Obama: 3/5 of a President

While we were all shopping and arguing over whether or not fruitcake is fit for human consumption, Obama decided to go to bat and fight for someone.   Who was he fighting for?   The torturers of the Bush administration, that’s who.   Oh, and anyone else in the United States government who wants to torture and violate the human rights of others.

As Chris Floyd reports, The United States is now legally free to torture whomever it wants, thanks to the Supreme Court of the land, and the political power weilded by Barrack Hussein Obama.

It happened earlier this week, in a discreet ruling that attracted almost no notice and took little time. In fact, our most august defenders of the Constitution did not have to exert themselves in the slightest to eviscerate not merely 220 years of Constitutional jurisprudence but also centuries of agonizing effort to lift civilization a few inches out of the blood-soaked mire that is our common human legacy. They just had to write a single sentence.

Here’s how the bad deal went down. After hearing passionate arguments from the Obama Administration, the Supreme Court acquiesced to the president’s fervent request and, in a one-line ruling, let stand a lower court decision that declared torture an ordinary, expected consequence of military detention, while introducing a shocking new precedent for all future courts to follow: anyone who is arbitrarily declared a “suspected enemy combatant” by the president or his designated minions is no longer a “person.”  They will simply cease to exist as a legal entity. They will have no inherent rights, no human rights, no legal standing whatsoever — save whatever modicum of process the government arbitrarily deigns to grant them from time to time, with its ever-shifting tribunals and show trials.

And people wonder what this “hatred” is towards Obama.   “I didn’t get my pony?” they ask?   Ha.  They have no idea.   I hate Obama for the same reasons I hate Bush.  Why?  Because Obama IS Bush.   His administration is one and the same as the Bush administration, and I mean that quite literally when it comes to justice, human rights, and the wars.    ALL THE SAME PEOPLE are running the show, and we know that Bush’s Justice Department is a bunch of corrupt, human rights-violating  flunkies recruited from the ranks of the “religious right”.    And they are still in office, fighting for their hatreds

Now Obama is not just passively letting these people continue the Bush/Cheney yearas, he is going out of his way to enable  them.  

He is putting his name to the most egregious violations of human rights in this nation’s history.  

What’s really pathological is that he is shitting on the very system that freed African American people, of which he is a gene-carrying member.  

More from antiwar.com:

US: Guantanamo Prisoners Not ‘Persons’

by William Fisher,

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal Monday to review a lower court’s dismissal of a case brought by four British former Guantanamo prisoners against former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the detainees’ lawyers charged Tuesday that the country’s highest court evidently believes that “torture and religious humiliation are permissible tools for a government to use.”

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., had ruled that government officials were immune from suit because at that time it was unclear whether abusing prisoners at Guantanamo was illegal.

Channeling their predecessors in the George W. Bush administration, Obama Justice Department lawyers argued in this case that there is no constitutional right not to be tortured or otherwise abused in a U.S. prison abroad.

Ironically, the first African American president is promoting a policy frighteningly familiar to the Dred Scott decision of yesteryear:

“Another set of claims are dismissed because Guantanamo detainees are not ‘persons’ within the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – an argument that was too close to Dred Scott v. Sanford for one of the judges on the court of appeals to swallow,” he added.

The Dred Scott case was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1857. It ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants – whether or not they were slaves – were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States.

Thanks, Obama.   Next time someone calls you an “Uncle Tom” I simply won’t cringe.  I might even nod.   I might even say “hell yeah.”

On, and by the way, remember that campaign promise of Obama’s, that he would close Gitmo upon taking office?

Well, not until 2011 “at the earliest”.

Obama must be laughing.  I mean, he’s either laughing or he’s puking his guts out at his own cowardice and moral bankruptcy.   And if he’s laughing, he’s laughing at us.

And tell me, why is this considered embarrassing:

but this is not?

They are now legally the same.


Skip to comment form

  1. Inky99
  2. Underdog

    but a worthy goal.  I said it under Bush (Buck Fush!), so I’m gonna have to say it under Obama,

    Buck Ofama!


  3. TomP

    I do not “hate” President Obama.  I disagree on some issues and agree on some others.  Obama is NOT Bush.

    With all my disappoitments, he is the most progressive president since LBJ domestically.

    The 3/5 bullshit is offensive, as is you remarks about the President’s race.

    I found much of this diary to be disgusting.    

  4. mint julep

    he got the Nobel Peace Prize!

    I don’t hate Obama, I feel sorry for him, cause karma is a bitch!

  5. svboston

    or diary title, Inky.  

    I am aghast at the the Supreme Court decision and furious at Obama’s DOJ. I completely agree with you when you say that when it comes to torture issues, Obama is worse than Bush – I think he is actually WORSE than Bush because at least under Bush, it was OK for the left to condemn the policies and at least Bush’s policies were publicized on most left-leaning sites. Now, under Obama, these same policies are going unnoticed.

    But I disagree with your bringing race into your diary.  Your diary made me uncomfortable, to say the least, and at first I thought it was the use of race that made me uncomfortable.  But it is actually the content of the news in it that made me uncomfortable, and rightly so.  This diary SHOULD make me uncomfortable, but should not provide me an excuse of “racist language and images” to ignore it.

  6. wilberforce

    All of them. And they suck even more as the years and terms go by.

    The question remains: how much power do these bozos have, and how much power do other interests have: the CIA for instance never changes it’s policy at all–who controls them ? You can be damn sure someone does.  Honduras, for instance–sure looks like CIA to me.

  7. banger

    As much as I know about what this government is doing and has done throughout history when torture and indefinite detention became normalized all hopes of returning to a Republic based on a Constitution seems lost. I am cynical, I’ve been around a while, I am not shocked very often but this stuff sticks with me and takes the wind out of me.

    Torture is the worst thing human beings can do. I can understand killing but I can’t understand torture as ever being necessary. When faced with the fact of torture I see the image of the painting “The Scream” staring me right in the face.

    When they declare people non-persons that means that they are, for all intents and purposes, already dead. The fact that this agenda for torturing is based on no serious threat is even more horrifying. The GWOT is an Orwellian lie that isn’t even close to being true. This brings me to the sad realization that they are doing it for fun.

  8. undercovercalico

    is one I want to represent the country I live in and the continent I hail from.

    I had lesser expectations of Obama than many here which might explain why I am not as freaked out by how things have unfolded. With the exceptions of a few random blips in history modern America has always been pretty right wing. Americans have been groomed to be reactionary. Not that the place I come from (Canada) is the liberal utopia many people assume it to be.

    FDR the big liberal everybody keeps getting all misty eyed about was perfectly alright with rounding up Japanese Americans taking their shit and putting them in cages.

    I am not going to waste my breath defending Obama but I don’t like the imagery you have associated with him Inky. I am not saying that you are racist for the simple reason I think all of us (including me) are.

    What bothers me is my perception that in your anger you are resorting to using the sort of imagery I think the right wing likes to employ to reveal deep white anxiety. Nor am I saying you are like a right wing pundit because I know you are not. But is is not a little odd that we would automatically “expect more” from Obama because he is a man of color? He is a man who ran for and became President and the President in this county is always going to be a man or woman who owes other big favors for giving him the prize.

    Until we have publically funded elections we won’t ever have a truly populist President. Mind you that could also mean we end up with a populist from the right.

  9. Lasthorseman

    Global poverty, war, food shortages, plagues,depopulation, New Songdo city people are just things, mass media neuro-linguistic mind programming just to name a few.

    You really have to speak to Obama’s handlers, the globalists.

  10. undercovercalico

    You know I think your essays are thought provoking not that my one opinion really counts but I like the way you use to anger to be articulate instead of the opposite. Anger renders me all muffled and I can’t gather myself.

    Obama is just the symbol. He in’t evil nor our saviour. In many ways Inky he is less powerful than you. Think about it.

  11. Knucklehead

    Although I`m very aware of calls of racism, I usually don`t see it as that important.

    What I never see is racism in truth.

    There may be truth in racism, but there should not be racism in the truth.

    The facts put forth in the diary, I see as truths.

    If there is any argument, it should be in disputing your facts & not under cover of racism.

    In the last two images, both disgust me, although I find the last one more so.

    My reason is that knowing of the horrors of slavery, we should have evolved a little more, to not be doing it again.

    With this little known signing, (I believe by design) the status quo of 3/5ths holds firm for years to come.

    I had high hopes with Obama, not because he was black, nor do I base my extreme disappointment in this signing because of it either, but you`d think belonging to a race that were considered chattel (see Latin origin, cattle), he`d be much more aware of the tangled web woven under his patronage.

    As a supposed constitutional expert, he seems to be the definition of hypocrite.

    As an aside, I tend to view “racism” more as, bigotry, possibly because of where I was raised. Having been spit on & beat down as a kid, for speaking English, the first black person I ever met was loved all over town when he came to play baseball for the town team.

    I really first saw black/white racism when I came to the US, & had a hard time comprehending it.

    Was that naive? (Hey, that was rhetorical, don`t answer)

  12. bigsurtree

    of armaments world wide, the perpetuation of war and its endless strategizing, and our need for fuel to keep those machines rolling. The constitution has become irrelevant. We created a monster that is now consuming all of us. It’s as if torture is the byproduct of an uncontrollable machine in which people are excused from reponsibility.

    Our so called freedoms and way of life is our justification i.e. our superiority. Sound familiar?

    I guess we’re supposed to be patted on the back for at least openly discussing the issue. But notice how it’s in the context of the inevitable price that must be paid to

    protect ourselves, the chosen nation to lead the world to

    peace and prosperity.  

  13. pico

    I’ll leave you with a summary of a comment I posted at dkos on this very issue:

    Read primary sources.  Because when you take a blogger’s three-times-removed-from-the-source account of an issue, you’re having it filtered through so many middlemen that you’re taking a huge risk in taking their words at face value.  Responsible blogging means researching those primary sources even when you want to bring another blogger’s work to our attention.  

    Neither the court case nor the arguments the DoJ made in this case have anything to do with antiwar.com’s allegations or Chris Floyd’s secondhand account of their secondhand account.  Read the original documents for yourself, and when a blogger doesn’t actually cite those documents, you have cause to be suspicious.  The circuit case made two decisions:

    1. That Rumsfeld et. al. can be granted a special immunity to prosecution on constitutional issues that weren’t decided until long after the alleged behavior took place, and

    2. That the specific line of legislation that the Rasul et. al. hinges on what the court considers a badly-written line of legislation, and all evidence of its inception and application show that it was never intended to apply universally.  This was their decision in one sentence:

    There is no doubt that RLUIPA’s [Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act] drafters, in changing the definition of “exercise of religion,” wanted to broaden the scope of the kinds of practices protected  by RFRA, not to increase the universe of individuals protected by RFRA.

    That’s what they’re saying: not that Rasul isn’t a “person” – did you know that most of the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to non-citizens, even when it refers to “people”? – and the decision is very clear on the scope of its applicability.  Even the Rumsfeld decision is specific to this case and creates no precedent for future immunity.  The Supreme Court agreed with these findings.

    You don’t have to agree – and an intelligent analysis of where this decision will bring us will be most welcome – but this fantasy that the government has labeled the former detainees non-persons, or decided that torture was an acceptable government policy, etc. is just that: fantasy.  All it takes is reading the actual texts of the decisions.

    Read more.  Read critically.  Don’t swallow what other people tell you just because it fits your narrative well.  And drop the racist bullshit.

  14. mint julep

    Obama is not Bush, only Bush can be Bush. Obama is in a whole new category: Biggest liar ever!

    ‘Disappointment’ doesn’t even begin to describe how I feel!

  15. Underdog

    progressive President since LBJ isn’t really saying much.  But as President, if he wants to continue torturing in our name, continue and expand US imperialism thru wars, occupations, and more bases worldwide, while telling us we need to control debt here at home so there’s only so much socially we can do, then he deserves all the criticism he gets.  He talks a good game, but once out on the court, he folds like the rookie he is.  

  16. Inky99

    And if you find what I wrote offensive, then, I’m sorry, you find the truth offensive.

    In that we agree.  The truth is INDEED offensive.

    Your hoping that things are something they aren’t is irrelevant.  

  17. Inky99

    Thanks for pointing that out.  

  18. Shaharazade

    He hasn’t done one thing domestically that’s even remotely progressive. The worst part is he hasn’t even tried, from the first he has aliened himself politically with the corporatist’s. He’s not even going in the right direstion he isn’t even a Democrat, really. He is terrible about civil and human rights as this diary points shows. His by-partisan shtick is abominable. He refuses to regulate the ‘financial industry’ or use the law to bust them up. He berates the irresponsible left for not accepting this pig of a bill. He’s a neoliberal, neocon. The only difference I can see is that he is articulate and knows how to pull people into thinking that this crap is change.

    I don’t hate him but I am starting to to hate his basic immorality  as he offered the people hope when he had no intention of changing anything but R to D. He talked the fierce urgency of now and he’s making it fiercer for all of us. His Christmas speech was war propaganda he like Bush is a war president.  LBJ did something about poverty and civil rights, he was a baby killer, but he knew which way the wind blew domestically/politically and came through. Obama just wants to ‘create wealth’ and if that’s a deal breaker so be it. He’s an arrogant bastard to boot, Clinton at least felt our pain and was all folksy.              

  19. taoskier

    Respectfully disagree. I could go into details but Obama was not more progressive than Carter.

  20. taoskier

    The racial overtones of the essay are simply ugly and  I personally find them at odds to what this site represents, my view.

  21. FreeSociety

    Obama the most “progressive” President since LBJ??

    No way…pure nonsense there.

    Obama has not done one single thing that even fits the concept of putting the interests of people ahead of the runaway corruption of War/Banks/Corporate-Monopolies/War-Contractors/CIA-violence/Human-Torture/Federal-Authoritary/Loss-of-Civil Liberties-and-proper-Justice.

    His polices, and also his choice of friends/advisors are indistinguishable from the crowd that fathered and/or supported the last 8 years of tyranny and corruption.


    Bill Clinton, despite all his many faults and contradictions, was 1000 times more progressive than Obama is or ever will be.

    Bill Clinton had the courage to completely reverse the concept of “Reagonmics” (the “trickle-down” Economics lie) in his first year in Office.  He stared the GOP right in the face and he didn’t blink and passed the Deficit Recovery Act in 1993 that led to balanced budgets, surplusses, and 7 years of Economic growth. Obama doesn’t have that kind of guts.

    Bill Clinton also stared down Newt Gingrich and the GOP when they threatened to shutdown the government unless Clinton signed their Health Care gutting budget.  Clinton called them on their blackmail bluff, and the GOP did really shut down the government. But Bill Clinton held firm, and did not blink.  Not Joe Lieberman, nor any other similar Senator or Congressman could get Clinton to roll over and capitulate.  Instead it was Newt Gingrich and the GOP that finally capitulated, and a much better budget bill was agreed to — with Bill Clinton clearly winning that whole fight.

    Barack Obama never stood up and fought for anything in his entire life.

    Obama is a born capitulator and back-door glad-handler. His totally undeserved “progressive” image is based solely on the fact that he reads off a teleprompter phony abstract speeches that he himself has no committment to, and the fact that he black (thus, supposedly a friend to the downtrotten).  But the truth is that Obama is both an Uncle-Tom, and an elitist, sophisticated Corporate lawyer. He has never voted “progressive” on anything in his life on any of the big issues that really matter.

    His votes have always been pro-War, pro-WallStreet, pro-Secret-Detentions, and his only fights are to seek unnecessary compromises with the criminal Economic Class to cut them innot to cut them out.  And when he won his Election, and it came down to picking his administration, his choices were Robert Gates (Bush’s guy), Rahm Emanual (the Joe Lieberman of the House), Timothy Giethner (WallStreet crook and Tax Evader), Lawrence Summers, and other Citibank-GldmanSachs insiders.  There isn’t a “Robert Reich” (progressive) or a “Wesley Clark” anywhere to be found in the Obama administration like there was during Clinton’s years.

    Obama is no more progressive than Harold Ford or Clarence Thomas.  He stands miles and miles apart from for the (progressive) Congressional Black Caucus, and diametrically opposes them in policy terms.

    The truth is that Joe Lieberman, Rahm Emanual, and Obama are all of like mind, of like policy, and all have like friends — only the rhetoric is different (just to fool people during Primary season).  


  22. Miep

    and I think that any defense of Obama, to be effective, must also include real data as to what he has accomplished.

    At the same time, the kind of human rights violation described in this essay can easily be seen to eclipse any minor accomplishments, and some major ones as well.  

  23. Inky99

    who everybody seems to collectively forget.

    Obama is to the right of just about everybody, including Nixon and he’s about equal to Reagan.

    Real progressive on our hands.   Not.  

  24. wilberforce

    He also bombed innocent people just to keep from being impeached.

    So take your Clinton love and shove it.

  25. Shaharazade

    your Clinton loving. He was/is the Big dog of the neo liberals and his administration a bunch of yuppies on steroids. He was poppy’s other son. If you like him so much you should love Obama as he hired all the Clintonites to continue the destruction that Clinton and Bush 1 and 2 started. The country is now totally owned by the neocons and neoliberals. The left is being neutered and they are finishing off the middle class. We are now going to skip the middle man and pay the corps directly.  So when’s Obama going to start feeling my pain?    

  26. FreeSociety

    He’s got a Military budget larger than Dick Cheney/George Bush.

    He’s supports CIA Drones with Hellfire missiles.

    He’s outsourced Human Torture to private Contractors.

    He’s enslaved all Americans to the price gauging Insurance Monopolies or face IRS collection and bankruptcy.

    He’s banned the reimportation of cheaper Generic drugs.

    He hates, mocks, and shuns “progressives” and “liberals”.

    He wants to empower the corrupt Federal Reserve Monopoly even more.

    His idea of change … is Robert Gates, and 8 more years of WAR, Mass-Violence, and Foreign Military Bases.


    Obama is 0/5 of President.

    His words have proven to be utterly meaningless and phony,

    and his actions no less corrupt than George W. Bush.


    “Hey look George, I’m a Murder Inc., puppet President too!”

  27. FreeSociety

  28. FreeSociety

    President Franklin Roosevelt

    The Brilliant President John Kennedy

    President Jimmy Carter

  29. Inky99

    But I think it’s appropriate considering the considerable irony of Obama, the first black President, to do something reflective of the Dred Scott decision.

    It’s a disgrace and it should be pointed out.    Heck, I’m not even being heavy-handed.  

    Obama is a disgrace to everyone, everywhere, but especially as a black man in America.

  30. svboston

    But my point was more that it takes away from the diary because it gives me an easy out – I can turn away and pretend it was “racism” that made me turn away from your piece…

    Yes, I expected more, especially from a black man.  I am a brown immigrant and, as such, particularly prone to be considered a non-person by his DOJ.  So yes, I am disappointed. And don’t even get me started on his DOJ’s stance on gay rights…

  31. FreeSociety

    Clinton did not bomb 1 million Iraqi’s to death, but I am quick to oppose the U.N. economic sanctions policy on Iraq (which only hurt citizens), and also felt that the (relatively) small scale 1998 air bombings of targetted Military sites, was more aggression than required.

    But Obama has already far eclipsed the human toll of anything Clinton did, with his wholehearted embrace of illegal and hopeless Military Foreign Occupations as far as the eye can see, his wholehearted embrace of the discredited Nazi-Neocon concept of “preventative War”, his illegal civilian-killing predator Drone attacks in both the Nations of Afghanistan and Pakistan, his massive doubling of the size of Military Combat operations in Afghanistan (where we now recently have had the most violent months on record), his escalation in the use of private Contractors in Iraq (yes that Iraq), his support of Human Torture and use of tyrannical methods such as: Military Tribunals, Secret CIA Renditions, Torture Camps like Bagram, and his expansion and increases in the Militaey budget far in excess of Dick Cheney & Bush, etc.

    But the point here was not that Clinton was either perfect or without blame.  The point was that Clinton stood up to the GOP, and had the balls to oppose them head on without blinking, and without capitulation. Simply put, Clinton fought hard and beat the GOP and beat (more importantly) their ideas.  

    Now would Obama have ever dug his heels in, and permitted the whole government to just be shut down by the GOP — just in order to assert progressive policy??

    Of course not!  Obama doesn’t have the balls.

    Obama would gladly volunteer to happily CAVE-IN FIRST…just to avoid any messy controversy.

    Then, he would disrespect progressives so much that he would even declare the policy setback: “An Historic Victory”.

  32. wilberforce

    but then caved totally.

    Obama is totally bought and sold, but very quickly so was Clinton.  

  33. deadatom

    As well as ending welfare?  Clinton did a lot of things.  I wouldn’t claim most of those things as victories.

  34. Inky99

    I guess we agree to disagree.

    It’s a touchy subject, and I’m a white guy, so …..

  35. banger

    is this ridiculous political correctness kick. Being offended by Inky when the oligarchs are happy torturing mostly innocent people? That’s why everybody laughs at progressives because they are afraid of offending anyone.

    I understand this whole black/white divide — I’ve lived through it and seen how the ruling class kept the races divided — it’s so fucking easy. Political correctness has kept working class whites away and delivered them into the arms of the fascists.

  36. Inky99

    is that the CIA has run the show since JFK’s untimely death.

    Can anyone take them one?    I don’t know.  But you can fight, rather than just be another one of their Company Men.    You think the CIA cares about domestic health care?   Of course not.  

    Honestly, I don’t think anyone gets to be a serious presidential candidate unless they’re vetted by the CIA.  

    Nonetheless, there were judges who took on the drug lords in Colombia.   There was Elliot Ness taking on Al Capone.    

    They’re given a lot of leeway to continue the illusion of true democracy.  Obama promised a lot and could deliver a lot.    He’s simply refusing and is basically going “you voted for me, suckers, you fell for my schtick!  Fuck you!”

  37. FreeSociety

    See the earlier post at:  http://docudharma.com/show

  38. svboston

    but yeah, we will agree to disagree. No offence taken.

  39. wilberforce

    how much stuff happens through direct fear and intimidation?  Like the original Iraq war vote, like Wellstone, etc.  I think quite a bit.

    But on health care, there are other players obviously, I don;t think the CIA much cares about this, but then again, as I said, someone runs the CIA.  And for all we know they may have an interest in ‘health care’–or any other issue. I don’t know, and neither do you–we don’t know who those guys are.  

  40. banger

    The CIA is a diverse set of cliques some of which are relatively progressive. I believe the real power is now largely in the hands of private contractors associated with the covert/black ops parts of CIA and other agencies. I call it organized crime.

    Just splitting hairs here.

  41. FreeSociety

  42. FreeSociety

    There is plenty about Bill Clinton that I never liked. I am not making the case that he was perfect.

    I am simply making the case, that on relative terms, he stood up to the GOP and dug his heels in on some critical issues.  His determination to totally reverse the holy “Reaganomics”, trick-down U.S. Taxation policy at great political cost to himself did indeed directly lead to 7 years of an improving Economic Conditions in the 1990s for the Middle Class, and the end of yearly budget deficits (until George W. Bush came along).

    Should we not recognize that?

    His determination to defeat Newt Gingrich and GOPs effort to terminate Medicare and gut Health Care — even if that meant letting them shut down the entire Federal Governmentwas indeed an act of true political courage and balls — the likes of which we have not scene from anyone since (except Rep. Dennis Kucinich).

    Now, Is Barack Obama ever going to fight that hard for the Middle Class??

    Answer:  Absolutely NOT!!!!

  43. Shaharazade

    far out ways his good. I’ll give you taxes and Medicare but we also got NAFTA, globalization, ‘free market’, deregulation, privatization and bubbles of mass destruction. Not to mention the DLC’s grip on our party. Not a friend to workers or labor either. He also held the place for the Iraq war by bombing the crap out them daily and sanctions that killed. Any difference is like the health bill better then the worst.      

  44. svboston

    The same points can be made without bringing race in, and in my opinion, that would make the message acceptable to more people.  I see it as a matter of more effective political messaging. As it is, any criticism of Obama is being termed racist – why give more fodder to that argument?

    And no, I don’t believe political correctness has kept the working class whites away – “political correctness” is an effective messaging tool the GOP has used to shut people up and try to create a divide between elite and working class on the left.

  45. Inky99

    I use the term “CIA” loosely meaning those who are the shadow government, and there’s at the very least a faction of the CIA that at least seems to  call the shots here.

    It goes all the way back to the very creation of the CIA, the Dulles brothers, etc. etc.    That’s for a whole ‘nuther essay.

  46. Inky99

    is that we were, and probably are, torturing people for purposes other than “gaining information”.  Not that you can gain any good information for torturing people, but that’s the justification.

    But the justification is a lie.   We tortured people, boiled them alive, to get false confessions out of them, to create a paper trail to justify an illegal war of aggression.

    I don’t know if you saw it when I wrote about it, but it’s here.

    The propaganda people have managed to spin this argument into the “24” scenario, but that isn’t why we torture.  If people knew the real reason they would be a LITTLE upset.  

  47. banger

    Yes, the right has used the “political correctness” as a slogan. But it works because there is some truth to it. The idea that we can’t speak frankly to each other without escalating the talk into charges of racism rankles a lot of people and, in my view, is destructive and has been destructive to progressives. Look at how difficult it is to critisize the state of Israel. As soon as a non-Jew critisizes Israel they are called “anti-Semitic”. It leaves the field open (at least publically) only for Jews to critisize Israel. Of course, the right still calls the anti-Semitic but it gets relatively less traction.

    Anyway I get your point.

  48. banger

    … and how the MSM was and is continuing to be infiltrated by agents of this weird shadow government that, increasingly, seems to not even bother to hide its actions since it knows even the existence of such an entity will never be presented to the American people. I think they are quite content to allow those of us on the fringes to know about them — we are clearly no danger.  

  49. svboston

    and I agree with you about being called racist and anti-Semitic and all the other knee-jerk responses. Unfortunately, the state of media nowadays is that the message and messenger are always conflated together.Again, I see this as a successful right wing tactic that has gained traction – attack the messenger to discredit the message.

      It has become the norm to such a degree that we on the left do it too.  And we always have to provide our bona fides when we make a statement – I don’t like that one bit.  It prevents a frank exchange of ideas.

     The reason I responded to Inky in the first place is because in this particular forum we may be able to have these dialogues without ascribing ulterior motives like racism and anti-Semitism to the diarists and commenters. I would never have responded on DK or a lot of other sites because my response would have been construed as a knee-jerk accusation of racism….  

  50. FreeSociety

    There is no issue under the sun upon which Obama will take a progressive position, and actually mean it, and go to the wall for it.

    He fights for nothing (unlike Clinton).

  51. Inky99
  52. wilberforce

    not a good record either.  

  53. Inky99

    in what I wrote.

    The two images show a black slave, in chains, a man who would have been a “non person”, and prisoners at Guantanamo, who are also now “non persons”.

    Yet we have a black man as President, enforcing this new human rights violation against people who are, mostly, non-white.

    The fact that people are getting upset about this is pretty confounding to me.   It’s the simple truth of the matter.  We used to have slaves.  They were considered 3/5 of a man.  They had no freedoms, were considered property and were not allowed to vote.  

    We now have people who we’ve “captured” in Guantanamo, but the truth is most of them were turned in by bounty hunters and are no more “terrorists” than you or I.   We’ve also tortured people, grotesquely, for the sole purpose of making them sign false confessions.  

    These people, thanks to Obama’s and Bush’s lawyers, and the other lawyers who are in the courts of this land, have decided that these people are “non persons” also.   In a way it’s worse than slavery, at least it had a purpose.   This has no purpose whatsoever.  It’s pure brutality for the sake of brutality.

    And Obama, the first black President, is behind it.   And perpetuating it.  And engraving this heinous legal crap in STONE.

    Yet I’m the one making people uncomfortable with a couple of images?

    I really don’t get it.

    Your comments always appreciated, however.    

  54. Inky99

    I just want people to know what’s really going on.   If everybody did know what was going on, I wouldn’t be doing any of this.   Or else I’d be exploring other stuff, educating myself on other, more fun, issues in life.  

    Regarding what you say, I’m pretty aware now that more than likely the President of the United States has about as much power to run the country as the Student Body President has to run the school.

    It’s kind of a joke, something to keep the people entertained.  

    However, I do think if you’re going to go to all the trouble, you should try to do as much good as you can with what power they DO let you have.

    And Obama is doing the opposite of that.  

    His job seems to be the “clean up guy” behind the Bush/Cheney mess.    Engrave in stone those things that Bush/Cheney did in a very UGLY way, clean them up, dot the i’s, cross the t’s, get the lawyers to sign off on everything, then consolidate the wars, smile and give great speeches and mainly do MASSIVE PR to keep the people from rising up and slitting everybody’s throats.  

    He’s doing an INCREDIBLE job of all of that.

    And he did it by betraying all those people who were so enthralled by him.  

    It really pisses me off.   He’s a far worse con man than Bush, he’s the best con man I think I’ve ever seen.

  55. Joy B.

    in what, exactly, Presidents have no power to affect. Primarily (in his case, and now in Obama’s), the Fed and the nation’s economy. A good read on this is the book “Secrets of the Temple” by William Greider. Presidents get blamed for the state of the economy (what killed Carter’s chances for a second term), but they really have no power at all in that arena other than proposing a budget, and the Fed can get its cronies to knock that out of the water if they want.

    Obama inherited an economy in much, much worse shape than Carter did. Hell, Carter didn’t even have to preside over a generational cash-out (as Reagan/Bush-I did, per the S&L robbery), just a deep recession. The fact that Obama can’t even change the players tells us everything we need to know. Sure, he pretends his appointments are his choice, but they never actually were. The nation’s facade of Democratic Republic is shattered. That’s something the people need desperately to understand before anything can be done about it.

  56. Inky99

    I can’t help but think that even with the lack of control that Presidents have, they still can choose their own cabinet.

    I really don’t think it’s gotten that far.   But if I’m wrong we’re far worse off than even I think, and that puts me WAY out there!  

    I mean, the cabinet members can still be approved of or not, right?  

    What gets me is Obama didn’t even try, not even from day one, he just made it very clear he was a Company Man and everything he’d said prior to that point was pure bullshit.

    Which shouldn’t be THAT surprising, but it sure was a worst-case-scenario as far as I was concerned.   Even with all my reservations about the guy, I was really hoping he had some good intentions, but he clearly did not.  

Leave a Reply