Tag: Obama

From School of Americas Watch:

A controversial facility at Ft. Benning, Ga. — formerly known as the U.S. Army’s School of the Americas — is still training Honduran officers despite claims by the Obama administration that it cut military ties to Honduras after its president was overthrown June 28, NCR has learned.

A day after an SOA-trained army general ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya at gunpoint, President Barack Obama stated that “the coup was not legal” and that Zelaya remained “the democratically elected president.”

The Foreign Operations Appropriations Act requires that U.S. military aid and training be suspended when a country undergoes a military coup, and the Obama administration has indicated those steps have been taken.

However, Lee Rials, public affairs officer for the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, the successor of SOA, confirmed Monday that Honduran officers are still being trained at the school.

“Yes, they’re in class now,” Rials said.

Asked about the Obama administration’s suspension of aid and training to Honduras, Rials said, “Well, all I know is they’re here, and they’re in class.”

And, inside Honduras, nothing has changed either:

The ongoing training of Hondurans at Ft. Benning is not the only evidence of unbroken U.S.-Honduran military ties since the coup.

Another piece was discovered by Maryknoll Father Roy Bourgeois, the founder of SOA Watch, while on fact-finding mission to Honduras last week.

Bourgeois — accompanied by two lawyers, Kent Spriggs and Dan Kovalik — visited the Soto Cano/Palmerola Air Base northwest of Tegucigalpa, where the U.S. Southern Command’s Joint Task Force-Bravo is stationed.

“Helicopters were flying all around, and we spoke with the U.S. official on duty, a Sgt. Reyes” about the U.S.-Honduran relationship, Bourgeois said. “We asked him if anything had changed since the coup and he said no, nothing.”

Read the whole thing here:

http://www.soaw.org/presente/i…

And the US is still continuing aid to Honduras, according to Narconews:

http://www.narconews.com/

Crossposted at Dailykos

Today President Obama spoke at the VFW convention in Phoenix, Arizona.   He highlighted the need to continue the fight in Afghanistan against those would like to bring back the Taliban as rulers of that war-torn country.

Afghanistan, as we all know, is the cradle of the Taliban whom gave shelter to Osama bin Laden during the 1990s and up through the attacks on September 11th, 2001.  

Many of us felt a personal connection to those attacks for a variety of reasons.  We may have lost someone in one of those flights, in the World Trade Center towers, or one of the many rescue and police personnel who died as a result of those towers collapsing.  

More importantly, President Obama was speaking before an organization that is held in high esteem by US servicemen and women across the globe.

More below the fold…

The war in Afghanistan, which we are losing, is costing us $133 million a DAY.   That’s right, $133 million a day.  That’s over 5.5 million dollars an HOUR, every hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, forever and ever.

Why forever and ever?  Because we’re losing, not winning.

Says who, you might ask?  Some hand-wringing “liberal”?    No, none other than General Stanley McChrystal, the warmongering, warcriminal in charge of the whole mess for the Americans.

US losing in Afghanistan, top general admit.

The top American commander in Afghanistan declared that the Taliban are winning in Afghanistan in a startling interview published Monday – a striking contrast to the “Mission Accomplished” rhetoric of the Bush Administration as regards Iraq.

His remarks appear carefully tailored to lower expectations and shift public opinion in support of operations in the war-torn country where few foreign powers have ever seen victory. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, when they were routed by a US invasion.

Currently, US operations in Afghanistan cost taxpayers about $4 billion a month. That comes to roughly $133 million per day, or $5.5 million per hour.

Yeah, but we can’t afford anything here.  California is broke, prisons are melting down as prisoners riot for hours on end, schools are firing teachers, the entire social safety net is being set afire ….. why, so we spend money instead losing in Afghanistan?

Of course this begs the question:  why would the top General there actually admit to losing the war?  Well of course because we’re not spending enough money there yet.  And we’re not killing enough American troops!   So we need more American troops to sacrifice to the volcano gods of war:

McChrystal’s interview also appeared designed to augment support for increasing troop levels in parts of Afghanistan. Since President Barack Obama took office, the Pentagon has increased the number of US troops in the country. The strategy described suggests a “hearts and minds” approach which favors securing civilian areas rather than focusing on full-frontal engagement with militants.

“It’s a very aggressive enemy right now,” the paper quoted Gen. McChrystal as saying. “We’ve got to stop their momentum, stop their initiative. It’s hard work.”

The interview also quotes unnamed US officials arguing for a further increase in US troops.

Now to win an unwinnable war?   Spend more money.   Kill more boys.  Sure.  That works every time.  These people learn nothing from history.   Their egos are so huge they think they cannot lose, and the only reason they are losing is because those jerks in Washington aren’t giving them what they need!   Goddamn those jerks in Washington!   They’re not there man, they don’t know what it’s like!

Well, here’s what it’s like for some of the Afghani people we’re spending $5 million bucks an hour killing:

Killing children doesn’t come cheap.  Hell, you can’t do it here without getting in serious trouble!   But in Afghanistan, you can use the highest tech weaponry in the history of mankind to kill children and it’s just A-OK and the government will keep giving you more!

Yup, things can’t be that bad in America if we continue to kill innocent foreign children in faraway countries.

That means the war machine is working well.  Ratcheting up the demonic hatred, guranteeing that America will have more “enemies” to slaughter in the future, so we can keep the trillion dollar war machine moving right along.  God knows that employs a lot of people!  

The only problem I’m having with this is remembering when Afghanistan attacked us?  When did the Afghan people attack the United States of America?   I’m drawing a blank here.  Somebody help me out.

‘What was the fault of my innocent children? They were not Taliban,’ Rahim said. “Did they come here to build our country or kill our innocent children?’

Oh, Rahim, Rahim.  You just don’t understand.  We can’t withdraw from your country and we cannot quit killing your children because that would make our dear El Presidente look like a “failure!”  Or worse, a wimp!   So you and your children will continue to be sacrificed as part of the President’s PR machine.  And it’s okay, really, because most Americans will never see these photos, or hear about your kids, or anything.  Even the well-intentioned “liberal” of them will be more concerned with the rantings of an actor named Glenn Beck, or doing the bidding of their corporate leaders to keep themselves from having health care, than they will be with your dead children.

It’s all about the PR, baby.  It’s all about “image”.  We can’t have the President look like a failure, now, can we?  And he can only be a “success” if “you people” quit being terrorists!  Oh wait, you’re not terrorists?  Well, somebody there must be, or we wouldn’t be bombing you, right?  Right!

I won’t get fooled again.

I voted for Kerry, and I voted for Barrack Obama.

But I won’t ever do it again.

And I of all people should’ve known better.

See, back in 76, I was a 12 year old kid during the Gerald Ford / Jimmy Carter election.  I’d seen the Watergate movie, and I had a pretty good grasp of what was going on.

Probably most here have forgotten or never even knew that in ’76 there was also an independent run by Eugene McCarthy–the actually semi-leftist guy the Dems screwed way back in 1968.

Despite strong showings in several primaries – indeed, he won more votes than any other Democratic candidate – McCarthy garnered only 23 percent of the delegates at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, largely due to the control of state party organizations over the delegate selection process.

Emphasis: mine.  From http://www.answers.com/topic/e…

Anyway, in 76, since I was 12, I couldn’t drive yet, but I had a cool bike with a blue banana seat, and I cruised all over town handing out literature for Gene.  

When election day came I too young too vote, but old enough to canvass, and I witnessed an amazing phenomena:

The Democrats were bringing in carload after carload of scared old people from old folks homes.  In return for a nice dinner, they would vote a straight Democratic ticket.  That was the deal–the other poll watchers informed me– I was incredulous at  first, but they brought them in by Lincoln, they brought them in by vans, they came and they came and they came.

And they didn’t look left.  They didn’t look right.  Not one took any literature from me or anyone else. And there was fear in their eyes when they saw me–real fear. I assume from hunger, but I don’t know.

They voted, they ate. Or, they ate they voted, I’m not sure which–but I’ve always wondered–since if they were fed first what were they worried about?  

I bet they hadn’t eaten yet.  And now 33 years later they’re all dead anyway.  

Well, 33 years from now I’ll likely be dead too, or at least I’ll be getting pretty damn fragile.

And, I’ll still look left, when asked, even if I have to forgo supper.