heaping praise on Obama for seizing what is* literally the most
radical
power a President can seize*: the power to target — in total secrecy
and
with no checks or due process — their fellow citizens for execution:
specifically, assassination-by-CIA
---
capture and torture should always be our first choice when it comes to
terrorists, domestic or foreign
On Nov 15, 9:02 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> GOP and TP on Obama's foreign policy "successes"
> BY GLENN GREENWALD <http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/>
>
> -
> -
>
> *(updated below [Mon.])*
>
> Prior to last night's GOP foreign policy debate, the Center for American
> Progress Action Fund's Think Progress blog — which has several good and
> independent commentators who do excellent work —
> announced<https://twitter.com/#!/thinkprogress/status/135488206455046144>
> that
> it had compiled a list of "what you won't hear at tonight's GOP foreign
> policy debate: Obama's successes." It is very worth reviewing what
> this self-proclaimed
> progressive site <http://thinkprogress.org/about/> now — under a Democratic
> President – considers to be a "foreign policy
> success,"<http://thinkprogress.org/report/obama-foreign-policy-successes/>
> beginning
> with this:
> <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-KPD5SCfn6So/Tr_NcFooHfI/AAAAAAAAATk/sKn33-l...>
> <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OjP0cOXoQdY/Tr_Ng3vtkyI/AAAAAAAAATw/y72YlbR...>
>
> As I pointed out just
> yesterday<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/12/u_s_takes_the_lead_on_behalf_of_clust...>,
> many Democrats not only passively acquiesce to Obama's continuation of core
> Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, but enthusiastically cheer it as proof that
> they, too, can be Tough and Strong (manly virtues demonstrated by how many
> human beings their leader kills from afar). So here you have Think Progress
> heaping praise on Obama for seizing what is* literally the most radical
> power a President can seize*: the power to target — in total secrecy and
> with no checks or due process — their fellow citizens for execution:
> specifically, assassination-by-CIA. Worse, to justify what Obama has done,
> TP spouts a blatant falsehood (that Awlaki was "a senior Al Qaeda leader"),
> even though actual Yemen experts have mocked that claim
> mercilessly<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/opinion/20johnsen.html>
> and
> the administration itself refuses to reveal any evidence
> whatsoever<http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/release-the-memo/...>
> about
> what it did or why. Revealingly, TP trumpets the claim that "Al Awlaki's
> death brought a damaging
> blow<http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/01/awlaki%E2%80%99s-death-what-does-...>
> to
> Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)"; its link to justify that claim
> goes to the blog operated by the right-wing Heritage Foundation: *that*,
> quite understandably, is who TP must now cite as authoritative to justify
> Obama's foreign policy conduct.
>
> But what's most notable here is how inaccurate TP's prediction was: it
> turned out to be completely wrong that the Awlaki assassination was
> something "you won't hear at tonight's GOP foreign policy debate." In fact,
> we heard a lot about it — from the GOP candidates who heaped as much praise
> on Obama as TP did for murdering this American citizen. Indeed, among the
> most vocal cheers of the night from the GOP South Carolina crowd — second
> only to its vocal swooning for the virtues of waterboarding — was when
> their right-wing candidates hailed Obama's decision to kill Awlaki.
>
> Michele Bachmann gushed about Obama's decision this way: "Awlaki, who we
> also killed, he has been the chief recruiter of terrorists, including Major
> Hassan at Fort Hood, including the underwear bomber over Detroit, and
> including the Times Square bomber. *These were very good decisions that
> were made to take them out.*" Here was the exchange with Mitt Romney on
> this issue:
>
> CBS' SCOTT PELLEY: Governor Romney, recently President Obama ordered the
> death of an American citizen who was suspected of terrorist activity
> overseas. *Is it appropriate for the American president on the president's
> say-so alone to order the death of an American citizen suspected of
> terrorism?*
>
> MITT ROMNEY: Absolutely. In this case, this is an individual who had
> aligned himself with a– with a group that had declared (CHEERING) war on
> the United States of America. And– and if there's someone that's gonna–
> join with a group like Al-Qaeda that declares war on America and we're in
> a– in a– a war with that entity, *then of course anyone who was bearing
> arms for that entity is fair game for the United States of America. *
>
> And here was one of most revealing exchanges of the year, which Pelley
> (whose questions were quite good on this topic) had with Newt Gingrich:
>
> SCOTT PELLEY: Speaker Gingrich, if I could just ask you the same question,
> as President of the United States, would you sign that death warrant for an
> American citizen overseas who you believe is a terrorist suspect?
>
> NEWT GINGRICH: Well, he's not a terrorist suspect. He's a person who was
> found guilty under review of actively seeking the death of Americans.
>
> SCOTT PELLEY: Not– not found guilty by a court, sir.
>
> NEWT GINGRICH: He was found guilty by a panel that looked at it and
> reported to the president.
>
> SCOTT PELLEY: Well, that's ex-judicial. That's– it's not–
>
> NEWT GINGRICH: Let me– let me– let me tell you a story– let me just tell
> you this.
>
> SCOTT PELLEY: –the rule of law.
>
> NEWT GINGRICH: It is the rule of law. (APPLAUSE) That is explicitly
> false. It is the rule of law.
>
> SCOTT PELLEY: No.
>
> NEWT GINGRICH: *If you engage in war against the United States, you are an
> enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United
> States. (APPLAUSE) You cannot go to court. *
>
> Of course, whether someone is an "enemy combatant" and has "engaged in war
> against the United States" is exactly what is in question in these
> controversies. But, critically, this mindset — that the President has the
> power to secretly and unilaterally decree you guilty of being an Enemy
> Combatant and then take whatever steps he wants against you (warrantless
> eavesdropping, indefinite detention, consignment to Guantanamo, execution)
> — was until very recently the hallmark, the defining crux, of right-wing
> Bush/Cheney radicalism. That's why Newt Gingrich — *Newt Gingrich* —
> defends Obama's actions by claiming with a straight face that Awlaki was
> "found guilty" — meaning "found guilty" by a secret White House
> committee<http://www.salon.com/2011/10/06/execution_by_secret_wh_committee/>
> and
> thus "has none of the civil liberties of the United States." Thanks to
> Barack Obama, this twisted mentality about what the "rule of law" means and
> how treason is decreed (not by a court, as the Constitution requires, but
> by the President acting alone) has now been enshrined as bipartisan
> consensus. That's why Think Progress, Bachmann, Romney and Gingrich all
> find full common ground in embracing it as a "success" to be celebrated.
>
> It took Ron Paul — whom every Good Progressive will tell you is Completely
> Crazy and Insane — to point out to the GOP the rather glaring inconsistency
> between, on the one hand, distrusting government authorities to run health
> care, but on the other, wanting to empower the President to kill whomever
> he wants with no transparency or due process. As Conor Friedersdorf wrote
> last year in *Newsweek*<http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/05/25/is-rand-paul-crazier...>
> about
> who and what is "crazy":
>
> Forced to name the "craziest" policy favored by American politicians, I'd
> say the multibillion-dollar war on drugs, which no one thinks is winnable.
> . . . If returning to the gold standard is unthinkable, is it not just as
> extreme that President Obama claims an unchecked power to assassinate,
> without due process, any American living
> abroad<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/14awlaki.htm> whom
> he designates as an enemy combatant?
>
> Crazy/Insane Ron Paul also objected to the killing under Obama not only of
> Awlaki, but, two weeks later, of Awlaki's 16-year-old
> son<http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/>,
> also a U.S. citizen, and his 17-year-old cousin. Think Progress forgot to
> include those dead teenagers on its list of Obama's "foreign policy
> successes" — just as they forgot to include such smashing successes as
> this<http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_...>
> , this<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/12/u_s_takes_the_lead_on_behalf_of_clust...>
> , this<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/gen_mcchrystal_weve...>
> , this<http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-06-30/politics/30095838_1_al...>
> andthis<http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/expert_consensus_ob...>.
> But Ron Paul yet again showed how insane he is by pointing out that it's a
> bad thing — both morally and prudentially — for the U.S. Government to run
> around continuously killing Muslim children from the sky. All Sane and
> Serious People know that the President has the right and the duty to keep
> killing Muslim teeangers such as Awlaki's 16-year-old son; only crazies
> like Ron Paul object to such necessities.
>
> But even the craziest and most radical policies are immediately removed
> from the realm of craziness as soon as the leadership of both political
> parties agree on them. As evidenced by Think Progress' listing of the
> Awlaki assassination as an Obama "success" — joined in that assessment by
> Bachmann, Gingrich and Romney — that is what Barack Obama has achieved for
> due-process-free presidential killings of our fellow citizens. Is there
> anyone, anywhere, who denies that had George Bush (rather than Obama)
> claimed the power to assassinate American citizens with the CIA with no due
> process or transparency, Think Progress would be vociferously objecting
> rather than celebrating?
>
> There are a couple of other "foreign policy successes" hailed by Think
> Progress worth highlighting, such as this one:
> <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-INuxwrzCtLY/Tr_Q9qX2MZI/AAAAAAAAAT8/zrsvacg...>
>
> Here we have Think Progress celebrating Obama's subservience to Netanyahu
> and the Israeli Government as a grand "success." Obama, you see, has
> "strengthened America's military and intelligence relationship with
> Israel," has given unprecedented "support and cooperation" to Israeli
> actions ("even better than under President Bush"), and has "markedly
> increased" U.S. military aid to Israel — and these are all deemed Good
> Things by this progressive site. Here, again, there is extreme common
> ground with the Evil GOP, most of whom demanded last night that the U.S.
> get even closer to Israel (Think Progress is right that, minor rhetorical
> deviations on the settlement issue aside, Obama has been exactly as
> subservient to Israel — and exactly as hostile to
> Palestinians<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/8780859/Barack-...>
> —
> as the GOP demands). That they consider this approach to Israel a "success"
> is telling indeed. Then there's this:
> <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uexU-kKZzNA/Tr_THKlm45I/AAAAAAAAAUU/xzg5LD9...>
>
> Amazingly, Think Progress admits that Obama withdrew troops from Iraq*only
> because* he failed to convince the Iraqis to allow them to stay under a
> shield of legal
> immunity<http://www.nationaljournal.com/u-s-troop-withdrawal-motivated-by-iraq...>.
> In other words, American troops are leaving because Iraq forced them to
> leave, even though Obama tried desperately to have them stay. Still, Think
> Progress somehow classifies it as an Obama "success" that he "ordered the
> complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year" — the
> very result he tried desperately for many months to prevent. Think Progress
> also forgot to mention the Obama "success" of keeping a "small army" of
> private contractors<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/21/97915/state-dept-planning-to-fi...>
> in
> Iraq beyond the 2011 deadline — but, to be fair, so numerous are such
> "successes" for Obama that no single site can be expected to list all of
> them. Then we have this:
> <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XI9nCVhbOLM/Tr_UmJAuSsI/AAAAAAAAAUg/ANfnrkG...>
>
> So it's now Democratic orthodoxy — rather than just *Weekly Standard*dogma
> — that Iran is a threat, that it is developing nuclear weapons, and that
> its government needs to be "isolated" and "weakened." Even more notably,
> Think Progress insists that Obama, contrary to GOP complaints, still
> aggressively preserves the "military option" as a means of dealing with
> Iran, and apparently considers this to be a good thing (does anyone doubt
> that a large majority of Democrats will vigorously support military action
> against Iran if the U.S. either does it directly or supports Israel in
> doing it?). Ironically, all of the steps which Newt Gingrich demanded be
> taken against Iran are already being pursued by some combination of the
> U.S. and Israel; here's what Gingirch demanded last night:
>
> First of all, as maximum covert operations– to block and disrupt the
> Iranian program– in– including– taking out their scientists, including
> breaking up their systems. All of it covertly, all of it deniable.
> Second, (LAUGH) maximum– maximum coordination with the Israelis– in a way
> which allows them to maximize their impact in Iran. Third, absolute
> strategic program comparable to what President Reagan, Pope John Paul II,
> and Margaret Thatcher did in the Soviet Union, of every possible aspect
> short of war of breaking the regime and bringing it down.
>
> Gingrich's proposals perfectly
> capture<http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/another-iranian-nuclear-sci...>
> the Obama administration's
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12633240> policies
> of aggression toward Iran <http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/052510.html>.
> And the GOP and Think Progress are of like mind that these are noble and
> Strong. Perhaps the most dishonest of the claimed "successes" is this:
> <http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-d0nOxKXjX1k/Tr_XsYfZjVI/AAAAAAAAAUs/GnSDniN...>
>
> At the debate I
> had<http://www.browndailyherald.com/pro-legalization-speaker-dominates-de...>
> last
> week at Brown with former Bush drug czar John Walters, I could barely
> maintain my civility when he told the audience that they should be proud of
> the role their government played in helping to bring democracy to Egypt;
> the very idea that a member of a government that long funded and armed the
> Mubarak regime would claim credit for bringing democracy to that country is
> offensive in the extreme. And it's every bit as offensive for Think
> Progress to try to claim Egyptian democracy as an Obama "success."
>
> The Obama administration supported Mubarak up to the very last minute. Tear
> gas cannisters shot by Egyptian police at protesters bore the "MADE IN THE
> USA" mark<http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/egypt-protest-police-us-made-tear-gas-d...>.
> In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary
> Clintonproclaimed<http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/01/secretary-clinton-in-200...>:
> "*I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my
> family*." And
> when Mubarak's fall became inevitable, Obama tried to
> engineer<http://www.salon.com/2011/02/08/suleiman/> the
> empowerment of Omar Suleiman, Mubarak's long-time trusted lieutenant most
> responsible for its policies of torture and brutality. The U.S., under both
> the Bush and Obama administrations, did more to entrench Mubarak than any
> other single force; to attribute the fall of Mubarak to Obama is propaganda
> so deceitful that it defies words.
>
> Some of the successes noted by Think Progress are genuinely that: Obama's
> repeal of DADT was masterfully executed, and the negotiation with Russia of
> a reduction in nuclear weapons was a very modest though positive
> development. And tactically, Obama's pursuit of the same foreign policy
> goals as his predecessor has been, in many cases, more tactically shrewd
> and subtle, and more multilateral. Obama is a more competent technocrat
> than Bush, and it's perfectly reasonable, I guess, for progressives to
> claim those limited tactical differences as a "success."
>
> But the list of foreign policy "successes" compiled by Think Progress —
> echoed in many progressive precincts — is grounded in little more than the
> premise that "success" is defined as: *that which Barack Obama does, even
> when what he does prompted years of progressive anger when done by George
> Bush. *As Ali Abunimah perfectly put
> it<https://twitter.com/#!/AliAbunimah/status/135543446487302145> last
> night: "all the questions in the GOP debate [were] about which countries
> these sinister clowns would bomb, invade, subvert, occupy, etc etc etc."
> That's true, but that is basically what American "foreign policy" generally
> entails (on*Meet the Press* this morning, Michele Bachmann said of Obama's
> drone policies: "Those are good things that I think all Americans would
> agree with"). * *That D.C.'s leading Democratic Party think tank celebrates
> so many of those acts, and particularly thinks exactly like *Newt Gingrich
> and Michele Bachmann* on one of the most controversial civil liberties
> issues of our generation — the power of the President to secretly target
> even American citizens for assassination — speaks volumes about the true
> legacy of the Obama presidency in these areas.
>
> *UPDATE*: More success<http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nyts-thomas-friedman-gives-obama-high-mark...>
> :
> <http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7rnh3V10ovM/TsEsud2BxnI/AAAAAAAAAWI/5AtyUet...>
>
> See also here<http://www.truth-out.org/former-guantanamo-chief-prosecutor-pair-test...>,
> where former Guantanamo chief prosecutor and vocal Bush critic Morris Davis
> complains about the Obama presidency: "*it seems like a third Bush term
> when it comes to national security*." Let the celebratory party at Think
> Progress resume.
> [image: Glenn Greenwald] <http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/>
>
> Follow Glenn Greenwald on Twitter: @ggreenwald<http://twitter.com/ggreenwald>
> .More Glenn Greenwald <http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/>
>
> -
> - PERMALINK<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/gop_and_tp_on_obamas_foreign_policy_s...>
> - PRINT<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/gop_and_tp_on_obamas_foreign_policy_s...>
> - SHORT URL <http://salon.com/a/sQMibAA>
> -
> http://beigenixon.blogspot.com/2011/11/obamas-obushmian-foreign-polic...
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment