‘We overstepped in that case’ — David Brooks offers another empty apology for supporting Iraq war

“As usual, they’re not willing to admit it”

Jonathan Cook points out why they can’t admit error, because it can not be spun as error, how come these people always err in the same direction, and why is there an unwillingness on the part of supporters of the Humanitarian and “Adavancement” Imperial narrative to examine the fundamental ideological premises they base this murderousness on..George Carlin is sadly missed, or even to explain how they can act outside the Law, as in the case of Palestine, Syria, etc…

I mean now we can all agree that “headchoppers”, “salafists”, “terrorists”, “militants”, “Hamas” are loathsome and should be killed or at least “neutralised”, it surprises me that no one who believes this wants to, with deep context( context appears to be cryptonite to many “Liberal Progressives”), why they believe this, think what might happen if your regime spent 2.3 trillion on the humanities…it couldn’t hurt but I get the feeling nothing is going to help, after all Savages are a kind of solution and it is impossible to even imagine America without the freshly cut scalps of savages tucked in to her belt, its what you do.

there can be no peace with superior people, because they are blind and are driven to dominate, so it’s going to kick off..it did a long time ago,

“Loyal only to fair debate

So let me address Whitaker’s allegations.

1. Neither I nor Media Lens are “loyal supporters” of Hersh – or Assad. Whitaker is projecting. He has chosen a side in Syria – that of what he simplistically terms the “rebels”, now dominated by Al-Qaeda affiliates and ISIS, backed by an unholy alliance of Saudi Arabia, the US, Europe, Israel and Turkey. But not everyone who opposes the Islamic extremists, or Whitaker’s group of western interventionists, has therefore chosen Assad’s side.

One can choose the side of international law and respect for the sovereignty of nation-states, and object to states fomenting proxy wars to destabilise and destroy other regimes.

More than that, one can choose to maintain a critical distance and, based on experience, remain extremely wary of official and self-serving narratives promoted by the world’s most powerful states. Some of us think there are lessons to be learnt from the lies we were told about WMD in Iraq, or a supposedly imminent massacre by Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi in Benghazi.

These examples of deception should be remembered when we try to assess how probable is the story that Assad wanted to invite yet more destructive interference in his country from foreign powers by gassing his own people – and to no obvious strategic or military advantage. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me three times, I should just admit I am a gullible fool.

I and Media Lens (if I may presume to speak on their behalf as a longtime follower) are not arguing that Hersh’s account must be right. Just that it deserves attention, and that it should be part of the media / public discourse. What concerns us is the inadmissibility of relevant information to the public realm, and concerted efforts to stifle debate. Manufactured groupthink, it has been repeatedly shown, works to the benefit of the powerful, those promoting the destructive interests of a now-global military-industrial complex.

Whitaker and the interventionists want only the official narrative allowed, the one that serves their murky political agenda; we want countervailing voices heard too. That doesn’t make us anyone’s loyalists. It makes us loyal only to the search for transparency and truth.”

https://mronline.org/2017/07/05/useful-idiots-who-undermine-dissent-on-syria/

Source Article from http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/overstepped-another-disaster/

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes