Five reasons to complain about Obama.
Over the past few months I have been in a back and forth banter with a women in her 60s, who is constantly telling me about Obama's agenda. These "agendas" range from ACORN being in his back pocket, the start of a civil army run by the President* and that he is a Socialist/Marxist/Muslim sympathizer slowly and surely destroying America.
Update: I was asked by her to also add the radicals he surrounds himself with and all of the appointed "czars". Although I continue to inform her that the use of "czars", or better known as advisers, have no power nor are they precedent in numbers. Personally, the more people to better inform the President the better.
And because I am defending Obama against these outlandish attacks, I am now portrayed as a "Young Liberals that thinks our country sucks" and " one of those that thinks Obama is the Messiah and would never tell a lie".
I don't understand why so much effort is used by the GOP and the far-right to create these outlandish claims when he is doing things RIGHT NOW with no speculation. I am going to outline my top five complaints about Obama and how, if these people really want to "save America", they should combat against things he is actually doing.
Extension of the PATRIOT Act and FISA law
This one is at the top of my list. The PATRIOT Act was a failed attempt to protect this country in a time of crisis. It's 1000+ pages were drawn up and presented to Congress in a month after September 11th (October 23, 2001) and passed with an amazing quickness (House: October 24, 2001 and Senate: October 25, 2001). Only one, Senator Feingold, voted against it in the Senate.
Now 8 years later, the Obama administration is going to renew it, without review.
This means a few things:
- Telecom companies are still untouchable
- Third party information about citizens does not require a warrant, or a loose interpretation of warrant is portrayed.
- Infinite detention of immigrants with potential to cause a terrorist attack
Where is the CHANGE, that was portrayed during his campaign? I argue that all the surveillance laws needed are in the FISA law, and an amendment to the FISA law would be sufficient to combat this "new threat". Not taking it to a whole new level.
I highly suggest siding with the ACLU and sign their petition.
Lobbyist and Congressional Oversight
Congress gets payed well for what they do, but the real perk of being in congress is the lobbyist benefits.
Lobbyists come from the right of the American people to assemble in groups and petition the Congress to "do the bidding of the people". The problem, is our single emails, petitions or youtube videos don't hold as much clout as the $50,000 donations given by companies. And you can see it when congress talks, they back money.
Obama was going to CHANGE this. I understand the problem, how do you get the people getting the benefits vote to remove the benefits.
Signing Statements and open Government
Signing statements have yet to be really tested in our court systems, but they are still there. They have been used all the way back to Jefferson, but it wasn't until Regan that they became footnotes to what the President is actually willing to do. Bush loved his signing statements, and went as far as saying in them that he doesn't have to follow certain things depending if we are "at war" or not. So would a candidate who promised more open government and oversight use signing statements? Yup.
His promise is to take a "modest approach". The problem I see, is if things that are "unconstitutional" are even in the bill, don't sign it. Remove them and have the Attorney General consult congress on the dangers. Signing it and saying, essentially, "when it becomes a problem contact the AG before not doing it" is completely unconstitutional in itself. Don't put it into law if it isn't complete, this leads to misinterpretations later.
"Too big to fail" bill
Our financial sector has been hanging by a thread for a few years now, it has only been in the last year that the threads began to snap. I understand the $700,000,000,000.00 bill to "save" our lenders was needed to avoid the domino effect, but we have to realize that poor business models deserve to be replaced. Instead of trying to figure out "who will be saved", remove the safety net and you will be surprised on how much extra money these companies would find to keep their jobs.
Iraq and Afghanistan
In the interest of national security, peace and our financial system: Get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other bases around the world. Especially middle eastern countries. Deal with the U.N. when dealing with terrorism in those countries. We are breeding more terrorists every day we are in there.
The good question always comes up: "What if China, to protect their financial system, decided to occupy the United States?" Just think of how the common person must feel. They live in a war torn country because we keep tearing it up with war!
You got the Peace Prize now do something to deserve it. Remove all of our troops, remove sanctions and open up free-trade, use the U.N. to work with Iran and North Korea. All of the money we would be saving could go into building infrastructure for these war torn countries. Do the right thing, Obama is obviously thinking about Afghanistan strategies.
Let's work together to make this country a better place, not divide us on speculation and untestable craziness. These are things Obama is DOING and they have a direct impact on our country's future.
********************
* Actual program at Change.gov
I was with you until Afghanistan.
No, we should not just "Remove all of our troop [sic], remove sanctions and open up free-trade, use the Get out of Iraq, Afghanistan and other bases around the world. Especially middle eastern countries. Deal with the U.N. when dealing with terrorism in those countries."
Removing all our troops is no panacea for peace. It would ignite civil war in Afghanistan, allow the return of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, foster terrorism as word spreads among the Pashtun and Sunnis that the U.S. is defeated, increase opium production and heroin exports, destabilize Pakistan to the point its nuclear arsenal would fall into radical, fundamentalist Muslim hands, i.e., Al Qaeda's.
The U.N. office in Kabul attacked yesterday. That organization is unable to deal effectively with the insurgency in the Middle East or the many issues you gloss over.
October 28, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand, and to a point I agree. The problem is, they have a government now, they have security forces. Shouldn't it be better to work diplomatically and with the money/lives we will be saving, use that to help foster a better Afghanistan?
Agreeing with me 80% is not bad though. :)
Also, thanks for pointing out the typo.
October 28, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"destabilize Pakistan to the point its nuclear arsenal would fall into radical, fundamentalist Muslim hands, i.e., Al Qaeda's."
Thank you for the fear-mongering, Mr. Cheney. Fortunately, no one in the current Administration agrees with you.
October 28, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, many of them do. So do most independent analysts. As does the Pakistan government.
October 28, 2009 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Care to prove any of that? I've linked to statements by Hillary Clinton stating that there is no fear of a Taliban takeover of Pakistani nukes in the recent past.
October 28, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, after I get of work.
October 28, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
See my comment after Overreach THIS!'s. The reply tag into this sub-thread didn't take, for some reason.
October 28, 2009 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
The U.S. should finance muslim countries in the U.N. going in there (to the point of providing them weapons), it defuses Al Quaeda and the Taliban, then they can help get the civilian government moving. This is what always should have been done; we should have been a bit-player in this, at best with muslim countries' military commanders in charge.
October 28, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
bull.
try reading some real progressive voices.
October 29, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
links?
October 29, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ripper - Filling in for you until you get off work, here are a couple of informative links supporting your contention that abandonment of Afghanistan to the Taliban would be dangerously foolish for many reasons, including potential threats to the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Hilary Clinton appears to agree on the danger, which is why she supports our continued Afghanistan engagement. She has stated that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is currently secure, but never suggested it would remain secure in the presence of an Afghanistan under complete Taliban domination that could provide sanctuary for Al Qaeda/Taliban insurgents pressured from the Pakistan side.
From this first link, regarding our current effort in Afghanistan: "Either the United States and Europe abandon the region to the forces of violence, extremism, poverty and the danger of loose nukes—with all its consequences—or they remain committed and prepare to carry out both counterinsurgency and nation building"
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=22320
This second article discusses the security of the nuclear weapons: "Analysts are divided on how secure these weapons are." However, the text indicates that there is little concern about the current level of security, nor concern about a Pakistani government overthrow by the Taliban, but that disagreements relate to future insecurities that might arise if insurgent sympathizers gained greater influence. The article does not specifically address Afghanistan, but it's reasonable to worry that insurgent domination of Afghanistan could feed into insurgent power in Pakistan.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hhyr4wXmqD0Z8hIRPe_1NvWOcRMQD9B9QG300
October 28, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wondering why it is so black and white. The Taliban and others thrive in the chaos of our meddling. This is clearly outlined in Legacy Of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Tim Weiner. It was our destabilization that allowed the Taliban to get into power, mostly by fear.
My understanding is that Afghanistan does not have the same problems Iraq has, in that the Afghan people aren't waring over themselves. But Biden's old article about breaking Iraq into a Bosnia-like confederacy could work on both fronts (http://bit.ly/2Os4a9).
I think everything that has been done militarily is done. And anything that needs to be done militarily can be done together in the U.N. If there is a good exit strategy, we can then create a better coalition of builders instead of destroyers.
October 28, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Fred. See my comment below.
October 28, 2009 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your second link, you despicable liar:
"It's not thought likely that the Taliban are suddenly going to storm in and gain control of the nuclear facilities," said Gareth Price, head of the Asia program at London think tank Chatham House. "There are enough command-and-control mechanisms in place to prevent that."
"A U.S. counterproliferation official in Washington said strong safeguards are in place and there is no reason to believe the nuclear arsenal is in imminent jeopardy of seizure by militants.
The official, who commented on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the matter publicly, said there is a major difference between attacking a nuclear site and actually seizing and using the nuclear material stored inside.
Security at Pakistan's isolated nuclear installations is believed to be significantly higher than at the army headquarters, which was relatively relaxed by the standards of other nations..."
"...Pakistan uses armed forces personnel to guard nuclear weapons facilities, and it physically separates warhead cores from their detonation components, Gregory wrote in the July issue of The Sentinel, the monthly journal of the Combating Terrorism Center.
The components are stored in protected underground sites. The warheads themselves are electronically locked to ensure that they cannot be detonated even if they fall in terrorists' hands, Gregory said.
The Pakistan military carefully screens and monitors the officers vested with protecting the warheads, drawing them almost exclusively from Punjabi officers who are considered to have fewer links to religious extremists or with the Pashtun area of Pakistan, where the Taliban garners much of its support.
No action or decision involving a nuclear weapon can be undertaken by fewer than two persons. But Gregory acknowledged the possibility of collusion between cleared officers and extremists.
The personnel assigned to sensitive nuclear posts go through regular background checks conducted by Pakistan's intelligence services, according to a 2007 article in the journal Arms Control, co-written by Naeem Salik, a former top official at Pakistan's National Command Authority, which oversees the nuclear arsenal.
"It is being acknowledged by the world powers that the system has no loopholes," Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, a military spokesman, said Monday. "The system is foolproof, as good and bad as their own systems."
The U.S. and the British governments agree there is little risk of a weapon falling into militants' hands."
Yet you keep trumping this a support for your argument that Pakistan's nukes are in imminent danger if we don't commit tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan. And, I would add, this administration, like all others, has more to gain than lose by hyping security threats, so these statements should be taken with the opposite of a grain of salt.
How did you learn to write without being able to read?
October 29, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
October 28, 2009 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here ya go, brewmn61: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stating exactly that fear. And stating it TODAY, no less.
http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?668506
This is your brain in defiance of reality. Any more questions, asshat?
October 28, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try again, you dishonest, fear-mongering shit-for-brains spawn of the despicable liar Fred Moolten. From your own link:
"While asserting that Washington had a high degree of confidence that Pakistan's nuclear weapons were safe, Clinton said Washington worried about proliferation.
"We have good reasons to worry about proliferation," the top US diplomat said apparently hinting at activities of the disgraced atomic scientist Abdul Qadir Khan."
You said, "destabilize Pakistan to the point its nuclear arsenal would fall into radical, fundamentalist Muslim hands, i.e., Al Qaeda's." Quite different from vague threats about "proliferation" "falling into the wrong hands."
Will you now admit that you don't know what you're talking about?
October 29, 2009 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, you try again, you lobotomized, feces-eating, fool of Beelzebub.
My original comment clearly describes a contingent scenario, a thing that could happen if certain requirements are met, a future event that may occur if conditions are satisfied. Yet you can't seem to make the mental leap to an if > then statement.
Whether or not Hillary currently thinks Washington has a "high degree of confidence" in the security of Pakistan's nukes at the moment is not the issue.
She can say that because for the time being, in the here and now, at this crossroads in the space-time continuum (a concept that eludes you, you unfortunate, tormented wretch), Pakistan's nukes ARE still in its government's hands. And that has abso-fucking-lutely ZERO to do with what could and very likely would occur if the U.S. departed Afghanistan tomorrow.
October 29, 2009 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Fred and I are unrelated to each other just as you, brewmn61, are unrelated to any known sentient being.
October 29, 2009 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least the last time this scenario played out, it was Republicans who were lying about the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud. I didn't realize ostensible liberals were so fond of military solutions to political problems until you and Fred started cheerleading for more war.
You have no standing to bitch about anything the US government does if you support this unwarranted expansion of American military force into a vast and largely ungovernable region. The forces of empire are driving this country off a cliff, and you are telling them to step on the gas.
The military-industrial-energy complexes love idiots like you, my friend. You've gobbled up every plate of bullshit these liars have fed you, and are asking for more.
October 29, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
What got us into Iraq was an inability to distinguish between real and bogus threats, along with a bias in favor of war. Idiots like you still can't distinguish between genuine and imagined threats and have a naive bias in favor of making peace with the folks who disintegrated 3,000 people one fine September day and who would fuck your skull if they had the chance.
October 29, 2009 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Idiots like you still can't distinguish between genuine and imagined threats"
Right back atcha.
"a naive bias in favor of making peace with the folks who disintegrated 3,000 people one fine September day and who would fuck your skull if they had the chance."
Thanks for that gratuitous bit of propaganda, Dick, but your preferred method is creating more Mohammed Attas than we can ever hope to kill.
October 29, 2009 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"gratuitous" means for its own sake and beside the point. "propaganda" means untrue. Tell me, Mr. Bullshit, what part of the comment you refer to do you imagine was beside my point or untrue? Go fuck yourself, asshat. I'm done with you.
You got off on a bad foot with me by calling me Cheney, a person I revile. But since you seem to dash in from nowhere to insult on first meeting, go your way and try not to meet me again, peace clown (one who creates conflict in the name of peace).
October 29, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I don't like lying warmongerers. Had enough of that for the previous eight years.
And the FACT remains that no one in the foreign policy establishment takes your scenario of Pakistani nukes falling into Taliban/Al Quaeda hands as anything but the remotest of possibilities.
October 29, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I don't like being compared to Dick Cheney or cast in his mold in any way. Where do you get off calling ANYONE who you (obviously) don't know a lying warmonger?
Want to know my heart and mind? Start with this one newbie, then work your way forward and take your head out of that ass you think is a hat.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/twilights-last-gleaming-the-ri.php
October 29, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't your conclusion of "we have spread ourselves to thin" (paraphrase) an argument against sticking in Afghanistan?
The wars and Bush's (now Obama's) policies are "[..]seriously degrading our force levels, recruiting standards, troop morale, equipment inventory and deployment preparedness. In short, the Pentagon's avowed goal of being able to wage two majors wars at once lies in ruin. The long war on terror has seen America open two major fronts — Afghanistan and Iraq — without closure in either case."
October 29, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
cavilling, forgive my unwilling usurpation of your fine post. I appreciate your civil and sincere discussion. To your point:
The section you quote is intended in the context of McCain's actual warmongering (as opposed to brewmn61's perception that I am a war monger) and the disastrous invasion of Iraq.
Just as Bush/Cheney believed in prosecuting war indiscriminately, it is clear to me that many on my side of the political spectrum believe in prosecuting peace with equal lack of discrimination. Afghanistan, with all its legacy problems from eight years of neglect, is neither unwinnable nor possible to lose. This is truly a war of necessity, a just war in the narrowest sense of Thomas Aquinas.
It is a war against an enemy that has successfully penetrated our defenses and struck at the heart of our financial strength (the Twin Towers) and our defense command and control center, the Pentagon, not to mention taking nearly 3,000 lives in the process and costing our economy trillions in lost wealth and productivity.
I am nearing 50 years old and this is the ONLY time in my life that I have concluded a current war is a necessary evil. I am convinced to my marrow that failure to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda will invite further attacks and an exponentially larger loss of life and property than this country experienced on 9/11. It would rock this country to its foundations and make our current mega-recession seem like an average bear market.
I write this without shame or any intention to promote war as an instrument of foreign policy. Rather, I believe this particular war is an instrument of our very survival. Yes, life would go on after such an attack, but in a very limited way in comparison to our current lifestyle and security.
I am no Dick Cheney or George Bush or Paul Wolfowitz. I detest most wars and even this one for the damage, killed American and dead civilians, and total waste of it all. However, fighting this war to a favorable conclusion, even with all the destruction I deeply regret, is far better than the alternatives available.
October 29, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am convinced to my marrow that failure to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda will invite further attacks and an exponentially larger loss of life and property than this country experienced on 9/11."
I think we will have to agree to disagree. I am convinced that it is these exact policies and thoughts that we can "win the hearts" of people through violence that has lead us to September 11th. I'm sure you need no reminder, but it was our meddling in Afghanistan that even brought the Taliban, and then Al Qaeda, into any "power".
As we continue to see the struggles over there, it is clearly our presence that creates the hate. Obviously mixed with a little bit of fundamentalism, but how can you blame them. They are faced with death every day, mostly by our hands. And all of this because of one very tragic day on _our_ soil.
October 29, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
cavilling, I agree we probably won't see eye to eye on this, but I would leave you with this: We perpetrated no violence on the Afhganis prior to Sep. 11. Rather, we took their side against the Soviet occupation. They didn't see our aid as meddling at the time, not even bin Laden. So it is a mistake to think we are somehow "deserving" of 9/11. I do agree there have been far too many civilian deaths, primarily as a result of over-reliance on drones rather than more discriminating boots on the ground.
It is not our presence that creates the hatred, as you suggest. The hatred of Americans, in fact, is not prevalent among much of the Afghanis. It is prevalent only among the Taliban, al Qaeda, and those tribal constituents on their payroll or those who they have converted by persuasion or force.
I do not believe American foreign policy has been particularly fair to, or even cognizant of, native populations. That includes our use of economic and natural resources pilfering as well as military force.
Yet if 10 square blocks of your home town were wiped out in an instant, with those responsible routinely threatening and planning to wipe out square miles more, would you really just sit back and say it's too much effort to stop them?
October 29, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Going to have to leave it till my next blog. Which was actually going to be a recap of the history leading up to September 11th.
Quick summary: US gave weapons to the warlords to fight the russian, warlords attacked the people, we did nothing, taliban scared off he warlords to the mountains, bin ladan found refuge amongst the fundamentalists.
October 29, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Didn't go after Bush and his torturers who should be investigated and jailed.
2. Didn't propose Glass-Steagall II with extra special whup-ass for bankers, nor show interest in understanding what caused the finance industry to melt down the American economy into nuggets of unemployment and food stamps.
3. Isn't pushing hard enough for health care reform that will work (instead of shoving money at for-profit insurers and giving handouts to pharma companies)
4. Didn't fight for a bailout bill for the state governments, while critical services implode nationwide.
5. Still working mighty hard on Vietnam II, with a CIA-employed drug lord for the brother of a corrupt "President" who runs a coupla blocks around Kabul.
It's been a year of Clinton-esque back-sliding and disappointments. Change we can make believe in.
October 29, 2009 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, that CIA-backed drug lord.
So sad that we rely on them to set up Jeffersonian democracies. But maybe no one else has the connections to take on the job?
October 29, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Signed the petition. Thanks for the link.
October 29, 2009 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Really? I kind of find it counter-productive to call people "asshats" and "fools of Beelzebub" over any meaningful debate.
Thanks for the links. This was sort of my point, instead of fighting for the things they agree upon, they bicker amongst themselves.
October 29, 2009 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it not just as counterproductive to call someone "Mr. Cheney," "despicable," "shit for brains" etc. Or does your condemnation only apply to us "fear mongering" types?
October 29, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was meant as an equal reply to both of you. :)
October 29, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Back to the friend you argue with, and your question about why some 'make things up' to criticze, like 'Obama is goint to take away our guns', when there are some real things to criticize.
I had the same thoughts re: Alan Grayson; why blurt out extreme bunk against Republicans, when there is so much verifiable, non-hyperbolic criticism and accusation to rant about? Now some woman-or-other is a K-street whore? Oopsie!
October 29, 2009 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah... I don't get it. I have a feeling that it is because sensationalism sells. And since the 70s news organizations no longer care about news, but bottom lines.
Good book by Tom Fenton "Bad news" touches on this subject. That is why we all were "surprised" when September 11th happened. No one knew the kind of turmoil we were causing in middle eastern countries.
My next blog will answer her question of "You think our meddling caused September 11th?" I plan on taking my time, and being really careful about this one.
October 29, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure why you would willingly do that. Sounds like she needs a shrink to help her deal with her irrational fears, not an extended political debate. Unless you are a professional in this area, this is a hopeless dialogue.
October 29, 2009 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I am doing it as a way of trying to understand people, but its really hard when I attempt to show a rational side to things and then being told that its a 'liberal' source. The problem is, she doesn't give sources. They are things she remembers/heard.
Did I mention I like running up walls. :)
October 29, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
In our newspaper's letters section, it is everyday chock full of tea-partish rants. The cadre of writers cite 'facts' from worldnetdaily.com, glenn beck, talk radio. Facts. By now there are even some winger books they can cite, but most seem to buy the books, not read them.
I try to have the conversatons here and there, too, Cavilling (gotta look that word up); I think of it more as 'banging my head against the wall; sure feels good when ya stop). Every once in awhile, it helps someone unravel things just a few twists. It's good practice for something; though I forget if it's for finding common ground for common good, or just mental masturbation at times. ;-}
October 29, 2009 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"mental masturbation"
that explains why its so tiring. ;)
October 29, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink