Maybe this freedom from any pretense of consulting law, ethics, or the American people is what they mean when they say “America [gets] targeted for attack because we’re the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world.”
Poor, pitiful, helpless United States of America. It really has no options in this latest terrible Israeli war crime, you see. So says the sponsored alibi manufacturer, Aaron David Miller, in a New York Times article explaining the roots of Barack Obama’s endorsement of the ongoing Israeli re-enactment of the Nazi bombing of Guernica. “The reality is, what options do we have?,” asks the “scholar” Miller.
Even in this market-totalitarian empire of untruths, you don’t often find more brazen deceptions than this.
See these tanks here?:
I’m no expert, but I’d wager very heavily they’re US-made M60s, given that the USA has gifted 700 of them to Israel. The above photo is from today’s New York Times. These M60s are lining up for an impending Israeli land invasion of Gaza.
“The reality is, what options do we have?”
With leadership like this, I’d say the answer is getting rather clearer every day…
Fresh off his post-primary promise not to question existing US policy on Israel, Mr. Obama has now revealed even more of what he meant by “change.” Apparently, the unnamed “changes” he promised during his pathetic battle with the walking disease known as Hillary Clinton were not alterations in the murderous/suicidal policies of our troubled market totalitarian neo-racist nation, but rather swift, sharp shifts away from the things millions of poor, deluded Obama people thought they were voting for:
The general campaign is on, independent voters are up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric – at least when it comes to free trade.
In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine’s upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn’t want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.
“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA “devastating” and “a big mistake.”
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? “Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself,” he answered.