The Shame of Being an American

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
By Paul Craig Roberts
February 16, 2011

The United States government has overestimated the amount of shame that it and American citizens can live down. On February 15 "the indispensable people" had to suffer the hypocrisy of the U.S. Secretary of State delivering a speech about America’s commitment to Internet freedom while the U.S. Department of Justice (sic) brought unconstitutional action against Twitter to reveal any connection between WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning, the American hero who, in keeping with the U.S. Military Code, exposed U.S. government war crimes and who is being held in punishing conditions not permitted by the U.S. Constitution. The corrupt U.S. government is trying to create a "conspiracy" case against Julian Assange in order to punish him for revealing U.S. government documents that prove beyond every doubt the mendacity of the U.S. government.

This is pretty bad, but it pales in comparison to the implications revealed on February 15 in the British newspaper, The Guardian.

The Guardian obtained an interview with "Curveball," the source for Colin Powell’s speech of total lies to the United Nations about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction. Colin Powell’s speech created the stage for the illegal American invasion of Iraq. The Guardian describes "Curveball" as "the man who pulled off one of the greatest confidence tricks in the history of modern intelligence." As The Guardian puts it, "Curveball" "manufactured a tale of dread."

U.S. "intelligence" never interviewed "Curveball." The Americans started a war based on second-hand information given to them by incompetent German intelligence, which fell for "Curveball’s" lies that today German intelligence disbelieves.

As the world now knows, Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Bush/Cheney Regime, of course, knew this, but "Curveball’s" lies were useful to their undeclared agenda. In his interview with The Guardian, "Curveball," Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, admitted that he made the whole story up. He wanted to do in Saddam Hussein and told whatever fantasy lie he could make up that would serve his purpose.

If the Bush/Cheney regime had really believed that Saddam Hussein had world-threatening weapons of mass destruction, it would have been a criminal act to concentrate America’s invading force in a small area of Kuwait where a few WMD could have wiped out the entire U.S. invasion force, thus ending the war before it began.

Some Americans are so thoughtless that they would say that Saddam Hussein would never have used the weapons, because we would have done this and that to Iraq, even nuking Baghdad. But why would Saddam Hussein care if he and his regime were already marked for death? Why would a doomed man desist from inflicting an extraordinary defeat on the American Superpower, thus encouraging Arabs everywhere? Moreover, if Saddam Hussein was unwilling to use his WMD against an invading force, when would he ever use them? It was completely obvious to the U.S. government that no such weapons existed. The weapons inspectors made that completely clear to the Bush/Cheney regime. There were no Iraqi WMD, and everyone in the U.S. government was apprised of that fact.

Why was there no wonder or comment in the "free" media that the White House accused Iraq of possession of terrible weapons of mass destruction, but nevertheless concentrated its invasion force in such a small area that such weapons could easily have wiped out the invading force?

Does democracy really exist in a land where the media is incompetent and the government is unaccountable and lies through its teeth every time it opens its mouth?

"Curveball" represents a new level of immorality. Rafid al-Janabi shares responsibility for one million dead Iraqis, 4 million displaced Iraqis, a destroyed country, 4,754 dead American troops, 40,000 wounded and maimed American troops, $3 trillion of wasted US resources, every dollar of which is adebt burden to the American population and a threat to the dollar as reserve currency, ten years of propaganda and lies about terrorism and al Qaeda connections, an American "war on terror" that is destroying countless lives in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and which has targeted Iran, and which has destroyed the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution, and the civil liberties that they guarantee. And the piece of lying excrement, Rafid al-Janabi, is proud that he brought Saddam Hussein’s downfall at such enormous expense.

Now that Rafid al-Janabi is revealed in the Guardian interview, how safe is he? There are millions of Iraqis capable of exterminating him for their suffering, and tens of thousands of Americans whose lives have been ruined by Rafid al-Janabi’s lies.

Why does the U.S. government pursue Julian Assange and WikiLeaks for telling the truth when "Curveball," whose lies wiped out huge numbers of people along with America’s reputation, thinks he can start a political party in Iraq? If al-Janabi is not killed the minute he appears in Iraq, it will be a miracle.

So we are left to contemplate that a totally incompetent American government has bought enormous instability to its puppet states in the Middle East, because it desperately wanted to believe faulty "intelligence" from Germany that an immoralist provided evidence that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

And America is a superpower, an indispensable nation.

What a total joke!
 

DaSleeper

Trolling Hypocrites
May 27, 2007
33,676
1,666
113
Northern Ontario,
Just because JBeee loves Ann Coulter:lol:


DEMOCRATS: EMBOLDENING AMERICA'S ENEMIES AND TERRIFYING HER ALLIES SINCE 1976

by Ann Coulter
February 16, 2011

The Middle East is on fire again, and crazy Muslims with funny names aren't helping things -- Mahmoud, ElBaradei, al-Banna, Barack ...

The major new development is that NOW liberals want to get rid of a dictator in the Middle East! Where were they when we were taking out the guy with the rape rooms?

Remember? The one who had gassed his own people, invaded his neighbors and was desperately seeking weapons of mass destruction? The guy who emerged from a spider hole looking like Charlie Sheen after a three-day bender?

Liberals couldn't have been less interested in removing Saddam Hussein and building a democracy in Iraq. So it's really adorable seeing them get all choked up about democracy now. Say, as long as liberals are all gung-ho about getting rid of out-of-touch, overbearing dictators, how about we start with Janet Napolitano?

Why did they want to keep Saddam Hussein in power again? Yes, that's right -- because he didn't have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Their big argument was that Saddam was five long years away from developing them.

By my calculations, that means as of March 2008, Israel would have been gone and Saddam would have been in total control of the Middle East.

Thanks, liberals!

But they were shocked by Mubarak. Liberals angrily cited the high unemployment rate in Egypt as a proof that Mubarak was a beast who must step down. Did they, by any chance, see the January employment numbers for the United States? The only employment sectors showing any growth at all are medical marijuana cashiers, Hollywood sober-living coaches and "Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark" understudies filling in for maimed cast members.

Are we one jobs report away from liberals rioting in the street?

Mubarak supported U.S. policy, used his military to fight Muslim extremists and recognized Israel's right to exist. Or as the left calls it, three strikes and you're out.

Obama was so rough on the Egyptian leader, the Saudis reportedly had to ask him not to humiliate Mubarak. (You know, like Chinese President Hu did to Obama.) In fact, Mubarak may be the only despot Obama didn't bow to.

You'd think Mubarak and Obama would be natural allies. Mubarak lives in Egypt; Obama created a pyramid scheme known as ObamaCare. To win Obama's support, maybe Mubarak should have dropped the whole "president" thing and called himself "czar." Obama seems to like czars.

Or he should have announced that Egypt was going to blow $500 billion on a high-speed bullet train nobody wanted.

You know another country where Obama wasn't interested in democracy? (I mean, besides the U.S. when it comes to health care reform?) That's right -- Iran.

Iran is ideal for democracy: It has a young, highly educated, pro-Western population, and happens to be led by a messianic, Holocaust-denying lunatic.

Liberals say: Why upset that apple cart? Much better to support tumult and riots against our allies than our sworn enemies.

When peaceful Iranian students were protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stolen election in 2009, we didn't hear a peep out of Obama. The students had good reason to believe the election had been rigged. In some pro-Ahmadinejad districts, turnout was more than 100 percent.

Wait, no, I'm sorry -- that was Al Franken's election to the U.S. Senate from Minnesota. But there was also plenty of vote-stealing in Ahmadinejad's election.

When it came to Iran, however, the flame of democracy didn't burn so brightly in liberal hearts. Even when the Iranian protester, Neda, was shot dead while standing peacefully on a street in Tehran, Obama responded by ... going out for an ice cream cone.

But a mob of Egyptians start decapitating mummies, and Obama was on the horn telling Mubarak he had to leave. Obama didn't acknowledge Neda's existence, but the moment Egyptians started rioting, Obama said, "We hear your voices."

He can hear their voices? He couldn't hear the voices of the tea partiers, and they were protesting on the streets of Washington, D.C.

But as long as Obama can hear the voices of protesters in Cairo, why doesn't he ask them what they think about ObamaCare? Maybe the Egyptians can change his mind.

The fact that liberals support democracy in Egypt, but not in Iraq or Iran, can mean only one thing: Democracy in Egypt will be bad for the United States and its allies. (As long as we're on the subject, liberals also opposed democracy in Russia, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and all the Soviet satellite states, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua and Minnesota.)

Democrats are all for meddling in other countries –- but only provided a change of regime will harm U.S. national security interests.

Time and again, Democrats' ****lessness has emboldened America's enemies and terrified its allies, which I believe was the actual slogan of the State Department under Jimmy Carter: "Emboldening America's enemies, and terrifying her allies, since 1976."

For 50 years, Democrats have harbored traitors, lost wars, lost continents to communism, hobnobbed with the nation's enemies, attacked America's allies, and counseled retreat and surrender. Or as they call it, "foreign policy."

As Joe McCarthy once said, if liberals were merely stupid, the laws of probability would dictate that at least some of their decisions would serve America's interests.
 

CurioToo

Electoral Member
Nov 22, 2010
147
0
16
Sorry members - the forum's topics of late remind me of the early days of Canadian forae and the gripes that were exchanged instead of getting to meet and greet and form friendships in knowledge of each other.

Hate to see it take this ugly turn back to the dark days.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Sorry members - the forum's topics of late remind me of the early days of Canadian forae and the gripes that were exchanged instead of getting to meet and greet and form friendships in knowledge of each other.

Hate to see it take this ugly turn back to the dark days.

Yes indeed...

I surely remember the Cancon Border Wars back in the day!
 
Last edited:

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
Theres a Justin Bieber thread around here somewhere, you can partake in.


Sorry members - the forum's topics of late remind me of the early days of Canadian forae and the gripes that were exchanged instead of getting to meet and greet and form friendships in knowledge of each other.

Hate to see it take this ugly turn back to the dark days.
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
All of my anti-American friends should focus on the source of all evil in the world. His name is Obama. Get him. Chase the fellow down. Obama is the only person in the world who can end the evil of which you complain. Take down the leftist Obama. He's the warmonger. He's the guy holding Bradley Manning in detention. Act now. March on Washington, DC. You have my permission.:)
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
um ... you might want to be careful about what you say on a Canadian media. That comes dangerously close to something that can land you in with Manning.

I'm in America. The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects free speech in the US. Political speech is accepted here no matter how much others may dislike it. It's the law.

Wall Street and City of London?

Barack Obama is a creature of Wall Street.
 

eh1eh

Blah Blah Blah
Aug 31, 2006
10,749
103
48
Under a Lone Palm
Sorry members - the forum's topics of late remind me of the early days of Canadian forae and the gripes that were exchanged instead of getting to meet and greet and form friendships in knowledge of each other.

Hate to see it take this ugly turn back to the dark days.

No worries Ms. L. This is only a manifestation of the small minded OP.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
212
63
In the bush near Sudbury
I'm in America. The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects free speech in the US. Political speech is accepted here no matter how much others may dislike it. It's the law.
US Constitution doesn't mean a thing on a Canadian media. How do you think the Internet weed guy got it?


It's Canadian Law
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
US Constitution doesn't mean a thing on a Canadian media. How do you think the Internet weed guy got it?


It's Canadian Law

Mon Ami,

The point is that no one from the US Govt. is coming for me because my political speech is protected.

In reaching out to Canadians on CanCon, only this forum can silence the reverberations of my voice in the North. But CanCon isn't coming for me either regardless of what I say about the scoundrel Obama.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
212
63
In the bush near Sudbury
The point is your obsessiveness is bloody annoying. US Gov't may approve your so-called Constitutional rights, but Homeland Security frowns on it and Canadian law frowns on hate speech and inciting - so if you were in Canada, you could be extradited. Seeing as how you're already there, much less paperwork (the bane of every bureaucracy)
 

BaalsTears

Senate Member
Jan 25, 2011
5,732
0
36
Santa Cruz, California
The point is your obsessiveness is bloody annoying. US Gov't may approve your so-called Constitutional rights, but Homeland Security frowns on it and Canadian law frowns on hate speech and inciting - so if you were in Canada, you could be extradited. Seeing as how you're already there, much less paperwork (the bane of every bureaucracy)

I'm in Santa Cruz, California. I am listed in the phone book under "Bloody Annoying."

If Homeland Security wants me, they can come and get me. Until I am bound, gagged and frog marched to Obama's Gitmo, I will speak.

One of the hallmarks of free speech is the unfettered ability to ridicule public officials like Obama. When that right ends America will be even more diminished than it is now.

The way to deal with people who one finds annoying on a forum is to put them on one's ignore list.