Establishment Capitalizes On Embassy Attack as Election Approaches
September 13, 2012
Senator John McCain has used the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and the death of ambassador Chris Stevens to call for resurgent American exceptionalism in the Middle East.
Obama “does not believe in American exceptionalism” and Romney “has all the right instincts,” McCain said, reflecting his opinion that Romney’s neocon advisers need to run U.S. foreign policy.
McCain said there is “a belief in the Middle East that the United States is withdrawing” from the world and this departure creates a vacuum to be filled by al-Qaeda and other religious extremists.
Despite McCain’s criticism of the administration, Obama said during an interview Wednesday with the Spanish television network Telemundo, that “the United States doesn’t have the option of withdrawing from the world.”
“And we’re the one indispensable nation,” he added, repeating the mantra Democrats included in the foreign policy section of their platform in response to “American exceptionalism” finding its way into the Republican party platform.
In the past, Democrats have used “indispensable” to describe Social Security, Europe, and the United Nations, but not America. It became president Bill Clinton’s foreign policy motto.
The establishment’s neocon faction is mounting the corporate media stage to insist the attack in Libya was timed to correspond with the anniversary of September 11, an assertion made by an infamous “policy institute” largely responsible for the invasion of Iraq and the systematic murder of more than a million Iraqis.
“These appear to be coordinated attacks,” said Danielle Pletka, vice president of foreign- and defense-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute in a blog post. “How do I know? Because Egyptian intelligence warned about attacks on our interests. Because crowds need someone to get them somewhere. Because this is how extremists work.”
Pletka claims Obama has “disengaged entirely from the Middle East,” a comment that is not only obviously false, but ludicrous.
In order to placate a substantial but wholly ineffectual antiwar faction in the Democratic party, Obama said in a speech at Camp Lejeune in 2009 that the U.S. will withdraw combat troops from a Iraq, a pronouncement made almost worthless by the fact a “transitional” force of 50,000 troops will remain.
Republican president George W. Bush had initiated the withdrawal in a signed agreement with the prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, once again revealing that there is little difference between Republican and Democrat administrations. The only difference is that Obama moved up the supposed withdrawal date by a year.
Obama backed a United Nations resolution calling for “international involvement” in the violent removal of Muammar Gaddafi and his government in Libya. Obama ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, sounded like her predecessor, the neocon John Bolton, when she called for airstrikes against Libya. Obama “authorized” (without consulting Congress or obtaining a declaration of war) the use of more than a hundred Tomahawk cruise missiles against targets in Libya. Ultimately, 30,000 Libyans were killed in NATO’s illegal war.
Obama is a serial violator of the Constitution. In December 2009, he ordered strikes on Yemen and in early 2011 demanded Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh stop the release of journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye, who reported U.S. involvement in the bombings.
In June, Chris Kirk, writing for Slate, documented Obama’s drone strikes in Pakistan. “Since Obama took office, media outlets have reported more than 300 drone strikes in Pakistan targeting al-Qaeda or the Taliban, outnumbering the Bush administration’s drone strikes five to one,” writes Kirk.
In other words, Obama and the Democrats have bested the Republicans and the neocons in remote control mass murder, a tactic originally devised during the Bush-era.
The Obama administration has worked closely with the CIA and foreign “partners” to undermine the leadership of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and destabilize the region. It has also worked with Israel to undermine Iran.
Currently, the only substantial difference between Obama and the neocons is that Obama has so far not given Israel a red light to attack Iran, although this will more than likely change if Obama wins in November. It will most assuredly happen if the Republicans take the White House.
Pletka criticizes Obama for his statements concerning events in the Middle East, most notably with the Libya embassy attack. She prefers those of Secretary of State Clinton, who was much more aggressive in her condemnation of the attack.
Actions, of course, speak louder than words. Anything Obama says is irrelevant. The United States has maintained its military presence in the Middle East and, in fact, the Obama administration has expanded the war on terror and the police state at home.
McCain’s comments are merely more theater in the lead-up to the election, which of course will change absolutely nothing. It does not matter if a Republican or a Democrat warms a seat in the Oval Office because the global elite remain determined to realize order out of chaos in the Middle East and both parties will accomplish this goal, albeit with different stylistic flourishes that are, in a historical sense, mere footnotes.