Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama’s Right Turn
NEW YORK - Human rights and open government advocates were heartened by President Barack Obama's pledge during his first week in office to create "an unprecedented level of openness in government" and "establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration".
![[Vice President Joe Biden listens to U.S. President Barack Obama during a signing ceremony for the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington June 22, 2009. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/obamasrightturn.jpg "obamasrightturn.jpg")
But now, well into Obama's second 100 days in office, many are expressing outrage and disappointment that many of the president's decisions have followed the path of his predecessor, President George W. Bush.
The Obama administration has invoked the "state secrets" privilege several times to prevent lawsuits dealing with "extraordinary renditions" and warrantless wiretapping from ever being heard in court. Justice Department lawyers have argued that detainees at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan have no right to challenge their detention.
The government has also caved to Democrats and Republicans in Congress to keep any of the Guantanamo Bay detainees from ever entering the U.S., even though the Defense Department has cleared these men for release and declared that they present no threat to U.S. national security.
Reliable reports suggest that Obama is considering "indefinite detention" for GITMO detainees who cannot be tried in U.S. courts because the evidence against them was obtained through torture.
The government has gone to court to appeal a court ruling ordering the release of a 2004 report from the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) describing the harsh treatment of prisoners in the agency's secret prisons. And the new president has refused to make public photographs reportedly depicting abusive interrogations at these and other government detention centers.
Obama recently rejected a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies because the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications".
On the issue of electronic surveillance, the new president has not repudiated the Bush-era executive orders supporting warrantless wiretapping and the legal opinions used to support them. Obama has resisted a "truth commission" to investigate former officials who allegedly broke the law and committed crimes, saying he would rather look forward than back.
Government lawyers asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought on behalf of a couple who were placed on a terrorist watch list.
And when watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the Justice Department seeking records related to former vice president Dick Cheney's interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the "outing" of CIA operative Valerie Plame, the Justice Department declined to turn over the records.
IPS interviews with human rights and open-government advocates produced few explanations of the president's actions, beyond calls for him to live up to his promises.
But some have offered insights as to the "why" of what they see as Obama's u-turn.
Among them is Professor Francis A. Boyle of the University of Illinois law school. He told IPS, "After winning the Democratic Party against Senator Clinton by appealing to its progressive wing, Obama immediately veered far to the right and co-opted all of the Clinton people into his campaign and then administration. So what we are seeing now is a third Clinton term with a continuation of many of the same foreign and domestic policies pursued by the Bush Jr. administration."
He added, "This has little to do with personnel and personalities. It has to do structurally with the preservation and further extension of the American empire abroad that necessarily requires the further consolidation of an American police state at home," he said.
"Hence the Obama administration has continued to ratify the illegal and unconstitutional policies of the Bush administration in court cases across the board, while escalating the Bush admistration's imperialist intervention into Afghanistan and now expanding it into Pakistan."
Another explanation came from Michael Ratner, president of the Centre for Constitutional Rights, which has mobilised dozens of pro-bono lawyers to represent Guantanamo prisoners.
"Why did Obama make promises about less secrecy, transparency and a narrowed state secrets privilege and proceed to have his administration assert positions and back legislation that was directly contrary to those promises?" he asked rhetorically in response to an IPS question.
"In the U.S., we complain about Chile hiding the crimes of the Pinochet regime, or Germany hiding the Nazi crimes or Russia the crimes of the KGB, yet where is the screaming when President Obama hides the war crimes of the Bush administration?"
His answer: "In part, the recent blatant assertions of secrecy are to hide crimes of former and some current officials. That is why President Obama is keeping the torture photos hidden. That is why he is continuing to assert broad state secret claims to try and hide the rendition program."
"That is why the 2004 CIA report on the secret site interrogations will be released with heavy redactions. Not only would the photos and documents implicate the Bushies, but remember some of those abuses were apparently committed by units under the command of the recently appointed commander in Afghanistan, General (Stanley) McChrystal," Ratner noted.
"Some of the crimes were allegedly approved or committed by the current deputy director of the CIA, Stephen Kappes, who is keeping his job," he added. Chip Pitts of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee offers another perspective. He told IPS, "There are undoubtedly elements of truth in each of the theories - or excuses - I've imagined or heard for the president's broken January promise."
"But the hedging and retaining litigation and other exceptions, instead of restoring the full presumption of transparency and openness in interpreting FOIA, are as disappointing as the hedging and retaining exceptions on other core planks of the rule of law, such as the prohibition on torture, military commissions, preventive detention, and maintaining ubiquitous surveillance."
He added, "The free information flows and social networking technologies in the Iranian protests are only the latest indication of transparency's new historical power. Obama himself recognized in that context the new meaning for Martin Luther King's injunction that ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but bends toward justice'."
"Obama would be better advised to be on the right side of that history than on the side of darkness and cover-up," he said.
A more hopeful note comes from Peter M Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University. He notes that the Bush administration "had the most ambitious view of executive power in history. Bush sympathizers see little difference in the Obama administration. Bush's detractors, in some respects, agree."
But the truth, he says, is probably closer to the Obama administration casting aside some of the Bush administration's more audacious claims while "still struggling to find a consistent stance with regard to its philosophy of executive power."
How the new administration will ultimately resolve its conflicts between secrecy and open government remains to be seen. But, as President Obama said over the weekend in relation to the current Iranian conflict, "the world is watching".
90 Comments so far
Show AllThe comment has often been made that the First Amendment not only guarantees Freedom of Religion, but also guarantees Freedom FROM Religion.
Using that argument, does the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom of Speech, also guarantee the Freedom TO HEAR speech?
That is the argument all those right-wing nutjobs on talk radio use. I don't know if it's ever been tried in court though.
I agree that Obama has take a more conservative bend. However, this commentary and post brings to light two crucial points.
A) As the Good Book says "Call No Man 'Father'". The progressive movement have to stop looking for a Hippie Jesus We have to stop 'praying' for some left wing Superman to wipe away all our problems. No matter who you vote for, the pressures of office, political expediency and and general gotchas make all politicians fail us in some way. Nobody is perfect and most progressive ideas are too complex and politically risky for any elected official to get behind without thinking about losing his job or in the case of Obama, getting shot.
And for my Naderites, anarchists and New Wave communists on CD, guys like Chomsky, Nader and Kuicinich would be forced to back peddle on many things too. That is, if they didn't try to ram things down Congress' throat Bush-style and cause a bigger mess. Which leads me to...
B)We can't win the war against the Right be trying to be like the right, in policies or practice. Just as it deserves note that Obama pulling a Bill Clinton right now, he would just as bad a president if he kept Left principles but employed Bush/Cheney style fiat. No matter how much you fight for 'justice', the key to democracy is that right wing neo-Nazi and the gas mask wearing anarchist both equal seats at the table. If Obama were to enact the 10 Green Party Principles through executive order (which is what Nader said he would do in 2000) he would play right into Rush Limbaugh's hands. He'd instantly tear the country apart for trying to force his will on people, even though he would correct. Obama will get further in reform getting everyone to work together than declaring open war on corporate America and religious conservatives.
C) You have to be the change you wish to see. If we want to see universal healthcare, don't expect Obama or anyone else to lead the charge. Like I said in point A, a politician who would take on the HMO's and big Pharma head on is either completely nuts, completely full of crap or knows full well that if she takes on the giants, her 'posse' (aka the voters) have her back. It would be even nuttier to go in halk cocked against these guys if you and they know that the country is damn near broke.
If you want Obama and the Dems to take on these industries, and the corporate oligarchs in general, you have to build a real grassroots movement that will be too big to ignore. And by 'grassroots movement', it will have to go beyond your favorite coffee shop, the ISO meeting at the alternative music store or the college campus down the street. And despite posting to a left of center news site, blogging and whining to your buddha cypher isn't enough. Hell, its barely anything.
Organize your neighbors and force your Congressman and Senators to bring the issue to the table. Let's protest our state houses. Organize, meet your neighbors (even the McCain loving Bubba down the street) and push the issue. One of my co-workers would probably sign on to single payer health care if he could be convinced that he wouldn't be waiting for 3 months to get a flu shot and that his taxes wouldn't skyrocket. But its up to guys like me to talk to him over coffee.
Obama is far from perfect, but the fight for a better tomorrow didn't end on January 20th, it only just begun. You want to change the direction of this country -- take responsibility and change it.
Cappadonna - You point out in point B) that we cannot 'be like the right, in policies or practice'.
And that is precisely why we will lose every time.
Until we are will to fight as dirty, as nasty and as viciously as they do, the progressive mindset will never have a chance.
So maybe there is something to 'the best defense is a good offense' after all...
Walk in peace.
Agreed. Why the hell should you be trying to give your opponent flowers during a fist fight? You're going to get knocked out and laughed at...kinda like progressives are in this political arena.
This country was founded on lies, oppression and murder...just ask the Native American Indians, the African Americans and the poor immigrants that were used, abused and killed for the rich Europeans who ruled with their iron fists! What better Judas than Obama?
Turn to the right, return to the diaper table...Great accompanying picture of the compulsive hyper extensive head tilt of Obama - "See, I'm a bigger better boy grandma!" W matured emotively to 5 with semi-major infantilisms, I'll Bombya Too: emotively matured to 12 with minor infantilisms. How have you done? Having to agree with Bly on the Sibling Society...is there an adult out there anywhere?
The only way to defeat the U.S. corrupt Gevernment is to tell your boss, Do not take taxes out of my pay check. He will say the law said I have to. Then tell him to not take the taxes and at the end of the tear give you a 1099 form. If everyone in this country will do this, then at tax time dont file. Everyone must do this. Then we can get our Government back. No military firing on civilians in the streets. The sicko politicans will be worried about how they will be getting the money to pay them for nothing and their medical bills. They dont spend their money, they spend the tax payes for their personal things. Lets wipe these scumbags out.
"Obama’s Right Turn"
Heck, he's even taken up golf.
Good one!
I'm starting to feel like Bush was a better person in some ways than Obama because he kept to his guns. But maybe he really disappointed his base as well. He only had a thirty percent approval rating in the end and that was probably the hard core constituency of the right. But just like Obama has with this economic crisis, he had a seventy percent approval during the Sept. 11th crisis. That approval seems to largely be a reflection of bad times, not a good president.
THIS ARTICLE IS WRONG. OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS NEVER TURNED TO THE RIGHT.
THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND OBAMA HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ULTRA-RIGHT WING, JUST LIKE REPUBLICANS !!
AND THE USA GOVERNMENT IS AN ULTRA-RIGHT WING GOVERNMENT BY DEFAULT.
Obama and The Democratic Party has never shifted to the ultra-right wing. Because of the fact that both of the US establishment, status quo parties are ultra-right wing by default. The only thing that could change the US government from an ultra-right wing government toward a social-democrat, people's government is a violent-revolution, just like Marx wrote about. You can't democratize a country without a violent-revolution.
comment deleted by author
Our government has long hid the crimes of the CIA in order to
presevere the ability to commit those crimes.
Only Michael Moore has spoken about them and woken up a few
people in theaters.
However, those who are still waiting for the idiot box to
tell them something never hear what Michael Moore has told
them -- and it needs to be repeated every day to combat the
wasteland of right-wing propaganda that drones out from the
box daily.
Propaganda is a matter of constant repetition.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Our government has long hid the crimes of the CIA in order to
presevere the ability to commit those crimes.
Only Michael Moore has spoken about them and woken up a few
people in theaters.
However, those who are still waiting for the idiot box to
tell them something never hear what Michael Moore has told
them -- and it needs to be repeated every day to combat the
wasteland of right-wing propaganda that drones out from the
box daily.
Propaganda is a matter of constant repetition.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Doesn't anybody wonder if this type of thing isn't at least a little bit the result of the covert intelligence and influence that comes with the office? When a man steps into the office he suddenly steps into a world of intrigue that no one else on the planet can fully know or appreciate. Suddenly, all the established intelligence agencies, the Secret Service, the CIA, CFR and other "associations" dominate the landscape, and they, not you, have the president's undivided attention - direct access to the most powerful man in the land, with no public review, no oversight from anyone, no disclosure required other than "for the President's eyes only."
The office has been corrupted for decades. Many here on this forum understand how our whole government has been corrupted. Why is it so hard to believe then this corrupting influence could be rooted within the office of the presidency itself? Many believe 911 was an "inside" job. If that is true, and "they" could execute that atrocity with exacting precision and then impunity, why would this be such a stretch? Many believe JFK's assassination was a conspiracy, which would have had to involve people at the highest levels, either beforehand or afterward or both, so why is this such a stretch? If corrupting influences could be that successful over 45 years ago...
Many on this forum want to make me out to be an Obama apologist. I am not. I'm trying to act as a deconstructive voice, to get folks to focus on issues more than personalities, to consider the difference between normative and positive statements, to think more critically and dig deeper beneath the surface, and to realize generally, just as with making movies in Hollywood, that most of what goes on is not in front of the camera but behind the scenes.
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar, and other times, taking things at face value is the most naïve thing we can do. Given how our nation's politics has consistently moved further right, even against the tide of popular opinion, don't you think we should start figuring that there's something more going on here than meets the eye?
Republicrats, phooey! Libertarian for me.
Libertarians are Republicans that like to smoke dope.
Your free-market religion has failed. Time to grow up.
Bring America Back !!!!.....Barak Obama has kept one important campaign promise---He has adopted a wonderful pet dog into the White House (not exactly a puppy dog as promised), for the benefit of his daughters.
**What we are seeing is a one-term wonder, a four year Prez, who in only 5 months has betrayed his constituency enough to prove he deserves but one term of High Office.
**Obama will go the way of Jimmy Carter and H>W> Bush, read my lips=====complete failures in 1 term only ! I agree with Shiblikov that these betrayals will have a cumulative impact in the future, and will bring down this man.
**Not very good when we look to his legacy being his pet dog, and a wife that set the fashion world all abuzz !
Pitiful !
The current administration rescinded some 77 gas and oil eases near Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park since they recently took office. That is at least some change from the Bush Orcs. It’s a small something that pleases the shit out of me and if you’ve been to or ever driven through the area you will know why. After the wanton greed and cretinism of the previous administration it is nice to know that something is different in this land of wonderment. Now if we can just get the rest of this nonsense on track it would be a wonderful thing but change doesn’t come easy to the physical land or the political and mental landscape. We are just as the wind that blows through the canyons; it takes time to wear down the rock of ignorance that is pervasive and the haughty self-image of a chosen nation. My point is that this administration, however flawed, is not as appalling on all fronts as was their predecessor. Some people approach things as if they are entitled to immediate satisfaction. Ain’t gonna happen but I do know that ANWR is still pristine and that’s something to crow about. Anyone who thinks this administration is on par with the previous war criminal mentality is drinking another kind of kool-aid. Stick to the Jim Beam; you can sober up from that.
Those decisions can be reversed in the future. I think he is throwing peanuts to the environmental folks out there.
But those peanuts are better than nothing to those that are starving and we have been starved over the last eight years… And Arches & Canyonlands is not mere peanuts. It is the most stark and in its own way, beautiful territory that I have seen in my many travels across this land of ours. To save that from desecration is more than one could hope for. But I agree more could be done…
Some of us were ridiculed on CD last year for predicting the course of action Obama would follow, and pleaded with liberals and progressives to stop voting for the "lesser of two evils," and start voting for the "better of the best," and were told, "third parties can't win."
"Third Party?" The R's and D's are hardly distinguishable anymore. The Republicans lie so much they actually believe what they say, but the Democrats, never wanting to offend them, put on a charade of opposition, making sure the votes come up a little short for meaningful legislation.
Obamamania (contrived by the masterful propagandists in MSM) is beginning to wear off, and now the progressive community is lamenting on Obama's positions.
My proudest vote ever, was for Cynthia McKinney, the Green Party's candidate for President of the United States, last year. Too bad she lost the election.
If any of you are truly liberal and progressive and want to change the system, then please leave the Democratic Party and join the Greens and help us make this country and this planet a better place for all.
Check out the Green Party and our key values.
I too voted for Cynthia.
I switched my party affiliation to the Dems from the Greens so I could vote for Obama against Clinton in the primaries. At the time, it seemed Obama was at least better than Clinton. Now it seems there is utterly no difference.
For a moment I considered voting for Obama, that is, until he clinched the nomination and immediately kissed the ass of AIPAC, reversed his position on domestic spying, and amped up his talk about expanding war in Afghanistan.
A lot of people think I am too idealistic. That I won't vote for someone unless they share ALL of my values.
They are wrong. I would have voted for Obama if he would have stood for ONE of my values. He stood up for none of them. No universal healthcare. No end to war or imperialism. No end to torture and extraordinary rendition. No prosecution of war criminals. A continuation of Bush's faith-based initiative. No meaningful environmental protections.
New Christian imperialist same as the last Christian imperialist...
He may not mangle the English language, but he sure has no problem mangling Afghani children.
I will continue to support the Green party until the rest of the "progressives" come to their senses.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
We talked about this a lot Peaceman.
Please tell me when the Greens come up with a way to unite progressives and the rest instead of splitting our power and votes. There are many 3rd parties.... too many to change the seesaw we are on.
If the repubs would have won then progressives would be forced to favor the next Dem. Clinton or Obama again for the next round.
Now if we work we can go way beyond Obama and the Dems.
Jim: We did talk about this a lot and as I said then and say now, that if enough progressives left the Dems and joined the Greens, we would then become the "alternative" party to the Repugs. Yes...there are many 3rd parties, which I think is good for the nation as a whole...and I'm all for IRV (instant runnoff voting)....but as long as progressives goose step to the drums of the Dems, they will be marginalized and taken for granted. You've been around awhile, and know it's true. I remember when you jumped on me about my little diatribe at the union hall last year, when I offered to use the 'Teamster's For Obama' tee shirt as a chamois and offered to polish somebody's car.. I sent a personal email to Barbara Boxer about EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act) and she didn't respond. Feinstein is a closet Republican so why waste time with her? And what are the Democrats doing about the John Conyers HR 676, Single Payer Bill? And EFCA, for that matter. But for fleecing us and giving our honestly earned money to the biggest bunch of con artists and swindlers the world has ever seen...the Wall Street banksters...and an insane war making budget for the sociopaths in the Pentagon, the sky is the limit.
Jim, the Greens aren't splitting our power and votes. It's the people who keep voting Democrat, election after election and then lamenting about how they were let down by their representatives that are splitting the progressive vote. What is this article about anyway?
The Dems proved they aren't on our side. "By their votes shall ye know them!"
The Greens split your votes with Nader.
Why all the rhetoric about what we already know and discussed but ignoring the simple fact that just these two progressives did not think it important to unite? This is my point not on what everyone already knows.
I also voted for McKinney and have not yet met another liberal or "progressive" who even knew she was on the ballot or had heard of her. Not one. It's like I voted for Olive Oyl. This has been the fate of third party efforts in this authoritarian country. Everyone knows and basically agrees there is only one party with two wings, both of them on the right side, but few take seriously anything said or done by third parties. As Bill Maher says, the Democrats are the new Republicans and the actual Republicans have all checked into the national mental hospital.
That's why we have this Obama contagion now. Stay committed to a farcical political system, keep getting farcical candidates and administrations. The best we can do is short vids on YouTube satirizing it. Meanwhile, isn't Dancing with the Stars on?
Ephraim: I have a cousin in Florida who wanted to vote for Ralph Nader and asked me why he wasn't running in Florida or on television, campaigning. I did the research and told her which political ticket he was on and she and husband voted for him in November.
Even progressive Democrats like Kucinich and Gravel were denied coverage by monopolistic big media. Only on independent news television and radio programs were their voices heard.
Can anyone really accept any of these pat explanations without having to suspend conscious awareness?
This is an outrageous statement:
" It has to do structurally with the preservation and further extension of the American empire abroad that necessarily requires the further consolidation of an American police state at home"
But it just passes by.
It is a sweeping assault that defies belief considering the explanations or some of Obama's Bush league claims that it would endanger the troops (similar to the claim that we can't consider single payer because so many are so happy with their employer-based coverage...what planet is this jerk on that he thinks he can sell that?).
Reading this article itemizing the truth is enough to provoke outrage not any of Obama's feeble platitudes.
Time to say it again. The governance of these United States is a criminal enterprise.
Not to worry though. Climate change will fix it.
Y'all have a good day now. Ya hear!
What's PUMA for "I told you so"? ;)
A clip I did 8 months ago, entitled "The Democrats' Answer to George W. Bush":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvNkRJ1x-6g
It's delicious to watch the idiots on Democratic Underground and Obamabots in general like Randi Rhodes still try to come up with excuses for this utterly scummy subhuman being, Barack Obama.
We had been warning you tragic people for 2 plus years about how fraudulent and treasonous Democrats truly are but you chose not to listen. You didn;t want Bush's 3rd term, now you're stuck with Cheney's 1st. I hope you choke on it.
comment deleted by author
this whole contrived "Obama betrayal" meme is for people who weren't paying attention during the elections, (to the important things like voting records and pro-war rhetoric), and are just starting to pay attention now... Now that their projection of progressive ideals have worn off of their demogogue...
There have been many of us who were laughed at for daring to look beyond the makeup & rhetoric...
We were Laughed at for seeing him for what he truly represents... Sneered at for being "negative"...
Or an idealist...! Oh, the horror...! That is the thing about integrity, either you have it or you don't...
If you have it, it is easy to recognize it in another person, and notice behavior in others that is inconsistent with their rhetoric... Once you begin to compromise your integrity on some issues for the sake of others, then you are stumbling down a slippery slope of logic as you betray your own virtues...
Then it is easy to be fooled by someone speaking out of both sides of their mouth...
as they will say what ever you want to hear, regardless if they have the intention to honor their word...
For all of those friends that WERE paying attention and knew of Owebama's voting record on FISA, war funding, patriot act II, and his campaign pledge to unilaterally invade Pakistan... Well, congrats...
You chose style over substance, rhetoric over actions, skin color over the content of character...
You help elect the first minority war criminal, and they didn't even have to rig the election this time...!
Now you are left with having to go thru the various stages of recovery if you are conscientious:
shock, denial, anger, frustration, and eventually acceptance of the ugly and aweful truth of the matter:
You have been hoodwinked by flowery rhetoric and coopted by the same corporatist machine...
You must "stay the course" and stand by your man as he continues to "betray" your own ignorant assumptions as to who he really represents...
You must Support his wars in AfPak & bankster bailouts & secrecy laws & every other Bush policy...
For to accept the alternative, that the "liberals" in this country are just as easily duped as the repubes, by some charismatic father figure who told you what you wanted to hear, would be devestating...!
Nobody likes to admit that they have been duped... Especially after spending over $100,000 for a liberal arts degree to justify feeling intellectually superior to the tea-bagger crowd... They would rather continue their fantasy despite all the facts on the ground...
Some of us tried to tell you over a year ago that Obama was a sociopathic fraud but you were too busy drinking the kool aid and getting tingles up your leg.
Now we're stuck with this feckless fool for another three and a half years - thanks a lot.
And I see you still don't get it: your attempt to pin Obama's obvious despotic predilections on Clinton advisors co-opted after his nomination charade is not only shameful, it's downright stupid. Time to wake up and look in the mirror.
Sorry but we didn't have the organization or the votes to change the seesaw.
Look in the mirror and ask yourself what you can do that will work and wake up to reality while your at it.
... That is, of course, one of the Limbaughts who drool and wet themselves when Bush is on one of his speaking tours takes it into his head to 'solve' the 'threat' Obama poses to the corporate PTB and asassinates Obama.
Or at least, that's what the official media lie will be...
Walk in peace.
If Obysmal thinks these multiple betrayals will not blow up in his face, then he's as dumb as George Wanker Bush.
This article hits the main points, yet it's from the Inter Press Service and posted here on Common Dreams. Can it possibly make a difference with most U.S. citizens tuning into the TV news, night after night?
In the world of the tube, Obama is still a confident, poised leader. The tube never tries to characterize that leadership, which is right wing and destroying the Constitution.
We think impeachment or revolution; the tube-heads want Obama's autograph. The Repug right wing is just rabid and crazy, as usual. Alas, it's not Iran here, and it would take that sort of skirmish in the streets - and more - to make the "change we can believe in" actually happen. It would probably take armed resistance to just get single-payer healthcare.
Right now, I'm guessing most people are worried about losing their jobs, and not their democracy. The shock doctrine, as played by the plutocrats, tends to combine economic distress with fascism. While folks may dispute fascism here, it's clear from this article that few Constitutional rights remain in this land.
-TIA
Television, as we have it, is just another form of pollution. It dumps garbage into your eyes and mind on a 24/7 basis.
It is the enemy of clarity that masquerades as high definition.
TV? I unpluged that thing years ago. Life goes better w/o TV!
Ditto.
It occurs to me that perhaps these reversals in policy are proof that it doesn't really matter who we "elect." Whomever it is, doesn't really hold the power to make policy if it would threaten those who really hold the power. If you look at who benefits from Obama's reversals, it looks like it is the CIA, Wall Street and the Pentagon. After all, aren't their interests all related? The amazing part to me is that this has been going on my whole lifetime (over 60 years), and the American people still haven't figured it out. And yet several generations have come and gone and some of the original power brokers (for example the ones who deposed the Shah of Iran) must certainly be dead by now. But still the same manipulation of other countries in the name of "democracy" goes on, and it is accomplished by anti-democratic means and policies. Crosby Stills and Nash sang about it in the 60's. "I wonder who they are, the men who really run this land? I wonder why they run it, with such a thoughtless hand? What are their names and on what street do they live? I'd like to ride right ower this afternoon and give them a piece of my mind, about peaceful mankind. Peace is not an awful lot to ask." When are the American people going to demand their own true democracy back? Congress is so complicit they are now even hesitating to give us any health care! They say it's too expensive, after they just appropriated billions of dollars for the war that Obama promised to end. Why couldn't a million of us demonstrate peacefully and non-violently to demand a fullfillment of the promises we were given? Why couldn't we demand publicly funded elections, so they couldn't be bought? I'd like to live long enough to see it, but sadly, I'm beginning to think I never will.
To Heron June 23rd, 2009 1:03 am, many good things in your comments.
Many folks here on Common Dreams warned during the presidential campaign that Obama would, in keeping with a long and depressing history of presidential servants, merely serve Empire -- which is to say, that he would continue serving and enabling the interests of the very few extremely wealthy owners of most of the real estate, the industries, and the financial wealth and institutions of the nation, and the various machines they use to maintain their rule, such as the military (and its network of some 700+ military bases established on foreign soil) and the intelligence agencies.
The Empire has begun to fail, but the process of its deterioration and eventual collapse will take time. Its hold is so all-pervasive (and that includes a hold on the mind and the knowledge of the average citizen, through its media and its shody elementary and secondary educational institutions) that it is difficult to see how anything can change in depth through the political process in its present state (a state of massive corruption, as we know).
"Why couldn't a million of us demonstrate peacefully and non-violently to demand a fullfillment of the promises we were given?"
because American Idol is about to start.
Because peaceful protest doesn't often get it done. It's going to take armed revolt, as it has throughout history. T. jefferson said something about trees of democracy and the blood of patriots. He was right.
Republicans were the problem.
Democrats were not the solution.
Revolution is the solution.
We need a new government.
BY the PEOPLE!
FOR the PEOPLE!
Remove Corporate Personhood!
Remove Corporate control of OUR great REPUBLIC.
Make a playground and memorial of "k street" for those that twisted lobbyists killed and sickened through deadly anti-american citizen policies of the greedy corporate rulers.
Let go of Empire before it destroys us!
Yep.
Watching the Obama administration is like watching little kids play 'Opposite Day'. Read the rest online, at Bad Subjects: http://bad.eserver.org/upcoming/80/opposite.html
Sounds as though a lot of comments come from those that believe change was voting democrat instead of republican and when sometime at the beginning of 2008 obama pledged full government support for american corporations and the american izraeli public affairs committee and none those 'either or other; democrat or republican' could look beyond either party to vote not just for a 3rd party presidential candidate, but their senator and house representatives from a 3rd party, then I see the reasons for the samo crap from the past several administrations being dished up at the never ending line of crappy governing.
Face it, obama was selected and allowed to become president because the thought had to be that the first black person elected president would ensure that the 'proper' person would sit in the white house carrying on the usual status quo and this very astute list of obama's compliance is evidence that there will be no difference from before.
Could be obama tows the line because he has been told what could happen to him and the only thing to prevent his being knocked off would be to go by the playbook and that book was not written by the people but by the people's enemy number 1 and that is 'big business'.
I won't be voting again, either. People. It's time for a REVOLUTION!
People are scared of the word "revolution".
There can be a peaceful one but it is usually very bloody.
Our Forefathers loved the word because they were not cowards.
We are the biggest scardy cat nation now with no moral authority.
That is why the softer word "Change" was used by Obama.
Now that word so far has been ruined too.
A turn to Common Sense should work...
as judge Leon said in his ruling against torture "the government's stance defies common sense."
I think the people could win with the simple goal of a "Revolution of Common Sense".
We have to organize and work to make it happen because not everyone has common sense and that is why we need it...
Love the Revolution
The French Revolution happened only when most people were starving.
No revolution yet? Things are not bad enough yet.
Cheer up, things well get worse.
I am afraid there is truth in that.
"Pathemata mathemata," said Herodotus. I.e., things suffered are things learned.
Free your mind instead.
How's about physically freeing our butts and taking our mind for along for the ride, huh? I'm sick of pacifists telling us that we need to change ourselves then our governments will change. People are just people. Sometimes, we commit unimaginable acts of altruism and kindness and other times, we commit unspeakable acts of violence and selfishness. This isn't new and it's simply and wonderfully who we are. We are pregnant with the possibilities of both good and evil and no government can ever protect us from or change that.
Governments all throughout history have all followed the same path. People revolt, win, institute a new government that promises to be of 'the people', watch as said government commits repression and violence to consolidate its power, see it grow into a corrupt, vile, and unaccountable morass of power mongers, then people rise up and put in another one to do the same thing.
Let's have an evolution this time. Let's get rid of this government and not put another one in place. Let's try trust and freedom this time. We all know the 'rules'. Don't kill without a damned good reason, don't take other peoples personal possessions and don't hinder people from doing what they want as long as it doesn't physically hurt someone else. We could add 'help others as much as possible' and we'd be just fine. But, there has never been any way to enforce these rules via government violence. Ostracism, shunning, self-defense or refusal to interact with violators has done more to protect us than any government has.
I'm not an old man nor a historical expert and I can see what 'government' is all about. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to have their brains dashed out upon its rocks.
How would envirmnmental abuse, worker abuse, and corporate malfeasance be constrooled under such a non-government.
Aren't most of the abuses we suffer coming from the capitalists corporations? Isn't government itself simply a victim of the same capitalists? Condemned to do their bedding rather than the peoples bidding by virtue of the capitalists stupendous power?
You aer sounding like one of those "libertarians" who call themselves "anarchists".
I don't give a damn what I sound like to you. I love freedom and I love people equally. Besides, corporations are constructs of governments. No governments, no more corporations. Problem solved. Corporations are responsible for more environmental, worker and other abuses than anything else, other than governments.
Capital is another crappy construct. Money isn't even real. It's only worth what you all believe it's worth. If you give the capitalists power because of little green and black pieces of paper they wave around, then more fool you.
Government isn't a victim of anything except it's own success. Whether controlled by so-called capitalists or so-called socialists, it still rules by force and force alone. Might makes right is all it is. If you can get enough people who think like you and want what you want, then have it for yourselves. Isn't that enough?
You sound like someone so obsessed with controlling people that don't do what you think is right that you're willing to take away everyone's freedom to prevent it. And you want to judge me for desiring to live in peace and freedom? What nerve.
Great comments. If only there were more of us that love freedom, most of the problems that plague our country would would dissipate along with the power of the elite.
That won't work unless both all people of the world do the same to their governments at the same time, and all those people also agree on the same few fundamental rules. Meaning, it won't work.
"it won't work."
Say that a thousand times. See if the opposite happens.
Jeez man, face reality. The world, our technology is far too complex to manage without centralized government. As someone commented on this elsewhere, how do you deal with environmental damage from a distant source without government? And that's just one out of tons of examples that I can think up. And if we were to do it, do you think Russia or other dominating countries would follow our wonderful example?
Zmann,"Jeez man, face reality. The world, our technology is far too complex to manage without centralized government". Give me a break. The WTO and the free traders want a world government so they can STEAL & POLLUTE with impunity. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Here is a little quote from TJ "Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste." --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:167
If Jefferson were alive today our government would probably classify him as a terrorist. He would be labeled an Anarchist or a revolutionary by our main street media and his ideas would be considered dangerous. Our government is nothing more that a whore who F---s with anyone who has enough money to afford it. It does not care about we the people, or justice or the environment.
Perhaps you haven't thought things out. Let me give you a few questions to think about before you dismiss federalism as anarchy.
With all this tech why is our government screwing up so badly?
Why are the all polluters big corporations?
Why does the government shy away from punishing these corporations?
If the government had more power to regulate would it use it?
Do you trust your neighbors more that politicians?
Are you satisfied with your government?
I hope you can see that having a strong corrupt federal government is much worse that having a weak corrupt federal government. It is far better to deal with a local council that it is to deal with congress, and by decentralizing you make it a lot more expensive to buy government officials.
I wasn't talking about centralized government of the globe, I was talking about nation-state governments. As to TJ's concerns, that is why we also have 50 state governments and countless thousands of county and municipal governments, which actually affect out day-to-day lives far more than the federal government. But the point remains, they have the force of law on their side; they need only to use it properly.
For most of the questions you asked, my answer is simple: conservatives have been running government for generations, rarely liberals, and really never progressives.
And I do trust my neighbors a bit, but haven't really gotten to know them. I rent a bedroom in a rowhouse barely inside the city limits of DC, and I'm kept so busy with work and running errands I generally don't hang out around here much...there also isn't much of a community here, I think the first neighborhood activity since I moved here 6 months ago is coming next month.
"We all know the 'rules'. Don't kill without a damned good reason, don't take other peoples personal possessions and don't hinder people from doing what they want as long as it doesn't physically hurt someone else. We could add 'help others as much as possible' and we'd be just fine."
sounds like anarchy to me.
BLACK,
I like your idea. Let's have an Evolution rather than another REvolution. Changing governments does little because it still stems from the belief or need in rulers telling YOU how to live. Transcending that notion will have a far greater impact.
Why is anyone surprised after the FISA vote?
You wanted Obama, now you'll have to pay for him.
Unfortunately, I will have to pay for him, too, in addition to having pu up with the abuse from the "realists" that supported him.
Vote Nader. Vote McKinney.
It would help if they and all the progressive candidates united instead of splitting our power and votes.
Oregoncharles
Yes! Unite around someone with a PROVEN record of working for We the People, not for some corporate funded shill that offers up doses of empty, feel-good rhetoric.
A psychology prof told me: people don't like a candidate who is "good." they want a winner, some charisma, not a moral person.
And whistle while you're pissing in THAT wind.
Oregoncharles
So what! I'd rather piss in the wind than support a lesser evil. It's like hostage taking. the more it works, the more they do it.
Think about this:
What if multi-millions of us pissed in the wind all at the same time, all at the same place and refused to stop pissing? Ya think that might get their attention?
What if millions of Americans, fed up with Obama's health care scam just refused to purchase health insurance. Sure, it would be a sacrifice but, you think there aren't going to have to be sacrifices on the road to turning this country around? It's only going to get worse. The more we wait the worse it gets.
Why are we always begging? Why can't we think of one thing we can do that will be equivalent to fighting back. Calling, urging, walking around with signs, etc. are not effective. Haven't you noticed?
A persons right to vote for who they want is never "pissing in the wind", but your attempt to tell us that our vote is pissing in the wind is definitely you pissing in the wind.
and your point is?
The third party vote will be more effective than voting for the party of elite crooks.
But if you vote for crooks
it's so much fun to ridicule third party voters...
If you ridicule third party voters
you're clueless.
Well, having the DEMS in power has been just GREAT!!!!
I cant begin to tell you how pleased I am with the results.
No single payer, likely an unconstitutional(Direct tax) mandate to purchase health insurance from a private entity or get fined. No end to legal and illegal wars(possibly trying to start a new one instead). No end to secrecy. No attempt to restore civil rights. No end to unjustified detention. No drug law reform. No equality. No justice. No excuse.
If you think voting for any third party candidate is pissing in the wind, I will tell you that voting for the DEMS(or REPUGS)is like pissing in a hurricane. I hope you are wearing rain gear.
Sioux Rose
SANITY: Good one!
Apparently Obama studied Constitutional Law not to uphold and defend it but to find ways around it.
I wonder if it's humanly possible to NOT be corrupted by power? It seems so obvious and simple, just do the right thing, listen to your original intentions. It's not that difficult really. Why is it that once the cloak of power gets wrapped around the young enthusiast, and the crown of gold set upon the head, the person disappears and a talking power puppet takes over?
I forget who said it..but a very famous historical figure, a philosopher maybe or some leader..:but it pertained to governance...
"EVERYTHING SECRET DEGENERATES".
this is what the US government is, this is what Obama has become. and will remain.
ever darker, ever more mendacious, ever more craven...ever more secretive........deeper and deeper. until nothing really is left but pure MALICE.
and all the talk about "the world is watching" abotu iran
is like the kettle calling the pot black....worse...for it is the USA that is DIRECTLY , FULLY RESPONSIBLE in its meddlesome ways - for what is happening in Iran as a CONSEQUENCE of US Empire's interferences AgAINST iran's democracy in the 1950's.
the "world is watching". obama says?
he needs to remember the world is AWARE of what the USA HAS DONE with its fingers deep in the pie of every region on earth resulting in political , economic turmoil ...ALL as a result of the American Empire's mendacity and meddling.
who does Obama or american politicians THINK they are FOOLING?
the WORLD? that's a big laugh.
he's really just preaching to the americans, for public and domestic consumption
in order to "preserve" what is LEFT of the DELUSIONS about american "righteousness" and "moral superiority".
that only the most IGNORANT of americans would still be believing.
One might add this to your pertinent comments:
what entitles Obama to speak for the world, when he pontificates to the effect that "the world is watching"?
Does anyone think the Amerindians in the jungle of Amazonia are watching? Does anyone really think the millions of poor peasants in India, thousands of whom have been driven to suicide by the marvels of globalization, are watching? And so forth. I am not blaming these peoples, incidentally. Why should they watch and worry about the internal affairs of the Iranians? Let the Iranians deal with their problems and their own affairs, even if one may not agree with everything that goes on in their land. The only lasting and durable changes in a country are those made by the people of that country out of their own volition and on their own terms (and that includes painful, sometimes very painful, experiences).
This is a tough lesson to learn for the Europerans and the United States, but it is necessary if the world is ever going to become a better place. People must be allowed to work out their own problems in their own ways and given their specific mores and history.
Yeah and after consenting to throw American protesters in cages and effectively denying their rights to free assembly, all Mr. Obama is doing is making himself out to be a big hypocrite. Lets look to our affairs which are not in any kind of democratic order before we start preaching to the world.
Sad, but true.
Here it is in a nutshell, by an expert.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels
29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945
Yes, the truth told by Goebbels is known and being used by our present administration. Not only do they tell lies, they prevent letting anyone examine the truth about torture, wire tapping, deletions of our Constitutional rights and 9/11. We Americans are being lied to all the time and we are so frightened we want to trust our government to protect us.
Anyone else worried about all this hype about us all being volunteers to serve our nation? Are we to be Gestapo and rat on anyone who is not a jolly good patriot who is proud to be an American? We have police everywhere and cameras all around. Big brother is watching. I don't think I am paranoid. This is really what is happening. I fear that my attitude may get me indefinite detention.
"Why did Obama make promises about less secrecy, transparency and a narrowed state secrets privilege and proceed to have his administration assert positions and back legislation that was directly contrary to those promises?"
-because a sucker is born every minute.
"Some of the crimes were allegedly approved or committed by the current deputy director of the CIA, Stephen Kappes, who is keeping his job,"
-why not? Robert Gates and Timothy Geithner kept theirs.
Revelation of the truth endangers national security.
Only lies can keep America safe.
I won't be voting Democratic or Republican ever again.
And saying that as if it meant a shit is pathetic.
"Even casting a vote for the right is doing nothing to support the right, it is only feebly expressing your wish that the right might prevail as it goes by"----Thoreau.