911 counterterrorism richard clarke ron paul

Who's More Honest Than Obama on Military Matters?
obama afghan war corporatist troops home

Former Counterterrorism Czar Accuses CIA Officials of Cover-Up

An insider criticizes the CIA, a Lefty acknowledges Ron Paul, and mainstream media give voice to peace. We trim, blend, and append three 2011 articles from: (1) Truthout, Aug 11, on a coverup by J. Leopold (deputy managing editor of Truthout and author of the Los Angeles Times bestseller, News Junkie, a memoir); (2) Counterpunch, Apr 28 on Ron Paul who just came in a close second in the Iowa straw poll by C. Davis (who has covered Congress for public radio and Inter Press Service); and (3) USA Today, Aug 9, on ending wars by Medea Benjamin (co-founder of the human rights group Global Exchange and the peace group Code Pink).

by Jason Leopold, by Charles Davis, and by Medea Benjamin

Regarding 9/11, ex-counterterrorism officials have called into question the veracity of the various government probes that concluded who knew what and when.

A little-known military intelligence unit, unbeknownst to the various investigative bodies probing the terrorist attacks, was ordered by senior government officials to stop tracking Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's movements prior to 9/11.

Former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke has leveled explosive allegations against three former top CIA officials -- George Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee -- accusing them of knowingly withholding intelligence from the Bush and Clinton White House, the FBI, Immigration, the State and Defense Departments, Congress, and the 9/11 Commission.

To see the whole article, click here .

JJS: While some members of the US Government facilitate going to war, one candidate for US President campaigns on getting out.

Yeah, Ron Paul's good on the war stuff -- yawn -- but otherwise he's a right-wing reactionary, right? By contrast, Barak Obama -- war crimes and all -- is more cosmopolitan; even if he's made a few mistakes, he means well, right?

Actually, Obama has pushed for the largest military budget in world history, given trillions of dollars to Wall Street in bailouts and near-zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve, protected oil companies like BP from legal liability for environmental damages they cause -- from poisoning the Gulf to climate change -- and mandated that all Americans purchase the US health insurance industry's product. You might argue Paul's a corporatist, but there's no denying Obama's one.

Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize winner-in-chief, Paul would bring the troops home from not just Afghanistan and Iraq, but Europe, Korea, and Okinawa. Israel would have to carry out its war crimes on its own dime.

Paul would stop providing subsidies to corporate agriculture, nuclear energy and fossil fuels, while allowing class-action tort suits to proceed against oil and coal companies for the environmental damage they have wrought. Obama, by contrast, is providing billions to coal companies under the guise of "clean energy".

Look at the war on drugs: Obama has continued the same failed prohibitionist policies as his predecessors, maintaining a status quo that has placed 2.3 million -- or one in 100 -- Americans behind bars. Paul, on the other hand, has called for ending the drug war and said he would pardon non-violent offenders, which would be the single greatest reform a president could make in the domestic sphere, equivalent in magnitude to ending Jim Crow.

Liberals are willing to accept a few charred women and children in some country they'll never visit in exchange for increasing social welfare spending by 0.02 percent, or at least not cutting it by as much as a mean 'ol Rethuglican.

As someone who sees the electoral process as primarily a distraction -- something that diverts energy and attention from more effective means of reforming the system -- I don't much care who people vote for. But! I do have a problem with the notion that someone can bomb and/or militarily occupy Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya and earn more Progressive Points than the guy who would not do any of that.

To see the whole article, click here .

JJS: Not only is an anti-war candidate getting attention from the Left, so is a Lefty group getting a forum in the press.

Ten years of war in Afghanistan has left us a tragic loss of lives and an economy in tatters. Our presence in Afghanistan is not making America safer or significantly improving the lives of Afghans. It's time to get out.

Al-Qaeda fighters, the target of our invasion, have long ago moved on to Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Over 100,000 U.S. troops are now bogged down chasing an indigenous Afghan ragtag army, the Taliban, which has no interest in attacking anyone inside the United States. The only reason they are attacking U.S. soldiers is that U.S. soldiers are occupying their country.

The presence of U.S. troops actually strengthens the Taliban, who have learned to downplay their unpopular fundamentalist ideology and take advantage of popular discontent against foreign soldiers. Every time our forces kill Afghan civilians, which happens all too often, the Taliban gains new recruits.

Our troops have not brought stability and our massive development assistance has not brought prosperity. Afghans remain among the poorest people on earth, with one in five children dying before their fifth birthday and the average life expectancy a miserable 45 years.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, costing taxpayers several trillion dollars, have been major factors in the staggering debt. This $9 billion-a-month war is bankrupting America.

Our troops are being sacrificed to prop up a corrupt, unpopular government. The best way for the president to pay tribute to the soldiers who have died is to stop more soldiers from dying in vain. After 10 years of fighting a war the U.S. public no longer supports, he should declare an end to our military engagement and bring all the troops home, now.

To see the whole article, click here .

JJS: Wars eventually end, then start up again, until we all win and enjoy economic justice, something geonomics delivers.

---------------------

Editor Jeffery J. Smith runs the Forum on Geonomics.

Also see:

Nine Years After 9/11
http://www.progress.org/2010/alqaeda.htm

A rise of progressive libertarians in the US?
http://www.progress.org/2011/celente.htm

As China, the US, etc confront corruption
http://www.progress.org/2011/pawlenty.htm

Email this articleSign up for free Progress Report updates via email


What are your views? Share your opinions with The Progress Report:

Your name

Your email address

Your nation (or your state, if you're in the USA)

Check this box if you'd like to receive occasional Economic Justice announcements via email. No more than one every three weeks on average.


Page One Page Two Archive
Discussion Room Letters What's Geoism?

Henry Search Engine