If President Bush appointed a JP Morgan bankster to be his Chief of Staff, would you be mad?

[Cali_Democrat]

- Would you be mad if Bush expanded the war in Afghanistan?

- Would you be mad if Bush authorized the use of Predator drones for the sole purpose of committing extrajudicial killings that also take the lives of innocent civilians?

- Would you be mad if Bush continued to maintain a large amount of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq indefinitely?

- Would you be mad if Bush signed an executive order creating a formal system of indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay?

- Would you be mad if Bush extended his tax cuts for the wealthy?


If those policies made you mad when they took place under Bush, they should make you mad if they take place under Obama.

[provis99]

1. looks like the Unrec crew are out in force on this one.

Rec back up to zero.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Turbineguy]

2. Mad perhaps

but I would not have been surprised. In fact, if he had made Charlie Manson Surgeon General, it would have fit.

[rhett o rick]

3. You left out the Patriot Act and domestic spying and the torture of Manning. nm

[ClarkUSA]

5. Empty rhetoric. Prove your claims.

[G_j]

6. you never heard of these things?

wow....

[ClarkUSA]

8. Hearing is not believing, given the lack of proof.

[G_j]

12. not to be trite but,

Google can be your friend. Why waste our time?
Why do you ask for proof of well known facts?

[ClarkUSA]

16. They are not "well known facts". In fact, I believe them to be false.

But having an open mind, I asked for proof. So far, there is none. Why don't you let rhett o rick speak for herself?

[rhett o rick]

84. I have spoken. and you sound desparate. Defend the Patriot Act and domestic spying. nm

[tekisui]

90. Hahahah!

Well done!

[donheld]

87. You sound like trying to prove WMD's didn't exist in Iraq to Bush

No amount of proof in the world will be enough for the likes of you.

[rhett o rick]

26. You wont give up. Prove what? That Pres Obama extended the Patriot Act?

And continues domestic spying? And of course they are not torturing Manning, he is just in solitary confinement waiting trial, in-fucking-definately.

Believe me I wish Pres Obama would end the Patriot Act, disband Homelundt Security, undo the MCA, prosecute war crimes, stop torture, close Gitmo, end domestic spying, support single payer health care, end the wars, stop the tax breaks for billionaires, etc.

But the reality is that he isnt trying to get my vote. He wants the votes of the "New Democrats" or old republicans. And he will get them. There will be a Democrat in the WH after 2012 and you will be ecstatic. But the bad news is he will be farther right than Nixon. Not that you will care.

It wouldnt surprise me if the Koch Brothers donate to his campaign, after all they funded the DLC. Tell me, would you be ok with that?

[ClarkUSA]

30. Wrong. Congress extended the Patriot Act. Google is your friend -->

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=congress+extends+Partiot+Act&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Still no facts, I see.

[rhett o rick]

39. Hello, google says Pres Obama supports the extension of the Patriot Act.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/15/obama-supports-extending-_n_288054.html

[ClarkUSA]

44. That's HuffPo, not Google. And it's not what you said originally.

[rhett o rick]

47. Do you agree that Pres Obama supported the extension of the Patriot Act? nm

[ClarkUSA]

50. Moving the goalpost now? lol! Still waiting for proof of your original claims....

[rhett o rick]

68. So dont answer. It was a tough question. nm

[uponit7771]

107. How bout you go first?

[rhett o rick]

112. How childish. I have given data explaining that the Pres supported the extension of the Patriot Act

I have shown data that the Pres extended domestic spying. As far as whether the war is over in Iraq, a statement from the president might be biased. Do we have troops there? Do we have paid mercenaries there? I guess it depends on the definition of war.

[rhett o rick]

49. You are getting desparate. See the link below.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=end+of+war+iraq&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I picked one of the articles.

[ClarkUSA]

51. That's the link I gave you to prove the Iraq war has ended. Bravo!

[Cali_Democrat]

52. ...and Obama signed the Patriot Act extension into law

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/146173-obama-signs-patriot-act-extension-into-law

[ClarkUSA]

54. ... after Congress approved it and sent it to his desk. Where is proof Manning is being tortured?

"domestic spying"? I had no idea I'm being spied on! Please prove it now.

[G_j]

61. where have you been?

:banghead:

(no smilie for someone hiding under a rock)

[Armstead]

64. Don't bother

No matter how much proof you might dig up, there will always be a technicality, or the source will be "unbreliable" or somnething.

It's a favorite debating practice of both conservatives and defenders of the status quo.

[ClarkUSA]

75. No, actually "it's a favorite debating practice of both conservatives and" 24/7 Obama bashers.

[rhett o rick]

113. When you get desparate you call me an Obama basher when I simply say I disagree with his

support of extending the Patriot Act. You try to deflect by saying that it was Congress that extended the Patriot Act. Well of course but there is plenty of evidence that the Pres supported that extension before Congress passed it.

[rhett o rick]

65. Pres Obama supported the extension of the Patriot Act.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=congress+extends+Partiot+Act&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=obama+supports+extending+patriot+act&aq=1v&aqi=g-v2&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=3bf2936914ee1145

[ClarkUSA]

73. You said he extended the Patriot Act originally. Then you moved the goalpost.

In actuality, Congress passed the one-year extension, and he signed it.

[rhett o rick]

85. Bull shit. Pres Obama came out and supported the extension. You try to blame

Congress. But he signed the bill. He didnt veto the bill.

[rhett o rick]

66. Pres Obama continues Bush policies of domestic spying.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=congress+extends+Partiot+Act&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=obama+continues+domestic+spying&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=3bf2936914ee1145

[ClarkUSA]

72. Do you have any sources beyond conspiracy websites?

[rhett o rick]

86. I gave you a load of sources. What have you given. Nothing. nm

[rhett o rick]

67. Proving Manning being tortured is not possible because we have no transparency.

The DOD is stonewalling allowing observers like Kucinich from visiting. Now remember Manning is innocent until convicted. He is in Prue-trial solitary confinement and has been for 6 months. Why is it the DOD wont let unbiased observers see his condition. He is an American citizen and has the right to a bail hearing and to a speedy trial. This is sure to get Pres Obama some votes from the right.

[ClarkUSA]

74. Wrong. Even Manning's own father, who has visited him 8-9 times, doesn't claim he's tortured.

Quite the opposite: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=628620&mesg_id=628620

[ClarkUSA]

7. Demonizing rhetoric = false equivalency based on overblown claims

[vi5]

9. Honestly I'd be less mad than I am now.....

...because it would have been expected. Nobody in their right mind had any doubt that was where Bush would have netted out on decisions regarding each and every one of those issues. It was why we were all so angry and why the prospect of a President Bush, as uninspiring as the idea of a President Gore might have been at the time.

But the fact that these policies have continued and in some cases expanded under a Democratic president is a travesty.

And the fact that so many are willing to overlook it for no other reason than BECAUSE it's under a democratic president is an even bigger travesty.

[pmorlan1]

37. Totally agree

I totally agree with you. It's even worse that a Democratic administration is doing this and it breaks my heart that so many try to defend it because it is a Dem.

[Wilms]

10. Recommended for it's relevance and reasonableness.

A little soul searching is order. I am pleased with the MANY things Obama has done and tries to do. But there are MANY areas where he's an extreme disappointment to Progressives.

Others should consider the questions you pose.

Thanks.

[ClarkUSA]

11. Congress extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. They also extended the middle-class tax cuts...

... and UI, both of which Republicans were holding hostage.

[golfguru]

48. Did Obama sign it to make it official?

[ClarkUSA]

55. Are you still against high-rail projects because you don't want anymore borrowing from China?

[golfguru]

62. Borrowing to spend seldom creates prosperity

So yes I am against it. That motto has worked well in my personal financial situation.
And it will work well for any country, state, county or city. When you borrow money,
as every one knows you not only have to pay the principal back but also have to pay
interest. Since no government run railroad has ever made profit, I can't think of any
more foolhardy attempt than to build a high speed train with borrowed money from China.

They tried that on sub-prime loans to people for buying homes and look what happened.
Learn from history and observing what actually happens around you otherwise you will be
doomed to repeat the fiasco.

[ClarkUSA]

76. That's what Republicans in the teabagger House believe, too. President Obama proved them wrong.

President Obama's economic policies lifted this country out of the Great Depression and a slow recovery is taking hold.

You can't cut spending during a Great Depression to get to a recovery. Take a look at what has happened to Ireland under their conservative gov't. and what is happening to Great Britain under the Tories.

But then again, Republicans know this and want the economy to falter so they can win in 2012.

[golfguru]

79. The real bankruptcy of our country lies ahead

and we will be in the same camp as Greece , Ireland, Spain & Portugal (PIGS).
I guess they will rename it UPIGS.

[Bake]

78. No only signed it ... as I recall, he brokered the deal to get it done.

In other words, his name is ON IT.

They're not the Bush tax cuts any more. They're the Obama Tax Cuts for the Wealthy.

Bake

[Mimosa]

118. Other Presidents haven't been afraid to uveto or use the threat of a veto.

Could Obama be timid?

He certainly hasn't fought for the big stuff.

[ClarkUSA]

13. Pres. Obama ended the war in Iraq. What proof do you have for your "indefinitely" claim?

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Here....

http://www.economyincrisis.org/content/iraq-war-over-are-us-troops-still-fighting-and-dying-iraq

The first off-message comments came from the Department of Defense. Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said shortly after the "end" of the war, "I don't think anybody has declared the end of the war as far as I know. Counter-terrorism will still be part of their mission." He said the more than 50,000 remaining troops will be well armed and that among their responsibilities will be counter-terrorism which will mean taking on Islamist militants in combat situations. The former head of the Central Command who had been in charge of military operations in Iraq echoed the Pentagon sentiments when Petraeus told CBS News, "We're not leaving" Iraq and that the troops remaining behind will have "an enormous capability."

----------------------------------------------

There are also other sources. There is also information online regarding contractors and their continued presence in Iraq. Just use Google.

[ClarkUSA]

20. All I see is a incomplete cherrypicked alleged quotes from a questionable source.

[Cali_Democrat]

22. Geoff Morrell is the Pentagon spokesman, David Petraeus is a US Army general

You think these sources are questionable? Do you not believe the quotes?

Here is another article from the AFP with the exact same quote....

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hvyrCgdUxGW17vffXcgUYgnjd17g

"I don't think anybody has declared the end of the war as far as I know," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell told MSNBC.

[ClarkUSA]

28. August 19, 2010? You're quoting from a source prior to Pres. Obama declaring the end of the war?

You have nothing, do you? You can't even find a credible news source that's recent.

[Exilednight]

59. Because that's all you want to see. Let's also not forget that Obama swapped out

US military soldiers for armed private contractors. When you end a war, you bring home everybody except for the small handful of Marines that guard the embassy.

[ClarkUSA]

77. No, that's what the facts are.

As if you know how "you end a war"! lol! Why are there still military bases and soldiers galore in Germany and Japan, then?

[Exilednight]

114. Because according to the treaty terms of Germany and Japan

we defend their countries and limit their military. No such agreement exists with Iraq.

[Clio the Leo]

92. lol, then let's blame him for not ending World War II while we're at it...

... using that logic.

[rhett o rick]

27. The Iraq war is over? Why wasnt I told? nm

[ClarkUSA]

29. Google is your friend (link -->). Still waiting for you to prove your claims, though.

I won't hold my breath. Empty rhetoric is notoriously hard to prove.

However, I have proof to back up my claim that Pres. Obama ended war in Iraq:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=end+of+war+iraq&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[rhett o rick]

36. What do you want me to prove? That Pres supported the extension of the Patriot Act?

Or that we continue the Bush violation of the Constitution by spying on Americans phone calls and emails w/o warrants?

[ClarkUSA]

38. lol! That's not what you originally said.

Prove all of your claims. You can't.

[rhett o rick]

45. So according to you every thing is peaches. Look around you. nm

[ClarkUSA]

46. Still no proof? I didn't think so.

[rhett o rick]

69. Again, you are happy with what is happening in the country today? nm

[pmorlan1]

40. LOL

Did he borrow President Bush's Mission Accomplished banner?

[ClarkUSA]

42. No.

He didn't "borrow" your tired rhetoric, either.

[former9thward]

41. I'm sure you will quarrel with the Defense Dept.

There are probably making up the deaths since Obama said combat was over. http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf I wonder if their families think the war is over.

[ClarkUSA]

43. Why don't you write to them and ask them if what their CIC said on August 31, 2010 is correct, then?

Just to remind you, here are the facts: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=august+31,+2010&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[former9thward]

88. Why don't you write their families and tell them they didn't die in combat

They well feel good about that.

[Autumn]

60. It is over, for the 10 US soldiers killed in Iraq yesterday.

[Mimosa]

115. We shouldn't have gone there, we shouldn't remain there.

We here about the soldiers who are killed but we don't here about the 'contractors.' Or 'mercenaries', as our 'enemies' call the CACI and XE employees.

I wonder about the motives of people defending this misguided for profit war.

[ReggieVeggie]

122. ended the war?

are you out of your mind?

[ClarkUSA]

14. You still have not proven any of your claims.

[jaxx]

15. That's quite a laundry list.

Unrec

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[msongs]

19. good thing obama vetoed the tax break welfare extension for the wealthy....oh wait a minute..he didn

[ClarkUSA]

21. Why would he? That bill had UI benefits, a second stimulus, and middle-class tax cuts.

[provis99]

24. and the original Bush tax cut bill had similar goodies.

So what's your point?

[ClarkUSA]

25. Prove it.

[ProSense]

23. "Would you be mad if Bush expanded the war in Afghanistan?"

Did you vote for Obama knowing that he was going to add troops to Afghanistan because Bush neglected the war?

Obama on Afghanistan.

•Afghanistan: Obama and Biden will refocus American resources on the greatest threat to our security -- the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They will increase our troop levels in Afghanistan, press our allies in NATO to do the same, and dedicate more resources to revitalize Afghanistan’s economic development. Obama and Biden will demand the Afghan government do more, including cracking down on corruption and the illicit opium trade.

"Would you be mad if Bush authorized the use of Predator drones for the sole purpose of committing extrajudicial killings that also take the lives of innocent civilians?"

Would you have been mad at the members of Congress for approving the Afghanistan war?

The Aghan war is tragic and needs to end. It was a war inherited by this President, and his administration is likely doing everything to limit civilian casualties.

When the attack on Afghanistan was approved by almost every member of Congress (including Kucinich) and launched by Bush, tens of thousands of Aghans lost their lives in the initial months.

<...>

The direct victims of American bombs and missiles have commanded most political and media attention, though no one is certain how many even of these there were.

A Guardian report in February estimated these casualties at between 1,300 and 8,000 deaths. A Guardian investigation into the "indirect victims" now confirms the belief of many aid agencies that they exceeded the number who died of direct hits.

As many as 20,000 Afghans may have lost their lives as an indirect consequence of the US intervention. They too belong in any tally of the dead.

The bombing had three main effects on the humanitarian situation. It caused massive dislocation by prompting hundreds of thousands of Afghans to flee from their homes.

<...>

It would be a good time to stop pretending that the "evil" President Obama simply took office and decided to start killing civilians. War is extremely ugly, but trying to label him as the most evil person ever over wars he inherited is absolutely bogus. It's not a sign of objectivity.

No one has any idea what anyone else would do as President, but one thing no one would have been able to do is end the wars without incurring more casualities. As the saying goes, one is too many. That's the nature of war.

"Would you be mad if Bush continued to maintain a large amount of US soldiers and contractors in Iraq indefinitely?"

Would you have been mad if Bush supported Kerry-Feingold in 2006, assuring withdrawal by the end of 2007?

President Obama withdrew 100,000 troops from Iraq and is ending the occupation

In Iraq, Biden Reaffirms Deadline for Troops’ Exit

Obama Plans $42 Billion Cut in War Costs With Iraq, Afghan Troop Reduction

The Obama administration’s plan to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan will cut the Pentagon’s war budget by $42 billion -- a 26 percent decrease from this year’s level, according to government officials.

The proposed $117 billion for fiscal year 2012, which begins Oct. 1, would be the lowest expenditure for the wars since fiscal 2005.

<...>

The Pentagon today has roughly 97,000 troops in Afghanistan and 47,000 in Iraq. The 144,000 total is the lowest since July 2006, when the U.S. had about 148,100 deployed, according to military data compiled by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. U.S. troops are scheduled to leave Iraq by the end of this year.

The war-spending number is the smallest since Congress approved $102.6 billion in fiscal 2005, said Amy Belasco, war cost analyst at CRS.

<...>

"Would you be mad if Bush signed an executive order creating a formal system of indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay?"

Would you have been mad if Bush had responded to Congress cutting off funds by improving the process at Guantanamo?

Further Thoughts on the Guantanamo Executive Order

Yesterday, I posted over at Opinio Juris some initial reactions to the Executive Order the President issued creating a new periodic review system for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. After reading some of the other reactions circulating in the ether yesterday, I don’t think I’ve seen anything that leads me to change that account. But there are several apparent misperceptions out there I think warrant correction.

First is the notion – captured by the Washington Post’s lead article on the order – that the executive order somehow creates a new “formal system of indefinite detention” for the Guantanamo detainees. (Ditto Dafna Linzer, among others.) The order I think is about as clear as it could be that it is being issued pursuant to existing authorities, most notably the statutory Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), and is not intended to and should not be read to alter the scope of detention authority available under that statute as interpreted by the courts. Again, the key language from the order: “It does not create any additional or separate source of detention authority, and it does not affect the scope of detention authority under existing law. Detainees at Guantánamo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and nothing in this order is intended to affect the jurisdiction of Federal courts to determine the legality of their detention.” Why do I raise this? It’s not because I am a great proponent of the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of the AUMF. On the contrary, that court basically ignored what guidance international law does offer and otherwise I think found a degree of detention authority under the AUMF broader than what one could plausibly (or wisely) attribute to statute. But the suggestion that yesterday’s order is supposed to broaden that already broad grant of congressional/judicial detention authority, or is somehow supposed to reset the litigation clock back to zero on what the scope of that detention authority should be – is simply not supported by the text of the order.

Second is the effort I’ve seen by some to compare the procedures for review made available under this new executive order to the procedures available under the Bush-era Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), a predecessor review process that the Supreme Court rejected as an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus review in U.S. federal court. Such comparisons miss the point. These procedures are not meant to replace any earlier approach; they exist only in the shadow of what substantially greater review today already exists for the Guantanamo detainees through the federal courts. As yesterday’s executive order notes, these new review procedures are to exist in addition to the habeas review that the Supreme Court recognized as mandated by the Constitution and that is already available to the Guantanamo detainees. Before yesterday’s order, detainees had essentially one shot to challenge the legality of their ongoing detention through the federal habeas process. If they lost in the D.C. district court and/or at the D.C. Circuit court on appeal, they had exhausted their potential avenues for review. This gives detainees another bite at the apple. As I noted yesterday, this is hardly to say it resolves all the many problems associated with the status quo at Guantanamo Bay. But are the detainees better off today than they were before the order was issued yesterday? Hard to see how the answer isn’t at least marginally yes.

Probably most unfortunate about the reporting so far is that it obscures (in lower paragraphs at best) what has been and remains the single greatest obstacle to the closure, or even amelioration of the situation, at Guantanamo: Congress. In 2008, both presidential candidates and their parties embraced the need to move toward closing the detention facility. In 2008, efforts by Congress even to conduct hearings into detention-related matters were still met with the criticism by some that Congress was interfering in matters properly left to the executive branch. Since then, Congress has become engaged up to its eyeballs in micromanaging the executive’s handling of a handful of detainees, and is otherwise devoting its Guantanamo-related energy to preventing the President from bringing criminal charges in our own courts against men who the President and Congress believe have committed crimes. We are through the looking glass.

<...>

"Would you be mad if Bush extended his tax cuts for the wealthy?"

Would you have been mad if these were in Bush's budget:

<...>

The president, in a $3.7 trillion budget plan released yesterday in Washington, revived dozens of proposals that Congress has rejected, including $129 billion in higher taxes on the overseas profits of U.S. companies. He also proposed changing the tax treatment of oil, gas and coal companies, which would raise about $46 billion.

<...>

The proposal also would bring back pre-2001 tax rates on income and capital gains for individuals earning more than $200,000 annually and married couples making more than $250,000. The estate tax would return to 2009 levels with a $3.5 million per-person exemption and a 45 percent top rate. Under a law Obama signed in December, lower rates expire at the end of 2012.


<...>

The budget plan would limit itemized deductions for top earners to 28 percent, curbing the value of tax breaks for charitable contributions, home mortgage interest and state and local taxes. That proposal has been included in every budget of Obama’s presidency and was rejected as a revenue-raising provision to fund his overhaul of the health system last year.

link

Also included is a $30 billion tax on the largest financial institutions.

Trying to equate President Obama to President Bush is absurd!

[jaysunb]

32. Excellent response !

I shudder to think of all the wars we'd be fighting now if John McCain had somehow become the President.
Obama is one branch of government....not a King. Not a hard concept to grasp.

Thanks for your vigilance. I saw this same shit in the late 60's and it gave us Nixon and more importantly REAGAN. Adults acting like spoiled petulant little children, constantly whining and undermining any progress thats made.

Again, Thank You. :hi:

[ClarkUSA]

33. Way to go! You debunked the OP's claims, one by one.

Bookmarked: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=629337&mesg_id=629371

[Cali_Democrat]

57. So what's your point? That I shouldn't be mad?

Because you were able to create a long post that does not even come close to disputing the fact that Obama has supported the policies I outlined in my OP?

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Arkana]

80. Actually it did--you have displayed a remarkable lack of ability

to see the world in any shades besides black and white.

You don't have to agree with Obama's decisions about Afghanistan. I don't.

You don't have to like the fact that the tax cuts had to be extended. I sure as hell didn't, and if you did a little research, you'd find that http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/10/obama-bush-cuts-no-jobs/">Obama didn't either. He signed the bill because it contained a year's worth of UI, a payroll tax cut for people who desperately needed extra income, and it got him a DADT repeal and a START ratification. Compromise is tough to swallow, but it is necessary to get things done, even if it involves negotiating with people who hate your guts.

[Cali_Democrat]

82. Actually, it didn't dispute the fact that Obama made those policy decisions

All it did was provide a list of justifications/reasons for Obama's decision to support those policies.

Through outright support or compromise, or whatever it is you want to call it, Obama has ended up making every one of those policy decisions I outlined.

He expand the war in Afghanistan.
He appointed a JP Morgan Chase bankster
He uses predator drones.

etc...etc...etc...

[saorsa]

102. I will second that, what a familiar ring that 'rebuttal' has

to it. It's displacement, it is obfuscation, there is so much strain in this pathetic defense, you can hear the trousers rip. I smell the burning hair of someone positively smoking with fear and loathing for any one who calls out the President when he legitimizes the Bush regimes actions.
So here we go!

Afghanistan: the rebuttal attempts to displace the OP justification for anger at the extension of the war in Afghanistan to Congress. I think we can all take it as read that the OP and many other like-minded people already include the sad dereliction of Congress as a cause for disillusionment and feelings of betrayal, wouldn't you say? Congress has after all largely been a pathetic doormat for years, is that not a common view?
I particularly liked this snippet from the rebut, where he transfers responsibility to you as a Democratic voter who did your duty in preventing a McCain win, but as he puts it you knew all along didn't you that:
" he was going to add troops to Afghanistan because Bush neglected the war?" ( Afghanistan)

As for the unprecedented step-up in drone attacks, in this case presented as being used as 'extrajudicial killing' methods, as well as the resultant collateral damage, ( which many experts say makes recruiting easier for the Taliban and others) the rebut once again displaces the argument to the general subject of collateral damage in war, hearkening back to the large numbers of civilians killed during the "initial months". This is not a response to the OP, at all. It is just a sidestep, decorated with the usual banal cover statements about the tragedy of war, and " the administration is likely doing everything to limit civilian casualties", and oh yes, Congress went along too, so there ya go.


In responding to the question of the remaining appx. 50.000 troops ( advisers, what a familiar word) and 75,000 contractors in Iraq, the rebut focuses only on the cost, or in his view, the cost savings of the draw down. The rebuttal source article is the Bloomberg News.
This is a deliberately narrow focus, designed to draw your eye towards the reduced costs of what is laughingly termed by many as 'war spending'.
Here is the same basic info from another source, the National Priorities Project via US Labor Against the War:

"Funding for Overseas Contingency Operations – Today’s budget release also includes a funding request of $117.8 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is considerably lower than the $159.4 billion requested for FY 2011 and the $160.8 billion allocated in FY 2010. According to the Congressional Research Service the FY 2012 Pentagon request is the lowest level of war funding since FY 2006. The request provides roughly $107 billion for Afghanistan (including $12.8 billion to train and equip Afghan Security Forces) and $11 billion for Iraq."
http://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=23709

Hey, so far so good but please, read further about this FY 2012 Pentagon request, with a slightly bigger picture: also via uslaboragainstthewar:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/14/pentagon-budget-largest/
"Pentagon’s 2012 Spending Proposal Is ‘The Largest Request Ever’ Since World War II"
"Today, Defense Secretary Robert Gates will formally unveil the Pentagon’s spending plan on Capitol Hill. Promising to request “the minimum level of funding we can live with,” defense officials, congressional aides, and analysts insist that the proposal “will make clear that the post-9/11 military spending spree has ended.” But the actual number tells a different story: the Pentagon’s $553 billion price tag for 2012 actually marks “the largest request ever” since World War II:"
"As Center for American Progress senior fellow and President Reagan’s former assistant secretary of defense Larry Korb points out, Obama’s request is “5% higher than what the Defense Department plans to spend this year. In inflation-adjusted dollars, this figure is higher than at any time during the Bush years or during the Cold War.” In fact, the total military budget this year “comes in at a thumping $750 billion — an annual tax of more than $7,000 on every household in the country.”

It's our job to try to do the homework, right?



Now then, the cherry-picking on Guantanamo, and the Executive Order. I highly recommend y'all read his double sources on this, because I find their differing tones ( by the same author) striking. The rebutter chooses the http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/03/further-thoughts-on-guantanamo.html link as the snip source, but the author's post in the secondary link is where I went for my cherries:

http://opiniojuris.org/2011/03/07/some-preliminary-thoughts-on-the-gitmo-executive-order/
Note: added emphasis is mine:
"Because it seems difficult to imagine that an individual President will ever enjoy a political environment in which releasing Gitmo detainees is easy or uncontroversial, it seems particularly important for any periodic review system that exists to be thoughtful, specific and to the extent possible binding about the process by which it might ever lead to release. Without such identified circumstances, it becomes not so much a useful additional layer of review, but a process that adds more to the appearance than the reality of legal legitimacy"

and

"This order goes farther in answering such questions than any U.S. law, legal brief, or set of guidelines I’ve yet seen in the public realm – and that is a strength. But I don’t believe it can be understood as definitively answering the remaining questions about what we are doing at Guantanamo Bay"

by all means, read the whole thing folks.

And last of all this, on the proposed tax on bailed out banks in answer to the anger of the OP at the continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the continuation of a policy that validates everything about the Right Wing fed oligarchy and devalues the hopes and dreams of every working class American:
" Would you have been mad if these were in Bush's budget?" is an apples to oranges comparison. As if the recouping of ( some? most? all? ) of the Tarp bailout money will undo the damage done to our devastated economy.
Read more from his link:

(Reuters) - The Obama administration is proposing a much smaller $30 billion tax on the largest financial institutions, in line with shrinking U.S. corporate bailout costs.
"The "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee" in the proposed fiscal 2012 budget would collect $30 billion over 10 years to recoup the costs of bailing out troubled financial institutions during the financial crisis."
"This compares with the administration's proposal last year to collect $90 billion over 10 years."
"The Treasury Department now estimates that the overall costs of the bailout program -- authorized for up to $700 billion -- will come to about $28.12 billion, including American International Group shares formerly held by the Federal Reserve."
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-15/obama-s-budget-plan-complicates-talks-on-corporate-tax-overhaul.html

And now read another source for opinion on the issue:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/bank-tax-a-roundup-of-reaction/
“The tax isn’t nearly big enough!” — James Kwak, BaselineScenario
“To the extent that it discourages banks from making loans in the future and increases the incentives for banks to use off-balance sheet vehicles, the tax is a bad thing.” — Paul Ashworth, senior United States economist, Capital Economics
“I would have preferred to recoup the bailout money and increase the safety of the system at the same time through a tax on assets (to get at the too big to fail problem) and a tax on leverage (to reduce the damage the big banks can cause if they do fail).” — Mark Thoma, Economist’s View
“So Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs and Citigroup can probably be expected to fork over, oh, maybe $500 million each. I wonder if their accountants will even notice it?” — Kevin Drum, Mother Jones
“What’s mystifying, then, is that the fee will only apply until TARP has been repaid. If it is understood that a tax discouraging excess leverage is a good thing, I’m not sure why you’d want the tax to sunset as soon as the bill from the last crisis is settled, especially since that will probably be right around the time that everyone will forget how dangerous big banks can be.” — Free Exchange, The Economist
“There are few better political maneuvers — especially for a president with mediocre approval ratings — than to propose something that’s popular with the electorate but will probably never see the light of day. If the tax idea fails, the White House can always blame Republicans.” — Brian Wingfeld, Forbes.com
“Banks will argue that this fee will force them to pass on costs to the consumer in the form of higher loan interests or some such thing. An administration official who briefed reporters last night made clear he didn’t think this argument would hold much water: If banks try to pass on the fees, they’ll likely lose market share to other banks, either smaller ones who aren’t affected by the fee or to banks who realize it will be hard to make the pass-on-costs argument while awarding employees huge bonuses.” — Tim Fernholz, The American Prospect
“As policy, the tax helps to level the playing field between large and small financial institutions, reducing the benefit of being ‘too big to fail.’ (It doesn’t go nearly far enough, but it does advance the cause.) As politics, it puts the administration back on the opposite side of the Wall Street bad guys.” — Jonathan Chait, The New Republic
“The Obama administration’s proposal is a positive step toward holding the banks accountable for the damage that they have caused. However, it should not prevent the stronger actions needed to fully cover the cost of the damage and to restore efficiency to the financial sector.” — Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research

When you run into rebuttals like this, it is sometimes telling to look at their sources. Corporate to the core.

[saorsa]

104. Actually, it did not. But what a remarkable

lack of originality your reply displays, using tired derogatory insult in such a hackneyed way. Me, personally, I think that compromisers often claim to have superior vision to others, and I find they often are insulting and belittle those who stand up to them. Let's play the same kindygarden game and say that you may have a big fat blind spot of your own, perhaps it is caused by fear, weakness, or an inability to empathize or feel solidarity with others, perhaps due to chronic fragile ego syndrome, or guilt.

[Arkana]

110. Insults?

I provided facts. That's all I did.

I guess I proved that you can't dispute my facts, so you attack me personally. How Republican of you.

[uponit7771]

108. Yes, if you were going to the point of being mad you shouldn't have voted for him. If you're "mad"

[Autumn]

31. Mad yes,and more, I expected better from Obama.

The anger I can deal with, the disappointment is harder. Look, Bush is a fucking, unintelligent low life and did pretty much what I expected. Obama? He's intelligent and I voted for him so I hold him to a higher standard. Bush did these thing yes, but he's gone and it pisses me off to no end that his values and policies continue. Obama has single handedly validated and rehabilitated the shitty policies of both Reagan and Bush. IMO that is quite a betrayal to Democrats.

[ClarkUSA]

35. So far, I see no proof of the OP's or your claims. But here is proof both of you are wrong.

See Reply 23 for some facts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=629337&mesg_id=629371

[Autumn]

53. I disagree with your "facts" I consider them to be your opinions,

or some other persons opinions. I see no proof in your claims either. It's opinions and I really don't think you can change mine and I certainly do not want to bother to change yours.

Edited for spelling

[ClarkUSA]

56. They are not my facts or my opinions. They are named sources who know far more than you or I.

[Autumn]

58. As I said .opinions. Thanks for the link but I'm really not

interested enough to look at them. I have my opinion on how I feel about the policies mentioned in the OP. That is what I responded to. I think I am old enough and smart enough to form my own opinions.

[Clio the Leo]

101. Either Kucinich voted to fund the Afghanistan war or he didn't....

.... either 100,000 troops left Iraq last summer or they didn't. (Perhaps Rachel Maddow was in on that conspiracy?)

Either Congress blocked the President's attempt at moving Gitmo prisoners to IL for civilian trials or they didn't. Either Obama attempted to try KSM in NY or he didn't.

Facts do not become "opinion" just because you dont like them.

[Autumn]

105. How about those Packers?

Hell of a football team.

[pmorlan1]

34. Yes I would be mad

And yes I am mad now.

[G_j]

70. discovery that the real President Obama was kidnapped

http://www.theonion.com/articles/which-obama-do-want-in-office,19398/


Following the discovery that the real President Obama was kidnapped and replaced by a weak-willed impostor, many citizens are saying they would rather keep the fake Obama in office since the nation is already used to him. Which Obama do want in office?
~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.clicker.com/tv/the-onion-news-network/The-Real-Obama-1382332/

Watch This Episode Now
Season 1 Episode 7 Date: Mar 04, 2011

A breaking news report reveals the president has been kidnapped. Every night in the FactZone Brooke Alvarez provides viewers with the latest news from around the world, except for the countries no one cares about.

[Clio the Leo]

100. then run against him. nt

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lasher]

81. Yes.

Add a sense of betrayal to that anger and that pretty much sums up my feeling.

[Ramulux]

83. You dont get it

Obama gets to be judged by his own standards. Dont you understand that hes special and deserves all of our unwavering support? I get the feeling you are a secret republican who wants Sarah Palin to be president.

[cui bono]

89. - Would you be mad if Bush expanded his own illegal wiretapping?

[Clio the Leo]

91. Egads .... NOT expanding the war in Afghanistan was Bush's problem from the jump..

.... how soon we forget.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

.... just because you may have missed or be ignoring what he's said for years doesn't make HIM a liar.

[Cali_Democrat]

93. When did I call Obama a liar with regard to Afghanistan?

I merely stated that he chose to peruse the policy of war expansion in Afghanistan.

If Bush did that, I would be angry with him as well. My anger does not diminish just because Obama has a 'D' next to his name and wanted to expand the war all along.

[Clio the Leo]

94. You're making the claim that there's a double standard....

... that Obama supporters apply to the President, specifically with regard to Afghanistan.

The fact that he has argued in favor of an expanded presence in Afghanistan for going on 10 years now makes your logic a little hard to follow.

[Cali_Democrat]

95. My logic is hard to follow? Let me make it clear for you

1) I have always been opposed to the war in Afghanistan. I feel it is a waste if blood and treasure
2) Obama supports the expansion of war in Afghanistan.
3) I'm opposed to Obama's support of the war in Afghanistan.

The fact that, for a long time now, he's supported the expanded presence in Afghanistan is irrelevant to me.

The only question for me is: does he support the war? He does and it angers me. It would have angered me if Bush supported that policy and it angers me that Obama supports that policy.

Is my anger supposed to go away because he's always held that position?

[Clio the Leo]

96. i have no problem with your anger....

.... to which you are fully entitled.

But are you, or are you not, saying there's a double standard .... that if Bush expanded the war in Afghanistan that Obama supporters would be upset?

Quite the contrary ..... it's one of the reasons I voted for him and I suspect I'm not alone.

If you disagree with his position, that's fine, but his sending more troops to Afghanistan doesn't make him like Bush. As a matter of fact a case could be made that he was doing the exact opposite of what Bush did.

[Cali_Democrat]

97. Well then my second point regarding the expansion of the Afghanistan war does not apply to you

....because you've always wanted to expand the war. My point applies to the people that were opposed to the Afghanistan war under Bush. If they were mad about war then, they should be mad now.

[Clio the Leo]

98. Did Bush attempt to move Gitmo detainees to the US for civilian trial like Obama did?

refresh my memory ... (sorry, I missed that part of your OP the first time.)

[Mimosa]

116. People in Afghanistan despised the Soviet aggressors and they despise US occupation.

The US helped finance the efforts of the mujahadeen and Osama Bin Ladin to evict the Soviets from Afghanistan. The ostensible reason for US aggression against Afghanistan was that the talibam didn't turn oover Bin laden to US Justice after 9/11. (Let's keep in mind that no Afghan citizens were involved in the 9/11 attack if it in fact originated from within the Afgha borders.) People who've studied the long term facts know that if grabbing Osama Bin laden had been a genuine mission of the US it could have been done a couple of times before 9/11, especially when the Sudan government wanted to tuen him over to the US and get rid of him and his playmates. Remember we had a good reason to get him back then: the attack on the American Embassy in Nairobi.

The USA and the UK are in Afghanistan to establish a puupet government and convince the Afghan people they can get all kinds of good stuff if they will settle down and start mining those mountains. The mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan are darned rich with minerals 'we' need to make batteries, laptops, communication devices. In the USA we are fairly well mined out of the rare earths or in public lands we are 'protecting' what we have left.

[bvar22]

109. Obama's Afghanistan escalation FAR exceeded anything promised during the campaign.

Campaign Obama stated that he would add an additional 3 brigades (12 - 15 thousand troops) with the specific Mission of perusing Bin Laden/Al Qaeda in the mountainous regions, and securing American bases.
These additional troops were added to US forces shortly after Obama became president with little outcry from The Left.

The Obama Surge of +30,000 combat troops plus an undetermined number of contractors, and the Mission Creep to include the Pacification/Occupation of entire regions of Afghanistan greatly exceeds anything promised or discussed during the campaign.

[Clio the Leo]

99. What if Bush ended DADT? What if he signed near-universal health care into law?

..... what if he, almost single handedly, prevented thousands of US auto workers from losing their jobs?

This thread is fun.

[saorsa]

103. " Near Universal" Health care?

you're so funny !

[Autumn]

106. Delusional is more like it.

They missed the part where Obama said it was insurance finance reform.

[Mimosa]

117. Yes, it's 'fun' to have to drop health insurance because the premiums have gone up by $400 a month.

Must be nice to be as comfortable as you are while many people I know, including myself, have had to drop health insurance because the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 screwed us. The insurance companies get to reap a bonanza and get to price out the people who can't afford premiums. There are many of us who are self-employed, not poor enough for Medicaid, but who can't afford 700 or more a month per individual (typical heath insurance premium for people over 55).

So, you think it's fun when people are concerned about soldiers dying in foreign lands and are worried to death because we are in an economic mess and can't afford health care? That tells me all I need to know.

[treestar]

111. I'd have a lot more to be mad about

If Bush or his like were President.

[stevenleser]

119. You set up a straw man with tightly spun premises and then proceed to beat it silly. n/t

[boppers]

120. Hm. Bunch of strawmen.

no.
no.
no.
no.
no.
no.

Oh, and you should look up what "sole purpose" means. The drones also take pictures.

[VoteProgressive]

121. Your tag picture and the chess ones make me cringe!

[LWolf]

123. It's not reasonable to expect

issues to trump team loyalty, or integrity to be favored over hypocrisy.

At least, so I've been told.