MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
|
|
Drones!
By Michael Maiello on Wed, 06/06/2012 - 3:41pm |My latest for The Daily, on Obama's drone war.
URL:
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/06/060612-opinions-column-assassination-maiello-1-2/
- 3301 reads
Comments
The administration having made manifest its remarkable positiion that the "due process of law" guaranteed by the fifth amendment does not necessarily mean judicial due process, seems thus far untroubled by the extensive jurisprudence setting forth the rather obvious proposition that the essence of due process is the right to be heard.
by jollyroger on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 7:07am
I believe you're a bit behind the curve or understating what we know.
First, if Awlaki was known to have recruited 3 9/11 hijackers, then a conspiracy to commit murder indictment should have been trivial. But he lived in the US until 2002 and the UK until 2004, so let's just call this one "false".
(yes, he lied about residence on an immigration application, but statute of limitations ran out - so let's kill him)
The other assertions against Awlaki were never presented as US indictments (and in Yemen was reversed), so let's call those "lame" or "unproven".
Awlaki's 16-year-old US-born son was targeted & killed with no suggestion of wrong-doing, so let's tick those 2 boxes of "US citizen" and "child assassination". (Bush only got to indefinite detainment of a US citizen, Jose Padilla)
The Times article makes it clear the identities of several Pakistani groups killed were unknown, so let's strike off "highest level of rigor", and replace with the standard "seen standing around looking up to no good". (yes, that's roughly the quote) So much for thorough vetting.
John Brennan, Obama's #2 on drone kills, has stated numerous times over the last year that there were no collateral civilians killed. So let's tick off "willing to lie about and distort program's success & precision".
Yemen & Saudi were involved in vetting targets, while Pakistan was confirmed as putting 1 Pakistani citizen back on the kill list that Obama'd taken off, so let's tick off "selection & addition of targets partially controlled by undemocratic countries".
"Laser precision" of course should have never made the list to begin with.
Drones are appearing magically in US domestic sites for "crime control", magically at times for sheriff's departments who didn't even know they had them, and needed budget for more obvious things. Let's tick off "now for domestic consumption too", though uncertain when the armed versions arrive.
And even if you're a die-hard partisan, you can always ask, "what would Nixon have done with this?", or choose Paul Ryan, Rudy "law & order" Giuliani, Dick Cheney, et al.
And if we're accepting this and various security leaks for campaign purposes, I'm stuck wondering what our problem on the left with Dick Cheney was in the first place. Give him a D- and he's an alright guy, no?
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 8:00am
I think the big difference between the drone program and what Bush and Cheney did with the torture and renditions and Gitmo is one of marketability. Quite simply, death from above is easier to sell to the American people.
by Michael Maiello on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 9:59am
Also, reporters don't have access, we only really care about our own casualties, and we've created the expectation of clean, precision hits. All just part of the news cycle now.
by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 4:40pm
All true. I expect most people don't hear much beyond, "precision strike" and "no civilian casualties" and aren't thinking much about the definition of "civilian" that the administration has chosen. Use the administration definition of "civilian" in a sentence: "If that person had been a civilian, they wouldn't have been hanging around our drone strike area."
by Michael Maiello on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 4:51pm
by jollyroger on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 5:41pm
I accidentally read a piece by Greenwald, because it was in the Garudian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/08/obama-administration...
Does this make me
unclean?uncleaner?by quinn esq on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 11:43am
Hey, I read Greenwald. He could be a little more economical with his prose, if I must say so, but I don't think he has any effect on one's cleanliness (physical, moral or otherwise).
by Michael Maiello on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 12:10pm
Every single person here reads Greenwald.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 12:26pm
Just goes to show that you have to watch where you step.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 12:24pm
It is hard for you to become uncleaner, but between heritage and avocation, I'd say you've 50-50 odds to succeed. You go, dood. Here's to uncleanist.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 12:45pm
Your solid 50/50 support will certainly help clarify my feelings.
by quinn esq on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 2:00pm
Happy to help. Is this where we get all male squirmy & squeamish and say stuff like "I can't Quint you"? Or do we need to write a special feelings blog for that.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 3:50pm
Special Feelings Blog for $200, Alex.
by quinn esq on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 3:54pm
Stop gawking, y'all. Sheesh, can't get a private chat room to save your life around here.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 4:18pm
I luv ya man
by Resistance on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 4:31pm
What kind of sick is that? Has he no sense of self-respect?
Bud puts *rice* in their beer. What man would degrade himself this way for a *rice beer* Much less a light rice beer?
(not to be confused with a "Weißbier" - for that I'd.... well, you don't want to know)
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 12:08am
One part in coming to terms with the general public response to the use of drones and the kill list is that I believe most Americans do believe we are at war with "the terrorists."
From a poll taken by CBS in November 2011
"Is it ever okay for the U.S. to authorize the killing of an American citizen in a foreign country if that person is known to be a terrorist, or is that never okay?"
Approve : 65%, Disapprove: 22%, Approve of Some: 7%, Unsure 6%.
If one adds up the approvers, the somewhat approvers, and the wishwashy unsures, that nearly 80% of the population that won't have an immediate negative reaction to news of a drone attack somewhere out there in the world.
And I think most Americans accept some civilian causalities in prosecution of that war effort. Moreover, since it is a war effort, and not a police effort, they don't see the necessity of the judicial system to get in involved in the decision making. Patton didn't get permission from Congress before sending his tanks this way or that way.
So I think it is wrong to think that is a Republican was president doing these things, that all the Democrats would be up in arms about it. And a number of them wouldn't personally be outraged as much as they see it as something that could be used to weaken the president from the other party.
by Elusive Trope on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 5:28pm
by jollyroger on Thu, 06/07/2012 - 5:46pm
maybe one of the family members of those who lost a loved one on the USS Cole could answer your question.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 1:35am
of course from a post-structural (which is not the same thing as post-modern) point of view, the very term terrorist is problematic when it comes to political application. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to go into the details.
Of course, if you have a child, then you might want the police to take special interest in a person who is "suspected to be" a child molester in your neighborhood.
Of course, if you are a woman being beaten by your husband, you might want the police to take some interest in your spouse who is "thought to be" an abuser.
Of course, if you care about the economy, you want the JD to take a second look at someone who "known to be" an inside trader.
Of course, you get the point.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 1:47am
Of course "suspected to be" is problematic when it comes to political application.
McCarthy made a career of this phrase.
And since we never have time to go into details, "suspected to be" shifts to "presumed to be" and a light-flash later turns into past tense "was presumed to be". Grammatically and semiotically, it's very clean. Constitutionally, it still has some quirks to be worked out. Which is kinda why we set up courts with legal experts and all.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 1:53am
And what role did the courts play in the unfolding of WWII?
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 1:55am
Excuse me, is there a declared war on Pakistan I didn't know about?
Is there an actual uniformed army we're fighting in Afghanistan, as Bush's narrow interpretation of the Geneva Conventions requires?
Is it standard practice to target any group of young male civilians without weapons in war zone?
If you look at the Wikipedia page, you'll see that the Cole Bombing had 5 masterminds - I'm sure as time goes on we'll have 10 or 12 (just like the Onion's treatment of "Al Qaeda's #2 killed yet again" as we anoint posthumously every kill as the great leader's sidekick)
I voted for Al Gore because he thought international terrorism should be handled first through international policing, not indiscriminate warfare. But I see which wing of the Democratic Party has triumphed since.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 2:12am
This "wing" of the Democratic Party has always been there - it is these Democrats who made up the 9 out of 10 Americans in 2002 who thought invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do. To these Democrats, dealing with terrorism was and still is more than a policing matter. Maybe the opposition to the invasion of Iraq made you think that the policing wing of the party of strong. But I doubt it ever was.
Remember: I am only making an assertion about the basic mind set of the American public and how that is influencing information about drones that might come people such as destor and you. They believe this new war brings with it new standards, so you can talk all you want about what standard practices used to be and it won't make any dent in their perceptions. They don't care whether it is formally declared war or not. In fact, many would be fine avoiding that formal declaration if doing so would hamper the ultimate objective - defeating the terrorists.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 9:45am
"Dealing with Afghanistan" vs. targeting unknown circles of young men because they're circles of young men?
2 very different questions.
But yes, American mind set has changed and now sucks, which is why I don't give a damn about Obama's re-election or voting Democrat to keep the pants-pissing charade going, et al.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 12:48pm
My assertion is that the American mind has really changed regarding what Americans fundamentally find acceptable and expect the WH and Pentagon to do in dealing with terrorists. The quagmire of Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of our soldiers being wounded and killed, the resources they are sucking out of the country - now these people have a problem with. But in 2002 they would see the use of drones the same way they see it now.
"Dealing with Afghanistan" vs. targeting unknown circles of young men because they're circles of young men is part of the same question, as long as people see both related to war on terror(ists).
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 1:01pm
My impression is that you decided not to vote for Obama before the first drone strike. Am I wrong?
by Flavius on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 1:04pm
What am I, my own shrink? Do I know whether it was the indiscriminate use of drones, helping the banks instead of homeowners in mortgage thefts, helping the Republicans push for $4 trillion in cuts during a recession, passing an industry sellout health care package, or what?
Yes, he pissed me off early by voting for FISA, not helping campaign against Saxby-Chambliss runoff, diluting the stimulus with taxcuts (we'd been through this in 2001, no?), and on and on.
But I'm easy - as soon as he stops sucking so bad, I'll reconsider.
As for the Supreme Court, well, if we have a progressive Congress that passes constitutional laws, we don't have to worry too much about who's on the court. That's my solution. Simple, eh? GOTV.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 1:29pm
I'll take that as a yes
by Flavius on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 2:01pm
Probably a no - my level of "not-give-a-shit" has grown in the last year, long past his first 2009 drone attack. But you're probably not listening to the reasons anyway.
And if I weren't a bit drunk, I'd probably be offended - here I'm trying to" defend against the rabid assertion that "attack on USS Cole = right to take gloves off / make unwarranted killer drone attacks against unarmed civilians"
Why is re-electing Obama so important, vs. making an obvious human response to despicable behavior?
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 3:55pm
Just to be clear. I did not make the assertion that the attack on USS Cole = right to take gloves off / make unwarranted killer drone attacks against unarmed civilians. I only brought the Cole up in response to some lame comment trying to be witty. My point is simply that for you it is clear as day that the killer drone attacks are unwarranted, in large part because you looking through the its-a-policing-matter framework, while most Americans see it through we-at-war framework - and thus they are warranted, unless proven otherwise.
Until that changes, whoever is in the white house is going to reflect the latter framework. I really don't know how one is going to be able to change the framework in any short period of time. In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with preaching to the choir on the matter, it may influence some of those outside the choir here and there.
by Elusive Trope on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 4:50pm
Even if "we-at-war", you don't just fire into group of 5 male civilians on assumption they do bad things.
But it's criminally lazy (and I mean that in a Nuremberg sense) for our citizenry to assume a policing occupation like this is "a war" of the WWII type in Germany or Japan where the population can be assumed to be behind the war effort.
It's much like our behavior with My Lai and Tiger Force.
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 7:21pm
So what about those RAF who dropped bombs on residential area of Berlin on November 22-23 1942, which ignited a number of firestorms. Even if they were at war, was that a no-no? Just because someone happens to be born in Germany, that makes it okay to give them a gruesome death sentence? Where does one draw the line in the killing of civilians so one can sleep at night, and who gets to make that line?
Moreover, it is highly likely that even if we had no policing occupation presence, we would still be sending in the drones. Therefore, the validity or rightness of the drone attack is not based on whether we are simultaneously conducting a policing occupation.
What it boils down to the evidence used in determining whether they are valid targets. I think your primary problem in addressing this is that we - the public - cannot know all of the evidence the decision makers are privy to.
Those who want to believe the attacks are justified will assume there was classified evidence that justified it, whereas those who want the targets to be innocent, thereby justifying the call to end the drone attacks, will believe there is no evidence to justify the attack.
The end result both sides talk past each other without any way to prove the other wrong.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:19am
Of course our firebombing Dresden, Berlin, Cologne, Tokyo, et al was war crimes. Of course we were in total war, where 50 million died, mostly civilians, so our smaller part becomes less prosecutable (because we were the victors especially) and sticks out less compared to the dismemberment of Poland, the Japanese & German medical tests on POWs, internment & execution, etc.
But there's certainly nothing like that fight for survival in Afghanistan - it's not even nearly as crazy as Vietnam. So please differentiate.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:35pm
so you would like all those involved in firebombing Dresden, Berlin, Cologne, Tokyo, et al to be charged, convicted and thrown behind bars for their crimes. most Americans would see such an action as a grave injustice. it is one thing to argue fom some moral principle that those involved in the deaths in, say, Cologne should be prosecuted as war criminals and another thing to convince the "American public" to even consider this is a valid path of action.
Like I said you can preach to the choir. Nothing inherently wrong with that. But if you are in the business of persuasion, then you have to meet your audience where they are and begin from there. That is another kind of differentiation.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:00pm
No, that's not what I would "like".
Go misinterpret someone else's posts a while.
I'm finished.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 12:13am
So it wasn't a "yes". If you say so of course I accept it.
Re: drones I agree with you that the President can't appoint himself judge and jury in the case of American citizens.
Otherwise people get killed in wars The killers always say they were combatants and the attacked always deny it.
I don't trust our military to tell the truth .Any more than the guys who plant bombs on the road between Kabul and Kandahar to kill our troops. Or the ISO which-whatever may be the case with Pakistan in general -is clearly an undeclared enemy.
I don't believe our military sets out deliberately to kill civilians but ,as said, I would expect them to lie when they do and our enemy to lie when we kill combatants.
That's just wartime behavior and like most New Yorkers, I think we've been at war since 9/11. So we act like any other country at war and Obama acts like any other war time leader. FDR had no objection to the saturation bombing of Hamburg ,Dresden and Tokyo, specifically intended to kill civilians. And we know what Harry did.
I didn't consider W's Iraq caper as part of that War .
I did and do consider Afghanistan as part of it and the killing of Osama Bin Laden an appropriate culmination. I wish he could have been killed 2700 times.
Now I'd like to see us out of Afghanistan as fast as possible and if drone attacks facilitate that I support them even if that results in civilian deaths.
by Flavius on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 5:09pm
God, then you're condoning criminal behavior. "I support them even if that results in civilian deaths. "
We have to destroy the village to save it.
We have to kill civilians to make a peaceful exit?
We've said we're not leaving until end of 2014, so 2 1/2 more years - but you're fine with killing civilians as part of that leaving.
9/11 killing of 3000 people was carried out by Arabs who were welcomed by a government of Afghanistan that no longer exists - that we threw out - in a country historically fragmented - including the Afghani Northern alliance that helped us overthrow the Taliban and currently runs the country.
Osama bin Laden was living in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, since shortly after our invasion & occupation in 2001, and was killed 50km NE of Islamabad, the capital.
But you can justify holding the civilians of Afghanistan as valid targets of reprisal in our occupation/"war" against whatever supposed remnants there are of Al Qaeda and any who don't agree with our drawn out 11-year soon to be 13-year occupation of their country.
And you defend calling this a "war" and going by rules of war for all civilians when the government's our government and >99% of the population isn't involved.
From the CIA in 2010, there were only 50-100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
So who are we fighting? Why don't we just leave?
by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 06/08/2012 - 7:42pm
Yes (to everything but the last paragraph)
by Flavius on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 7:23am
Your discussion on public support inspired me to go look for a more specific poll on drones; there was one in February:
by artappraiser on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 5:23am
by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 9:59am
If I can suggest a better line of argument for ya--I just don't buy the difference in "provocations" thing--
The main difference is that Clinton would call for a television address right after he ordered a cruise missile strike (outside of an active conflict like Kosovo) to announce to the public that he had ordered the strike and give his reasons.
Provocation and intel about provocation--it's one of those things reasonable people can argue about forever-, as each case for either president was/is different in that regard if you are honest about it (oops now that I think about it, maybe that's what you want to do, argue each case forever, you seem to like doing that. ) I'll give you an example that people have argued about forever already: the-Sudan factory. Or as far as certainty is concerned on these remotely planned attacks, even better: how about that bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, that was a good one, for a minute or two there, looked like it might cause WWIII.
Obama took a long time to "announce," but now he has basically done so in a New York Times article via many administration spokespersons. That's the main difference. Otherwise there really isn't a whole lot of difference; Bill Clinton didn't ask for public debate before he ordered cruise missile strikes, though he got it after he did it, same as is happening now.
You can't know Obama hasn't vetoed secret ops until he lets you know he did so, same as with Bill Clinton. That's simply conjecture based on your own reading of Obama. Which is the only thing we all really have on this kind of stuff while a President is in office--see eternal argument about Congress having the war powers, what is war, etc.
by artappraiser on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:10pm
The Sudan factory wasn't responsible for the embassy bombings - harboring bin Laden & other material support was. Clinton's DoJ indicted bin Laden after this - a major difference from subsequent administrations- along with took the retaliation against Sudan, unfortunately with mistaken intelligence.
The Chinese were providing intelligence to Serbia out of their Belgrade embassy. When we bombed it, eyewitnesses reported the Chinese unloading their electronics surveillance equipment out the back of the building. Tough shit for them, assholes. And no, they weren't important or strong enough at the time to cause "WWIII".
But yes, I agree with your point - Clinton did a good job of briefing the public as to his actions. (Despite all the "wag the dog" criticism). Obama's just secretive.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:56pm
by Anonymous pp (not verified) on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 9:59am
no one can possibly know what Bill Clinton would do in the foreign policy realm as president in post-9/11 America.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:24am
No, we have no idea based on responses to 2 embassy attacks, 1993 World Trade Center attack attack on the USS Cole, air threat at the G-8 conference in Milan, responses to Iraq & Milosevic in diplomatic standoffs, Millenium plots, Indian-Pakistani border crises, Chechnya & Russian taking of Pristina airport, etc., etc., etc.
Clinton's just a tabula rasa, ain't he?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:32pm
so you're saying the American public's response to 9/11 can be equated to those attacks. Hmmm. You don't seem to be too savvy.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:11pm
If you mean "USS Cole = 9/11 WTC"? No, I didn't say that. I said we have an indication of how Clinton thought & responded to international terror & dealing with troublesome leaders, which would give as an indication of how he might respond to a larger incident. Talk about not-too-savvy.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:39pm
To refer to 9/11 as just a "larger incident" is just ridiculous. There was a fundamental difference between all those things Clinton dealt with and 9/11. Given that he was shooting cruise missiles into another country for just an embassy attack, I doubt he would have said to Americans on 9/12 that capturing those who did this was a police matter.
Just curious, how do you think he would handled the capture of Osama in the months after it became clear he was the mastermind?
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:19pm
Great way to fuck up conclusions and then say that's what I'm saying.
No further comment.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 12:11am
I would say he wouldn't have done an axis of evil speech, and nor would have Obama.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:13pm
And how is Clinton administration's bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory any different than what we see with Obama and the drones? That only one person died says more about the technology of 1998 and 2012 than about use of violence philosophy of the two administrations.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:28pm
For fuck's sake, they supposedly had intelligence that the pharma factory was involved in weapons production (ok, intelligence may have been bad - yes, sometimes we screw up, and we were trying to get fast retaliation for an act of war in blowing up embassies). For Obama & drones, it's a bunch of guys standing around they think look suspicious without even knowing their names, with no know acts of terrorism.
Can't see the difference?
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:36pm
So...in those cases where there is some intelligence backing them up, you have no problem with Obama using drones, even if civilians are killed as a result. In the case of retaliation, how long after the act is this justification valid - a month, a year, five years? It's okay to blow up some civilians right after an embassy is blown up, but not eleven years after NY and DC are attacked? Since you know where the lines between right and wrong, moral and immoral, the criminal and the justified are so clear, I'm just trying to getting the exact parameters.
In order to keep your little world together, Clinton was always acting on intelligence and Obama is just shooting drone willy nilly at anything that moves.
I don't believe any of us have access to all the behind the scenes information and communications, both out in the field and back in the command centers. We're all just operating on assumptions about who know what and when. If want to believe they just saw guys standing around around and thought, let's blow 'em real good, go ahead and believe that.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:14pm
I think it is not a stretch to say that Obama would have behave vey much like Clinton had Obama been president during the 90's and Clinton's presidency would have looked just like Obama, esp in foreign policy, if he took the oath in January 2009.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:27am
Aside from sheer conjecture & wishful thinking, how do you imagine up *this* nonsense?
Their personalities are so alike? Their policies are so similar? Their records are so melded?
Just on war alone, Clinton had lots of opportunities to engage, but disengaged as quickly as possible.
I can't imagine Clinton relishing the role of "war president" or "top military guy". I can't imagine Clinton leaving mortgage theft unaddressed.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 12:26pm
The first reason is that Bill Clinton was a politician if nothing else. Look at those poll numbers and if you think that wouldn't have influenced Bubba than I'd say you're just a Clinton groupie and not worth discussing this matter.
Secondly, 9/11 did not change the world, but it did change the American psyche and the corresponding governance mindset. Again, if you believe he would not have altered his foreign policy approach if the twin towers fell in September of 1995, then you're some bedazzled by his personality after seeing him talk with David Letterman.
And by your last statement, you indicate that you believe Obama relishes making the life and death decisions he makes. That is a rather severe accusation, and I would like you to back that up with some evidence. Otherwise, one can just as well say, when Clinton sent those cruise missiles at Osama, that not only did he do it to distract from the Monica case (regardless of what civilians might be killled in the process), he took total glee as imagined those projectiles of death heading toward their intended target.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:09pm
"you indicate that you believe Obama relishes making the life and death decisions he makes" - the NY Times article indicates that. Even Axelrod's started showing up for the selection ceremony. How chummy.
"if you believe he would not have altered his foreign policy approach if the twin towers fell in September of 1995" - of course he would have altered the approach. But how? invading Iraq? staying in Afghanistan for 13 years? Get real.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:29pm
How about he might be using drone attacks, killing innocent civilians in the process, and not allowing some judicial review nor Congress to intervene before the kill order was valid. Just like when he sent in the cruise missiles. That's the point. He would very likely be doing just what Obama is doing in regards to the drone attacks. As would any viable prospect for the presidency. The approach falls within the framework of the country's war paradigm.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:24pm
Moreover, Clinton had a boom economy versus Obama taking office as we slide just about a depression. Europe's economy was not imploding. Etc etc You think Clinton would not have bailed out the big banks? Hahahahaha.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:18pm
Christ on a pogo stick - he dealt with Bush I's recession and raised taxes on the wealthy. He passed the Earned Income Credit, he helped subsidize home mortgages for the poor. Of course he would have bailed out big banks, but he might have shown some oversight and requirements at further lending rather than just turning a blind eye to it all?
Enough, bothersome - you're just spitting out words hoping something will stick. Think.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 3:31pm
I'm not saying that Clinton do some good things. He obviously did. And to compare the global economy that Clinton inherited with the global economy that Obama inherited is ridiculous. The point is that both of them are status quo guys, improving things through reform and regulation.
He was a political animal that supported the corporation through things like the Communications bill (which he admitted afterwards was a mistake), and made foreign policy decisions in places like Rwanda and Somalia based poll numbers among other variables.
Because he had an economic boom built on bubbles like the housing market and technology, he had certain luxuries over his eight years that Obama has not enjoyed.
Would their administrations been identical? Obviously not. But fundamentally from support of the 1% infrastructure to foreign policy decision like killing civilians in other countries in support of defending American interests, they are the same.
by Elusive Trope on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 6:37pm
It seems to me that there are at least three different things going on in your exchange with PP.
In the first two you and he represent two valid opposing views.
He seems to be a pacifist or near to. You're not. So naturally he takes much stronger exception than you to the deaths that are still occurring. Perfectly respectable position, as is yours.
He finds political compromises offensive. You don't. So he will always object to any successful politician. It's good that there are people like him who care and who will try to hold politicians to a high standard. It's good that there are people like you who know that the phrase "politics is the art of the possible" really means:politicians do deals and no good legislation however desirable will ever be passed unless at the same time some not so good politician agreed to go along in exchange for something he wants.
Finally PP has a personal animosity towards Obama that is just that, personal. Maybe it's the disillusioned supporter syndrome: that he had unrealistic expectations and is now unjustifiably furious that Obama hasn't lived up to them.Or something else. Who knows?
He is unhistorical when he bangs on about how Hillary, or Bill or whomever would have fought harder to avoid Obama's compromises. There's no case anyone can point to of an effective president who fought to obtain a result when Congress opposed him.
Anyway it's good the two of you care.
by Flavius on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 10:43pm
Wow, great misread:
1) I supported the original invasion of Afghanistan and still do - we had to clean out a hornets' nest, & relying on the Northern Alliance didn't cut it - so we moved in, shut down the Taliban, put someone else in. Cool. Now give them an ultimatum - get your shit together, or we come back and take you out too. Bye. Plus here's some money, being nice guys.
I supported actually Bush's threat of attack against Hussein to get inspectors back in, as I don't think he would have responded otherwise, and our intel was too poor to know the danger. Once we knew the threat was overstated, we should have come up with a solution short of invasion.
In general, international policing & diplomacy & positive relation building is preferable to the mass waste - of lives & money & time & effort - of military engagements. No?
2) I'm fine with political compromises as long as they're compromises and not giveaways or defeats. 2/3 a loaf on health care would have been hunky dory - instead we got a shit sandwich. Some effort to prevent mortgage theft would have been appreciated - instead the administration supported the banks all the way. I'm moderately alright with the GM bailout, but think it was mainly focused on GM Finance and not the autoworkers, from guys who didn't really understand the business. (Reports of GM's success? Way too rosy, considering who their big new shareholder is). The original stimulus would have been fine dumbed down to $800 billion, but once 1/3 tax cuts plus "not effective till next year" clauses went in, it was hopeless. I thought DADT was an appropriate compromise for the time, considering how heated the issue was.
3) Personal animosity towards Obama? Jeez - I really don't care, but I figure he's a lot like me, same generation, same type upbringing, same dabbling in writing, occasional pomposity, life of trying to find himself, help others... Obviously more successful, but my interests were a bit different anyway. Lovely wife & kids, lovely mother & grandparents mixing achievement with seemingly some social awareness & appreciation for the underground (3rd world, jazz...)
But I was never a supporter - his speeches never worked for me, all the "solutions" seemed glib & unbelievable, his nicely-tied-up-life-story as contrived as mine sometimes is. His ground game in the campaign was amazing though, and I can't fault him if 80% of the world was convinced - why should he speak to a minority of disgruntled irritable newsaholics when he can put together a majority?
But my vehemence & antipathy comes in on policy & execution - continuing & expanding on Bush's war and "anti-terror" game, including surveillance & detentions & targeted extrajudicial strikes. Includes passing out free money to banks who misused it to make a quick buck instead of helping the economy, and used it to steal people's homes. His health care plan that took care of corporate interests first, and never got around to containing costs (we still pay about double per capita what the rest of the world pays) nor getting universal coverage without ugly coercion. And keeping the Bush tax cuts and absurd defense spending, which keeps our government permanently on oxygen for anything progressive and useful.
4) "There's no case anyone can point to of an effective president who fought to obtain a result when Congress opposed him." Here you're so full of shit it's hard to believe you can write this. First, Obama had a Democratic Congress & Senate when he came in. 2nd, Clinton vs. Gingrich, shutting down government? 3rd, Bush ramming through his agenda even when Democrats controlled the Senate from Jun 2001-Jan 2003, and both houses from Jan 2007-Jan 2009. Democrats controlled the House for all 8 years of Reagan, including both houses the last 2 years - did Reagan not get what he wanted?
And you have the nerve to call me "unhistorical". Go read a book.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:43pm
You're right. I misread you. So you don't disparage Obama because you're a pacifist but for some other personal reason. Your historical examples speak for themselves.
by Flavius on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 8:46am
On Obama's handling of the economy, from transcript of Bill Clinton White House press briefing at the invitation of President Obama, December 10, 2010: (Obama left the room soon after introduction):
And just above that, my bold:
by artappraiser on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 2:41pm
I really do not get the special anxiety about drones. Are they not just the newest form of artillery largely replacing surface-to-air missiles like the Patriot we heard so much about in Bush 1's Gulf War? What makes drone collateral damage worse?
As for domestic surveillance, I already have planes overhead 24/7 ATL-LGA and other points north. There are also small planes up regularly watching for fires and pot fields. Personally, I would hate to see the small plane replaced with a drone but....
What really frightens me is that it probably only a matter of time before one the old geezers down at the landfill upgrades his RC plane with one of these:
by EmmaZahn on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 8:04pm
What's overhead at my IP just now. What about you? Find out here.
by EmmaZahn on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 8:08pm
The problem is, they allow us to wage war while we pretend we're not waging war.
And like tasers, they give us the confidence to go use them everywhere, thinking they're safe and surgical, when they're more brute force with overripe vanity.
War's a bitch, and sometimes necessary. But now we think our clean wars are so simple and easy, why not expand the effort? And frankly, if I saw anything like real success, I might even be convinced. But instead I just see a bunch of pissed off Muslims dodging surgical strikes while we keep going "oops" or covering up civilian deaths, and always the goalposts changing for our "success". Is it poppy-eradication? Winning hearts-and-minds? Killing Taliban? (while negotiating with them) Finding bin Laden? (oh, he's dead - now we're searching for his 300 #2's)....
We laughingly call a variety of misconceived "plots" as "acts of war", but our sending in armed drone strikes is just our clever idea of policing. Cute word play. And Congress has been entirely complacent & complicit in this charade.
by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 06/09/2012 - 11:51pm
Declaring war on terror was a foolish thing to do. As for cute word play, remember all the adjectives beside terrorist used to make Al Qaeda et al sound like some new kind of enemy? Transnational, stateless terrorists should have been treated like outlaws from the start of it all, 9/11, and policing is exactly what should have happened. Declaring a criminal act an act of war was just an excuse for the PTB to do exactly what they wanted. It will be a long time and there will be a lot of grief before we get through it.
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 12:58am
Soon drones will not only be able to kill you w/ impunity but also harass you about getting into shape
A lot of the sci-fi crap from our youth is becoming reality, but just where the fuck are the jet packs we were promised?!!!
by artappraiser on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 6:01am
By serendipity I just ran across this, which is related to my comment, but I have a feeling after skimming the first pages that it may interest you much more than my comment:
Of Flying Cars and the Declining Rate of Profit
by David Graeber for The Baffler
by artappraiser on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 6:21am
I just wanted the space-age pitcher of martinis waiting when I got home. Okay, the glass bubble hovercraft was cool too.
by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 6:23am
Love the tweet.
Never wanted a jet pack myself -- too accident prone. Always wanted a replicator and a holodeck to live in, but that's just a big replicator. I did worry though that I might accidentally turn the thing off while I was in it.
Still digesting the article from Baffler. Thanks.
by EmmaZahn on Sun, 06/10/2012 - 8:05pm
by artappraiser on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 1:55am
by artappraiser on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 11:13pm
by artappraiser on Wed, 06/20/2012 - 11:17pm