by Stephen Lendman
Obama began discussing US ambassador Christopher Stevens. On September 11, he was killed in Benghazi, Libya
(subscribers get more
Obama inverted truth like he always does.
He claimed Stevens went there last year to help Libyans "cope with violent conflict, care for the wounded, and craft a vision for the future in which the rights of all Libyans would be respected."
"And after the revolution, he supported the birth of a new democracy, as Libyans held elections, and built new institutions, and began to move forward after decades of dictatorship."Fact check
Stevens was an imperial front man. He urged violent intervention. He supported NATO's killing machine throughout months of slaughter. He participated in Libya's destruction.
He helped turn Africa's most developed country into a charnel house. Tens of thousands were murdered. Multiples more were injured. Many more were displaced.
Mostly civilians were harmed. NATO attacks willfully targeted them. At issue was replacing another independent government
with a puppet one.
Casualties inflicted doing it aren't counted. Obama claimed Stevens "was killed in the city he helped to save." He bears responsibility for destroying it and much of Libya. He helped install its puppet government.
Obama continued extolling a war criminal. It takes one to know one. He blamed terrorists and Al Qaeda for killing him. Again he lied like he always does.
Mark Robertson and Finian Cunningham explained what Obama suppressed. Their Global Research article discussed Libya's Green Resistance
: the committed Jamahiriya loyalists. They're freedom fighters. They want imperial occupiers driven out.
Stevens "used a Tripoli hotel as his base, since the Green Resistance
had burned down the US embassy in the capital, Tripoli."
He moved to Benghazi. He thought he'd be safer there. He thought wrong. Green Resistance
fighters targeted him. On September 11, he was killed. The date was likely coincidental.
Obama tried distancing himself from the anti-Muslim hate film. It sparked violence in 30 or more countries. Israel's fingerprints are all over it. It also reflected virulent US anti-Islamic sentiment.
Since taking office, Obama waged war on Islam. Bush did before him. Ravaging one country after another is policy. Millions died. Millions more suffer horrendously. Human misery never is taken into account. Grief isn't in America's vocabulary.
Obama outrageously claimed America "has not and will not seek to dictate the outcome of democratic transitions abroad. (It's) the obligation of all leaders in all countries to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism."
Washington deplores democracy. It won't tolerate it at home or abroad. No nation in world history committed more violent extremism than America. Countless millions of corpses attest to its record. Viciousness defines its agenda. It long predated Obama's term in office.
Its unparalleled and unconscionable. Obama continues America's sordid tradition. He urged remembering that "Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism." He omitted explaining who bears most responsibility.
America's culture is violent. Its roots are long-standing. It's reflected worldwide and at home. Among all Western nations, it has by far the highest homicide rate. It has a passion for owning guns and using them.
Violent films are some of its most popular. Similar video games crowd out simpler, more innocent street play of earlier generations. Its society isn't called a rape culture for nothing. Women experience extreme violence. Usually it's committed by a husband, another relative, or someone they know.Major media
largely suppress it. Child and elder abuse are largely ignored. Imperial wars are called liberating ones. Peace, tranquility and safety are illusions.
Foreign wars, homeland repression, and domestic violence crowd them out. It begs the question. What kind of country glorifies mass killing, assaults and abuse? Why is pacifism considered sissy and unpatriotic?
What gives America the right to claim exceptionalism and moral superiority? How can it call itself indispensable? No nation anywhere matches its deplorable record.
Obama had the audacity to claim otherwise in New York. Imperial arrogance was on display. He railed unjustifiably against Iran. He barely stopped short of declaring war. Doing so would constitute naked aggression.Threatening Iran for Israel
Iran threatens no one. It's nuclear program is peaceful. World leaders know. US and Israeli intelligence know it. No matter. America threatens war. Perhaps it's planned sometime post-November elections.
Obama or Romney make no difference. Both represent two sides of the same coin. They're venal imperial scoundrels. In New York, Obama was blunt, saying:
"Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained."
"It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear arms race in the region and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty."
"That is why….the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (There's) still time, (but it's) not unlimited."
International law is clear. No nation may interfere in the internal affairs of others. None can dictate policy or wage preemptive war. America asserts the right for both unilaterally. Doing so reveals an out-of-control menace.
Israel matches its threat regionally. On September 23, Mossad-connected DEBKAfile (DF) headlined "Hamas signs binding military commitment to Iran-led war on Israel," saying:
Hamas co-founder and member of its leadership Mahoud al-Sahar, as well as Iranian deputy military commander Marwan Issa met earlier in September in Beirut.
DF claims they and Hezbollah agreed to wage war on Israel. Saying so inverts truth. They're committed to defending themselves if attacked and providing aid.
DF also claims 22,000 elite Iranian al Qods Bridades fighters built up positions in Syria and Lebanon on Israel's borders. No evidence whatever proves it.
DF suggests Hamas is "under contract to defer to Tehran" militarily. Moreover, Iran, Hezbollah, Syria and Hamas allegedly agreed to cooperate against Israel.
"In a potential outbreak of war," Iran's military command will be in charge.
No country threatens Israel. None plan war. Saying so inverts truth. Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) research director Patrick Clawson openly urges provoking Iran into attacking Israel.
WINEP is a right wing pro-Israeli front group. It wants Washington to create a false flag extreme enough to spark an Iranian military response.
Speaking at a policy forum on "How to Build US-Israeli Coordination on Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout," he discussed earlier provocations that worked.
It's (v)ery hard for me to see how the United States president can get us to war with Iran," he said. Traditional ways would be best.
His terminology was code language for urging replicating earlier successful US false flags. None stand out more than 9/11. "We can do a variety of things to increase pressure," he said.
Sanctions are one of many options, he added. So are covert methods.
"(W)e could get nastier about it," he stressed. "So, if in fact the Iranians aren't going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war."
By that, he means America. He's mindless about potential catastrophic consequences. Numerous past articles discussed it. No sane leader would chance it.
No legitimate analyst would urge it. No military commander worth his salt would risk it. Odds favor it happening anyway. Belligerent Zionists make it more likely. Netanyahu may be worst of all.
On September 25, Haaretz headlined "The Israeli prime minister is unfit to serve," saying:
Three decades ago, Menachem Begin was unfit. For weeks, it was acknowledged but kept hidden. Netanyahu exceeds his worst extremism.
"Many government ministers know this to be true." He's pressuring Washington to launch a war of choice. Israeli military commanders deplore his "messianic madness."
He's brazen, undisciplined, and defiant. He's got a knack for turning allies into enemies. He's interfering in America's election. He favors Romney over Obama and shows it. He's looking a gift horse in the mouth.
He's compromising a longstanding alliance. He opposes most Israeli officials and commanders. In 1983, Begin said "I cannot go on" and resigned. He fell on his sword. Netanyahu is too arrogant to replicate him.
"On the contrary. The more he realizes the distance between the picture in his head and reality….the more likely he is to step up his inflammatory rhetoric and rash actions to the point of jeopardizing Israel's very existence."
He wasn't elected by popular vote. Likud finished second. The Knesset approved a governing coalition. It's obligated to replace an unfit prime minister. It's urgent, given his rage to wage war when cooler heads around him deplore it for good reason.
War on Iran would be "an existential blunder." It's much more than that. Israel's existence would be threatened. Its cities, military and nuclear facilities would be bombed for the first time. Casualties would be enormous. So would world enmity.
What kind of leader discounts madness and urges do what I say anyway? Cabinet members must replace him before it's too late. Ordinary Israeli must speak out.
War isn't a left, right or religious issue. International law aside, avoiding it must be prioritized. Failure will fall on the heads of "all those who fail to rise above themselves and take action."
It's their responsibility. It's urgent they prevent a potential regional holocaust. Failure may not get a second chance.-- Mathaba Analyst Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]
Support our work. Donate or subscribe. Join the Mathaba Community. Help with editing or translations. Everyone can and must do at least something to ensure that independent media can survive and continue to give voice to the truth. Spread the word.