A list
* The bailout. Enough said. (link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/may/18/us-economy-bank-bailout))
* Refusing to investigate any of the Bush era crimes, including the Iraq War falsification of intelligence, torture or the surveillance state (link (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/12/obama/index.html), link (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/28/al_haramain/), link (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/13/photos/))
* Backing the renewal of PATRIOT Act provisions (link (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/obama-backs-expiring-patriot-act-spy-provisions/))
* Asserting the power to order extraordinary rendition, ie; kidnapping (link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html))
* Asserting the power to hold detainees indefinitely, without charge, as well as seeking to hold people indefinitely on the basis they may commit acts of terrorism in the future (link (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/22/preventive_detention/))
* Military show trials will continue in cases where civilian trials would lose (due to the lower threshold for proof) (link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/15/barack-obama-revives-guantanamo-tribunals))
* Torture will continue at "black sites" like Bagram Air Base and Balad Air Base (link (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/21/bagram/))
* Failure to close Guantamo (though, given the above abuses, it would make little difference) and worsening of abuse there (link (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51O3TB20090225))
* Private mercenaries have been deployed to Somalia, and US Special Forces to Yemen, meaning the USA is now waging war in five Muslim countries right now (link (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2009/0915/p06s04-woaf.html), link (http://www.spectator.co.uk/business/3556996/can-mercenaries-defeat-the-somali-pirates.thtml), link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/6803120/US-special-forces-train-Yemen-army-as-Arab-state-becomes-al-Qaeda-reserve-base.html))
* Failure to withdraw in any meaningful sense from Iraq (50-60,000 troops are intended to continue serving in the country) (link (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/62930.html))
* Pointless surge in Afghanistan (link (http://www.slate.com/id/2200406/), link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123143672297764875.html))
* Increased use of Predator airstrikes in Pakistan, weapons with a 95% chance of killing a civilian instead of a terrorist (link (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/02/kilcullen-says/))
* Escalation of a farcical global missile defense shield (link (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15264))
* Blackwater are now an integral part of "special operations" taking place in Pakistan (link (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091207/scahill))
* Blackwater are also allegedly helping to plan JSOC missions for Uzbekistan against the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (link (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091207/scahill))
* Failure to act in any meaningful way on healthcare reform
* Ramping up the surveillance state with new "fusion centres" and a new base for the NSA in Utah which is big enough to store the entire internet twice over on it (a "Yottabyte") (link (http://www.washington-report.org/component/content/article/220-2009-july/3006-fbi-agent-provocateurs-and-fusion-centers-boys-gone-wild.html), link (http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/07/01/nsa-plans-16-billion-utah-data-center/))
* Complete inability to put real pressure on Israel to stop building in the occupied territories (link (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/03/is_the_israel_lobby_getting_weaker))
* Massively expanding the drug war in Colombia, much to the excitement of President Uribe (link (http://www.fpif.org/articles/revamping_plan_colombia))
* Expansion of the Islamabad embassy to turn it into a virtual fortress of American power in Pakistan (link (http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/03-no-hidden-objective-in-us-embassy-expansion-diplomat-ss-02))
* Obama has cosied up with Islam Karimov's regime in Uzbekistan, the one that drops dissidents into vats of boiling water and uses child slave labour (link (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE55810H20090609))
* Private contractors in Afghanistan have increased 40% under Obama, despite the obviousness of their flaws being exposed in Iraq (link (http://washingtonindependent.com/71394/private-security-contractors-in-afghanistan-have-doubled-in-just-six-months))
* The hideous agreement pushed by Obama at Copehagen (link (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5039226,00.html))
HOPE
It's sad. The most I'm hoping for now with regards Obama is that he becomes a poster boy for politicians of all parties making unrealistic campaign promises.
YES WE CAN!
CHAINS
we can believe in
You guys should stop crtiticizing him. He's doing the best he can with what he has to work with. Don't you think the government ensures that we get the best person possible for his position? It's not just a crapshoot. I think if any of us were in his position we would understand better what he's going through.
Wow, that works real good Johnny.
Cain,
that's a nice list.
I think it would be enhanced tremendously with footnote citations. It would require some footwork, but then would make an excellent poster/chain email.
Cain, I hope you don't mind that I've just c&p'd that to Facebook as a note.
Can't wait to see what kind of shitstorm it stirs up.
Not at all, go for it..
Also, citations do sound like a good idea. I would be quite happy if others were to find them, or post their own suggestions for additions ITT.
Indefinite detentions need to go on there too.
Fifth one down.
Quote from: Cain on January 09, 2010, 11:06:39 PM
Not at all, go for it..
Also, citations do sound like a good idea. I would be quite happy if others were to find them, or post their own suggestions for additions ITT.
Expansion of the Faith-Based Initiates Office. I know that kinda pales in comparison to everything you posted but it still pisses me off.
I hope you plan on posting this to your blog at some point.
Someone should edit Wikipedia and put this up on there for the lulz. And to see how long before it's taken down.
Cain - what was the Copenhagen agreement (and its significance) exactly?
Quote from: Chief Uwachiquen on January 10, 2010, 10:06:29 AM
Someone should edit Wikipedia and put this up on there for the lulz. And to see how long before it's taken down.
<30 seconds, if on Obama's page directly, would be my guess. You don't really think that only a small number of people have thought of doing stuff like that before?
The only thing I would add is his inaction on Don't Ask Don't Tell and Defense of Marriage Act.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 10, 2010, 07:29:10 AM
Expansion of the Faith-Based Initiates Office. I know that kinda pales in comparison to everything you posted but it still pisses me off.
I hope you plan on posting this to your blog at some point.
I wouldn't minimize that. It's not being used currently in a terribly deleterious way, but it continues and validates a terrible precedent...
one that could be used to well undermine separation of church and state.
i think your spot on that it's significant.
There is also his failure to put a stop to mountain top removal mining. Even his EPA admits it is irreparably damaging the environment but they are approving the permits anyway. I don't think he mentioned it specifically, but I do remember him mentioning he would reverse some of Bush's bad environmental decisions, and this by far is the worst one.
I've found myself agreeing with people who are calling this the third Bush term.
Also, Mecha Reagan would only result in the plot of Metal Wolf Chaos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Wolf_Chaos) coming true. Uh, make that "plot", a word I use with great hesistation.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on January 10, 2010, 07:29:10 AM
Expansion of the Faith-Based Initiates Office. I know that kinda pales in comparison to everything you posted but it still pisses me off.
I hope you plan on posting this to your blog at some point.
Are you shitting me? That's supposed to be the one thing Obama was good for.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 09, 2010, 11:04:55 PM
Cain, I hope you don't mind that I've just c&p'd that to Facebook as a note.
Can't wait to see what kind of shitstorm it stirs up.
Hey, I did too. :)
So he isn't exactly the hope and change superman that most people thought they were voting for. The important thing is he is 100 times better than Bush, and probably 10 times better than McCain would've been.
Still... Hillary would've been better.
no, no, and no.
This.
You should probably actually read what he is doing, because its exactly the same sort of shit Bush pulled. Not similar, not me using hyperbole to make a point, it is literally the same stuff Bush said and the same extra-Constutional powers Bush asserted and the same foreign and security policy Bush wanted to follow.
Also, Iason, I'll find links confirming all of these today, then I'll post it.
http://bestoftheblogs.com/Home/22497
I probably should have stopped reading the moment I realised this article was an appeal to ridicule.
But I didn't. That said
Quotehe buried the Imperial Presidency of George Bush and restored the Constitutional balance of government by respecting the equal standing of the legislative branch of government.
FAIL. He institutionalised it. The secrecy, the unitary executive, the wide-ranging powers...all of it.
QuotePassed and signed the stimulus package, the biggest piece of legislation--ever--in blinding speed, thus being able to start to stabilize the economy, with GDP now projected to grow at the rate of 3 percent by the end of the year. Check the comeback of your 401K since Obama has taken over.
Good thing all those unemployed people have 401k's, isn't it? Good thing all this "growth" isnt actually just corporate parasites feeding off a failing state. Because then there would be trouble.
QuoteStabilized the top 20 banks without federalizing them.
And what a success thats turned out to be!
QuoteReduced the rate of foreclosures inherited from the Bush administration.
He's also managed to not choke on a pretzel yet, but I dont think this is any reason for applause..
QuoteKilled the F-22 fighter jet program, a popular program with Congress, saving billions of dollars.
And then promptly continued to expand the overall Pentagon budget, making such savings worthless. Also, the F-22 will make a comeback, sooner or later.
QuoteCooperated with Japan in bringing a $5 billion stabilization package for Pakistan.
Which was promptly spent on guns, hookers and blow by the Pakistani Army.
QuoteEngaged the Muslim world in a dialogue, beginning with his unprecedented speech in Cairo, followed by an interview with Al Arabiya, and face-to-face discussions with Iran, a total reversal of the Bush years of Muslim baiting and hate.
Good thing Obama hasn't invaded five Muslim countries then, and escalated the conflict in at least two of the theatres he inherited from Bush. Because that would suck.
QuoteDramatically reversed the reputation of the United States around the world, with now most nations looking favorably on the US, and receiving the Nobel Peace Prize as one consequence.
Wheee! When Obama's policies kill people, the world still loves us for it! And that makes it right.
QuoteAgreed to plan for bringing the troops home from Iraq, at a slower pace than what he promised, but based on knowledge that commanders-in-chief, not candidates, have.
Bullshit. It was known since 2006 any withdrawal would take 18 months at best to do, assuming perfect conditions. Also 50-60,000 troops are staying behind, presumably to referee the upcoming Iraqi Civil War.
QuoteBrought the White House online, doing for the White House what he had done for political campaigning. There are now online Q&A's with the administration, and a White House blog.
So we can troll the Whitehouse blog comments? Big whoop.
QuoteBanned the use of torture, and he has begun a complete review of the torture policies under Bush.
No he hasn't. Unless Bagram and Balad have suddenly been overrun by foreign torture enthusiasts. And review isnt the same as prosecute, which any government which abided by the rule of law would be doing.
I'm starting to get serious 2003 vibes right now.
Lets put it this way...what many online Obama supporters (not neccessary guest7654, more the blog he posted, as well as others) seem to fail to understand is that when you are having to making the case that Obama is better than Bush, you've already lost. Bush was the third worst President of all time, being better than Bush shouldn't be contestable. But it is.
Erm, a lot of those are the same things we're complaining about, number 1 in particular seems to be a failing of his, he doesn't have it in him to control congress, and so can't get anything he wants done unless lobbyists do it for him. There's bailout related stuff on there for him too.
Some of them... number 20 is false. It was ordered that there be no investigation of the involvement the higher ups had in torture, and torture has not actually stopped, even if its more limited.
21, seriously, appointing a woman who not only doesn't care what the law is, but can't come up with good excuses for her decisions is not a good move, at all. At least Scalia is creative. I'll give him a pass if she manages to end corporate personage without wrecking the whole of the law in the process, but even then she was a bad pick.
I'll grant you maybe half that list. But this isn't merely complaining about things he's failed to do, this is mostly about his *deliberate* actions. Nothing forced him to appoint industry executives and lobbyists to major positions (ooh, can we put that on the list?)
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2010, 10:27:26 AM
Lets put it this way...what many online Obama supporters (not neccessary guest7654, more the blog he posted, as well as others) seem to fail to understand is that when you are having to making the case that Obama is better than Bush, you've already lost. Bush was the third worst President of all time, being better than Bush shouldn't be contestable. But it is.
Who was worse?
Bush.
But Obama hasn't had 8 years yet.
I meant worse than Bush.
There are a few that come to mind from the 19th century, Bush at least avoided genocide.
Oh, right. My apologies. James Buchanan and Warren Harding were the two I had in mind. I mean, you could argue the case for several others as well, but I would still say Bush is up there with the worst of them.
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2010, 11:07:55 AM
Oh, right. My apologies. James Buchanan and Warren Harding were the two I had in mind. I mean, you could argue the case for several others as well, but I would still say Bush is up there with the worst of them.
Although I'm certainly not a fan of bush, when I hear people claim that he's the 'worst' president as far as his administrative actions, it makes me wonder how well that can accurately be assessed.
Firstly, we lived through this administration, and so have had a continuous stream of information regarding the actions it made, whereas we have to rely on historical tidbits of past administrations, which are sparser and sparser the further you go back.
Secondly, there is simply more information exchanged currently than there used to be. Secrecy is a problem now, but it was simply a given in the past when information simply didn't have the velocity and tracking, wasn't it?
I can imagine in the future, some younger people that didn't live through the bush admin complaining about their current admin being the worst ever based on their ridiculously huge amounts of information that they have to parse through.
Likewise, I can see the possibility that some past president that is bland and doesn't draw to much historical scrutiny having had secret impacts that are far worse than anything the 'bad' presidents may have done... Of course I am conspiratorially minded, so that may seem unlikely to others.
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2010, 11:07:55 AM
Oh, right. My apologies. James Buchanan and Warren Harding were the two I had in mind. I mean, you could argue the case for several others as well, but I would still say Bush is up there with the worst of them.
I was thinking Harding specifically with the Teapot Dome scandal. Bush was for Big Oil, but Harding was specifically picked by Big Oil at a Big Oil meeting as the candidate they would run/support. That poor dude was a patsy from the beginning.
Overall, I think Cian is spot on with the critique of Obama... on the other hand, it would be interesting to see how wingnuts responded to this, as it rips apart their "Bush was Good, Obama is ruinin' it" meme.
I just can't add anything to this really.
I simply want to thank Cain for pointing out these facts and say that I intend to spread this word to the forums that I frequent to see what sort of hell I can unleash.
Also, can I have some citation on the torture thing? I have no problem believing it, but i will be facing wingnuts that won't and I would like a bit to throw back at them.
He smiles when he fucks you?
Updated with links
Quote from: Rumckle on January 15, 2010, 09:54:08 PM
He smiles when he fucks you?
And he uses the English language to explain how he's fucking you... as opposed to Bush's 'make-it-up-as-you-go' language.
Quote from: Cain on January 18, 2010, 03:22:40 PM
Updated with links
:mittens:
this is going to fly around the intarwebs.
what attribution do you wish?
Whichever you feel you want. I may throw it up on Alamut though, given some time, so that might be a useful link to drop and quote from.
Edit: slightly altered version on the blog http://alamut.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/the-case-against-obama/
Requia,
:lulz:
I just read the thread on that forum where you posted the list.
I think I liked this one most:
QuoteThe Obama admin could give in on three-quarters of the things you listed here, and you people on the far left would still fold your arms and pout on the sidelines like useless children. Carter tried (for a while) to run the government purely by progressive left public policies and foreign policies and it FAILED MISERABLY and BACKFIRED because the far left still found excuses not to support him. Al Gore similarly tried to peel off Green Party votes during the 2000 campaign by making relatively radical promises in support of Kyoto, finance reform, NAFTA, China, national security translucency and some other things, and again it backfired. Another example is the recent !@#$ storm in Massachusetts. Turnout among voters on the far left is low because they think Coakley is "more like Kerry than Kennedy" in regards to healthcare reform. As a result, we could get a 41st GOP Senator and NO HEALTHCARE REFORM AT ALL! Well done.
It's possible to win and be successful in American politics by being a solid liberal. But leftists in the US have earned the reputation as being a bunch of honest and smart, but sadly disorganized, fickle, emotional, and politically naive hippies that you cannot trust to stand by your side when you have to make a tough compromise.
I hope the far left in this country grows up soon. Because if they don't get a hold of themselves by 2012 we'll have a Republican president in the White House and a Republican majority in the House and Senate. Then, instead of whining about Obama's failure to prosecute Dick Cheney for lying about WMD's in Iraq, or trillion dollar loan to Wall Street.........they'll be whining about the Palin/Limbaugh administration's invasion of Iran and trillion dollar tax cut to Wall Street.
In a way, what makes it even more pathetic is that so many of the individuals I'm criticizing are amazingly bright. They're almost unanimously well-educated, and also charitable enough to frequently volunteer. But on a national level their political efforts are wasted, or perhaps even increase the likelihood of conservative policies. I really wish they'd swallow their pride and jump into the arena with the best politician who has a chance of actually winning. We need their help.
For those Americans out there who are on the far-left, I leave you with this thought:
See all those tea-baggers running around with "NO TO SOCIALISM" signs?
THEY'RE IN THE FIGHT.
YOU'RE NOT.
I could rebut this, but it would detract from its hilarity.
I don't know, Cain, I kind of agree with that.
Its patently stupid. Its an argument for not holding a politicians feet to the fire, because then teh evil wingnuts would get in and...well, what, exactly? Do pretty much the same stupid, evil shit? Ooh boy, that would be, um, exactly how things are now. Oh teh noes.
Its petty partisan politics. Obama should be allowed to get away with shit Bush would've gotten called on because the Democrats are better. Except, if they're doing the same things, then, uh, they're not. My metric is "would I have chewed out Bush over this?" And the answer to all of them is yes.
I also find the idea that the "far left" (because wanting the rule of law and freedom from constant surveillance now makes you Che fucking Guevara, right?) will be responsible for the wingnuts getting in to be somewhat offensive. Its not like its the "far left" who are constantly cutting deals with the wingnuts in the Senate or House on things like surveillance or healthcare, in essence giving everyone on the liberal left and beyond no valid reason to vote for the Democrats.
Quote from: Cain on January 19, 2010, 06:07:18 PM
Its patently stupid. Its an argument for not holding a politicians feet to the fire, because then teh evil wingnuts would get in and...well, what, exactly? Do pretty much the same stupid, evil shit? Ooh boy, that would be, um, exactly how things are now. Oh teh noes.
Its petty partisan politics. Obama should be allowed to get away with shit Bush would've gotten called on because the Democrats are better. Except, if they're doing the same things, then, uh, they're not. My metric is "would I have chewed out Bush over this?" And the answer to all of them is yes.
I also find the idea that the "far left" (because wanting the rule of law and freedom from constant surveillance now makes you Che fucking Guevara, right?) will be responsible for the wingnuts getting in to be somewhat offensive. Its not like its the "far left" who are constantly cutting deals with the wingnuts in the Senate or House on things like surveillance or healthcare, in essence giving everyone on the liberal left and beyond no valid reason to vote for the Democrats.
Well, what I was agreeing with is that the left is fucking useless in America.
Oh. Well, yes.
But I rather think the quoted poster likes it that way, since then "rule of law extremists" (yes, I have seen this phrase seriously used, though not by the poster in question) cant ruin the bestest Presidency ever.
Quote from: Cain on January 19, 2010, 06:21:39 PM
Oh. Well, yes.
But I rather think the quoted poster likes it that way, since then "rule of law extremists" (yes, I have seen this phrase seriously used, though not by the poster in question) cant ruin the bestest Presidency ever.
GAH.
Please to put me in the "rule of law extremist" camp, then.
Also, I must've missed the Peanut Farmer's progressive foreign policy. Was that before or after he allowed Brezinski to stir up Islamic radicalism in Afghanistan, causing a Soviet invasion where America could then "bleed the Soviets dry"?
Not saying I wouldn't have done the same thing (except I would've invitited them for a "celebratory dinner" once the Soviets withdrew, and sent them on their way to Allah a little sooner than they expected) only to point out that inciting an invasion to drag a foreign power into a very bloody guerrilla war is not generally on the Code Pink approved rules of warfare.
Quote from: Cain on January 19, 2010, 06:30:51 PM
Also, I must've missed the Peanut Farmer's progressive foreign policy.
I think he was talking about the SALT treaties.
Because we all know that not having 50 times the firepower required to kill all life on Earth is hippie bullshit.
I think he was also guilty of looking around and saying, "wow, things are pretty fucked up, and people are bummed out about it, huh?"
I'm having a lot of fun with that thread. It seems to have confused the hell out of the teabaggers there too.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 19, 2010, 06:37:38 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 19, 2010, 06:30:51 PM
Also, I must've missed the Peanut Farmer's progressive foreign policy.
I think he was talking about the SALT treaties.
Because we all know that not having 50 times the firepower required to kill all life on Earth is hippie bullshit.
Could be. The Peanut Farmer served on a nuclear sub, as I recall. I imagine that would give one plenty of time to think about the follies of having enough nuclear power to set the clock back 4 billion years.
Of course, by that standard, Reagan was a flaming Communist, since he thought nuclear weapons were so irresponsibly dangerous that reducing them was the only viable option (Reagan was smart enough to never voice that opinion publically, but it is a well recorded sentiment among those who knew him personally, and one of the reasons he and Gorbachev felt they could work with each other).