Sunday, May 20, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Federal judge strikes down indefinite detention provisions in NDAA
Christ, this feels good. I mean yeah, an amendment to the constitution may have just been restored, I'm gonna get to that, but I really want to circlejerk and rub this in first. For months, Obama-can-do-no-wrong neoliberals have been telling leftists and civil libertarians that there was nothing wrong with the NDAA. Obama signing some half-assed "trust me!" statement made everything all good. And soon after that, when he signed a "veto" which wasn't really a veto, but what really just amounted to another meaningless statement, progressives latched onto that as well, and proceeded to tell the rest of us to shut up and "come home again."
Well guess what, asshole? If there was nothing shady left in the NDAA, then a federal judge wouldn't have just fucking struck it down as unconstitutional. You were wrong. I just needed to say that before I got started.
Okay so a few months back, journalist Chris Hedges decided to sue the Obama administration over the NDAA. This is that case. And he actually won. This case brought together an epic supergroup of all my favorite intellectuals/activists to testify as plaintiffs. In addition to the involvement of Hedges, there was also Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf, Cornel West, and pentagon papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who all testified.
It's not over yet. The Obama administration has 60 days to appeal, which will probably happen. But at this moment, those fascist provisions cannot be enforced. We still have to wait and see what's going to happen though. I'm a little hopeful though, which is weird, because I haven't felt that in a while.
Amy Goodman interviewed Hedges on Democracy Now this morning. Here's that video. Plus, I pulled some of the most worrying quotes out of the interview from the transcript, in case you don't have time to watch right now. Emphasis mine.
This is very, very, very big news.
Yet Naomi Wolf published in the U.K. Guardian on the eve of the decision as if Obama had not issed the waiver rules - as if indefinite military detentions of U.S. citizens was about to become mandatory, thanks to Obama.
[...]
Has Naomi Wolf published any retraction? This is big news. No.
[...]
Considering that Obama's signing of NDAA led to a hysterical exodus of low-info Democratic and Independent support that probably measurably lowered his approval ratings, and could threaten his re-election - for not somehow magically line-item vetoing the Cheney-esque provision in the annual military funding bill - it is very disturbing that the media has played down what amounts to a very clever legal “3,450-word line-item veto” that he has achieved.
Obama made good on a promise he made in November when he threatened to veto...
Well guess what, asshole? If there was nothing shady left in the NDAA, then a federal judge wouldn't have just fucking struck it down as unconstitutional. You were wrong. I just needed to say that before I got started.
Okay so a few months back, journalist Chris Hedges decided to sue the Obama administration over the NDAA. This is that case. And he actually won. This case brought together an epic supergroup of all my favorite intellectuals/activists to testify as plaintiffs. In addition to the involvement of Hedges, there was also Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf, Cornel West, and pentagon papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, who all testified.
It's not over yet. The Obama administration has 60 days to appeal, which will probably happen. But at this moment, those fascist provisions cannot be enforced. We still have to wait and see what's going to happen though. I'm a little hopeful though, which is weird, because I haven't felt that in a while.
Amy Goodman interviewed Hedges on Democracy Now this morning. Here's that video. Plus, I pulled some of the most worrying quotes out of the interview from the transcript, in case you don't have time to watch right now. Emphasis mine.
BRUCE AFRAN: Well, it’s quite incredible, in a sense, because it’s rare that statutes are struck down completely. Judge Forrest struck down the entire provision of the NDAA governing indefinite detention of civilians and U.S. citizens. She said this provision is overbroad. She said it clearly embraces speech, even if it doesn’t intend to. And she criticized the government severely, because it refused to acknowledge in court that First Amendment activities would not bring someone into a state of indefinite detention. And five times, Judge Forrest asked the U.S. attorney, "Will you agree that First Amendment activities will not bring someone under the scope of this law?" And the government five times said, "We can’t answer that question."
--------
CHRIS HEDGES: And, you know, what’s interesting is, when you look at the polls, there’s almost no support for this piece of legislation at all. I think it’s about 70 percent oppose it. And yet, of course, once again, it passes with bipartisan support. The bill was sponsored by Carl Levin, a Democrat, and John McCain, a Republican. When Dianne Feinstein tried to insert language into the bill that would have exempted U.S. citizens from this process, it was rejected by both the Democratic Party and the Obama White House. And so, I think this is another window into not only the sort of steady assault against civil liberties, whether that’s the use of the Espionage Act, the FISA Amendment Act, the Authorization to Use Military Force Act itself, the PATRIOT Act. And what makes what happened yesterday so monumental is that, finally, we have a federal judge who stands up for the rule of law.
AMY GOODMAN: Now, President Obama signed it, but he was opposed by key members of his administration—for example, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta—
CHRIS HEDGES: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: —FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.
CHRIS HEDGES: That’s what’s so interesting. None of the Pentagon, the FBI, as you—Mueller and everyone else, as you pointed out—none of them supported the bill, even to the extent where Mueller and others were testifying before Congress that it would make their work more difficult. And yet it passes anyway. And it is a kind of—I think it’s a kind of mystery to the rest of us as to what are the forces that—when you have the security establishment publicly opposing it, what are the forces that are putting it in place? And I can only suppose that what they’re doing is setting up a kind of legal mechanism to criminalize any kind of dissent. And Bruce can speak to this a little more. But in the course of the trial, with Alexa O’Brien, US Day of Rage, that WikiLeaks dump of five million emails of the public security firm Stratfor, we saw in those email correspondence an attempt to link US Day of Rage with al-Qaeda. Once they link you with a terrorist group, then these draconian forms of control can be used against legitimate forms of protest, and particularly the Occupy movement.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Obama disingenuously supports same sex marriages, fauxgressive websites declare world peace
Okay so I know the formula for this blog has basically become "Obama should be a better president and this is why I hate everything raaaarrgghh" but I've got a real gripe over this okay. Obama kinda sorta backed same sex marriage today.
Top comment on reddit right now:
This wasn't easy for him? Really? Look at you, look at how many upvotes you're getting. The entire liberal base is rallied now. All the bigots who are upset by this were never going to vote for him anyway. What few right wing responses there have been so far have all been laughingstocks. The latest polls now show that half the country supports same sex marriage. This was a brilliant political move, and Obama knew exactly what he was doing. He chose to drop this one day after Amendment 1 passed in North Carolina (which banned same sex marriages in the state constitution). When progressives were crushed and defeated, he jumped at the opportunity and rode the momentum. So it's really not much different from the DADT repeal. He rode the momentum that was building and took some of the credit, but it's not like he ever fought terribly hard for it. And this isn't even a new tactic, the history of the civil rights movement is filled with examples of shithead politicians abusing this slow and sorry process.
This is a huge thing, but it shouldn't be. There is no logical reason why anyone could oppose same sex marriage. One just doesn't exist, all the "arguments" against it have been dismantled time and time again, and the debate is over. If you are a Democrat, I expect you to support it. Obama has been in office for nearly three and a half years, and it took him this long. He could've done it during the seemingly neverending string of suicides by gay teens in the media, to maybe give bullied kids a little support. He could've done it when the "It gets better" campaign first kicked off. He could've done it during the DADT repeal. No. We had to wait for his views on gay marriage to "evolve." That was his word. He was "evolving." So basically, "put your freedom on hold until I decide it's politically expedient to get my shit together." Meanwhile, war criminal Dick Cheney came out in support of same sex marriage years ago, as well as the entire democratic base well before him.
This was political. Whenever I, or any other responses I've been reading, point this out to people on the internet, it's like they just shut down and get personally offended. It all mostly boils down to, "Why can't you be happy? Stop thinking about so many things and stuff just be happy." Alright, cool. If you can accept the fact that Barack Obama has been lying about his real views for years, that he has waiting until the right opportunity to present them so he could score easy political points -- and you are totally okay with that -- then cool. Just don't pretend to be shocked or angry when some people go and point out that this is nothing more than politics, okay? Just because we're criticizing doesn't mean we don't think this is awesome. This is a huge step. But it's not enough. He could've done so much more. This battle hasn't even started, so stop treating this like we won a marathon. We need to keep kicking him. Obama affirmed that he still thinks this is a states' rights issue. So it's not like he's actually going to do anything. All 44 states that don't allow marriage equality are perfectly within their rights to practice discrimination, and this is just fine with Barack Obama.
I'm reminded of a relevant line of lyrics from The Coup, from their song "Underdogs" -- "They'd tear this motherfucker up if they really loved you." By "They," Boots is referring to people who give support in the form of empty words. And it's true. Those people would tear shit up if they actually gave a damn about the oppressed. By going halfway, Obama chose to enshrine yet another human rights issue into the horrifying history of "states rights." Abortion bans. Interracial marriage. Segregation. Human slavery. If the Democratic party ever wants to regain any shred of decency, it needs to start standing up for things it claims to believe in, at the risk of losing elections. There's a sleeping leftist movement in America with no one to have faith in. This president could've been a leader. He chose to play politics like all the rest.
To close, I'm going to leave you with this inspiring video filled with people who have actually have the balls to fight for human rights. And also, the final line of "Underdogs" -- "I'll tear this motherfucker up since I really love you."
Top comment on reddit right now:
Obama stepped out and supported gay marriage. Now we have to step out and support him. For every independent and conservative vote he just lost, we need to make up for it with an independent or progressive vote.
I am fucking serious as fuck right now. Please don't think this was easy for him. You're going to have to get out there and vote in November, or this doesn't mean shit.
This wasn't easy for him? Really? Look at you, look at how many upvotes you're getting. The entire liberal base is rallied now. All the bigots who are upset by this were never going to vote for him anyway. What few right wing responses there have been so far have all been laughingstocks. The latest polls now show that half the country supports same sex marriage. This was a brilliant political move, and Obama knew exactly what he was doing. He chose to drop this one day after Amendment 1 passed in North Carolina (which banned same sex marriages in the state constitution). When progressives were crushed and defeated, he jumped at the opportunity and rode the momentum. So it's really not much different from the DADT repeal. He rode the momentum that was building and took some of the credit, but it's not like he ever fought terribly hard for it. And this isn't even a new tactic, the history of the civil rights movement is filled with examples of shithead politicians abusing this slow and sorry process.
This is a huge thing, but it shouldn't be. There is no logical reason why anyone could oppose same sex marriage. One just doesn't exist, all the "arguments" against it have been dismantled time and time again, and the debate is over. If you are a Democrat, I expect you to support it. Obama has been in office for nearly three and a half years, and it took him this long. He could've done it during the seemingly neverending string of suicides by gay teens in the media, to maybe give bullied kids a little support. He could've done it when the "It gets better" campaign first kicked off. He could've done it during the DADT repeal. No. We had to wait for his views on gay marriage to "evolve." That was his word. He was "evolving." So basically, "put your freedom on hold until I decide it's politically expedient to get my shit together." Meanwhile, war criminal Dick Cheney came out in support of same sex marriage years ago, as well as the entire democratic base well before him.
This was political. Whenever I, or any other responses I've been reading, point this out to people on the internet, it's like they just shut down and get personally offended. It all mostly boils down to, "Why can't you be happy? Stop thinking about so many things and stuff just be happy." Alright, cool. If you can accept the fact that Barack Obama has been lying about his real views for years, that he has waiting until the right opportunity to present them so he could score easy political points -- and you are totally okay with that -- then cool. Just don't pretend to be shocked or angry when some people go and point out that this is nothing more than politics, okay? Just because we're criticizing doesn't mean we don't think this is awesome. This is a huge step. But it's not enough. He could've done so much more. This battle hasn't even started, so stop treating this like we won a marathon. We need to keep kicking him. Obama affirmed that he still thinks this is a states' rights issue. So it's not like he's actually going to do anything. All 44 states that don't allow marriage equality are perfectly within their rights to practice discrimination, and this is just fine with Barack Obama.
I'm reminded of a relevant line of lyrics from The Coup, from their song "Underdogs" -- "They'd tear this motherfucker up if they really loved you." By "They," Boots is referring to people who give support in the form of empty words. And it's true. Those people would tear shit up if they actually gave a damn about the oppressed. By going halfway, Obama chose to enshrine yet another human rights issue into the horrifying history of "states rights." Abortion bans. Interracial marriage. Segregation. Human slavery. If the Democratic party ever wants to regain any shred of decency, it needs to start standing up for things it claims to believe in, at the risk of losing elections. There's a sleeping leftist movement in America with no one to have faith in. This president could've been a leader. He chose to play politics like all the rest.
To close, I'm going to leave you with this inspiring video filled with people who have actually have the balls to fight for human rights. And also, the final line of "Underdogs" -- "I'll tear this motherfucker up since I really love you."
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Thursday, May 3, 2012
In a symbolic "fuck you" to workers everywhere, President Obama declares May 1st -- May Day -- "Loyalty Day"
Barack Obama issued a proclamation yesterday declaring a day of worldwide protests to be "Loyalty Day." Read the full proclamation here.
Look Barry, you're the president. I get it. You'd like your citizens to be loyal to the country you lead, because it makes your job a lot easier. I haven't read your biography, so I don't know if you've ever been exposed to any political ideas outside the two-party system. If you haven't, that's okay, that's a rarity in the United States. Not your fault. But you're not a dumb guy. I know you're very well read, because I remember seeing photos of you during the 2008 campaign carrying around Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" and Zakaria's "Post-American World." Those are fantastic books. However, I'd hate to sound like one of those Tea Party fucktards, but I really think you should go back a little further and read a little about the American revolution. Now don't read David Barton, he's the "historian" the Tea Party really likes. He makes shit up. Thanks to propagandists like him, Americans think the revolution was tame, civil struggle led by FOUNDING FATHERS (tm) who won by standing in a circle holding hands. Judging by this proclamation you just issued, I'm going to take a guess and assume you think that way too.
This period was the golden age of radicalism in America. Obama's proclamation begins: "More than two centuries ago, our Founders laid out a charter that assured the rule of law and the rights of man." Yeah? Well what about everything that happened before the Constitution was written? It didn't just appear out of thin air. Do you think the patriots who destroyed all those boxes of tea -- property they did not own -- were good, law-abiding, "loyal" citizens? They tarred and feathered tax collectors, and tore down homes of governors brick-by-brick, years before the war even began. It was ugly, it was gruesome, and it was terrible, but all of it needed to happen. America was founded on radicalism and dissent.
I mean, really. I don't think you understand this whole "freedom" concept. My computer's dictionary defines freedom as "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." I don't appreciate you telling me who I should declare my allegiance to. Here's a quote from Roderick T. Long.
And as of May 1, 2012, President Obama's Loyalty Day Proclamation joins those top un-American documents. Just say it out loud. "Loyalty Day." It's fucking Orwellian.
The proclamation ends: "NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands."
No. Paine said "The world is my country" and I'm not pledging allegiance to any fucking government. Governments are necessary evils at best. They are nothing more than artificial entities, and people always hold the right to abolish them whenever they become destructive. This is straight out of the Declaration of Independence, and it's probably going to get me put on a list. I keep saying that America was founded on "radicalism." But the idea that all human beings should be free shouldn't be considered "radical" at all. What's truly radical and dangerous is the leaders of a corporatist government telling me that I'm loyal to them without bothering to ask me for my consent. What's radical is those leaders perpetuating lies to invade countries and massacre countless thousands in the name profit and global influence, and then say they're doing it to make people "free."
I'm pissed off. This shouldn't be such a big deal, but I'm fucking pissed. As always, Mumia expresses my anger better than anything.
Look Barry, you're the president. I get it. You'd like your citizens to be loyal to the country you lead, because it makes your job a lot easier. I haven't read your biography, so I don't know if you've ever been exposed to any political ideas outside the two-party system. If you haven't, that's okay, that's a rarity in the United States. Not your fault. But you're not a dumb guy. I know you're very well read, because I remember seeing photos of you during the 2008 campaign carrying around Goodwin's "Team of Rivals" and Zakaria's "Post-American World." Those are fantastic books. However, I'd hate to sound like one of those Tea Party fucktards, but I really think you should go back a little further and read a little about the American revolution. Now don't read David Barton, he's the "historian" the Tea Party really likes. He makes shit up. Thanks to propagandists like him, Americans think the revolution was tame, civil struggle led by FOUNDING FATHERS (tm) who won by standing in a circle holding hands. Judging by this proclamation you just issued, I'm going to take a guess and assume you think that way too.
This period was the golden age of radicalism in America. Obama's proclamation begins: "More than two centuries ago, our Founders laid out a charter that assured the rule of law and the rights of man." Yeah? Well what about everything that happened before the Constitution was written? It didn't just appear out of thin air. Do you think the patriots who destroyed all those boxes of tea -- property they did not own -- were good, law-abiding, "loyal" citizens? They tarred and feathered tax collectors, and tore down homes of governors brick-by-brick, years before the war even began. It was ugly, it was gruesome, and it was terrible, but all of it needed to happen. America was founded on radicalism and dissent.
I mean, really. I don't think you understand this whole "freedom" concept. My computer's dictionary defines freedom as "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." I don't appreciate you telling me who I should declare my allegiance to. Here's a quote from Roderick T. Long.
“The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by the nationalist socialist Francis Bellamy. The term ‘allegiance’ refers to the duty of obedience and subordination that medieval serfs owed to their feudal lord – their ‘liege.’ The American founders, by contrast, waged and won a revolution against the Old World idea that we owe allegiance to our governments; the United States was founded on the opposite principle, that our governments owe allegiance to us. The founders would have been horrified to learn that two centuries after the American Revolution, schoolchildren would be forced to recite loyalty oaths to the government. The Pledge of Allegiance is one of the most blatantly un-American documents ever written.”
And as of May 1, 2012, President Obama's Loyalty Day Proclamation joins those top un-American documents. Just say it out loud. "Loyalty Day." It's fucking Orwellian.
The proclamation ends: "NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2012, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands."
No. Paine said "The world is my country" and I'm not pledging allegiance to any fucking government. Governments are necessary evils at best. They are nothing more than artificial entities, and people always hold the right to abolish them whenever they become destructive. This is straight out of the Declaration of Independence, and it's probably going to get me put on a list. I keep saying that America was founded on "radicalism." But the idea that all human beings should be free shouldn't be considered "radical" at all. What's truly radical and dangerous is the leaders of a corporatist government telling me that I'm loyal to them without bothering to ask me for my consent. What's radical is those leaders perpetuating lies to invade countries and massacre countless thousands in the name profit and global influence, and then say they're doing it to make people "free."
I'm pissed off. This shouldn't be such a big deal, but I'm fucking pissed. As always, Mumia expresses my anger better than anything.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Democracy Now May Day Special
May Day is a global holiday to celebrate left-wing and labor movements. It takes place on May 1st, the anniversary of the Haymarket riot in 1886 in Chicago. A bomb was thrown by an unknown person, which killed a police officer. Seven anarchists were rounded up, framed, and executed, and their sacrifices became a rallying cry. May 1st has been an international leftist holiday ever since. Workers are encouraged every year on this day to strike work, school, and any other obligations they may have towards the state/system/man/whatever.
I went into work today because, you know, gotta get paid. And it's not like I do much anyway, it's an internship. My boss, however, "worked from home" today because of "family issues." She's also fairly young, and cool as shit. So who knows what her real reasons were, right? Right?
Anyway, today's Democracy Now was dedicated to May Day. Amy Goodman may report the news professionally in an unbiased manner, but she's actually a very adamant leftist in her personal opinions, and always covers stories that leftists care about. Occupy Wall Street used today to kick off their movement again after the winter lull, and Goodman had a great panel on to discuss it, which included Chris Hedges. They mainly talked about where the movement was going, and on what strategies should actually be used. Hedges reiterated his disgust for the black bloc (Which he writes about here. The article sparked a huge rift in OWS, which, as Amin Husain says here, "almost derailed us." I wrote my opinion about it here, and I'm not sure if I agree with all of what I said anymore. This was a big thing.) This is an extremely interesting discussion, and you should watch it. Happy May Day.
I went into work today because, you know, gotta get paid. And it's not like I do much anyway, it's an internship. My boss, however, "worked from home" today because of "family issues." She's also fairly young, and cool as shit. So who knows what her real reasons were, right? Right?
Anyway, today's Democracy Now was dedicated to May Day. Amy Goodman may report the news professionally in an unbiased manner, but she's actually a very adamant leftist in her personal opinions, and always covers stories that leftists care about. Occupy Wall Street used today to kick off their movement again after the winter lull, and Goodman had a great panel on to discuss it, which included Chris Hedges. They mainly talked about where the movement was going, and on what strategies should actually be used. Hedges reiterated his disgust for the black bloc (Which he writes about here. The article sparked a huge rift in OWS, which, as Amin Husain says here, "almost derailed us." I wrote my opinion about it here, and I'm not sure if I agree with all of what I said anymore. This was a big thing.) This is an extremely interesting discussion, and you should watch it. Happy May Day.
Obama goes full Republican
If Republicans had one surefire strategy for the last decade, it was abusing the painful memories of 9/11 for political gain. Here's an example. This was played at the RNC in 2008. Olbermann reaction at 2:50.
Fucking repulsive.
This makes every Republican effort for attacking Obama's new ad a laughingstock. They have no right to do it. Here's Obama's new ad, where he brags about killing Osama bin Laden.
I don't even think it was his capitalizing on bin Laden's death that pisses me off the most. Because Republicans sure as hell aren't giving him any credit for it, and heck, maybe he deserves it a little. What pissed me off was a few other things. First, Clinton says:
Cue photo of shadowy Obama staring out of a window in careful thought. If there was any doubt Obama was making this about himself, Clinton obliterates it. "Suppose they'd been captured or killed. The downside would've been horrible for him." For him? What about the SEALs who would've been capture or killed? They would've died. That might've been a pretty horrible downside too.
But this absolutely blows my mind.
FUCKING GOOD. Just like Joe Biden, or Obama's Secretary of Defense, who were both against going into Pakistan to get bin Laden. Right? You gonna make an ad attacking them now? What the hell am I even reading? Republicans are the anti-war guys, suddenly? And Democrats think that's bad? Am I in fucking bizarro world? Doesn't anyone fucking notice this?
Look I don't know if the bin Laden hit was the right call or not, but there were legitimate reasons not to do this. If you don't think there were any consequences to this, then you're just ignorant to what's been going on. For one thing, Pakistan is supposed to be our ally. We invaded and launched a military attack on their territory. Yeah they were sheltering bin Laden and they're fucking shitheads, but they're also a foreign government, and if you do things without taking into account what their reaction would be, then you're fucking stupid. There were serious whispers of a military coup afterwards. They cut off ground supplies for NATO troops into Afghanistnan. This was our only land-route into the country. It's honestly a miracle things turned out so well in the end. I'm certainly not complaining about the fucker being fish food, heck go back and read my post about it, I was goddamn ecstatic. But it was still pretty damn reckless, and it demolished U.S.-Pakistani relations. It's hard to even call ourselves "allies" anymore, if that title was ever legitimate in the first place. Our entire foreign policy with them consists of "yeah we're doing this and you can't do anything about it." We just stepped up drone attacks in their country again a couple weeks after they demanded they be stopped. They're saying this violates their sovereignty, which is 100% correct. Small wonder their military is so sympathetic to people who are willing fight invaders who blow up Pakistani homes and families.
Republican Senator Ryan Zinke (who was a SEAL himself) said, "The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable." And he's right. I'm agreeing with a Republican. What I don't understand is why Republicans suddenly hate "war presidents," and why democrats suddenly love them. What the fuck is even happening. Mitt Romney isn't going to let his street cred take this hit though, saying yesterday that "even Jimmy Carter" would've ordered bin Laden's death. YEAH BIG WHOOP, OBAMA. HEY GUYS, REMEMBER HOW JIMMY CARTER IS A FUCKTARD? JIMMY CARTER. If this election is just going to be a dick-waving contest to see who's most enthusiastic about killing people, then it only makes me more glad I'm voting third party. Let's start talking about restoring our civil liberties now that bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is in shambles, guys. Guys?
Fucking repulsive.
This makes every Republican effort for attacking Obama's new ad a laughingstock. They have no right to do it. Here's Obama's new ad, where he brags about killing Osama bin Laden.
I don't even think it was his capitalizing on bin Laden's death that pisses me off the most. Because Republicans sure as hell aren't giving him any credit for it, and heck, maybe he deserves it a little. What pissed me off was a few other things. First, Clinton says:
"Suppose the Navy SEALs had gone in there and it hadn't been bin Laden. Suppose they'd been captured or killed. The downside would've been horrible for him [Obama]. But he reasons, 'I cannot in good conscience do nothing.' He took the harder, and the more honorable path."
Cue photo of shadowy Obama staring out of a window in careful thought. If there was any doubt Obama was making this about himself, Clinton obliterates it. "Suppose they'd been captured or killed. The downside would've been horrible for him." For him? What about the SEALs who would've been capture or killed? They would've died. That might've been a pretty horrible downside too.
But this absolutely blows my mind.
FUCKING GOOD. Just like Joe Biden, or Obama's Secretary of Defense, who were both against going into Pakistan to get bin Laden. Right? You gonna make an ad attacking them now? What the hell am I even reading? Republicans are the anti-war guys, suddenly? And Democrats think that's bad? Am I in fucking bizarro world? Doesn't anyone fucking notice this?
Look I don't know if the bin Laden hit was the right call or not, but there were legitimate reasons not to do this. If you don't think there were any consequences to this, then you're just ignorant to what's been going on. For one thing, Pakistan is supposed to be our ally. We invaded and launched a military attack on their territory. Yeah they were sheltering bin Laden and they're fucking shitheads, but they're also a foreign government, and if you do things without taking into account what their reaction would be, then you're fucking stupid. There were serious whispers of a military coup afterwards. They cut off ground supplies for NATO troops into Afghanistnan. This was our only land-route into the country. It's honestly a miracle things turned out so well in the end. I'm certainly not complaining about the fucker being fish food, heck go back and read my post about it, I was goddamn ecstatic. But it was still pretty damn reckless, and it demolished U.S.-Pakistani relations. It's hard to even call ourselves "allies" anymore, if that title was ever legitimate in the first place. Our entire foreign policy with them consists of "yeah we're doing this and you can't do anything about it." We just stepped up drone attacks in their country again a couple weeks after they demanded they be stopped. They're saying this violates their sovereignty, which is 100% correct. Small wonder their military is so sympathetic to people who are willing fight invaders who blow up Pakistani homes and families.
Republican Senator Ryan Zinke (who was a SEAL himself) said, "The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable." And he's right. I'm agreeing with a Republican. What I don't understand is why Republicans suddenly hate "war presidents," and why democrats suddenly love them. What the fuck is even happening. Mitt Romney isn't going to let his street cred take this hit though, saying yesterday that "even Jimmy Carter" would've ordered bin Laden's death. YEAH BIG WHOOP, OBAMA. HEY GUYS, REMEMBER HOW JIMMY CARTER IS A FUCKTARD? JIMMY CARTER. If this election is just going to be a dick-waving contest to see who's most enthusiastic about killing people, then it only makes me more glad I'm voting third party. Let's start talking about restoring our civil liberties now that bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is in shambles, guys. Guys?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
