--- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_re...@...> wrote: > > RD, > > Yeah, total agreement with you below. > > I do think/wish-it's-true that Obama has seriously had to bite his tongue and > deal with the devil when it comes to these major concessions that I as an > outsider think he's making. > > I'm thinking of John, Martin and Bobby. Call me a conspiracy nut if you > must, but Obama does have some real world examples of what happens to > presidents and other leaders. Obama can only push so hard, before he's > entering that danger zone, and if he's tippy toes around the military > industry, I can understand. I mean, how did J.Edgar Hoover keep his job for > so many presidencies? Hoover had some power it seems. > > I ask you straight out: > > "If Obama had already closed down Guantanamo by bringing all those prisoners > here to our courts, and it was then shown again and again that the evidence > against many if not most of them did not come up to American standards of > habeas corpus and exposing our military as festering with brutes and > perverts, and there were world wide riots protesting the revelations, and >
Wouldn't it be refreshing to have a president that had enough guts to speak the truth on principle regardless of the consequences? Isn't that the president type of president Obama supporters wanted? I never believed all the hopey-changey rhetoric for a minute, so I'm never going to be as disappointed in Obama as his most ardent followers probably will. I've been a staunch Democrat my whole life, a political junky with a habit of paying close attention to the details of policy, issues and record of a politician rather than feel good slogans. Initially I leaned toward Edwards but Hillary spoke with depth and intelligence on the issues, had the heart of a true blue Democrat and she was exactly what I wanted to see in a presidential candidate. I couldn't see the heart of a Democrat behind Obama's rhetorical mask, demagoguery and the messianic worship he inspired in his followers. I felt the blind devotion of his supporters was unhealthy for the political process, short circuiting an honest review of issues and it left me suspicious of his motives. Recently, you may recall, Obama opened a can of worms by releasing Bush's torture memos then left Pelosi twisting in the wind defending herself against Republicans who predictably shifted the focus of their culpability to Democrats. Republicans breached state secrets and revealed the CIA had briefed Nancy about "harsh interrogation techniques." Her only wiggle out of it was to imply that the CIA had not been entirely truthful in disclosing information on the program. So there we have it folks...mutual finger pointing in the service of obfuscating who knew what and when and preventing an honest hearing of Bush's War Crimes. Question: Did Obama release the memos to simply pander to the left knowing that every politician with access to national security information would immediately start finger pointing and stymie an investigation or was he just plain naive? The thing that makes me suspicious Obama was Kabuki dancing for the left was the fact that he never gave Nancy any cover by advocating for her against the Republicans. As a follow up to the whole mess, Obama weaseled out by deciding to suppress release of the torture photos. Then to back him up Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman promptly made an amendment to the war supplemental bill, which Obama supported, called the "photo suppression amendment" forbidding release of the torture photos. Glenn Greenwald recently wrote on this subject disagreeing with Obama's refusal to release the torture photos. In an update, Glenn wrote this stunning report today: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ Yesterday, I posted that the Graham-Lieberman amendment was off the table, thanks to the activism of Jane Hamsher and Marcy Wheeler at Firedoglake. Do you remember when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker in 2006? I thought, "This is great! Finally the Democrats control both houses, and those Republican rats in the Bush Administration responsible for shredding our Constitution will finally see justice." Were you as disappointed as I was when the first thing out of her mouth was, "impeachment is off the table?" IMO there is an illness of acquiescence in government as well as the electorate and Obama needs to clean house as he promised. I'll get to the rest of your questions later when I have more time. Thanks for playing. > if Obama had completely gotten our army out of Iraq, and now Iraq was killing > themselves with a religious civil war, and > > if Obama had gotten congress to pass a single-payer health plan that > virtually put most insurance companies out of business overnight, and > > if Obama had vetoed the bailout bill and the entire economy of the world had > collapsed, what would RaunchyDog and Edg be saying about Obama's brute force > tactics that had caused such upheaval in American life?" > > I think you and I would be shouting about his impatience, his bullying, his > uncaringness, etc. > > Like I said, "Triage sucks." > > Edg > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > I have yet to see Judy explain what she'd do as president that wouldn't > > > be subject to the gut-wrenching onus of picking of one's battles and > > > doing triage. > > > > > > > Edg, Thanks for posting this. At long last, you are the first person on > > FFLife willing to discuss political issues that should matter to people of > > good conscience instead of flinging crap, which I have have no problem > > indulging in if the crap hits me first. > > > > > Obama has not finished even his second 100 days, and he's being judged > > > for having a "failed presidency," because he's not moved forward on > > > several very important issues. > > > > > > > Wrong. No one has ever said Obama has a failed presidency, just that the > > issues he has already moved on do not indicate the direction of "changing > > the politics of Washington" as he promised. > > > > > Yet, we don't see Judy explaining to anyone how it could be done > > > otherwise when one considers the huge momentum that the various > > > forces-arrayed represent. Try to stomp the military industrial complex > > > -- get real. It'll be a decade long steady push that solves that ill -- > > > not some swift Gordian Knot cut. > > > > > > > I agree with you on this point in principle, but the polices he has > > implemented thus far do not indicate he is interested in cutting the > > Gordian Knot. If you could cite a specific instance for discussion, I would > > be interested in talking about it. Here's one knot to unravel on a related > > topic: Why does the Obama administration continue to use a notorious > > military police unit at Guantanamo that regularly brutalizes unarmed > > prisoners, including gang-beating them, breaking their bones, gouging their > > eyes and dousing them with chemicals?" > > > > http://i1.democracynow.org/2009/5/19/jeremy_scahill_little_known_military_thug > > > > > Where's your patience, your faith, etc.? > > > > > > > Patience is to virtue as Obama is to politician. The former I trust, the > > latter I don't no matter who it is. > > > > > And note that, if I wanted to, I could really rail against Obama's > > > selling out and that our military is still killing and torturing > > > innocents, etc. Or, say, his lack of pushing for single-payer I find to > > > be a bowing to BigPharm and BigInsurance, yet I can see that he's dealing > > > with the devil and trying to cobble together a health package that > > > doesn't kill these big industries with their tens of thousands of > > > employees "overnight." He's trying to keep people's jobs, ya see? > > > > > > > Point well taken. But one must remember that Obama stated that we could > > implement single payer health care once the Democrats controlled both > > houses and the presidency. Well the conditions have been met and now a fair > > question is: > > Was he saying that pandering for votes knowing full well he could not keep > > his promise? > > > > > Triage ain't easy, right? > > > > > > > > Bush got into office by theft, and I see Judy's issue that Obama > > > manipulated the election process, but let's put that aside and deal with > > > the fact that we have a good hearted man who is deeply aware of history > > > and who's trying to clean up not just Bush's mess but Bill's and many > > > other messes -- including the messes of the Dems' many pork barrelings > > > and suck-jobs on the military's cock. In fact, Obama may have his sights > > > on changing the country's whole roster of mistakes, but he knows he can't > > > just run full speed at such a mass and expect it to be moved much. > > > > > > > Point taken. > > > > > Give him more time -- we all bit our tongues and tried to keep the issues > > > of Bush on the front burner while we let the issue of his theft of the > > > presidency be put aside so that the headlines pertained to issues that > > > mattered now now now. Just so, let's keep the pressure on Obama, but > > > have some fucking faith in this guy's intent, will ya? > > > > > > > Agreed. Keep the pressure on but keep in mind that the best > > intentions...etc. > > > > > Edg > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Zinger again! Judy, this post and your previous post for Sal was just > > > > too easy. You would think the fish in the barrel would at least put up > > > > a fight and make things more interesting around here by at least > > > > offering a fact based discussion about Obama messing with their civil > > > > liberties. Truth be told, not only do they lack the intellectual > > > > ability for such a discussion, sadly they lack interest as well. Pity, > > > > that. It confirms my suspicion their allegiance to the cult of > > > > personality is more important to them than the welfare of our country. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every > > > > > > > > whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, > > > > > > > > justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. Like what decisions and what solid reasons are > > > > > > > you talking about? Let's see links supporting your > > > > > > > claims and we can have a discussion. > > > > > > > > > > > > You can find plenty of things to bitch about anyone if > > > > > > you are motivated primarily by an obnoxious, perpetual > > > > > > undeniably bitter bias and grudge. > > > > > > > > > > Except that it's OBAMA'S SUPPORTERS TOO who are > > > > > bitching about what he's doing. > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every > > > > > > whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, > > > > > > justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. > > > > > > > > > > Apparently do.rkflex has this response on a macro > > > > > key for whenever he's afraid to participate in an > > > > > honest discussion. Note that the paragraph above is > > > > > *exactly* what he said, verbatim, in his earlier > > > > > post (quoted at the top). Wouldn't you think he'd be > > > > > embarrassed? > > > > > > > > > > The fact is that do.rkflex has nothing to say, not > > > > > just in this context but in virtuall any other that > > > > > comes up here. If he can't cut and paste, he's at a > > > > > complete loss. And he can't even cut and paste when > > > > > he's challenged. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
