Monday, August 08, 2011

Obama Not A Liberal And Insists On Maintaining The Status Quo ???

President Obama appears either too weak or naive when it comes to standing his ground against the Tea Party Republicans . Does he still believe that he needs to cut such a bad deal with these wingnuts apparently so.
Is Obama too concerned about bipartisan approval or as others point out is Obama just not a liberal or progressive . Though Obama's rhetoric and speechifying sounds progressive when it comes to actually governing Obama is anything but a liberal. As for foreign affairs Obama is a Hawk and by his actions he wants to keep America's Empire intact and so has extended America's military interventionism to include Pakistan, Libya and next possibly Syria or Iran.
While Hillary Clinton was openly a hawk Obama revealed his pro-war pro-interventionism and his support for America's friendly kow towing puppet dictators after becoming president. Did he deceive his base or did they just ignore the signs of Obama being a hawk???

Joan Walsh of on Bill Maher show; " Should liberals have buyers' remorse over Obama?" via ,August 7, 2011

Bill Maher asks if Hillary Clinton would have been more progressive. We have no idea

Rachel Maddow has a segment on her show called Today In Dictators . Does she realize the US has supported many dictators over the last 60 years and continues to do so when it is in America's interests or the interests of its Corporations.

It is a bit disengenuous to hear Americans especially someone as intelligent and well informed as Rachel Maddow make jokes about dictators around the world creating the impression that of course the United States never sinks to their level that is the level of dictators.

American police and military may not be shooting and killing peaceful protesters yet but the US military and CIA, Special Operations units , the CIA and American employed mercenaries such as Blackwater/XEservices seem to get away with murder on an almost daily basis in the War on Terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen and so forth.

From the overthrow of the legally and democratically elected president of Iran Mossadeq to the Korean War, the Vietnam War, to the overthrow of Allende of Chile to the dirty wars in Central America using Death Squads and torture in El Salvador , Honduras, Guatemala and supporting the Contra Terrorists to the Gulf War to the inhumane draconian sanctions of Iraq to the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and Drone Wars in Yemen and Pakistan etc. to the current carpet bombing of Libya the US has a poor record on defending human rights or settling matters by diplomacy or even recognizing the sovereignty and rights of foreign countries.

Meanwhile the US makes excuses for their friendly brutal regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen and Uzbekistan etc.So it is delusional to believe America only supports pro-democracy regimes and regimes which have a good human rights record. America loves profits before all else.

Heaven forbid an American corporation pay its fair share of taxes in a foreign country or that it abide by that country's laws or be forced to recognize labor unions in such countries.
US corporations often side with brutal dictatorships or authoritarian regimes if it means an increase in profits.

Part of the problem is that with Obama in power we are told everything is better now when on closer examination its just the same old policies dressed up in a new rhetoric.
Obama and his supporters argue he no longer uses torture and abides by the laws of the land but this is not true because the rules and laws that matter are not just those made in America but rather those agreed upon by the International bodies such as the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the Geneva Conventions and the Special Conventions on war crimes, crimes against humanity and the treatment of civilian populations and Prisoners of War.
Under Bush and Obama people designated as enemies of the state, enemy combatants are denied the rights which have been agreed upon by international law.
After 8 years of George Bush's war mongering ;US military slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens and the US military and intelligence services instituting torture as the backbone of all interrogations of alleged terrorists, insurgents or of people just defending their homes, their families their towns and cities and their nation.

It is odd how Americans are able to twist the facts and create a narrative of their actions which is divorced from facts and reality.
For instance PEW research some years back found that somewhere around 650, 000 Iraqis had died as a result of the US invasion of Iraq. Now the number maybe debatable to some extent even if the research was 50% wrong it would still mean that 325,000 Iraqis died and since then another 100,000 more Iraqis have been killed during the American occupation of Iraq.
As for being brutal and inhuman in the response to suffering in Iraq we have the infamous cold hearted statement of Madam Albright during the sanctions on Iraq which led to at least the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. When asked were sanctions on Iraq worth the deaths of these children Albright said without hesitation "Yes it was worth it".
If some of those children were hers or were American white skinned Christian children would she still agree that it was worth it. It is always a shock to hear political pundits, or politicians or journalists or bureaucrats talking about such death tolls as if all they were was abstract numbers or as if they were talking about inanimate objects.

For instance after the massacre in Norway media personalities such as Glenn beck made snide remarks about the young people who were killed because they remided Mr. Beck of Nazi Youth and therefore were of little or no consequence.
He and other conservatives were more upset about the media chacterizing the killer as a right wing Christian anti-Muslim Terrorists. Others were busy attacking the media on such a characterization and appeared unable to sympathize or empathize with those who had lost freinds, colleagues and loved ones.
How different is this from someone who thought those civilians murdered on 9/11 just by being American somehow deserved to die. That this was payback for attocities committed by Americans.

At Hiroshima and Nagasaki several hundred thousand innocent civilians were murdered to end the war with Japan and to ensure no more American soldiers would be killed. The dropping of these bombs on civilian targets was itself an attocity and a Crime against humanity. The mind set was that according to the American military and government those incinerated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki shared the same guilt as Japanese soldiers for the bombing of Pearl Harbor, for the attrocities committed by Japanese soldiers.
In a similar manner the allies decided to fire bomb several German cities which had nothing to do with hastening the end of the war with the Germans but rather had more to do with retaliation for the killing of innocent civilians in Britain and elsewhere by the NAZIS. Dresden for instance had no factories which were were part of the Nazi war machine. It had not military strategic value and it was filled at that time with tens of thousands of refugees. The allies showed by fire bombing Dresden they could be as ruthless as inhuman as the Nazis.

When it comes to defense and the military budget Obama is just as reluctant as former presidents to cut Defense Spending.
His administration for instance refuses to discuss drawing down on some of America's over 700 foreign bases.
Since taking power President Obama has widened the Global War On Terror and in so doing increased defense Spending .

Maddow - Military Spending Will Not be cut
" The United States spends more on defense than the rest of the nations of the world combined "

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama isn't weak (he just isn't a liberal)The president has the political muscle to enact a progressive agenda, but he doesn't want to BY DAVID SIROTA at, August 5, 2011

Barack Obama is a lot of things -- eloquent, dissembling, conniving, intelligent and, above all, calm. But one thing he is not is weak.

This basic truth is belied by the meager Obama criticism you occasionally hear from liberal pundits and activists. They usually stipulate that the president genuinely wants to enact the progressive agenda he campaigned on, but they gently reprimand him for failing to muster the necessary personal mettle to achieve that goal. In this mythology, he is "President Pushover," as the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently labeled him.

This story line is a logical fallacy. Most agree that today's imperial presidency almost singularly determines the course of national politics. Additionally, most agree that Obama is a brilliant, Harvard-trained lawyer who understands how to wield political power.

Considering this, and further considering Obama's early congressional majorities, it is silly to insist that the national political events during Obama's term represent a lack of presidential strength or will. And it's more than just silly -- it's a narcissistic form of wishful thinking coming primarily from liberals who desperately want to believe "their" president is with them.

Such apologism, of course, allows liberals to avoid the more painful truth that Obama is one of America's strongest presidents ever and is achieving exactly what he wants.

Obama is not a flaccid Jimmy Carter, as some of his critics insist. He is instead a Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- but a bizarro FDR. He has mustered the legislative strength of his New Deal predecessor -- but he has channeled that strength into propping up the very forces of "organized money" that FDR once challenged.

In times of war citizens are more than likely to accept an increase in their nation's debt. So while Bush was in power and now Obama they had or have the same mindset which supposes that all defense spending is not just a good thing but that it is number one . Education,infrastructure

" War, Debt and the President "
by Amy Goodman at Truthdig via Commondreams, August 3, 2011

President Barack Obama touted his debt ceiling deal Tuesday, saying, “We can’t balance the budget on the backs of the very people who have borne the biggest brunt of this recession.” Yet that is what he and his coterie of Wall Street advisers have done.

In the affairs of nations, Alexander Hamilton wrote in January 1790, “loans in times of public danger, especially from foreign war, are found an indispensable resource.” It was his first report as secretary of the treasury to the new Congress of the United States. The country had borrowed to fight the Revolutionary War, and Hamilton proposed a system of public debt to pay those loans.

The history of the U.S. national debt is inexorably tied to its many wars. The resolution this week of the so-called debt ceiling crisis is no different. Not only did a compliant Congress agree to fund President George W. Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with emergency appropriations; it did so with borrowed money, raising the debt ceiling 10 times since 2001 without quibbling.

So how did the Pentagon fare in the current budget battle? It looks like it did fine. Not to be confused with the soldiers and veterans who have fought these wars.

“This year is the 50th anniversary of [Dwight] Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex speech,” William Hartung of the Center for International Policy told me while the Senate assembled to vote on the debt ceiling bill. Speaking of the late general turned Republican U.S. president, Hartung said: “He talked about the need for a balanced economy, for a healthy population. Essentially, he’s to the left of Barack Obama on these issues.”

the debt ceiling was created ..."in 1917 during World War I, and the idea was to prevent President Wilson from committing even more American troops and money to war. In every country of Europe—England, France—the parliamentary control over the budget was introduced to stop ambitious kings or rulers from waging wars. So the whole purpose was to limit a government’s ability to run into debt for war, because that was the only reason that governments ran into debt.”

The Budget Control Act of 2011 assures drastic cuts to the U.S. social safety net. Congress will appoint a committee of 12, dubbed the “Super Congress,” evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, to identify $1.2 trillion in cuts by Thanksgiving. If the committee fails to meet that goal, sweeping, mandatory, across-the-board cuts are mandated. Social services would get cut, but so would the Pentagon.

Or would it? The Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus opposed the bill. Congressional Black Caucus Chair Emanuel Cleaver called it “a sugarcoated Satan sandwich.” For fiscal years 2012 and 2013, the discretionary funding approved is split between “security” and “nonsecurity” categories. “Nonsecurity” categories like food programs, housing, Medicare and Medicaid (the basis of any genuine national security) will most likely be cut. But the “security” budget will get hit equally hard, which Democrats suggest would be an incentive for Republicans to cooperate with the process.

The security category includes “Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the intelligence community [and] international affairs.” This sets up a dynamic where hawks will be trying to cut as much as possible from the State Department’s diplomatic corps, and foreign aid, in order to favor their patrons at the Pentagon and in the weapons industry.

More on USA and its friendly dictators who help to boost the American Arms industry

5 dictators the U.S. still supports America was a key backer of the Mubarak regime — at least, until the uprising in Cairo intensified this week. Which other autocrats in the region still enjoy U.S. support? The,FEB. 3, 2011,

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen
Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al-Said of Oman
Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea
Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov of Turkmenistan

But this list leaves out the brutal anti-democracy anti-reform rulers of Bahrain, Uzbekistan , Jordan, Kuwait,United Arab Emirates, Qatar.

see: What other dictators does the U.S. support?
Aside from Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, here are the other most controversial leaders propped up by the U.S. Justin Elliott at, Feb. 2, 2011

and at War is A How Obama Arms Dictators By davidswanson - May 17, 2011

Obama’s Reset: Arab Spring or Same Old Thing?
How the President and the Pentagon Prop Up Both Middle Eastern Despots and American Arms Dealers
By Nick Turse

...Sending a Message

In February, in Baghdad, Fallujah, Mosul, and Tikrit, Iraqi protesters took to the streets, focused on ending corruption and chronic shortages of food, water, electricity, and jobs. In response, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who has in recent years consolidated power with U.S. military backing, unleashed government security forces. They arrested, beat, and shot protesters, leaving hundreds dead or wounded. In the weeks since, the Obama administration has not only failed to forcefully rebuke the Maliki regime, but has announced its intent to bolster those same security forces with another $360 million in military materiel ranging from radios to radar systems.

In March, the United Arab Emirates sent security forces into neighboring Bahrain to help put down pro-democracy protests. Early the next month, UAE security forces disappeared leading human rights activist Ahmed Mansoor and, in the days thereafter, detained at least four other prominent democracy activists. Before the month was out, however, the Obama administration announced its intention to arm the UAE with advanced Sidewinder tactical missiles.

Saudi Arabia also sent troops into Bahrain and has been cracking down on nonviolent activists at home with increasing vigor. At the beginning of this month, for example, Human Rights Watch reported the arrest of “at least 20 peaceful protesters, including two bloggers.” Within days, the Obama administration notified Congress of its intent to see the Saudi security forces receive $330 million worth of advanced night vision and thermal-imaging equipment.

This year, U.S.-coordinated arms sales have resulted in the delivery of helicopter gunships to Yemen, navy patrol boats to Iraq, and the first of six cargo aircraft to the UAE. At the moment, used armored personnel carriers are being refurbished for shipment to Iraq later this year.

Whatever “reset” may be in the works for Obama administration policies in the Middle East, the president and the Pentagon are already on the record. Since 2009, they have sought to arm some of the most anti-democratic regimes on the planet, while repeatedly highlighting the need for democratic reform and now for a fresh start in the region. Even as the “reset” begins, the Pentagon is leaning ever more heavily on rich rulers in the Arab world to prop up the military-corporate complex at home. If the Pentagon and the weapons makers have their way, the provisional successes of the demonstrators in Egypt and Tunisia will turn out to be outliers as an Arab Spring turns distinctly wintry.
see: Jeremy Scahill at Democracy Now!
For Instance:
" Jeremy Scahill Reveals CIA Facility, Prison in Somalia as U.S. Expands Covert Ops in Stricken Nation "

" Red Cross Provided with Location of Secret Somali Prison Used by CIA "

" Jeremy Scahill on Killing of Bin Laden: Obama Has “Doubled Down on Bush Administration Policy of Targeted Assassination”

for articles and video at Democracy Now! on Bahrain Uprsing

For instance: "Obama Limits Criticism of Ongoing Arab Spring Violent Crackdowns in Syria, Bahrain "

" Aiming to Preserve Autocratic Mideast Rule, Saudi Arabia Helps Crush Uprisings in Bahrain, Yemen "

" Obama Hides Meeting with Top Bahraini Leader — And Mutes Criticism of Ongoing Crackdown "

No comments: