From Hullabaloo:
I don't know why it's so important for people to believe that the president is a Jedi Master but he clearly isn't. However he is willing to change course (on foreign policy anyway) when an opportunity presents itself and I think that's praiseworthy in itself, particularly after our last experience with a stubborn president determined to go to war no matter what. I think it's a good thing that they can take advantage of an unseen possibility. Why the need to make it more than it is?
Great.
Super.
Super.
But I also have to ask why it's so important for other people to believe that President Dronekill McWorse-Than-Boosh is a war-hungry sociopath but he clearly isn't?
Why the need to make it less than it is?
Because there sure as hell seems to be a lot of people dining out on the theory that President Obama just fucking loves to indiscriminately bomb innocent civilians. For kicks. Especially when those innocent civilians are children or American citizens just puttering around minding their own damn business. It sure as hell seems as though a lot of my friends on the Left with fairly large megaphones are irrevocably invested in the notion that President Obama is defined by an unalloyed contempt for the rule of law, and feels compelled to act only because he is thrall of shadowy Pentagon plotters who invented the entire country of "Syria" out of whole cloth just to help goose up their budgets.
21 comments:
You do realize that Obama is currently lobbying Congress to use military force against Syria, a nation that has not attacked or threatened to attack the United States correct? Surely you're aware that under the UN Charter the only legally justified use of force is in self-defense as defined in Article 51 of the Charter or, absent that, under the authority of a UN Security Council resolution? None of these conditions apply to Syria and yet Obama perseveres in his desire, unilaterally if necessary, to "help" Syrians with US cruise missiles.
Contrary to the desires of his apologists there's no escaping the spectacle of Obama spending what remains of his political capital in an attempt to commit the US to yet another act of aggressive war rationalized by a completely non-existent moral authority.
You do realize that Obama has backed off lobbying Congress to use military force against Syria, a nation with a government that has possibly used Chemical Weapons to kill its own citizens, correct? Surely you're aware that Obama is now trying to pursue diplomatic means of disarming Syria's chemical weapons and not go to war.
Obama Derangement Syndrome is real and kicking amongst our "Libertarians" (closeted Republicans who don't mind men kissing) and our UltraPures™ who simply repeat whatever their idol Saint Glenneth Greenwald says, no matter how foolish or hilariously incorrect.
Keep at it, Greenwald worshipers (one p!)! You're tunnel vision on Obama being worse than Bush because he didn't instantly end every single war Bush Jr. started is fucking hilarious, if slightly tired and arrogantly portrayed as "the only way" to support Freedumb.
Cue Lumpnuts McDumbfuck and his tired "Droneglass" schtick in 5...4...3...
Yes, Coldtype, we fucking get it, Obama is a salivating war-lover no matter what he does and anyone who doesn't agree with every word you say is a running-dog lackey.
I tire of this site not because of its owner but because of its commenters. The wit and wisdom is gone, replaced with sneering hate and condescension towards all who fail to follow the Holy Writ of the Rich White Maledom of the Internet. If I wanted that, I'd just expose my opinions to the people who admit they're right-wingers, rather than the ones who worship the right's cabana boys and still claim themselves as liberals.
The reaction to this Syria crisis has really left me perplexed. It is an extremely complicated situation with people on both sides having committed atrocities. But over on Twitter I can't get away from the mindless "this is the same thing as Iraq... Blah....blah....blah". Can we not all admit that what we want is for NO ONE to use chemical weapons ever again? Yes, I know other have used them in the past, yes I know our own history on WMD, but this is today and we actually have an opportunity to establish precedent regarding any future use, and isn't that a good thing? And can those who are most vocal about being anti-war show at least some semblance that that is what they truly are by being happy that right now Obama is giving diplomacy a chance?
"Because there sure as hell seems to be a lot of people dining out on the theory that President Obama just fucking loves to indiscriminately bomb innocent civilians. For kicks. Especially when those innocent civilians are children or American citizens just puttering around minding their own damn business. It sure as hell seems as though a lot of my friends on the Left with fairly large megaphones are irrevocably invested in the notion that President Obama is defined by an unalloyed contempt for the rule of law, and feels compelled to act only because he is thrall of shadowy Pentagon plotters who invented the entire country of "Syria" out of whole cloth just to help goose up their budgets."
Driftglass,
Show me linky-linky or you stinky-stinky!
"Yes, Coldtype, we fucking get it, Obama is a salivating war-lover no matter what he does and anyone who doesn't agree with every word you say is a running-dog lackey.
I tire of this site not because of its owner but because of its commenters. "
Word...
well, Damian, I dunno if this will help you be less tired of the site (which is, of course, the entire point of the Greenwaldoes; for all their vocal support of open discourse, what they really want is for opposing viewpoints to retire and be quieter. Odd, isn't it, that people who are ostensibly dedicated to open discourse in the public realm would love nothing more than to see people who disagree with them stop talking)....
But in any case I simply love the picture of Spock playing 3D chess.
When I was a proto-geek in high school, I actually built one of those mothers in shop class. I also figured out, from the meager sources available, the rudiments of playing it. It was more complex than normal chess, of course, and because there was no such thing as social media, I couldn't find anybody to play a full game with me.
So there.
It looks like Syria is headed in the right direction. Obama would have looked a lot smarter if he'd have come out originally and said Assad give up your Chemical weapons or get bombed. Instead Obama goes with the "punish" and "degrade" approach that doesn't make a lot of sense to most of us. Then he gets punked by Putin (for the 2nd time-remember the Bolivian President airplane that was hiding Snowden). Now the Administration is scrambling to catch up. No surprise the press is unsympathetic. He looks like an amateur. I can imagine Putin watching the speech last night stroking his white cat and saying to himself "Cold War my ass. President Obama please proceed."
@ n1ck & assorted company.
If you "get it" then surely you're aware that the only reason Obama has backed away from his full-court war press was because Russia yanked the rug out from beneath him by brokering the deal with Assad to place Syria's CW stockpile under lock and key.
@Coldtype:
"his full-court war press" [citation needed] Where has Obama called for a "full-court war press?"
Also, too, did Russia "yank the rug out from beneath him" or demonstrate that they took the threat of the limited strike seriously and wanted to prevent it. Maybe the phrase could be re-written that Putin "grasped at a straw" which Kerry held out.
Oh but it's so much more satisfying to portray Obama as simultaneously being an evil war-mongering wannabe dictator and a credulous dupe, putty in Putin's hands.
"the theory that President Obama just fucking loves to indiscriminately bomb innocent civilians. For kicks.
A 'theory' promoted only by Droneglass -for want of ability to address the actual argument.
The system of U.S. imperialism is underpinned not by 'democracy' but by particular material/class interests (Hint: these do not include 'the people').
Hence no surprise that one president behaves much like another, when all is said and done,... Yes, boys and girls, even the Black guy.
Hence no surprise that one president behaves much like another, when all is said and done,... Yes, boys and girls, even the Black guy.
yeah, right. Both sides do it. funny, I don't recall the huge expansion of health care that Bush sent through.
Racist whiff-of-brimstone-that-sprouted-hands LL posts usual unhinged screed, DG publishes it because he's more of a man than LL will ever be.
'Twas ever thus.
Also, too, did Russia "yank the rug out from beneath him" or demonstrate that they took the threat of the limited strike seriously and wanted to prevent it. Maybe the phrase could be re-written that Putin "grasped at a straw" which Kerry held out. -marindenver
Well, here's the problem friends: merely threatening to launch an attack against another sovereign nation that hasn't menaced your own is a crime under international law. Therefore, Obama's saber-rattling was in violation of the UN Charter from the get go. Had he actually launched the attack, and there's nothing to say that he still won't--again unilaterally, then he commits the nation to aggressive war... you know, like Bush I & II.
We may therefore view Putin's actions as averting (possibly) further bloodshed that would inevitably result from an illegal US attack. We seem to forget that the only nation among the 198 on Earth that has explicitly threatened to attack Syria is the United States.
Obama changed course. Huzzah.
It is kinda fascinating watching people invent whatever narrative they need in order to avoid challenging their assumptions about who Obama is.
-- Nonny Mouse
Coldtype,
In a sense, Putin did rescue Obama's ass. Obama really did paint himself into a corner with his loose talk of "red lines". Whether he was trapped by circumstance or a false flag planted by some interested party will be revealed in time (I hope).
The problem with your narrative is that Putin did not *stop* Obama from doing anything. He extended an alternative, face-saving course of action and Obama took it. The fact that Obama is content to take a non-military way out of this mess undermines your point. You can invent a chain of events that still makes Obama the villain but that is just storytelling.
We need to watch how honestly the administration treats implantation of the Russian plan. That is the next non-fantasy way of judging Obama's true motives.
-- Nonny Mouse
Glen Greenwald supported Bush's Iraq War? You kidding me? Biggest lie on the page.
Obama also tried to stay in Iraq longer, violating the Bush sofa. Maliki refused to give US troops immunity. Obama checkmated.
All the troops lives, limbs and money lost in the failed Afghan surge, that's on O as well. Ask any Palestinian if O has been any better than a neocon, you'll get the answer the Obots don't want-or care if they get.
And "amspirnational" shows his stupid lying Greenwaldo reality-denying ass: GLENN GREENWALD, CATO INSTITUTE LIBERTARIAN AND OPEN RIGHT-WINGER, SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR AND ADMITTED TO IT IN HIS GODDAMN BOOK.
You are not allowed your own facts here. This is not a place where you get to lie because you support Mr. Rich White Self-Righteous Male. Do I make myself crystal fucking clear?
"Because there sure as hell seems to be a lot of people dining out on the theory that President Obama just fucking loves to indiscriminately bomb innocent civilians. For kicks. Especially when those innocent civilians are children or American citizens just puttering around minding their own damn business. It sure as hell seems as though a lot of my friends on the Left with fairly large megaphones are irrevocably invested in the notion that President Obama is defined by an unalloyed contempt for the rule of law, and feels compelled to act only because he is thrall of shadowy Pentagon plotters who invented the entire country of "Syria" out of whole cloth just to help goose up their budgets."
Driftglass,
I found an actual linky that makes your hyperbolic claim a whole lot less stinky. Below you can view actual lefties discuss how Obama is just as bad as Booosh(!) in every conceivable way. Watch Chris Hedges and Rania Masri pretend that Democratic and Republican Middle East policy are so similar as to be almost indistinguishable. Both of these non- reformed lefties have the nerve to see these similarities w/o viewing the policies from 40,000 feet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_em
As for the size of the megaphone these two unrepentant lefties have access to? Let each judge for herself.
After all that I think my link is broken. Watch the conflating worst than Boosh! lefties here:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10703
"But I also have to ask why it's so important for other people to believe that President Dronekill McWorse-Than-Boosh is a war-hungry sociopath but he clearly isn't?"
I resemble this remark a little so I feel like I should say something here. I don't think Obama is worse than Bush, and certainly is much better than whoever the next Republican president will be.
I do think he is a ruthless war criminal though, also personally corrupt in much the way that Bill Clinton turned out to be. I don't find your point of view illegitimate just unlikely.
Post a Comment