Skip to content

Obama’s First Wag the Dog?!?!?

December 19, 2009

On Thursday, December 17 2009 when President Barack Obama’s most important policy agenda of his administration seemed to be in jeopardy, Health Care Reform passing in the Senate, the U.S helped execute an attack on an “alleged” Al-Qaida camp in Yemen that reportedly caused the death of civilians, women, and children.

From here:

Wag the Dog: To ‘wag the dog’ means to purposely divert attention from what would otherwise be of greater importance, to something else of lesser significance. By doing so, the lesser-significant event is catapulted into the limelight, drowning proper attention to what was originally the more important issue.

To divert attention away from the tension caused at that time by the Monica Lewinsky affair, Bill Clinton allegedly carried out the same “Wag the Dog” tactic in 1998 when he ordered the attack of a Sudanese Asprin Factory that was reported by his administration to be manufacturing “Chemical Weapons.”

From wikipedia:

The factory was destroyed in 1998 by a missile attack launched by the United States government, killing one employee and wounding eleven. Critics of the attack have estimated that up to tens of thousands of Sudanese civilians died throughout Sudan as the supply of necessary drugs was cut off.

On August 20, 1998, the factory was destroyed in cruise missile strikes launched by the United States …. on the grounds that the al-Shifa plant was involved with processing the deadly nerve agent VX, and had ties with the Islamist al-Qaeda.

In retrospect most have concluded that the Al-Shifa plant was nothing but a Pill Factory. Hence Bill Clinton was alleged to have committed a ‘Wag the Dog” attack on the heels of his Grand Jury testimony in the Monica Lewisnsky affair possibly similar to the attack carried out by President Obama on December, 17 2009 in the wake of the potential health care debacle.

Read this piece in Slate that shows after investigation little evidence was shown to justify the Clinton attack on the Sudanese Pill factory.

But of course, all of this could just be coincidence…..

UPDATE:

Obama ordered deadly blitz on Yemen: US media

US Nobel Peace Prize laureate President Barack Obama has signed the order for a recent military strike on Yemen in which scores of civilians, including children, have been killed, a report says.

Upon the orders of Obama, the military warplanes on Thursday blanketed two camps in the North of the Yemeni capital, Sana’a, claiming there were “an imminent attack against a US asset was being planned,” ABC News quoted anonymous administration officials as saying on Friday.

The US air raids were then followed by a Yemeni ground forces attack.

The operation led to the death of around 120 people of whom many were civilians, including children, the report quoted Yemeni opposition as saying.

Obama also contacted Yemen’s President, Ali Abdullah Saleh, after the blitz in order to “congratulate” him on his efforts against ‘al-Qaeda,’ the US news outlet quoted White House officials as telling reporters earlier.

Share

Advertisements
6 Comments leave one →
  1. December 19, 2009 3:15 pm

    You’ve got to be kidding. That wag the dog nonsense was debunked a long time ago. And why would Obama divert attention from the reform debate anyway?

    • December 19, 2009 3:26 pm

      Read the Slate piece mentioned in that post. Then tell me if it was debunked.

  2. Dax permalink
    December 19, 2009 4:41 pm

    This has to be the stupidest post ever. Talk about grasping for straws.

    • December 19, 2009 4:53 pm

      How is it grasping for straws if that tactic has allegedly been used before by an administration that has many of the same members as the current administration? Is it too hard for you to believe that this administration would order such an attack on “brown people” because of the President’s cultural background and friendly warm demeanor?

  3. Dax permalink
    December 19, 2009 8:21 pm

    A lot of “tactics” have been used before, but without anything close to evidence resembling any indiscretions, your charge looks absolutely silly at best. What is “too hard for me to believe” is that you are objective, based on how sloppy you’ve jumped to conclusions, not to mention your dimestore attempt at mind reading.

    • December 19, 2009 9:29 pm

      Your ad hominem attacks pretty much belie the futility of your non-argument.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: