"The killing of Osama bin Laden" (Patrick Martin and Alex Lantier, WSWS):
Nothing in Obama’s remarks suggested in any way that the killing of bin Laden will lead to a significant change in American foreign policy—let alone an end to the relentless expansion of military interventions.
The three wars in which the United States is currently engaged—in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya—have nothing to do with the fight against Al Qaeda and the capture of bin Laden. Both the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which the United States invaded in 2003, and the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, which is now being bombed by US and NATO forces, opposed Al Qaeda. In Afghanistan, Al Qaeda forces are politically and militarily insignificant.
Both Obama’s speech and the press commentary was clearly an attempt to rally public support for wars that have become deeply unpopular. Obama asked Americans to “think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed.” Media commentators repeatedly expressed the hope that the killing of bin Laden would restore the morale of soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and justify the loss of thousands of lives.
Bin Laden is indelibly associated with a monstrous crime, the murder of nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2011, most of them dying in the destruction of the World Trade Center towers in New York City, as well as other bloody terrorist attacks around the world. But he was not the cause of the explosion of American militarism that followed the 9/11 attacks, merely the pretext.That's an important article. The standout for me -- of the article, of the day -- is how Barack's attempting to use someone he ordered killed to advance his (Barack's) own political goals. It's disgusting.
I thought the age of human sacrifice ended long, long ago.
But we're all supposed to gather round the campfire and watch the corpse burn, we're supposed to make like the crowd in the stadiums cheering on the gladiator fights.
This is certainly not about humanity.
As the writers of the WSWS article point out, it's also not about Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. Osama bin Laden was killed. Nothing changed. Nothing at all.
The Patriot Act has not been repealed. The TSA still control the airports. Our civil liberties remain on hold.
In fact, those two words describe the Barack presidency: Nothing changed.
"TV: Blather" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
"Good evening. Tonight I can report to the nation and to the world," Barack declared at the start of his address, bearing down on the term "report," while, in fact, reporting nothing.
It never got deeper than that greeting. There were kind words for the Bush administration. There was no analysis and there were no real information.
Near the end, he declared that "justice has been done."
Justice is bringing someone before a court to faces charges.
Vigilantism is what took place.
You can cheer that or boo it or shrug.
But you can't honestly claim justice -- in a legal sense -- took place.
In the lead up to the 2008 elections, much was made that a Constitutional professor in the White House would lead to a renewed respect for the law. In fact, Naomi Woolf was fond of insisting that repeatedly (including in her endorsement of Barack during the Democratic Party primaries). But that respect for the rule of law -- so absent during the Bully Boy Bush years -- never arrived in the Barack years.
The targeted killing only demonstrates that further.
And as a result, look for the White House's anonymous press feeders to begin stressing in the coming days that, actually, there were attempts to bring Osama bin Laden in alive so that he could face charges; however, the situation didn't allow for it and US forces were forced to take him out.
It'll be a cute little add-on or upgrade to the narrative and, the press being what it is, no one will bother to ask why that wasn't noted in the original statements?
What do you know, this piece Ava and C.I. wrote last night? Sure enough, by this afternoon, the official narrative was 'upgraded' with a 'there was an attempt to capture him but he resisted so he had to be killed.' How come? Because there's no international authority for the US military to be in Pakistan. So there's no legal right for the killing. Ava and C.I. knew that last night which is why they knew this would be added to the story.
Couldn't do it at the start. Doing it at the start would have cut down on the jingoism the White House was trying to gin up.
Barack is the second coming of George W. Bush.
"Iraq snapshot" (The Common Ills):