Un-Spinning US Foreign Policy
by lizard
Before I took my little 7 day break, someone speculated how I would spin Obama’s announcement that combat troops were leaving Iraq, and would be gone by the end of this year (Bush’s timeline). I think maybe this person was making the still-common mistake of believing the words being delivered from our president’s mouth, this time about “ending the war”. Here is the comment:
I can hardly wait for your spin on Obama’s announcement that we’re pulling our troops out of Iraq at the end of the year.
Let’s see. Maybe he was too slow pulling them out? Maybe it’s just so he can redeploy them against Iran or against the OWS folks?
But I know you’ll manage to come up with some argument, pallatable to at least a few of your friends, to tear him down.
The glaring inaccuracy contained within this comment is the idea that it was the choice of this administration to pull out the troops from Iraq. I don’t need to spin what’s already being spun, and what this commenter has already uncritically internalized. To un-spin this inaccuracy, George Ochenski’s latest column describes the reality of the situation being played up as Obama delivering on a campaign promise:
It turns out that those who opposed the war from its beginning were right: It’s come to an ignoble end. Obama has done his best to spin this, to make it look as though it was his call, but really, he had no choice. This was his Vietnam. We’ve been kicked out. All that’s missing are Iraq embassy workers on the rooftop clinging to a helicopter.
Those who have paid attention to the high-level discussions between Iraq and the U.S. in the last year will recall that as recently as last month, the official U.S. position was that we would be leaving tens of thousands of troops in Iraq to train Iraqi troops and police forces and provide security for diplomatic missions.
But that has not been the position of the Iraqis, who long ago tired of the killing and destruction visited on their cities, businesses, homes and families by U.S. forces, and the atrocities committed by the mercenaries we hired through discredited firms such as Blackwater (now Xe).
I don’t fault the president for trying to brighten the narrative for our public consumption and his electoral prospects. Bush’s team of war criminals destroyed Iraq, US corporations fleeced the American public to “rebuild” it, and now the military/industrial beast is looking elsewhere for opportunities. That’s a total bummer. Much better to believe Obama is finally doing the right thing, and just in time for the holidays.
For those interested in where elsewhere is, be skeptical about calls for Syria to get the Libya treatment, or the hostile posturing against Iran, because some folks, like John Pilger, are pointing in a different direction:
On 14 October, President Barack Obama announced he was sending United States special forces troops to Uganda to join the civil war there. In the next few months, US combat troops will be sent to South Sudan, Congo and Central African Republic. They will only “engage” for “self-defence”, says Obama, satirically. With Libya secured, an American invasion of the African continent is under way.
Obama’s decision is described in the press as “highly unusual” and “surprising”, even “weird”. It is none of these things. It is the logic of American foreign policy since 1945. Take Vietnam. The priority was to halt the influence of China, an imperial rival, and “protect” Indonesia, which President Nixon called “the region’s richest hoard of natural resources… the greatest prize”. Vietnam merely got in the way; and the slaughter of more than three million Vietnamese and the devastation and poisoning of their land was the price of America achieving its goal. Like all America’s subsequent invasions, a trail of blood from Latin America to Afghanistan and Iraq, the rationale was usually “self defence” or “humanitarian”, words long emptied of their dictionary meaning.
Already the horrors of the Lords Resistance Army is getting the critical eye of Empire, while other bad guy dictators, like Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov, get stately visits from our SoS, Hillary Clinton. This from an Al-Jazeera op-ed:
Like a business that maintains two sets of records, one for the tax inspector and the other containing the truth, the United States has two different foreign policies. Its constitution, laws and treaty obligations prohibit torture, assassinations, and holding prisoners without trial. In reality there are secret prisons such as Guantánamo. Similarly, there are two sets of ethical standards in America’s dealing with other countries. Enemies are held to the strictest standards. Allies get a pass. This double standard is the number-one cause of anti-Americanism in the world.
In yet another display that exposes US foreign policy on human rights as hypocritical and self-serving, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traveled to Uzbekistan to establish closer ties with the Central Asian republic’s president-for-life, Islam Karimov. Even as her State Department was ballyhooing the bloody conclusion of Gaddafi’s 42-year reign as a victory for freedom and decency, the former First Lady was engaged in the cynical Cold War-style of one of the worst human rights abusers in the world.
In the human rights brief on Karimov, one major highlight is Central Asia’s Tiananmen Square, the 2005 massacre of between 750 and 1250 peaceful demonstrators at Andijan, a southern town along the restive border with Kyrgyzstan, near the ancient Ferghana Valley. Karimov personally ordered Uzbek militia, Interior Ministry troops and regular army units to surround a square and gun down the protesters, then travelled to the site in order to witness the carnage. A few dozen people managed to escape, scrambling across a border crossing. Shocked Kyrgyz sentries, who had a view of the killing orgy, admitted the refugees. Uzbek troops chased the escapees into Kyrgyzstan, dragged them back and executed them on the Uzbek side of the bridge.
Again, what a bummer. Maybe I should take a cue from our Secretary of State and just acknowledge that sometimes the act of killing is a cause for celebration…
Hopefully this doesn’t bum Hillary out:
NTC Oil Minister Ali Tarhouni today praised the Misrata rebels that conquered Moammar Gadhafi’s hometown of Sirte, saying “I am amazed at their self-restraint.” The rest of the world is amazed at something else.
That’s because the number of summary executions in the captured city seems to be enormous, and the NTC is burying around 300 of the rebel fighters’ victims in a giant mass grave. Many of the bodies still have their hands tied behind their backs, making the gunshots to the head all the more grim.
The mass grave is just part of the story, and the local cemetary has collected 572 bodies overall. All of them were reported as “mercenaries” by the rebel fighters, though again many of them were summary executions.
Seriously, total bummer.
I wish our leaders could just be honest about our foreign policy, like stating simply we are in it to win it for the corporations who will ultimately benefit, and all the carnage and human misery doesn’t mean shit when there’s money to make. Luckily we have artists to cut through the bullshit, so to conclude this depressing post, here is Cloud Cult with a clever mash-up of how a Bush State of the Union should really sound:
-
Recent Comments
Pancho on Who Can Can Engstrom? petetalbot on Who Can Can Engstrom? petetalbot on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Who Can Can Engstrom… on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Steve W on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F…
October 30, 2011 at 9:03 am
Liz, It’s good to see you back at Montana polemics. Your post, as usual, is thoughtful and well-documented.
You began your post with something I wrote, so (indirectly at least) I’d like to defend it. What I meant to suggest in my comment was that your almost invariable point of departure, especially in discussing American foreign policy, is to insist on how hypocritical, unjust, murderous and (supply further unpleasant adjectives) our president is.
For you, Obama seems to be a sort of Genghis Khan masquerading as Martin Luther King. You want to tear the mask off and expose him for what he really is.
And, consistent with your contempt for the man, you’ll never support him in any way politically.
I think what you’re not considering is that when Obama was elected president he was elected president not only of a country but of an expansive empire working chiefly to advance the interests of powerful international elites. As such, his powers were and remain very limited.
There’s no way to tell what Obama would be able to accomplish unfettered by the Chamber of Commerce, the military-industrial complex, the international banking system (not just “Wall Street”), systemic flaws in our congress like the filibuster and the senate “hold,” and a political process that is more or less overtly controlled by big corporate money.
From his first day in office, Obama has been swimming in a sewer.
And you keep pointing out how bad he smells.
I see things differently. To me, Obama is a basically good man who wakes up every day having to deal with a frightening and depressing array of very bad men and corrupt institutions. Outgunned, he has to make a lot of compromises, and many of them stink. It stinks to have to bow, at least partially, to the demands of embedded power while doing what he can for ordinary Americans.
You condemn. I empathize.
You probably won’t agree, but I think if McCain-Palin had won in 2008 things would be a whole bunch worse. To strain my metaphor a bit further, McCain-Palin would now be splashing around joyfully in the sewer. They’d have dragged all of us into the sewer with them and tried to persuade us that spitting out turds is clean-cut American fun.
And this is what Perry or Romney will do if they’re elected. They won’t even try to resist, as Obama does every day, the dark forces around them. They’ll embrace them and work tirelessly to advance their interests. And, of course, the rest of us will be totally screwed.
What I like about the Occupy movement is that it is a chance for ordinary people to stand up to the destructive forces in our country that Obama has to compromise with every day. Marching in the demonstration in Helena yesterday, I kept thinking, or maybe imagining, how we can change the national narrative from pro-corporate propaganda to something Obama can use in his fight against the cynical bastards who currently control virtually everything in our country.
October 30, 2011 at 9:47 am
thank you for a more involved comment instead of a flippant one, but in defending it you failed to acknowledge the inaccuracy i pointed out. it wasn’t Obama’s choice to pull out troops, and spinning it that way doesn’t negate the efforts to keep at least 10,000 troops in Iraq, and since those efforts failed, according to this NYT article, they’re just going to be shifted around:
your fantasy (i say that because, like belief in God, it requires faith) that Obama “is a basically good man who wakes up every day having to deal with a frightening and depressing array of very bad men and corrupt institutions” is a tough mentality to crack, because no matter how much evidence that Obama is a criminal imperialist gets presented, you will still hold tight to your belief. and that’s fine, i just don’t think it reflects the reality of discernible actions Obama has taken, like assassinating 3 US citizens (and counting) expanding special forces kill teams across the world, and entrenching ALL the abuses of the criminal imperialist that came before him, including torture and indefinite detention sans due process.
October 30, 2011 at 10:03 am
If Obama were on trial accused of the crimes you allege, and all the jury had to listen to was your version of events, he would be in deep trouble. Fortunately, a defendant in a trial can put up a defense.
Virtually every “crime” you allege has been very adequately defended (by knowledgeable people of good character) as a necessary action. I don’t have the energy right now to chase down each of these arguments. But they exist.
October 30, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Obama on trial, yes, as is his constitutional right to due process if charges were ever to be brought against him, which we all know will never happen.
but that birthright we have the right to demand is more than hundreds of detainees have gotten, more than the 3 dead US citizens have gotten, and more than Bradley Manning is getting right now.
the clip of Hillary celebrating the reported possibility of Gaddafi’s death is very unfortunate for US foreign policy, IMHO. this administration’s disregard for both our laws and international law, not to mention support of dictators when it furthers US interests (not little us) is part of the reasoning extremists of all persuasions use to justify using violence themselves.
i don’t believe responding to violence with more violence is ever the answer, but lots of people do, like, let’s say, soldiers who are sworn to defend the constitution from enemies, both foreign and domestic.
October 31, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Necessary does not equal legal. While it might have been “necessary” to assassinate a U.S. citizen, it was not legal. If it was necessary, then the constitution should have been amended first to allow it. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
November 6, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Coming late to this discussion, but just so you know, that column went to Counterpunch and I received some emails on it from folks around the nation chastising me for NOT including Hillary Clinton, Obama, and most of his administration in those who should be tried for war crimes.
So, don’t underestimate the sentiment out there that people are not happy with the way this president and his secretary of state and Pentagon do business these days. The continuations of the Bush crimes are far more numerous than the examples where they have been abandoned. Drones, Guantanamo, assassination of US citizens abroad, domestic spying, and on and on and on.
While it’s easy to say “my goodness, look what a sewer Obama lives in with all the corruption in DC” it’s worth remembering that he was a US Senator prior to running for president and had a pretty good idea what a sewer Congress and DC are. Yet, he “applied” for the job with the American people in a campaign heavily laden with promises of progressive policies, fiscal equality, and hey, even world peace — remember, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing and then continued the wars and started a number of new ones.
Being president means you have the bully pulpit when you want it and if you want to lead — that’s what you do. You say “the American people elected me based on what I told them I’d do — so sorry about the pressure from the elite, but I’m vetoing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.” He could have done that and likely avoided a downgrading in the nation’s fiscal reliability because all the trillions staying in the pockets of the billionaires would be back in the US Treasury.
But leadership doesn’t mean “bipartisan cooperation” and caving to minority Republicans on a regular basis. Right now, an objective observer would have to say that the Republican minority in Congress is now calling the shots on issues of national importance and the Dems and Obama are, once again, giving us the thin gruel of compromise in our winter of discontent. Hence, Occupy. Dems didn’t do it for us, so Occupy is seeking to do it for ourselves sans “leading politicians.”
Actions speak louder than words — and we’ve had plenty of words from this president. But until he starts actively undoing the damage of the Bush presidency and pushing truly progressive policies (that would include dumping Hillary as SoS, by the way), more and more words is about all that we can look forward to…and that, as Liz would say, is a bummer.
November 7, 2011 at 8:34 am
I’m critical of Obama for many of the reasons mentioned above. But what are the consequences of the Obama Sucks narrative? A major one will be President Romney, who wants to privatize (end) Medicare and social security, outlaw gay marriage, restore don’t-ask, do away with ALL restraints on Wall Street, and, in general, stick it to the poor and middle class.
You Obama Sucks people need to take responsibility for the consequences of what you’re advocating. You’re Republican tools.
November 7, 2011 at 9:03 am
Turner -
I don’t recall Obama calling me up and asking if I’d be happy if he extended the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. I don’t recall him asking the American people if we wanted to send troops to three new African nations. Nor if we thought it was a great idea to continue to bail out Wall St. while Main Street goes begging. His record of busting whistleblowers is worse than Bush’s (check PEER for this if you have doubts).
What you’re doing is blaming the victims, not the responsible party, which is incredibly lame and totally indefensible.
But hey, nothing we haven’t seen before from Demo sycophants who somehow want us to disbelieve the massive evidence of a party in disarray and lacking leadership capable of DELIVERING not just TALKING ABOUT the campaign promises for which voters put them in office.
I don’t know how your system of adjudicating whether or not you’re getting ripped off works, but mine is pretty simple. If they don’t do what they said they were going to do on the campaign trail — and if the consequences fall on the populace — then we got ripped off again by a fast-talking politician.
Trying to convince millions of former Obama supporters that they haven’t been sold out sounds like a rolling the boulder uphill endlessly to no particular end except to give us more of the same.
Why again should we do that? Oh yeah, the Republican boogeyman looms (as always). So why is it that folks like you think our choices should always be determined by the lesser of two weasels? Oh yeah, the Republican boogeyman. Circular logic for those who can’t think outside their own narrow party affiliations and thus believe there is no other choice.
If Obama loses his re-election bid, how’s about just once you put the blame where it belongs instead of scapegoating voters? Why don’t you just admit that if he loses, he earned that loss by abandoning his base, breaking his promises, continuing practices he promised to stop, and basically selling out the 99% for the benefit of the 1% of the power brokers with whom he surrounds himself?
November 7, 2011 at 9:41 am
First of all, I’m not blaming voters for anything. And I’m not scapegoating “victims,” whatever you meant by that.
I’m blaming you.
You’re the one who is actively trying to get a Republican elected president of the United States. You’re the one trying to make Republicans more acceptable to others by calling them a mere “boogeyman,” an imaginary threat. You might as well be on their payroll.
They’re not an imaginary threat and you know it. A Republican president in 2013 will move us speedily onward to fascism.
November 7, 2011 at 10:27 am
Turner: with all due respect, you are being a hypocrite. i read your letter to the editor a few weeks ago bashing Tester for not voting for the jobs act. what, are you a REPUBLICAN TOOL trying to get Rehberg elected?
so let me get this straight: it’s okay for you to criticize a fellow Democrat for not doing something you wanted him to do, but when we do it here, it’s not okay, and we are Republican tools? nice.
George Ochenski: thank you for your commentary, some of us appreciate your opinionated consistency which isn’t hobbled by blind loyalty to a party that continues to take significant elements of its base for granted.
November 7, 2011 at 10:34 am
Maybe you didn’t notice, Turner, but we’ve already achieve full-fledged fascism here. Or, maybe a government that decides unilaterally to assassinate an American citizen abroad without trial or accusation in direct contradiction to our Constitution is somehow exempt from your definition of fascism because there’s a D behind the name of the current officeholder responsible for these acts.
Or maybe you haven’t been watching the cops beat the shit out of Occupy participants who threaten the corporatocracy that runs the country these days.
Or maybe it was me who was responsible for sending troops into those three new African nations without even consulting Congress.
Blame me? I’m a voter, a victim and a long-time scapegoat for Demo sycophants who can’t hold their own politicians accountable for their actions. In fact, 99% of us are both victims and scapegoats for a system that is no longer set up or operating to serve our best interests.
Really, Turner, you should go to work for an insurance company. You have the role down perfectly…tell us what won’t be covered and try to blame us for “the accident.”
This thread has all the characteristics of the “debate” that took place on Left in the West over Max Baucus’ horrific health care bill. The Demo sycophants kept tell the rest of us how wrong we were and how right Max was and what a wonderful bill it was. When the result at the polls was losing the Demo House majority in Congress because the American people rebelled against being told to buy some insurance product by their own government or become criminals, it was, of course, not the fault of the shitty legislation, not the fault of the sell-out Democrat who said “single-payer and public option are off the table” from the outset — no, it was the fault of those of us who pointed out that Max (and Obama) were selling out their base in favor of insurance and health corporate profits.
You’re pitiful, really, in your myopic view of events, causes, and results.
But hey, if makes you feel better to blame the victims, keep it up — I’m sure you’re very persuasive to those who think otherwise.
October 31, 2011 at 11:25 am
How is it that the commander in chief of the military is outgunned in terms of deciding what that military does? In what ways could the military-industrial complex influence him if he is the good, honest man you say he is?
If he is a good, honest man fighting the corruption around him, why does he not direct the US Attorney’s office and federal law enforcement agencies to stop persecuting marijuana producers and distributors in states where it has been legalized? For that matter, why does he not abandon persecution of the war on drugs altogether? Why does he not pardon every non-violent drug offender in prison, saving the country billions of dollars every years? Why does he not close all secret and not-so-secret unconstitutional prisons outside US borders? Why has he sent troops to Africa to enmesh us in yet another undeclared war? Why does he not appoint surround himself with some advisors and cabinet members who were not, at one time, employed by Goldman Sachs and co.? And so on and so forth.
There are a lot of things that the President of the United States cannot do without the support of the legislature, as it should be. However, there are a lot of things he absolutely could do unilaterally as the leader of the Executive branch, without permission from anyone else, and he hasn’t done any of those things.
You weave a pretty story of sewage and dark forces and so on. If Obama is fighting these things, where is the evidence? Show me what he has done.
October 31, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Also, check this out: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-secrets-20111031,0,273702.story
October 31, 2011 at 1:00 pm
I’m through with the topic. If you’re not willing to accept political realities, no amount of argument will persuade you otherwise.
October 31, 2011 at 2:42 pm
What political realities?
October 31, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Explain how the US Justice Department enforcing federal marijuana statutes equates to Obama not being “a good honest man”..”fighting corruption”..etc. Above you seem very concerned about legal technicalities in the context of the ‘terrorist’ being killed by a drone strike. But you are OK with the President picking and choosing which statutes passed by Congress that he will enforce? Doesnt seem very consistent a position unless the only consistency you seek is to bash BO.
October 31, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Jack –
The president picking and choosing which laws to enforce against the country’s citizens is absolutely his function. In fact, that is part of the dictionary definition of the executive branch’s role in the U.S. system of checks and balances.
The legislature enacts laws. The executive either enforces them or does not. The judicial decides whether the actions of the other two are just/constitutional. There are other functions, of course, but that is the simple version of how each branch affects the laws the country’s citizens much obey.
Just as every local D.A. has the power to choose not to prosecute any one crime or type of crime, so the President has the power to not prosecute certain types of crimes at the federal level, and/or to pardon those who have been convicted under them in the past.
What he does not have the power to do is willfully ignore the law when his branch is dealing with US citizens, if it is to the detriment of those citizens. He can choose not to hold them responsible for breaking laws, but he cannot break the law when attempting to hold them responsible.
In other words, his power includes the option to decrease the severity of punishment, not to increase it, especially across the boundary of inalienable rights spelled out in the Constitution.
—
The reason I bring up his enforcement of federal drug law in the case of marijuana is that before being elected, he claimed that it was his position that the federal government should not interfere in things that states have made legal. His branch’s actions since then have made it clear that he was lying, or has changed his mind. You can not claim that he still holds that position, as many would, because prosecution of federal drug laws is an area that he has 100%, autonomous, unilateral control over, unlike so many of the issues that people blame him or don’t blame him for.
So, if he has lied or changed his mind about that, what else? What other tenets of the philosophy that got him elected, and that cause Turner and others to still support him, has he abandoned?
October 30, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Yes, Disaster Capitalism is in full force in Libya. They bomb the heck out of it then corporations swoop in to build it back up and make gobs of money while indebting the people. http://blackagendareport.com/content/butchering-gaddafi-america%E2%80%99s-crime
And thanks for the short Hilary cackle clip, that says it all. I can’t imagine how that kind of glee fits in with the narrative that this administration is revolted at their task of defending the elites’ empire; that Obama, Hillary, Panetta, Geithner, Holder get up every day with a heavy heart as they struggle to improve the lives of the 99%. I recommend Hugh’s Obama scandals list as a good place to start in understanding what this administration has been doing since the get go. http://obamascandalslist.blogspot.com/2009/10/table-of-contents.html
“By your deeds shall you be known.”
October 31, 2011 at 9:51 am
If Obama were as sinister as you believe and really really wanted to keep troops in Iraq it would not be hard to do.
Karimov is not a nice guy. Even the Bush administration was forced to distance themselves from him (for a while) when it was revealed that his security forces had been boiling prisoners alive.
October 31, 2011 at 9:41 pm
I’m watching some serious spin from CNN’s Erin Burnett and Eric Schmitt (from the NYT) pumping the fear of “home grown” terrorists being actively recruited by the Somalian terrorist group al shabaab (who Eric referred to as the “Somalian Taliban”) then returning home to attack.
Africa, here we come!
November 1, 2011 at 1:25 am
Please! Someone find Pat (me-on-the-back) Williams a volunteer job in order that we might be spared his sermons on the mount (of wealth)! The man who endorsed Hillary Clinton —after she had proclaimed she would “annihilate Iran”—now steps forward (in writing…always and only in writing) as a peace activist. My god, Butte produced about two sycophants and this man is one.
Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/do-not-forget-lies-and-price-of-iraq-war/article_9e8a352e-03c9-11e1-8777-001cc4c03286.html?mode=comments#ixzz1cR6X3YdH
Discussion : Do not forget lies and price of Iraq war
missoulian.com
November 1, 2011 at 9:23 am
-dhc-, thats an interesting contortion but a well reasoned argument. So what you are saying is that when President Mitt Bachman Perry decides to order the EPA and DOJ to sit at their desks doing crosswords and refuse to enforce federal statutory environmental laws that you must be OK with that because its within her Constitutional authority.
Your position that Obama has made a blanket claim that he would not interfere when a state has made something ‘legal’ is meritless. So did he make that claim for firearms too or did you just mean med marij? I dont agree with what he has done but I also think that quite a few larger scale med marijuana operations probably had it coming.
This discussion about al alawaki has taken place here already and I actually agree with you quite a bit. I do not think the President should have the authority to take the life of a US citizen without due process and to me due process means a seperate judicial review. Congress should enact a statutory framework that provides a FISA like review in the specific circumstances where a US citizen is 1) out of reach of law enforcement and 2) alleged by the executive to be waging war or otherwise a threat to national security. BO is an impossible situation otherwise and I dont blame him for doing what he did. I also do not think its as cut and dry illegal as you believe. For starters…just as with your claim regarding the executive refusing to enforce federal law…nothing is really illegal or unconstitutional in this context until the judicial branch says it is. And in this case they had the opportunity to step in when Al Alwaki’s family sued the federal govt and refused to get involved. Im not saying I agree with the argument that the president has the authority under the authorization for war or his war making authority but its not a completely meritless position either. The bottomline is we can internet armchair lawyer it back and forth but its not ‘illegal’ until the courts step in and they have already demonstrated that they will not. I dont blame BO for taking the action he did..I also dont think its the first time it happened…. and I recognize the dangers in this aand would say that its the role of Congress now to clean it up.
November 1, 2011 at 9:32 am
On the second point, I just meant his comments about medical marijuana.
If the President ordered the EPA/DOJ to stop enforcing federal environmental laws, that would be within his/her constitutional purview, yes.
However, that absence of federal prosecution would not prevent individuals from bringing civil action against any person/company whose disregard for the environment caused them harm in any way. In fact, the laws are on the books, so such civil actions would be able to cite those statutes as evidence of wrongdoing. Nor would it prevent state governments from prosecuting.
We’re in total agreement on Al Alawaki, I think.
November 1, 2011 at 9:41 am
Good points about the civil and state actions to enforce environmental law but I think we also probably agree that it is utlimately the place of the US DOJ to enforce those laws. The only reason I bring it up is that I generally am not comfortable with the idea of the president picking and choosing what he is going to enforce on principle (even though I do recognize that it happens every day from his office down to the lowest prosecutor). There was going to be a federal problem for those med marijuana producers sooner or later even if BO continued to do nothing. Another case where Congress needs to act to really resolve it.
November 1, 2011 at 9:49 am
Well, yeah, it’s the DOJ’s job to enforce.
My point is, the President has the power to do some things unilaterally. While this means that a bad president could do bad things unilaterally, like stop enforcing all environmental law from a federal perspective, it also means a good president could do good things, like pardon non-violent victimless criminals or NOT send special forces to Africa.
And so it’s disappointing when someone we hoped would be a good president turns out to be somewhat unwilling to do those things.
Couldn’t agree more that Congress needs to take care of the drug war problem. Prohibition causes more problems than it solves.
November 5, 2011 at 10:07 am
There’s only one person running for president who has a solid foreign policy record…Ron Paul!
November 5, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Lipstick, or no lipstick, is hardly a legitimate question at this stage in game.
As long as we participate in violent and exploitive acts at home and abroad, it is difficult to imagine how business as usual will change. Our non-violent, non-participation has never more needed. The world is watching. People do have the power, but have been overcome with fear and over-full garages and storage spaces. There is no violent solution. There is no truth in greed. What will each of us willingly give up for peace?
November 7, 2011 at 10:55 am
So Liz and Ochenski are attacking me for pointing out the obvious: the Obama Sucks movement will work to suppress Democratic turnout and, if it’s effective, hand the election to Romney.
Meanwhile, they’re posturing about being in the 99% as though I’m not. As an active Occupy Butte person, I resent their trying to define that movement as anti-Obama.
As for my letter asking that Schweitzer primary Tester, you bet I criticized Tester. But if it comes down to Tester vs. Rehberg, I’ll certainly vote for Tester.
Underlying all the Obama Sucks talk is the sly suggestion that a third party can win in 2012. They don’t really believe this; it’s just an effort to defeat Democrats.
November 7, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Ah, Turner, I don’t recall “attacking” anyone in my first post on this thread. More invention from you…with about as much credibility as the rest of your excuse-making.
And you know, please don’t get up on the activist soap-box as if it’s some kind of saintly pedestal. I and my wife, friends, and hundreds of Montanans protested Baucus’ health bill in Helena (where his office doors were locked at a noon protest) and at Big Sky where he was shaking down corporate donors for a $5,000 a plate fundraiser. MEA-MFT’s director Eric Feaver, representing 19,000 union members, gave some stirring speeches at the Helena events and ALL of it was intended to put the public option/single-payer back on Max’s table. As you undoubtedly know, being a Demo watcher, it didn’t work — not even a smidgen.
Why? Because every time the Demo base gets its back up and takes on the actions of its elected officials, there’s someone like you out there to attack the well-deserved criticism with the threat of “we’ll have Republicans!” Remember, it was Max that posed with Bush when he signed the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans…Max.
Sorry, amigo, but the attacks went in the opposite direction from what you just posted. YOU attacked us for not being good soldiers for the Lame-o-crats.
The proof lies in the very essence of your argument. IF (big IF) Obama had done such great things to keep his base happy, you wouldn’t have to make this argument, would you? Nope, you wouldn’t because we wouldn’t be griping about him not keeping his campaign promises and continuing Bush-era policies or worse.
It’s easy to end the squabbling among the Demo base — all it takes is for the Democrats to stand up and fight for us and we’ll stand up and fight for them. But your threat that we either do that or have a Republican will motivate exactly no one to the polls or to do anything else. Voting is an intensely personal decision and, no matter what I or you or anyone else says, if voters aren’t happy with their elected officials (and the record low polling numbers for Congress right now ought to be a hint), then they aren’t going to be excited to contribute, put up yard signs, make phone calls, or even vote.
The mystery to me is that we faced this exact situation two years ago with the results folks like me predicted of massive Demo losses and it’s like it never happened to you. Amazing feat of selective memory if I ever saw one, but please, don’t try to tell those of us who forewarned of the disaster then and now that it was in any way our fault to simply tell the truth.
November 7, 2011 at 1:26 pm
Wow, you’re just making this shit up! I attacked you for criticizing Baucus on the health care bill? When was this? In your dreams?
Our county Democrats sent a resolution, which I wrote, to Baucus strongly criticizing him for killing Single Payer in committee. We followed it up with phone calls and e-mails.
You don’t have to like what I write. Just don’t lie about what I’ve done or not done. It’s cheap and dishonest.
November 7, 2011 at 2:17 pm
you need to read a bit closer, Turner. he’s not saying that you, specifically, were the one “attacking” him for protesting against Baucus, but “people like you”.
as for making shit up, what did you say over at Wulfie’s? here, let me refresh your memory:
Actually, I’m always in trouble over at 4 & 20 because I still believe in voting. And I’ll almost always vote for Democrats, warts and all.
glass house, Turner, so how about you put down the stones and take a breather. your anger is getting the best of you, which is something i have more than a little experience with.
November 7, 2011 at 2:54 pm
OK, I’m done with topic. But characterizing Obama as a war criminal, then accusing those who would vote for him as “Lame-ocrats,” is a pretty good example of “people like me” getting attacked at 4 & 20 for voting for the candidate we think will help the country most.
I stand by my offhand remark at Wulfar!
November 7, 2011 at 5:17 pm
if you can’t handle it, Turner, then don’t dish it out. and i don’t care if you stand by your remark, it’s still a bunch of crap. show me an example of how you got in trouble for believing in voting.
you think Obama will help the country most. that’s fine. i don’t share that perspective, so i won’t vote for him, but that doesn’t mean i don’t believe in voting. i have stated i will more than likely vote for Tester, but maybe your selective memory doesn’t recall that. much easier to just mischaracterize my opinions and this site because you don’t agree with my consistent assessment of how damaging this president has been.
anyway, go ahead and run away from this thread for a second time. you obviously don’t have the stomach to deal with the reality of what Obama’s foreign policy means, because for some reason you seem to think only Republicans can be fascists.
if you would just open your eyes you would see Obama has already proven you wrong.
November 7, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Run away? I thought you told me to take a breather.
November 7, 2011 at 6:37 pm
yes, advice i could apparently use myself. peace, Turner.
November 8, 2011 at 11:22 am
Well, if your comment was influenced by Rob’s lies in the comment that preceded it:
“Imagine how humorous I found it when JC called for a Constitutional Convention (a very worthy call) in the same post where he describes voting as useless.”
(which was not something I said or wrote) you might want to rethink your responses with Rob’s continuing strawman attacks against me (or any of 4&20′s writers) in mind. Rob has been engaging in a one boy campaign of ad hominem and strawman attacks against anybody who doesn’t think like him for a long, long time.
Comments like yours here and elsewhere are exactly what he is phishing for.
November 8, 2011 at 11:32 am
Could we all just take a moment and pray to the Jesus statue in Whitefish?
November 8, 2011 at 11:33 am
(sorry, the jesus statue thing has really hit my funny bone today – like out of control! LMFAO!)