Look East to China the Next Bin Laden
“Hillary is now moving China into the role of Emmanuel Goldstein. Hate has to be mobilized, before Washington can move the ignorant patriotic masses to war.”
by Debbie Menon
PC Roberts has a keen knack for seeing things and fitting them into their broader scope,which helps connect the dots and illustrate the entire picture as he does in this article:
China: The New Bin Laden. “Just as the military/security complex pressured President John F. Kennedy to start a war with the Soviet Union over the Cuban missile crisis while the US still had the nuclear advantage, Hillary is now moving China into the role of Emmanuel Goldstein. Hate has to be mobilized, before Washington can move the ignorant patriotic masses to war.”
It is so much simpler if one starts and sticks with the facts. Then, no one has to scramble to change the story-line as contradictions arise which do not coincide with the “evidence.”
I have been reading a number of writers recently who are also dealing with fear and frightened men and women in high places, about fear in the lofty reaches of government, how some of the people up there are reacting to it and what they are doing about or because of it.
The killing of Osama bin Laden: how the White House changed its story. “Bin Laden not armed and did not use woman as human shield, US admits; Barack Obama’s spokesman blames ‘fog of war’”
I had always thought “fog of war,” was a literary device, a “figure of speech” and not a practical or acceptable excuse for “losing it” in combat, or a substitute alibi for murder.
So, they shot an unarmed man? Regardless of his status, civilian, soldier, combatant, he was unarmed, in custody, or about to be taken into custody, therefore, a prisoner. Murder!
He was shot because he “resisted,” even though unarmed? Excessive Force, it is called! Over-aggressive response, unnecessary and brutal force… Murder!
An unarmed man poses no threat to a heavily armed, highly trained force such as this one regardless of how fiercely he resists. The man just saw his wife, or companion, get shot in the leg by an armed intruder…. I would expect any man to take umbrage, respond and fight back, or “resist.”
Crimes such as murder, performed in the “line of duty” or even under orders, are still chargeable and prosecutable as crimes. Nuremberg!
The US and its Allies have hung dozens of former enemies, Japanese and Germans, for such “crimes. The Israelis have hung dozens, if not hundreds, of Germans for just such “crimes.
Law is not Justice unless it is applied equally to all, the victor as well as the vanquished… and, the victim as well as the perpetrator.
Even those fallen in battle or murdered unjustly, have a right to equal protection under the Law.
Joe Quinn writes in the OpEd News, “The US government released “new” videos of ‘bin Laden’ that they claimed were part of the haul from the ‘compound’ in Pakistan. The problem is, these videos do not feature Osama bin Laden and the photos are just as persuasive that a lot of Photoshopping and forgeries have been presented as “evidence” regarding bin Laden.”
I am not surprised at any of this, and am actually only surprised that anyone could be so amateurish and stupid as to think that such amateurish efforts would work and carry the day. This is childish, and either the work of someone who wants to fail for some reason, or someone who is literally an amateur and knows not what they are doing, a rare mistake for professional “covert” or propaganda experts who work this kind of stuff.
Jeff Gates, author of Guilt by Association: How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War, wrote about the effectiveness of “the people in between,” and how they can gum up the works, distort, sabotage and destroy the intended results. Can it be that there may be some of these “on our side of the fence” working from within the “system” reluctant wildcatters ?
Or have the current and past administrations actually gotten rid of the professionals who once worked for the US Government, and brought in a lot of Ivy Leaguers, dilettantes, ideologues, and Hollywood “friends” to do the “stage work” for them?
We have seen what looks like a lot of amateurism all the way through the system from top to bottom in the past few years.
I am not totally surprised that Cheney is denying Osama involvement or that they have “…never made the case that Osama was directly involved in 9/11…,” but it is a blatant lie that they did not do their best to make the case, and actually accused Osama of directing the operation.
It was President George Bush who appeared on TV laying the alleged attack by Al Qaeda and at Osama bin Laden’s doors, not VP Dick Cheney.
But, now that Osama is officially “dead,” and the intimate relationship between Osama and the CIA is becoming more talked about and accepted every day, and as time passes the possibility of Grand Jury hearings or investigations, subpoenas and indictments begins to hover on the horizon. It is imperative to either disassociate the USG from Osama, or disassociate Osama from the attack, for members of the USG could be liable as accessories, before, during and after the fact.
It is probably easier to disassociate Osama from the attack, which is a Truth, than it would be to disassociate the US Government from Osama, which is a lie (and for which there seems to be quite a bit of testimony and evidence). And, you will recall, it was Dick Cheney who was in real tight with the CIA at the time, spending a lot of time in their office, “interfering” and “meddling,” for which he was criticized at the time.
I think they might be becoming frightened by the possibilities of what may happen if the truth gets all the way out of the bag, and the American public gets up in arms about it.
George Bush might be protected from jail somewhat, because few Americans would like to see a former President actually jailed, but in either case, he would need a patsy and Dick knows all about setting up patsies.
If this stuff starts moving through the fan you can look for Cheney to beat the doors down at the Attorney General’s Office with offers to cop a plea in return for testimony. He will try to hang it on the Commander- in-Chief, at whose chair the buck always stops, but he is highly vulnerable to counter charges from the Bush camp that he “exceeded and abused the powers of his office” as VP, and ran his own show, which is not very far from the truth.
If it comes down to hard ball, George might even acknowledge that he was a hoodwinked stooge as a President in an attempt to shovel all the dog manure across the fence into Dick’s back yard… and no one, neither of them, will mention the Jew who owns the dog and who lives in between their houses… who also holds the mortgages on both of their places.
George Bush is very good at appearing in public, raising his eyebrows and looking into the camera with an “innocent” and quizzical, “Who, me?” look on his face. It has gotten him through life, kept him out of trouble with his mother when he was a kid, and out of jail as a drunken and dilettante deserter Fighter Pilot a number of times. He has money and family connections which Dick Cheney has not.
Dick Cheney is a worried man.
Not only has there been a change in the wind or in the weather, but I suspect we are in for a change in climate, literally as well as figuratively….and an earth-shaking change, for better or for worse, in both dimensions.
If the US wants to pick on China, they will discover that China is no Middle Eastern petty sandbox, “Banana Republic” in the hands of a petty despot. It is a big place, with a lot of resources, and an almost inexhaustible supply of man and woman power, none of whom have ever been conquered or overwhelmed by anyone other than one of their own, using their own people and resources.
Newsweek columnist, Fareed Zakaria was right on the money when he wrote, Does the Future Belong to China ?
“When historians look back at the last decades of the 20th century, they might well point to 1979 as a watershed. That year the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, digging its grave as a superpower. It was also the year that China began its economic reforms. They were launched at a most unlikely gathering, the Third Plenum of the 11th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, held in December 1978. Before the formal meetings, at a working-group session, the newly empowered party boss, Deng Xiaoping, gave a speech that turned out to be the most important one in modern Chinese history. He urged that the regime focus on development and modernization, and let facts — not ideology — guide its path. “It doesn’t matter if it is a black cat or a white cat,” Deng often said. “As long as it can catch mice, it’s a good cat.” Since then, China has done just that, pursued a modernization path that is ruthlessly pragmatic and non-ideological.
The results have been astonishing. China has grown around 9 per cent a year for more than 25 years, the fastest growth rate for a major economy in recorded history. In that same period it has moved 300 million people out of poverty and quadrupled the average Chinese person’s income. And all this has happened, so far, without catastrophic social upheavals. The Chinese leadership has to be given credit for this historic achievement. There are many who criticize China’s economic path. They argue that the numbers are fudged, that corruption is rampant, that its banks are teetering on the edge, that regional tensions will explode, that inequality is rising dangerously and that things are coming to a head. For a decade now they have been predicting, “This cannot last, China will crash, it cannot keep this up.” So far at least, none of these prognoses has come true. And while China has many problems, it also has something any Third World country would kill for—consistently high growth.”
We are living in changing times, and the times are changing at an exponential rate! With the sheer numbers which Zakaria cites in his article he spells out the inevitability of this World power, Sooperpower, Snooperpower, a rose by any other name….we could deny their existence, and say whatever we like, but whenever an elephant moves into your tent he sooner or later, will make his presence felt to a degree which becomes hard to ignore. Eventually he, like the Arab’s camel, will own the tent.
Neither Chiang Kai-shek nor his nemesis Mao were men of peace, nor were their struggles for power or “Liberation” from foreign powers, or themselves, peaceful. If The PROC has not been in an actual shooting war with the ROC, then the conflict which has existed between them since the late 1940’s is about as close to the same thing as you can get without the massive flow of blood.
The various reforms which occurred under Deng were hardly bloodless, and might be regarded by many who did not survive them as the equivalent of war, civil or otherwise.
China has not engaged the rest of the world in military confrontation, colonialist adventurism and wars while establishing itself on the world stage. Perhaps they have learned something from Western history (or the failures of), or the teachings of Confucius.
I suspect the latter, for they have not done very well when practicing the forceful and brutal ways of the West. They are on a roll, and it looks like they will get there, and probably stay there, for some time to come. As Zakaria says: “They know how to apply themselves.”
2011 Copyright — Debbie Menon
Debbie Menon is a freelance writer based in Dubai. Her commentary has been published widely in Print and Online publications. She can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org. Her website: http://mycatbirdseat.com/
If you liked this article, please consider making a donation to Intifada Palestine by clicking on the following PayPal link. Thank you!