Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama's Latest Effort to Conceal Evidence of Bush Era Crimes
It's difficult to react much to Obama's complete reversal today of his own prior decision to release photographs depicting extreme detainee abuse by the United States. He's left no doubt that this is what he does: ever since he was inaugurated, Obama has taken one extreme step after the next to keep concealed both the details and the evidence of Bush's crimes, including rendition, torture and warrantless eavesdropping. The ACLU's Amrit Singh -- who litigated the thus-far-successful FOIA lawsuit to compel disclosure of these photographs -- is exactly right:
The reversal is another indication of a continuance of the Bush administration policies under the Obama administration. President Obama's promise of accountability is meaningless, this is inconsistent with his promise of transparency, it violates the government's commitment to the court. People need to examine these abusive photographs, but also the government officials need to be held accountable.
Andrew Sullivan, one of Obama's earliest and most enthusiastic supporters, wrote of today's photograph-concealment decision and yesterday's story of Obama's pressuring Britain to conceal evidence of Binyam Mohamed's torture:
Slowly but surely, Obama is owning the cover-up of his predecessors' war crimes. But covering up war crimes, refusing to prosecute them, promoting those associated with them, and suppressing evidence of them are themselves violations of Geneva and the UN Convention. So Cheney begins to successfully coopt his successor. . .
From extending and deepening the war in Afghanistan, to suppressing evidence of rampant and widespread abuse and torture of prisoners under Bush, to thuggishly threatening the British with intelligence cut-off if they reveal the brutal torture inflicted on Binyam Mohamed, Obama now has new cheer-leaders: Bill Kristol, Michael Goldfarb and Max Boot. . . .
Those of us who held out hope that the Obama administration would not be actively covering up the brutal torture of a Gitmo prisoner who was subject to abuse in several countries must now concede the obvious. They're covering it up - in such a crude and obvious fashion that it is actually a crime in Britain.
John Aravosis said Obama's logic was "a bit Bushian." Steve Hynd observes that "Obama Trades Our Principles For Cheneyism." TPM decalres: "Obama falls back on Bushisms." Dan Froomkin writes: "Obama Joins the Cover-Up." I'll just note a few points for now about Obama's efforts to keep these photographs concealed:
(1) Think about what Obama's rationale would justify. Obama's claim -- that release of the photographs "would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger" -- means we should conceal or even outright lie about all the bad things we do that might reflect poorly on us. For instance, if an Obama bombing raid slaughters civilians in Afghanistan (as has happened several times already), then, by this reasoning, we ought to lie about what happened and conceal the evidence depicting what was done -- as the Bush administration did -- because release of such evidence would "would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger." Indeed, evidence of our killing civilians in Afghanistan inflames anti-American sentiment far more than these photographs would. Isn't it better to hide the evidence showing the bad things we do?
Apparently, the proper reaction to heinous acts by our political leaders is not to hold them accountable but, instead, to hide evidence of what they did. That's the warped mentality Obama is endorsing today, and has been endorsing since January 20.
(2) How can anyone who supports what Obama is doing here complain about the CIA's destruction of their torture videos? The torture videos, like the torture photos, would, if released, generate anti-American sentiment and make us look bad. By Obama's reasoning, didn't the CIA do exactly the right thing by destroying them?
(3) This is just another manifestation of the generalized Beltway religion that we should suppress and ignore the heinous acts our government committed and to which we acquiesced, because if we just agree to forget about all of it, then we can blissfully pretend that it never happened and avoid doing anything about it.
(4) Obama's claim that he has to hide this evidence to protect our soldiers is the sort of crass, self-serving exploitation of "The Troops" which was the rancid hallmark of Bush/Cheney rhetoric. Everyone knows what the real effect of these photographs would be: they would highlight just how brutal and criminal was our treatment of detainees in our custody, and further underscore how amoral and lawless are Obama's calls that we Look To the Future, Not the Past. Manifestly, that is why they're being suppressed.
(5) For all of you defend-Obama-at-all-cost cheerleaders who are about to descend into my comment section and other online venues to explain how Obama did the right thing because of National Security, I have this question: if you actually want to argue that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do, then you must have been criticizing Obama when, two weeks ago, he announced that he would release them. Otherwise, it's pretty clear that you don't have any actual beliefs other than: "I support what Obama does because it's Obama who does it." So for those arguing today that concealing these photographs is the right thing to do: were you criticizing Obama two weeks ago for announcing he would release these photographs?
Also, the OLC torture memos released several weeks ago surely increased anti-American sentiment. Indeed, those on the Right who objected to the release of those memos cited exactly that argument. How can anyone cheer on Obama's decision today to conceal these photographs while also cheering on his decision to release the OLC memos? Those who have any intellectual coherence would have to oppose both or support both. Those two decisions only have one fact in common: Obama made them. Thus, the only way to cheer on both decisions is to be guided by the modified Nixonian mantra: what Obama does is right because Obama does it.
Also, during the Bush years, were you -- along with Bill Kristol and National Review -- attacking the ACLU and Congressional Democrats for demanding that the Bush administration stop concealing evidence of its torture, on the ground that disclosure of such evidence would harm America's national security? Were you defending Bush then for doing what Obama is doing now?
(6) If these photographs don't shed any new light on what our Government did -- if all they do is replicate what we already know from the Abu Ghraib photographs -- then how can it possibly be the case that they will do any damage? To argue that they will harm how we are perceived is, necessarily, to acknowledge that they reveal new information that is not already widely known.
(7) We are supposed to have what is called Open Government in the United States. The actions of our government -- and the evidence documenting it -- is presumptively available to the public. Only an authoritarian would argue that evidence of government actions should be kept secret in the absence of a compelling reason to release it.
The presumption is the opposite: documents in the government's possession relating to what it does is presumptively public in the absence of compelling reasons to keep it concealed. That the documents reflect poorly on the government is not such a reason to keep them concealed. If it were, then it would always be preferable to have political leaders cover-up their crimes on the ground that disclosing them would reflect poorly on the U.S. and spur anti-American sentiment. Open government is necessary precisely because only transparency deters political leaders from doing heinous acts in the first place.
UPDATE: Here (.pdf) is the letter the DOJ sent to the court this afternoon, advising the judge that they changed their minds "at the highest levels of Government" and would not, as previously promised, release the photographs, but instead would attempt to appeal the Second Circuit's decision compelling their release to the Roberts Supreme Court.
UPDATE II: In comments, Paul Daniel Ash addresses the Obama supporters who are defending Obama's decision to keep these photographs concealed on the ground that "no good would come" from disclosure:
I'm pretty jaded, but even I'm outraged and saddened by the number of voices being raised in this comment thread supporting the decision to conceal these photos.
"No good will come?" Would we even have had an Abu Ghraib scandal without the pictures of bloody prisoners and men cowering in front of dogs? "No good?" Is there or is there not an active debate in this country about whether or not torture is acceptable? "No good?" Did a United States Senator not say just today, in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, that torture techniques have been used for the past five centuries because "apparently they work?"
"No good will come?"
Indeed, it's pretty hard to believe that the people who are arguing that "no good will come" from release of these photos either (a) lived through the impact of the Abu Ghraib photos and/or (b) are living through the "torture debate" we are now having.
Photographs convey the reality of things in a way that mere words cannot. They prevent people who want to deny what was done the ability to do so. They force citizens to face what their country did and what they are now justifying and advocating. They impede the ability of political leaders to use euphemisms to obscure the truth. They show in graphic detail what the effects are of sanctioning torture policies. They prove that this was about more than "dunking three terrorists into water." They highlight the fact that no decent person believes that this should all just be forgotten and its victims told that they have no right to have accountability. That's precisely why the photographs are being suppressed: because of how much good they would do.
93 Comments so far
Show AllCentralized Power is nothing more or less than the institutionalization of the criminal mind. We need less "centralized" and less "power."
I'm not gonna defend Obama-I new he was center/right from the start but I'm still not convinced a third party is the answer. Even Chomsky and Zinn recommended voting democrat in swing states, look how much the Republican party changed since 1880.
FYI
On page A19 of today's NYT, the right wing conservative think tank, Accuracy in Media, paid for and published a full page ad puporting to be sponsored by 'Torture Truth Project', a project of AIM.
T O R T U R E
Throughout The Entire World
The Word 'Torture' Means Intense,
Lasting, Brutal Physical Agony
Why Is The U.S. News Media Eagerly
Spreading An Incalculably Harmful Lie
That Can Only Motivate Terrorists To
Further Attacks On America?
A Grassroots Plea To
The U.S. News Media
Stop Misleading The World
That Our Country Condones Torture
*You now know as a result of the recent release of what you
choose to call "The Torture Memos" that these are the 14
interrogation techniques permitted by the United States:
*Sleep deprivation...Dietary manipulation... Abdominal
slaps.. Facial slaps... Attention grasps...Facial holds...
Forced nudity..Water dousing..Stress positions not designed
to produce pain.. Cramped confinement in a dark space...
Confinement with insects such as a caterpillar... Pushing
against a wall..Wall standing...Pouring water on a person's
face to induce the feeling of drowning(waterboarding)
*As you know, waterboarding has not been used for 5 years and
was used on only 3 detainees. Our own troops are subject to
waterboarding as part of their training.
*By your continual use of the word 'Torture' to describe these
interrogation techniques you have been misleading the world
that the United States condones techniques of barbarous
cruelty. The consequences could be horrendous.
IT'S TIME FOR THE TRUTH
We are losing the goodwill of people across the world and you
are aiding al Qaida in recruiting terrorists for future
attacks on America.
Torture Truth Project
A project of Accuracy in Media, Inc.
4455 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20008/(202)364-4401
"So Cheney begins to successfully coopt his successor. . ."
Repugs can always count on their MSM to sensationalize things, and on our own to help them.
QUESTION: Let's pretend Dennis Kucinich (or Nader, McKinney, whoever) was in fact elected president. Now let's say it was President Kucinich (boy that sounds good!) was doing the same things Obama is now, for example not releasing photos. Not pushing for investigations.
What would your response be?
"he's not doing his job."
these people are not leaders - they are public servants and should remember it.
My response would be the same.
So you'd think Kucinich or Nader sold out? That they were all of a sudden corrupted?
If Kucinich or Nader, as President, behaved the way Obama has been behaving, then I would consider them to be corrupt. As to your question of whether or not their corruption occurred suddenly, the question is too speculative to make much sense (to me).
What's your point in asking these questions?
It sure would be more of a SUDDEN corruption if it were Kucinich who was doing what Obama is doing --- considering the differences in their voting records.
But, Obama doing the things he is doing is not a "sudden" corruption. His voting record says it all!! As Chris Hedges said, "His brief Senate voting record was a miserable surrender to corporate interests."
It was quite predictable that he was going to let the bankers do whatever they wanted - being that he appointed them to his economic team before the election. It was even easier to predict that Obama was going to escalate the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan - being that he openly stated it! It was predictable that Obama was going to protect Bush and his gang of war criminals - being that he agreed with that disgusting woman named, Pelosi, about "impeachment is off the table" and that he was also complicit in signing off on every single war appropriations bill. It was pretty obvious that Obama was going to continue screwing Americans out of their Constitutional rights - being that he signed off on the FISA bill.
Nice try. The world is laughing at the Obama regime's attempt at a coverup.
I'd wager you that someone, picked out of a phone registry, would do better than Obama, if only because they are not on the take.
You avoided my question. What would you say if it was President Kucinich doing these same things?
-What would you say if it was President Kucinich doing these same things?
I wasn't trying to avoid it, I mean, what would I say if it was President Gilligan (from the island) doing these things? Firstly, let me say that I would be feeling much greater suprise if Gilligan did any such thing, but then he wouldn't sell his soul for power (not even to get off the island!).
Let me also say that, as you may or may not know, I could give a rat's petuee what the name is of the US president. What concerns me is the damage the US is doing to the world, to the environment, to the economy, to peace.
So, if I sound disgusted by the perpetual Republican/Democrat tag-team that runs your country, and not disgusted by the long time activists that have proven their integrity over years or even decades of service towards the public good, you can understand.
Great, you started to answer my question: If it was President Gilligan you'd be surprised because "he wouldn't sell his soul for power". What about Kucinich or Nader? I'm specifically talking about these two because they, like Gilligan in your mind evidently, have a certain presumption of innocence, goodness, honesty?
they, like Gilligan in your mind evidently, have a certain presumption of innocence
Yes I believe in that "presumption of evidence" thingy. Judging by the way they treat prisoners, Bush and Obama don't.
...and I gave Obama the benifit of the doubt,or presumption of innocence if you prefer, until the facts started rolling in:
Obama, voting in favour of telecom immunity? Yes
Obama, voting in favour of funding illegal occupations? Yes
etc,etc,etc...
You can presume that you can fly, jump off a building, until you hit the ground at hundreds of miles per hour and go splatt!
Again with the avoiding my question. What would you say if President Kucinich or Nader were now taking the same actions Obama is? Don't tell me about Obama. It's President Kucinich refusing to release the photos! Answer the question.
Kane Jeeves, play nice! Don't make me regret corresponding with you.
http:/www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Collateral_Damage
_911.pdf
Glenn Greenwald suggests that one reason Obama is suppressing the photos is that their release would "prevent people who want to deny what was done the ability to do so". That's very plausible. It's also quite possible that the photos, like many of those in the Abu Ghraib photo album, display the sadistic and often homoerotic pleasure that our heroic defenders of freedom took in torturing foreigners. The real danger is that the emotional impact of seeing such things in the morning paper just might rouse Americans from their state of willful amorality and cause them to demand justice.
If you study history, you will see that we have pursued the path to a fascist government. What has happened in the past nine years is a close parallel to the rise of the Third Reich in the 1930's, but with much greater technology.
Here are words to remember spoken by two leaders of the Nazi Regime. Compare this to what is happening now in the US.
-------------------------------------------
“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
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same for any country."
Herman Goering to Gustave Gilbert at Nuremberg, 18 April, 1946
-------------------------------------------
I rest my case.
It's Official: It's now the Obama Regime, not the Obama Administration.
Or you can call it: THE O BOMB A REGIME!
Obama mulls 'indefinite detention' of terror suspects
just like "The Cask of Amontillado"
Greenwald's 1st "UPDATE" says, "Here is the letter the DOJ sent to the court this afternoon, advising the judge that they changed their minds 'at the highest levels of Government' and .... would attempt to appeal the Second Circuit's decision....to the Roberts Supreme Court."
- This means that we may soon have before us the spectacle of another Supreme Court decision, where the right-wing majority upholds Obama's channeling of Bush-Cheney. It will be Scalia, Thomas, & the 2 GW Bush appointees, joining to support the Democrat's continuation of Bush-Cheney torture policies & their cover-up.
I remember vividly the battles on CD in the run-up to the election, where we had naive twits here prattling on about how Obama's being a "Constitutional Law professor" was some sort of guarantee that voting for the lesser evil would return the country to the rule of law. (For some odd reason, people who argued in that vein no longer post here.)
I have no doubts about what the Roberts' court's decision will be.
Greenwald sez: "... ever since he was inaugurated, Obama has taken one extreme step after the next to keep concealed both the details and the evidence of Bush's crimes ..."
***
Whoa. "Ever since he was elected"?
With his capitulation on FISA -- during the thick of the campaign last summer -- Obama announced with klaxons blaring and klieg lights glaring his intention to protect his predecessors.
The 'telecom immunity' at the heart of the legislation never had anything to do with the telecoms. The bill's lone purpose was to barricade all avenues of investigation into lawbreaking at the highest level of government.
If he has ever reversed himself, it was in the brief and meaningless "announcement" that the photos actually would be released.
- Excellent point.
Didn't I also read a few weeks past where the Obama gang were not inclined to pursue the matter of Bush's illegal sequestering of a few hundred thousand emails? When you tie all this together, with Cheney's recent faux umbrage, with new pictures, with continued destruction of civilian lives in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, it seems to me to be a well-orchestrated comedy of errors with horrific consequences for not only rule of law, but for our collective humanity.
It seems less a "comedy of errors" than a "tragedy of heirs".
Obama is now squarely settled in the glorious U.S. tradition of replacing the rule of law by the rule of denial and its companion, the rule that might is right. That tradition stokes more anti-U.S. sentiment in the world than any photograph ever will.
odoco
The suppression of the photos is an attempt not to protect our troops, but to suppress any further calls for future interrogations and prosecutions based upon the yet unreleased photographic evidence. Let's not forget at least 100 people were MURDERED without any kind of due process - AND BY US PERSONNEL. This is the point - this is simply a continuation of the coverup of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Neocon/MIC crime scene - and this evidence may in fact be more incriminating than anything yet released. It is not about the enemy's reaction - it is about world reaction to the lawlessness and depravity of this government and a frightening percentage of its brain-dead citizens.
Yes, you may well be right.
Could it be that things are even worse, i.e., that the Obama people are in fact intent on continuing the torture and abuse of prisonners?
Yes, we can torture and abuse!
As Obama steps up the war and murders children, he will very much need to suppress all photographic imagery.
We might extrapolate from this latest example of Obama simply carrying forward the Bush-Cheney agenda, that he needs to cover up as much evidence of torture as he can because he fully intends to block any serious investigations into the crimes of the past 8 years, and he likewise intends to commit plenty of his own. Can't be blowing the whistle on illegal torturing of the recent past if he sees the same criminal practice as part of the Obama plan for Peace in the Middle East. Just keep any amateurs like Charles Graner and Lynndie England away from the torture chambers with their digital cameras. Torture needs to be more professional. That way there's less to deny later on.
Either that, or Obama is as close to the Bush family as Clinton is. Maybe they all go fishing and play golf together. In any case, the perpetual influence of those evil families is as evident as ever. The executive branch is still composed of Bush, Cheney, the Clintons, and now Obama as their waterboy. Torture and illegal war are as American as baseball and apple pie, and Obama isn't about to disturb those hoary traditions.
Gee, it does not occur to the constitutional law professor that the suppression of evidence could create anti-American feelings and endanger the troops? Yeah, it makes you wonder who he is listening to now.
I said the same thing a couple of times in Greenwald's Salon comments, but didn't get much traction.
Sure, a picture is worth a thousand words.
But I had the same thought you've just expressed: those supporting Obama's channeling Colonel Jessep-- "The truth? You can't HANDLE 'the truth'!"-- because of their alleged fear of blowback seem oblivious to the issue of whether the public admission that Obama is refusing to release graphic evidence of US abuse ALSO has a potential for blowback.
There seems to be an incipient belief that if the savage Musselmen see the horrific photos, it will send them out howling on the warpath. But if they only learn that such photos EXIST, and are being deliberately censored by the President of the United States, they'll be OK with that.
What is wrong with this suppressed picture?
· Yr Obd't Servant
It’s incredible that Obama is able to get away with this or is it? Obama’s team simply took a page out of Dr. King’s book and focused his rhetoric on the poor and underclasses that for years have been blaming everything except the system of government while Dr. King was genuine Obama is not. Obama is now covering his own tracks by courting urban DJ’s and rap artist due to their popularity and influence. Here we are trying to figure out why the torture photos would not be released but at least that article on pipelanasatn is worth the read at least that is a realistic outlook of the true game.
The torture was the result of just a few bad apples...
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc.
The Army Times response to the "few bad apples" was "Yes, and they're at the top." So true. We need a new oath of office to go with our new, improved country.
Old oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
New, improved oath:
I, don't mean a damn thing I say, but I will faithfully use the office to deliver maximum benefit to those that brung me, and will to the best of my ability subvert the Constitution and then deny and evade any accountability.
...and Obama and Pelosi are the enablers.
The true left saw through the Obama fraud 2 years ago but Democratic voters are just about the dumbest people on the face of the Earth. They deserve exactly what they got: a lying, backstabbing and manipulating leader.
And what credibility does Salon (or The Nation) have a this point? They supported Obama instead of candidates like Nader or McKinney and are now crying foul, too little too late. These phony publications are part of the problem.
Sioux Rose
OBUSHA: One of the reasons Obama has identified with "pragmatism" is because a great many people view life and its options through that prism. After all, America is a densely materialistic nation as seen in its huge homes, storage centers, obese bodies, and disproportionate usage share of the world's fossil fuels. I mention this because MANY otherwise intelligent persons are absolutely confined in their understanding to the practical evidence that we only have two parties. That is why so much expense is directed at "high theater" to maintain the illusion that the two parties actually represent different, even opposed, ideas, policies & initiatives. Most people do not see outside this box. Like our ancestors who presumed the earth was flat as the "evidence" of the horizon suggested as much, these otherwise thoughtful persons are utterly convinced that we have two parties to work with, and thus work with them we must do.
I was fortunate to get a good public education and even luckier to have an educator known for being strict but highly provocative in his classes. Returned from Vietnam (and he told us many horrible stories), he introduced aspects of his curriculum on the first day of school. He told my class that one day each year was assigned, "I am a communist day" and we had to argue OUR system against him, as he represented the Soviet State. We boasted, "We have elections!" And he argued back, "So do we!" We said, "Yeah, but you only have one candidate," and he answered, "And you only have two." I often think of that now as the two have become one in all but costume and outer appearances. This is where arrogance and hubris lead a nation.
Your story reminded me of how at least two teachers opened my eyes to the real world. One was a Biology teacher who in one afternoon clearly showed our class that God didn't exist. It was earth-shattering for a 14 yo like me who had been raised catholic.
The second taught Geography and daily spoke of the horrors perpetrated by the American Empire since Hiroshima. Korea, Vietnam and countless other nations, invasions, bombings, assassinations, coups and overthrowings.
Education is key. Thanks to those two teachers and a few others, I started reading and studying on my own. Count me as someone who sees outside of the box. I never for a second believed Obama or anyone who came before him, or that the two parties actually represent different, opposed ideas, policies or initiatives. Unfortunately, only a few manage to break free.
The 'Holocaust' never happened.
I mean, right?
What a fucked up country this is. I hate our government. HATE IT.
"I hate our government."
then stop thinking of it as "yours".
liberate youself.
lose national identity.
join the world.
It looks to me that Dick Cheney is still calling the shots in the executive branch. Also, it is so sad and disheartening that Barack Obama does not have the courage to face this nation's failings nor the desire to make the changes needed to correct them.
American's, both left, right and center, bow to the all mighty tv. Torture must be ok, because the tv said so. It is sad and extremely shameful that it is up for "debate."
Sioux Rose
BUCK: Those who study human psychology recognizing how images and buzz words cause specific responses in the vast majority probably saw to it to fund a show like "24" to begin to use soft propaganda (in the form of entertainment) to massage away the public's conscience. You're right, so many take what they see on TV as a depiction of "reality." Just about anything one can think of has both greatly positive and substantially negative possibilities. Whereas TV might have been used to raise collective awareness, teach people how to eat healthier meals, plant gardens, learn the wisdom of true spiritual leaders... instead it's largely been a celebration of the worst in human nature beginning with glamorizing violence (and a number of vile behaviors). How many people began to smoke cigarettes because some gorgeous or handsome movie star made the inhalation of that foul thing look sexy? In some respects television is right up there with the nuclear bomb in its power to destroy lives.
By that measure, they should've never shown the world the photos of the Nazi death camps either--no good would come from it and surely we could deny the existance of the Holocaust, if not focus on the--let's move past this and look to a don't-worry-be-happy future attempt to repress it.
Sioux Rose
VERN: Great point, but I think the most amazing for its abject irony was indicting the Nazi soldier 50 years later, while in the same breath suggesting our own get a free pass, as if just principle alters by its association with nationality.
Since the start Obama has been a disappointment on every front but anyone who isn't thoroughly disgusted by now either isn't paying attention or is a delusional partisan.
It has been unrelenting-and I have seen more of Cheney then I ever did when he was in his undisclosed location pulling the strings. Now he is front and center telling house servant Obama to step and fetch it. Obama is shoveling the same lines Bush did. Betcha Bush is smirking more than ever.
"I know a few out there enjoy referencing Obama as nothing but a Clinton, but I am willing to reassess this notion."
Barack Obama is not fit to lick Bill Clinton's boots.
rangerkate, you are precise in your questioning and your comments. cheney is still running the show, obvious to anyone listening to him speaking, almost daily, about the affairs of state.
and now, to include an omission re: a previous post elsewhere on this site. not only should the consideration be given to have him properly disposed of, but if the opportunity presents itself, improperly disposed of. he is a blight upon the planet and not worthy of life.
barackstar, how does it feel? you had it all, boy. now, it's no longer sifting through your fingers, instead, pouring. again, your spineless attempt at leadership is an utter disappointment. the sands of time will not be kind to you.
i'm certain that in cheney's wettest dreams never did he fantasize of having a black puppet as president.
thank you, mr. greenwald, for your ongoing efforts against these bastards.
Please tell me the diference between OBAMA and OSAMA. One is murdering in the name of freedom and the other is murdering in the name of religion. I ask does a dead human being really care about freedom or religion?
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" - Gandhi
I know a few out there enjoy referencing Obama as nothing but a Clinton, but I am willing to reassess this notion.
I believe Obama is proving to be more like George HW Bush. They both are well spoken, eloquent men who softly pander and hustle their crowd. Maybe he's better described as a hybrid between HW and Bill. I wonder if Colin Powell sees his old boss in Obama too?
Let me get out of the way any idea I have ever supported The Bush/Cheney cabal since before the 2000 election nor any time since. I don't even support Obama. I wanted a Feingold or a Kucinich. Prior to Obama I wanted Nader. I detest Bill Clinton. The entire Bush family are fascists after 'grammpa.' Prior to that I voted for McGovern and Carter or I did not even bother to vote. I, in fact, voted against my advice given here. My conscience was screaming in my head. I knew he would sellout to the highest bidder as his behavior indicated before his election.
Shame on me...
So my disillusionment is complete. Yet, hilariously, there is no bad feeling. I am quiet inside.
Now I trust my intellect. Now I listen and decide. I'm preparing for a government that is alien to its country, its inhabitants, and the world at large.
I will rid myself of this technology for false information. It is overpriced and ineffectual.
Good luck to you youngsters.
Ken Ward: If the publication of photographs of prisoner abuse would inflame anti-American opinion and endanger US troops, Obama is also thereby saying that the committing of such abuses risked inflaming anti-American attitudes and endangering the lives of US soldiers.
Excellent point: Obama has openly conceded that the U.S. policy of torturing and abusing its prisonners is wrong, and that the troops who committed these acts are in fact in the wrong.
I spent an hour on Yahoo.com news this evening, on the comment thread of an article about Obama's suppressing the photos.
Yahoo is not, to my knowledge, a right-wing site. But 90% of commenters wanted the photos suppressed, because they would "endanger our brave .... who are defending our freedoms and serving our country..." Few were supportive of Obama; they were very angry about the release of the CIA memos and BO's original support for releasing the pictures. (Though 10% were either supportive of Obama or wanted the troops home.)
Quotes included "10,000 Iraqis are not worth 1 American" and "We should pull our troops out of that country and then nuke it." Many posters referred to 9/11 and to the four American mercenaries killed and hung in Fallujah. Posters wrote things like "They behead Americans, so putting panties on their head is not torture."
These guys apparently have no idea that, by the military's own report, hundreds of Iraqis and Afghanis have been tortured to death. They cling to their belief in American virtue and seem unaware of any evidence to the contrary.
Is there any way to reach these people? Because there sure are a lot of them.
Is there any way to reach these people?
freeway blog.
http://www.freewayblogger.com/
Sioux Rose
GREEN DRAGON: The evidence of "massive brain death" that you reveal (as per the Yahoo comments) is what happens when the PUBLIC'S air waves are traded. Since those with money tend to acquire ownership, and big money makes money from war and 100 other unconscionable endeavors, so long as they get to control message (gaining power through implementing the lessons of Goebbels, Orwell, and Bernays) they can manufacture consent where none would exist were the public GENUINELY informed.
When Bush started the Iraqi debacle a friend of mine wisely stated, "He's put a target on all of us." I didn't want to travel outside the U.S. during that phase because in any given region at least someone might turn an American into a target as symbol for the carnage of its nation. The world (not to mention the US populace) took a sign of relief believing that at last decency, a modicum of justice, intelligence and CHARACTER would enter the White House. Now that this interloper (likely answering to dark puppet masters) is step by step, decision by decision, undermining his own word and the PROMISES made to the American people, we are returned to the status of TARGETS.
I wonder if THIS particular fact would influence the ding dongs on the message boards who draw the line on their humanity at the U.S. border? I wonder if they recognized that now countless persons throughout the world have a bona fide BONE to pick with this nation that thinks liberty means trashing others lives, covering up the evidence, lying about the cause, inventing the provocation, and stealing the lives and livelihoods of so many countless innocents?
The fact that our nation IS bankrupt, another Obama cover-up/scam giving to the PERPETRATORS of the economic implosion an embarassment of riches and the means to do MORE danage, is a metaphor for the condition of its collective soul. With so many evidently in favor of senseless war, when that aggression hits the streets of America as food does not come so readily to our supermarket shelves, what then of the millions of guns in the possession of persons who have lost all capacity for clear reasoning? Makes me wonder if I should leave now.
Comments on the Huffington Post were exactly the same. That "protecting the troops"
propaganda sure hits a guilty chord in alot of people. As if sending the soldiers to the Middle East in the first place-- without proper clothing, vehicles, bullet-proof vests, and an exit plan-- wasn't a danger to them!
The dumbing down of America: has it been intentional?
I actually caught Obama's press secretary use that line about our brave soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan defending our freedom--and no one stopped to think. We hear it so much no one thinks to question our noble intent.
Every "empire" throughout history, be it the Romans, or even the Third Reich, relied on their "brave young men and women in uniform" to murder and pillage in the name of national security.
When we have the moral autonomy to salute our "invading" troops with a much needed "middle finger," we might begin to break the imperial trance spun by our rulers and their obedient media.
That and the line about fighting for our freedom. We haven't been fighting for our freedom since the revolution--and even then it was only a third of the country. Maybe fighting for our freedom means imposing, invading, occupying, killing and stealing wealth?
Maybe fighting for our freedom means imposing, invading, occupying, killing and stealing wealth?
and THAT is the freedom the world hates, my friend
Yep, seems right to me.
Could it be that Obama is not really in control?
Could it be that Bush/Cheney & Co. are still calling the shots?
Don't forget how hard and dirty they fought to gain control and build their power base to run the world--starting in 2000. I never really believed they would give up the power they amassed and walk away. It also fits with why Obama put these regulation-busting wolves (Geitner/Summers) at the henhouse door to deal with the banks and keep them in power and keep all the banksters out of jail. So maybe Mr. Greenwald needs to investigate this possibility. Politics ain't pretty and finding the strings on the evil-doer's puppet president would be quite a story!
Democrats and Republicans are just the left and right pockets of the same corporate interests.
Obama not in control? Hahahahaha..... denial ain't just a river etc.
No president has been in control since JFK, except maybe Bush Sr who is one of the insiders. Look what we have had recently, a peanut farmer nobody ever heard of, a movie actor with Alzheimers, Bush Sr (he may have been in control), another no name who had Whitewater hanging over his head who needed a reminder called Monica, a failed business man with a rich father (daddy bush) who had his national guard service hanging over his head, not to mention drugs, and Obama with the Sinclair and citizenship thing hanging over his head, just in case he wants to be in control. And in 2012 they are talking seriously about Palin who will have something hanging over her head if "elected". Good grief, they are all puppets of the rulers in the shadow.
“And in 2012 they are talking seriously about Palin who will have something hanging over her head if "elected".”
Tina Fay better grow eyes in the back of her head if Palin is to be the next puppet on a string.
You would think that if it is worth it to you to subject your life and your family to the grueling campaign ordeal, that you would care enough to impose your will once you got there. It is difficult to tell whether it is complete capitulation or willing "compromise".
He made millions on the campaign with his book. As president he will be financially secure for life. If you impose your will against those who got you there, they can do another JFK or you can get brought down like Nixon or even worse. In Obamas case, it is likely a willing compromise, although he might not have seen the big picture until he was in office, and by then it is too late to back out even if they are so inclined. In most cases they can convince themselves they are doing evil to do good. The end justifies the means. Their lies are noble lies, so they think.
Sioux Rose
Green is: You present a compelling case, one I happen to agree with. Too much evidence supports it.
Yes, it sure smell like it.
An astute analysis.
The last paragraph of Mr. Greenwald's article says it all.
"[The photographs] prevent people who want to deny what was done the ability to do so." Unfortunately, many Americans prefer snuggling into a comfortable state of denial to facing the nauseating truth. It's hard to imagine anything more cowardly.
This is getting depressing.
I've been saying, in effect, "told you so" (because I did), and telling people to join the Greens (because a few might), but the truth is, even I hoped for better than this. I don't care if it'll help my party: I don't want my country to be like this.
And I'm not convinced that enough people will overcome their groupie instincts to make any difference.
Oregoncharles
this is another in a long line of homer simpson "doh" moments
OBAMA IS A NWO SHILL
more charming than bush but that's not saying much
i guess obama is not ready for the real world at all - maybe he is afraid of getting done in like jfk - the last puppet prez who stepped out of line
they blew his brains out on national tv - framed a cia patsy for the murder - denied him due process and then shot him - also on national tv - in the basement of a police department - using another cia "asset" to do that job
the italians at least had the decency to hang mussolini up by his toes - along with his mistress - with piano wire
the controllers it seems feel that they can get away with anything and unless and until someone stands up for this beseiged country they propbably can get away with literally anything
they just stole 13 trillion bucks
even in deflated dollars that is a nice chunk of change
Sioux Rose
MA G: Hard to argue against what you've said so plainly. Many Americans can't countenance the fact that their leaders are no better, and certainly have no more lofty morals, than figures from organized crime. Perhaps that the "Sopranos" was a hit so long prepared the public for that "sensibility" in its "leadership."
Hi Sioux Rose: chomsky says they are worse than the mafia and i tend to agree with that
Sioux Rose
MA G: Well, you may have a point as they sure have higher numbers and don't distinguish themselves with heavy accents. I'm not sure who wears more expensive suits however.
I've been a member of the Greens since the beginning. The last Dem I voted for is McGovern back in 1972. Also volunteered and worked to build the party and instant run off voting. If you are serious, get involved.
I just read all the comments, and it's still depressing.
Oregoncharles
Don’t get depressed, oregoncharles. If those like you who oppose Obama’s torture policies are in the right, then you have the advantage.
I don’t get a commision for signing people up or anything, but speaking as a citizen of a healthy multiparty democracy, what are you people waiting for? Join the Greens!
…And, take a look at what the single payer activists are doing, I saw them on youtube, lots of people around the world saw them.
So, why not do the same thing with torture? Show up at congress. If they don’t want to hold hearings on torture, why not show up at other hearings.
Maybe the corporations will fill the hearing rooms with paid “seat warmers”. Maybe they will shut off the cameras. Maybe they will close congress to the public entirely. Whatever they do to foil the majority opinion in favour of investigations, you can force the Democrats and Republicans to show the world just how anti-democratic they are.
Each demonstrator got 30 seconds of world-wide publicity. Think about it.
I haven't been a member since the beginning, but I'm an officer of the party in Oregon. So yes, I'm involved.
We actually have a shot at getting Instant Runoff through the Legislature this year, though so far only for local races, which in Oregon are mostly non-partisan. Still, it's a start.
My point was that the level of Obama's betrayal, while not really surprising, is still getting me down. I just hope it has a wider impact. He still has very high popular support.
Oregoncharles
Oregon Charles,
Mr. Obama is not betraying anyone. He clearly told what he was up to. He said he would escalate the war in Central Asia; he said he would keep troops in Iraq for ever. He said he wanted insurance based health care, not single payer.
This guy has always been an insider, i.e. Harvard, prof. of law in chicago, US Senator, etc, etc.
Mr. Obama has not betrayed anyone. You were not listening. Now you accuse him of betrayal.
That is funny. I just laugh at how really stupid people can be.
"He still has high public support". That is because Obama is the consummate, con man and while Bush was the village idiot,Obama is the new slick used car salesman, that could sell a bridge somewhere in Alaska to most of the sheeple.
They are playing you for fools. Bush had "high public support" until,... he didn't. Then they sold you Obama. Next may be a "choice" between Obama and, who knows...Palin?, Limbaugh?
You either support the real candidates, the ones that don't get invited to the sunday talk shows, or you're toast.