The atrocities in Paris, killing more than 120 people, have brought forth the usual condemnations against terrorism and expressions of sympathy for the victims, but the larger question is whether this latest shock will finally force Western leaders to address the true root causes of the problem.
Parry seeks the truth from those who have never had any intention of speaking it and may be so entangled with their own untruth telling apparatus that even they don't know what the truth really is anymore. Like Mark Twain's the Prince and the Pauper, the prince changes places with his double to be able to see what life outside the palace is really like instead of hearing a biased account as told to him by his advisors.
Parry likes telling the truth and we like his informative accounts. It is unlikely that those who tell lies do also.
"Can Obama be convinced that telling hard truths .......
......rather than a timid follower of the prevailing “group think”?
Perry asks 7 questions within these three paragraphs. I assume they are just rhetorical questions. I would assume that, it being Perry, the answers are the same as are mine to every one of them. They all are unequivocally "no".
Obama is a long lost cause, we can't continue to think that he may change. We need to move on, hopefully into the realm of US politics to Bernie Sanders.
I have great respect for Mr. Parry but he is simply issuing a challenge, perhaps for the sake of journalistic integrity, that he knows can not be fulfilled
The answer to his question is no. For if you follow the trail down this decades long rat hole there are just too many actors involved, in Congress, in intelligence and the MIC, in the oil business and Wall Street as well as in Presidential administrations. Not everyone to be sure but too many for any President to come clean.
Now we get to be treated with the same long war, terror, terror nonsense well into the presidential campaign when any thinking person knows that Washington could have easily defeated IS early on. But they didn't. And worse.
It is ironic, is it not, that the evil Russian Bear (growl) did more damage to IS in a couple of weeks than
Washington did in thirteen months. It took Putin to fight a war on terror while the $ fascists were making money and creating chaos.
My heart goes out to les Francais in Paris.
I don't see any evidence that the state gives a damn about what we know (or suspect) they get up to. Well, I suppose I should say TPTB, but that's the state for all that's worth.
Why should they? The protests can be safely ignored when you take advantage of the inverted totalitarian system. Only a defeat would threaten the state, and such a defeat would be the end of everyone else. Taking everyone with you when you go has been a favourite fantasy since the story of Samson and Delilah was first told.
We seem to be governed by the same kind of people who shoot up schools. Or I'm just way too f'n cynical and out of my mind.
Too cynical and a bit simplistic. Samson and Delilah? Ah yes...that big finale! Well it isn't that simple as bringing down the house when you go.
Big states are not subject to the whims of single individuals (hopefully). What defeat? What kind of defeat would 'threaten the state'? There is no 'defeat' with a singular game changing capital 'D'. There is only not winning... like what we are doing now. Endless war is a defeat or at least a 'not winning'. Did it bring down the state and everyone else? Not a bit.
Protests are never ignored except as an official response. They are always noticed and while the official reaction may be to ignore them and give no sign that they were even noticed... you can damn well believe that they are 'always' noticed. that is why even small protests in other countries are often broken up by force... tear gas and arrests - if not outright shooting and live ammo.
No protests are what the PTB want. Protests scare them because protests can become Arab Springs or result in an end to apartheid in So. Africa etc.
Rome fell. The elites of that state didn't survive. Well, not for long anyhow.
While the state is not subject to the whims of individuals, the individual can suffer quite a bit.
Endless war will indeed bring down a state, unless the wars can pay for themselves. Are they doing that?
You're right and wrong about protests. Right in that sometimes they effect change, but wrong in that they're always paid attention. How much attention was paid to the anti-war protests of the last decade. As always it was the costs of war that ends them, or puts them 'on hold' for later.
Every protest was paid attention to. That is not to say that they accomplished their goal - at least not right away. No protest happened and the next day a war was ended or climate change was stopped because of it.
Contrast several hundred thousand people marching on Washington more than once and continually growing in numbers during Vietnam. The country changed its mind about the war until even Nixon had to admit that he had lost the public's support.
If there had been continuing demonstrations of similar size, we'd have been out of the Middle East long before now. They knew to consolidate the media (during the war) and embed reporters and keep a tight rein on the media's reporting on the Iraq/Afghanistan endless war. They did that because they knew the demonstrations would never stop if they didn't. No freedom of the press in the Mideast East has enabled the government to conduct an unending military conflict. No pressure to end it in effect.
Yes protests matter... and not having them leaves democracy in the hands of the governing elites. Who do not personally fight in the wars they will have us fight in.
In a word, No, Obama will not level with us nor will any of the other world leaders. Why? Because to do so would first require an acknowledgement of our crony capitalist system, the corruption of our political system by the corporate cockroaches, the military/industrial system, and the truth regarding the American Empire. Obama is clearly on the side of the Wall St. wolves and all that is wrong with America.
To answer your original question, NO!
"The neocons and liberal hawks outmaneuvered Obama who fell in line with the Putin-bashing, all the better to fit within Official Washington’s in-crowd."
If Obama didn't authorize the U.S. role in the overthrow of the democratically elected President of the Ukraine, why is Victoria Nuland still the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs?
Parry is too willing to see Obama as an unwilling bystander in what his administration does.
"Can Obama level with the people?"
Can a scorpion choose the right wines to go with the 3-course meal it just prepared?
No he will only continue the lies The Saudis are bankrolling the terrorists & everyone knows that.
"Liberal interventionists" or "liberal hawks" is oxymoronic. A great journalist like Robert Parry should know the difference between liberals and neoliberals.
Thirteen million people worldwide protested to prevent the Iraq invasion. Did it help? No.
Robert...i cant believe you are peddling the b.s. "19 hijacker/terrorist fairytale.u have lost all credibility with me.SHOW ME ONE PIC OR FILM FRAME OF EITHER THE SO CALLED HIJACKERS ON THAT DAY OR A PIC OR FILM FRAME OF A COMMERCIAL 757 or 767 JET IMPACTING ANY BUILDING ON 9-11 and thereby prove the govts lying worthless kiddie fairytale about 9/11 or retract your misleading and reprehensible statement in public. one or the other.reality or fiction,little Big Brother.
You are putting many separate demonstrations from different cities together as if they were one and counting heads. It took many very large demonstrations over several years to effect change but that was the whole point. It wasn't a one shot deal and once that finally was admitted by the PTB, the writing was on the wall and continuing the war was pointless.
9/11 and the suspension of disbelief about WMDS prevented the opposition to the Iraq war from sinking in and also the war seemed to go well at first... Mission Accomplished with GW Bush pretending to be a fighter pilot and all that including a photo op with a plastic turkey.
What is the opinion about that war now? The opposition never coalesced like it did with Vietnam until later. The country was continually kept off balance starting with Enron and proceeding through off shoring, two trillion in tax cuts, out sourcing closing factories, pensions going bust, more bullshit about tax cuts trickling down and finally the bank bailouts.
In a sense the country's spirit became depressed along with the economic depression. Bush /Cheney broke our hearts by being corrupt after we were attacked. They took away our belief in ourselves and we got trampled on here at home because of it. We had been beaten down and it is ONLY the real and very serious danger of catastrophic climate change (and concern for our children and grandchildren that has started to pull us out of this slump.
We should be grateful to Bernie for giving us a sense of trust in our institutions again. If he makes it to the WH then we will see some of that old spirit return. If he doesn't, we won't like what happens.
right on.actually they are far less nasty and cruel-do the math. the lying and deceptive u.s led middleast east wars have killed thousands,wounded tens of thousands and destroyed billions of dollars worth of infrastructure while the total damage to westerners is...a few hundred dead and wounded over the last two decades and maybe a few million dollars in property damage? that sounds more like Rebellion and in the scale of things, nothing like "terrorism". now, lying your way into spending trillions of dollars killing wounding and destroying on a daily basis sounds exactly like TERRORISM to me. and with a military budget LARGER THAN THE NEXT 14 COUNTRIES COMBINED we dont even have to look for "secret fiscal support for terrorists",now do we?
People were eyewitnesses in New York. No one who saw it happen with their own eyes agrees with what you've said. It is quite bizarre in fact that you would deny actual eyewitnesses with some conspiracy guess work. There are questions that should be asked such as were explosives planted prior to the attack which is certainly feasible since the buildings were wide open unlike buildings now. However hollywood has taken over the conspiracy and people see special effects where there aren't any.
You seem to be saying that no planes flew into the towers. That is so ridiculous that it makes one think that you are trying to harm and confuse people out of maliciousness and some sort of spite...
irrationally as may be.
These mass murderers intentionally targeted totally innocent civilians. They can't even claim the fog of war, confusion or even a mistake as an excuse. They murdered on purpose.
War is shit! Yeah and so are the years of suicide bombers in the Middle East. You don't mention them. In their own countries month after month. You want to make murder of innocents heroic? Since when? The weak willed fools and half crazed fanatics are sacrificed by their leaders. What will these deluded souls, if they have any religious faith, learn when they stand before God and say they killed innocent people because someone told them that such human sacrifice of innocent people is pleasing to God?
They have been tricked into modern versions of those ancient pagans who sacrificed human beings saying their deaths were pleasing to their pagan gods. These people aren't muslims. Human sacrifice is not islamic. It is a pagan idea from ancient times. They do not achieve paradise by offering the deaths of innocents to God.
They commit the terrible sin of human sacrifice. This is not Islamic. The eyes of their souls have been blinded by this evil and they are lost.
usually your comments are reasonable and worth reading . this time you are way off base in both your (mis)understanding and your logic.
i clearly asked for PROOF of: 1.the 19 so-called hijackers presence on or near any plane,airport etc on 9/11 and 2. PROOF that a commercial 757 or 767 hit anything on 9/11. there was nothing suggesting any of the disconnected thoughts, assumptions or what have you that you , strangely, saw fit to throw at me.
there are HUNDREDS of on site people's recorded comments that the 2nd plane, quote "looked like a military plane",...."was not a commercial jet", "....was grey (or dark) and had no windows" and so on. i have viewed dozens of videos,films and documentaries with footage of the second impact/explosion and understand the reasons for those comments as NOT ONE IMAGE IS OF A 757 OR A 767. the first impact/explosion filmed by the Naudet's shows a small to medium size plane that under no circumstances COULD EVER BE MISTAKEN FOR A 757/767 COMMERCIAL JET.
finally, it is on YOU to supply the proof.show us either the reference or footage of a 757 or 767 hitting anything on 9/11 and i will personally congratulate you on this site.give us the reference, the book or film that shows any one of the 19 CIA-imported patsies boarding any plane anywhere or being in any airport on 9/11.come on,show us!
i appreciate all constructive comments and references to proofs that may agree with or contradict any of my statements.strangely, these are completely absent in yours.