Barack Obushama from Aaron Freeman

It took less than a year in office for Barack Obama to become an apologist for George Bush. According to an article in the Chicago Tribune Obama was asked at a town hall meeting whether Bush should be impeached for lying us into the Iraq debacle, to which our junior senator reportedly replied "Well, FDR, JFK, LBJ -- we have a pretty long list of presidents who maybe were not entirely forthcoming with intelligence information before they went to war, so I'd be cautious against making legal cases against the administration."


All together now, "What the f---?!!"

If "everybody does it" is Obama's idea of legal defense then obviously the trial of former Illinois governor George Ryan should be stopped at once since the list of corrupt Illinois governors is even longer than that of "not entirely forthcoming" presidents. If "everybody does it" trumps investigation and prosecution we should just lay off the torture trial of former Chicago police captain John Burge since beating and abusing helpless prisoners is ubiquitous across human history. If the commonality of an offense is its own justification then no driver should ever be ticketed for speeding, no student should be punished for cheating, nor any football player ever called for a foul. I doubt even Obama has become that complacent, yet.

Maybe there's something in the Washington DC water that suppresses people's (or at least politician's) senses of outrage. Maybe power is the opiate of the elite. Obama's impeachment defense combined with his earlier attempt to excuse the administration of responsibility for torture at Abu Ghraib prison look like another in his endless attempts to become the Will Smith of American politics, "a black guy everybody can agree on."

I know Obama has a lot of fans around the country but it benefits no one to let him get away with insulting our intelligences and spinning the crime of war.

Let's hope Senator Obama's cynical sophistry is not the beginning of what Brits call "reverse metamorphosis," the transformation of a butterfly back into a slug.

And besides, intelligence information relates to national security... the President is given quite a bit of leeway on that, and a hell of a lot more leeway if Congress foolishly throws more at him.

And that relates to intel. And only intel. And Presidents. And only Presidents.

Your chances of seeing Bush impeached for this are slim in the extreme, however unjust that may be to you and many.

* is a pig. But what he did to lead us into this war while rephensible is probbaly not impeachable. Dems Have Fabricatates and obfucated as well in the name of national security.

If you notice...No senators are calling for impeachment.

Besides as a first termer you have to play by the rules. He can not risk his future based on popular sentiment tha will likely dissipate once Bush leaves office. You pick your battles carefully. And he is grooming to run for the oval at the great voice of reason.



Get off his back

Those sixteen words that Saddam was trying to get weapons from Niger? Hello?! He was told he was wrong and not to use that but he did it anyways.

"Intelligence were fixed around the policy."

And Japan DID attack us. No one said the president has to tell the public everything, but they can't lie. Bush lied to congress and to the people. He should be impeached.

If you read this closely, you will note two things:

1) The question was about whether Bush should be impeached. If I were a United States Senator, I would not be arguing that Bush should be impeached either. It's a sure-fire loser, particularly for a wildly popular guy with national aspirations. Impeachment is an issue which is popular only among the liberal blogosphere and nowhere else.

2) In his answer, Obama pretty much agrees with the premise that Bush did in fact mislead us into war. To be fair, he says that Bush "maybe was not entirely forthcoming", which is a fancy way of saying he misled us, along with the obligatory fudge word "maybe" so you can be sure your ass is covered.

I wasn't surprised by the story, but I did think it would make for interesting discussions.

Barack should not be naming dems. who were not forthcoming. This is not a good democratic tendency. Also, Kennedy wanted to end the war and did not start it.
He does go a little too easy on the shrub IMHO.
You can't be wishy washy and expect to make it as a dem. President some day.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-freeman/barack-obushama_b_12132.html

some comments-

No, I think a valid-point is made here, Obama may be protecting overarching geopolitical-goals that transcend party-lines and are more in the service of powerful-interests. LBJ certainly lied about the Tonkin Gulf incident--that's treasonous. FDR--that's up-for-debate, and I'm unsure where-the-hell the Kennedy one is from.
Posted by: DeepThroat on December 12, 2005 at 12:10pm
Is this comment abusive? spam?

I don't think Obama's intention was to offer an apologia for the illegal war on Iraq, he just didn't want to be the first senator to call for Bush's impeachment. Why not? All reasonable Americans who have seen America's reputation shattered by the war crimes of the Bush administration are waiting for someone to lead the charge against him, but not one Democratic senator has the guts to do it, which is why their poll numbers never rise when Bush's fall. They steadfastly refuse to stand up for the majority of Americans because they are hopelessly beholden to corporate interests and are too cowardly to fight the Republican bullies.
Posted by: cheaterslick on December 12, 2005 at 12:24pm
Is this comment abusive? spam?

Impeachment is the wrong issue to be taking on at this time, and Obama knows it. It's a moot issue since the Republicians control everything. He comes out for impeachment now, and the Republician attack dogs will eat him up and spit him out. He'll be swift-boated before he even gets in the water. And for what end? It ain't gonna happen, at least now.

First, the Dems have to win back congress next year. Then the can hold investigations, and if the evidence is there, we can start talking about impeachment. Until then, it's just a wet dream.

The Democrats better start running on issues, because "Bush sucks, vote for me" ain't gonna get the job done.
--

Aaron's hard to define...Black and Jewish...and ready to tweak noses to see how people react. Sure looks like he got a couple here on DU. His biggest Chicago claim to fame was a hillarious comedy bit beating up on the City Council during the Harold Washington days based on Star Wars.

Aaron's half serious, half parody...he's venting, like many of us, of the outrage of this regime and its criminality. This is especially the case for blacks...and double that since Katrina. We'd all like to see the leaders of this regime brought to justice for their actions and the sooner the better. Look around DU, for some if impeachment happened yesterday it still wouldn't be too soon.

The other half is the box Democrats and Obama are placed in. With all this pent up frustration from a growing number of people...especially here in Illinois, playing diplomat just isn't cutting it. We want our politicians to line up with the anti-war position of a vast majority of Democrats and to develop a spine and stand up to the bullying tactics of the Repugnicans. Barak has always had this unfair advantage as he's been seen as some kind of "superhero"...this modern day version of either RFK or Martin Luther King or whomever...and he's not...he's the junior senator whose learning the ropes in a slippery city. Even words in a small town hall on Chicago's West side can fly worldwide in minutes and be taken by a well-oiled propaganda machine and turned into a weapon. All Barak had to do was look to the seat next to his and see all the crap Dick Durbin took for his true remarks about Gitmo.

There's a growing push by many in the Progressive movement to get the politicians to stop fence sitting...and I'm all for that. Without any real power, Democrats have no control on what is happening and shouldn't really specify on their plans until it's a lot closer to next year's election...let the Repugnicans dig themselves in deeper. Yes, it's hard to hold one's powder, but it's not really powder if it can be turned into rope and destroy the Repugnican's grip on power and the treasury.

Cheers...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I would like to read his whole response.

By the way, we aren't accusing Bush of withholding national security information from us, but from Congress for the intentional purpose of lieing to Congress. That is different than what Obama's response was.

might as well prepare to do a lot of hating. No Democratic senator in their right mind would support impeachment at this point. It would be pointless-its not gonna happen. THEY control the house, THEY control the senate, THEY control the courts.

Scream impeachment all you want. Its not gonna happen unless there is a TIDAL WAVE election in 2006. Even then, the best we could hope for is the house narrowly passing articles of impeachment. The senate would NEVER vote 2/3 to convict.

Pure mental masturbation. Lots of fun, but purely theoretical.

Impeachment, the Hague, Fitzpatrick, SOMEBODY is going to get Bush with a summons.

But the real scandal isn't what crimes have been broken. It's what's legal. It's legal for the president to lie his ass off. I'd like an end run around the effects of the last election too, but Obama is right.....it just sounds better than it really is.

for obvious reasons.

He cares about how people live their lives and he has a very broad-based appeal.