6. “We have limited the use of drones.” Bush drone strikes in Pakistan: 51. Obama drone strikes in Pakistan: 323.

nb in no way is that a defense of GWB.

"6. “We have limited the use of drones.” Bush drone strikes in Pakistan: 51. Obama drone strikes in Pakistan: 323. "

...repost this information below, but some more of what's listed as lies:

22. &quot W)e will be providing an additional $340 million [for aid]." And vastly more for weapons.

enough. That, no doubt, is a great consolation to their loved ones.

The OP is absurd.

I don't understand how those who do it can sleep at night, frankly.

It is not what you think it is.

Severe!

I'm half tempted to explain to her what you meant.

They really need to know.

so ODS is a sure bet.

Sid

ODS doesn't mean what you think it means! It certainly exists, I doubt anyone disputes that here.

at worst, he's a self-promoting hack .

Sid

already moved on to more than just blogging, to being read all over the world now and to more TV appearances and had any time to spend here, he would appreciate your endorsement as much as the rest of us Democrats here in the US do!

He's expanded his audience considerably which is always good for Progressive writers and annoying all the right people.

kudos to Swanson for finding his niche.

Sid

about what effects their personal lives than any particular politician.

Swanson has captured that audience, the audience now hugely expanded since he was just posting here, like you and me eg, who have zero influence even here, to a now worldwide audience.

Very impressive as I remember him from the old Bush days. He always did stand out among the rest of us who were just trying to have a voice. He actually got one! So yes, kudos to him. It's always nice to see a real Progressive Writer and Activist make it beyond forums like this.

Btw, do you have any aspirations to have more of a voice than you have here? I don't personally, I am happy to let those with the talent for it, do that work and simply support them.

Just wondering ... as I'm curious about those who spend a lot of time criticizing those who have made it, you know, whether they themselves have more to offer and are willing to do so.

back when Rall was on a pro-violence binge. Mr. Swanson argued, rather clearly I think, that the political process is strengthened when we do away with such inflammatory inclinations.

And I'm not sure self-promoting is a sin in and of itself. Everyone self-promotes to an extent. If I may be so bold I would point out that you add your name to your every post despite the fact your user name is already clear to see. Again, it's not bad, I'm just noting it's a thing that is a part of making one's contributions known.

By whom?

expanded his audience way beyond blogging. So I guess all those who are reading and listening to his progressive ideals on large publications, on TV and on radio. I don't know, why not ask that ever growing audience of his?

I haven't seen too many others here, especially the critics, have as much success as he has with Progressives not just here in the US now, but his audience is now worldwide.

that just because he's read doesn't mean he's respected, don't you? I read George Will and still think he's a worm. I'm also not impressed with those who think they get to judge who is a progressive and who is not. Those "judges" are everything that is wrong with politics.

people do. People don't have a lot of time to read everything they see and generally prefer to read material from people whose work they respect.

I'm sure there is a small segment of any writer's work that is read by people who do not agree with them. But no one will stay relevant as a writer unless they are respected by a fairly large number of people. In his case that is the Progressive audience which he pretty much captured years ago because during the Bush years, he was never afraid to be very public, under his real name about his opinions NOR was he concerned about all the negative reaction he received from Bush supporters.

You can't possibly think you're well read if you only read authors you respect. I don't respect George Will or Charles Krauthammer but I would never try and convince myself their views don't matter just because "I" don't respect them. Considering there are countless ways to get news these days, there is no such thing as not enough time.

those who are most likely to deliver facts rather than distortions of facts. I don't have much interest in propaganda such as we generally get from the Corporate media here. I have many, many sources of news that generally deliver facts rather than the Corporate 'messages' we were relying on for so long.

Which is why CNN eg, is 'struggling for an audience' while others are increasing their audience.

If he had tried a little harder, this article could have gotten a nice round 50. Can he do anything right?

Makes about as much sense as that list.

This place is going over the fucking edge in idiocy.

Ridiculous.

Another fine ODS article posted on DU...

UnRec!

For instance, look at number 1. First of all, Obama DID try diplomatic efforts in parallel to a THREAT of military action. When there was some success on that front, he dropped the immediate threat and said the elimination of chemical weapons was a better result.

For contrast look at March 2003 - diplomatic efforts were eliminating even the possibility of cause and Bush started a war anyway. I posted for YEARS on DU and DU2, that Bush could have instead of going to war in 2003, declared a success his effort to get inspectors in before sanctions were scheduled to end to insure that Saddam had not rebuilt his WMD. He could then have even taken the step of the US leading the effort of removing the sanctions that had hurt many in Iraq - in fact, for political effect, he could have blasted Clinton for keeping them in effect for 8 years.

Then look at number 2. The UN did not start after WWI - it started after WWII. One can argue that if the world REALLY shifted after WWI, there would not have been WWII less than 25 years later! (It is funny that it is easier to dispute his comment than Obama's - although I don't think his is a lie - just an opinion based on a treaty.) It is clear to me that there is accuracy in BOTH their statements. Not to mention, even if history is repeated incorrectly, to be a lie the person saying it can't be just wrong, but intentionally misstating the facts.

Look at number 3. Obama is not saying that all or most people are moving out of poverty. It is possible to point to the efforts he is describing and say that they are moving people out of poverty. (In fact, this is an issue close to who Obama is - his mother in Indonesia was among the earliest people to push microloans that have pulled people out of poverty.) I have watched SFRC hearings that have dealt with these efforts. The fact that these efforts started prior to Obama does not make this a lie - and the crash DID intensify the need.

Look at number 4 - The reason for saying a decade was that the wars started in 2002 when Afghanistan started and we have ended Iraq and are drawing down Afghanistan. Note that here, it is the writer going beyond Obama's words - there is a difference in the meaning of "We ended a decade of wars" and "we have also worked to end a decade of war," The former is not true (and would be a lie as the President has to know that), while the latter is convoluted but true - especially if you look at the number of US troops over time.

Now, I have no intention of going through all of the claimed "lies". To me, there is a pattern of parsing each sentence to mean things they actually did not say. There is also the pattern of claiming that claims, true in what they actually said, are lies because they do not elucidate broader issues- 3 is a great example of this.

"Now, I have no intention of going through all of the claimed "lies". To me, there is a pattern of parsing each sentence to mean things they actually did not say. There is also the pattern of claiming that claims, true in what they actually said, are lies because they do not elucidate broader issues- 3 is a great example of this."

...RW model of throw shit and hope it sticks. Refer to facts as lies, and then dare people to waste their friggin time refuting 45 ridiculous assertions.

I think that sometimes, it is not that what is said is not "factual". It is that it does not consist of the "facts" that the partisan - on either side - wants to see.

I would prefer that the word "lie" be used judiciously - so when used it is a strong complaint. It should also be something that the speaker provably had to know was not true and it should be something that is an objective statement. Anything subjective or expressed as opinion can be something you adamantly disagree with, but it is not a lie. It is amazing that this brings back so many discussions I had with my kids - starting with ones where I had to explain it was not a lie to have said we would go to something and then did not go when it was cancelled for a snowstorm.

Here - especially in ones like 2, it seems more someone just wanting to prove that they know a lot of diplomatic history. It is true that WWI caused a lot of reflection and some things appeared to change. The pact he mentioned is one and there is the chemical weapons prohibition that was key to the last 2 months. However, it is clearly not wrong to say that the UN came into being in response to both world wars.

There are enough times when we have - beyond a doubt been lied to - and we should be angry about them. We should not be in a permanent mode of trying to see everything as a lie - even when it is not even a statement of "fact". What next - Obama says "It's a beautiful day today" - and people argue it wasn't - as it was too hot or too cold?

Yes - economy with the truth may be more accurate. Each is the typical statement given in response to questions by reporters by making a statement which doesn't actually answer the question. Sadly most reporters give up at that point

In fact, the author of this is asking for a totally different speech than the one given. In some cases, he stretches bizarrely to make points that really have no meaning - other than to add to the count. (The best example is debating the comment that the UN grew out of the two world wars. That it was made to the UN makes this even funnier as something to count as a lie.)

On the question of poverty -- entire speeches (and one would hope task forces and programs) could be given on poverty. What the author is eluding to is that the 1%/99% story - where the wealthiest people get richer and everyone else poorer. This is something that needs action - in the US and in the world. However, this is not that speech and the President's comments on good programs the US has done is something that is heard whenever a head of a major state addresses the UN.

The HOPE is that Obama can end his term with a world more peaceful than when he took office. If this happens, it will have been a very difficult thing to do - as their were many power kegs that were bound to go off at some time - and many did.

I do think it is hard to look at most of the world and see that many of the conflicts are all in areas where England and France drew lines and created countries. At the time, I am sure they thought they were bringing advancement - better government, education, modernity etc to people in the areas. However, their policy - whether in Iraq, Syria, Sri Lanka, etc of favoring a minority while suppressing a majority has led to grief everywhere.

I think that should be a lesson that the US (and its allies) need to really learn. I am 100% against the US creating alternative governments to those we dislike. I dislike it even more when it is Obama/Clinton because I respect them. I don't like that - independent of the CW issue - the US is increasing support to any of the rebels. However, I hope that the CW resolution will pass and will eliminate at least most of those weapons and that Geneva 2 will lead to a path for Syrians to select a government. A government that will immediately have to fight the extremists that this civil war has encouraged.

Meanwhile, I hope that the efforts to engage Iran and to resolve Israel/Palestine lead to something better than today - even if not some unattainable ideal solution. If these happen, Syria does not explode again and there is a real negotiated solution for Afghanistan - maybe including India and Pakistan solving their dispute, the world really will have become better. It is an ambitious agenda and it is near impossible that each of these things could become marginally more peaceful, but that is the world we face.

I did have one big problem with the speech. I wish that the phrase "American exceptionalism" was never again uttered by a Democrat. The ONLY use of it I liked was a very clever comment from Kerry in 2008 when the issue was that Obama does not believe in American exceptionism. The heat of a campaign is not the right place to dispute this - Kerry's defense for Obama was to include in his comments - "America is exceptional when it does exceptional things". This neatly calls on America to live up to its ideals - and essentially turns claims of exceptionalism into a truism. In fact ANYONE (or any country) would be exceptional if it did exceptional things. Far different than the almost chosen people reference of the Republicans.

"The HOPE is that Obama can end his term with a world more peaceful than when he took office. If this happens, it will have been a very difficult thing to do - as their were many power kegs that were bound to go off at some time - and many did. "


He tried to extend our troops presence in Iraq, (was foiled by the Iraqis), he did extend our commitment in Afghanistan and even used a Surge, was ready to bomb Syria, but foiled by progressives.

the creator, be it Senator Taft, Senator McCarthy, RMN, GF, RR, GHWB, WJC, GWB, BHO, Le Gran Orangeman, Cantor, Ryan and all RW loons not herein-before mentioned. :patriot

OK, that's hilarious.

Wait. What?

except that minor flareup, WWII. hilarious is the right word.

All of know, that there was an effort - the League of Nations - after WWI that failed to happen. It is significant that the UN was created -- and it is simply a statement of history that it started after WWII.

Read the alternet article a few times . . .

Drivel.

Because I like to keep the truth visible.

Swanson thinks there are more lies, but those lies weren't good enough to make his top 45 list.



Sid

What are you hoping to accomplish? This is not "holding his feet to the fire" on policy objectives. It is merely insulting our president by calling him a liar merely because any statement can be parsed. Y haters to slime the person saying them. This has no place on DU.

There are a couple of claims David SWanson makes that I find debatable and would be willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt,
but the large majority are self-evident.

I watched the speech, and was stunned and embarrassed by some of the claims President Obama made in front of The WORLD, and wondered to myself if he believed he was telling the truth.

Does Obama really believe that "there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties" from the Drone Strikes?
Is he THAT sheltered from the documented REALITY of these Drone Strikes?
If so, that is truly frightening.

Does he really believe that the World has forgotten the bellicose Beating of the War Drums from just a month ago?

Does he really believe that the World wasn't watching when Putin called Kerry's bluff to stop America's entry into Syria's Civil War?

Does he believe that The WORLD doesn't know about the US arming of militant factions in Syria, Libya, and the Middle East?


I'm sure Mr Swanson's article in Alternet will gather the usual crowd who will waste their time & ours with their predictable ( and now quite boring) MO of Attack the Messenger along with some gratuitousness Hippie Punching of the Progressive/Peace Movement.

It would be nice to see a legitimate, fact based rebuttal that would advance the discussion, (and remind me of the old DU) but that would be too much to expect today, and counterproductive to the goal of stopping any discussion.

DURec for Alternet and David Swanson.



You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

It wasn't a bluff - more a statement of the obvious. How would you - as Obama's SoS have answered that question. Kerry was just giving an honest answer of about the only that that could stop an invasion.

Note that Putin - in all the years before - including the last 2 of civil war had NEVER pushed Syria to get rid of the chemical weapons.

This is as much of a bluff as a parent telling a kid to his homework or he could not go a sporting event that he was supposed to go to -- and the kid's best friend pushing him to do the homework to avoid the consequences. The kid does the homework - did the kids' best friend call the parent's bluff?

The fact is that either Obama or Kerry would have gladly accepted Syria joining the convention and giving up its chemical weapons. It makes the region safer and it is germane to Obama's saying use of the weapons crosses a red line. (In fact, the day after in the google hangout with NYT Kristoff - Kerry said if it works, it is a much better solution than the limited strike would be. )

I did,
and Kerry clearly was taken aback when Putin accepted the deal.

Even the White House later tried to say that Kerry wasn't serious with his offer,
and was speaking metaphorically.
It doesn't matter what you would like to believe,
the WORLD watching.....and laughing when Putin called the hand.

There is nothing on tape that makes Kerry look like he was taken back. The first time - after Lavrov showed interest, was when Kerry spoke to the house - later that day he spoke at the google hangout. He said then that it was a better resolution than attacking.

It is true that the state department tried to walk back what Kerry said- likely because it was not at that point the President's position - saying his comment was rhetorical, but even then indicating that if it were possible they would be interested. What they said was rhetorical was that it seemed unlikely. They wrote the following:

""Secretary Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used," a U.S. State Department spokeswoman said in an emailed statement.

Interesting that you know what the whole world is thinking --- are you the NSA?

PS Do you honestly think if Kerry had messed up, Obama would have assigned him to go to Geneva? Then to meet with Iran? Consider how many special envoys were assigned in his first term for various needs - are they suddenly with no one else to send?