “end a
decade of war”? And how did his predecessor get a decade in office anyway?
5. “Next year, an international coalition will end its war in
Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al
Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.” In reality, Bruce Riedel, who
coordinated a review of Afghanistan policy for President Obama said,
“The pressure we’ve put on [jihadist forces] in the past year has also
drawn them together, meaning that the network of alliances is growing
stronger not weaker.” (/New York Times,/ May 9, 2010.)
6. “We have limited the use of drones.” Bush drone strikes in Pakistan:
51. Obama drone strikes in Pakistan: 323
<http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/blog/category/projects/drones/>.
7. “… so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat
to the United States where capture is not feasible.” On June 7, 2013,
Yemeni tribal leader Saleh Bin Fareed told /Democracy Now/ that Anwar al
Awlaki could have been turned over and put on trial, but “they never
asked us.” In numerous other cases it is evident that drone strike
victims could have been arrested if that avenue had ever been attempted.
A memorable example was the November 2011 drone killing in Pakistan of
16-year-old Tariq Aziz, days after he’d attended an anti-drone meeting
in the capital, where he might easily have been arrested — had he been
charged with some crime. This weeks drone victims, like all the others,
had never been indicted or their arrest sought.
8. “… and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties.” There
are hundreds of confirmed
<http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/blog/category/projects/drones/>
civilian dead from U.S. drones, something the Obama administration seems
inclined to
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/24/us-accused-drone-hearing-lawyer-visa-pakistan>
keep as quiet as possible.
9. “And the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction casts a
shadow over the pursuit of peace.” In reality, President Obama is not
pursuing peace or the control of such weapons or their reduction and
elimination in all countries, only particular countries. And the United
States remains the top possessor of weapons of mass destruction and the
top supplier of weapons to the world.
10. “[In Syria, P]eaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were
met with repression and slaughter. … America and others have worked to
bolster the moderate opposition.” In fact, the United States has armed a
violent opposition intent on waging war and heavily influenced if not
dominated by foreign fighters and fanatics.
11. “[T]he regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more
than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.” Maybe, but where’s
the evidence? Even Colin Powell brought (faked) evidence.
12. “How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East?” This
suggests that the United States isn’t /causing/ conflicts in the Middle
East or aggravating them prior to altering its position and
“responding.” In fact, arming and supporting brutal governments in
Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Israel, etc., is behavior that could do a
great deal of good simply by ceasing.
13. “How do we address the choice of standing callously by while
children are subjected to nerve gas, or embroiling ourselves in someone
else’s civil war?” That isn’t a complete list of choices, as Obama
discovered when Russia called Kerry’s bluff and diplomacy became a
choice, just as disarmament and de-escalation and pressure for a
ceasefire are choices. Telling Saudi Arabia “Stop arming the war in
Syria or no more cluster bombs for you,” is a choice.
14. “What is the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the
stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized
conduct?” Force doesn’t have a role in civilized conduct, the most basic
standard of which is relations without the use of force.
15. “[T]he international community must enforce the ban on chemical
weapons.” Except against Israel or the United States.
16. “… and Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.” This was
good of Obama to recognize Iran’s suffering, but it would have been
better of him to recall where Iraq acquired some of its weapons of mass
destruction.
17. “It is an insult to human reason — and to the legitimacy of this
institution — to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out
this attack.” Really? In the absence of evidence, skepticism isn’t
reasonable for this Colin-Powelled institution, the same U.N. that was
told Libya would be a rescue and watched it become a war aimed at
illegally overthrowing a government? Trust us?
18. “Now, there must be a strong Security Council Resolution to verify
that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be
consequences if they fail to do so.” Meaning war? What about the U.N.’s
commitment to oppose war? What about the United States’ violation of its
commitments to destroy the chemical weapons sitting in Kentucky and
Colorado? “Consequences” for the U.S. too?
19. “I do not believe that military action — by those within Syria, or
by external powers — can achieve a lasting peace.” Yet, the U.S.
government is shipping weapons into that action.
20. “Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who
will lead Syria … Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens
and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a
badly fractured country.” The Syrians should decide their own fate as
long as they decide it the way I tell them to.
21. “[N]or does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being
of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of
chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe-haven for
terrorists.” That’s funny. Elsewhere, you’ve said
<http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/>
that weakening Syria would weaken Iran.
22. “[W]e will be providing an additional $340 million [for aid].” And
vastly more for weapons.
23. “We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the
world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on
imported oil…” That first remarkably honest sentence is only honest if
you don’t think about what “free flow” means. The second sentence points
to a real, if slow, trend but obscures the fact that only 40%
<http://www.npr.org/2012/04/11/150444802/where-does-america-get-oil-you-may-be-surprised>
of the oil the U.S. uses comes from the U.S., which doesn’t count much
of the oil the U.S. military uses while “ensuring the free flow.” Nor is
switching to small domestic supplies a long-term solution as switching
to sustainable energy would be.
24. “But when it’s necessary to defend the United States against
terrorist attacks, we will take direct action.” In Libya? Syria? Where
does this make any sense, as U.S. actions generate rather than eliminate
terrorism? Michael Boyle, part of Obama’s counter-terrorism group during
his 2008 election campaign, says the use of drones is having “adverse
strategic effects that have not been properly weighed against the
tactical gains associated with killing terrorists … . The vast increase
in the number of deaths of low-ranking operatives has deepened political
resistance to the US programme in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries.”
(/The Guardian, /January 7, 2013.) Why is Canada not obliged to bomb the
world to “defend against terrorist attacks”?
25. “Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a
threat to our own national security …” We who? How? Congress just
rejected this ludicrous claim. Ninety percent of this country laughed at it.
26. “[W]e reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a
nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the global
non-proliferation regime.” By Israel which has done this, or by Iran
which all evidence suggests has not?
27. “We deeply believe it is in our interest to see a Middle East and
North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous,” we just choose to work
against that deep belief and to sell or give vast quantities of weapons
to brutal dictatorships and monarchies.
28. “Iraq shows us that democracy cannot be imposed by force.” This
could have been true had the U.S. attempted to impose democracy.
29. “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Iran’s what?
30. “Arab-Israeli conflict.” That’s a misleading way of naming the
conflict between the government of Israel and the people it ethnically
cleanses, occupies, and abuses — including with chemical weapons.
31. “[A]n Iranian government that has … threatened our ally Israel with
destruction.” It hasn’t. And piling up the lies about Iran will make
Iran less eager to talk. Just watch.
32. “We are not seeking regime change.” That’s not what Kerry told
Congress, in between telling Congress just the opposite. Also, see above
in this same speech: “a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed
children to death cannot regain the legitimacy….”
33. “We insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council
resolutions.” Among Iran, the U.S., and Israel, it’s Iran that seems to
be complying.
34. “We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian
people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course.” More moderate than
what? Threatening to destroy Israel and creating nukes?
35. “[T]heir own sovereign state.” There’s nowhere left for Palestine to
create such a separate state.
36. “Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state.” Both, huh?
37. “When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt … we chose to
support those who called for change” … the minute everyone else was
dead, exiled, or imprisoned.
38. “[T]rue democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights, the
rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society.
That remains our interest today.” Just not in our own country and
certainly not in places that buy some of the biggest piles of our weapons.
39. “But we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with
our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means
of suppressing dissent,” and if you don’t believe me, ask the Occupy
movement — Happy Second Birthday, you guys! I SHUT YOU DOWN, bwa ha ha
ha ha.
40. “This includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue
to surface in places like Iraq, Syria and Bahrain.” One liberated, one
targeted, and one provided with support and weaponry and former U.S.
police chiefs to lead the skull cracking.
41. “[A] vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.”
All criminal outrages /should/ have a vacuum of leadership. “Who would
bomb countries if we don’t do it?” is the wrong question.
42. “Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional — in
part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood
and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but
for the interests of all.” When was that? The United States certainly
comes in at far less than exceptional in terms of per-capita
humanitarian aid. Its humanitarian bombing that Obama has in mind, but
it’s never benefitted humanity.
43. “And in Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to
protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because
of what we did there, countless lives were saved, and a tyrant could not
kill his way back to power.” The White House claimed that Gaddafi had
threated to massacre the people of Benghazi with “no mercy,” but the
/New York Times/ reported that Gaddafi’s threat was directed at rebel
fighters, not civilians, and that Gaddafi promised amnesty for those
“who throw their weapons away.” Gaddafi also offered to allow rebel
fighters to escape to Egypt if they preferred not to fight to the death.
Yet President Obama warned of imminent genocide. What Gaddafi really
threatened fits with his past behavior. There were other opportunities
for massacres had he wished to commit massacres, in Zawiya, Misurata, or
Ajdabiya. He did not do so. After extensive fighting in Misurata, a
report by Human Rights Watch made clear that Gaddafi had targeted
fighters, not civilians. Of 400,000 people in Misurata, 257 died in two
months of fighting. Out of 949 wounded, less than 3 percent were women.
More likely than genocide was defeat for the rebels, the same rebels who
warned Western media of the looming genocide, the same rebels who the
/New York Times/ said “feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their
propaganda” and who were “making vastly inflated claims of [Gaddafi's]
barbaric behavior.” The result of NATO joining the war was probably more
killing, not less. It certainly extended a war that looked likely to end
soon with a victory for Gaddafi.
44. “Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.” No, the
war was ending, and Libya /IS/ engulfed in bloodshed. In March 2011, the
African Union had a plan for peace in Libya but was prevented by NATO,
through the creation of a “no fly” zone and the initiation of bombing,
to travel to Libya to discuss it. In April, the African Union was able
to discuss its plan with Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi, and he
expressed his agreement. NATO, which had obtained a U.N. authorization
to protect Libyans alleged to be in danger but no authorization to
continue bombing the country or to overthrow the government, continued
bombing the country and overthrowing the government.
45. [S]overeignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton
murder.” Says a man who reads through a list
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>
of potential murder victims on Tuesdays and ticks off the ones he wants
murdered.
*/David Swanson/*/ is author of //War is a Lie
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0983083002/counterpunchmaga>. He
lives in Virginia./
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20130925/e85720c5/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list