When Obama won the presidency last November, I wasn't happy. I voted against him. But he won, and I was determined to give him a fair chance. He is, after all, my president, even if he isn't of my political orientation. A little over three weeks in and I am finding less and less to like about President Obama.
I disagreed with the idea of removing waterboarding from our arsenal. This wasn't a widespread practice, we used waterboarding in a total of three very specific and crucial instances which yielded information that demonstrably saved lives. By any objective measure, waterboarding isn't real torture — we waterboard our own soldiers as part of special ops training. I'll acknowledge that perhaps I am not on the side of the angels here, though can any country at war always be on the side of the angels? But fine, I can't argue that it is a morally questionable practice, even if it's nowhere near the scale of behavior our enemies have used on captured Americans. Then again, beheading isn't torture either.
Then I heard that Obama wanted to reverse Don't Ask Don't Tell. Really, Obama, really? The economy is sinking, we are facing two wars, and you're worried about soldiers in a foxhole expressing their sexuality openly and freely? What about the actual job that the military has to do? I'm not saying that this Clinton era compromise was the greatest legislation ever, Don't Ask Don't Tell was absolute crap. But it silenced an issue that we really shouldn't have been talking about and Clinton understood that. America understood it and accepted it, for the most part. After all, our military is there for one thing, to protect American freedom and interests overseas. I for one don't want anyone on active duty expressing their sexuality, hetero or otherwise. If you think I'm way off here, just remember that somewhere in Iran, there are soldiers laughing at our gay military. And that's precisely the problem with this feel good nonsense.
Next up, let's close Gitmo and halt any current proceedings, Supreme Court sanctioned proceedings mind you, to bring justice to Americans hurt by 9/11. And no plan for what to do with the terrorists we were storing there. Do we really put them in a regular U.S. jail, even a supermax, where they can be idolized by the criminal population, while simultaneously turning the jail into an instant terrorist target? And who besides Jack Murtha's minimum security prison is willing to take these despicable creatures? And what exactly was so wrong with Gitmo in the first place? Not to mention the obvious issues with trying them in our regular justice system.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Baritone
"I must be getting old, or out of touch with this world, or both."
That amounts to the only thing I agree with in your article.
Your perspective regarding Obama is so jaundiced as to be without merit.
Given your proclivities it's apparently impossible for you to consider that the media just may be correct in their judgement of Obama's performance both in his speeches and in his actions.
It is also obvious that the ONLY way in which the Republicans will consider joining the Dems in any bi-partisan effort is if the Dems and Obama bend over an kiss their anal retentive asses and adopt their agenda - that which brought us to this pass.
As to the Biden quip: That's all it was, a lite tap made in jest. I think Biden can handle it.
B
2 - Hope and Change?
Why is everyone around King Barry looking more and more like a bunch of BUFFOONS!...
He did throw Joey Hariplugs under the bus....he needed the feeble and stupid WHITE guy to get elected now he no longer has any use for him. This is just what he did to his own granny.
Barry "Pork the other Dark Meat"
3 - The Obnoxious American
"Given your proclivities it's apparently impossible for you to consider that the media just may be correct in their judgement of Obama's performance both in his speeches and in his actions. "
I am way past the point of letting the liberal media formulate my opinions for me, and I would advise you to try that approach for yourself, it's quite refreshing. Or do you still really believe in an impartial and balanced mainstream media, especially on matters relating to Obama?
Interestingly, all of the liberal elite media found only good things in his press conference, and most indies and conservatives felt otherwise. For a president who ran on the banner of change and post partisanship, this press conference, as well as Obama's first three weeks didn't have much of either and that's the point of the article.
What's also interesting is your response is not your usual cordial self - it's clear this post upsets you and you resorted to ad hominems and excuse making. I think that says a lot about how you really feel about the points I've raised, clearly deep down somewhere you know what I am saying is true.
4 - Clavos
Baritone's tone (pun intended) began to change shortly after the election.
5 - Baritone
Meaning I don't believe that Obama is the second coming? Well, no you are certainly right about that.
However, OA, I believe no such thing. That is "excuse making" and wishful thinking on your part - and perhaps Clav's as well.
Apparently, from your perspective unless Obama does in fact walk on water, he won't live up to expectations and will, therefore, be accused as a failure.
In your heart of hearts you want so bad for Obama to fail so as to vindicate your total dismissal of a man who has so far not disappointed me nor most of those who cast their ballots for him.
Does hc really believe that he has successfully disguised his racism with his "pork" remark, or does he now just not give a damn?
B
6 - Baronius
I didn't see this particular speech/press conference. That said, I'm not overwhelmed with disappointment at Obama's first few weeks. There's nothing here that should surprise anyone. We knew that he was going to make a dovish, statist turn. He avoided specifics, but was clearly thinking of the war on terror in a legal (rather than a military) way.
As for the financial plan, it's no worse than I was expecting, which is to say it's terrible. Maybe some believed his "post-partisan" rhetoric, but I never did. Obama assumes that the end of the debate comes when everyone agrees with him - or maybe I should put that in the past tense, as he thinks that all debate is over.
Conservatives are going to have to put up with the Democrats until we get back in power. Then you know what happens? We'll lose power again after a few years. It happens. Bruno keeps announcing the end of the era of Reaganism, but I've been hearing that since 1982. Neither side is going away.
7 - Baronius
I've never seen H&C disguise his racism.
8 - The Obnoxious American
"In your heart of hearts you want so bad for Obama to fail so as to vindicate your total dismissal of a man who has so far not disappointed me nor most of those who cast their ballots for him."
Um, no. First off, as I have said several times, he is my president, even if I don't agree with him. He fails and I fail. I want him to succeed.
But realize, he sold himself as post partisan, centrist politician focused on changing washington. Friends of mine that hold center right views voted for the man on this basis. The point of the article is that he completely lied about the post partisan stuff. And in his press conference, he destroyed any possibility of bringing the two parties together with his left wing dissertation of "my way or the highway." If you are not clear what I am talking about, try reading the article above - it goes into detail.
And claiming that Biden could take some ribbing by the President, in his first press conference, in front of 50 million Americans during prime time is an absolute excuse. He shouldn't have done it. And if he was going to poke a little fun, this was NOT the venue. That you are defending this position exposes your lack of objectivity for sure.
What did other countries see when they heard Obama turning his 2nd in command into a laughing stock? Did it remind them of the power of America, or did it reinforce the idea, along with the rest of the foibles in the press conference, that America is being led by a man not prepared for the job ahead of him? This was a terrible showing, and you'd do yourself some good admitting it. I've admitted when my guy was in the wrong plenty of times.
I don't expect Obama to walk on water, but I do expect him to carry himself like a president and live up to all of the expectations he has set for himself. I don't even know what that last sentence was asking. But try reading the article with an open mind, try to see if from my view before dismissing me as jaundiced.
9 - pablo
"This wasn't a widespread practice, we used waterboarding in a total of three very specific and crucial instances which yielded information that demonstrably saved lives. By any objective measure, waterboarding isn't real torture."
Now this is more like the blogcritics that I know and love so much!
The last sentence says it all, by any "objective" measure, waterboarding isn't real torture. It doesnt even dignify a response, since it is in fact real torture.
The first sentence is rather revealing too, where the knowledgeable writer asserts that there has only been 3 instances, and claims it as an objective fact! Hilarious I tell ya. I wonder how you get the information on the total sum of these nefarious clandestine top secret incidents, I mean ALL of them Obnoxious, not the 3 that you mentioned. I tell ya some people will believe ANYTHING, as long as it is spoon fed to them through the proper channels. Did you get that one from an open session of a congressional hearing on C-Span pal?
Perhaps you are privy too Obnoxious (boy I like saying your name) to how many extra-judicial (uhhh that means illegal or criminal) renditions that have been performed on human beings by my country around the planet.
Here is a guy that openly endorses torture as defined by the treaties that this country has signed, and has in point of fact tried and convicted other personelle POW'S of exactly the same crime. Hypocrisy, ignorance, and hate knows no bounds in the world of the right wing, it never has.
10 - The Obnoxious American
Pablo,
"Here is a guy that openly endorses torture "
Really, is that what I did? Try reading the article and actually responding to it and I'll be happy to engage in a real conversation.
11 - pablo
Yes that is what you did, if you actually do want a conversation address the rest of my comment too, I can assure you that I will reply promptly.
12 - The Obnoxious American
What, your unsubstantiated comments telling me that I believe everything I am spoon fed?
I gotta say that I just typically don't argue with people who believe 9/11 was an inside job. For me, that pretty much disqualifies anything you have to say, especially when it is in the same veign, such as your "inside knowledge" of other cases of waterboarding (prove it, with actual evidence and not innuendo).
As others who may hate conversing with me know, I am happy to engage in a debate, even and especially when the other person doesn't agree. However, I do not debate with someone who deals with tin foil hattery.
13 - The Obnoxious American
While this isn't directly in response to Pablo, I did want to address the point about rendition, which BTW wasn't mentioned once in the article above.
So let me get this straight. We capture a terrorist, non-uniformed, not fighting on behalf of a state, but an actual terrorist bent on hurting Americans, on the field of battle. The terrorist isn't cooperative and thus we send them back to the country of their origin, or any country that will take them (because often the country of origin will not, or country of origin can't be proved). Some people have a problem with this because the terrorist might get tortured, or killed in said country.
OK, I get that, to a degree. Of course, nothing is stopping the terrorist from putting down his arms, and not trying to kill Americans. Nothing is stopping the terrorist from working with the US to keep Americans from getting killed. And what else are we supposed to do with the terrorist? Bring them to Gitmo? I'm guessing people like Pablo wouldn't support that. Put them in a U.S. jail? Terrorists are not criminals, and they do not deserve the same rights as Americans who break the law. They do not deserve due process, and the field of war is no place to gather evidence.
On a moral level, sure I can see the issue with rendition. But this is war and not a war we asked for. And at the end of the day, I will support my country, over the so called rights for terrorists espoused by 9/11 deniers, which were never actually codified or meant to be, in our constitution.
14 - handyguy
I am as appalled by this unfortunate piece of prose as the author was by the [actually quite amazingly excellent] news conference and town meetings on Monday and Tuesday.
Much of the article is simply opinion: I don't like this or that. And it's not surprising that I am on the opposite side of OA on all these issues. We have yet to agree on anything that I am aware of.
But the first three objections that come to his searching and inquiring mind are
Waterboarding!?
Closing Guantanamo?!
Don't Ask/Don't Tell?!
Anyone who would actually defend waterboarding has already demonstrated a great deal about the deficiencies of his morality and character. But the president and his attorney general made their intentions on this and on Guantanamo quite clear many months ago. How can you be surprised that they would actually do what they said they would?
Both actions are, of course, a breath of much needed fresh air after the stink of Bush's "excuse me, I have to shred our constitutional ideals in order to save them" mentality. The presidential directives on torture and detention are in fact Obama's finest accomplishments in his first three weeks.
Over 700 people have been imprisoned in Guantanamo. Most were not terrorists at all. Many have been released after being held for months or years without charges. [Some of them apparently have gone back to rejoin Islamist groups - a separate issue; but remember that we never charged them.]
Virtually none have been openly and fairly accused. And none at all have been given anything approaching a fair trial. Some of the inmates may well be terrorists; others were probably at the wrong place at the wrong time. They deserve full and fair trials with real evidence presented. Until that happens, their continued detention is a stain on our democracy. Period. Paragraph.
Do yourself and all of us a favor: rent and watch the documentary film Taxi to the Dark Side before you write one more offensive, ignorant word about Guantanamo. If we are to be a 'democratic beacon' to the rest of the world, that prison, as well as torture, can't be part of our identity.
As for Don't Ask/Don't Tell, I can't quite figure out your position. It's a ridiculous law, but spending any time changing it is also ridiculous? Some gay activists would like to see it ended in the 1st 100 days, but mindful of what a ruckus it caused in Clinton's first months, the Obama team would like to do it later in the year.
Many, many officers and enlisted soldiers, as well as the public, are ready to make this change. It needn't take a huge amount of time and energy.
So why do you single it out? Is it just possibly your reflexive distaste for anything you determine to be 'liberal'? Or is it that as far as you're concerned, we faggots are just too minor an issue to be dealt with right now?
15 - Baritone
I did in fact read your article. It has little to do with "objectivity." It is your opinion.
You have made a mountain out of the mole hill of Obama's Biden comment.
It was clear from the beginning that Obama made significant efforts toward making the stimulus legislation a bi-partisan effort. But it soon became clear that the only way that Republicans would sign on is if Obama and the Dems accepted their version - all or nothing. So who really failed the bi-partisan test?
I find it interesting that after only 22 days in office (about 1.5% of his 4 year term,) most of you have declared Obama a liar and a failure.
While I never liked Bush, I didn't start railing against him until sometime after 9/11, and didn't dismiss him totally until he invaded Iraq. You are all so ready to jump down Obama's throat that you will take any damn thing and raise it to the level of abject failure. I at least let Bush hang himself by his gross mis-deeds in office rather than simply by a speech he gave. How many offensive, stupid asshole utterances did good ole W make during his tenure? I lost count years ago.
Bar is correct of course. The pendulum will swing back. It always does. All you cons got your 8 years. Now its our turn. Don't like it? Lump it.
B
16 - The Obnoxious American
Handyguy
Yes, this is an opinion piece.
You can call my morality into question all you like. If you are gay (as you seem to indicate in your post), there are people who would call your morality into question as well (though I wouldn't, for that reason at least). My views center around what's in the best interest for this country.
So playing up our actions, some of which I admitted in the article were questionable, meanwhile making excuses for terrorists is what I object to. If the people who are on the front lines fighting for this country believe that they need to water board to save American lives from a terrorist attack, then I will support them in that. See, I trust other Americans, and especially those actually in the fight to protect Americans (including the ones stupid enough to side with terrorists).
This isn't fear, and you can keep your Ben Franklin quote (I'm postive Franklin would agree with me). I support this questionable practice BECAUSE WE ARE AT WAR and we must prevail. Too many so called moralists forget the practical implications. And yet at the same time, not a word is uttered in outrage over the deaths of Americans like Daniel Pearl. Must have been Bush's fault.
Had you read the article, I made clear why I was against overturning don't ask, don't tell. It's simple. The military isn't about having sex, gay or otherwise. It's about fighting for America. People who think gay rights in the military are an important issue may have forgotten what the military is for. It's not for personal expression, or for rights. The military isn't a social experiment or a place to make political statements. Soldiers take lives and they give their own lives in the fight for freedom. Sex doesn't factor.
My article is pretty clear about this. But go ahead and argue without reading my statements. And interestingly, you also didn't respond to a single point I made about President Obama's disingenuousness during the press conference. I'd guess that's because either you didn't read it, or you have nothing to say in response except for more, unqualified liberal praise.
17 - The Obnoxious American
B-Tone,
You may not have attacked Bush till sometime after 9/11 (a whole 8.5 months in), but many liberals did. He stole the election, jeb was in on it, he's not my president, yadda yadda yadda. If that wasn't you, good, I applaud your open mindedness. But don't act like Liberals as a whole gave Bush any kind of chance.
Republicans failed the bi-partisan test? Can you pass some of what you are smoking?
18 - Jordan Richardson
What did Bush do to deserve the trust of the American people? Lose the popular vote? Steal the election? Run on weird family values and hypocritical ethics? Fake an accent and attitude to appear more like a man of the people than a privileged Texas establishment whore?
Sensible people, left or right, shouldn't have given that asshat any kind of chance.
19 - Jordan Richardson
By any objective measure, waterboarding isn't real torture
Really? I take it you've been waterboarded then? Fucking Christopher Hitchens, generally a right-wing zealot, was waterboarded and even he drunkenly said it was torture.
Maybe you'd like to mildly adjust your any objective measure prelude.
20 - pablo
Oh and Obnoxious? If you are going to use a book from amazon.com about propaganda I would suggest the book of the same name written by the person that invented it for all intents and purposes. His name is (I believe he is still alive) Edward Bernaise and part and parcel of the very globalist cabal that I have been talking about for ages. Not only did he write the book on the subject, he worked for many of the major corporations, and even the CIA's propaganda efforts in overthrowing Arbenz in Guatamala in the 50's.
He was also the person responsible for bringing Sigmund Freud to the USA, and was his cousin as well.
21 - The Obnoxious American
Jordan,
I could ask the same question about Obama, and there wouldn't be any better answers. But I won't. Winning the election (which is done by electorial vote just FYI) is what should garner the trust of the American people.
The point in this article is that in Obama's press conference on Monday night, he lost my trust with the comments that I outline in the above article.
22 - Roger Nowosielski
"If you are gay (as you seem to indicate in your post), there are people who would call your morality into question as well (though I wouldn't, for that reason at least)."
That's a low blow and you know it.
Nothing but an attempt to sound virtuous whereas in fact you're anything but.
23 - The Obnoxious American
"That's a low blow and you know it.
Nothing but an attempt to sound virtuous whereas in fact you're anything but. "
Can you say double standard?
24 - Clavos
Congratulations, OA, you're batting 1.000! You've got all the lefties in an uproar (not hard to do, actually -- simply disagree with them), plus pablo.
It's a Grand Slam!
Props, Sir.
25 - Roger Nowosielski
No! Either hypocrisy or self-deception. Since I don't know you, however, you take your pick.
You shouldn't be proud of either.