That Is Not Who We Are

Obama refuses to release evidence that Osama is dead, saying "That's not who we are".

Damn straight!

When Bush announced that a man in a cave in Afghanistan orchestrated an attack on the United States of America, the most powerful country in the world, shutting down any military response, exploding 3 skyscrapers into concrete dust and literally striking the heart of the military-industrial complex, the Pentagon, the head of Afghanistan offered to turn the man over for justice.

He meant a trial. Bush, the arrogant swaggering cowboy, refused. We don't need no stinking evidence for no stinking trial!

Our trillion dollar military may not be capable of defending the United States, but, by God, we can blow up goat-herders, brides and children gathering firewood! We can make the abode bounce when we destroy families' houses in tribal societies. And, just for good measure, we can invade an industrialized society, pulverize not just three, but hundreds of buildings, destroy water, sewer and hospital facilities, and kill a million people, and drive millions more from their homes.

Americans were so disgusted by Bush that we elected a professor of Constitutional law as President.

Surely a law professor would know that bringing an accused man to justice would mean arrest, an open trial with evidence presented and scrutinized, deliberation by a jury and a verdict. Surely a law professor would know that in America, a man is innocent until proven guilty.

Nope. The smooth-talking lawyer, like his stammering predecessor, prefers murder to trials. "Justice" means assassination.

We've come full circle, as the media tells us. The unbelievable story of a man in a cave shutting down the biggest military on the planet and imploding skyscrapers, ends with the unbelievable story that, after searching for ten years, the US found him and chose to go shoot him in the face and dump his body in the ocean.

And when skeptics ask for proof, the President, after doing a victory lap (but not a football spike), at Ground Zero, tells us that we don't need no stinking proof.

That's not who we are.

Big Daddy Fails Us

Although the President takes an oath to support the Constitution, after 9-11, "everything changed".

The Constitution, a goddamned piece of paper, was overthrown by the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and countless Presidential decrees.

But, as Americans were wiretapped, strip-searched, finger-printed and treated generally as potential "terrorists", we were assured that it was all done to "keep us safe".

George W. Bush presented himself as our protector, as some sort of Father figure, bizarre as that may seem to anyone who actually had a decent father. He continually announced that his role as President was to keep Americans safe.

And Obama came in, took his oath of office, and also promptly disregarded it, the new boss being much like the old boss.

But now, the media is warning us that the hit on Osama has made us less safe, that we must increase our internal repression, accept torture without reservation, and kill even more people in other countries, because the "terrorists" will strike us again, in reprisal.

So what happened to keeping us safe? What happened to the "I spend every minute thinking about ways to protect Americans?"

If they knew that announcing an assassination would put us at risk, then why do it?

I question their sincerity.

Mafia State

Major General Smedly Butler pointed out years ago that the role of the US military was that of a hitman for capitalism.

But surely we have now reached new heights, with the President bragging about successful hits, mass media discussing them without a hint that they may be illegal, and the actual throwing of a body into the ocean! What is this, an episode of the Sopranos?

Even the Mafia didn't brag about their murders. They had the decency to pretend that they were not involved.

Obama "takes out" (more Mafia language) Ghadaffi's son and three grandchildren on Saturday, and then claims to "take out" Osama Bin Laden on Sunday. Quite a weekend for Murder, Inc.

The media plays their role of swallowing the story whole, and then regurgitating their appropriate talking points. Democracy Now focused on the "blowback" theory, in which "terrorist" attacks are payback for US imperialist deaths abroad.

Fox News openly cheers. Vengeance is ours, saith the bimboes.

But. My right-wing Christian co-worker made a point of telling me yesterday that she didn't believe the story Obama and the media were spinning. My liberal Obama-supporting friend didn't believe it either. And a African-American family that were in the ER told me that they didn't believe it either.

Well. That's a pretty wide-spread sampling of opinion, albeit in one small town.

Is it possible that the Obama puppet and his handlers have jumped the shark? Gone too far?

Unfortunately, Harper's Index points out that there were 164 episodes of Happy Days after the one in which their credibility legendarily was blown.

US imperialism has a few episodes left in it, I'm guessing.

What is the point of this announcement, at this time? It certainly can't be an election stunt. That would be an October 2012 assassination.

No. This is something else. I no longer feel qualified to predict with any certainty what the ruling class has in store for us, since I've guessed wrong in the past.

But, since all media is spouting variations on the line of "al queda is going to get us" in revenge, I'm going to guess another "terrorist" attack on US soil. That part isn't too wildly speculative, since you can tell what they want you to believe when all media spouts the same line.

But then what? Here's my wild speculation. The US has used war to get out of economic depression in the past.

The US is in deep economic trouble, and its creditors are starting to bail. There is a due date coming up in June.

The conclusion I draw is that the US will start a massive war rather than default. But I could be wrong.