obama: "Do you think we are stupid?"

[Barry]

[phloem]

I was thinking of asking Obama the same question! Republicans are utterly depraved, sociopathic criminals, but then so is Obama. He cites his health care plan as a hard-fought victory, but the plan is nothing more than another scheme for corporate subsidies; it will hurt more people than it will help, and perpetuate a woefully corrupt, unjust, dysfunctional, and inefficient system when we need something that works for all Americans: universal health care.

Obama chides Ryan ( who is a completely contemptible corporate stooge) for supporting funding for 2 wars, but what has Obama done to stop those wars? What has he done to promote peace in his escalations of drone-bombing and killing civilians wherever American "interests" are at stake? What has he done but further antagonize future generations of Islamic "terrorists," most of whom would likely just want to get the U. S. out of their lives.

Obama has hired banking and Wall Street insiders, ignored calls for investigations of the criminals responsible for gambling away and stealing billions in people's investments, and supported an economically disastrous bailout of financially criminal syndicates by Congress; he and his Department of Injustice continue to do the bidding of these same crooks who carry on plying their illicit trade with impunity.

Obama has increased surveillance of Americans, and bolstered America's role as world leader in exporting terrorism and torture, as well as incarcerating and killing its own citizens. Obama says he supports nuclear diarmament, then throws in the towel with the slightest of grumbles from the Pentagon. Obama supports increasing subsidies of the proven economic, environmental, and human health disaster that is nuclear power generation, again demonstrating his disdain for human life wherever and whenever corporate profits, or impending failures, are on the line.

Tell me Obama, do you think we're stupid, or do you really believe that your actions are in the people's best interests? Do you really think your presidential suit hides your corporate-beholden heart?

Obama can posture and wax prosaic all he likes, but he's a liar, a traitor, and a war criminal. He can't hide his contempt and disdain for people, nor conceal his disregard for the law. Obama and most Democrats are just as culpable for the gross injustices waged against Americans as are Republicans -- Obama and his Congressional cronies are grandstanding politicians with no real concerns other than maintaining the status quo corporate-sponsored debauchery of the last shreds of democracy. And I don't think Republicans are all that stupid, either, since they've gotten all they could ask for, and then some, from Obama and the Democrats: complete capitulation. Now who looks stupid, Obama?

[Gene]

Well a liar for sure, he's a politician. But a traitor and a war criminal, contempt and disdain for people, that's pretty harsh ! Yes he's a disappointment and has crumbled to the will of the Republican fanatics but do you think this hate and over the top accusations are going to accomplish anything ? This is just the kind of thing that keeps us from getting anything done. Cooler heads will have to prevail if we are going to save this country. And, don't you realize by now the power of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military industrial complex ? The President's power to effect change are really quite limited.
Pray for Peace, See the Beauty. Gene.

[phloem]

Gene, I provided plenty of substantiation for my assertions, rather "over the top accusations;" they are pretty much public record, unless you've missed the past 2 years of local news. Your words, on the other hand, offer no evidence of any coherent point of view whatsoever -- they astonish and bewilder me in their illogic and ignorance. For example: "...the kind of thing that keeps us from getting anything done" -- what does that mean? That speaking up, that writing the truth about Obama's record, is somehow detrimental to something, but what something is that? Keeping "us" from getting anything done? I get plenty done -- working, paying taxes, volunteering, demanding politicians represent my values, and not backing down from those who would silence dissent! Are you blaming me, or anyone else who speaks up, for the myriad problems this nation and the world face? That sure sounds like your insinuation, which would constitute a cop-out, a cowardly, reactionary, and distorted response from someone who apparently can't find anything of substance with which to refute my observations. Otherwise, I must have a great deal more power and influence than I ever would have dreamed possible!

Apparently, in your opinion, we should all kowtow to politicians and shut up? Why? So, reactionaries can only read that with which they agree? Like some milquetoast approval of Obama's useless drivel? Or, perhaps you'd feel better if I just called Obama a socialist (too bad he's not), a la Limbaugh. The problem with America is not those who speak up, who demand the truth (which the government and its corporate masters will not provide willingly), and who decry the lies of sell-out, criminally collaborative politicians -- the problem with America is too many overprivileged, lazy cowards-in-residence, steeped in denial and intolerance and a selfish sense of entitlement, and blind to the failures of American politics and policies, yet ready to jump anyone who practices the rights to dissent and to express themselves when the leaders don't represent our interests -- those rights are the essential foundation of a democratic society.

The President is constitutionally bound to consult with Congress before initiating military intervention - he failed to do so in using American missiles and other weapons against Libya. Like Bush, and Clinton before him, Obama has initiated and sustained wars of aggression against sovereign nations, a violation of international treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory nation -- those treaties are law in this country. Obama has sustained a network of prisons where people are tortured, and Obama has increased the use of drones to bomb Pakistan. What is the justification for this violence? What is Obama's justification for not, as his first action in office, demanding that Congress pursue the impeachment of G. W. Bush? Would you deny that Bush's wars of aggression were responsible for the commission of ensuing war crimes by U. S. forces, or that Bush's lies were impeachable offenses and themselves war crimes? Obama, and his cohorts in Congress, refused to pursue impeachment, thereby demonstrating great contempt for the law, and thus, for American citizens. Moreover, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein, et al, are complicit in the continuation of the illegal wars and military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, and numerous other countries. If you don't take a stand to demand that illegal wars be stopped -- indeed, are never initiated -- then, yes, I consider those who act in defiance of U. S. law to be criminals, and their actions vivid displays of contempt for those of us who pay for these wars yet consider them to be morally wrong.

So, who are you to sign off "pray for peace," since you clearly have no problem with American presidents promoting and pursuing campaigns that kill people and destroy other cultures? Really, where is your moral footing? If you really "pray for peace," then you might also pray that presidents and politicians stop killing and torturing people -- it's immoral, and it's criminal.

[Dixon]

Well a liar for sure, he's a politician. But a traitor and a war criminal, contempt and disdain for people, that's pretty harsh !

Traitor: He has clearly betrayed the trust of the American people by violating his own campaign promises, such as to get out of Iraq, to close Guantanamo, etc etc. You yourself admit he's a liar; lies=betrayal=traitor.

War criminal: The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are explicitly illegal, i.e. war crimes. He continues those wars, and expands the one in Afghanistan, and kills civilians with drones in Pakistan--all war crimes.

Contempt and disdain for people: When you lie to and betray people, and continue to engage in the slaughter, maiming and displacement of thousands of innocents, and blatantly promote fiscal criminals like Timothy Geithner to high office when they've ripped everyone off, etc. that shows contempt and disdain for all of us poor suckers whom he's helping rip off and exploit.

Yes he's a disappointment and has crumbled to the will of the Republican fanatics...

Sure, the Republicans suck, but you can't scapegoat them for Obama's crimes. They didn't force him to promote fiscal criminals to high office, to expand the Afghanistan war, to maintain as much secrecy as Bush did, to support a "health care" system that promotes obscene profits for insurance companies and HMOs at the expense of real health care, etc. ad nauseam. Compare his campaign contributors to those who support the Republicans; they're mostly the same big banks and corporations. Obama is thoroughly on board with the corporate warlords' oligarchic agenda. It's not, to any great degree, a matter of him crumbling to the will of the bastards; his agenda is substantially the same as theirs, and he depends on suckering people like you into believing that's not the case.

And, don't you realize by now the power of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the military industrial complex?

Oh, please. Obama, as President, is the supreme commander of all the armed forces. They have to follow his orders (unless they're illegal orders like fighting illegal wars--oooops! They're following those!) War makes money for Obama's campaign contributors, and extends U.S. hegemony across the globe. That's his rotten job as President, and he's doing it willingly because he's corrupt.

Pray for Peace.

Oh, yeah--that'll really work. Duhhhhh.

See the Beauty.

Riiiiiight. Just see the beauty while we slaughter people and trash the environment for profit and pretend the U.S. President isn't responsible for his own actions. As the world gets uglier and more polluted and brutal due to our inaction (and no, prayer doesn't count as action) and due to our justifying the crimes of our "leaders", we'll have to get more and more myopic to "see the beauty", as there'll be less and less of it to see.

[Gene]

Pray for Dixon, I hope he finds peace and reality in this life even if he is an unrealistic moron.

[phloem]

Dear Gene, provide some evidence in support of your point-of-view, which at the moment is completely obscured by your name-calling and your own "hate" and knee-jerk derision of people with whom you disagree. I must say, you betray your own words about "getting things done," "working together," "praying for peace," etc. You need to examine your own motivations before accusing others of undermining the nation, because from what I've read, you lack any values or sense of reason whatsoever.

[Dixon]

Pray for Dixon, I hope he finds peace and reality in this life even if he is an unrealistic moron.

Gee, I hope so too!

Gene, I posted some substantive arguments which seem to make sense. I could be wrong about anything or everything, but you didn't refute any of my arguments. You ignored them and mounted an ad hominem attack on me. You aIso provided another example of something I've noticed before: "I'll pray for you" is often a passive-aggressive way of saying "Fuck you".

Is that what "seeing the beauty" looks like?

[podfish]

I don't think I share Gene's thought process but I do share some of the conclusions. Specifically:
Obama as war criminal: I wouldn't want to defend him in front of a panel of angels, or even in front of a fair trial at the Hague. He has indeed violated the constitutional requirement to get authorization, he's authorized drone attacks on "targets" that aren't considered legitimate enemy combatants.
as traitor: your math isn't correct. lies=betrayal=traitor isn't good algebra; equality doesn't work that way.
showing contempt and disdain: you base your case on some of your other assumptions (like the math above), and on other personal evaluations (like Gaithner's criminal status). Without accepting those premises, your argument doesn't hold up.

I'm disappointed in him too, insofar as I wish he'd gone farther in meeting my hopes. I'm not surprised, though - I don't feel like he egregiously misrepresented anything about himself.

You see my main areas of qualification; of course he misrepresented himself, he didn't offer the unvarnished truth - ok, he tried to get people to think he'd do things more in line with their hopes - and he's engaged in the kind of military operations that aren't legal under international or U.S. law. Why don't I particularly care??
I think that the role of law vis a vis the control of military power is complex. Not to trivialize it by analogy, but traffic laws really don't prevent speeding under any and all circumstances, and universal enforcement isn't a goal. There's no way we'd tolerate a system where speeding was universally prohibited and prevented. You can see that by the way we refuse to allow radar, monitoring of car's engine computers, etc. So limitations on the ability of nations to exert their will by force are equally constrained. I don't agree that Obama's using the military in a way that's immoral, any more than I think speeders on an open road are necessarily immoral. I think criminality, in any interesting definition of the word, requires immoral behavior.
And as Jack Nicholson so memorably said (apparently, 'cuz I never saw the movie, I just like the quote) "the truth? You can't handle the truth". I think that's so self-evident I won't bother to defend it.
For the rest, his "collusion" with our financial overlords, I think he's bought in to the idea that too much disruption of the status quo is a mix of unrealistic & unnecessary. I think he's perfectly willing to nudge the freighter in a better direction. So no head-on attacks on the insurance industry or the financial system. That approach is no surprise, it's what you'd expect from his Chicago background. Look at Harold Washington's administration to get a foreshadowing of Obama's.
I also happen to agree with what (I think) his evaluations are. Without the buy-in of insurance companies "obamacare" would have died the same way as Clinton's health-system changes did. The stunning successes achieved by Ross Perot, George Wallace, George McGovern, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich stand as direct rebukes of Obama's timorous approach. Unless they don't. Remember the cliche, only Nixon could go to China.

however, the -last- thing I'd advocate is for his critics to shut up and be happy, for two reasons. He needs the pressure to move in the "right" direction, and he also can use it to show his opponents what the rabble will do if they're ever unleashed from his leash.

[Dixon]

This was somehow accidentally sent before I was anywhere near finished with it. Sorry for the confusion. Below is my real response:

Obama as war criminal: I wouldn't want to defend him in front of a panel of angels, or even in front of a fair trial at the Hague. He has indeed violated the constitutional requirement to get authorization, he's authorized drone attacks on "targets" that aren't considered legitimate enemy combatants.

So we're in agreement that he's a war criminal.

as traitor: your math isn't correct. lies=betrayal=traitor isn't good algebra; equality doesn't work that way.

The equivalence "lies=betrayal=traitor" is indeed accurate for at least some (most, I think) definitions of "traitor". If by "traitor" people mean someone who opposes his/her government's agenda, then Obama is clearly not a traitor, just as loyal Nazis were not traitors to their country in WWII. Obama supports the U.S. government's agenda of world domination by any means necessary, thus he is not a traitor in that sense of the word. But he has betrayed many of his campaign promises, betrayed basic tenets of decency (see yours and my comments on war crimes, for instance), and betrayed the hopes of those who believed his cynically manufactured image of progressiveness. Thus I stand by my description of Obama as a traitor.

showing contempt and disdain: you base your case on some of your other assumptions (like the math above), and on other personal evaluations (like Gaithner's criminal status). Without accepting those premises, your argument doesn't hold up.

I can't force you or anyone to accept any premises no matter how reasonable they are. If you don't see contempt and disdain for common people and for standards of decency in Obama's war crimes, his extreme governmental secrecy, his refusal to seek justice around issues of torture and other crimes of the ruling class, and his manipulation of the public through lies (i.e. phony campaign promises, etc.)--well, podster, I just don't know what to say.

And if you don't think Gaithner is a crook, fine--look at other Wall Street sleazebags Obama has refused to have investigated and instead has taken on as financial advisors, such as Henry Paulsen and quite a few others, then go back and check out how much money these rotten fucks gave to his campaign. Can you say "corruption", podster? If you're unclear on just how slimy these assholes are, watch the documentary Inside Job for starters. Have particular individuals like Gaithner and Paulsen personally done things that are currently considered crimes? I don't know--Obama and his Just-Us Dept. refuse to investigate them. But they were instrumental in bribing legislators to repeal laws that protected the public from their depredations, then they fraudulently sold zillions of bucks worth of crappy financial products and brought down our economy thoroughly enough to cause untold suffering that continues to this day and beyond.If fatcats essentially bribe legislators through campaign contributions and other favors to get laws repealed so things which should be illegal are now legal so they can rip us all off, are they not criminals, podfish?

...of course he misrepresented himself, he didn't offer the unvarnished truth - ok, he tried to get people to think he'd do things more in line with their hopes - and he's engaged in the kind of military operations that aren't legal under international or U.S. law. Why don't I particularly care??
I think that the role of law vis a vis the control of military power is complex. Not to trivialize it by analogy, but traffic laws really don't prevent speeding under any and all circumstances, and universal enforcement isn't a goal. There's no way we'd tolerate a system where speeding was universally prohibited and prevented. You can see that by the way we refuse to allow radar, monitoring of car's engine computers, etc. So limitations on the ability of nations to exert their will by force are equally constrained. I don't agree that Obama's using the military in a way that's immoral, any more than I think speeders on an open road are necessarily immoral. I think criminality, in any interesting definition of the word, requires immoral behavior.

What part of "slaughtering or maiming or torturing or displacing millions of innocent men, women and children for the sake of corporate profit and global domination" do you not get, podfish? Or do you agree that that's what's going on, but feel it's not immoral? If one of your loved ones was blown to bits by Obama's drones would it still be moral? Sheeeesh!

For the rest, his "collusion" with our financial overlords, I think he's bought in to the idea that too much disruption of the status quo is a mix of unrealistic & unnecessary. I think he's perfectly willing to nudge the freighter in a better direction. So no head-on attacks on the insurance industry or the financial system. That approach is no surprise, it's what you'd expect from his Chicago background. Look at Harold Washington's administration to get a foreshadowing of Obama's.

You're too kind to him. Again, look at all the money Wall Street and big corporations have given him. Do you think they'd do that if they weren't getting something in return? Duh! He's in their pocket, and the world suffers as a result.

I also happen to agree with what (I think) his evaluations are. Without the buy-in of insurance companies "obamacare" would have died the same way as Clinton's health-system changes did. The stunning successes achieved by Ross Perot, George Wallace, George McGovern, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich stand as direct rebukes of Obama's timorous approach. Unless they don't. Remember the cliche, only Nixon could go to China.

You join the chorus of those who say that Obama would like to be progressive but is constrained by forces beyond his power. There may even be some truth in that in some situations. But nobody's stopping him from ordering immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan (as most Iraqis, Afghanis and Americans desire). Nobody's making him maintain a veil of governmental secrecy at an unprecedented level. Nobody's making him continue to oppose the outlawing of land mines which maim or kill 16,000 innocents annually. Nobody's making him refuse to order investigations into war crimes, financial crimes and other crimes of the ruling class. Nobody's making him refuse to push for the banning of toxins such as those that are implicated in the disastrous die-off of honeybees. Nobody's making him refuse to even do "little" things like intervene in the illegal treatment of Bradley Manning. The list goes on and on, podfish. At what point do we become honest enough to say that the guy is just plain corrupt--which in fact is probably a prerequisite for the Presidency?

however, the -last- thing I'd advocate is for his critics to shut up and be happy, for two reasons. He needs the pressure to move in the "right" direction, and he also can use it to show his opponents what the rabble will do if they're ever unleashed from his leash.

I'm not on his fucking leash, podfish. Are you ready to free yourself, or do you wanna be his bitch awhile longer?

[podfish]

You join the chorus of those who say that Obama would like to be progressive

if you think I mean he wants to be much farther left than he is, you missed my point.

I'm not on his fucking leash, podfish. Are you ready to free yourself, or do you wanna be his bitch awhile longer?

whatever. Viva la revolution, dude. good luck on that freedom thing.

[Dixon]

if you think I mean he wants to be much farther left than he is, you missed my point

If you think Obama's on the left at all, you missed mine.

[phloem]

Podfish, Well, you certainly did "trivialize" Obama's law-breaking, deliberate deceptions, and unmitigated disdain for people (his political appointments, his repeated concessions to right-wing extremists, corporate-designed "health care" plan, his refusal to prosecute Bush, et al., his touting of nuclear power, etc., etc.) with your absurd analogy with speeding laws. I wouldn't want to defend you in a court of logic! Furthermore, your concessions to Obama and resort to historical comparisons offer me plenty of evidence that denial and outright sociopathic indifference are indeed the order of the day in the fetid stench of fascist America . I am beginning to appreciate how some people choose prison or death as opposed to adopting rationality in the face of institutional and governmental insanity and injustice. There's nothing goddamned acceptable, sane, rational, or sustainable about a nation that ignores its brutal torture and murders of people amidst environmental degradation -- all for the worship of the dollar, and to hell with democratic values and any semblance of justice.

[podfish]

Podfish, Well, you certainly did "trivialize" Obama's law-breaking... with your absurd analogy with speeding laws. I wouldn't want to defend you in a court of logic!

yeah, bad analogies can be bad. The implied connection with a trivial issue can't be so easily waved away, I guess, so it confused the point.

Furthermore, your concessions to Obama and resort to historical comparisons offer me plenty of evidence that denial and outright sociopathic indifference are indeed the order of the day in the fetid stench of fascist America . I am beginning to appreciate how some people choose prison or death as opposed to adopting rationality in the face of institutional and governmental insanity and injustice. There's nothing goddamned acceptable, sane, rational, or sustainable about a nation that ignores its brutal torture and murders of people amidst environmental degradation -- all for the worship of the dollar, and to hell with democratic values and any semblance of justice.

The thing that draws me into this discussion at all is the "historical comparisons", though - and I don't want to be heard as saying "everyone did it so it's justified". I'm saying "everyone did it so what's new here?". Why any surprise? When was it better? When a man who served on a nuclear attack sub is as close as you've gotten to having a moral leader recently, the bar seems set a bit low. So there's a lot of "which pot is blacker" in any argument here. Similarly, I don't buy the idea that there are nice, legally-run wars. Maybe Skybot can adhere to the ethical conventions of warfare, but people certainly can't - and actually, the whole thing's an oxymoron. Once there's warfare at all, it's all degrees of badness.
To me the underlying theme here is an indictment of "the system"; of the chain of politicians and even more of the economic and social belief systems that underlie the western world. Although again, show me an example where they're getting it right. So sure, changing the focus from that to the "crimes" of one of the leaders may not be unjustified, but it seems pointless. I stand by my position that the things that Obama's done are an improvement over what was likely to happen without his career as a politician. His support of the financial status quo does not strike me the same way as it does you - I don't see the same mendacity in it, "just" cynicism. I think his support of militarism is in line with the rest of the bilderburgers in charge, and sadly with the way a huge number of Americans think. His -relative- moderation is clear in contrast to our POW hero's position - that boy would be making the Marine's fight song come alive right now. None of this is an enthusiastic endorsement of the guy.
Even more, this kind of discussion brings out the real cynicism in me. It's not that I take issue in the abstract with any of your presumptions - of course "there's nothing goddamned acceptable, sane, rational, or sustainable" about the way things are going. But so they go. The only way Obama's making it worse is if he's making it more palatable in a way that makes it survive longer. I think that's not the case- in the balance it'll be better because he was their instead of any alternatives I can see anywhere. With luck a better person will follow. But I stick to the freighter analogy, if not the speeding ticket. I don't have much expectations for dramatic changes. When a public-option insurance system is a bridge too far, radical switches in direction don't seem to be on the horizon.
I'm not defending him -or- the system, I'm not sure why I'm countering the rants at all. Maybe just to acknowledge what I think is his relative insignificance given the real forces moving the world.
This whole characterization of my position as "denial or sociopathic indifference" is frustrating to me, as is the idea that anyone who's rational can tell we're being controlled with nothing but malicious intent. Sure I go back to historical references, but you can look at interpersonal relationships too. Unless you want to say we're all corrupted by our social environment (which is true, I suppose, if overly biblical) then you've got lots of evidence that people act in self-serving ways while justifying to themselves why it's all for the best; and more evidence that people are perfectly willing to impose suffering. Those behaviors seem to extrapolate just fine to our current society and explain a lot of the actions that are here being attributed more to coldly calculating "criminal" behavior. Pollyanna maybe can only see people trying to be good. I don't have a literary allusion for seeing only people trying to be bad. But "realism" to me is seeing that people have a lot more mixed motivations for what they do. I have no problem seeing Obama as someone who feels he's a force for good. Without some personal contact to go on, I can't tell whether that perception is valid or not. Why that probably is an inflammatory observation I can't really guess either. And to pre-empt it, no, dammit, it's not a naive point of view!! It may be wrong, but I stand by my qualifications to make that judgment.

[peggykarp]

Dixon, I share your outrage at Obama's policies but Wacco is not the place to let loose in an abusive manner on fellow waccobians with whom you disagree. One reason I read Wacco is because I count on the contributors to maintain civility. Please delete the abusive stuff before posting. Thanks.

This was somehow accidentally sent before I was anywhere near finished with it. Sorry for the confusion. Below is my real response:



So we're in agreement that he's a war criminal.



The equivalence "lies=betrayal=traitor" is indeed accurate for at least some (most, I think) definitions of "traitor". If by "traitor" people mean someone who opposes his/her government's agenda, then Obama is clearly not a traitor, just as loyal Nazis were not traitors to their country in WWII. Obama supports the U.S. government's agenda of world domination by any means necessary, thus he is not a traitor in that sense of the word. But he has betrayed many of his campaign promises, betrayed basic tenets of decency (see yours and my comments on war crimes, for instance), and betrayed the hopes of those who believed his cynically manufactured image of progressiveness. Thus I stand by my description of Obama as a traitor.



I can't force you or anyone to accept any premises no matter how reasonable they are. If you don't see contempt and disdain for common people and for standards of decency in Obama's war crimes, his extreme governmental secrecy, his refusal to seek justice around issues of torture and other crimes of the ruling class, and his manipulation of the public through lies (i.e. phony campaign promises, etc.)--well, podster, I just don't know what to say.

And if you don't think Gaithner is a crook, fine--look at other Wall Street sleazebags Obama has refused to have investigated and instead has taken on as financial advisors, such as Henry Paulsen and quite a few others, then go back and check out how much money these rotten fucks gave to his campaign. Can you say "corruption", podster? If you're unclear on just how slimy these assholes are, watch the documentary Inside Job for starters. Have particular individuals like Gaithner and Paulsen personally done things that are currently considered crimes? I don't know--Obama and his Just-Us Dept. refuse to investigate them. But they were instrumental in bribing legislators to repeal laws that protected the public from their depredations, then they fraudulently sold zillions of bucks worth of crappy financial products and brought down our economy thoroughly enough to cause untold suffering that continues to this day and beyond.If fatcats essentially bribe legislators through campaign contributions and other favors to get laws repealed so things which should be illegal are now legal so they can rip us all off, are they not criminals, podfish?



What part of "slaughtering or maiming or torturing or displacing millions of innocent men, women and children for the sake of corporate profit and global domination" do you not get, podfish? Or do you agree that that's what's going on, but feel it's not immoral? If one of your loved ones was blown to bits by Obama's drones would it still be moral? Sheeeesh!



You're too kind to him. Again, look at all the money Wall Street and big corporations have given him. Do you think they'd do that if they weren't getting something in return? Duh! He's in their pocket, and the world suffers as a result.



You join the chorus of those who say that Obama would like to be progressive but is constrained by forces beyond his power. There may even be some truth in that in some situations. But nobody's stopping him from ordering immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan (as most Iraqis, Afghanis and Americans desire). Nobody's making him maintain a veil of governmental secrecy at an unprecedented level. Nobody's making him continue to oppose the outlawing of land mines which maim or kill 16,000 innocents annually. Nobody's making him refuse to order investigations into war crimes, financial crimes and other crimes of the ruling class. Nobody's making him refuse to push for the banning of toxins such as those that are implicated in the disastrous die-off of honeybees. Nobody's making him refuse to even do "little" things like intervene in the illegal treatment of Bradley Manning. The list goes on and on, podfish. At what point do we become honest enough to say that the guy is just plain corrupt--which in fact is probably a prerequisite for the Presidency?



I'm not on his fucking leash, podfish. Are you ready to free yourself, or do you wanna be his bitch awhile longer?

[Dixon]

Dixon, I share your outrage at Obama's policies but Wacco is not the place to let loose in an abusive manner on fellow waccobians with whom you disagree. One reason I read Wacco is because I count on the contributors to maintain civility. Please delete the abusive stuff before posting. Thanks.

Uh...for starters, could you identify the thing(s) I said that you deem "abusive"?

[Dixon]

...I don't want to be heard as saying "everyone did it so it's justified".

You do seem to be attempting to justify a lot of what Obama does, in terms of his supposedly being forced to do these things by forces beyond his control, etc.

I'm saying "everyone did it so what's new here?".

But nobody's saying it's new, podfish. Quite the contrary, same old corruption and brutality. If anything, posters like me are combating the widespread misperception, carefully nurtured by propagandists, that Obama's administration is something substantially new.

Why any surprise? When was it better?

A good question which deserves a reasoned answer. Human nature is dual, very dark and very light, for good evolutionary reasons, and that ain't gonna change anytime soon. But there's always the possibility of us doing better, bit by bit. What has fueled the "rants" of posters like me has been the notion that, in order to do better, we must unflinchingly look at truth, however ugly it may seem, and declare the truths loudly for all to hear. This means calling war criminals war criminals, calling corruption corruption, calling for investigations, prosecutions and revolution as appropriate, and not letting murderous criminals off the hook by making excuses for their crimes or by buying into the notion, popular in imperialistic cultures, that slaughtering innocents by the thousands is somehow not immoral.

When a man who served on a nuclear attack sub is as close as you've gotten to having a moral leader recently, the bar seems set a bit low. So there's a lot of "which pot is blacker" in any argument here.

We can always find an example of someone who's taller, shorter, smarter, dumber...or nastier. But saying, for instance, that if McCain (or fill in the blank with some other name) were in charge, things would be worse, even if true, doesn't justify the brutalities of the current administration. That's like saying "Hey, lay off poor little Jeffrey Dahmer. He's not so bad; John Wayne Gacy killed more people than he did."

Of course, podfish, I understand that one of your points is that we can't realistically expect any substantially better options to have any chance at ascending to power in the foreseeable future, and that's a point well taken. But, while you seem to take that as a reason to make yourself feel better by unrealistically justifying Obama's depredations, I take it as reason to increase the possibility of real change by ranting loudly and often about the really rotten nature of the system. I believe that in the long run my position ("It's utterly corrupt and we need to change it!") is more likely to result in positive change than your apparent position ("We're stuck with it, so we might as well assuage our pain by denying it's as bad as it is").

Similarly, I don't buy the idea that there are nice, legally-run wars. Maybe Skybot can adhere to the ethical conventions of warfare, but people certainly can't - and actually, the whole thing's an oxymoron. Once there's warfare at all, it's all degrees of badness.

I'd argue that fighting in self-defense is not evil at all. Thus those who are defending their countries from illegal invasion, whether by us or others, aren't engaging in "degrees of badness"; in the context of the war, they're the good guys, fighting in self-defense, and I support their right to kill American invaders (or should they just say "Come on in, righteous America, kill my loved ones and take over my country"?) (Of course, some of these "good guys" like the Taliban are very bad in other ways.)

Also, there are international laws, agreed to by the USA, about how to conduct warfare fairly. Would you prefer no laws regulating, for instance, how to treat prisoners? Can you at least affirm that it's appropriately illegal to needlessly invade other countries on the basis of transparently bogus rationalizations, and that people who do that are war criminals and should be subject to legal penalties at least equal to the penalties given the average murderer?

To me the underlying theme here is an indictment of "the system"; of the chain of politicians and even more of the economic and social belief systems that underlie the western world. Although again, show me an example where they're getting it right.

Most countries aren't invading others. Most countries support stronger environmental protections which are torpedoed by the corporate oligarchy of the USA. Virtually all countries support a ban on landmines--vetoed by the USA. Most countries support the World Court as a way of combating crimes against humanity. All other countries, on a per capita basis, are using up less resources and creating less global warming, less trash, less pollution, and therefore living more sustainably than us. Would you like a few more examples of someone "getting it right"?

Podfish, your reasoning seems to be yes, things are rotten, but it's that way all over, and any criticism of it is just the pot calling the kettle black, so let's be more or less happy with the criminals we've got in charge. But that's not accurate. Most countries are doing better than us in the ways that count, and we can do better, but must hold criminals accountable instead of making excuses for them and saying things like their war crimes are not immoral (I still can't understand where you got that one, podfish).

So sure, changing the focus from that to the "crimes" of one of the leaders may not be unjustified, but it seems pointless.

If Obama or Bush or any "leader" were tried and imprisoned for war crimes, you don't think that would affect the likelihood that the next administration, Democrat or Republican, would start unnecessary wars? Really? REALLY? Conversely, when we let President after President engage in such crimes with no accountability, you see what we get--eternal war, because it's profitable. Making it unprofitable by exacting a huge price for war criminals (imprisonment or execution) is a no-brainer, isn't it?

I stand by my position that the things that Obama's done are an improvement over what was likely to happen without his career as a politician.

That may even be marginally true. Which just means that the system has suckered you with the "Mutt and Jeff" or "Good Cop/Bad Cop" routine. Support the lesser of the evils, and you guarantee that evil will always be in power. The Democrat/Republican party, which is really just one bunch of buddies who agree on the essentials (i.e. more and more wealth and power for the ruling class, and global hegemony for the USA) are playing you like a (pod)fish. (And hopefully that's a less provocative metaphor than my assertion that you're being their bitch, though it describes the same reality).

His -relative- moderation is clear in contrast to our POW hero's position - that boy would be making the Marine's fight song come alive right now.

Good Cop/Bad Cop. Sucker!

With luck a better person will follow.

No one substantially better will follow, ever, as long as people like Bush, Obama, and their constituencies benefit from crimes against humanity without accountability. Why would a better person follow when criminals can fleece the flock with impunity and go down in history as "statesmen"?

I don't have much expectations for dramatic changes.

And as long as you and so many others defend crimes against humanity, you're right, there won't be dramatic changes, except maybe for the worse.

I'm not defending him...

Oh please--do I really have to go back and find quotes from you, like when you said he's not doing anything immoral?

I'm not sure why I'm countering the rants at all.

You mean "the other rants". Or does yours not count as a rant for some reason, LOL!

Maybe just to acknowledge what I think is his relative insignificance given the real forces moving the world.

You're right about that, but you're missing the fact that one of those "real forces moving the world" is the tendency for most people to resign themselves to rottenness and support the criminals who are running things and rationalize their crimes. Sound familiar?

...people act in self-serving ways while justifying to themselves why it's all for the best; and more evidence that people are perfectly willing to impose suffering. Those behaviors seem to extrapolate just fine to our current society and explain a lot of the actions that are here being attributed more to coldly calculating "criminal" behavior...I have no problem seeing Obama as someone who feels he's a force for good.

And you do understand that that puts him squarely in the same category as Hitler, Osama bin laden, etc, etc., right?

When I call a crime a crime, there's no implication about the criminal's mindset, "coldly calculating" or otherwise. Even if Obama, or Bush or whoever fully believes that their crimes are justified, they're still crimes, and we won't see substantial progress toward peace on this planet until war criminals are held accountable. If you think Obama's intentions are somehow pure as he directs the slaughter, fine--let the sentencing judge take that into account.

[beshiva]

podfish, well, you certainly did "trivialize" obama's law-breaking, deliberate deceptions, and unmitigated disdain for people (his political appointments, his repeated concessions to right-wing extremists, corporate-designed "health care" plan, his refusal to prosecute bush, et al., his touting of nuclear power, etc., etc.) with your absurd analogy with speeding laws. I wouldn't want to defend you in a court of logic! Furthermore, your concessions to obama and resort to historical comparisons offer me plenty of evidence that denial and outright sociopathic indifference are indeed the order of the day in the fetid stench of fascist america . I am beginning to appreciate how some people choose prison or death as opposed to adopting rationality in the face of institutional and governmental insanity and injustice. There's nothing goddamned acceptable, sane, rational, or sustainable about a nation that ignores its brutal torture and murders of people amidst environmental degradation -- all for the worship of the dollar, and to hell with democratic values and any semblance of justice.

amen!

[podfish]

this horse is getting beaten pretty much to the point where it can hardly get up, but just to tie up a few loose ends...

You do seem to be attempting to justify a lot of what Obama does, in terms of his supposedly being forced to do these things by forces beyond his control, etc.

I guess I can be read that way (that I'm justifying his actions). It's not totally untrue, I suppose, since I do think he's justified in some of them. But I don't claim he's forced to do anything; I think he's pretty cold & calculating, in a way that, for example, Bush, didn't seem to be capable of. It's a big reason why he's successful and a big reason why I don't disagree with those who don't trust him.

... I understand that one of your points is that we can't realistically expect any substantially better options to have any chance at ascending to power in the foreseeable future, and that's a point well taken. But, while you seem to take that as a reason to make yourself feel better by unrealistically justifying Obama's depredations, I take it as reason to increase the possibility of real change by ranting loudly and often about the really rotten nature of the system. I believe that in the long run my position ("It's utterly corrupt and we need to change it!") is more likely to result in positive change than your apparent position ("We're stuck with it, so we might as well assuage our pain by denying it's as bad as it is").

yep, that's one of my points. I'm not trying to dissuade you from loudly and publicly objecting, whether it counts as a rant or not. I disagree that my position counts as denial, though.

I'd argue that fighting in self-defense is not evil at all. Thus those who are defending their countries from illegal invasion, whether by us or others, aren't engaging in "degrees of badness"; in the context of the war, they're the good guys, fighting in self-defense, and I support their right to kill American invaders (or should they just say "Come on in, righteous America, kill my loved ones and take over my country"?) (Of course, some of these "good guys" like the Taliban are very bad in other ways.)..... Would you prefer no laws regulating, for instance, how to treat prisoners?

another clarification; and your comment about the Taliban goes to the heart of it. It's extremely unlikely that a war can be fought without engendering war crimes, by the participants or by the leaders. And not all war crimes are equivalent. That's where the (admittedly distracting) analogy to traffic laws came from. It's also an intensely emotional and polarizing charge. I think that the authorization of the Dresden firebombings and the nuclear attacks on Japan count as war crimes (to choose ones less recent and hopefully easier to consider). Many if not most people would object. I'm not going to change my opinion on those, but long ago I accepted that others can honestly think that episodes like that are fully justified under the laws of warfare. I really don't want to go into details on Obama's specific actions here, though by writing that I guess I waive my right to object if they're brought up. However, that's why I appeal to history and to the actions of other leaders - not to "justify" him by saying others are worse, but to point out what I consider the ambiguities in the charge that he's a criminal, when his actions are not dissimilar to those that many people have accepted as within the bounds of military action. It's not a position I hold comfortably; I'd be in full support of many of America's military architects of the last fifty years going up on charges in an international court. I suppose Obama would be fair game if that day ever comes. And my personal unhappiness with his administration does center on that - he's apparently found that some of the tactics that were so abhorrent when used by the previous administration are just too useful to give up. That's why I keep refining my "defense" of him; I don't want to be an apologist for just anything he does. I'm trying in my verbose and rambling way to develop some nuance here.

Podfish, your reasoning seems to be yes, things are rotten, but it's that way all over, and any criticism of it is just the pot calling the kettle black, so let's be more or less happy with the criminals we've got in charge. ... Support the lesser of the evils, and you guarantee that evil will always be in power.

nope, there's no implication of "so let's be happy". Really at the root of this thread are my objections to the vehement declaration of him as a criminal and the point of view that he's depraved and sociopathic. That doesn't mean I think he's above criticism or that he deserves universal support.

When I call a crime a crime, there's no implication about the criminal's mindset, "coldly calculating" or otherwise. Even if Obama, or Bush or whoever fully believes that their crimes are justified, they're still crimes, and we won't see substantial progress toward peace on this planet until war criminals are held accountable. If you think Obama's intentions are somehow pure as he directs the slaughter, fine--let the sentencing judge take that into account.

that I can agree with.

[phloem]

Podfish, while I don't agree with or completely understand all your "nuances," I want to express my appreciation for your extraordinary patience and civility in responding to those of us a bit more on the rabid side, specifically me. I feel this exchange has actually ameliorated some of my cynicism, not with regard to Obama, but towards a few more people in my community who, I think, share many of the same concerns I have about how this nation goes about its business. Small steps and gestures really count! Thank you to all who care enough to express themselves, and for this opportunity to share my thoughts with you.