Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
I'm very ignorant on this subject, so this is an honest question: is it supposed to be significant that these are unmanned drone strikes as opposed to coming from conventional, manned aircraft, or is it just that Obama is ordering more air strikes period?
Well, the obvious response is that using the UAVs means less risk to US military personnel. But my understanding from the article is the number of strikes is indeed increasing.
But also the collateral damage is a lot less than it if "conventional" weapons were used (in quotes because technically, anything not WMD is consider conventional).
I'm very ignorant on this subject, so this is an honest question: is it supposed to be significant that these are unmanned drone strikes as opposed to coming from conventional, manned aircraft, or is it just that Obama is ordering more air strikes period?
I believe the aspect that people are more concerned with are the number of drone strikes, which has gone up exponentially in the last year (few months) or so.
Also, one thing that has sort of bothered me is the whole idea that the drones are 'unmanned'. While it is true that the actual drone aircraft do not have pilots "in them", they are being flown by human beings, albeit at a remote location and there is a human pushing the missile launch button.
There is a 'video game' disconnect that could be considered a bit morally disturbing.
edit to add-
I realize that this is a serious topic and I don't want to make light of it but I was reminded of the beginning of "Real Genius"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTx_qTwQqjU
...the future?
Well the Navy has been advertising for recruits using the Video Game analogy for years....I remember seeing commercials in the early 90's that literally presented a 18-20something safely zapping "the enemy" by firing missiles from the safety of his ship. So that aspect isn't new.
What is new is that drones make it easier operationally. And thus they can/will be used more often. I think some people believe that Obama is using Drones as an easy fix vs. grappling with the thornier issues of engaging with the Muslim world, after a promising start with his Cairo speech.
I don't agree 100% with that criticism, but I do believe it is valid.
Indeed, the drones present minimal risk to the US military. Drone strikes have been a hallmark of the Obama administration, and have increased since he entered office. The Obama administration has also expanded the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, and domestic spying.
Rachel Maddow covered it, but thats about it from the news outlets.
Of course the Right is going to say anything, because that's all stuff they support.
Well also minimal risk to innocents in the area....compared to air to ground missiles, Napalm etc. Innocents are still being killed, but it's a few individuals vs. say, an entire town.
Ah, so the concern is that the president will be inclined to attack less discriminately if there is no direct risk to American personnel. I always wondered about why the articles about the issue made specific reference to the "unmanned" aspect as some sinister new Orwellian twist. The video game disconnect is not exactly a new element, as its been a long time since pilots were eyeballing their targets. I'm not sure it's really worth mourning the personal touch that comes from a pilot looking at a control panel from 5 miles out when the switch is made to a technician looking at a video screen from 500 miles out.
As for whether it will make the president more reckless, it shouldn't but who knows. It's not like we should abandon the technology in the hopes that deliberately putting our servicemen in jeopardy will extort the president into behaving as responsibly as he should be anyway.
Most of the drones are also under the control of the CIA, which has different rules of engagement then the military branches.
There were rumors of tacit Pakistani permission for drones, but not personnel (compare simmering tension over drones to the fullblown incident with the Bin Laden strike). but that's completely unsubstantiated, and based on circumstantial evidence.
Most of the drones are also under the control of the CIA, which has different rules of engagement then the military branches.
Yes which makes me happy that Obama is personally supervising "hits" that may result in civilian casualties.
Another worry: that countries like Pakistan have us do their dirty work for them. That NYT article mentions one case where Pakistan had the US use a Drone to kill one of their own "enemies of the state" as a quid pro quo.
Except these are not random people, they are people who have committed acts of terrorism against innocents (hell even Al Queda has admitted the USA has framed the issue as the US vs Terrorists, not US vs. Muslims). And yes civilians do get killed in these actions: it's war, not Star Trek where you can set your phasers on stun.
And to the extend Americans are hated, it's because we are perceived as #1 in the world: the Big Dog is always resented. And if you want to see real atrocities, visit most of Africa, China, etc.
My only point was, these new weapons make it possible to minimize ALL casualties.
The amount of bullshit in this statement is mindboggling. I have no problem with the USA taking out terrorist assholes who want to cause shit but it is NOT acceptable that innocent people are killed in the process because of fuckups. And were not talking about or or two "accidents" here. How many tens of thousands have died already? But you don't give a fuck because it's not your family being killed. Your justification for this is like me saying "hey, we knew there were a houseful of terrorists in your neighborhood so we had to level the entire block with a missile and killed most of your family while the survivors are horribly mutilated. So sorry". Furthermore, care to point out where a declaration of war was made because all I've seen is a rouge country attacking another purely to keep pouring money into the pockets of military defense contractors while ensuring that with each new death of an innocent person creates even more terrorists. That's why you're hated, not the simplistic jingoistic bullshit you subscribe to. And we're also not talking about what goes on in Africa, China etc... as they don't represent themselves as the beacon of western civilization dedicated to freedom and democracy which the USA only seems interested in "spreading" to countries that have natural resources or geo-political significance.
This doesn't excuse anything or make it the best choice, but I will say I'm impressed that Obama is man enough to say, "If we're going to to do this, it's going to be on me. I'm the CIC, and the decisions should be on me and not cast aside to let blame rest elsewhere." Striking contrast with his predecessor.
And I also take heart that, at least so far, of all the things Obama can be validly criticized for, his character doesn't seem to be one of them.
I'm conflicted on the first point and disagree on the second. It's possible that "the buck stopping with him" is the best case scenario in these matters, but it's also possible that this is a supreme case of micromanaging.
And I don't why his character is infallible when he actively campaigned on promises central to ideas of peace, preservation of civil liberties and a more positive global image when it's so apparent that he's far more hawkish than he led us to believe. The truth is, he's not that different than Bush about some of these issues. And few people (supporters) seem to care.
I'm conflicted on the first point and disagree on the second. It's possible that "the buck stopping with him" is the best case scenario in these matters, but it's also possible that this is a supreme case of micromanaging.
And I don't why his character is infallible when he actively campaigned on promises central to ideas of peace, preservation of civil liberties and a more positive global image when it's so apparent that he's far more hawkish than he led us to believe. The truth is, he's not that different than Bush about some of these issues. And few people (supporters) seem to care.
Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man. Seriously, though, believe what you want, but I find the most reliable opinions on that last point have come from hard-bitten longtime national security reporters like Tim Weiner (author of the great book Blank Check: The Pentagon's Black Budget and, more recently, Enemies: A History of the FBI) who say he's a big improvement on that front. The fact that we all know about drone strikes etc. at all is a testament to that.
On what he campaigned on, the concept of "hope" and "change" was a Rorschach Test. He said all along he would focus on Afghanistan, not end all wars. He has brought about a more positive global image -- Tahrir Square arguably might not have happened at all if he hadn't given his Cairo speech. Civil liberties are a problem but still an improvement over Bush/Cheney.
No doubt an improvement. Just not as big of one as I was hoping/felt like I was sold on. In matters related to this stuff, at least.
And I don't why his character is infallible when he actively campaigned on promises central to ideas of peace, preservation of civil liberties and a more positive global image when it's so apparent that he's far more hawkish than he led us to believe. The truth is, he's not that different than Bush about some of these issues. And few people (supporters) seem to care.
I think the belief that Obama would be the "peace and love" president is due to a lot of people imprinting their own wishes and desires onto him. Sure, he got the Nobel Peace prize which no doubt added to the idea that he was Ghandi incarnate to some people....when the truth of the matter is he was much more pragmatic regarding the use of military force.
I agree but there are mitigating factors with Obama. Number one, death threats multiplied by something like 400 percent. The network of national security contractors is lethal and above he law after 8 years of Bush/Cheney and it's not exaggeration to say that there was a knife poised at his back in any environment having to do with prosecuting the crimes of the last administration. Two, when Bush/Cheney did stuff, it was unquestionably them. Even the weak-willed Democrats in congress went along with what was undoubtedly the Executive's agenda. With Obama, the Republicans in Congress have actively sought to neutralize him at every turn. So he's had to pick his battles.
While there's a lot to be pissed off about over the past four years, there's also a lot of positive change in small ways for the people and not the corporate class. Where he has been able to change things on his own -- like federalizing student loans rather than continue letting banks skim off the top of loans that were government-guaranteed anyway, etc.--he has. But mostly he's been hamstrung by a congressional majority that is absolutely his enemy and has stated in no uncertain terms that the most urgent item on its agenda is making him an ineffectual one-termer. He also has an idiotic, corrupted corporate media that has gifted him with 60% negative coverage.
Speaking for myself and a lot of people who support the President, yes, there's a lot that's still going wrong -- the banks haven't been broken up, NDAA, drone strikes, no single payer etc.--but he's not doing this very difficult job for personal glory or financial enrichment down the road; he truly wants to restore the people's place at the table. You can't say that about a single other person who was ever in the running during this presidential season.
Yeah but that Prize was a deliberate ploy to "guilt" Obama into being the Peacnik pres. He simply refused to be guilted.
The amount of bullshit in this statement is mindboggling. I have no problem with the USA taking out terrorist assholes who want to cause shit but it is NOT acceptable that innocent people are killed in the process because of fuckups. And were not talking about or or two "accidents" here. How many tens of thousands have died already? But you don't give a fuck because it's not your family being killed. Your justification for this is like me saying "hey, we knew there were a houseful of terrorists in your neighborhood so we had to level the entire block with a missile and killed most of your family while the survivors are horribly mutilated. So sorry". Furthermore, care to point out where a declaration of war was made because all I've seen is a rouge country attacking another purely to keep pouring money into the pockets of military defense contractors while ensuring that with each new death of an innocent person creates even more terrorists. That's why you're hated, not the simplistic jingoistic bullshit you subscribe to. And we're also not talking about what goes on in Africa, China etc... as they don't represent themselves as the beacon of western civilization dedicated to freedom and democracy which the USA only seems interested in "spreading" to countries that have natural resources or geo-political significance.
How about "taking out" assholes who stalk young women on the Internet and send them threatening PMs? What's your stance on that, asshole?
Jesus. Some of you are still on the Obama honeymoon. He's clearly worse than Bush on the drone strikes. The idea that he has any kind of moral high ground because he uses state-of-the-art weaponry to carry out his execution orders is ridiculous considering the methodology the administration has been using to verify his targets (tl;dr: if someone who gets killed in a drone strike is old enough to be an enemy combatant, they must've been an enemy combatant).
What's going to happen once a Republican gets back in the White House with the expansion of the "shoot first, ask questions later" policies under Obama? You can't start beating the anti-war drum again if you supported this.
I think the belief that Obama would be the "peace and love" president is due to a lot of people imprinting their own wishes and desires onto him. Sure, he got the Nobel Peace prize which no doubt added to the idea that he was Ghandi incarnate to some people....when the truth of the matter is he was much more pragmatic regarding the use of military force.
I'm not looking for a peace and love president, and pragmatism is great. But he campaigned on stuff like closing Gitmo and international discourse over military muscle. That's a stark contrast with Gitmo not only staying open, but signing a law that allows the detention of American citizens for the mere suspicion of terrorist activity, and the bombing (along with the awful addition of collateral damage) of suspected but unconfirmed terrorists that he's personally overseeing.
Jesus. Some of you are still on the Obama honeymoon. He's clearly worse than Bush on the drone strikes. The idea that he has any kind of moral high ground because he uses state-of-the-art weaponry to carry out his execution orders is ridiculous considering the methodology the administration has been using to verify his targets (tl;dr: if someone who gets killed in a drone strike is old enough to be an enemy combatant, they must've been an enemy combatant).
What's going to happen once a Republican gets back in the White House with the expansion of the "shoot first, ask questions later" policies under Obama? You can't start beating the anti-war drum again if you supported this.
While this is blunt as all hell and more aggressive then necessary, I kinda have to agree. I can't help but think that if these plays were being called by the "other team" there would be a hell of a lot more outcry.
I'll tell you one thing; I've donated to the democrats and Obama three or four times this campaign season. I got a bazillion e-mails today to pony up more cash to help them meet campaign goals, and I didn't do it because this stuff frankly disgusts me a little bit. I'm not saying I'm not going to continue to support Obama (or the Dems), and naturally I'm going to still vote blue, but I feel shitty about a lot of what's going on and I'm not going to not criticize our president simply because he's better than the last guy. That's not good enough.
I'm not looking for a peace and love president, and pragmatism is great. But he campaigned on stuff like closing Gitmo and international discourse over military muscle. That's a stark contrast with Gitmo not only staying open, but signing a law that allows the detention of American citizens for the mere suspicion of terrorist activity, and the bombing (along with the awful addition of collateral damage) of suspected but unconfirmed terrorists that he's personally overseeing.
to just speak to the inability of Obama to shut down Gitmo....it's actually pretty fucking convoluted and involves congress....and we all know how many in Congress view Obama....
this is from 2010
Five Reasons Guantanamo Won't Close This Year
Sixteen months after the Obama administration ordered the closure of the U.S. military detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, more than 180 detainees remain at the base, stuck in political and legal limbo that appears likely to persist at least through the end of the year.
Congress and the administration, facing the realities of election-year politics and a litany of legal and security concerns, remain at an impasse about what do to with the dozens of detainees cleared for release abroad, those slated for prosecution in military or civilian courts and others to be held indefinitely without charge.
"Numerically speaking, the Obama administration has made some progress toward closing Guantanamo by transferring and releasing detainees abroad," said Matthew Waxman, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs in the George W. Bush administration. "But, legislatively, they've been losing ground and are now worse off than when they started because of congressional restrictions."
The pending 2011 Defense Authorization Bill, which is the latest flash point in the Guantanamo debate, would slow the transfer of detainees to their home or third-party countries, hinder a future transfer of detainees to U.S. soil and block funds to buy or build a replacement for Guantanamo in the United States.
But Congress' tight hold on the purse strings isn't the only roadblock to closing Guantanamo. Here are five more:
<cont.>
to just speak to the inability of Obama to shut down Gitmo....it's actually pretty fucking convoluted and involves congress....and we all know how many in Congress view Obama....
this is from 2010
I know, I know. But the American suspects in permanent detention, man. That's some Gitmo level shit right here, and whether he reluctantly signed that crap or not...he signed it. It's not good.
While this is blunt as all hell and more aggressive then necessary, I kinda have to agree. I can't help but think that if these plays were being called by the "other team" there would be a hell of a lot more outcry.
...and the outcry would be warranted because "the other team" has repeatedly shown that they blatantly lie, do shit haphazardly and then, if something does goes wrong, they go out of their way to deflect any responsibility for their fuckups.
The statements "We were wrong" and "We made a mistake" are rarely uttered by those with authoritarian personalities. They lack the ability of self reflection.
While this is blunt as all hell and more aggressive then necessary, I kinda have to agree. I can't help but think that if these plays were being called by the "other team" there would be a hell of a lot more outcry.
I'll tell you one thing; I've donated to the democrats and Obama three or four times this campaign season. I got a bazillion e-mails today to pony up more cash to help them meet campaign goals, and I didn't do it because this stuff frankly disgusts me a little bit. I'm not saying I'm not going to continue to support Obama (or the Dems), and naturally I'm going to still vote blue, but I feel shitty about a lot of what's going on and I'm not going to not criticize our president simply because he's better than the last guy. That's not good enough.
There are so many things that need to change in this country, and they won't change from the top down; they'll have to change from the bottom up, meaning local, city, state, regional legislating. Until those things are changed, the president now sitting in office is literally the best you can expect. It's not his fault alone that things have been allowed to go completely FUBAR, the responsibility belongs to all of us. And those of us who hate it have a responsibility (the one shirked by the baby boom generation) to help fix it. Obama can't start passing out loaves and fishes while we sit on our asses. He does something good, the media doesn't cover it, congress demonizes him for it, and then he does something bad and it's all over TV for months and the Republicans he's trying to placate still hate him and gazillionaires continue to line up to buy new laws allowing them to f*** this world even worse, a prospect that only becomes more promising when their side is in total solidarity and our side second-guesses our second guesses. I'm about as lefty as they come but I'm also a realist and I see our role in the way things have gone/are going as a lot bigger than his.
I know, I know. But the American suspects in permanent detention, man. That's some Gitmo level shit right here, and whether he reluctantly signed that crap or not...he signed it. It's not good.
But if even ONE of those people got out and did something even marginally bad (or even a trumped up lie made to look like that was the case), that's when you get another eight years of the 2012 version of Bush/Cheney.
I fundamentally reject this notion. Yes, it's not all his fault. I know how our government works, and I know that I need to be a part of it if we expect change. But you're naive if you think the only reason he's doing harmful shit or not doing enough is entirely the cause of an admittedly horrible, ineffective congress. Again, I support Obama, I'm not saying it's all his fault, not in the slightest. But it's tremendously silly to think he doesn't deserve share in any of the blame. If you truly were a realist, I think you'd need to agree.
For example; he could be doing more to foster some of those bottom-up changes. Yeah, it's important for change to come from the bottom-up, but he's not exactly super eager to, say, not hire creeps like Timothy Geithner.
The statements "We were wrong" and "We made a mistake" are rarely uttered by those with authoritarian personalities. They lack the ability of self reflection.
When have you ever heard Obama say this?
But if even ONE of those people got out and did something even marginally bad (or even a trumped up lie made to look like that was the case), that's when you get another eight years of the 2012 version of Bush/Cheney.
So you're all of a sudden for the infringement of our civil liberties? As long as it keeps our guy in the White House? Jesus Christ...
I know, I know. But the American suspects in permanent detention, man. That's some Gitmo level shit right here, and whether he reluctantly signed that crap or not...he signed it. It's not good.
Except that the 2011 NDAA doesn't actually allow for that. It explicitly leaves the detention of American citizens as a matter of pre-existing law, which has no clear ruling about whether citizens are included as detainable in the original 2001 AUMF. [/brokenrecord]
I've already mentioned that I'm pretty much an Obama backer this election, but yeah I'm pretty much with Parker about being kind of bothered by a lot of this shit.
Except that the 2011 NDAA doesn't actually allow for that. It explicitly leaves the detention of American citizens as a matter of pre-existing law, which has no clear ruling about whether citizens are included as detainable in the original 2001 AUMF. [/brokenrecord]
From that link:
No, though it does not foreclose the possibility either. Congress ultimately included language in the NDAA expressly designed to leave this question untouched—that is, governed by pre-existing law, which as we explain below is unsettled on this question.
Yeah, that's clear as fucking mud.
I fundamentally reject this notion. Yes, it's not all his fault. I know how our government works, and I know that I need to be a part of it if we expect change. But you're naive if you think the only reason he's doing harmful shit or not doing enough is entirely the cause of an admittedly horrible, ineffective congress. Again, I support Obama, I'm not saying it's all his fault, not in the slightest. But it's tremendously silly to think he doesn't deserve share in any of the blame. If you truly were a realist, I think you'd need to agree.
No, no. I'm sorry, you're misunderstanding me. Not because of congress, although they don't help. Because of our entire electoral and political system mostly having to do with the corrosive effect of money and financial and corporate empires, i.e. a rigged two party system, the electoral college, voting machines, a compromised and corporate fourth estate, Citizens United, etc., etc., ad infinitum. A nullification congress is a whole other problem. I'm talking about getting elected and staying in office.
Also, sure, i'm sure he feels tremendous responsibility for dead civilians in drone strikes and innocent people swept up in the policies initiated by his predecessor. But blame? After eight years of Bush/Cheney (including basically two stolen elections), the sweeping privatization of our military to the tune of trillions of dollars, Abu Ghraib, etc., outing CIA agents, lying with impunity at every turn, selling out every aspect of this country piecemeal to private interests, you want to now blame the President for the choices he's had to make to get and keep this office and have even a ghost of a chance at a second term, when all the real work could possibly get done? Given what it takes to get elected and get anything done in Washington? I don't think you understand the scope of what a cesspool Washington has become with the infusion of so much huge money. Given the financial forces that throw their weight around there every day, creating barriers to virtually everything he would even think of trying to do if there's even slightly reduced profits in it for them, and having used green to convert themselves an army of evangelists in congress? And given that the corporate media has a vested interest in Obama's agenda failing? I don't, frankly. I think he's doing his goddamn best in the worst possible circumstances in recent American history.
I think it's absolutely our duty if we give two s***s about civil liberties, peace, poverty, animal welfare, or whatever, to keep the pressure on the President to do the people's business. But blame for not transforming an unbelievably corrupt and downright evil money-infused Washington/Wall Street/Rockefeller Plaza overnight, a situation we helped create with our own apathy? No.
Quote:
For example; he could be doing more to foster some of those bottom-up changes. Yeah, it's important for change to come from the bottom-up, but he's not exactly super eager to, say, not hire creeps like Timothy Geithner.
What good is change from the bottom up if it's fostered from the top? Lincoln wanted to table the issue of slavery until he secured the union. Roosevelt never even tried to bring about the New Deal until he had solid majorities in Congress and you know what he got for his efforts? A heavily financed coup attempt. Clinton got impeached and he was practically one of them.
So you're all of a sudden for the infringement of our civil liberties? As long as it keeps our guy in the White House? Jesus Christ...
I know you're not a right wing shill, Parker, but that's the kind of generalization I get from them all the time.
I'm sorry, but it has been 4 years. I'm getting kind of tired hearing about Bush/Cheney, and their evil stolen empire.
When have you ever heard Obama say this?
let me throw this back at you....what, in your opinion, are the fuckups that Obama should be apologizing for?
also, you should have included the previous sentence I typed...
"...they go out of their way to deflect any responsibility for their fuckups."
Whereas Bush couldn't name a single mistake -- not, say, letting Osama bin Laden escape from Tora Bora, or refusing to allow weapons inspectors to ascertain that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, or backing economic policies that took the greatest budget surplus in American history and turned it into the biggest deficit in history -- Obama has stepped up.
His statement on Tuesday was close, but no cigar. Refreshingly he acknowledged screw-ups and pledged to get to the bottom of the mistakes and correct them. He said, "The system has failed in a potentially disastrous way. ... The intelligence community failed to connect those dots."
That was a good start, but it didn't go far enough for me -- nor, apparently, for our president. Because on Thursday he took full responsibility. "Ultimately," he said, "the buck stops with me. As president, I have a solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people, and when the system fails, it is my responsibility."
I do realize that in politics these days, admitting any fault or voicing even a smidgen of responsibility for something that has gone wrong is pretty much the kiss of death for your political career.
That being said, if Obama presides over fuckups of the magnitude of the ones under GW Bush- Iraq invasion (in addition to not paying for it), Katrina, ignoring the 9/11 memo, etc. I personally think that Obama would stand up and accept the responsibility.
related- just for the hell of it, I did a search for quotes from GW Bush where the word "responsibility" was used....there may be more out there but I only came up with one-
“We're in a fight for our principles and our first responsibility is to live by them.”
I'm sorry, but it has been 4 years. I'm getting kind of tired hearing about Bush/Cheney, and their evil stolen empire.
I'm so sorry that you're tired of hearing about it but that doesn't change the fact that the Bush/Cheney fiasco was so extensive as to reach out from beyond their time in office.
The White House got rented to a bunch of frat boys for 8 years and it turned out they were from Delta house
(wow, this kinda fits...)
Dubya = Bluto
Cheney = Hoover or D-Day
Rummy = Otter or D-Day
Rove = Flounder
I know you're not a right wing shill, Parker, but that's the kind of generalization I get from them all the time.
And I hate engaging you like Snaieke (ugh) but this is sort of a non-answer to a pretty direct question, and I don't feel like it's a generalization at all, given the facts. Personally, I feel that you're the one generalizing about what a great job our President's doing. I just happen to disagree. Do I prefer him to anyone else on the field? Absolutely, and yes, a lot of the damage were problems that he inherited. I can still disagree with him, and I'm sorry that I think not pushing hard enough against a bill that allows for the detaining of American citizens without due process is an example of him doing a lousy fucking job.
What good is change from the bottom up if it's fostered from the top? Lincoln wanted to table the issue of slavery until he secured the union. Roosevelt never even tried to bring about the New Deal until he had solid majorities in Congress and you know what he got for his efforts? A heavily financed coup attempt. Clinton got impeached and he was practically one of them.
And Wilson passed the Sedition Act, which was designed to suppress the bad mouthing of war bonds, but which he used to lock up anyone in prison that spoke out against the Government, even on issues unrelated to World War I. If you were alive back then, would you be waving pom-poms for that motherfucker?
yt, it's not letting me quote the first part of your post about how our entire system is really at fault, but I wanted to say that I agree with you about that.
However, I still think it's naive to say that until we all start doing better, the President gets a pass. I frankly think that's bullshit and if that's what more people believe, I'm frankly more than a little amazed. If nothing else, he should be doing a better job of leading the people out of a state of apathy. He's not. You can blame the media or blame corporations or blame just general laziness. He could be doing more than he is. Frankly, given his lack of action concerning Wall Street and his military decisions, I think he likes things just fine the way they are.
yt, it's not letting me quote the first part of your post about how our entire system is really at fault, but I wanted to say that I agree with you about that.
However, I still think it's naive to say that until we all start doing better, the President gets a pass. I frankly think that's bullshit and if that's what more people believe, I'm frankly more than a little amazed. If nothing else, he should be doing a better job of leading the people out of a state of apathy. He's not. You can blame the media or blame corporations or blame just general laziness. He could be doing more than he is. Frankly, given his lack of action concerning Wall Street and his military decisions, I think he likes things just fine the way they are.
I don't think anyone, including yt, is saying that. We're saying that WE are part of the process. You don't like indefinite detention of US Citizens, fucking write/email your Congressperson, march in the streets, blog, whatever.
Obama has quoted FDR to the effect that "you have to make me do things". We all complain about the GOP sabotaging the Obama Administration, case in point being the bill that included indefinite detention. As it stands, I'm willing to bet that your Congressman hears from his Rightward leaning constituency a LOT more than he hears from you.
Flash back to the Town Halls on Healthcare. Remember how people came out of the woodwork, literally screaming at their Representative and Senators? Anything like that happen on indefinite detention? No? So who do you think the Congress is going to listen to? And Obama as well?
Obama has quoted FDR to the effect that "you have to make me do things". We all complain about the GOP sabotaging the Obama Administration, case in point being the bill that included indefinite detention. As it stands, I'm willing to bet that your Congressman hears from his Rightward leaning constituency a LOT more than he hears from you.
I'm willing to bet you're wrong about that. And I've got proof if you're willing.
But it's cool, I'll take the hits while everyone keeps saying "back of the President," the most powerful man in the country. I got yas.
And I hate engaging you like Snaieke (ugh) but this is sort of a non-answer to a pretty direction question, and I don't feel like it's a generalization at all, given the facts. Personally, I feel that you're the one generalizing about what a great job our President's doing. I just happen to disagree. Do I prefer him to anyone else on the field? Absolutely, and yes, a lot of the damage were problems that he inherited. I can still disagree with him, and I'm sorry that I think not pushing hard enough against a bill that allows for the detaining of American citizens without due process is an example of him doing a lousy fucking job.
The answer's no. Obviously I don't like it. But do you see the difference between people who do these things in secret -- Bush/Cheney, the next GOP president -- and people who allow it to stand out in the sunlight, like the current President, even if it's odious? In this and other aspects of his presidency, Obama is continuing some of what was standard operating procedure throughout the Bush/Cheney years, only he's doing it in public view. There was some protest about Bush/Cheney but not nearly the wave of anger that has manifested during the last four years.
Quote:
yt, it's not letting me quote the first part of your post about how our entire system is really at fault, but I wanted to say that I agree with you about that.
However, I still think it's naive to say that until we all start doing better, the President gets a pass. I frankly think that's bullshit and if that's what more people believe, I'm frankly more than a little amazed.
The reason I admire the people in Madison, WI, and the Occupy people so much is that they're out there putting their money where their mouth is. They're absorbing risk for change they believe needs to happen and actually CHANGING the idiotic mainstream narrative in the process. What I find on the internet is a lot of people who want the change but aren't willing to make a stand for it. Instead, they're pointing their fingers at the most visible person in power -- the leader of the free world -- and asking him to take all the risk even knowing that the same people won't necessarily even be paying attention when the next election rolls around. People have wicked short attention spans. So he can be a hero to you, me, and maybe a million people who are paying attention right now. But if there was blowback from that heroic thing he did, in a year's time when you and I and the million other people have either lost interest or found a new crusade and forgotten about what Obama did, the rest of billions of people in this country are going to call him "weak on terrorism" and the media will stoke that fire for all its worth. That's my main point about difficult, intractable issues like this. Yes, they're do-able but more people need to know what's at stake for the President and for us for action to be positive and not just a rope they'll be able to hang the President with later (because too few people even understood it in the first place).
Quote:
He did lead people out of apathy. Only 30% of the population even bothers to vote at all and there was a slight uptick in 2008 because of his campaign. I agree that his communications operations are a debacle. Only when he gets on-camera do we get any real truth or galvanizing words. He does a weekly internet address but how many people do you think actually bother to watch it?
On his lack of action concerning Wall St., how many people do you think actually understand it? How many people in Congress would back him up if he took them on the way they deserve to be taken on (though he has made some progress on this, not nearly enough)? And how many billions do you think would then be thrown into toppling him in the eyes of an uninformed, easily manipulated public and elevating puppets who do Wall St.'s bidding?
On your last point we completely disagree. I don't know what evidence you have that Obama likes things the way they are. He doesn't has never expressed that in words, and judging how he's treated in congress, in the supreme court, in the media, I doubt he likes things the way they are at all. But until people become aware of the corrupting influence money has had on our entire system of governance and take as many risks as they want him to to change it, that's the way it is.
I'm sorry, but it has been 4 years. I'm getting kind of tired hearing about Bush/Cheney, and their evil stolen empire.
Yeah, VTRan is right. There's a point where, yes, it becomes an excuse to blame the prior administration, but the Bush years led to problems that will be resonating for DECADES. The corporate takeover of the political process and the media, the mess in the middle east, the environment, the economy...and while Obama has to own his own decisions, they're being shaped by Bush's. As alarmingly totalitarian as Obama's being at times, I don't think he would have charged into Iraq after 9/11, for instance.
yt, I really, really respect you, but your points are all over the place in this last post. First, you say that it's everyone's fault. Then you site specific groups of people who are doing something about their government. You blame the state of our government on the apathy of the people, but then say that this president lead people out of their apathy. You complain he wouldn't have support about Wall Street reform from congress or the people and that nobody would understand it. Yet he had a choice about who to hire for the Treasury Secretary and he picked Timothy Geithner. I'm not saying whoever he hired for that position would have solved all of our problems, but did he have to pick one of the guys that led us into this mess in the first place? You claim that he's at least being more honest about this stuff than W. or Cheney, and I think that's true to a certain extent, but he also campaigned on transparency only to keep a tighter control of White House daily logs and records than the Bush administration.
And when I said that Obama likes things the way they are, I was talking specifically about the issue that started this argument. I don't think you can disagree that he doesn't like to micromanage his horrible kill-list when it's pretty obvious that he wants the buck stopping with him on this matter, one that is simply bad policy and unconstitutional. I'm not cynical enough to just shrug and go "oh, well, at least we know about it." No, sorry, not good enough. It's not the horrible system that makes him keep his shitty kill list. It's not because I'm not writing enough letters. It's his fucking decision. He should own it, he should take responsibility, and if I think it's a horrible idea, that's on his head, not mine.
I do believe that he'd like to do more but is consistently blocked by Washington politics, including the nut-jobs on the other side of the aisle. I do believe he's tying and I do believe he's frustrated with how he has to go around running things, and that includes signing that horrible NDAA act. But pretending that this is the best that we could possibly offer because it's everyone else is at fault except Obama is frankly ridiculous, and nothing you say is going to make me think otherwise.
Yeah, VTRan is right. There's a point where, yes, it becomes an excuse to blame the prior administration, but the Bush years led to problems that will be resonating for DECADES. The corporate takeover of the political process and the media, the mess in the middle east, the environment, the economy...and while Obama has to own his own decisions, they're being shaped by Bush's. As alarmingly totalitarian as Obama's being at times, I don't think he would have charged into Iraq after 9/11, for instance.
I 100% agree with this. The Bush administration has done inconceivable damage to our country that will be lasting for years to come. One of the reasons I respect Obama is that he's been handed a real big fucking mess, which is why when he disappoints me on issues like the kill-list, I get doubly frustrated. That might be unfair of me, but so be it.
In the interest of moving way from fighting with people I really like and honestly respect, I offer a truce. I'm sorry if I'm being a dick. I know I can be from time to time.
And to put my money where my mouth is so to speak, lets be good citizens and good democrats and donate to the Democrats in Wisconsin. I just did. Won't you too?
1. Occidental College records and transcripts — Not released
2. Columbia University records and transcripts — Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper — ‘not available’
4. Harvard University records and transcripts — Not released
5. Medical records — Not released
6. Illinois State Senate schedule — ‘not available’
7. Illinois State Senate records — ‘not available’
8. Law practice client list — Not released
9. Certified Copy of Original Birth certificate — Not released
10. Harvard Law Review articles published — None
11. University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
12. Record of Baptism — Not released or ‘not available’
