Alex Jones ~ Obama to Grandstand Over Boogie Man Osama’s Demise

 TheAlexJonesChannel | April 29 2012

Alex Jones focuses in on the crumbling government narratives and the known liars patching them together, including the on-going hoax surrounding the account we’ve been given of boogie man Osama’s demise. Barack Obama is poised to grandstand over the alleged death of Bin Laden on the May Day anniversary celebrations traditionally shared by pagans, socialists and the Illuminati in a lead up to his re-election bid for 2012. Meanwhile, House committee members led by Rep. Darrell Issa are making preparations to slap contempt charges on Attorney General Eric Holder over his role in covering up the Fast & Furious scandal and providing Congress with false information and misleading statements. Also, even establishment lapdog publications like the New York Times now admit the extensive role of the FBI in setting up alleged terror plots, often admittedly using entrapment to frame patsies as would be bombers in the public’s mind.

Charles P. Pierce ~ Why the Hell Are We in Afghanistan?

Esquire Magazine | RS_News | April 16 2012

OPINION ~ The attacks, they said, were “orchestrated.” Or, if the people reporting them were being particularly precise, the attacks were “carefully orchestrated.” The order of the adverbs is the order of battle. In Kabul on Sunday, Taliban fighters attacked the Afghan parliament building, and several embassies, and a NATO base. There also were attacks in the provinces. Those people old enough to remember the Tet Offensive can be excused if they mention the obvious parallels. Whatever its historical ambiguity as a military operation, Tet was a mind-quake in the United States. It forced the country to face squarely the sheer mendacity of its own government’s statements about the war as a war. It redefined for the United States what “winning” in Vietnam meant and it redefined it as an impossibility. In Afgantsy, his admirably lucid history of the Russian catastrophe in Afghanistan, Rodric Braithwaite quotes an old aphorism of which the guerrilla fighters in that country were fond: The foreigners have the watches, but the locals have the time.

But the fact is that, in terms of the domestic reaction it provoked, Tet was closer to a beginning than it was to an end. The war would grind on for seven more years, two years longer than the Americans chose to stay with it. The domestic antiwar movement was just building toward a crescendo that few people could imagine; the shootings at Kent State were still two years away. Lyndon Johnson was still president, and the presumptive nominee of his party. Nixon was still something of an underdog. Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. – they were still alive. The Vietnam War was just beginning to reach all corners of American society like a dark, living thing with a thousand faces.

Now, though, we’ve been in Afghanistan for 11 years – for 3,844 days, for nearly 520 billion dollars – and the war is less of a presence in our lives than Hilary Rosen is. The country has soured on the war; in an ABC-Washington Post poll taken two weeks ago, 66 percent of the respondents said they thought the war was not worth fighting. At the end of March, a CNN poll showed 72 percent of the people polled disapproved of the war. What happened in Kabul over the weekend was not Tet because Tet was the beginning of something, and the attacks on Sunday were not. What happened in Kabul was not Tet because there is no sign yet that there is the political will in this country of ours to put its money where its polling mouth is. The issues in the election are jobs and the economy, not the suppurating business in which the country never heavily invested its time or its attention anyway. It has been a war in a bell jar. It was conducted off the books and (relatively, but not really) on the cheap. It was such a secondary thing that, when George W. Bush and the unspeakable Richard Cheney wanted to gin up a case for war in Iraq, they were able to strip the military in Afghanistan and hardly anyone noticed or cared, except the people who had to live with the consequences in the field. It is shapeless now, with no discernable beginning, middle, or end. With Iraq wound down, there are rockets being fired at the parliament building, and the most basic questions are not being asked.

What in the hell are we doing over there anymore?

Continue reading

Chris Hedges ~ Why I’m Suing Barack Obama

Chris Hedges | Truthdig | January 16 2012

Chris Hedges

Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint Friday in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on my behalf as a plaintiff against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president Dec. 31.

The act authorizes the military in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled “Counter-Terrorism,” for the first time in more than 200 years, to carry out domestic policing. With this bill, which will take effect March 3, the military can indefinitely detain without trial any U.S. citizen deemed to be a terrorist or an accessory to terrorism. And suspects can be shipped by the military to our offshore penal colony in Guantanamo Bay and kept there until “the end of hostilities.” It is a catastrophic blow to civil liberties.

I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge. I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have “disappeared” into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.

Section 1031 of the bill defines a “covered person”—one subject to detention—as “a person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

The bill, however, does not define the terms “substantially supported,” “directly supported” or “associated forces.”

Continue reading