Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

The Emperor Lies

Four years ago the late great journalist Alexander Cockburn wrote, “Alas, the actual story of ‘our history’ is an unrelenting ability to lie about everything, while simultaneously claiming America’s superior moral worth.”
It so happens he wrote that sentence in closing a column on President Obama’s elaborate story about the Navy SEALs’ May 2, 2011, assassination of Osama bin Laden.
Cockburn wrote, 
There was scarcely a sentence in the President’s Sunday night address, or in the subsequent briefing by John Brennan, his chief counter-terrorism coordinator, that has not been subsequently retracted by CIA director Leon Panetta or the White House press spokesman, Jay Carney, or by various documentary records.
Cockburn’s column was based on reporting that undermined key details of the official narrative. For example:
The official “back story” released Sunday night by Obama is that US intelligence learned of the Abbottabad compound only last August and spent the following months watching the place, following Osama’s trusted couriers and concluding that it was highly likely, though not certain, that Osama was there.
This is bunk. The three-storey house has been a well-known feature of Abbottabad. Shaukat Qadir, a well-connected Pakistan Army officer, reported to CounterPunch from Pakistan: “For the record, this house has been under ISI [Pakistani intelligence] surveillance while it was under construction.”
Now renowned investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has published a long article in the London Review of Books, “The Killing of Osama bin Laden,” that appears further to demolish Obama's politically motivated tale. Hersh, whose major scoops include the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and the torture at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, opens his piece:
The White House still maintains that the mission was an all-American affair, and that the senior generals of Pakistan’s army and Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) were not told of the raid in advance. This is false, as are many other elements of the Obama administration’s account. The White House’s story might have been written by Lewis Carroll.
Hersh says that his “major source … is a retired senior intelligence official who was knowledgeable about the initial intelligence about bin Laden’s presence in Abbottabad.” Use of an unnamed source has provoked criticism of Hersh, but one detects a double standard. Many good scoops have depended on unnamed sources, and Hersh says he confirmed what his major source told him. Often that’s the only way to get sensitive information about what the government is up to.
The article also has set off a firestorm about it particulars, with the administration, other members of the war party, and media cheerleaders dismissing Hersh’s “conspiracy theory.” But others defend Hersh. The New York Times’ Carlotta Gall, author of The Wrong Enemy: America in Afghanistan 2001-2004, while not accepting every detail, writes:
Among other things, Hersh contends that the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, Pakistan’s military-intelligence agency, held Bin Laden prisoner in the Abbottabad compound since 2006, and that “the C.I.A. did not learn of Bin Laden’s whereabouts by tracking his couriers, as the White House has claimed since May 2011, but from a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer who betrayed the secret in return for much of the $25 million reward offered by the U.S.”
On this count, my own reporting tracks with Hersh’s.
Gall points out that the existence of the informant has been confirmed by NBC and a newspaper in Pakistan: “This development is hugely important -- it is the strongest indication to date that the Pakistani military knew of Bin Laden’s whereabouts....”
Hersh’s investigation is also important regarding Saudi Arabia and its connection with bin Laden, who was a Saudi. Is this why bin Laden couldn’t be taken alive?
If Hersh is right, the SEALs murdered an unarmed and powerless invalid, held by Pakistan, under orders from Obama when they could have brought him to trial.  
What’s most important is this: if one understands the danger inherent in government secrecy, one must oppose the empire. Politicians can lie about domestic matters, but foreign intervention offers irresistible opportunities for really big lies -- the kind that get people killed. Do people still need to be persuaded about that?

If for no other reason than transparency, the empire must be liquidated.
Sheldon Richman keeps the blog "Free Association" and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society.


Fooled Once said...

Government duplicity is so prevalent, so profound, and so brazen that in most cases (of which Hersh's story is an example) we are left not only not knowing what happened, but as well largely unable to imagine what might or could have happened.

Anonymous said...

It's quite easy to dismiss Hersh's story as conspiracy theory. After all, he ranted about an infiltration by the Opus Dei in the past.

Sheldon Richman said...

In that regard, you should see this.

Michael said...

But why did Hersh pretend that the poor guy who was killed was Osama? He has been dead since 2001. surely Hersh knows this.

Carroll said...

Hersh pretended that the poor guy who was killed (if there actually was a killing) was Osama, because in this particular case he is serving as a disinformation agent for the US government. The Us government is well aware of the fact that the only way to keep the sheeple in line is to keep them in a state of perpetual confusion and denial. And what better way to accomplish the task than by further muddying the waters by trotting out a "well respected journalist" to write a half-ass story which, in reality supports the myth that Obama actually got Osama.

Anonymous said...

I think it is likely that Osama bin Laden has been dead for many years, and was not killed in Pakistan.

muggles said...

It is a mystery to me why some make claims that OBL was killed in 2001. There is no evidence of this other than some unsubstantiated claims, the most concrete of which seems to be an obscure Pakistani newspaper report issued soon after 9/11. Again, they had no real evidence.
As for the evidence that OBL was alive until 2011, there is much circumstantial evidence. Al Qaeda never claimed OBL had died, and operatives acted on the basis that he was alive and well. Also, the Pakis and US Govt would not have gone to such elaborate lengths simply to pretend he was alive 10 years after "they knew" he was dead. Yet the totally undocumented claim of his prior death remains a persistent myth.
Not everything the government says about everything is a lie. If you subscribe to that thinking you are emulating insanity.
What Hersh's expose documents is that the US Govt did plan on lying about the 2011 hit, and later had to remanufacture a new (lie) cover story. Why would that have been necessary if OBL was long gone?
There was no need to "cover up" an early OBL death, simply to continue the Afghan war. As Iraq proved, they needed no excuse and any trumped up claim would do. OBL wasn't solely responsible for 9/11 so the war would have continued regardless.