TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Obama: "Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right." (5 posts)

1. truthmover
   Administrator

   Obama finally came forward to answer his critics on the left and make his case for the balance he is trying to achieve between security and transparency. With just a bit of optimism left in me I found it fairly uplifting. He really handled the situation well, made a fairly strong argument down the middle, but in a principle fashion (yeah, he's still all about Wall St. and the intelligence community, that's not going to change), and even said a couple of things he didn't have to that seemed to be fairly genuine.

   And he also said the above quote. I was cheering. Score one for fact vs ideology.

   http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks...

   Posted 15 years ago #
2. JohnA
   Member

   civil libertarians would disagree.

   and i have to admit - i disagree too. while he made great political hay out of posing in front of the constitution yesterday - he is still advocating detaining people indefinitely.

   he basically said: we can't give them a trial - and we can't let them go.

   does anyone see the circular logic here? without a trial how can we determine who the terrorists are - and, more importantly, who are NOT?

   to solve this problem he further advocates a review process that remains outside of the legal system - a literally INVENTED legal construct - to determine the disposition of these detainees. be honest - would you expect the previous editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review to ever support such a thing? who will provide oversight? who will determine who and how this process works? what sort of checks and balances will exist?

   let me heavily caveat these statements by pointing out that i in no way equate the current administration with the last. anyone who claims we are simply getting 'more of the same' is simply hopelessly biased or not paying attention to what is going on.

   and - i have had just about ENOUGH of the Glenn Beck mentality that seeks to stir up the fringe right in this nation to arm itself and prepare for violent conflict. if i had to point a finger at the biggest security threat to this nation - it would be the continued belligerence of the far right as they seek to capitalize on fear and paranoia.

   i guess the question for those of us stuck in the middle is - how do we effectively hold Obama accountable for capitulating to the right?

   Posted 15 years ago #
3. truthmover
   Administrator

   How do we effectively hold Obama accountable for capitulating to the right?

   I don't think that's what he is doing. I think he stands exactly where he has all along, assuming much of his campaign rhetoric to be hollow.

   Let's put it this way. I'll take what I can get. I'm not sure any President has been as explicit with his plans as Obama. He actually explains in detail where he's going. And it's a compromise. He made clear in that speech that he's working with what he fell into. He can't fix all the problems that Bush created, and as he's not really liberal and want's to keep both sides happy, he isn't really trying to do that.

   He want's to push everything Bush did in the right direction. And you know what...

   That might be something he can actually accomplish.

   That's huge!!! Obama did bring change. Not the kind we were hoping for, but close to the kind of change he was talking about. He's working with what both sides want in order to get something done. And it seems that most of what he wants to get done is at the very least a step away from the excesses of the Bush administration.

   I think people maintain this fantasy in their head about what they would like this corrupt nation to look like that has nothing to do with what is possible. I'm cheering for inches here. It's all we've got.

   Posted 15 years ago #
4. JohnA
   Member

   well - i do agree with everything you are saying. don't get me wrong.

   but some of these 'compromises' really concern me - namely the expanded war in eurasia with what looks like an explosively dangerous situation unfolding in Pakistan - and his wishy-washy handling of past war crimes by the previous administration.

   i understand that he needs to be pragmatic about getting things done. Even liberals like Bill Maher have taken a similar position - claiming that prosecuting war crimes and torture would suck the life out of our efforts to save the environment and economy. we need to get things done, etc etc.

   perhaps that is true.

   but - my response is that we should not pick and choose to prosecute - or fail to prosecute - crimes, based on political expediency and what is politically 'convenient' at any given time. we should prosecute all crimes - if there is enough evidence that they have been committed - no matter what the circumstances. anything short of this approach is simply banana republic bullshit.

   looking forward and not back sets a very dangerous precident.

   having said that, i am very please with many of Obama's other initiatives and publicly stated positions. I just don't want to waste time and space listing them all out.

   but - IMHO - Mr Transparency is going to have to face the music on some of these legal white elephants that he has been tap dancing around. (now there's an image) the stakes are pretty high for our democracy - and we cannot afford to allow the precident to stand that presidents and vice-presidents and defense secretaries are untouchable. We do not need another Kissinger and Nixon skating away while wiping their ass on the constitution.

   Posted 15 years ago #
5. thatsmystory
   Member

   The propaganda is intended to suggest that high ranking officials committed criminal acts in good faith. It's an absurd concept but the establishment gets away with it. After all, patriotism=authoritarianism.

   Another sick concept is the idea that investigations would distract from bipartisan efforts to work on behalf of the public. Where was the bipartisan oversight on the executive branch during the Bush/Cheney years? Such oversight would have been extremely beneficial for the public yet it evidently wasn't a priority. Note the dedication to public service--"We aren't going to do anything for you (the public) unless you shut up about accountability." Of course the terms are never stated so candidly. Instead we have perception management experts who coach the politicians to use tested words like "distraction" and sick phrases like "move on for the good of the country."

   Posted 15 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.