You Think Obama’s Been a Bad President? Prove It: Jonathan Alter

[babylonsister]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-26/you-think-obama-s-been-a-bad-president-prove-it-jonathan-alter.html

You Think Obama’s Been a Bad President? Prove It: Jonathan Alter
By Jonathan Alter Aug 25, 2011 8:00 PM ET 114 Comments

snip//

Left, Right, Center

Every day you’re pummeling him from the right, left and middle. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham even attacked the president for letting Libyan rebels take Tripoli instead of burying Muammar Qaddafi under American bombs months ago. Here we have the best possible result -- the high probability of regime change for about one-thousandth of the cost of getting rid of Saddam Hussein and no bad feelings from the locals -- and Obama gets savaged anyway.

Like everyone else, I’ve got my list of Obama mistakes, from failing to break up the banks in early 2009 to neglecting to force a vote on ending the Bush tax cuts when the Democrats still controlled Congress. He shouldn’t have raised hopes with “Recovery Summer” and “Winning the Future” until the economy was more durable. I could go on.

But do these miscalculations really mean it’s time for him to go?

Most of the bad feeling goes back to the first year or so of the Obama presidency. And in hindsight, those decisions really weren’t so bad. To prove my point, let’s review a few areas where he supposedly messed up.

snip//


Your mission, Jim, should you decide to accept it, is to be specific and rational, not vague and visceral.

[FSogol]

1. K & R. n/t

[Enrique]

2. no, i'ts not time for him to go

Like everyone else, I’ve got my list of Obama mistakes, from failing to break up the banks in early 2009 to neglecting to force a vote on ending the Bush tax cuts when the Democrats still controlled Congress. He shouldn’t have raised hopes with “Recovery Summer” and “Winning the Future” until the economy was more durable. I could go on.

That's what we're doing. Criticizing his policy.

[uponit7771]

3. Wrong, most bashers just lie or leave out other facts (especially about the Bush tax cuts) and then

...tie Obama to things that should never made a difference even under Bush.

FAIR TRUTHFUL criticism one can take, that has NOT been happening on DU

[noiretextatique]

5. sure it has

explain why he put ss and medicare on the table, please? i think that is a fair and truthful criticism, if not of policy, then certainly of strategy.

[SwampG8r]

44. they wont touch that one

[uponit7771]

47. on the table for what?! See, this is the type of double talk shit I spoke of!! Benefit cuts?!

...If so YOU prove if not stop talking shit, people who do such lose credibility with those who've been paying at least half ass'd attention

[liberation]

74. Perhaps the reason for your frustration is that the term "double talk" does not mean....

... what you think it does.

What the previous poster was doing, if anything would be a false implication.

[rhett o rick]

76. Give us some facts and hold the bull shit. nm

[Sheepshank]

52. prime example of hyperbolic/incorrect rhetoric

Can you show anything tangible that has happened to these programs? Anything tangible that has been listed as benefit cuts? I can show you something tangible (debt ceiling agreement) that has put in writing bennies will not be affected....on the WH webite.

Gawd this is getting stooopid.

[robinlynne]

69. benefis for current recipients willremain intact, meaning my social security IS on the table.

I have worked for it for 35 years now.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

92. Please prove this. Don't just say that it is the case. You need to provide irrefutable evidence!!

[Whisp]

57. woah, posterchild post for passing on falsies.

if it's weren't so pathetic I would be :rofl: right now.

I'll have one anyway?

:rofl:

[noiretextatique]

6. dupe

[Enthusiast]

11. He isn't pushing "free trade" deals?

I guess I was mistaken.

[Dragonfli]

81. You can't criticize that yet as it isn't law, after it is law you will be guilty of not being

critical at the proper time and will be a "hater". You just don't know the Goldilocks rule yet, it is like a fifteen minute window or something.

[Enthusiast]

83. Yes...must be critical at the critical moment.

Oh, no! Too late!

[Bluenorthwest]

26. I take issue with his oppostion to basic human rights for my family

and his crazed and irony laden insistence that Civil Rights should be left up to the States. Of course, he only means my civil rights, not yours, not his, not those of his family, just those of my family, my community.
You know what is a lie? That heterosexuals are 'Sanctified by God' and superior to us. That is a lie, a slander, and who tells that one? Obama, that's who. But those lies are fine with the self declared 'supporters' who never support, but simply characterize and slander and undermine the Party.
Tell me, what is 'fair and truthful' about the discrimination against gay people in the name of Paulist superstitions? What proof of truthfulness and fairness can you present to bolster the case for opposing equal rights for all? Can not wait to hear you explain how that is so fair and truthful.

[Vattel]

49. Oh quit whining

Of course there is unfair criticism at DU. There is also fair criticism. And on the other side, there is a lot of Obama apologetics as well as serious defenses of his policies.

[roguevalley]

73. tell me then, if not with the house and senate under our control did

he NOT cut the fucking tax breaks, when? He had a chance and he didn't do it. He did however cut WIC. He has his priorities. But they don't include us. He's just not that in to us.

[rhett o rick]

77. Here are some facts: Ricky Warren, America's pastor, Alan Simpson, Tim

Geitner, Summers, Jeff Immelt, and on and on. They are all conservatives. Not one liberal, not one.

[Pisces]

46. K & R!!!

[elocs]

4. False premise: "But do these miscalculations really mean it’s time for him to go?"

For Democrats, I don't believe that the vast majority of those who are unhappy with Obama want to see him go. Most of them want him to step up to the plate and act, not embrace compromise and bipartisanship at every opportunity, and regarding the Republicans to "Give 'em Hell, Harry".

Neither do I believe that just most of the bad feeling goes back to the first year.

Most Democrats who have been disenchanted and disappointed by Obama desperately long to fervently get behind a president who clearly embraces traditional Democratic values and you know he is a Democrat not because the word is attached to his name, but because his actions and decisions clearly scream that he is a DEMOCRAT!.

[izquierdista]

7. As has been said elsewhere....

Can we have the Guantanamo-closing, war-ending, public-option supporting candidate that ran and won back in 2008?

[Pooka Fey]

10. + 1 billion gazillion

[tblue]

24. It's our fault. We believed him when he said, "Yes We Can"*

Guess we missed the asterisk.

*Void where prohibited

[FrenchieCat]

58. If only it were "WE".......instead of the ever present "HE"......

that was substituted by so many like the day after Election day 2008,
so that we didn't have to do shit but to point at Palin and the Teaparty laughing,
but have failed to do anything more than that but move our gums,
and believe that this is something being done!

Negatively criticizing and never, ever giving due acknowledgment for anything
done positive (which plenty has) except for every once in a blue moon....
is biased and bankrupt. It is exactly what the opposition does, and unfortunately
what many here do too!

[BklnDem75]

60. Your mistake is confusing 'we' for 'he'

The fault is thinking one man alone will solve our problems. Even the greatest general is nothing without his army.

[tblue]

64. I never thought 'one man alone' would 'solve our problems.'

'Without his army'? Really? There are no other Democrats? Hmm....

[Raster]

68. Amen!

I liked candidate Obama MUCH BETTER than I like President Obama.

[Little Star]

9. I agree! Especially....

with this paragraph:
"Most Democrats who have been disenchanted and disappointed by Obama desperately long to fervently get behind a president who clearly embraces traditional Democratic values and you know he is a Democrat not because the word is attached to his name, but because his actions and decisions clearly scream that he is a DEMOCRAT!."

The greater majority don't want him to go, they want him to lead and fight for our traditional democratic values. Most are sick of this bipartisan-shit that is actually just capitulation!

[great white snark]

14. If you don't know he's a Democrat now nothing he can do will please you.

We have passed the most progressive legislation since LBJ under President Obama.

And no it is not a false premise-have you not seen all the "primary him" posts?

[elocs]

27. Yes, and the "primary him" posts are about moving him to the left, not getting rid of him.

Not even DUers can be naive enough to believe that they could defeat a sitting Democratic president who still has broad support from the party.

It's not time for him to go, but it is high time for him to get going.

[mistertrickster]

34. BS. LBJ passed the Civil Rights Act and War on Poverty programs.

Nothing Obama has done even comes close . . .

Well, he did start a massive War on Homeowners in favor of Big Banks. That's been successful.

Not exactly the same as a War on Poverty.

[BklnDem75]

61. The fight for civil rights didn't start with LBJ

Even then, he heard the same noise Obama's hearing.

[jeff47]

75. Actually, we got more liberal legislation under Nixon.

For example, the creation of the EPA.

And seeking a primary challenger does not mean Obama should be tossed out. What we are seeking is pressure. Something that makes Obama stop his rightward march. With a primary challenger, he has to worry about the left again. Without one, he's free to continue taking the left for granted under the assumption we have nowhere else to go.

Unfortunately for Obama, polling show's he's being a moron. D-leaning independents are now unhappy with how far right he has gone and how much he rolls over for the Republicans. So his move right strategy is pissing off the people it's supposed to attract.

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. I'm reminded of the Fantastic Four, where Stretch is talking to Suzie,

explaining why he let her go in the first place.

"I thought you wanted a stronger man" he said.

To which she relied "I did. But I wanted YOU to be that man."

It's not that we want Obama to go away. We just want him to live up to his own campaign promises - an end to the wars (OK, we GOT Bin Laden - now, what are we there for?); government transparency (not the highest prosecution of government whistle blowers in history); JOBS, JOBS, JOBS; prosecution of the criminals who crashed our economy for their own profit; etc., etc., etc.

If Obama pursued this course, instead of trying to find accommodation with opponents who don't understand that word, the course he himself charted out in his campaign, he'd have poll numbers at 55%+ today.

[MrTriumph]

8. Apologists will not excite the electorate. The audacity of hopelessness?

x

[great white snark]

12. Oh I see, you added "lessness" instead of using the hilarious "Audacity of nope"

Good one!

How the hell did you get "apologists" from that considering the admission of mistakes made?

[Bluenorthwest]

30. What is hilarious, as it turns out, is a guy like Obama even using

the word 'audacity' while being the least audacious politician in recent times, speaking kindly of the Republicans, harshly toward his own voters. Audacity is a trait he lacks completely. To be audacious requires courage and conviction, a willingness to risk, to take chances. The 'we can not even suggest it if the Republicans will not like it' routine is not audacious it is a tactic that is adverse to risk, the path of least resistance seems to define what he thinks is 'right'.
Since when is bipartisanship audacious? What it is is playing along with the radical right, just to avoid confrontation.

[mistertrickster]

37. DING DING DING!!! We have a winner, folks! nt

[bornskeptic]

48. No, just another loser doing what losers do.

[mistertrickster]

54. FDR icon? Heh . . . what's wrong with this picture given that post? nt

[OwnedByFerrets]

90. That is one of the more cogent posts/thoughts I've ever seen

on DU. Thanks.

[jaxx]

16. Naysayers will not excite the electorate.

This thread is the usual one-issue crap....he didn't do this and he didn't do that. Never mind all that he did do. People are not going to pay attention to what wasn't done, but to what was accomplished. I know the naysayers are going to be heartbroken, but really, they have become a broken record and lost any appeal they might have had. Instead of constantly carping, what have they done to get their issues promoted? Nothing? Yep.

[zalinda]

36. The problem is that 'all that Obama has done' (see blue links)

is not trickling down to the 50% of the nation that is suffering. Doing some 'blue linky thing' is not going to work when you are talking to people trying to get a man re-elected. Maybe where you live it is doing well, but where I live it's not. More and more storefronts are boarded up. Higher food prices. Job classifieds are so small it is taking up only 2 pages or the Sunday paper, when it used have it's own section. We are NOT better off than 3 years ago, we are worse off. Add to that that Social Security and Medicare reductions have been put on the table, and it's not looking good.

Unless it impacts people's lives, it won't be noticed. That's just the facts.

zalinda

[mistertrickster]

38. See Washington, DC starting on Oct 6. nt

[frylock]

39. those single issues start adding up

[Vattel]

65. What do you expect, a comprehensive treatise on every issue

and the merits of how Obama has addressed that issue? And how on earth do you know that "naysayers" don't work on issues that matter to them?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phiddle]

15. The Mendacity of "Nope"

Nope, we won't stop the wars; rather we'll privatize the one in Iraq and triple the troops in Afghanistan.
Nope, we'll not push the public health insurance option (settling for a Medicare buy in), but we will support Senators (Lincoln, Lieberman, Baucus) who obstruct it.
Nope, we won't put on our walking shoes for labor when unions are threatened, but rather will send our spokespersons out to trash them at every opportunity.
Nope, we'll not support the rule of law by investigating war criminals and banksters, but only against whistleblowers and pot dispensaries.
Nope, we won't propose a tax reform which lightens the tax load on salaries while increasing it on financial instruments.
Nope, we won't appoint clear sighted progressive economists to policy making positions in this administration, only Wall-street toadies who were instrumental in creating the financial meltdown.
Nope, we won't support a Main street economic recovery based on wages and jobs, but only a Wall street recovery based on financial chicanery.
Nope, we won't return to regulatory policies which prevented economic catastrophe for better than 50 years.
Specific and rational enough?

[jaxx]

17. Thanks. That makes the naysayers even less effective.

[comtec]

21. Nope...

sadly there is nothing you can point out (facts have a liberal bias) that they will accept.
they see us here in the real world as enemies, as opposed to people who WANT IMPROVEMENT!!!

They see things in black an white, as opposed to the shades of gray that they are on the democratic side.

I wish at least one of those bullet points were not true. but they are.
YES he's had a shitty, spineless congress.... but he's the president, his job is to put pressure on the op to get what he wants, just like how bush put pressure on the dems.

Has he done good? yes, he probably saved the economy... but WHO is talking about it? lord knows its NOT THE PRESIDENT!
He has had an obstructionist REPUBLICAN SIDE of the congress, but is he talking about that? NO

he's a weak president domestically. his foreign policy shows hes quite capable of getting things done the way they need to be done. I'm not thrilled with the wars, but he was right in Lybia (and i did support that) and he's drawing down elsewhere.

But he hasn't shown leadership, and THAT is what the sheep need!
LEADERSHIP
He's not showing it most of the time, and THAT will cause his non re-election NOT US... after all we're criticizing to try to get him to improve.. not to cause him to fail.

[Inuca]

22. Not really

just a few answers. He always said that he will do more in Afghanistan, I happen not to agree with tyhe current policy, but that's irrelevant. He did not "support" senators that obstructed, he tried (with Baucus' help, definitely not the most liberal of senators, but not in the Lincoln and Lieberman category either, ans somebody who knows the Senate inside and out) to get an imperfect but good health bill passed (remember how "huge" the majority that passed it was? do you really think that something else would have passed both the Senate and the House, irrespective of how much the president might have supprted the public option?). Some other of your points, like not supporting a tac reform I don't really know about, and in any case I do not have the time right now to go into much more detail. But the bottom line is that your answer may have been specific, but definitely not very rational IMHO.

[Dawgs]

51. "do you really think that something else would have passed both the Senate and the House" YES!!

If he wouldn't have started compromising from the middle, and instead started with Medicare for All, he could have EASILY GOTTEN A PUBLIC OPTION. Instead, he started from the compromise position, as usual, and ended up with something once supported by Republicans.

[Inuca]

53. Easily? Sure...

How many "spare" votes there were in the Senate? ZERO if my memeory serves me right. In the House? A few more, but barely.

[Dawgs]

56. Are you fucking kidding me? You responded to ONE word in my reply and ignored the rest.

2012 is going to suck for you.

[FrenchieCat]

59. And I'm sure it will be what you have worked towards, day in, day out......

2012 will be heaven for you I'm sure, if enough Democrats lose, including
the White House.

Talking about a poster not hiding wanting to see us fail a la Republicans!
It should suck to be you....but I'm sure you're enjoying every moment of it.

[lillypaddle]

18. K&R

Wow, a positive article about Obama!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

25. I know

shut me up!!!!
:wow:

[lillypaddle]

31. ha ha!

:rofl:

[Peacetrain]

19. K&R...when you get down to specifics..

how people perceive things can change drastically

[Bluenorthwest]

35. Has Alter changed?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2001/11/04/time-to-think-about-torture.html

Do you agree with that piece? Torture works, we are too squeamish about it, etc?

[mistertrickster]

23. Alter plays fast and loose by swatting down his own softball pitches.

He writes: Your mission, Jim (and readers named something else), should you decide to accept it, is to identify where Obama has been a poor decision-maker. What, specifically, has he done wrong on policy? What, specifically, would you have done differently to create jobs? And what can any of the current Republican candidates offer that would be an improvement on the employment front?

Then he looks at foreign policy and the stimulus package . . . yawn.

At the end of the paragraph, he asks this red herring: And what can any of the current Republican candidates offer that would be an improvement on the employment front?

Whoa, Nellie, hold up there, partner. Alter is saying that "at least Obama is no Republican." Gee, that's nice. But we didn't bust our asses electing a "non Republican;" we helped elect someone who sounded like a Democrat until he became President Compromise.

What, specifically, would you have done differently to create jobs? Uh . . . how about creating jobs? Bring back the WPA and put people to work on the gov't dime. The stimulus paid the private sector to "create jobs" and it had some effect, but why pay the middle-man when you can do it directly? It's like feeding the sparrows by running the grain through a draft horse first.

Not only that, we're spending billions on 99 weeks of unemployment which essentially pays people to not work. Why not pay them to work?

What, specifically, has he done wrong on policy? Actually, Candidate Obama can answer that better than I can:

* requiring mandates to buy private insurance

* signing a health (insurance) reform bill with no gov't option

* not ending Bush tax cuts for the rich

* not re-evaluating and re-negotiating NAFTA (although that was apparently a lie even when he said it)

* standing idle while collective bargaining rights are taken away (instead of putting on the comfortable shoes etc.)

* making zero progress on the Employee Free Choice Act to make unionization easier

* not forbidding companies bailed out by the Federal gov't from giving million-dollar bonuses to top fat-cats

* not allowing judges to negotiate payment terms for homeowners in foreclosure

* not increasing taxes on capital gains

* not allowing re-importation of prescription drugs

and the list goes on and on and on and on . . .

But Obama's key policy failing, and this may be the fatal one for his Presidency, is allowing the FundyCONs in Washington to dictate the debate and focus on the effing DEFICIT instead of the root of all our problems which is no job growth and stagnant wages.

If he can't turn unemployment around -- a seriously intractable problem since employers won't hire until people start buying, and people can't buy if they aren't employed -- we may be looking at a one-term President.

Rhetoric can't save him this time. Now he has a record he has to justify and defend.

[bhikkhu]

28. How I cling to sanity here:

when some issue comes up, such as the recent debt ceiling negotiation, instead of diving in head-first with predictions of doom, fear and loathing, and stress-induced Tourette's syndrome, I make a reasonable list of what I would be satisfied with as a result.

In the case of the debt ceiling, the list was: no spending cuts for at least a year, no cuts to SS or medicare benefits, cuts should ideally extend to the DoD, and no extension of tax cuts. As it happened, when the deal passed and it did better than satisfy everything I had been hoping for, I was pretty pleased. I don't know what other people were hoping for, as it was doom from the beginning, doom all the way through, and so on...

Other things have gone the same way. (Healthcare and banking reform were similar). You have to first be able to say what would satisfy you, and it has to be realistically attainable - I get tired of arguments that ask for nothing, and then are satisfied with nothing, but all go back to a hatred of the president as their foundation...

well, that's my version of a rant I suppose - carry on!

[tblue]

29. As for Libya, the Shock Doctrine is unfolding as we speak.

The energy multinationals are descending, ready to take control of the oil. Will the US (President) ensure that the Libyans get their share? We don't know yet if this will have a happy ending. More likely Libya is on the verge of disaster capitalism.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Alter on torture. Would love to hear the OP's opinion about this.

If Alter is some example to put forth, one assumes you also support his Bush era views on torture. "Some torture clearly works. We can't legalize physical torture; it's contrary to American values. But even as we continue to speak out against human-rights abuses around the world, we need to keep an open mind about certain measures to fight terrorism, like court-sanctioned psychological interrogation. And we'll have to think about transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies, even if that's hypocritical. Nobody said this was going to be pretty." http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2001/11/04/time-to-think-about-torture.html

Does the OP agree that torture works, and that we are too squeamish about renditions? One must assume so, as Alter is presented as an authority to bow to.

[Fly by night]

33. Lying about his position on medical marijuana and then redoubling the drug war, for starters.

Being part of a never-ending war machine that seems blessed with a target-rich enviornoment is another.

Right now, the USA seems to be exporting only two things -- armaments and arrogance. The world could do without either. No wonder we have such a trade imbalance, much less an ethical one.

[JoeyT]

40. Anyone that looks at massive unemployment and thinks

"Hmm. Needs moar free trade!" is not only a failure as a president, but a failure as a person.

[ProSense]

41. For example, here is the kind of

stuff that gets ignored in order to continue even using the plight of African Americans against the President.

He's black so he should do something for the black community or else he's a sellout, but anything he does is ignored by those pushing that line.

[Safetykitten]

42. Prove the feeling of a nation. Go take a hike, literally, Mr. Alter

Prove what? Get out the charts? Get out the perpetual suprised economist gang? Mr. Alter needs to get out more.

It's not about a verifiable hold it in your hand that gets his strange little article proven, bizzarely complete with actual list of "mistakes". Actually he should of titled this "I know things suck and here's the reasons, but why are people pissed and prove why they should be".

The feeling of the nation is that NOTHING IS GETTING ACCOMPLISHED. Hard for people with jobs and such, but the country is running on vapors. Obama will not get re-elected with this malaise.

[ZombieHorde]

43. The debt ceiling was an extremely stupid mistake, unless he wanted those results.

President Obama was told this could happen, and how do avoid it, but President Obama just said, "Look, here’s my expectation -- and I’ll take John Boehner at his word -- that nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1643894&mesg_id=1643894

If President Obama was being honest, then he was being incompetent. No one on DU would have made that mistake. This proves one of two things: 1) President Obama doesn't understand the fuck is going on, 2) President Obama does understand, but he needed an excuse to implement Republican ideas. If there is a logical third option, I would love to hear it, because the debt ceiling negotiation was a profound, strategic embarrassment. The biggest part of chess strategy is looking ahead.

Anti-war voters obviously have reason to be unhappy with President Obama. Saying Libya was good is ridiculous to anti-war voters. Then we have Obama's own words on Iraq: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

Gay people, and their allies, have had to listen to Obama say God doesn't think gay Americans are equal to straight Americans, and then he honors those who feel the same. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U

The term, "bad President," is meaningless, but I offered three specific, and rational, examples of why people could be legitimately disappointed with President Obama.

[Beer is God]

45. Vigorous K&R!

Wish I could rec it 100 times.

[Number23]

66. Even more vigorous K&R here!

:hi:

[Scurrilous]

50. K & R

:thumbsup:

[bvar22]

55. "Here we have the best possible result" in Libya?

Turning Libya into a NeoLiberal Free Market HELL, just like Iraq?
Opening the door to the Global Oil Corporations, The Global Banks, and the IMF?
Ending the funding for the Pan African Movement?
(Pan African = Africa FOR Africans, NOT the Global Corporations

Freedom Bombs aren't FREE!
SEE: Iraq
SEE: The Iraq Oil Law

For the rest, I'll just let Campaign Obama speak for me.
You can argue with him.

EFCA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMNVIQqatyU

NAFTA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LtbLEKHsi0&NR=1

Cadillac Tax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8wmN3wvhNM&feature=player_embedded

Support for Striking Unions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA9KC8SMu3o

Public Option & Mandates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acc6Wn_BWlk

Restore America’s Honor
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

Transparency
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5t8GdxFYBU

Starting WARS without Congressional Approval
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
The UNIONS WILL!!

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[BzaDem]

84. Really? It is never OK to intervene to prevent mass slaughter, because the outcome might result in a

political system you don't approve of?

[coalition_unwilling]

62. How about this? Refusing even to investigate te Bush Junta

for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Glenn Greenwald has said it best:

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/glenn-greenwald-obama-upheld-evisceration-of-the-rule-of-law-for-political-elites/

[ClassWarrior]

63. I don't think he's a bad president. I think there are a number of important things that...

...he has done colossally badly.

:shrug:

NGU.

[xocet]

67. The Bush Administration was not prosecuted for their approval of torture. That is enough proof.

n/t

[SadPanda]

71. So Obama was supposed to take office and immediately arrest Bush?

I wish I lived in that alternate universe. Sadly I don't. Reality is a bitch.

[Dragonfli]

78. Not him personally, but when laws are broken there is not supposed to be exemptions for politicians

Rule of law is supposed to matter.

It is actually against the law to look the other way, it is called being an accessory after the fact.

Don't you believe in the rule of law? Just when is it OK to break several laws and have immunity just because you are of the political class?

Does this mean that I can break laws as well and not be charged, or does this special dispensation only apply to the wealthy? Really I want to know, I need money to live and there is this bank down the street...

[SadPanda]

87. You kind of ignored what I said in the first place....

Obama was supposed to arrest Bush? The Justice department was supposed to arrest Bush? When? First year? Second year? How? The FBI arrests Bush, Cheney, or Rumsfeld for war crimes? How? Under what jurisdiction relevant to the United States? Who tries them? Who has indicted them for those crimes? The ICC? Are they to be tried inside the United States? In what court?

I understand the principle of prosecuting them. I do not understand how you would go about it in REALITY.

[Dragonfli]

88. You do know that conspiracy to commit torture is a felony in this country don't you?

That is a crime that they have already confessed to, the DOJ can bring charges as can the FBI, there is also international law and the Hague (they could be refered to international courts like many war criminals caught here have been).
It is also a felony to not prosecute torture. There are plenty of other crimes that the DOJ or the FBI can file, they simply refuse to do it.

I thought everyone knew torture was against the law and punishable in this country, I guess I just don't understand your question.

It is also a dangerous precedent to ignore the rule of law as at least one DOJ veteran has admitted http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/17/justice-dept-veteran-obama-sets-dangerous-precedent-letting-bush-officials-free/

As to how to go about it in reality, it is no different for rich, poor, political class, or working class, at least according to the supposed rule of law.
No special treatment required, investigate, try and convict or acquit, the venue would normally be federal court for these types of charges (unless the case is referred to an international court).

No re-inventing of the wheel necessary, we already have a justice system and laws on the books.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dokkie]

70. He could be a little less pro war

Gawd, what does the anti war crowd need to do to get some love around here?

[Dragonfli]

79. well, if the President changes his mind, all his followers will too, so I guess you need to wait for

that. Then they will do a 180 and all of a sudden they will give you love.

Other than that? Stop supporting warmongers I suppose, that just doesn't leave many left to support.

That is the way I deal with it. It looks like half my ballot next year will be Democratic and the other half green or write in.
War is a racket and we are against a great deal of money people that profit from death - ps they even buy politicians.

Call us all Don Quixote I guess, welcome to the club (though you have likely been a member a long time) :hi:

[johnaries]

85. You REALLY don't get it, do you? I am an Obama supporter

but not because I agree with him, but because he agrees with me on most things. No one agrees with me on all issues, so I don't agree with many of his policies - but I agree with most of the things he has done. And he has moved this country forward on many, many issues.

I consider myself a Pacifist. But I also realize that often turning the other cheek only ends with getting slapped repeatedly. I supported the war in Afghanistan, to keep those who killed over 3000 people from attacking us again. I did not support the illegal invasion of Iraq. But, I do believe in the "Pottery Barn" rule. I supported the Libyan People over their dictator, and I'm glad we could help.

These are my opinions. If Obama changes his, I won't change mine.

Oh, and I am glad that he has changed his opinion on DOMA and realizes now that it is unConstitutional.

[Dragonfli]

86. I get it just fine thank you, the war machine must be fed and rationalizations abound for the deaths

of hundreds of thousands.

With this president the killings will continue and be expanded.



I think that you don't get it, if it was about fighting those dozen or so terrorists we would be at war with Saudi Arabia, not killing poor peasants few of whom even know what was done by Saudi Nationals.
Poor villagers are not the killers you think they are, put the Kool-aid down before you hurt someone.

[LetTimmySmoke]

80. In 3 seconds I thought of..

Obama sending the DEA after medical cannabis places, and putting pressure on the NY AG to stop going after the banks.

[tomp]

82. i don't have to prove anything.

obama has to do the proving. he has to do the convincing.

IN MY OPINION, his accomplishments are meager and his faults are legion.

all of these have been reported and posted ad infinitum, we all know the issues.

convince me otherwise or get your votes elsewhere.

if all you've got is- the progressive left doesn't know what it's talking about- you lose.

[woo me with science]

89. FYI: Response piece by Peter Wehner: (Challenge Accepted)

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/26/jonathan-alter-challenge/

Contentions
Answering Jonathan Alter’s Challenge
Peter Wehner 08.26.2011 - 12:41 PM

“Tell me again why Barack Obama has been such a bad president?” Jonathan Alter writes in his column.

Alter tells us he’s not talking here about Obama as a tactician and communicator, and he’s not interested in hearing ad hominem attacks or about people’s generalized “disappointment.” (Neither am I.) He wants to know on a substantive basis why Obama should be judged to have failed so far.

In Alter’s words, “Your mission, Jim , should you decide to accept it, is to be specific and rational, not vague and visceral.”

Consider the mission accepted.

In one sense, the answer to the Alter challenge is obvious: Obama has failed by his own standards. It’s the Obama administration, not the RNC, that said if his stimulus package was passed unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. It’s Obama who joked there weren’t as many “shovel-ready” jobs as he thought.

It’s Obama who promised to cut the deficit in half. It’s Obama who said if we passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the health care cost curve would go down rather than up. It’s Obama who promised us recovery and prosperity, hope and change. What we’ve gotten instead is the opposite.

(much more at link)

[ItNerd4life]

91. He states many things I've been thinking. nt