How Freedom Dies
For four years, Mr. Obama has benefited at least in part from the reluctance of Mr. Bush’s most virulent critics to criticize a Democratic president. Some liberals acknowledged in recent days that they were willing to accept policies they once would have deplored as long as they were in Mr. Obama’s hands, not Mr. Bush’s.
“We trust the president,” former Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan said on Current TV. “And if this was Bush, I think that we would all be more up in arms because we wouldn’t trust that he would strike in a very targeted way and try to minimize damage rather than contain collateral damage.”
Dear Ms. Granholm, I have a clue for you: You have allowed the precedent to be set, which means everyone in the future who occupies the White House will claim this same power, whether you trust them or not. I personally think you are insane to have some special trust that Obama is minimizing collateral damage, particularly given his Orwellian refusal to acknowledge innocent deaths as innocent. What is he doing, steering the drones himself? But it is more insane to give the government power solely because the person who occupies the White House this micro-second is someone in whom you have particular faith. What happens in the next micro-second? Sorry, doesn't matter, it will be too late.
budget? have you heard of CRs guy? very legal.
level of debt? done by Congress not the POTUS
level of unemployment - do you mean after the economic disaster when Bush left?
What exactly was Obama supposed to do about that?
ObamaCare ? not even implemented yet? - these are policies guy.. did Bush sign off on Medicare Part D by the way? (yes).
re: SCOTUS - you mean when Bush told SCOTUS they had no jurisdiction over torture in Gitmo?
Bengazi - WTF? How many US embassies and consulates were attacked under prior POTUS? the US COLE.. the Marine Barracks in Beirut? about a dozen more... since Reagan.
re: weapons systems in the war on terror - are you saying that Bush did it right and Obama wrong or what?
The media is NOT silent on it guy. The liberals do not like it and it's in all the media... do you watch FOX? MSN? CNN? ALL of them are reporting it.
geese.. this is just more continuation of the conspiracy theories guy.
you likely voted against Obama.. have been opposed to him from the get go and now are just making lists of things you don't like - ... LIKE WARREN IS...
there is no wrong-doing with the drones. they are a weapon system that was in use under Bush and now under Obama. Where was the outrage under Bush for the same issue?
this is just more partisan blather...and you know it guy.
Yep, I figured...mis-direction by asking for examples then criticize specific ones as a means to discredit the whole argument.
Senate is required by law to exit their proposal by April 1 and complete vote by April 15. Yep, I am very familiar with CR and it does get passed by both branches. But that is to obscure the real issue. The GOP have been pinned down in a no win situation because the media does not report the whole story.
The annual budget is supposed to be the deliberative process set up by law to create a check and balance in government. The Dems have conspired to lock in $1T+ deficit spending since 2009 by ignoring the law (which has no legal consequence). As a result the GOP have attempted to force debate in the few points of leverage the do have.
After getting a majority in the House in 2010 election, the GOP did not feel they could force a true showdown on it with the CR for the 2012 budget (the first budget they would be voting on), as the alternative to passing the CR was to fully close down the Federal government - it did not work out well in the 90's and would be political suicide in the coming elections, and the Dems knew that. The other leverage points have been the debt ceiling and the "negotiated" sequester.
So, we've been going from crisis to crisis because the Dems have been avoiding a real debate and negotiation on a budget through the process set up to do so. The alternative was for the GOP just to shut up and accept it. They didn't and we see the GOP getting the blame for these crises, with the media ignoring the underlying cause and context.
So, please get your facts straight, tell the whole story and quit trying to obscure the real point...
The media does / has not ask/ed the questions they should be...it is costing us our freedom.
Bush messed up in many ways (incl Medicare Part D, btw), but the media was there calling him out all the way through. I expect the same treatment for Obama (or Romney had he won and had he had the same positions).
Partisan blather...hardly, in the way you think - I'm partisan to freedom (many in both the GOP and Dems have been working against us over time to reduce our freedom) - but believe what you want, and ignore what you see.
well no.. but your list is clearly partisan and clearly one-sided. I could make such a list for Bush but so what?
The annual budget is supposed to be an AGREEMENT by both parties in both houses of Congress and when they cannot agree - the go to a CR but even the CR has to be voted on. It's not ideal but it's not illegal as you claimed either.
The Dems have not conspired anything. They simply do not agree with the House GOP budget and there is no compromise on either side. The 1T spending by the way mostly came from Congressional action PRIOR to Obama taking office. We doubled defense spending, added Medicare Part D, cut taxes - then the economy tanked cutting tax revenues even further.
It takes two to tango. The House GOP will only send a budget to the Senate that they will not accept and there is no attempt to compromise -on either side.
re: the media.. do you watch FOX or listen to talk radio? Limbaugh, Malkin, Hannity, Levin, ????
they ARE the media also guy and they are pretty loud and pretty up front as media.
I'm partisan to freedom myself and I do not think Obama is a great POTUS by a long shot and has some issues but the issues you are treading on here - are all blathered on over and over on FOX and other conservative commentators. I watch FOX guy.. but I also watch MSN/CNN and I do know what both are saying and I DO KNOW what is partisan and what is a fair argument.
It's totally fair to say that Obama has not led on entitlement reform or the budget - that's a fair criticism but it's totally dishonest to say he's the one that produces the budget or causes the deficits and it's not even honest to say the Dems are causing them when the groundwork for the excessive spending over tax revenues was laid down when spending doubled and taxes were cut. Remember who said "deficits don't matter"? it was not Obama...
and really - what does all of the above have to do with drones and collateral damage? Isn't the drone issue just one more think added to the list of things you do not like about Obama?
isn't that what Warren is doing?
“So what” you ask! YOU are the one who asked for a list of examples where Obama is not criticized to the same extent that Bush would be for the same “offense”.
It IS illegal to not pass a budget by April 15 (section 300 of the 1974 Congressional Budget Act), but there is no consequence set out for failure. Don't try to conflate what I said with a CR.
One could buy “the other side won't compromise” excuse for perhaps one given year. But, going on since FY2009 and not attempting to drive the process because the other side “won't agree” is dereliction of duty – the process is meant to be a NEGOTIATION between parties that do have disagreements.
That lame excuse explodes spectacularly for the falsity it is when considering that the Dems had a majority in all branches through some of that time. What the GOP thought then was politically irrelevant to getting the job done! Dems had no problem with Obamacare!
When the GOP were majority in the House, they did pass a Budget proposal. The Senate, led by Dems, refused to table any proposal for vote. They only need a simple majority and debate is limited. Where is the “attempt to compromise” in that?
Common Dem talking point: blame Bush (in this case indirectly). Look, Obama “owns” it since he took office – nothing dishonest about that.
Bush overspent – yep. Was it right – nope. Should that give Obama a “pass” - nope.
Who cares who said “deficits don't matter” – Cheney is no true friend to freedom. Should that give Obama a “pass” - nope.
Same with the Dems – refusal to deliberate and vote on a budget for years on end is clearly an attempt to continue spending at elevated levels – it is inconceivable that one can twist this into some “responsible” position to hold.
They had a majority in all three branches – to talk about “groundwork” beforehand is to obscure the fact that they have the power and responsibility to make decisions. Talk about dishonesty!
Nice attempt at ad hominem / strawman attack – you call someone's argument partisan because you disagree. You assume someone's news source is exclusively Fox, then establish your “credentials” with MSNBC and CNN, as if this were accurate or meaningful to the argument.
Partisan to freedom you are? Do you understand the magnitude of economic problem we are facing? We are much too close to the “event horizon”. And the media are not giving this the attention it needs. Worse, they are leading us all to believe things are improving and that the deficits, debt, unfunded liabilities are not really a problem. Look up the economic numbers yourself and compare to other countries in similar position within the past 100 years.
What do YOU conclude?
Recall any advance warning from Fox, MSNBC or CNN in 2008 about the crisis? Recall anything from the POTUS, House or Senate? Recall anything from the Fed?
Are you seriously comfortable with how the media questions (or doesn't) the current admin and congressional leadership?
As citizens we need to take a much more critical eye to our leaders and to the media. We are not getting from them what we should. Part of it is the lack of tough questions our leaders face from much of the media.
Circling back to Drones in context of this all...
I've seen several NYT op eds/contributions over 2012 that talk about the issue but they are not as hard hitting like I've seen for Bush where commentary from overseas media were equally critical in their tone and stance about a US policy. There is an unmistakable quality and substance difference.
Drone policy and administration is only one of many things to think a little more deeply about, lest we give away more than we think for gains driven by our fears. There are several cases of government taking liberties with established precedents to press further on unintended uses of those policies/laws/tools, often to the detriment of some hapless citizen.
Can we trust that we don't need to ask hardball questions about our use of Drones?
Last word to you.
re: illegal who would enforce that law? and who would they charge? CRs are how they deal with failure to pass budgets guy and CRs over the years are not uncommon. Why do you think CRs even exist?
re: cannot agree - which side do you blame? the side that knows their proposal won't be accepted or the side that won't accept it?
you have two houses of Congress and each one controlled by the other party. When one party makes Medicare a voucher system and repeals ObamaCare do you think the other side is going to agree to that budget?
The Dems had a majority for 2 years - all the prior 6 years were GOP and then the later years were split.
re: the media. did you forget, I DO watch FOX and when you say MEDIA I am reminded by O'Reilly boasting every night that he has the number one "media" show 13 years in a row. There is other media of course but don't give me this garbage about the right wing not being media and claiming that it's the other media that has a responsibility to report what you believe they should. How dumb is that? Why do you not count the right wing media as MEDIA also?
Tough questions from the Media? seriously? do you think FOX does not ask tough questions guy?
the people who complain about the media are NOT supporters of the POTUS. Surprise. Surprise. Would Obama's opponents EVER be satisfied about the "media"? Come on guy, don't you recognize partisanship when you see it or are part of it yourself?
re" unmistakable difference...tougher on Bush ,etc.. you sound JUST LIKE O'Reilly and Hannity and Limbaugh guy. They're totally on the right. The rest of the country especially those in the middle do not agree. The opponents of any particular POTUS ALWAYS believe as you do but there is no conspiracy. When the right focuses on stuff like Bengazi, the average person realizes it was a screwup and that screwups happen and have many time in the past from the US Cole to the Marine Barracks at Beirut to more than 15 other attacks. It's nothing more than a political attack that is based on a right wing narrative that Obama is not "fit" to do foreign policy which is total idiocy... to start with but the necons are simply beside themselves since they have been thrown out of govt.
you said Drone policy is ... only one... then you launch into a "list" that is the "list" I see and hear about every night on FOX and yet you say it's not partisan...
really?
so you basically admit that the drone issue is a proxy for "other" things, right?
and that's what I said from the get go - that the drone issue was and is nothing more than the right trying to trump up a issue because they simply oppose this POTUS - and they have a "list" of reasons why.
that's out and out partisan guy. admit it.
Drones have killed hundreds of innocents in undeclared wars, in countries that have never attacked US. It is the same as Bush did. As to you, keep justifying crimes of one president simply because he happens to be Democrat. In my book, killing is always bad unless it is self-defense. Killing villagers 10000 miles from US can not be justified.
Read this and then imagine yourself in the place of those poor people who have done nothing bad.
http://livingunderdrones.org/victim-stories/
are drones fundamentally any different than using cruise missiles or other weaponry say in places like Grenada or Panama , or other places where we send in the military but have not declared war?
are we saying that we were totally wrong sending people/non-drone weapons into Somolia or Yemen?
I'm just trying to understand if we are advocating a policy of NO weapons or troops in any other country unless we have declared war... or even with that country's permission...
is this a different policy that before ?
Drones and cruise missiles are not different. If we are not at war we should not be killing anyone, even with country's permission. I do not see any justification for invasion of Panama or Grenada or anything else. If we assume that we have right to invade someone just because we do not like them, then it is "might makes right" principle, which is wrong. Invasion of Somalia was a mistake also - did it bring anything good to Somalis?
And I think that you are just trying to defend Mr. Hope and Change, and not to understand anything. Obamas politics is exactly the same as Bush, and that is the point which everyone here makes and you are trying to not understand. I could have understood if he had taken some reasonable time to clean up mess created by Bush, but instead he continues with more of the same. Even Iraq - we do not have army there, but there are tens of thousands of military contractors there.
no defense of "hope and change" just questions about if policies should be different than before.
I'm not at all sure that the folks that supported Mr. Bush's WMD invasion of Iraq would see Mr. Obama following that course of action. In fact, he has been hammered by the right for not intervening in Libya and Syria and Iran, right?
Obama does not believe in torture nor GITMO and has been accused over and over from the
right - the same people who supported Bush of being "soft" on American foreign policy.
he's pulling us out of Iraq and Afghanistan even as the right says he's wrong to do so.
Am I wrong?
Yes you are wrong. He has not pulled out of either Iraq or Afghanistan. He has not closed GITMO.
He is probably less hawkish than the alternatives (they most likely would have invaded Iran), but less wrong does not make right.
not because of him but because of those who do not want to leave or shut gitmo. If he had his way - he'd leave and shut gitmo... right?
re: less wrong
If you are opposed to any/all foreign interventions by us - then you have a consistent position but if you believe that what Bush did is no different than Obama then ... well.. I just don't know what to say. Are you to the LEFT of Obama? Do you consider Bush to be to the RIGHT of Obama?
I see Bush to the right of Obama.. and someone who would follow what the NeoCons want whereas Obama won't . Can Obama be POTUS and totally get out overseas ? no... The Neocons are already all over him for getting out , right?
Yes..the Czar is always good..it is them boyars who do not allow him to do good things. Keep dreaming - this kind of psychology is not new, Russians have thought like that since at least 16th century.
Obama can sign an executive order to close Gitmo and to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq. He does not. Hence, he is just a lighter version of Bush.
And I am opposed to all foreign intervention unless it is in a declared war. In addition, if they declare war, they should (a) institute draft, and (b) anyone who dodges the draft should not be able to run for elected office. Otherwise, rich get off with war spoils and poor die in wars.
And no, in most questions I am pretty much to the right of center. But with respect to wars you may say that I am left of Obama. And in that regard conservatives sicken me. Abortions are bad yet bombing and droning brown babies is perfectly OK.
well.. I can and DO - respect your views. I believe with respect to Gitmo ... Obama needs to figure out what to do with those being held since I believe the Congress prohibited him from bringing them into the US. I think you have a consistent principle and I respect that.