Does He Really Just Not “Get It”, Or Does He Dare Not Speak The Truth?
In reading Eric Margolis's latest article “Glasnost in London – War Fever in Washington”, linked from today's LRC, I note the following rhetorical question:
"Why is President Obama, who came to power on an antiwar platform, committed to expanding a war where there are no vital US interests?”
Margolis then goes on to postulate that the reasons could be either “oil” or the idea that “Americans still want revenge for 9/11.” Neither of these explanations is satisfactory. True enough, unfettered access to the vast natural reserves of oil beneath the soil of the former Soviet Central Asian republics is a long-term strategic goal of our overlords. It is equally true that many Americans still thirst for some form of ill-focused revenge for the events of 9/11. But these alone do not explain the sheer geopolitical bumbling and pointless wastes of non-existent human and material resources that characterize our Afghan misadventure.
I thought I knew Margolis better than this through reading his frequent contributions to LRC, antiwar.com, and the on-line version of the TorontoGlobe and Mail, but I'm beginning to wonder. He's astute enough to realize that there's only one reason why we're still in Afghanistan chasing shadows, and that this reason consist of one six-letter word: Israel.
A cursory look at Barak Ben Obama's cabinet reads like a veritable Who's Who of Establishment AIPAC agents and Israel-firsters. His appointment of Rahm Emmanuel as White House Chief-of-Staff by itself should have put to rest any questions as to where this administration's loyalty lies and who is controlling the marionette strings. Why an observant non-mainstream journalist like Margolis avoids this obvious fact, one as glaring as a boil on the face of a supermodel, is anyone's guess, but I'd have to assume that his primary employer has something to do with it. I'm guessing, though I haven't seen the link, that Margolis originally wrote this article for the G&M which, while demonstrably more open-minded than its MSM counterparts south of the border in Neoconland, is still susceptible to pressure from the organized Zionist lobby that owns the American MSM, lock, stock, and ink barrel.
My sincere hope is that Margolis follows this article up with an admission of the real truth. The maintenance of his well-known journalistic integrity simply demands it.