Tag Archives: Libya

Greenwald: Obama Gutting Core Democratic Principles

22 Friday Jul 2011

Posted by in Democrats, drone strikes, George W. Bush, Libya, Medicare, Obama, Social Security, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Yet another gem from Glenn Greenwald in today’s Guardian:

“[I]n 2009, clear signs emerged that President Obama was eager to achieve what his right-predecessor could not: cut social security. Before he was even inaugurated, Obama echoed the right’s manipulative rhetorical tactic: that (along with Medicare) the program was in crisis and producing “red ink as far as the eye can see.” President-elect Obama thus vowed that these crown jewels of his party since the New Deal would be, as Politico reported, a “central part” of his efforts to reduce the deficit.

The next month, his top economic adviser, the Wall Street-friendly Larry Summers, also vowed specific benefit cuts to Time magazine. He then stacked his “deficit commission” with long-time advocates of social security cuts.

Many progressives, ebullient over the election of a Democratic president, chose to ignore these preliminary signs, unwilling to believe that their own party’s leader was as devoted as he claimed to attacking the social safety net. But some were more realistic. The popular liberal blogger and economist Duncan “Atrios” Black, who was one of the leaders of the campaign against Bush’s privatization scheme, vowed in response to these early reports:

The left … will create an epic 360-degree shitstorm if Obama and the Dems decide that cutting social security benefits is a good idea.

Fast forward to 2011: it is now beyond dispute that President Obama not only favours, but is the leading force in Washington pushing for, serious benefit cuts to both social security and Medicare.

[…]

The same Democratic president who supported the transfer of $700bn to bail out Wall Street banks, who earlier this year signed an extension of Bush’s massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and who has escalated America’s bankruptcy-inducing posture of Endless War, is now trying to reduce the debt by cutting benefits for America’s most vulnerable – at the exact time that economic insecurity and income inequality are at all-time highs.

Where is the “epic shitstorm” from the left which Black predicted? With a few exceptions – the liberal blog FiredogLake has assembled 50,000 Obama supporters vowing to withhold re-election support if he follows through, and a few other groups have begun organizing as well – it’s nowhere to be found.

Therein lies one of the most enduring attributes of Obama’s legacy: in many crucial areas, he has done more to subvert and weaken the left’s political agenda than a GOP president could have dreamed of achieving. So potent, so overarching, are tribal loyalties in American politics that partisans will support, or at least tolerate, any and all policies their party’s leader endorses – even if those policies are ones they long claimed to loathe.

[…]

He has gone further than his predecessor by waging an unprecedented war on whistleblowers, seizing the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process far from any battlefield, massively escalating drone attacks in multiple nations, and asserting the authority to unilaterally prosecute a war (in Libya) even in defiance of a Congressional vote against authorizing the war.

And now he is devoting all of his presidential power to cutting the entitlement programs that have been the defining hallmark of the Democratic party since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. The silence from progressive partisans is deafening – and depressing, though sadly predictable.

[…]

Obama is now on the verge of injecting what until recently was the politically toxic and unattainable dream of Wall Street and the American right – attacks on the nation’s social safety net – into the heart and soul of the Democratic party’s platform. Those progressives who are guided more by party loyalty than actual belief will seamlessly transform from virulent opponents of such cuts into their primary defenders.

And thus will Obama succeed – yet again – in gutting not only core Democratic policies, but also the identity and power of the American Left.”

Advertisement

The Lesser of Two Evils is Still Evil

21 Thursday Jul 2011

Posted by in Libya

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

This is who we have formally recognized as the legitimate government in Libya? From The Telegraph:

“The streaks of blood, smeared along the sides of this impromptu mass grave suggested a rushed operation, a hurried attempt to dispose of the victims…But the evidence of a brutal end were clear. One of the corpses had been cleanly decapitated, while the trousers of another had been ripped down to his ankles, a way of humiliating a dead enemy.

The green uniforms were the same as those worn by loyalists fighting for Col. Muammer Gaddafi in Libya’s civil war. No one from the rebel side claimed the corpses, or declared their loved ones missing. There was no funeral, or call to the media by the rebels to see the ‘atrocities committed by the regime’.

[…]

The find will add to concerns highlighted in recent days over human rights violations by rebel forces. Human Rights Watch last week said that had looted homes, shops and hospitals and beaten captives as they advanced.

The Daily Telegraph found homes in the village of al-Awaniya ransacked, and shops and schools smashed and looted. The town, now empty, was inhabited by the Mashaashia, a traditionally loyalist tribe that has long been involved in land disputes with surrounding towns.

Human rights groups fear that reprisals may get worse as the rebels advance on towns nearer the capital such as Al-Sabaa and Gheryan which are loyalist strongholds.”

[…]

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both said there were documented cases of extra-judicial killings by rebel forces, including deaths in custody under torture.

In particular, in the early phases of the uprising, loyalists and sub-Saharan Africans accused of being mercenaries were lynched. Since then, men in rebel-held areas suspected of being members of Col Gaddafi’s security services have been taken from the homes, and subsequently found dead with their hands tied.

Both organisations say these are not on the scale of the abuses perpetrated by the regime.”

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

What Else is New? Republicans Threaten, Sir Robin Backs Down

06 Wednesday Jul 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, Democrats, Libya, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Republicans threaten to say mean things about Sir Robin Harry, so he backs down. As usual.

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) canceled a vote on legislation authorizing U.S. military action in Libya after facing pressure from GOP lawmakers, who warned they would vote the measure down in order to focus on budget matters.

[…]

Several Republicans complained about the Libya vote, noting Senate Democrats cited the debt crisis as the reason for canceling this week’s scheduled Independence Day holiday. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), for example, said he did not think it was worthwhile for the Senate to cancel its break if it did not deal with the nation’s financial crisis.

The discontent came to a head on Tuesday morning when Republican senators, led by Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Roger Wicker (Miss.), took to the floor to express their opposition to a vote on the measure.

[…]

“The Senate is basically fiddling while America goes bankrupt,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).”

Good call. Ron. Whether or not a president can take us to war kinetic military action with out the consent of Congress is “basically fiddling” We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution, we’ve got debt ceiling kabuki to focus on.

But there is time for meaningless, non-binding, “Sense of the Senate” resolutions, although I don’t see how you can put the words “sense” and “Senate” in the same sentence. Seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me.

The War in Libya Drags On….Illegally

26 Sunday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, Libya, Obama, Obama administration

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

As, “days, not weeks” in Libya enters its fourth month, and now that the top U.S. admiral in Libya has admitted that the goal is regime change, despite this…

“Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with Gaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”

…and this:

“Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, issued a statement acknowledging that President Obama would like to see a democratic government in Libya, but explained that the aim of the U.S. military’s intervention there is not to enact regime change.”

Glen Greenwald asks this question:

“Would this be an example of a President misleading the nation into an (illegal) war?  Or did the goal of the war radically change oh-so-unexpectedly a mere few weeks after it began?  Everyone can make up their own mind about which is more likely.”

Greenwald also has an explanation for the failure of Friday’s de-funding bill in the House. One that I hadn’t considered, but which makes sense:

“The so-called “de-funding” bill the House rejected yesterday was not really a de-funding bill.  It would have barred the spending of money for some war purposes, but explicitly authorized it for others.  That’s why… dozens of anti-Libya-war members in both parties voted NO on the de-funding bill: not because…they were cowards who did not have the courage of their anti-war convictions; and not because the bill would have approved some spending for a war they oppose (though that is true), but rather because they were worried (appropriately so) that had that “de-funding” bill passed, Obama lawyers would have exploited it to argue that Congress, by appropriating some money for the war, had implicitly authorized Obama to wage it.

As Ron Paul — echoing the spokesperson for House progressives — said in explaining his NO vote on “de-funding”, the bill “masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president’s war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war…instead of ending the war against Libya, this bill would legalize nearly everything the president is currently doing there.

That was the reason so many anti-war members of Congress — including dozens of progressives — rejected the “de-funding” bill despite opposition to the war in Libya: because it was a disguised authorization for a war they oppose, not because they cowardly failed to check executive power abuses.”

And as Greenwald also points out, regardless of the outcome of the de-funding vote, the war in Libya is still illegal:

“Congress does not need to de-fund a war to render it illegal.  Under the law (and the Constitution), military actions are illegal if Congress does not affirmatively authorize them (either within 60 days or at the start, depending on one’s view).  The fact that the President has failed to obtain that authorization renders his ongoing war-waging illegal — period.  

[…]

Of course it’s true that Congress should act to stop a President who is waging a war in violation of the law and/or the Constitution, but Presidents shouldn’t wage illegal wars in the first place.  It is frequently asserted that Article II of the Constitution vests the President with the power and obligation to defend the nation, even though nothing in Article II (or any other provision of the Constitution) actually does that.  But there is an obligation which Article II does explicitly impose on the President: “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  That includes, by definition, the War Powers Resolution (and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution).”

House Chickens Out on Libya Funding Cut

24 Friday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, Libya, Politics, Republicans

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present the United States House of Representatives:

After voting down a bill earlier today which would give Congressional approval to the war that’s not really a war in Libya by a 295-123 margin, our esteemed Congresschickens turned around and rejected another bill which would have cut off funding for the Libyan non-war— 180 were in favor of the funding cut, 238 against. And it wasn’t even a complete de-funding, there were exceptions for search and rescue, aerial refueling, operational planning, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

So to re-cap, 295 were against supporting the Libyan operations, but only 180 were in favor of cutting off just a portion of the funding. Chickens.

Here are the two roll call votes. First the bill for support, then the vote on funding.

So this is for all you clucking cowards who voted against the funding cut after voting against support. First, the Republicans. I don’t ever again want to see you waving that copy of the Constitution you so proudly carry in your inside pocket. I don’t ever want to hear you cackle again about the president overstepping his constitutionally prescribed powers. You had your chance to at least take a step in the direction of reining in some of that power today and you didn’t do it. From now on, shut the hell up.

Democrats, the next time a Republican president makes up a reason to go to non-war, and by your acquiescence to King Obama and his convoluted definition of “hostilities” you have made that a guaranteed ‘when’ not a conditional ‘if,’ I don’t want to hear anything from you either. Remember today and shut the hell up.

A pox on both your houses.

House Votes to Deny Consent on Libya

24 Friday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Libya, Obama

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Do I sense some backbone here? McClatchy is reporting:

“The House of Representatives voted 295 to 123 Friday to deny congressional consent for U.S. military involvement in Libya, a rebuke of President Barack Obama’s policy and an expression of lawmakers’ frustration with his reluctance to consult with them on it.

The vote has no immediate effect on U.S. Libya policy, but Democratic leaders had urged support for Obama’s approach.

They were thwarted by an unusual combination of anti-war Democrats, as well as most Republicans, who argued that the three-month old mission has become too murky and too costly. 70 Democrats joined 225 Republicans to vote against the measure.”

The real test comes later today when the vote to cut funding comes up. Then we’ll see who puts their mouth where the money is.

No “Hostilities” But “Imminent Danger” Pay

23 Thursday Jun 2011

Posted by in Libya, Obama

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

What’s wrong with this picture?

“The White House has officially declared that what’s happening in Libya is not “hostilities.”But at the Pentagon, officials have decided it’s unsafe enough there to give troops extra pay for serving in “imminent danger.”

The Defense Department decided in April to pay an extra $225 a month in “imminent danger pay” to service members who fly planes over Libya or serve on ships within 110 nautical miles of its shores.

That means the Pentagon has decided that troops in those places are “subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger because of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions.”

[…]

Asked Monday whether the White House finding contradicted the Pentagon’s, an Obama spokesman declined to comment.”

Understandable. They’re busy re-defining “imminent” and “danger.”

Bush Taught, Obama Learned

20 Monday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, George W. Bush, Justice Department, Libya, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

From an editorial in the St. Petersburg Times, May 21, 2006, via Newshoggers:

“[T]he changes that George W. Bush has made to our nation’s constitutional firmament may not depart with the first family’s bags. His disregard for the separation of powers has so dramatically distorted the office of the president that he may have engineered a turning point in American history.

…Bush has taught tomorrow’s leaders that, if there are no consequences for ignoring legal constraints on power and if no one stops you from conducting the nation’s business in secret, you don’t have to be accountable. He is ruling through the tautological doctrine of Richard Nixon, who told interviewer David Frost that as long as the president’s doing it “that means it is not illegal.”

…Holding the executive branch to account for its actions, demanding that it respect the law and insisting that it fully report to Congress on its activities – these are nonnegotiable duties of Congress, because they are key part of our inheritance.

Being answerable to another is humbling. It makes you more careful in your actions. It requires that you consider how you will defend your decisions. George Bush has freed himself of this constitutional imperative and is showing the next president, and the next, how it is done.”

Bush taught, Obama learned, as evidenced by recent events. Like the expansion of the FBI’s investigative powers:

“The Obama administration has long been bumbling along in the footsteps of its predecessor when it comes to sacrificing Americans’ basic rights and liberties under the false flag of fighting terrorism. Now the Obama team seems ready to lurch even farther down that dismal road than George W. Bush did.

Instead of tightening the relaxed rules for F.B.I. investigations — not just of terrorism suspects but of pretty much anyone — that were put in place in the Bush years, President Obama’s Justice Department is getting ready to push the proper bounds of privacy even further.”

Like ignoring the advice of the Attorney General, the Pentagon general counsel, and the head of the Office of Legal Counsel on the president’s convoluted definition of “hostilities”:

“President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with internal administration deliberations.

Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon general counsel, and Caroline D. Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, had told the White House that they believed that the United States military’s activities in the NATO-led air war amounted to “hostilities.” Under the War Powers Resolution, that would have required Mr. Obama to terminate or scale back the mission after May 20.

…Other high-level Justice lawyers were also involved in the deliberations, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. supported Ms. Krass’s view, officials said.”

But the Executive’s ability to expand power and ignore existing law becomes easier with idiots like Lindsey Graham ready, willing, and able to lend a helping hand with statements such as this:

“Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that Congress should not interfere with U.S. operations in Libya. “Congress should sort of shut up and not empower Qadhafi,” Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Pull out that copy of the Constitution that I’m sure is in your coat pocket, Sen. Graham. See what it says about Congress’ responsibilities and duties relating to the declaration and funding of war. I don’t think “shut up” is among them.

It All Depends on What “Hostilities” Means

16 Thursday Jun 2011

Posted by in Congress, Constitution, drone strikes, Justice Department, Libya, Obama, Obama administration, Yemen

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

I give the Obama administration points for creativity, if nothing else:

“The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.

In a 38-page report sent to lawmakers describing and defending the NATO-led operation, the White House said the mission was prying loose Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s grip on power.”

Wait a minute, I thought the mission was for humanitarian reasons, not regime change. Wha’ happen?

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold H. Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with the White House counsel, Robert Bauer.

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces had not been in “hostilities” at least since early April, when NATO took over the responsibility for the no-fly zone and the United States shifted to primarily a supporting role — providing refueling and surveillance to allied warplanes, although remotely piloted drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles, too.”

I think the people on the receiving end of those drone missiles might have a different definition of “hostilities.”

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” said Mr. Koh, a former Yale Law School dean and outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s expansive theories of executive power.”

Uh yes, that’s exactly what you’re saying, Mr. Koh. You’re also saying that as long as it’s your guy expanding executive power and taking the country to war kinetic military action on his own it’s OK. Can you say double standard, boys and girls?

“We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

No, you’re not actually saying you can refuse to consult Congress, whatever refuse means inside the White House these days, just that you can concoct some phony baloney reason not to, Carnac.

Mr. Koh, just for clarification purposes, the next time you talk to President Bush Obama, ask him whether or not a drone attack a day in Yemen falls under “hostilities.” Just curious.

Oh, one more thing about disregarding the War Powers Resolution, the ‘everybody else does it’ excuse didn’t work for me when I was six and it doesn’t work for you now as far as I’m concerned. I must have missed the ‘vote for me, I’ll do what everybody else has done’ campaign speech in 2008.

Continuing the Bush / Cheney "War on Terror" Policies

01 Monday Feb 2010

Posted by in Justice Department, Obama, terrorism, torture, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

As someone who voted for Barack Obama in 2008,  I’ve been disappointed in many of the actions of the Obama administration. None more so than their continuation of the Bush/Cheney policies of dealing with those accused of terrorist activities. I expected much better from a president who professed to be something of a Constitutional scholar, and the administration bowing to pressure over the weekend from those who are against trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 4 others in New York City has only renewed that disappointment.

It also didn’t help that, in a Newsweek article on Friday, the Obama Justice Department has, what Newsweek called “downgraded” but a better term would be “whitewashed,” a Bush DOJ recommendation that Jay Bybee and John Yoo should be investigated for committing ethical violations in connection with authoring the 2002 torture memos. The Obama DOJ now calls their actions simply “poor judgment.”

In light of that, Glenn Greenwald has an excellent piece in Salon which is a must-read for anyone who shares my concerns, and which compares the Bush/Cheney policies with those of the current administration. The sad fact being that there isn’t much difference. Greenwald writes:

“From indefinite detention and renditions to denial of habeas rights, from military commissions and secrecy obsessions to state secrets abuses, many of the defining Bush/Cheney policies continue unabated under its successor administration.

...it’s now crystal clear that the country, especially its ruling elite, is either too petrified of Terrorism and/or too enamored of the powers which that fear enables to accept any real changes from the policies that were supposedly such a profound violation “of our values.”  One can only marvel at the consensus outrage generated by the mere notion that we charge people with crimes and give them trials if we want to lock them in a cage for life. Indeed, what was once the most basic and defining American principle — the State must charge someone with a crime and give them a fair trial in order to imprison them — has been magically transformed into Leftist extremism.”

…there is clearly a bipartisan and institutional craving for a revival (more accurately:  ongoing preservation)  of the core premise of Bush/Cheney radicalism:  that because we’re “at war” with Terrorists, our standard precepts of justice and due process do not apply and, indeed, must be violated.

That “Leftist extremism” would by today’s standards include that noted leftist, Ronald Reagan, whose policy on dealing with terrorists, as stated by L. Paul Bremer, the top Reagan State Department official in charge of  Terrorism policies, was this:

“Another important measure we have developed in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are — criminals — and to use democracy’s most potent tool, the rule of law against them.”

Greenwald also has the just-released policy of another country in dealing with al-Qaeda, along with some quotes from that country’s leader. See who this sounds like:

“_____ will hold up to 300 al Qaeda members in jail indefinitely after they have completed their prison terms to stop them staging fresh attacks.

“These people are heretics. They are followers of (Osama) Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahri. They killed a number of civilians and police…It is a necessity to keep them in prison. They are very dangerous as they are ready to resume killing people in our streets here or travel…elsewhere to stage attacks…These people constitute a danger even when the court had pronounced its verdict. Security authorities are the ones who are responsible for this matter to say whether they are dangerous or not. The court verdict is void of reason in such cases.”

The country is Libya. The speaker is Muammar Gaddafi.