Barack Obama: From anti-war law professor to war monger in 100 days(Alexander Cockburn)

How long does it take a mild-mannered, anti-war, black professor of constitutional law, trained as a community organiser on the South Side of Chicago, to become an enthusiastic sponsor of targeted assassinations, 'decapitation' strategies and remote-control bombing of mud houses at the far end of the globe?

There's nothing surprising here. As far back as President Woodrow Wilson, in the early 20th century, American liberalism has been swift to flex its imperial muscle and whistle up the Marines. High-explosive has always been in the hormone shot.

...

The mild-mannered professor is bidding to be as sure-footed as Bush and Cheney in trampling on constitutional rights. He's planning to restore Bush's kangaroo courts for prisoners at Guantanamo who've never even been formally charged with a crime! He's threatening to hold some prisoners indefinitely in the US without trial.

He's even been awarded a hearty editorial clap on the back from the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that civilians courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favoured by Dick Cheney."

It didn't take long. But it's what we've got ­ for the rest of Obama-time.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/47696,opinion,barack-obama-from-anti-war-law-professor-to-warmonger-in-100-days
*Edited to fix link.

Cockburn is a full-blown, overstuffed self-righteous bloviator.

or cause to be killed, or wrongfully imprisoned without recourse to the law? How many wars did he start, or how many does he intend to continue? How many crimes against humanity did he ever allow to go unpunished?

He can be self-righteous all he wants, as long as he also happens to be RIGHT.

the arbiter of what constitues a bloviaor?

He's a left-wing Limbaugh (without the audience).

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

This is that slime Cockburn writing about John Kerry on July 29, 2004 BEFORE the SBVT ads hit in August:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html



LOTS of the Swiftboat lies in that article.

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

:crazy:

:eyes:

to some dumbass I'm going to forget in 1 minute.

to be proud. But go on making a dunce of yourself.

If I wanted to make a dunce of myself I'd respect this douche's opinion.

I think I've said enough.

.

And so is being anti-torture?

Wow. Just wow, how winning changes some people.

:rofl:

with that? At least get something real that hasn't happened fast enough instead of hyberbolic trash talkin' cockburn.

These wars will never end without unrelenting pressure from the left, though.

yeah, that's the ticket
:rofl:

Ask around.

:spray:

However Obama has only been in office 100 days. Obama has great potential.
Yet he has already made quite a few bad decisions and seems to be way to comfortable pandering with all the corporate honchos.

It is gone to take a big turn around and a lot of courage for Obama to reach the heights of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy and even Johnson.

The title alone makes the whole article not worth reading.

because they spend most of the primaries bashing both Obama and Hillary for being warmongers.

He seems to be everything and nothing to everyone and Obama seem to like it that way.

He clearly stated from the beginning that he wanted to focus on Afghanistan and get out of Iraq in about a year and a half, while leaving a residual force there for training, etc.

So no, he's not everything and nothing to everyone. Only to those who picked and chose what they wanted to hear from Obama.

EOM

Just like Freepers eat up the "He was born in Africa" crap.

So I don't think he was "anti-war" in the first place.

The policy is complete, indefensible bullshit.

As much as I hate the war in Iraq and never supported it, I do and did support the war in Afghanistan, because we actually were fighting an enemy the Taliban which sported Al Qaedaand and the attacks on 911.

To invade a country because of an act of dozens or scores of extraterritorial conspirators makes no military or political sense.

To stay, and then to escalate this war borders on the criminal.

Sorry you fell for the 9/11 hype.

Anyone who has opened their mind and studied Afghanistan knows we are going into another Vietnam there.

Obama's policy on Afghanistan is stupid.

them pirates instead of terrorists? Or should we not defend shipping?

Again, I don't think the logic being peddled by some Progressives on this issue works.

The problem is that Afghanistan, back in 2001-2002 wasn't treated with proper seriousness by Bushco because they were more worried about trying to create a false justification for Iraq. If we do the war against Bin Laden's gang in Afghanistan properly, it ends in less than six months back in early to mid 2002. Now, its a much bigger problem.

Curtailing piracy does not involve the military invasion and occupation of large swaths of sovereign territory. It does not involve unmanned drones targeted on civilian populations. And it does not involve an ideological and propaganda war to justify.

Feel free to supply the latter.

fundamentalist regime is allowing them save haven and has political and ideological ties to the conspirators? We had a lot of good will with in Afghanistan and in the international community. There was a huge opportunity to do some real good in that country, but was squandered by Bush or used irresponsibly to invade Iraq. Hell, the torture in Afghanistan started to try and find or fabricate a link from Al-Qaeda and Iraq so Bush could invade, not to root out Bin Laden.

I would love to hear any attempt at an answer but I suppose none would be forthcoming.

Instead, consider:

How severe, really, was and is the threat of al-Qaeda?

Was a conventional air and land invasion the only viable means to dissipate that threat, such as it was?

How firm and broad was the international community's support compared to 1991?

Was the purpose of the invasion in fact "to do some real good" or was it a gloss?

Flesh out your post as an OP and you will have a substantive discussion.

:rofl:

:evilgrin:

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

<snip>

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech
---

That's from his 2002 Iraq speech.

unless this 2002 speech occurred after some other primary, it seems like you made that up.

Are you sure you don't want to think that through some more? I know I see that soundbite on a lot of progressive forums, but I wonder if those repeating it have really thought it through. I can give examples of why I think it is wrong if that helps.

:eyes:

with the pace set by the conditions on the ground and the advice of his generals, and with a residual training and counterterrorism force remaining. He was never a "bring 'em all home NOW" guy. It's fine to say you think his position sucks, but claiming that it's a different position than he used to have is false.

...his anti-Iraq war position to differentiate himself from Clinton and the others.

It doesn't necessarily follow that opposition to a hasty and poorly-thought-out invasion is equal to support for a hasty and poorly-thought-out withdrawal. He used his opposition to the invasion of Iraq to justify his belief that he would be a rational, careful Commander in Chief. His plan for quitting Iraq does not conflict with that--indeed, it is careful to a fault.

...he didn't capitalize on his anti-Iraq war position in the Senate is just wrong ~ people got energized about his run because of it.

And of course many people assumed it meant things it did not, perhaps yourself included.

Many people preferred to ignore what he said. Hell, he spent the vast majority of the campaign (both primary and general) saying he was for increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, and yet when he actually followed through on that repeatedly-made promise, an inordinate number of progressives called it a "betrayal" or a "reversal."

However, that is not to imply that it was impossible to divine his true position. All throughout the primaries, the most outspoken/bombastic among the Kucinich supporters called him a warmonger, and the more sensitive-to-hypocrisy Clinton supporters pointed out that there were few if any substantial differences between Obama's and Clinton's policy positions.

...how people can be disappointed ~ his run wouldn't have even been possible without the emphasis on his anti-Iraq war position.

Maybe the caps lock will get through to you. He never was and he never said he was. He was against the war in Iraq because he thought it was a dumb war.

Spread your Bullshit elsewhere.

That was part of his change message. He gave the clear impression he thought it was a dumb war. It was the issue that gave him the edge over Hillary. Then when he started winning, he changed to withdrawal within 16 months. A lot of people felt betrayed by that, myself included. Then it was withdrawal of combat troops in 16 months, and now 19 months. If from the start he had advocated withdrawal only of combat troops in 19 months and 50,000 non-combat troops staying behind, I doubt he would he would have beaten Hillary. I know a lot of people who believe he intentionally misled them on Iraq.

.

Has ANYONE been paying attention to information we have been seeing from LEGIT news sources these days?

It's not President Obama that is a war monger that is for damn sure.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/warmonger
One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.


-----------------------------------

I don't know about advocation, I know that he was already given a war upon entering office. It would be really nice to just pick up and leave, it really would --- but we to say that he advocates war is a very simplistic view.

He has ALWAYS said Pakistan is a concern. Look at pakistan right now -- a country with Nukes.

This idea that he went from point A to Z (or Black to White--- as it seems to be.) with such flacid proof is silly.

Dem clothing, which is about 90% of what the dems have gutless wonderland called Congress.

than I like Obama's decisions so far on constitutional issues and on the occupation of the Middle East.

Who sees issues not in black and white, but in grays, as well.

I doubt Professor Obama was 100% anti-war.

I doubt President Obama is 100% pro-war.

An empire does what an empire does.

The election was never about peace. Obama never said he would end the war, he ran on winning the WAr in Afghanistan. If people want peace, find someone like Ghandi and begin a real attempt to change things. Non-violent non-comliance of the law is the way to go.

But it would take a massive movement, and Americans are too compromised by Consumerism to actually work or sacrifice anything.

The discourse must elevated...the Pubs come to weaken us with dilution to discourage, distortion to confuse, and denigration to distroy.

cockburn is smoking some strange shit

that's more of the same! - Joe Biden

And Forkboy, you are one of the most fair and objective people we have around here.

Not sure that's really true, but I try to be...sometimes. ;)

I'm highly suspicious of emotions and how easily some of them let us be manipulated (fear seems to be the most effective, but love and anger make one easy to use as well). And politics is the art of manipulation, so we have to be aware of it's use as much as possible, not just of the fear we saw from Bush, but the appeal many see in Obama as well. Both can, and do, lead to some fairly questionable tactics and reasoning. And usually, though we'd like to blame it on Rush or Rachel or the MSM, it's really ourselves that lets us think that way. Sometimes we need to step back and analyze our own bullshit, or at least our willingness to buy into it, from any angle (and trust me, I'm no good at that either lol).

And to be honest, I can't even take any credit for thinking this way because I'm bipolar and I need constant data input from all angles, so a lot of this is just my brain sorting through every single permutation it can and occasionally coming up on the right side of the equation. It's out of my control. :D

Must be the Sagittarius/Capricorn in me. We like to argue and debate and philosophize.
I don't always agree with others who criticize President Obama but you always do it in a way that is fair and looks at all the angles. I think Obama can make mistakes and he has disappointed me in some areas (gay rights, for sure) and pleased me in many other areas.
I am a probably a more moderate liberal then some here (but not DLC-yuck) but I like to see arguments from all sides, not attacking just for attacking but real arguments. I have very conservative parents so I argue with them all the time and you better know what you are talking about with my Dad. He is good, but what he believes in is not.

WTF is that suppose to mean???
:puke:

:eyes:

How fucking hard is it to figure out what that means? I mean, seriously? It's not a brain teaser you know.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How long does it take a mild-mannered, anti-war, black professor of constitutional law, trained as a community organiser on the South Side of Chicago, to become an enthusiastic sponsor of targeted assassinations, 'decapitation' strategies and remote-control bombing of mud houses at the far end of the globe?


Answer

When his job title went from Senator to President of the United States?

Man, this place.

Coburn saw all of this shit coming from way back. I've been reading his stuff for over 20 years and he is 1st rate. He flat shakes shit up!!

his name is by now.

;)

:thumbsup:

Cockburn's an idiot and no, I didn't just discover this. :eyes: