RICARDO SANCHEZ AND BARRACK OBAMA: LET'S TAKE OFF THE FACES AND LOOK AT THE MASKS BELOW, PLUS SOME FRIDAY FUN

No one ought to be in too big a hurry to congratulate Mr. Ricardo Sanchez for being the next general in line to criticize the Iraq War and exculpate himself: Powell, Pace, Abizaid, Shinseki...I've forgotten the others but it doesn't much matter. Failure's an orphan and so forth.

We done with the Powell worship, finally? His name is mud now, right? No one still gets misty-eyed about his "story" anymore, si o no?

We loathe Colin Powell with every fiber of our being but we musn't get sidetracked. With regard to the list above there are two notable exceptions. (1) Admiral William Fallon, active CentCom commander, has opposed the upcoming war with Iran and has put the lie to everything Bush and his trained monkey Petreaeus have said. (2) Ricardo Sanchez has pulled off a miracle okey-doke. He's gotten a liberal chorus to think he's now a dove and sold it by getting Lindsay Graham the torture queen to trash him, meanwhile, Sanchez has, of course, excused himself AND argued for MORE WAR and A DICTATORIAL PRESIDENCY.

Essential reading from Michael Roberts. Kelso's footnotes included.

OpEdNews

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__071015_behind_the_sanchez_r.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 15, 2007

Behind The Sanchez Rant

By Michael Roberts

Recently, the United States media ran with a statement blaming the George Bush Administration for the military failures of the war in Iraq. Retired Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez delivered an angry, militaristic and deeply disturbing tirade to participants at the Military Reporters and Editors annual conference in Arlington, Virginia. Sanchez chose this setting to spew venom at the Bush Administration, the media and what he believed was hindering the successful prosecution of the war in Iraq.

While the mainstream media cherry-picked the “Iraq is a nightmare” sound-bite to play over and over again, it failed to analyze the deep anti-democratic and pronounced authoritarianism that was the very essence of the speech. Sanchez covered up his call for an America that is dominated and controlled by the military by blaming the failures in Iraq on the media saying that it was driven to “unscrupulous reporting” and “agenda-driven biases.” (1)

Sanchez, who commanded US forces in Iraq from June 2003 – 2004, and was forced to resign over allegations that he sanctioned and was aware of methods of interrogation of prisoners at Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison that ran counter to the Geneva Convention on the Rules of War. His rant was thus all the more bitter since he and his former boss, Donald Rumsfeld, fell on their swords in order to preserve the reputation of the erstwhile Commander in Chief, King George II.

And just like the King, Sanchez took no blame for the Iraqi cesspool but was quite liberal with this castigations and criticisms of everyone else. He started by blaming what he called “the corrosive partisan politics (2) that was destroying and killing our service members who are at war that along with the media was making things in Iraq very difficult.” While Sanchez speaks about American democracy this statement clearly points to his belief that war and democracy – even at home - cannot operate together. (3)

Continuing down this militaristic authoritarian path Sanchez all but called for more press censorship than what already occurs by saying, “as I assess various media entities, some are unquestionably engaged in political propaganda that is uncontrolled.” (4) He seemed to suggest that the only basis for waging a successful war in Iraq and beyond was some form of military rule at home, declaring, “as we all know, war is an extension of politics, and when a nation goes to war it must bring to bear all elements of power in order to win. War-fighting is not solely the responsibility of the military commander, unless he has been given the responsibility and resources to synchronize the political, economic and informational power of the nation.” (5)

Justifiably attacking the Bush Administration, but for all the wrong reasons, Sanchez called the Administration’s war strategy a “nightmare with no end in sight.” For those in both the Republican and Democratic parties that have been clamoring for a more “get tough” policy in Iraq this was great news and the 2008 Presidential hopefuls immediately pounced on this as “proof” that “we need a change of course” in Iraq.

They also chortled with glee when Sanchez leveled a broadside against the “surge” saying that “the latest ‘revised strategy’ is a desperate attempt by an administration that has not accepted the political and economic realities of this war, and they have definitely not communicated that reality to the American people.”

Of course, everyone conveniently ignored the other parts of the speech preferring to focus only on the criticisms of the Bush Administration. He chided the media for being unpatriotic when he commented on the Abu Ghraib debacle where the media exposed torture methods banned by the Geneva Convention that cost Sanchez another command and ultimately having to retire from the army. This is how he put it:

“Over the course of this war tactically insignificant events have become strategic defeats for America because of the tremendous power and impact of the media and, by extension, you the journalist. In many cases the media has unjustly destroyed the individual reputations and careers of those involved.” (6)

These “insignificant events,” according to Sanchez, included a list of interrogation and other practices that are illegal in the conduct of modern warfare. Such arrogance and “might is always right” is indicative of the Republican and Bush Administration’s approach to international laws and procedures. Sanchez does not want to be encumbered by such “insignificant things.”

His rant also brought to the fore the smoldering conflicts within the top military brass and the civilian leadership. Sanchez’s hard-line; right wing speech demonstrated his alignment with the more dictatorial elements within the military now locked in a low-level friction with an increasingly small section of the officer corps who still believe in the United States Constitution and the subordination of the military to civilian authority. (7)

Noteworthy in Sanchez’s speech is his broad carpet-bombing attack on the entire civilian Bush Administration, the State Department, the Congress, both political parties, and the media while saying very little about the Pentagon’s role in the war that he never criticized once. This is cause for pause because the very tone of Sanchez’s speech and the kind of language used reveals an even more sinister undertone. Here is what he said in criticizing the conduct of the Iraq war and the present state of affairs:

“Who will demand accountability for the failure of our national political leaders involved in the management this war? They have unquestionably been derelict in the performance of their duty. In my profession, these types of leaders would immediately be relieved or court-martialed.”

Such strong language, although it appears to be based on a righteous indignation of a legitimate situation could easily go unnoticed. But clearing away the emotions reveal the bitter, hard bent of a man whose words could easily be interpreted as obliquely calling for a coup d’etat because the only section of the American ruling class with the capability of running both the nation and waging war is the top brass of the United States military. And this is all the more alarming given the increased role that the military now plays in every day American life and its ever-growing importance in civilian matters under the Bush Administration.

Over the course of the Bush presidency the military has exerted more and more influence in the political sphere; it consumes a huge chunk of the national budget, and its leaders (past and present) occupy many key positions within the government and the corporate establishment. In fact, with the rise of the neoconservative element within the Bush Administration the military/industrial complex has never been stronger. (8)

Correspondingly, civilian control and power have weakened as the military becomes more and more the key and pivotal player in US politics. Admittedly, this process started long before George Bush was crowned the new king but under him it has crystallized, become more pronounced and focused. And if anyone doubts this development then all that one has to do is look at the “public” domain speeches of King George II – almost all are on military bases or some college or school with ties to the military.

Just like General Sanchez and cut from the same bolt of cloth is the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, who pointedly stated when asked about the popular opposition to the war in Iraq that “people cannot vote and end to the war.” Again, such thinking suggests that the military is not constrained by civilian control and that the mechanism upon which the vestiges of American democracy is built is of no account. (9)

So now the Bush Administration presides over a hugely unpopular war supported by the financial oligarchs whose mega-billion businesses and lucrative defense contracts allow them to rake in more and more billions of dollars while the United States Congress continues to dole out more and money for King George’s “war on terror.”

Finally, the Sanchez speech is important for the silence that it generated. Only glossing over the attacks on the Bush Administration the mainstream media largely ignored it and pretended that the other more sinister aspects were inconsequential. The White House’s official response was muted and the leading Democrats in both the House and Senate maintained a craven silence. By the next day the speech was a non-news event. (10)

Authors Website: www.freewebs.com/robertsmedia2007

Authors Bio: MICHAEL D. ROBERTS is a top Political Strategist and Business, Management and Communications Specialists in New York City’s Black community. He is an experienced writer whose specialty is socio-political and economic analysis and local community relations. He has covered the United Nations, the Caribbean and Africa in a career that spans over 32 years in journalism. As Editor of New York CARIB NEWS, a position that he’s held since 1990, he is in a unique position to have his hands on the pulse of the over 800,000 Caribbean-American community in Brooklyn, and the over 2.5 million members resident in the wider New York State community.

(1) That's rich. The MSM has indeed had an agenda-driven bias. A PRO-WAR AGENDA! Now, that the war's being lost, FOX NEWS is the only MSM media outlet with a pro-war agenda-driven bias. The remainder have adopted the usual "on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand" bullshit. Maybe, Ricardo Sanchez is confusing AIR AMERICA, COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN, DEMOCRACY NOW, NOVA-M, REAL-TIME WITH BILL MAHER and the blogs with the mainstream media.

(2) Richer still. "Partisan politics?" That phrase remind any Nuts readers of anyone? The saintly DLC trigueno from Illinois, perhaps? What's actually been lacking is "partisan politics" in all this. Reid, Pelosi, Obama and Clinton all still too willing to buy into Bush's OIL/AIPAC/CHRISTIAN/FASCIST fantasies.

(3) Bravo, Mr. Roberts.

(4) Again, is Sanchez referring to the 24/7 FOX NEWS propaganda arm of the Bush Administration? Surely, he can't mean the handful of liberal outlets above.

(5) AND, HERE DEAR FRIENDS, IS WHERE ROBERTS HITS THE GRAND SLAM: SANCHEZ WANTS BUSH TO HAVE DICTATORIAL POWERS.

(6) Ah yes, "insignificant events." Ricardo "Abu-G" Sanchez finally gets around to it. He didn't do anything wrong. If Abu Ghraib was insignificant, then Kelso has more readers than DailyKos does.

(7) Indeed. See recent open letter by Army captains urging "immediate withdrawal" for details.

(8) To be sure. Yet, Roberts fails here a bit. He forgets to mention Admiral Fallon's extremely bold comments completely in opposition to the wars and Bush, and the failure of the MSM to pick up on it. And of course Fallon's complete disappearance from the national dialogue.

(9) Nice one. Roberts makes up for the Fallon omission by reminding readers that Pace's self-exculpation wasn't notable for its hypocrisy or for his bizarre comments about gay Americans, it was notable for the same cry for a constitutionless military government of the USA.

(10) Absolutely. The lone voice was Lindsay Graham's attack on Sanchez for having been in charge and having authorized Abu Ghraib. Graham, of course, is one of the authors along with Crazy Hands of the "compromise" allowing such torture. No comment by the "opposition" or the MSM. No intrepid reporter bothered to asked Crazy Hands how he felt about all this. Man, that Graham is one sharp fancy-boy!

Kelso's going to have to add Michael Roberts to his list of trustworty sources and suggests everyone do the same.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

As we've written over and over and over and over again, this fucking Obama's a show. On, October 9, TPM MUCKRAKER had the disgusting racist remarks by John Tanner, the chief of the Civil Rights Divisions' voting rights section. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004414.php Paul Krugman picked up on it immediately in his Tissue Of Lies blog, Conscience Of A Liberal. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/only-the-black-die-young/

It's Friday October 19, as Kelso plays the Olivetti and FINALLY your designated Black Presidential Candidate (tm-DLC) Obama weighs in.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_po/obama_justice

What weasel words the weasel Obama uses: "Such comments are patently erroneous, offensive and dangerous, and they are especially troubling coming from the federal official charged with protecting voting rights in this country." Yeah, this really ranks right up there with the best of Malcolm X and Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Jesse Jackson and US. Rep Bobby Rush (D-IL) who beat Obama by 30 points in their Democratic primary race were absolutely right: Obama is too White. Jesus, this cunt got whipped by 30 points by Bobby Rush not that there's anything wrong with Rush, it was a fine result, but this cunt thinks he's going to beat Hillary fucking Clinton? Wait a second, isn't "oratory" supposed to be Obama's forte? He sure can't debate a lick. He has no views. Oh, wait, a second, sorry everybody. Obama never actually said anything about Tanner. These remarks were in a press release! Faces and masks.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

As promised, with thanks to an original Kelso's Nuts reader, ANONONYMOUS FB, Friday Fun. Take this little unscientific quiz to pick your Presidential candidate.

http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460

Kelso took it and he won't reveal the name of the choice by a clear 12 points as revealed by the quiz but will give a few little hints: initials are DK, comes from Cleveland, and is about the same height Kelso is. What a pity not to be able to vote in a primary.

Kelso's Nuts love you