HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I am NOT a hypocrite.

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:36 PM

I am NOT a hypocrite.

There are some anti-Obama critics around the web that are claiming that Obama supporters like myself are being hypocritical for opposing Bush and supporting Obama, because they claim there is “no difference”.

I can only speak for myself - I would not presume to speak for others. However, I believe there are others who will agree with the majority of my points. There are others who will disagree, but I hope we can reach a consensus through genuine discussion. For those around the web who think they are “right” no matter what and refuse to have a discussion - IMHO They’re the problem. They’re just the same as Repuglicans who yell “my way or the highway”.

First of all, they are mostly ignoring domestic policy because there is a BIG difference between Obama and Bush on these points. They tend to forget the Lily Ledbetter Act, the ACA (along with Obama’s insistence that Health Care include contraception, abortion, other women’s rights issues, etc.) along with the fact that Obama ended DADT and has made a statement that he believes that DOMA is unconstitutional (the repeal is imminent), etc., etc.

I support Obama because he rejects the concept of the “Unitary Executive” that Bush embraced and tries to get his policies accomplished via Congress, despite the gridlock. If you were to ask me, I’d say that first-term Obama was stuck in the Lincoln concept of government where people actually talked to one another. I think he has gotten over that in his discussions and concessions with the Republicans.

As far as his foreign policy is concerned, there are still BIG differences with Bush, despite what some blogs would have you believe.

I supported the Afghanistan war, I did NOT support the war in Iraq. One of the reasons I did not support the Iraq war was because it took our resources from Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda attacked us. This is unprecedented territory, because it was an “organization” rather than a State. The Geneva Convention dealt with two or more States at war, not non-State affiliated “organizations”. But, there are some things a State just doesn’t do, or else they lose their “heart”. Such as torture.

But remember, Bush justified all of his actions under the “Theory of the Unitary Executive”. Obama rejects that theory and asks for guidance, but doesn’t get it. Therefore, he has to do what he feels is needed.

Obama promised to close GITMO, and he issued an XO to that end. He was blocked by Congress.

People like to criticize him for killing an “American Citizen”. They are talking about al Awalki. He had been recruiting within the US for decades, to kill innocent American citizens as was tied to the Shoe -Bomber; a failed attempt to kill innocent Americans. He immigrated to a foreign country known to have ties with al Qaeda and was taken out by an armed drone. If he had stayed within US borders I would have insisted that he have a fair trial. He ran, not to a neutral country, but to attack the US. IMHO, a self-admission.

Yes, drone attacks have a certain amount of “collateral damage”, but the collateral damage is much LESS than that involved with more conventional methods.

I don’t think that’s “right”. But, as I said, this is unconventional territory that we need to discuss, seriously. And I don’t think these “Obama Is the same as Bush” posts are helpful.

Can we talk about the inherent reasons that we are involved in the Mid-East (oil), and the ways we can just get the hell out of there? Oh, and Bush left Obama with 2 wars - he got one of them over, and he’s about to get us out of the other. WITHOUT starting another one, as many want us to do in Iran.

7 replies, 926 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply I am NOT a hypocrite. (Original post)
jazzimov Feb 2013 OP
Xipe Totec Feb 2013 #1
jazzimov Feb 2013 #2
Xipe Totec Feb 2013 #3
jazzimov Feb 2013 #4
woo me with science Feb 2013 #5
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #6
railsback Feb 2013 #7

Response to jazzimov (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:37 PM

1. Famous first words... nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:12 PM

2. And what does that mean, exactly?

If you have something to add, I am more than willing to listen.

Unfortunately, so many people make up their minds without listening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jazzimov (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:18 PM

3. It means I'll kee an open mind.

This is an opening gambit; a good one.

We shall see where it leads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xipe Totec (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:29 PM

4. Awesome!

whether it's a good or bad opening gambit, I expect it to be just that - a gambit. I hope that I get some kind of response whther good or bad. Just to open a discussion.

I welcome a discussion. I hope to open a discussion.

towards that goal;

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jazzimov (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:56 PM

5. This paragraph just gets me every time:

First of all, they are mostly ignoring domestic policy because there is a BIG difference between Obama and Bush on these points. They tend to forget the Lily Ledbetter Act, the ACA (along with Obama’s insistence that Health Care include contraception, abortion, other women’s rights issues, etc.) along with the fact that Obama ended DADT and has made a statement that he believes that DOMA is unconstitutional (the repeal is imminent), etc., etc.


I wrote about that *exact* paragraph just a few days ago, when I was noting the utterly predictable attempts to rally us to Party when this horrendous grab of our Constitutional protections - perhaps the worst we have seen in a long, horrific line of corporate betrayals - was announced:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=edit&forum=1002&thread=2324497&pid=2326611

The rhetoric is so weak, and so easy to predict.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jazzimov (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:22 PM

6. The first BIG POINT is a deflection. Why am I accounting for totally different policy area here?

It seems to me pretty much saying "let's change the subject". We are talking civil liberties, expansion of the security state, and out of control war powers ever notched up in a fake ass war against a tactic without state, borders, battlefields, nationality, or anything else reliably definable including any logically obtainable objectives. More you kill the more need killing. Perpetual motion machine under unilateral control without the oversight of hindsight.

He sure as hell is good with the unitary executive theory here. Again deflecting to the worthless "bipartisan" nonsense in other areas changes nothing here a bit.

The rest is on you though I do not support the proliferation of these drones for many reasons, mostly the benefits make it too cheap, easy, and difficult not to ignore. Especially when shrouded by secrecy, save for the occasional victory lap. Too out of control, more "trust" than our form of government should allow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jazzimov (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:01 AM

7. Be careful when speaking your own mind

 

as they will begin to call you a 'troll' and start hiding your posts.

I personally agree with you on all points. Obama has a pretty stellar domestic record in the face of 100% Republican opposition. His foreign policies shame everything Bush/GOP.

As far as drones, I have yet to hear any alternatives, only complaints. Our intelligence apparatus is so vast, with thousands of our men and women putting their lives on the line under cover - along with foreign operatives - pinpointing targets and patiently waiting for clear shots. I could care less if the targets are Americans. If they hang with the likes of Al Qaeda, they're nothing more than another piece of excrement, hardly worth the effort to send in our troops, putting their lives on the line for an extraction. I also find the defense of Assange and Manning mind boggling and hypocritical, as their actions exposed countless numbers of operatives.

Afghanistan, strategically speaking, needs to stay occupied. Pakistan isn't exactly a solid government, and a vast portion of its population are Taliban sympathizers. Oh, and they also have an arsenal of nuclear warheads sitting on top of missiles. All it takes is one of those suckers to wipe out a million people in a second. And then there's the matter of the vast fortune of minerals and heavy metals discovered in the Afghanistan mountain ranges. That could fund all kinds of mayhem. We funded OBL, and look what we got. Leaving makes no sense whatsoever, unless you have a death wish.

One can be liberal AND understand the importance and complexities of our counter intelligence. The world isn't black and white. Obama = Bush is utterly ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread