dagblog - Comments for "Now you may understand why I wanted McCain to win"

I live to awe you, man. Glad

we are stardust — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 23:07:39 +0000

In reply to Fucking awesome, dude! ;0)

I live to awe you, man. Glad to have obliged...

Fucking awesome, dude! ;0)

Obey — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 22:53:11 +0000

In reply to See now, camus; there's where

Fucking awesome, dude! ;0)

Yes, Obama has turned Dems'

Desidero — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 20:54:20 +0000

In reply to Now you may understand why I wanted McCain to win

Yes, Obama has turned Dems' fate into his. He destroyed his ground org and left us with "dumb or dumber". McCain wouldn't have been politically adept enough to ride roughshod over a Dem congress - sadly Obama won't push back against a Republican minority. Not even on recess appointments - our judicial prospects are screwed. Obama thus Dems own it all now, that stinking carcass around their necks.

I thought it was one of the

AmericanDreamer — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 15:38:25 +0000

In reply to Oh wow Dreamster, you have

I thought it was one of the very best movies among the hundreds I've seen, and deserved to win Best Picture. But its topic was probably just too controversial even for Hollywood, which, thankfully, takes on many highly controversial topics and will become much less relevant to the extent it declines to do so.

Oh wow Dreamster, you have

David Seaton — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 15:03:52 +0000

In reply to When I participate in or

Oh wow Dreamster, you have unleashed a flood of memories: I met my wife on the set of "Reds", we sang "The Internationale" together. We've been at it now for 30 years.

I appreciate yuour approval,

we are stardust — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:52:11 +0000

In reply to That is an excellent

I appreciate yuour approval, Lulu.

When I participate in or

AmericanDreamer — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:51:26 +0000

In reply to Now you may understand why I wanted McCain to win

When I participate in or observe exchanges such as the one in this thread, I am reminded of one of the most compelling and best-acted scenes I have ever seen in a movie. It took place in "Reds", directed by Warren Beatty circa 1980.

In it, Diane Keaton--playing artist and radical activist Louise Bryant, takes Jack Nicholson-- playing her intermittent lover, the playwright Eugene O'Neill, who is also a friend of her primary lover, the even more radical writer and activist John Reed--out to the woodshed in O'Neill's NYC apartment.

Their exchange is remarkable to watch for, among things, its sheer emotional rawness, ferocity and power.

The movie, long, is worth watching for that scene alone. Bryant at that point has had just a bit too much of O'Neill's belittling of his friend Reed's efforts to change the world. It's a great scene partly because the acting is so good that you can observe both Bryant and O'Neill visibly hurting from the recognition that there is truth in the wounding charges being hurled by the other.

The emotional substance of that exchange is O'Neill determinedly asserting "No, we can't, we are hopelessly and completely screwed and anyone like Reed who thinks otherwise is a deluded fool, and hardly pure as the driven snow no matter how amiable and well--intentioned he appears on the outside" vs. Bryant asserting "so what entitles you to ridicule people who are trying to do something about the problems in the world from your armchair located inside of a bottle of hard liquor or whatever your preferred form of escape it?"

Oh, there's plenty of intellectual overlay to the exchange. But the argument is really more the result of clashing basic temperaments and dispositions towards life, complicated by those pesky human attachments that so deeply affect us, for better and for worse.

That is an excellent

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 14:38:34 +0000

In reply to See now, camus; there's where

That is an excellent response.

I was hunting at the Seminal

we are stardust — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:30:29 +0000

In reply to See now, camus; there's where

I was hunting at the Seminal for a long piece on education Non-Reform I'd read, and found this opinion piece. It concerns the circle logic of the administration (familiar from the preceding years?) that , "Sorry, you can't have your day in court to get of my assassination list, because the case would involve State Secrets."

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/73327

See now, camus; there's where

we are stardust — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 12:10:00 +0000

In reply to we can agree to

See now, camus; there's where things go immediately off the rails for me. Something in your head causes you to ask the Most Extreme Question to defend a notion like torture or rendition for probable torture, or targeted assassination. It's the Jack Bauer Question, and there are only two reasons I can think of that cause you to ask it.

One, that your support of the President is so absolute that when I bring up assassinations, you have to find a convenient scenario to excuse it. Two is that you are really that fearful of the havoc or death or devilment that 'Terrorist s'can inflict that you don't mind pre-emptive killing so much.

Now for me, several things are different than what you describe as a neatly packaged Moral Dilemma. One is that I no longer believe that the Intel world operates or reports without exteme bias. (A big reason I'm skeptical about all the recent drone kills in Pakistan being the CIA and Special Ops people having it right, and targeting the right people to kill because they'd figured out beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was a plot to make multiple major hits in nations all over the planet.

Now it may be so; but we've been fed boatloads of false intel for years, decades, much of which has been debunked decades later. Ah, rats; we might say; another false flag report. Shoot; too bad about that war and those 55,000 soldiers who died. We won't be such dupes next time!

But we fell for it before both Iraq wars (and please don't say the first Gulf war was 'the good one'). I get that you might need to believe in honest intel-gathering. But think about it: plenty of the intel operations have been outsourced to the same organizations who profit from Perpetual War. So, moving on from accuracy and credibility of 'imminent danger' arguments, we move on to both Constitutional and ethical/moral considerations, which I think are completely intertwined here.

I like to think that Obama believes he's a moral man; so let's say he is without me judging him. The first time he ordered a Finding, he would have wrestled with it, yes? Probably lost sleep, and had doubts haunting him. But each time after that became easier: and the military and CIA and Special Ops reps (they meet with him in the Oval twice a week we're told; a new twist for a White House) applaud him, and let him know what a good thing he'd done. And next they convince him to put drug dealers in Afghanistan on the target list, but hey; it takes two reliable sources fingering them to get on the list! And now we're off to the races...it's just become easier to say, "This person is standing in the way of Our Mission, and dammit, we're gonna win this war, or this GWOT, or defend our freedoms, or impose democracy on this nation or that, or borrow their resources for our benefit"...like that.

How can I avoid the hated phrase "slippery slope" here? I can't.

So no, camus; (I would never want to be, but...) were I the President, I would not order assassinations. I would know in my heart that that's where we too frequently go wrong; assuming that we hold Right so firmly and undeniably that the ends justify the means (another abhorrent cliche; sorry).

It reminds me of the Quaker being asked, "But what about World War II? What would you have done?" After long consideration, the Quaker said, We wouldn't have been there; we would have been working forever to prevent a scenario like this." I can see the short side of the answer, of course, but the long-view of it's right: I'd be working/we'd be working, to change our policy of Empire and strident interference globally, and actually work toward peace. And especially I'd get us the hell out of Middle East and quit jack-booting all over the Muslim Holy Lands.

Practical question for you: How many enemies who wish us harm do you think we create with each drone operation, especially, but not limited to, ones in which innocents are killed?

(Forgive me for not proofing this.)