Obama Will Make The "True" Choice

Yesterday, using an un-manned drone, the US military killed at least 17 people in Pakistan. As you know, Barack Obama campaigned denouncing America's lack of aggressive military action in Pakistan. Yesterday's action was Obama's first military strike; he, and those who elected him, now have blood on their hands.

Earlier in the week, Obama promised that his would be a transparent White House; he stood on the side of those who wanted information and against those who would control it. Apparently oblivious to this promise, the White House yesterday responded to questions about Obama's first military action with these pellucid words: No comment. Efforts by the press corps to engage White House press secretary Robert Gibbs for at least confirmation and some rationale were rejected out-of-hand (I watched the White House press briefing live and must commend FoxNews' Major Garrett and NBC News' Chuck Todd for asking tough questions).

Reports indicate that among the 17 Pakistani dead were civilians; collateral damage.

This is what we have learned so far from the Obama regime:

1. Transparency is essential to political health except when obfuscation better serves the interests of those who control the flow of information.
   
2. Torture is a great evil; torture has made America "less safe." Chief emblem of American torture is Guantánamo Bay. That is why the Obama administration will (attempt to) close Gitmo within the year: Obama believes that Gitmo, and such torturous acts as water-boarding, serve as our enemies' chief recruiting tools. Also, Gitmo, in the words of Obama, represents a "false" choice between America's safety and its ideals; Obama rejects that choice.
   
3. Apparently, consistent with the Obama regime's understanding of America's ideals, it is perfectly consistent to stonewall about sending missiles into Pakistan.
4. Apparently, consistent with the Obama regime's understanding of America's ideals, it is perfectly moral to kill 17 people and not elaborate on that action.
5. Apparently, consistent with the Obama regime's understanding of America's ideals, it is perfectly OK to send missiles into Pakistan, all under the delusion that such actions do not serve as recruitment tools for our enemies.
   
6. Apparently, consistent with the Obama regime's understanding of America's ideals, it is torture to water-board KNOWN enemies and terrorists, and yet it is not torture to drop missiles on the heads of people who are not our enemies.
7. Apparently, consistent with the Obama regime's understanding of America's ideals, it is torture to use harsh interrogation methods, even in other countries, with those who are KNOWN enemies of the United States, but it is NOT immoral to send American tax dollars to second- and third-world countries to help subsidize the dismembering, poisoning, and vacuuming of babies in utero. Or so suggests Obama's overturning of the "Mexico City Policy."
   
8. Apparently, consistent with the Obama regime's understanding of America's ideals, imposing on the world American values regarding abortion, backed with the funds of the American taxpayers, is not a recruitment tool used by our enemies, who, particularly in the Christian southern hemisphere and the Muslim world, find abortion to be generally immoral, vulgar and decidedly low-brow. (And an imperialist's tool to suppress populations that compete for the imperialist's wealth and comforts.)

Peace through dissent.

©2009/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Gorbachev's Ghost? It's So Transparent, It's Opaque

It's been suggested that we should find it reassuring Barack Obama promises to have the most transparent White House in history. After all, what unites Americans -- as so wonderfully encapsulated in Mr. Obama's Inaugural Address -- is that we are all victims of George W. Bush: We must "pick ourselves up [and] dust ourselves off" in large part because our country has been allegedly brutalized by Bush's White House, also known as the "most secretive administration in history." Transparency heals.

Of course, the paradox does not go unnoticed: If the Bush White House was indeed so secretive, how is it we would know that, and how is it we not only know everything that went on behind Bush's closed doors, we know the very (evil) thoughts and motives of such a shuttered leader? But I digress.

I assume transparency is not all it's cracked up to be, at least in the Obama administration. Mr. Obama has already retaken the oath of office, simply to protect himself against those who might declare his botched Inauguration Day oath unconstitutional. I hear -- but I cannot confirm this -- that the second swearing-in ceremony occurred in the White House. I also hear, through tin cups linked with string, that NO CAMERAS were allowed inside in order to document the event (there was just one White House staff photographer present). Apparently -- and this is confirmed -- the Freedom of Information Act Mr. Obama adores so much really is an act.

_________________________

GORBACHEV REDUX

Is it impolite of me to admit that whenever I hear Mr. Obama use the word "transparency," I actually hear "glasnost"? That doesn't make me a bad person, does it?

Peace through dissent.

BG

©2009/Contratimes. All rights reserved.