On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama burst onto the national scene with his famous anti-war speech at the Federal Plaza in Chicago. Mysteriously—or not so mysteriously per the 2008 Obama presidential campaign—video of the speech was “lost” except for thirteen seconds (shown in the above video). Many believe it was lost because the panning camera would have revealed a who’s who of radical leftists, anti-Semites, and “social justice” (that is socialist) unions in the audience.
It was only one step then from the 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech to the presidency. Along the way, Obama continued to rally his anti-war shock troops, complete with “Bush is a war criminal” posters and frothing protesters reminiscent of the anti-Vietnam War movement.
Oddly, or not so oddly, these anti-war protesters suddenly disappeared once Obama ascended to the presidency. But lo and behold, when the Occupy Wall Street movement got under way, the same radicals who were part of the anti-war movement were now part of the “pay your fair share” movement.
But “anti-war” President Obama proved himself nothing of the kind. He embraced the use of Orwellian doublespeak and secrecy to conduct endless wars that has made George W. Bush look like a pacifist.
The non-war war in Libya wasn’t a war because Obama never invoked the War Powers Act—or more correctly, he refused to seek approval for the war from Congress. Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta famously told Congress that seeking “international permission” from NATO was sufficient for action against Gaddafi. Obama’s rationale, on the other hand, for not seeking Congressional approval, was because we didn’t have any boots on the ground. Because we pulverized Gaddafi with a blitzkrieg of air power instead of a standing army, then, technically, war was never declared. According to this line of reasoning, the attack on Pearl Harbor was not actually a declaration of war.
Because of Obama’s non-war war in Libya, we have much of Libya (and North Africa for that matter) controlled by al-Qaeda, which led directly to the attack on the Benghazi consulate on the anniversary of 9/11.
Why didn’t Obama send in help to save Americans when the Benghazi consulate was attacked? We now know at least one stand down order was given. It is a forgone conclusion it was because Benghazi was ground zero for another one of Obama’s non-war wars—in Syria—in which Obama had been secretly shipping weapons to the Syrian “rebels” (and sending in help would have revealed this.)
The difference between Libya and Syria is that in Libya, the fact that the rebels were linked to al-Qaeda was kept under wraps. The Syrian rebels, on the other hand, make no bones about their links to al-Qaeda.
But this is only the surface of Obama’s non-war wars. John Brennan (simply a terrorism advisor to Obama until recently being named CIA director), according to the extensively research book Benghazi: The Definitive Report, has been waging a series of secret wars in North Africa and the Middle East against al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-linked groups for years. Brennan and his minions at JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) have not only been operating outside the purview of Congress, but outside the purview of the Pentagon and CIA. Former CIA head David Petraeus wasn’t even aware of Brennan’s secret wars!
According to Benghazi: The Definitive Report, the attack on the Benghazi consulate had nothing to do with, as we were told, an amateurish anti-Muslim YouTube video leading to a “protest turned violent”—now completely debunked by the release on Monday of the “revised” White House talking points—but was retaliation for John Brennan’s JSOC attacks on the al-Qaeda-linked group Ansar al-Sharia.
Not only in charge of dozens of secret wars, Brennan then as now is in charge of the vast drone program that has reached a frightening level. Obama authorized more drone strikes in the first ten months of his presidency than George W. Bush carried out in his entire eight-year presidency.
Obama authorizes, for the most part, what are called “signature” strikes, which means in a nut shell that you are never sure who you are killing. This of course translates into hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties, including women and children.
Jeremy Scahill’s just-published blockbuster book, Dirty Wars, gives a laundry list of the “anti-war” Obama’s real record as a warmonger.
Just six months into his presidency, on June 23, 2009, Obama authorized the use of a drone to fire multiple hellfire missiles to take out a single “high value target” (HVT) on a funeral procession! According to Dirty Wars:
Scores of civilians— estimates ranged between eighteen and forty-five— were killed. “After the prayers ended people were asking each other to leave the area as drones were hovering,” said a man who lost his leg in the attack. “First two drones fired two missiles, it created a havoc, there was smoke and dust everywhere. Injured people were crying and asking for help… they fired the third missile after a minute, and I fell on the ground.”
And this is just one instance of what many are calling war crimes. It is estimated that for every “high value target” killed by a drone, fifty civilians are killed, predominantly women and children.
All of this has been conveniently covered up by Obama’s compliant media, but it appears the wheels are now coming off the “anti-war” Obama bus.
Buried in the mainstream media amid the Boston Marathon terror attack the day before, on April 16, an organization called the Constitution Project released the mammoth 600 page study entitled “The Report of The Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment.”
The report comes to some shocking conclusions. It in effect makes the case that Barack Hussein Obama, under international law, is guilty of war crimes and should be indicted.
In the coming days, we will be looking at this mammoth document along with Jeremy Scahill’s equally mammoth study, discussing Obama’s Dirty Wars in order to determine if in fact Barack Hussein Obama is a war criminal who should be indicted for war crimes.
Loading ...
Obama’s War Is Coming
Obama’s war is coming. President Putin warned him. Prime Minister Netanyahu told him it was likely to happen. Now it may be here. Over the weekend, the Israeli Air Force launched missiles and jets at Damascus, Syria, the second bombing attack in the last forty eight hours.
First, on Friday, the Israeli Air Force bombed a military convoy inside Syria, which they said was transporting weapons to the Hezbollah group of fighters in Lebanon. This was caused, according to the Israelis, in response to the deal that Hezbollah has struck with the Syrian regime. By the account of the Israelis, Hezbollah is providing fighters to assist the regime against the rebels in Syria’s civil war. In return, Syria provides Hezbollah with rockets to use against Israel. The second strike on Saturday was against a military research site inside Syria on the outskirts of Damascus. This second strike has reportedly killed as many as 400 Syrians and injured an unknown number of others.
I am by no means a supporter of the Socialist Government in Syria. What I am warning of are the implications that are below the surface of this conflict. Syria’s primary ally in the region is Iran. Iran, as everyone knows, is no friend of Israel. The Russians have strategic interests in Syria as they have several sea ports there for resupplying their warships and support ships. The Russians have also had a long-standing relationship with Syria. While they do not support the regime’s actions often, they have always been able to depend upon the regime’s support for their needs in the region.
In order to understand how delicate the situation really is, one only needs to look at the last six weeks of activity in the region. Turkey and Syria recently had a stand-off concerning possible deployment of the Patriot Missile systems in the region. Israel and Turkey also recently (supposedly in conjunction with Obama’s trip to the region) patched up their differences over the deaths of Turkish citizens on the Mavi Marmara aid ship. When Turkey called for the deployment of the missile system to establish a no-fly zone over Syria, Russia responded with unscheduled military exercises in the Black Sea off the coast of Syria and with long range flights from Russia into Syria with its nuclear capable bombers. At the same time, China conducted unscheduled exercises in the China Seas. This was just after the conclusions of the BRICS meeting in South Africa, where they discussed the formation of an alternative to the IMF and committed to forming a new international monetary system of exchange that would not include the IMF. China is also currently in a deal with Iran for the country’s oil export for use in China.
It would not be the first time Israel was used as a surrogate operator for the furthering of the US policies in the region. In 1956, when Egypt annexed the Suez Canal, the UK and France conspired with Israel under the direction of (or at least the acquiescence of) the US. They got Israel to attack Egypt; and then once the war had started, they intervened under the premise of taking control of the canal to keep it safe for international trade.
No one at this stage knows if there is a replay of that method of staging an event to ensure the intervention of international forces to assert control over the region. What is evident though is that the world has changed greatly since the US and its allies through NATO and the UN could operate unrestrained to further their empires. The US and their allies have been warned by the increasingly strong BRICS against further interference in the Syrian Civil war. The stage is set for the conflict to begin at any moment. The future is in the hands of the leaders of the West. Will Obama’s plan to bring about the fall of the USA become a reality?
The US has a nearly crippling national debt; should an international conflict of global proportions come to pass, where would the US government acquire the funds it needs to operate the government on a day to day basis, let alone finance a global conflict? Would confidence in the US Dollar as the world’s reserve currency be sustained? If the US Dollar should lose its position, the consequences could be catastrophic for the western world.