Lifetime Liberal Dem Disappointed in Obama

About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums > All Posts > Lifetime Liberal Dem Disappointed in Obama

Displaying all 8 Forum Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

2011-09-30 05:15 PM

SilverDove
Not Selected
Posts: 1

I have defended and defneded him while friends dropped their support of him for caving in on too many important issues. Even when he decalred war without Congress approval (what was THAT about?).

But killing an American citizen without atrial is the last straw for this lifetime Democrat.

My problem is - who do we support? I'd like to see someone like Bernie Sanders run for Pres but even if he did, he'd never win. I really feel like more like stranger in the US more today then even i did in the 60s when I was flower child war protester and civil rights marcher. After all, we saw changes. We saw integration. Now, yes, I seee gays getting marriage rights, but I also see hatred proliferating.

2011-10-01 02:57 AM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Lincoln waged war on his fellow Americans to stop them from destroying the Union.....if the war was not fought over Secession, it would have been fought over the West, then everywhere.

So, as far as no orders ever being given to kill Americans by Presidents, I say baloney. Fact is, we are at war. And this cleric was not just aiding and abetting the enemy, but literally serving as leadership in terror-recruiting/plot engineering, and all from beyond the national borders of this country.

This is a case of Technology catching up to the bad guys.

The purvey and power of the President to use lethal force on American citizens remains limited, justifiable only in times of rebellion and war.

We have a right to defend ourselves against those who declare war on us.

This is no different than assassinating a defector to the enemy, who cannot be seized/captured in lieu of strategic limitations.

2011-10-01 01:30 PM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

I respect the views of Glenn Greenwald & Noam Chomsky....I think they make valuable contributions to the country by questioning our actions to the fullest extent of logic and raw reality.

I would just remind them, this is the actions of the state-system that we're talking about...it's messy...that's why it's a problem and needs fundamental reform at a basic level.

I just think they should reconcile themselves to the fact that compromises are in order, w/o a complete disintegration of the state-system for interlocked global communities. The ideal is simply not humanly possible in the present.

The targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, as morally controversial as it was, does not represent new legal ground.

The state-system has always reserved the right to kill its own people and even subvert/break the law to do so. That's the nature of the "state" since its inception ("governments" create/establish "states"). See Peace of Westphalia 1648.

2011-10-02 12:59 AM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Just to make the point clear:

I am not a hippie puncher.

I protested starting both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I stand by my conviction that we don't/ didn't need to make a full-scale invasion of other countries in order to keep up us safe in the age of terrorism.

Anwar al-Alwlaki is a product of the blowback from the response to 9/11, which perpetuated terrorism by responding in-kind to it.

Obama's foreign policy victories (Libya, bin Laden, and al-Awlaki) have proven, without a doubt...that global police work + air support/commando/drone options are far more effective then full-scale war.

Toppling the Taliban after 9/11 (w/o a WW1-like Austrian invasion of Serbia following the issuance of demands) may have been in our interests....but from the air, with native allies on the ground, and only a limited on-the-gound footprint. Bush did this to an extent (with more boots on the ground than in the Libyan war)...but then he went and attacked Iraq...fueling blowback felt in the Af-Pak arena & diverting resources away from the initial war.

I was listening to NPR coverage of Obama's speech outside the Chicago Federal Courts building...after Congress had endorsed the use of force against Iraq (devolved authority to Bush to make a decision). I remember it well...."I'm not anti-war; I'm anti-dumb war."

And it was a dumb war, done the wrong way, at the wrong time, and in the wrong place.

Come 2004-6....my position started changing....war was too far gone to protest...the insurrection against the American occupation showed the promise of leading to a real American defeat.....not something to cheer. Slowly, I went from being against the war...to just seeing it as the failure I said it would always be.....and from there new calculations were in order.
I started to consider the utility of the wars as a means of saving face in what had already been lost. I began to believe that America had put too much prestige, national pride, and the lives of too many of our allies on the line to consider withdrawal.
I started to protest Bush, but not the wars.

Come the day after 2006 mid-terms, with the arrival of Gates, removal of Rumsfeld, I started to believe that a new intelligent strategy was emergent.

While Petraeus gave rosy estimates to Congress in 2004 (it was in his interests to do so), I thought the "General Betray-us" 2007 ads went way too far.

In any event, I was reconciled with the war's prosecution; later, I would split w/ the hawks over the so-called "Surge," siding with presidential-candidate Sen. Obama, and rightly so.
The "Surge" was an unnecessary diversion of greater resources to a problem that had become purely political. What we didn't know was the extent of Petraeus' political outreach to insurgents (Sunni "Awakening"). Secondly, by forcing concessions from the Bush administration on the announcement of time-tables for American withdrawal, Iraqi's warring groups were able to reach a consensus, leading to Al-Sadr's militia coming off the streets before the "Surge" peaked.

Later in the campaign still, Obama's undercutting of Bush's position during the negotiations over the delayed and maligned Status Of Forces Agreement ultimately produced a better positive outcome for the political climate in Iraq, allowing for the consolidation of their national government.

2011-10-02 01:38 AM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

I think Wikileaks was a knife that cut both ways. It had an influence on the Arab Spring, but it also undermined our position in Afghanistan, just as changes were being made, and gains being made in territory under allied control and in the potency of the Afghan fighting force.

Now, the way out is Pakistan (Taliban leadership is on their side of the border). W/o a wildly effective drone/commando option capable of slaughtering the Taliban on Pakistan's side of the border, diplomacy will be the only way to bring us to a point of closure.

And I await the President's decisions on how to move forward.

After the suicide attack on the ex-Afghan president's peace-mission, the Afghans have declared the peace-process on their side of the border dead.

We have got to corral Pakistan into some definitive resolution over their border region.

And in an ode to Arafat...we will need to carry an olive branch in one hand and a gun in the other.

Israeli-special interests have hamstrung US attempts at jump-starting peace-process with Abbas.

Obama earned political capital w/ Jewish voters blocking the Palestinian statehood bid....but it will still prove hard to expend...w/ Congressional resistance. Need peace summit of principals after re-election.

2011-10-02 08:01 AM

Schmidt
Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1058

Both SilverDove and Kaboom raised interesting points regarding the assassination of American born Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan and Saudi Ibrahim al-Asiri in a drone attack in Yemen. I am not one to condemn anyone's views, but rather to expand the discussion and thinking on a sensitive issue. Rachel Maddow in her Friday night program, addresses exactly the point raised by SilverDove...does the United States, and Barack Obama, in particular, have the right to conduct assassinations against US citizens? I think Rachel hit many of the key points.

You can watch Rachel's segment at the above link. She shows clips from John McCain and other war hawks questioning if Obama has the right stuff to carry out attacks against al Qaeda operatives. She put that specific argument to rest with a long list of al Qaeda operatives captured or killed during the Obama administration. But for all those killed, none were ever formally charged by the U.S. government...in other words, Obama is effectively labeled as judge, jury and executioner. And in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, Obama has "crossed the Rubicon."

Quoting Maddow: "Can the United States government choose an American citizen to be executed without ever charging them with anything, without ever proving anything against them, without ever giving them a chance to defend themselves? Whether or not you think it is deserved, under what authority did President Obama or could any president sign him up to be killed on sight?"

Americans as a whole have become numb to the killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, even the news of our own soldiers getting killed, quickly passes, unless you have a loved one involved. Libertarians and many liberals oppose both wars, but perhaps for different reasons. But the killing of an American born citizen has raised the conscience level of many Americans.

So is it okay to kill al Qaeda operatives and innocent civilians (collateral damage) in drone attacks but not American citizens? Hypothetically, if Osama bin Laden was a US citizen, would his killing be viewed differently? Maybe...maybe not.

Certainly, the legality of killing Anwar al-Awlaki and those with him was carefully examined by the Obama administration ahead of time. It was a concerted well thought out decision. The allegations against him were strong, but not proven in a court of law, nor was he even charged in abstentia. But looking at it from a pragmatist's point of view as Kaboom has done, Anwar al-Awlaki was an enemy of the USA and didn't deserve the protection otherwise afforded US citizens.

However, even if Obama has a legal right, does he have the moral right? It's a question that I'm sure Obama weighed, and looking at the potential damage to US soldiers, citizens and others into the future, he made the tough decision that only a sitting US President can make.

Going beyond the specific incidents of drone assassinations, the question that is never asked, is "Why do they hate us?" Why do people like Anwar al-Awlaki feel compelled to join al Qaeda in the first place and conduct "war against the United States?" Why are we viewed as "the evil Satin" by many in the Arab and Muslim world? I have answered that question in other posts and I'll do it again. The seeds for the global terror war were planted in Palestine 63 years ago...and they haven't dried up. Until justice is served to the millions of Palestinian evicted from their homeland and living in refugee camps, the war on terror will never be won. The road to peace in the Middle East begins in Gaza. Congress and Presidents can pretend that it is not the underlying issue, but it is.

I also believe that that problem could in fact be solved by the Jews and Muslims themselves. History tells us that Jews and Muslims lived together in peace in Palestine for centuries. Their religions are not that far apart. They fought tgether against the Christian crusaders. And in my view, it is the Christian evangelicals...those that believe that the "Land of Israel" must be preserved for the second coming of Christ, that are the real obstacles to peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. John Basil Utley calls them America's Armageddonites:

"Based on this Biblical interpretation, the Armageddonites vehemently argue that America must protect Israel and encourage its settlements on the West Bank in order to help God fulfill His plans. The return of Jews to Palestine is central to the prophetic vision of the Armageddonites, who see it as a critical step toward the final battle, Armageddon, and the victory of the righteous over Satan's minions."

Okay following Kaboom's lead on Israel, I got off topic. Religion is the underlying cause of terrorism worldwide as it is for many of the wars. Anwar al-Awlaki is just another of many pawns in that game...a game that mixes religious beliefs with political beliefs..and is capitalized upon by the military industrial machine.

Discussion is invited.

2011-10-02 11:11 AM

CARLITOS BAM-BAM
Dallas, TX
Posts: 897

Here's the line:

If you go on the internet/TV and declare yourself at war with the United States and openly encourage/facilitate attacks.....I'm quite confident that you are now a legitimate target for military operations. No judge in their right mind should restrain a President like that.
.........
Obama is the most effective anti-terror President in our history.

I support his foreign policy With Teeth

2011-10-07 01:48 PM

thankfulforall
Durham, NC
Posts: 4

@Silverdove I don't think that President Obama caved in the sense that he was weak, but the sense that he thought at the time, because we were so weak in the economy that he could not proceed to be far left at the time. The Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts didn't happen. He compromised with this reasoning being that our economy was recovering at the time, and it's institution would put more money in our pockets. But now we must raise some taxes. to help stave off the deficit, and it's not happening, because of the Right Wing. As far as I'm concerned the downturn in the economy at this moment is the result of the Republicans decisions not Obama's. We're living in the unemployment of Corporate Greed. Obama gave plenty money out to the states. the country, the banks, faltering small businesses, money for infrastructure that is being in the works as we speak. Even the Health Care Bill is going to create jobs in technology, more nurses. more money, that will be in the pool. It's one socialistic program that can make the Private insurers not act totally on their own for profit. Obama taught Constitutional Law in Chicago's University for 10 years. What he did is constitutional. What's not constitutional is to deprive gay people their rights to marry. So, our President saved us from default. He did not get one thank you from the America public, because they believed all the negativity and doubt from the Republican Party. Well, as he campaigns for his reelection i will be there, because I understand what a great man he is. That Stock Market was at 6000, and he did his thing as he was supposed to...to spend money to get us out of a mess. He helped the failing Car Indsutry fully realizing what would happen if he didn't. They are accomplishing a lot. More jobs, etc. My DIL now has a good job at CarMax, and she says they are"busy". And I tell her, to thank President Obama and the Democrats. He saved a lot of jobs. Now we're in a downturn, because of uncertainty and people's low confidence. That has been fostered all along by the Republican party...actually promoting a psuedo type recession, of their making. If they tell us the moon is made of green cheese we will eventually believe it, and the world will react accordingly. Their performance during the debt ceiling crisis was unforgiveable, and they IMPO are responsibible for the economy right now. Why on earth should we vote for someone who supports deregulation which got us in this mess in the first place. Thr Dodd-Frank Act could be even stronger as time goes on. Romney can lie all he wants with his doom and gloom. He knows for a fact that what the President did, was not an act of no leadership, but one of a great leader. It's just that he can't say that, because that means he won't win. They are running on lies...trying to make Barack a one term president. They don't even care if the economy is down. Romney raised taxes when he was governor, because he had a democratica controlled congress and senate in his state. They promoted what he called his successes He couldn't even run the planning for the Olympics without Federal Money. He knows cuts in education and healthcare causes job loss and over worked nurses, less good care, and less good teachers. It makes it hard to educate our children without money for teachers. Romney campaigns on a lie for his plan does not work. It's not what he governed on, or ran his state on. I think that's why their party is not so hasty to nominate him. What Obama is advocating will get us out of the mess and more. Even the Health Care Bill eventually will lower premiums in a few years. It's all part of the plan. I also agree with the President in taking out defected citizens. That young man gave up his rights as a citizen when he joined the Taliban. I will never forget 9/11. He is a good war President, and he does listen to his commanders. Right now Romney is trying to act like Obama is going to rush out of there".abroad. Hello...this man has no clue. He is lying through his teeth. Obama/Biden2012

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES