Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
In light of the all the hoopla about President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union speech on Tuesday night, I have been thinking of all of the ideas and issues that I would like the President to address in his talk with the country. Since I am a Bears fan and used to dreaming, here it goes.
The first issue that I would like to hear President Obama discuss on Tuesday is the Economy. I don’t mean just “jump starting” the economy. I want to hear about the plans to reach full employment. I am not suggesting that the unemployment rate should be zero, but if we are not shooting for that, how will we get the unemployment rate down to an “acceptable” number? I want the President to tell me that he will be starting government jobs programs to assist cities and states with their infrastructure. I am talking about WPA type programs to give every willing worker a job. Whether it is rebuilding and renovating our National Parks and National Monuments, or helping out in State parks and recreation areas; the result is the same. Having jobs that pay people to actually help our country and get paychecks to people who will spur the economy as a whole.
The next issue that I would like the President to talk about is one that will probably be very contentious. I want him to challenge the Congress, on national TV to reintroduce the Assault Weapons Ban to control some of our deadliest weapons. That would include restricting the size of the magazines or clips that could be used on semi-automatic weapons. I would also want to hear that the gun show loop-hole must be “fixed” and made part of the legislation. This will create a firestorm from the Right and from the Left, but if he really wants to help save lives, this is a good first step.
When I read in the papers and on this blog that the Republicans and some Democrats want to repeal and/or defund “Obama care”, my blood just boils. To that end, President Obama needs to outline every single benefit of the health care reform legislation that will die or not be initiated if the legislation is repealed or starved to death financially. When the public hears what the Insurance industry funded Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats want everyday Americans to lose or do without, Americans everywhere will “inform” the Republicans and the Democrats just what is important to them. Since I am dreaming here, I would also want the President to challenge any legislator who votes to repeal or defund the legislation to give up their government-funded health insurance. If you don’t want Americans to have insurance coverage, you shouldn’t take any coverage from the government. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Finally, the President should reaffirm his vow to end any and all torture by our military and intelligence authorities. The President could reignite his base by going one step further to say that he will be instructing Attorney General Holder to investigate any past instances of torture during the Bush Administration including the actors and the officials who authorized it. It will be a bombshell, but justice deserves this kind of bombshell. If he really has grown a set, he could also mention Pvt. Manning by name and vow to end his solitary confinement and treat him like any other person who has only been charged of a crime.
Now that I have gone out on a limb to give you several of the items on my State of the Union wish list, it is time for you to go out on that limb and tell us what you want the President to discuss on Tuesday evening. It will be interesting to see if the President actually discusses any of our items. This will give us something to talk about after the Bears beat the Packers today!
Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
The statement that he was wanting to reorganize the government was a surprise to me. This has great potential to dramatically change the way the government does its job. I’m going to be very interested in seeing what happens with this proposal.
Bohner is in such pain. He looks like he’s wearing a ‘lude-mask. He seems to have cotton-mouth. LOL.
Slarti,
“Jill has been implicitly calling me immoral because of my support for President Obama, so I wont shy away from calling her position self-defeating and illogical.”
And such is your prerogative and your right.
But as to your support of Obama? Also your prerogative and your right. However, I do think you over estimate his accomplishments past and potential accomplishments future. His credibility among most progressives is tarnished if not outright in the trash. Why?
He hasn’t accomplished any progressive goals by any substantive measure. He’s simply exacerbated the problem of expanding unitary Executive power. He’s either capitulated or been complicit in thwarting every progressive agenda before him. His one modicum of success – health care reform – is a weak, half-assed non-solution that is essentially more corporate welfare. It’s a crust of bread thrown to the people who elected him while he feasts with the health care insurance lobby and the five companies that stand to make ridiculous profits off the backs and lives of taxpayers. The only difference between him and Bush is that he hasn’t started a war for personal profit. Luckily, he inherited a war to bungle.
Oops…he is already speaking.
If he would shut up, there would be less global warming.
The imbecile Marxist is about to speak.
Stamford:
You wrote:
“Perhaps I’m simplistic but, out of the 500 detainee’s released to their home countries by the Bush Administration, how many were innocent? If most or all were, which is what I suspect, then that would explain why it was easier for Bush to transfer them…Out of the 245 currently held, how many are innocent? ”
Well, that IS the whole and entire problem. Without a proper trial there is NO establishing the matter of innocence.
This very issue is what drives Glenn Greenwald (a constitutional scholar) right up the proverbial wall.
If they are indeed a “enemy” in the classical wartime sense, then they should have been shot dead or captured and kept as POWs under the Geneva Conventions.
But we BLEW IT.
It is our (Bush’s) fault these men are in limbo. The whole issue of “innocence” cannot be determined in a just way at this point unless they have lawyers and go through the justice system. If that cannot be done, they should be let go. And if they really are “the enemy” war time procedures would still apply
to them in the future. Meaning they could be shot dead or captured.
Buddha,
They haven’t asked me to do a search for Eric Holder’s replacement but if they do, I’ll definitely ask you for suggestions… 😉 I think taking hyperbolic positions like Jill does acts to obstruct civil discourse – adherence to black/white positions sacrifices the potential for progress in return for unrewarded loyalty to an unattainable ideal. I doubt that President Obama will ever hire an AG that will investigate him (sure, it would be nice but we both know it wont happen) nor is it likely that the 2012 Republican candidate (whoever they are) would appoint such an AG. It will take a president (D or R or other) who makes limiting executive power a cornerstone of their campaign to ‘clean house’, in my opinion, and that can’t happen until the public cares about it (which wont happen as long as unemployment is 9%). I have no problem with pointing out injustice and abuse of power, but doing it in such a way that precludes working with the only person that can possibly achieve progressive goals in the next 6 years (at least I very much doubt that any progressive goals will be achieved without the help of President Obama in the next 6 years) seems illogical to me. Jill has been implicitly calling me immoral because of my support for President Obama, so I wont shy away from calling her position self-defeating and illogical.
Almost State of the Union time.
Slarti,
“Is that sufficient to question the integrity of anyone who supports the president?”
Not necessarily. However, it is more than sufficient to question the integrity of the President. Can Jill be a bit overboard? Why yes she can. Everybody can be on certain subjects. Everyone has pet peeves. That doesn’t necessarily mean the point from which she is arguing is invalid or that her opinion against supporting Obama is any less valid than your position is in arguing for supporting him. It just means they are different opinions reached by equally valid premises.
As to a plan? It’s simple. Hire an AG with a spine and a willingness to prosecute whomever breaks the law and violates the Constitution no matter where they are found or their party affiliation. If the obstructionists in the House and Senate want to stop doing other business to “deal with it”? A road bump is not a road block. They neglect the other parts of their job for purely political reasons at a very real risk of being sent home for their neglect when the polls come up again. Political shenanigans will quickly take a back seat to pragmatics if those myopic greed pigs in Congress want to hold doing the nation hostage to impede justice. It would be ugly and in the short term, the economy might take a hit from their myopic partisanship, but in the long run restoring the rule of law and equity is far more beneficial for the economy than simply letting criminals and traitors walk free.
Buddha,
Is that sufficient to question the integrity of anyone who supports the president? I hope that President Obama will have to face any appropriate consequences of his actions, but not before President Bush and Dick the war criminal do and not before the economy is out of the ditch – I’m sorry, but right now I don’t feel like Jill’s argument is worth any family’s livelihood and I think that the cost of the logical conclusion of her argument is significant in terms of jobs and the interests of the middle class. Sorry brother, but everything is interconnected and there isn’t any high ground here – only slippery slopes and gray areas. I’m not happy about my conclusion that it is currently impossible to limit executive power and prosecute war crimes – I just believe that it is valid. Tell me how we can implement a plan to prosecute executive crimes and fix the economy at the same time and I’ll do whatever I can to help you, but until then I’m going to keep advocating what I see as the best available path to economic recovery and a restoration of civil discourse. If that is immoral to you, then I’m sorry but it wont change my mind about what is right.
Slarti,
I’ll have to say that just because the words proper didn’t come out of Obama’s mouth? That doesn’t mean he didn’t authorize it. His administration authorized such actions and I guarantee you they didn’t do it without running it past him first. Noting done in the name of and under the official capacities employees of the Office of the President happens without the President knowing about it. There is no plausible deniability here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/world/14awlaki.html
Is Anwar al-Awlaki a bad guy? Most certainly. Is he worth pissing on the 5th Amendment to get? Not in the slightest. When you destroy the tenets of the Constitution? The terrorists have won already. Any power that can be abused? Will be abused. If one citizen – no matter how vile – can be executed without due process as a matter of military convenience? It won’t be long before that “convenience” is applied domestically – possibly to someone who is simply a political opponent.
Some powers no one – not even the President – should have against citizens.
Assassination without due process is one of those powers.
It is the very definition of both “slippery slope” and “‘accident’ waiting to happen”.
Jill,
You say that President Obama has said he has a right to kill American citizens – Did he say this in a speech? Was it in a press release? No. It was a position taken by a justice department lawyer. Was the lawyer (or lawyers who wrote the legal brief) one of the political (and ideological) partisans that the Bush administration ‘burrowed’ into civil service positions? I don’t know (but it sure seems like they might have done this elsewhere in the Justice Department). Can President Obama focus on what’s going on at this level in every area of the executive branch? No. Would I rather that he focus on this area rather than the economy? No. Do I think Eric Holder is a bad attorney general? Yes (because of this and other things). Has this right ever been exercised? I don’t know, but the answer to this question is important to me. I refuse to consider President Obama unquestionably guilty based on the available facts and furthermore, I refuse to hold him to a standard that the Republicans have violated far more frequently and seriously. In the big picture, the question in my mind is ‘what is best for the country?’ and in my opinion the answer is general support of the president and Democrats along with non-hyperbolic criticism regarding specific issues on which you disagree. The position you take ensures that your integrity wont be the slightest bit compromised while at the same time rendering you unable to work with people who don’t share your view towards a compromise solution – this is a tactic that has, in my opinion, seriously injured our civil discourse via its nearly universal use by Republicans. I don’t like it any better when a liberal uses it. You ask me how I can compromise with my president, who, in my opinion, is better than his predecessor in nearly every way – even accepting the all of the reporting that Jill has posted here as true – with the knowledge that a refusal to compromise with and a withdrawal of (general) support from the president by the left would result in a significant decrease in progressive influence and less progressive legislation in the next six years – based on evidence of ‘crimes’ that are (in my opinion) less severe than those of his predecessors. My answer is, how can I refuse? I don’t care about President Obama – I want what is best for the country and right now, in my opinion, that is the success of President Obama. You can argue for cutting off your nose to spite your face by deciding that your evidence is sufficient to indelibly stain the integrity of anyone who supports the president as much as you want, but I think that is being naive and totally ignorant of the current and historical context of the presidency as well as political reality.
If by ‘make up things about you’ you mean that I infer things from your comments, make judgements and base logical arguments on them, and then give my opinions (usually clearly identified as such) then the answer is that I do, but I don’t think you can cite an example of where I’ve continued to use an inference after you had claimed that it was incorrect.
I would also note that although your attacks are more subtle and indirect, that doesn’t mean they’re not there (I certainly detect more than a whiff of ‘hipper-than-thou’ in your posts…).
Stanford Liberal,
Good response on the Gitmo issue.
Jill,
Obama did what he said he was going to do on the campaign trail. Any additional troops is related to the sorry state of the campaign in Afghanistan by Mr. Bush. Until Obama got into the White House he wouldn’t have access to the General’s real needs. Bush drained so many soldiers and Marines and their equiptment that AFghanistan actually got worse than it was when the Iraq war was initiated by Mr. Bush. I am not a one or two issue voter and I compared Mr. Obama to Mr. McCain and the decision was very easy. Now that Obama is in his feet have to be held to the fire. If he doesn’t start removing troops this summer as promised when the buildup was launched, then we will have to talk again. I have a Marine son in Afghanistan and I want him home on time in June.
Jill:
Perhaps I’m simplistic but, out of the 500 detainee’s released to their home countries by the Bush Administration, how many were innocent? If most or all were, which is what I suspect, then that would explain why it was easier for Bush to transfer them.
Out of the 245 currently held, how many are innocent? Also, keep in mind that the Right, and some on the Left, were positively apoplectic over any of the detainee’s being transferred here, ignoring the fact that no terrorist, whether foreign or domestic, has ever escaped from one of our super max prisons.
What, exactly, is Obama supposed to do with them if he can’t bring them here, and no one else will take them?
I’d be the first to criticize Obama when necessary, but I fail to see how he can be criticized for Gitmo.
On another note – It appears our civilian courts have successfully prosecuted another terrorist:
“First Gitmo detainee to stand civilian trial gets life sentence
Judge calls former bin Laden cook and bodyguard’s attacks on two U.S. embassies “horrific””
A judge sentenced the first Guantanamo detainee to have a U.S. civilian trial to life in prison Tuesday, saying anything he suffered at the hands of the CIA and others “pales in comparison to the suffering and the horror” caused by the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998.
U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan sentenced Ahmed Ghailani to life, calling the attacks “horrific” and saying the deaths and damage they caused far outweighs “any and all considerations that have been advanced on behalf of the defedndant.” He also ordered Ghailani to pay a $33 million fine.
Kaplan announced the sentenced in a packed Manhattan courtroom after calling it a day of justice for the defendant, as well as for the families of 224 people who died in the al-Qaida bombings, including a dozen Americans, and thousands more who were injured.
Kaplan denounced the attacks and said he was satisfied that Ghailani knew and intended that people would be killed as a result of his actions and the conspiracy he joined.
“This crime was so horrible,” he said. “It was a cold-blooded killing and maiming of innocent people on an enormous scale. It wrecked the lives of thousands more … who had their lives changed forever. The purpose of the crime was to create terror by causing death and destruction on a scale that was hard to imagine in 1998 when it occurred.”
http://www.salon.com/news/guantanamo/index.html?story=/news/feature/2011/01/25/us_guantanamo_detainee_4
Slart,
You seem unable to answer a simple question, so we’ll leave it at that. You certainly seem to make up a lot of things about me, which is to your discredit. I’ll let my arguments stand on their merit and you can let your personal attacks stand in for your inability to give a straightforward, honorable answer to a sincere, relevant question.
Stamford Liberal,
That article is dissected and dispatched in a post to rafflaw above.
How Congress helped thwart Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo
By CAROL ROSENBERG
McClatchy Newspapers
Posted: Saturday, Jan. 22, 2011
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/01/22/2001501/how-congress-helped-thwart-obamas.html
“Two years after the newly minted Obama administration moved to undo what had become one of the most controversial legacies of the George W. Bush presidency by ordering the closure of the prison camps at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a trove of State Department documents made public by the website WikiLeaks is providing new information about why that effort failed.
Key among the factors, the cables suggest: Congress’ refusal to allow any of the captives to be brought to the United States.”
We captured them and wanted to pass them on to other countries, without taking any detainee’s ourselves. I can’t say blame every other country for saying, “No thanks.”
Jill,
I apologize for suggesting that you have delusions – I should have said: ‘You seem to think that the president has god-like power… I also said that you were pretty naive, in my opinion – this is true (I have it on good authority ;-)). If you don’t want me to think that you are naive, I would suggest that you stop saying things that seem naive to me. You are suggesting a course of action (blanket opposition to President Obama) in what I consider an ineffective effort (at least you have given no suggestions as to how to ACHIEVE prosecution of President Obama or anyone else for torture) to hold the president to a standard that has not been met for years. In this attempt you have used standard right-wing tactics (double standards and false equivalences) and this course of action would (again, in my opinion) materially diminish progressive power and influence in Washington. I think that unless you are advocating revolution, your position is illogical. I understand people’s need to ascribe control (and hence blame) to the outcomes of a complex and chaotic system, but that’s no more accurate than the creation myths made up by our ancestors (that was hyperbole, by the way – I wouldn’t want you to think that I meant that literally). I prefer to base my analysis and actions on a more scientific view of our government and the effects of actions by our elected officials.
Be sure to catch live tonight, John Stossel’s Libertarian response to the President’s State of the Union Address, on Fox BUSINESS Channel at 11pm. This is not the regular Fox News Channel.
It will be the only Constitutional perspective of Obama’s speech available to the American public provided by the major media.
Full disclosure: I am not a Libertarian.
http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/
rafflaw,
To continue. On Afghanistan, your beef is with Code Pink, not me. The context of me quoting Code Pink was showing a liberal group standing up to President Obama. That means, this is a choice a liberal person or group could make. You do not have to make this choice, but you could and they have.
I knew Obama was a warmonger and that’s one of the reasons I didn’t vote for him. I wasn’t confused, although I did find it confusing that many people who were antiwar voted for Obama.
To be fair to code Pink and the other liberal groups and persons who are signing the petition we should acknowledge that even people who knew he was going to go into Afghanistan were told it would be with far fewer troops than now occupy or will further be sent there (not to mention the contractors who make up a greater portion of combatants than the regular military). To explain, let me quote from David Sirota: “As you can see from Politifact and Newsweek, President Obama promised to send 2 more brigades. As the U.S. Army’s website shows, a brigade is up to 5,000 troops, which means President Obama specifically promised to send 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan. He in no way promised send 47,000 more troops – or 9 brigades worth of troops – to Afghanistan, which is what he has done between his February escalation of 17,000 troops and now his December escalation of 30,000 more troops. And he in no way promised to send tens of thousands more private military contractors.
Now, sure, if you wanted to be obsequiously propagandistic in your fealty to President Obama, you could argue that he gave himself a two-word out when he made his Afghanistan campaign promise – he said he’d send “at least” two more brigades. So yeah, you could lawyer it to say that technically, he hasn’t “broken” a campaign promise – just like Republicans lamely argued that even though Bush in 2000 said he was against nation building, he also said he wanted to protect America, and that latter clause meant his Iraq adventure wasn’t breaking the promise in the former clause.
Yes, Obama maybe hasn’t broken an explicit campaign promise on Afghanistan (while, of course, explicitly breaking promises on everything from NAFTA to Gitmo) – and he certainly didn’t promise to end the Afghanistan War (nobody has said he did). But I’d say he also isn’t simply “fulfilling” a campaign promise by escalating the troop increase he committed to by a factor of four (and again, that’s only counting U.S. military troops, and not private contractors).
In fact, I’d say a lot of people have a right to feel exactly the way eminently esteemed historian Garry Wills feels: misled or perhaps even betrayed by a guy who campaigned against Bush’s neoconservative foreign/military policy, and made a limited pledge of escalation, and now is going above and beyond the spirit of that pledge.
David Sirota :: Um, About Obama’s Afghanistan Campaign “Promise”…
Slart,
I’m happy to respond to you when 1. you quit your personal attacks and 2. have the honesty and courage to address my original questions in a forthright, straightforward manner. I address issues squarely and I expect that from you as well.
S.M.
It’s the percentage of detainees released. It’s an amazing difference between Bush and Obama, not in Obama’s favor.