To have a man like Obama publicly “forget” his role in the destruction of Libya and the carnage that has been wrought across the globe in the name of U.S. hegemonic policy is not so much insensitive as it is merely typical. We can sit back and say “shame on him” for such indifference, but maybe we need to look in the mirror and reserve the shame for ourselves. We are the ones who have continued to make it possible.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/goldfish-in-chief/
by Kym Robinson
WASHINGTON D.C., USA – Sep 18, 2014: United States President Barack Obama during an official meeting with the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko in Washington, DC (USA)
Former U.S. President Barack Obama recently put out a tweet with a link to organizations that may be of some help to the people of Libya due to recent floods. NATO was absent from the list.
If you’re looking to help people impacted by the floods in Libya, check out these organizations providing relief: https://t.co/Vc9kbNgFuE
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) September 15, 2023
Whoever runs the former president’s social media is likely unaware why some responded with sarcasm or dismay that the former commander in chief who presided over the intervention that caused the ruination of Libya would post such a token tweet. That is, after all, the nature of politics: a distinct disconnect from outcomes and consequences by those who lie, cheat, and charm their way to the top of the pyramid of power.
In 2011, in the wake of the Arab Spring, energies washed across the region as people (and other elements) sought to overthrow dictators. Some were supported by the West, others like Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi were sacrificial foes to be toppled. In a media campaign to justify their war, U.S. and NATO warmongers invented claims about the tyrant when in reality the truth of his regime should have been sufficient. They needed another villain, so Ronald Reagan’s foe from the 80s was back. The U.S. supported opposition warlords, terrorists, and foreign fighters as Libya fell into a terrible civil war. Qaddafi was toppled and executed in the dirt, NATO airstrikes blasted away his kingdom, and to this day the destruction and repercussions remain. The Obama regime pushed for NATO and UN missions to stop “genocide,” but Libya ended up with slavery, terror, endless war, and poverty. U.S. involvement led to a catastrophe that will last a generation or more for the people of Libya, and Obama and Hilary Clinton are the chief architects of such misery.
President Obama certainly had charm; he was articulate and a stark contrast to the bumbling butt of Michael Moore and Will Ferrell punchlines, George W Bush or “Junior.” Obama was seductive to progressives and wealthy liberals. He even said antiwar things. He was the “Hope and Change” president, a contrast to the McCains and Romneys that ran against him. Obama seemed slightly human, not in a Bill Clinton sleaze manner but as a person who (to a degree) meant what he said. Instead, he would go on to boast about his ability to perform extra judicial killings and expand the legacy of his predecessor. He was nothing more or less than another U.S. president.
Outside of the ritual of American party politics, words like liberal, neocon, conservative, or progressive don’t really mean much to the rest of the world. Only the constant of another U.S. president and permanent fixture of a powerful U.S. government forces those words into conversations within an empire of lies, conveniently short term memories, and supposedly benevolent violence. So it is with such an insolent tweet that one could come to expect a man like Obama to make, without any sense of ownership. It’s much the same way that Junior could paint victims of the wars he helped make possible. Presidents are liars. They lie to themselves as much they do to the rest of the world. It is how they ascend the ranks of a hierarchy built on lies.
The astounding thing is that every cycle a population of enablers participate in the democratic ritual of selecting the political zombies who linger on like a miasma of death to the new up and comers, who seemingly come from the outside to shake things up. Obama was one such candidate, along with Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, and even Richard Nixon in many ways. Although these presidents have a tendency of growing the thing they promised to shrink (or at least expand it in other areas), President Obama expanded the debt, the wars, and launched a new one against journalism. But he also looked nice on television, so for those who did not pay attention he was a leader to be proud of. Most voters don’t seem to pay attention. It’s the facade and packaging that matters most.
Be seeing you
MCViewPoint 