Friday, July 16, 2010


Liberal television host Rachel Maddow solidarizes herself with US military in Afghanistan. Maddow is a principal voice of the liberal-left.

Maddow solidarized herself fully with the occupation and the US military, endorsing the bloody suppression of the insurgency. The ruling elite's propaganda was that the war had something to do with bringing terrorists and their Taliban sponsors to justice. ruling elite seized on the 9/11 to stepped up its drive for global domination

The war never had anything to do with democracy, freeing the Afghan people from oppression, or safeguarding the US population from future terrorist attacks.

But rather, vast energy reserves in the Caspian Sea, oil pipeline routes, to implant itself in the strategically critical Central Asian region, to thwart rivals in Europe, Russia, China

Maddow and American liberal-left accept the premise of the Bush and now the Obama administration’s argument that US forces are attempting to set Afghanistan on its feet.

She set the tone, she and her crew had come to Afghanistan “to try to figure ou
“One, If you take as given America’s goals here, is putting 105,000 troops here the right to way to achieve those goals?

second, what does all that mean for Americans who are here?”

Her broadcast exclude all critical thinking. Any investigation would begin with
“America’s goals,” deceit during the Vietnam War, and Iraq was launched on a gigantic lie?

Maddow buys the official propaganda, she is predisposed to do so by her class position and political outlook. She feels at one with the American imperial project
Maddow asserted, “You fight insurgents by killing and capturing them, sure.”, which is the manner of speaking of the semi-criminal elements who came to prominence in the Bush regime and continued under Obama. She went on: “But you also try to create an environment in which the insurgency can’t survive

nation-building… That‘s honestly what they‘re trying to do here. American forces
attempting to set up a “government, and law and order via the government, so that no one in the population wants what the Taliban is offering.” Maddow provided a platform for Brig. Gen. Ben Hodges, the head of the regional southern command in Afghanistan.. The unpopularity of the occupation among Afghans never arose as an issue during Maddow’s visit.

Maddow’s question, where the money to come from, Hodges states the incredible mineral wealth potential.”

Maddow’s endorsement of US prison facility near the Bagram airfield. law and order is locking people up.” Parwan Detention Facility, close to Bagram. “The US is trying,” “to make the world forget the alleged atrocity that took place here.” at Parwan the goals “is to educate the detainees so they will be able to earn a living and not be tempted to join the Taliban.” “another mission” is “to interrogate prisoners for information about the enemy in Afghanistan.”

Red Cross confirmed the US continuing to operate a secret “black jail” at its Bagram facility, prisoners at the site were abused, beaten, humiliated and subjected to sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation and other forms of torture. BBC’s Hilary Andersson described Parwan facility what she saw prisoners moved around in wheelchairs with goggles and headphones on

Corrupt regime, “no infrastructure”

NBC’s foreign affairs correspondent Richard Engel admitted, of Kabul, “There is no infrastructure. There are open sewers over there.” after nine years of US occupation and tens of billions of dollars. misconception, he noted, “is that this is a narco state and that people here who are corrupt live off drug money.” No, he said, “by far, the biggest industry is the war… $5.5 billion a month… So anyone connected with the war has made much, much more money than anyone connected with drugs.”

Maddow labels herself as a “national security liberal.”

“I’m undoubtedly a liberal, which means that I’m in almost total agreement with the Eisenhower-era Republican party platform.” The New York Times terms her a “defense policy wonk,” who is writing a book on the role of the military in postwar American politics.

supporter of the American military and its operations around the world. She worries, like many left-liberals, that the Afghan war is unwinnable. Maddow, like the editors of the Nation opposes the immediate withdrawal.

part of the upper-middle-class liberal left, questions of personal identity, at the expense of social class, emerged as the major component of the American liberal outlook. striving for privileges by African-American and Latino petty-bourgeoisie, the elevation of gender and sexuality to world-historical political importance.

she is indifferent to the conditions of the working population. searches in vain for
“joblessness” or “the jobless,” or to “unemployment.” “social inequality” appear, or “inequality” by itself. The word “poverty” comes up once, but in relation to Mexico, and not uttered by Maddow.

In what sense then can Maddow be designated “left” or “progressive’?

she is gay. Just as Barack Obama’s ethnicity was enough

The world doesn’t function that way. The determinant division is not ethnicity, race or gender, but social class. By her support for a brutal, neo-colonial war, Rachel Maddow has identified herself in the most indelible fashion.


Jorge Callico said...

Maddow reminds me of a modern day version of CIA asset Gloria Steinem. Both with meteoric rises to liberal superstardom. Each as much in bed with CIA as George Bush sr.

Once a CIA? Always a CIA. There are no "nice" feminist/liberals on the payroll of CIA.

The barometer for left wing gatekeeping is their denial of anything wrong with the official story of 9/11. When you see them do this (as Maddow does)???

They're no friend...

Anonymous said...

yes, the litmus test .... the nist report analysis is impossible on our contravenes basic eighth grade taught newtonian physics