It's been a long time since I've heard anyone in the traditional media repeat the old saying that, "The first casualty of war is the truth."
Now the media and political establishment have turned emotional appeals to intimidate anyone that dares question the reasons why veterans, who are routinely betrayed by politicians, died, into an art form, with well researched propaganda!
T. Becket Adams, who is a pundit for the Washington Examiner, made this clear when he deleted the following tweets after facing outrage from others on twitter, “Moment with SEAL's widow was moving. Also, politically brilliant. Trump insulates himself from Yemen criticism. Good luck challenging raid.” And “After that 2-minute standing ovation, who wants to be the person to state publicly that the Yemen raid yielded no benefit? Have fun with that.”
Whether you consider this tactful or not, it's reasonably accurate, and ironically, when he chose to delete his own tweets, under pressure, he helped make his own point.
(Edit after a tweet to notify T. Becket Adams he responded to inform me about an article he wrote elaborating on this incident About that moment last night with Carryn Owens, the widow of the slain Navy SEAL, 03/01/2017 which addressing the issue far better than most mainstream pundits; however it still doesn't address the many lies cited in this article and others that the traditional media rarely ever mentions.)
This is just one of the examples where high profile people were forced to delete their tweets under intimidation for questioning the narrative of this speech and similar incidents have been taking place for years including both conventions where family members of veterans who died were used for political reasons, willingly or not.
When politicians and the media use their propaganda to deceive the public into believing war is justified we're all victims of their deceit including the veterans who they betray with their propaganda who often sacrifice their lives for all the wrong reason! However preserving the lies to preserve the glory of veterans only means that more civilians and veterans will die based on lies!
The sad truth is that the political establishment has developed an indoctrination process to intimidate anyone that challenges their claims about fighting to defend our freedom. The military has also developed indoctrination methods that teach cadets to blindly believe what they're told to believe and obey orders.
I've gone into details of how most of our wars have been fought based on lies and that the claim that our veterans are "fighting for our freedom" is simply false may times; and so have numerous other people that have little or no access to the traditional media including Jacob G. Hornberger who wrote, American Soldiers Did Not Die Defending Our Freedom. Messages like this are completely absent from the traditional media; if they did manage to get onto the television they would be demonized by almost the entire political establishment. It is unlikely that they could or would use a rational argument since a close look at the history of warfare will expose many lies used to fight one war after another. This intimidation tactic successfully prevents rational review of the crimes of our political leaders; even when some of them argue against one war they routinely defend the myth that our military is being routinely used to defend freedom.
Even though I follow what I consider more progressive news outlets on the internet I rarely ever find any articles that come out and say it there either; unless I look for them specifically like Googling something like, "The myth of fighting to defend our freedom" and find numerous stories like US Troops Do Not Fight ‘To Keep Us Free’ 01/29/2014 pointing out that this is simply not true and that when Barack Obama uses veterans in his speech that were injured during the wars that he ordered on based on lies he's using his own victims to glorify his presidency, and not only are most veterans indoctrinated not to challenge this but so are almost all people.
I don't mean any disrespect to the vast majority of veterans and their families, but most if not all wars that we've been fighting for decades have been at least partially based on lies and could have been avoided. Even World War Two might have been avoided if the business community, including Henry Ford who was sympathetic to Hitler and former King Edward VIII who also supported Hitler and many others in power who appeased Hitler long before Neville Chamberlain was accused of appeasing him might have been avoided if they hadn't given him tacit approval at least, because they thought he was less of a threat than the communists.
Amazingly one of Hillary Clinton's former volunteers, or employees, Dan Grilo didn't seem to understand how this was such a propaganda master stroke which Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton Barack Obama and many presidents before him routinely use and called it out, even though his own party and allies use the same tactic in a manner that was incredibly crude when he said, “Sorry, Owens’ wife, you’re not helping yourself of your husband’s memory by standing there and clapping like an idiot. Trump just used you.” Becket Adams was much more polite and accurate and his comment was still demonized so badly that he felt he had to delete it. Dan Grilo was so hypocritical and rude that the response to him was even worse, at least partially justified in this case; and he was fired from his job and deleted his Twitter account and doesn't seem to be accessible on line anymore, except for the outraged comments about him.
First of all there's no guarantee that Carryn Owens was doing this for the reasons that Grilo clearly indicated although, regrettably she was being used by Donald Trump, even if that isn't what she intended. She may well have believed in the claim that he was fighting for our freedom. The military is much more caught up in this propaganda than the rest of the population; and in most cases, when they realize they've been used many of them leave the military, at least and in some cases, they join organizations like Veterans for Peace to expose the lies of our politicians.
These should be considered the real heroes that try to prevent future warts based on lies!
Another thing that most people overlook is that there is a strong possibility that this propaganda is causing a lot of conflict within the families that they use for propaganda as well as those where some of them see through the propaganda and challenge the lies and others emotionally defend veterans by refusing to consider possibility that they might have been betrayed by their leaders; in some cases this even leads to violence or even murder.
The Owens family clearly has some disagreements, and I hope they work them out among themselves, but this may only make things worse since William Owens clearly disagreed with this mission when he said, "Why at this time did there have to be this stupid mission when it wasn't even barely a week into his administration? Why? For two years prior, there were no boots on the ground in Yemen — everything was missiles and drones — because there was not a target worth one American life. Now, all of a sudden we had to make this grand display?"
Did the Trump administration think about whether he was antagonizing arguments within this family or not? It appears as if his own reputation and the propaganda he used to at least try to glorify it is more important than additional damage that could be done; possibly because he doesn't think of how it could impact them any more than he seems to worry about if this raid was necessary; or if it was appropriate to do it the day after announcing the ban on seven countries possibly antagonizing allies he was relying on.
Whether or not politicians think about the damage they do their propaganda is incredibly successful and even though the evidence, assuming people are willing to look at it raises major doubts about whether or not many if any of these conflicts are worthwhile or not many of the people hurt the most by it often refuse to consider the possibility that they've been betrayed by their leaders because that would mean that they sacrificed for all the wrong reasons, not to defend freedom.
One Vietnam veteran nurse, Lynda Van Devanter, who wrote her biography seemed to have virtual admitted that she might have been in denial. At one point in her book, if I remember correctly she said that she had to believe that the war was for a good cause, because otherwise it would have meant that she sacrificed for all the wrong reasons.
Tammy Duckworth isn’t the worst when it comes to denial about the reasons for war and she’s not the strongest proponent for war, claiming that she wants to remind people “what the true costs of war are” when they “start beating the drums of war,” and she opposes air strikes in Syria; however a closer look may raise doubts about how strong her opposition to war is and if she really is questioning all the reasons for past wars or the activities that might st the stage for the next war and more after that.
What makes her more worth reviewing is that she does a much better job making it seem as if the glorification of war is justified and that all veterans are heroes that should be commended for “fighting for freedom,” even when this isn’t what they’re always doing.
It doesn’t look good to question the political positions of a double amputee when it comes to war propaganda; but that could be all the more reason why someone should if her opposition to some war could make it seem as if others that she might speak out for are worthwhile. Also Rep. Duckworth was one of the first congressmen to join the 'Ready for Hillary' movement in November of 2013 even though Hillary Clinton is one of the most outrageous among Democrats when it comes to supporting unjustified wars and her record as Secretary of State is outrageous from the point of view of anyone that opposes unjustified wars.
This is a strong and common sign that many progressives in congress may not be nearly as progressive as they pretend to be. How can you claim that your against unjustified wars or any other progressive position then turn around and endorse the worst candidate when it comes to those issues and often even fund raise for those candidates?
The congress is full of phony progressives that do exactly this; which enables them to come up with an enormous amount of propaganda indicating that they’re for progressive causes that inevitably fail partly because of the candidates they support opposing it!
Like many other phony progressives, her sounds much better than her actions and a closer look at her record raises even more doubts, even if she is a double amputee. I can’t rule out the possibility that she believes a lot of her own claims; she has been raised in the military and lived with this propaganda all her life judging by her own account. However, the glorification of veterans doesn’t change the fact that they’ve been betrayed by their leaders and they fight one war after another for lies not to “defend freedom.”
She describes her own beliefs in the following excerpts:
What I Learned at War ‘When my colleagues start beating the drums of war, I want to remind them what the true costs of war are.’ July/August 2015
.... What I didn’t expect was to fall in love with the camaraderie and sense of purpose that the military instills in you and even with the misery of training. The thing is, when we were exhausted and miserable, my fellow cadets and I were exhausted and miserable together. When the instructor yelled, he wasn’t singling anyone out, but yelling at all of us, together. It took all of us working as a team to succeed. .....
That day, and so many others when I served, illustrated the two most important lessons the military taught me: Never leave anyone behind—not on the battlefield and not in our country. And never put a service member in harm’s way without understanding the cost—the very real and very human cost—of war. ....
..... We will serve and serve proudly. We will go wherever the country needs us. I am not a dove. I believe strongly that if the country’s national security interests dictate that we put boots on the ground, then let’s do it and be aware of the true costs, both economic and human. I’m also not a reckless hawk, with scant appreciation for what the men and women in uniform—and their families—sacrifice every single day to keep the rest of us safe. Complete article
.... What I didn’t expect was to fall in love with the camaraderie and sense of purpose that the military instills in you and even with the misery of training. The thing is, when we were exhausted and miserable, my fellow cadets and I were exhausted and miserable together. When the instructor yelled, he wasn’t singling anyone out, but yelling at all of us, together. It took all of us working as a team to succeed. .....
That day, and so many others when I served, illustrated the two most important lessons the military taught me: Never leave anyone behind—not on the battlefield and not in our country. And never put a service member in harm’s way without understanding the cost—the very real and very human cost—of war. ....
..... We will serve and serve proudly. We will go wherever the country needs us. I am not a dove. I believe strongly that if the country’s national security interests dictate that we put boots on the ground, then let’s do it and be aware of the true costs, both economic and human. I’m also not a reckless hawk, with scant appreciation for what the men and women in uniform—and their families—sacrifice every single day to keep the rest of us safe. Complete article
Her reference to “the misery of training” is a clear reference to boot camp where cadets are typically hazed and intimidated with rigorous training designed to teach them to blindly obey orders and, as she indicated develop a sense of loyalty among cadets; however this loyalty is often based on an environment of intimidation. Strict obedience to authority is routine in the military and they’re taught to believe what they’re told and not to challenge the claims from superiors. This is what enables political leaders and generals to lead us into war based on lies one time after another.
The claim that they “never leave anyone behind” sounds good; but it has never been true. Nor should it necessarily, if it means losing even more men than they might be able to retrieve; which brings us to her claim that they should “never put a service member in harm’s way without understanding the cost,” which not only sounds good but it is good, regrettably this doesn’t happen either.
Recently she said that she was opposed to the Iraq war; however this clearly didn’t go so far as to refuse to serve in it, which would have saved her legs. Apparently she was “working towards a Ph.D. in political science at Northern Illinois University,” when she was deployed to Iraq in 2004. If she already had political ambitions at this time it might explain why she wouldn’t want to refuse to fight in a war that she now claims that she opposed. By that time both Scott Ritter and Mohamed ElBaradei had reported that there were no weapons of mass destruction which was the justification for fighting this war, and they turned out to be right.
They had plenty of reason to believe that the war wasn’t worth the cost and refuse to go, since it was based on lies; but she didn’t do that. Nor did she have any doubts about Hillary Clinton later when she was among the first to endorse her. During the same interview, I think it was All In With Chris Hayes March 1st, she also said, or implied, that there should never be any doubt about veterans who sacrificed for their country like William “Ryan” Owens, or that they were fighting for freedom. It's not their fault that their leaders lied to them but regrettably when one war after another is based on lies they're simply not "fighting for our freedom!"
Her alleged opposition to the Iraq war, to the best of my knowledge, like Trump's opposition, wasn't made public until after even the mainstream media had to admit that the premise for the war was false. When it was going on she obeyed orders without question, and when it suited her propaganda purposes, including at the Democratic convention said she "started that day doing what I loved" which helps support the glorious image of camaraderie that the military often tries to portray as part of their effort to glorify the troops; and after her accident "surviving only because my buddies refused to leave me," which also supports the military image. However if she hadn't been fighting a war based on lies there never would have been a reason to lose her legs in the first place!
None of this propaganda ever mentions that the image of camaraderie isn't unconditional at all, as they might imply; it is based on intimidation and the assumption that everyone goes along with the program of their leaders which is a practice drilled into their heads during boot camp and continues throughout their military career! When people question the reasons for these wars it often escalates until either they go along with the program or face some form of retaliation.
Questioning this might have weakened the image of the military in some people eyes but it would save lots of lives; and ensure that we really did only fight wars to protect our freedom!
The claim that they're defending freedom could be put in more doubt when considering the comments of Rep. Ruben Gallego at the same convention who said "When we were kicking in doors looking for insurgents in Iraq...." without considering the many stories about kicking in doors of civilians and how this almost certainly led to more anger against the United States.
Just because it's easy for those who want to forget that the war is based on lies doesn't mean the victims of the bombing done by the United States will be so quick to forgot and if Americans considered that they would understand why many of them hate us and how wars based on lies does more to incite terrorism than prevent it!
The problem is of course just because the entire political establishment puts doubts about fighting for freedom off limits doesn’t change the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction and; more than that the United States routinely conducts activities that helped set the stage for these wars based on lies. In this case they armed Saddam Hussein in the eighties, when he was getting ready to invade Iraq the first time in the Spring of 1990 they remained silent and even when April Glaspie met with Saddam Hussein she said, “We have no opinion on your Arab – Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960′s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)” (As reported in Gulf War Documents: Meeting between Saddam Hussein and US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie and WikiLeaks, April Glaspie, and Saddam Hussein by Stephen M. Walt) And there’s an incredibly long list of additional blunders including their arming of the mujahedin which later became the Taliban and Al Qaeda and arming of both sides of the Iran/Iraq and Syrian wars and many others that no traditional politician, including Tammy Duckworth ever mentions.
Mentioning these inconvenient facts are relegated to what the mainstream media tries to portray as fringe, even when the research is far more credible and consistent than the propaganda used to promote wars based on lies. There’s little or no chance that she could get any support from the political establishment if she challenged this anymore than any other candidate that speaks out about these things; and Duckworth had plenty of support from the traditional establishment including Gov. Rod Blagojevich who she endorsed in 2006 even though she knew he was under criminal investigation; and, with or without a Quid Pro Quo after losing her first run for office she was appointed Director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs by Governor Rod Blagojevich.
She began her campaign for Congress less than two years after losing her legs, which presumably helped her image thanks to the belief that veterans who sacrificed should never be questioned about whether they were really fighting for freedom. I don’t like criticizing her after this loss but her political career clearly indicates that she had high political ambitions starting before losing her legs and catered to the political establishment when it advanced her career even if it didn’t agree with the beliefs that she was campaigning on, like typical politicians.
Her performance at the VA both in Illinois and at the federal level weren’t nearly as distinguished as her campaign claims indicate. She was sued for intimidating or wrongfully firing two employees in a case that dragged on for seven years and was settled against the wishes of the plaintiffs during the 2016 election season when she was running for Senate; and another whistle blower also expressed outrage that she wouldn’t read the report when she tried to expose additional problems at the VA; and she was also responsible when a contract for over five million dollars was exposed as fraudulent.
Her record at the VA hardly seems to agree with her rhetoric or the image that is given to the vast majority of the public. Apparently “she was credited with starting a program to help veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and veterans with brain injury.” However trying to address PTSD without acknowledging the problems often created by the intimidating environment in the military especially during boot camp training is not likely to address the full problems. Several veteran shootings after returning have been attributed to PTSD including Ivan Lopez and Eddie Ray Routh both involved in high profile shootings and never saw combat; but they did have arguments with other veterans, which may have been related to the culture of intimidation in the military.
There's an enormous amount of denial about this subject as well reporting the majority of these shootings briefly and often only at the local level so that the vast majority of the public doesn't know how often they occur. There are also several studies indicating that veterans have greater problems with domestic violence as well including abusing both their wives and often their children too.
The government provides enormous profits for corporations that profit off of war; and they don't seem to have a problem paying those corporations, many that donate an enormous amount of money to campaigns; but the veterans run into problems pone time after another when it comes to getting treatment for PTSD or many other things.
Like many other politicians Tammy Duckworth's rhetoric and the fact that she's a disabled war veteran sound great but if you look at the history behind it it's not hard to find that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Regrettably few if any politicians that get the support of the political establishment of the consolidated media ever do stand up to scrutiny and potential candidates from the grass roots almost never get any coverage from the media.
The Constitution doesn't say that elected officials shall be required to collect campaign contributions from oligarchies before the media will be required to provide them the coverage they need to get name recognition; however that is exactly the system we have; without full understanding or informed consent by most of the public.
We have a massive political establishment that spends an enormous amount of money and research to study how to manipulate and control the public instead of addressing their concerns as a true democracy would.
I don't like criticizing a double amputee anymore than anyone else; and before she was elected she was betrayed by the politicians that led us into war based on lies and she paid for that with her legs.
But now, for one reason or another, she's using this for political reasons, and appears as concerned about her own political career if not more than about taking care of veterans. She may have started out as a victim but she's now part of the "politically brilliant" propaganda effort; and glorifying wars based on lies indirectly, by glorifying the veterans, and demonizing anyone that points out that they weren't "fighting for freedom," will only help with the propaganda for more wars based on lies.
Her defense of Hillary Clinton, Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Niranjan Shah and other members of the political establishment is far more reliable than her defense of veterans or the vast majority of the public!
At least when it counts!
Edit 04/08/2017: Tammy Duckworth issued the following statement following Trump's launching of Tomahawk missiles on Syria, which may seem balanced to some but continues to ignore some of the most important root causes of war:
Without reliable information which is often extremely difficult to come by with the consolidated corporate media I can’t completely rule out the possibility that Assad may have launched these chemical attacks or the ones in 2013 and that the people of Syria are entitled to protection. However with the incredibly long record of selling weapons to both sides including efforts by Hillary Clinton, who Duckworth continues to support despite her outrageous record and there continue to be new and old reports exposing her bad record, that are often contradictory it is reasonable to be skeptical.
However even if some form of action is justified she should have spoken out against arms sales that she remained silent about; and with stories like Tomahawk maker's stock up after U.S. launch on Syria 04/07/2017 many members of congress should be speaking out about potential profit motives from campaign contributors that might have an impact on Decisions about war.
When there is even the potential of a conflict about interests that should outrage everyone yet the people we’re always told are so “honorable” routinely remain silent about it even when large corporation increase profits when strikes potentially killing thousands or millions or leading to escalation that could get out of control that kills these high numbers are routine.
If these politicians are honorable, either they don’t know what the word honorable means, or I don’t!
Rep. Ruben Gallego does seem to be speaking out against these strikes as well, and thankfully he does not seem to agree that it is a “clear and measured message” that he agrees with; but he also remains silent about the routine conflict of interests with corporations profiting off war.
The following are additional sources for some of the conclusions pointed out here:
Wikipedia: Tammy Duckworth
U.S. Investigators criticize Veterans Affairs, Senator Dick Durbin and Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth over scandal 03/07/2016
Regarding Duckworth, who is now running for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, Clarno said, “Well, you know that’s the frustration. I went to her because I am one of her constituents. I went to her numerous times, emailed many times, trying to elicit her help on what was going on at Hines. I never felt that she wanted to hear exactly what was going on, and I don’t know why.”
Clarno also said of Duckworth, ” You know, we had the facts, we had the data, Doctor Nee and I met with her back, last fall, so I brought Dr. Nee and we had piles of evidence to share with her. It was disheartening when we were at the meeting and we were talking about the O-I-G report that was done in cardiology and she had not read the report. So it was really upsetting….. I really thought going to Tammy Duckworth, that she would be the one who would stand up and say ‘this has gotta stop’.” (For Duckworth's response or additional details see article
BREAKING: Hines VA Whistleblower On Duckworth: "I Went To Her Numerous Times" 03/07/2016
Sound familiar? Illinois Rep. Tammy Duckworth accused of retaliation at VA 06/24/2016
Duckworth Lawsuit to Continue After Plaintiffs Reject Settlement 07/27/2017
Illinois AG: Duckworth lawsuit settlement final 07/28/2016
Dem Senate Candidate Tammy Duckworth Blasted For Wasting $5 Million As A VA Official 06/22/2016
What I Learned at War Summer 2015
Rep. Duckworth is 'Ready for Hillary' 11/11/2013
Wikileaks emails bring back Tammy Duckworth’s old political friends — Shah and Blagojevich 08/03/2016
The recent document dump that forced the resignation of DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and some of her top assistants includes some interesting nuggets about Niranjan Shah – who, like Duckworth, has deep ties to Illinois’ king of corruption, former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Shah, CEO of Globetrotters Engineering, was a big-time Illinois campaign donor to Democratic Party causes. He fell out of favor, however, after resigning as University of Illinois board chairman following a Chicago Tribune series exposed an admissions scandal at the university.
Influential politicians and appointees, including Shah, used their political connections to gain favorable treatment for family members and friends, according to the Tribune. Shah’s son-in-law got a job at the university thanks to Shah’s political sway.
Leaked emails show DNC officials blacklisting Shah from events at the White House. ....
“Companies associated with Shah received more than $30 million in state contracts over a five-year period while giving $53,000 to Blagojevich… Shah also hosted a fundraiser at his home for Blagojevich,” according to a story last month in the newspaper. Shah has donated $11,600 to Duckworth’s campaign, most of it going toward the U.S. representative’s House election efforts. The donor most recently wrote a check for $1,000 to Duckworth’s Senate campaign last September, according to the Federal Election Commission.
Duckworth cashed Shah’s campaign check, readily accepting the donation of a man with a checkered political past. The congresswoman, too, stood by Blagojevich, even as he was being investigated for “epidemic hiring fraud.” .... For additional details see article.
‘American Sniper’ Widow Demands Apology From John McCain For Undermining Efforts Of Fallen Navy Seal William Ryan Owens 03/0/2017
No comments:
Post a Comment