Thursday, September 09th, 2010 | Author:

So the Telegraph says some of the 2,000 photos of Abu Ghraib abuse – that Obama said in April he was going to release but now has decided to suppress – include rape and sexual abuse of male and female prisoners.

Earlier this month, he said: “The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to inflame anti-American public opinion and to put our troops in greater danger.”

And we’re just supposed to trust Obama that the individuals involved had been “identified, and appropriate actions” taken – behind closed doors, of course.

This “shoot-the-messenger-and-hide-the-message-and-protect-the-troops” is the same strategy the government is using against Wikileaks and Bradley Manning.  As Justin Raimondo put it:

What is clear to me is this: there is a coordinated campaign to defame both Assange and Manning, and I have no doubt the US government is directly involved in this effort. Just as they tried to destroy Dan Ellsberg, so they are unleashing their agents (paid and volunteer) on these two very brave people. They want to divert attention away from the content of what is being exposed, and direct it back on the whistleblowers: they don’t want people debating the wisdom of the Afghan occupation, they would much rather talk about Assange’s journalistic credentials and Manning’s sex life. [and now Assange's sex life]

Smoke and mirrors, ladies and gentlemen.  Do not look behind that curtain.

And sadly?  It appears that most Americans are content to plug their ears and cover their eyes and pretend that they are not responsible for what their government does.  Even worse, many who call themselves Christians eagerly grasp this straw because it allows them to continue in their delusion that “God and country” are one and the same.

Share
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
One Response
  1. Jim Wetzel says:

    One minor question: are we, in fact, responsible for what “our” government does?

    I could make an argument that I have substantial responsibility for what a particular officeholder does, if I voted for him/her. (Which is one reason why I no longer vote.)

    It’s true that I’m not stopping them (our false “leaders”) … but I don’t have the ability to do so. Which seems to me to be the point: responsibility and control go together; and responsibility is proportional to control.

    On the other hand, while my control may be quite small, it’s still larger than zero, and so must my responsibility be.

    As you can see, I’m still wrestling with this whole question.