Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
or else he will have wasted all that time he spent on the mountain.
You know, carving commandments into stone tablets 'n' stuff.
Google it and see how it has a high profile in the blogosphere but virtually none anywhere else. That would be the first problem to address.
The pressure applied with regards to FISA resulted in a temporary reprieve and then, well, you know the rest.
Drawing attention to John Brennan's support of certain policies led to his withdrawal from an arm's-length position to one where he has the president's ear on counterterrorism (which is surely the realm where, ah, "harsh" interrogation techniques are most relevant).
Promises made with respect to the withdrawal from Iraq were framed in such a way as to lead many to reach an erroneous conclusion.
So...isn't it possible that the first-day Executive Order will be framed in such a way as to be entirely consistent with Obama's remarks on Sunday's TV? Sure, he'll immediately issue an EO to close the prison, but as far as implementation goes...the devil is in the details.
My point is this: just as one should wait until the man actually does something before reaching any conclusions as to his plans and intentions...one should wait until the man actually does something before reaching any conclusions as to his plans and intentions! So far the safest conclusion is that Obama's a master illusionist - he's got everyone looking one way when the real "action" (such as it is) is happening somewhere else...or not happening at all. (Hmmm...is this what is meant by change you can "believe" in...?)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Boumediene was a wonderful decision unless you're one of the prisoners still rotting in prison.
First, thanks a bunch for all the information you share regarding the torture issue.
Second, and my point regarding this thread, is that what we can expect to start hearing from our Fearless Leaders in the Senate, is that because the GOP is going to have at least four seats opening up in 2010 due to incumbants retiring, we must not rock the Obama boat because we want to replace those out going Senators with good Democrats.
Hogswallow!!! What we need to do is apply more pressure to the Democrats we already have in the Senate and force them to bend to the left - or join those four GOP Senators in retirement.
Reid must GO. He's beyond redemption and he's vunerable. At a minimum, he must be replaced as Majority Leader because he's failed miserably to lead the Senate Majority.
Could it be that Obama was bullshitting Steph
Jesus Christ dude. How many contortions do you really want to go through to deflect and and all criticism of Obama?
Yeah. He was bullshitting Stephanopoulos. That's brilliant. Keep it up, man.
"...even if they turn violent it will just result in some injured cops, property damage and a whole lot of people tossed in jail."--Scientician
This discussion raises the question--can even peaceful shows of protest affect policy change?
Considering how powerful legal and paramilitary forces have converged to intimidate and imprison dissenters--there is much to lament. (see the new age and wave in military presence and tactics across America's roads, streets, ports and terminals).
What impact would angry Americans distressed beyond economic survival have on Capitol Hill than the legislative ilk for reforming those same policies?
Peaceful means are the preference under our "representative" system, but it notoriously supports the oligarchy of privilege over the frustrated lower classes--those hit harder by inequitable laws and economic imbalances.
A desperate mass of peasants (should we come to that) is no match or dream permitted against a corporate government that preys upon the disregarded and despised consumer.
pardon the prisoners, pay restitution and send them where they want to go. I suppose some would come back to trouble us, but that's gonna happen with other Mid Easterners anyway, don't you think? Admission of our (the USA's) guilt along with an apology would be a action in our favor, though obviously it wouldn't help much. We should stop blindly supporting the stupid and criminal policies of Israel, that would help us as well.
It would only be a start of course.
I did not explicitly say it, but I hope to god that what people come away with from that excerpt is not anything having to do with the general utility of marches.
The technique under discussion in the example (marching) is completely unimportant to the general lesson, particularly before context is added: a staunch ally brought the maximal amount of pressure to bear on the administration in a troubled time, in order to stand up for what was right and for his own constituency.
Context is crucial in the specifics: 100,000 black people marching on Washington DC in 1963 was controversial enough to the establishment; in 1941 it's even more significant.
Secondly, as the excerpt clarified, people at the time had not only been marching but striking and protesting and even engaging in general strikes.
The techniques used to effect change vary by the context, including the times.
I believe that the blowback from the base - people like me who worked the primary (in freezing, horrible weather), who donated regularly and significantly, who attended rallies, pounded pavement, made phone calls on our own dime, evangelized, visualized, prayed, took off work, donated time and talent, and participated in the process from early last year until now - will be FIERCE if Obama does not live up to our ideals.
If he does not give Holder a green light to investigate war crimes, if he doesn't close Gitmo pronto, if he doesn't condemn the past 8 yrs of constitutional evisceration, if he doesn't set up a viable medical insurance alternative, and if he straps on the knee pads for AIPAC, I can guarantee that his hard-working base will BALK.
He cannot afford to alienate us. No effing way.
I live in DC. I've seen these ads on buses around the District from MoveOn.org that have pictures of people holding a sign that says "I stand with Obama for clean energy" or "I stand with Obama for health care." I find this message to be problematic. I appreciate that they are for the upcoming inauguration, but nevertheless, since Obama doesn't actually have a concrete health care or energy proposal on the table yet, how can we say we stand with him on it? It's a confusing message to say that we "stand with Obama on energy"; does that mean that we are pledging to support whatever Obama's energy proposals are?
Now's the time for progressives to say what they want out of energy policy or health care or Iraq and to put together plans to make it happen. We certainly don't have to wait around and see what Obama is going to do; that doesn't make any sense.
I don't stand with Obama until he has a plan to do the right thing. I do stand for an end to the war, for an energy policy that weans the US off of carbon (and doesn't make nuclear a centerpiece), for universal, single-payer health care (something that I don't believe Obama has EVER advocated).
Better ad copy would, in my humble opinion, put forth this idea: "We stand for green energy (or universal health care or ending torture etc.): Obama, will you stand with us?" Not very pithy copy, but you see my idea.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
