"Fiat money is backed by men with guns; Bitcoin is not. So why should this thing have any value?"--Uber statist economist Paul Krugman.
I share your alarm, Steve, as Rachel Maddow makes very clear the inherent danger posed by Obama's "solution" to detaining so-called terrorists.And for Obama to present his solution in a speech targeted to promote enhancing the rule of law -- that sure is "doublespeak".His "solution" is like BuchCo's attempt to invent a legal justification for torture!Our only hope against this impending Obama tyranny is that Congress will step forward and put a stop to it, as the British Parliament did, or that someone will carry this issue forward to SCOTUS.That Obama would react to the terrorist threat in this manner suggests to me a lack of confidence in his own steps to combat terrorist recruitment and engagement by reducing global tensions generated by his predecessor promoting a US gone wild. Yet with Obama's detainee retention policy, his rendition policy, his escalation policy in Afghanistan, his increase in his military budget, all these should restore and enhance tensions, beyond all contrary expectations. This is change for the worst! It is only a matter of time, the way Obama's policies are taking a turn in the wrong direction, in my view.In Obama, we have elected another paranoiac POTUS, it seems at this point. Is there a war policy difference between Obama and Cheney? Yes, only that Obama is nicer about it, and more articulate, and smiles once in a while!Add to this that the global economic downturn was triggered by Wall Street corruption/greed and US Congressional non-oversight, which will hardly enhance the US under Obama, in the eyes of the rest of the globe.Under the leadership of Obama, it is turning out to be mostly rhetoric with little substance so far. What a dissappointment!!!
Kudos to Rachel for telling it like it is. I could say she is already making penance for the monster she helped create, but I believe she is sincere.It is unfortunate so many truly well-thinking and well-intended liberals were sucked in by this man, only to find he is just a slicker media-savvier authoritarian than Bush-Cheney, but of little substantive distinction.Well said, Perry, too.Eric Blair made the quest to control and manipulate language into such a omnipresent feature of the Big Brother world because he knew how much language matters, especially in the task of masking obvious dark realities behind double talking manipulation.
"It is unfortunate so many truly well-thinking and well-intended liberals were sucked in by this man, only to find he is just a slicker media-savvier authoritarian than Bush-Cheney, but of little substantive distinction."Tyler, Many of us were never "sucked in" and were always critical of the Dems' rhetoric on this issue. We just considered the alternative, which I/we knew to be much worse. McCain/Palin was much more frightening than Obama/Biden.
Sucked-in is sucked-in, Matthews, ya freakin' Obamabot.In all seriousness, I can't believe you think I would put you in that category.Obama is worse because he was a trojan horse for the very policies you claim to have been frightened of getting with McCain. (Palin would have been largely a non-factor, with little or no influence on McCain. Think Quayle).
Obama is taking a more "classical conservative" stance on this issue. In the mold of Burke, he is claiming that the well-being of society is more important than individual rights.As an individual who struggles often with both my libertarian and conservative beliefs, this issue creates problems for me. To be honest, I have less a problem with preventive dentention, than the misuse of power by Obama.
Bob, did you have a problem with the misuse of power by Bush? At least in this case Obama is being transparent enough about his misuse of power, thus enabling those who object to launch a political counterattack armed with full knowledge of a good quantity of the facts.
Of course I had a problem with the misuse of power by Bush. The "imperial presidency" is not a left-right issue. Too many issues are looked at in how we view "modern conservatism" versus "modern liberalism." You are quite right that Obama is showing far more transparency. What I have not seen by a president since... I don't know... Eisenhower (maybe) is a sincere desire to limit the "will to power." Obama did say he wants to have oversight over "his" decisions, and wants the other two branches to be involved. A president actually saying that is a great thing, and a great departure from the Bush years. However, the question remains, are these really "his" decisions. If order is what Obama is seeking, than preventive dentention may be the most pragmatic decision. Lest us not forget, the people we are preventively detaining were picked up on a battlefield. Liberty of soliders versus civilians is not one of the same.
Bob, a complication is that in an insurgency, practically the whole country is the "battlefield", as well as alleged terrorists being practically anywhere on the globe. I think Obama is attempting to deal with this complexity, and finds himself in some cases going back to a similar policy to the Cheney/Bush policy which I criticized incessantly. Now I find myself critical of Obama. Perhaps I would not criticize either one, if I had the inside information and intelligence that they see. Thus, it boils down to trust in order to support policy, or lack of trust to speak out against policy.
Perry, you are quite right that the entire country in an insurgency is a battlefield. And if you take the theory of global counterinsurgency seriously, than you are also quite right, that the entire world can be viewed as a battlefield. However, the people that are still at Gitmo are not just random Afghans and foreign fighters picked up outside Kandahar. These are individuals who were either fighting in the insurgency, or even Uyghur's who were training with the Taliban. Complex it is, but we are not dealing with innocent people either. I put trust in our intelligence community, because despite what people say and think, when it is free of politicization, it is very effective. However, that is a whole other topic! Maybe you're right. Maybe it is trust. But I have no real reason to see Obama taking this stand on the issue. This is not leading us to some facist/tyrannical state. However, the leaglity and manner in which this entire process will be set up must be scrutinized. The president has no right to do this himself, and all three branches need to come together on this. If order is what we seek, prudence is what is required.
Post a Comment