Member since: Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:33 PM
Number of posts: 917
Member since: Thu Apr 5, 2012, 08:33 PM
Number of posts: 917
I'd say the key to victories in 2014 lie in both a litmus test for all dems running, and in their also doing a better job of countering this kinda BS, even if that means those running being critical of and willing to tarnish the pres by noting it's something he and the repubs have shown a "willingness" to own.
BLITZER: Well, let's talk about these proposed changes that the president is putting forward when it comes to Social Security and Medicare, the shocking proposals that you say the president's putting forward that could affect seniors. What's so shocking about changing that CPI, that consumer price index the way that you would determine how much inflation would go ahead with increases for Social Security recipients, for example?
WALDEN: Well, once again, you're trying to balance this budget on the backs of seniors and I just think it's not the right way to go.
And here he is on the Medicare cuts:
Well, I thought it very intriguing in that the budget really lays out kind of a shocking attack on seniors, if you will. And we haven't seen all the detail yet, and we'll look at it, but I'll tell you, when you're going after seniors the way he's already done on Obamacare, taking $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare, and now coming back at seniors again, I think you're crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine, certainly, and around the country. I think he's going to have a lot of pushback from some of the major senior organizations on this and Republicans, as well.
Gee, who could have foreseen that line of attack from Republicans? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/10/1200768/-GOP-campaign-chairman-calls-chained-CPI-trying-to-balance-the-budget-on-the-backs-of-nbsp-seniors?detail=hide
Posted by stupidicus | Wed Apr 10, 2013, 06:09 PM (0 replies)
The good cop/bad cop tactics of our pols in DC in particular has always been as obvious as the increased craziness of the rightwingers since Bush took the helm.
The reason why the OWS never formally chose a party side in this battle is because both sides have in varying degrees, been part of the underlying and continuing social injustice problems largely tethered to the wealth/income inequality issue. Saint Raygun launched the rocket that has made the disparity sky high, and every pres since, dem and repub alike, have had a hand in boosting it. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america
This is also why I suggested to those so highly critical of those being critical of BHO's apparent "willingness" to put SS on the chopping block, before and after the election, that they should refrain from all the name-calling, label assignments, etc, because inevitably they'd find themselves in a distinct minority given the high likelihood he'd do what he's done, and because on a very fundamental level and in a very real way, most of us on the left that congregate here are OWSers, particularly we older ones who've lived all the aforementioned history.
It's his willingness to put it on the chopping block that has damned him, whether you believe that willingness has it's origin in an honest desire stemming from his "Third way" nature, or because he's "bluffing" with the lives and risking potential human misery to be suffered by our fellow citizens with gamesmenship. Whether or not the rightwingnuts call his bliff doesn't change the fact that he's willing to do it, unless of course he's lying about that, which leaves only the supporting of a liar and a lie, and conceding that the rightwingers don't have a monopoly on the use of "the ends justify the means" BS that underlies all their lying. http://www.thenation.com/blog/173703/nothing-new-under-wingnut-sun-minoritarianism That's one of the few things Saint Raygun got right -- his observation that morality and politics are inseparable, and as I've long seen and argued it, it is the differences in morality between the left/right ideologies that plays an intregal role in and best explains in large part, the mysterious workings of the modern rightwingnut brain in terms of their fact/science/etc denials. They simply can't be wrong when their goals are always "right", even today when from a popularity standpoint, it's the wrong time to be on the right or pushing modern rightwingnut policies.
And it bears mentioning as well, much like the bluffer at the poker table, he's "willing" to risk the loss, but only to others in this case, given the state of his financial security. The only thing he's risking is the quality of his legacy, which I'd always hoped would be enough to avoid where we are today, but never put all my eggs in that basket.
Given all that, I am pleased that BHO has sought to cut or diminish the juice going to the third rail, because it should serve as a learning experience for those lacking in sufficient vision to see the big picture, which includes and really is or should be all about those who are and are not served in adequate measure and ways by our leaders in DC, not cheerleading for the home team that is increasing becoming a fale choice at worst, or one between the lesser of two evils at best. Had it not been for the Lewinsky affair, perhaps more eyes could have been opened to all of this back in the waning days of the Clinton admin. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=clinton%20ss%20and%20lewinsky&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiredoglake.com%2F2010%2F05%2F18%2Fhow-monica-lewinsky-saved-social-security-clinton-gingrich-bowles-and-the-pact%2F&ei=JzxkUeifAcLOyAHtoIGIAw&usg=AFQjCNHuiBTHssw01nPTGA487QqO7Iyyhg&bvm=bv.44990110,d.aWc
So can I get a "Well done, BHO!"?
Posted by stupidicus | Tue Apr 9, 2013, 12:09 PM (6 replies)
into thinking he'd never ever consider putting SS on the table. It looks like the alleged ODS-sufferers and BHO-haters got it right on that one, assuming the ink is dry on his budget now. For a guy who asked that we keep his feet to the fire, he sure did inspire some of his supporters to fight some of us doing that with "tooth and nail", didn't he?
It includes a cut to Social Security benefits — "chained C.P.I.," which would change how benefit increases are indexed such that they would grow more slowly in most circumstances — that is regarded as anathema to Obama's progressive base.http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/05/17614735-obama-budget-to-include-cuts-in-entitlement-programs?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2
Personally I think the cart was put a bit ahead of the horse on this one. Wouldn't an announcement that he's gonna approve the Keystone pipleline too before this announcement have been appropriate?
And what's with all the hinting? Is he trying to avoid disappointment overload on the part of too many?
Obama Hints at Approval of Keystone XL Pipeline at SF Fundraiser, Blames Middle Class Priorities
Posted by stupidicus | Fri Apr 5, 2013, 09:02 AM (45 replies)
because as we all know, "considering" isn't actually doing it.
I think it's important that doubting Thomas be left with something to hang onto besides all that hope that must be getting stale by now.
Well, Obama really is going to try to cut Social Security and Medicare. No, it's not a clever ploy -- unless you count the part where he's counting on you thinking that.http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/let-white-house-know-you-dont-want-ss
Posted by stupidicus | Fri Mar 29, 2013, 05:43 PM (57 replies)
there's wmd, and then there's wmd.
In evaluating who believed what individually or country-wise prior to the reintroduction of inspectors as a result of UNSC res 1441 (which came a month after the Iraq AUMF) it's critically important to determine specifically what they believed, given that the likelihood of the war being sold absent any nuclear threat from them were practically nil. Another "Desert Fox" maybe, but a full scale invasion and occupation? I think not.
DEBATEDISTORTED: THEINFLATION OF THENUCLEAR THREAT As former intelligence analyst and National Security Council staffer Kenneth M.Pollack has argued, Iraq’s alleged nuclear program “was the real linchpin of the BushAdministration’s case for an invasion.”41Indeed, a recent scholarly study found that manymembers of Congress “gave the nuclear threat as the main or one of the main reasons for their votes” supporting the war resolution in October 2002.42Yet, it now seems virtuallycertain that the administration publicly exaggerated the status of the Iraqi nuclear program.Officials also strategically manipulated their pre-war rhetoric about the Iraqi threat so as tomislead the general public and mass media. This often meant, for instance, blurring certainkinds of policy distinctions that would otherwise have suggested greater caution in the pathway to war. In many cases, moreover, it meant emphasizing the strong certainty rather than the real ambiguity about key evidence and thus implying the worst about the Iraqi threat. http://www.academia.edu/881665/Deliberating_Preventive_War_The_Strange_Case_of_Iraqs_Disappearing_Nuclear_Threat
CLINTON: Good evening.http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html
For example, there are reasons for this comment on the part of Blix "While I never believed Saddam could have concealed a continued nuclear program, I too thought there could still be some biological and chemical weapons left from Iraq's war with Iran.", which pretty much mirrors the pov of many if not most of us that opposed the war.
In the effort to give individual dems the Pontius Pilate water in terms of their roles prior to and in the wake of UNSC res 1441, and the countries "that believed" as well, an examination of the evidence in support of the potential for an active nuke program alone is the only thing that really matters, not whether they thought he had leftovers from earlier days, or indeed, was keeping biological/chemical stockpiles fresh in some measure.
The real history, according to the president, is that Iraq was a threat that had to be confronted in a post-Sept. 11 world, and that both parties accepted the administration's case for war. One key element of that case was the suggestion that Saddam Hussein had — or would soon have — the deadliest weapons imaginable.
Any commentary by dems prior to or in the wake of UNSC res 1441 that voiced a level of certainty rivaling that of Bush's on the nuke weapons programs (like bombing nuclear program facilities that didn't exist as we know in 1998) cannot be granted immunity from the charge of irresponsibility or divorced from participation in the selling of the war imo, if for no other reason due to ignorance or the enabling silence always is.
If keyboard warriors like me can study and cry foul as a result of it on the nuke questions and the critical role they played in the march to war the AUMF facillitated, surely all the smart guys we elected, dems and repubs alike, could have and should have slowed that march down with no votes until something more closely approximating "imminency" was established. This is no doubt why the push for the Iraq AUMF came first, with UNSC res 1441 second, which reeks of a cart before the horse situation to me. Maybe they didn't think Bush would lie us into war, or boot the inspectors before they could show the "flaws" in the intelligence, but it was certainly their job to include that in their calculation of the most important decision they can ever possibly make. This is why I've long contended that the Clinton efforts prior to Bush's best explain both the yes votes from dems and the level of public support for the war that resulted, regardless of the motivation for them like sanction preservation as opposed to invasion and occupation, etc. The potential for/the spectre of a nuclear threat was kept alive throughout the BC admin and beyond as a result, and were certainly exploited quite energetically by Bush and his lying crew if nothing else.
Bush bears the full responsibility for the war crime his war of aggression was and is, but the idea that the dems had no role whatsoever in creating the conditions conducive for that criminal act to take place, and therefore that slice of responsibility -- which my reading of your efforts indicates is the case you seem to be arguing -- will remain uncompelling and unconvincing to many of us.
But do keep trying. That's the case being made by most of us against the dems, not that they, like Bush, are war criminals as a result, or are directly complicit in that crime.
Posted by stupidicus | Sun Mar 24, 2013, 12:48 PM (0 replies)
First of all, I've thought and argued from the beginning that the lies of Bush would never have been sold but for the comments coming from Bill Clinton and crew, who could have had no more certainty as to their existence than Bush did, as the Kay report subsequently showed. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Of course you can make the case that some of them were taken outta context or fell short of expressing the pov of the person who uttered them, like not in an effort to promote or support the military action Bush was obviously contemplating when he sought and secured the Iraq AUMF, but that doesn't diminish their value and role in the war campaign.
The posting of that list of dem quotes and noting that BC signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 (ignoring Section 8 which rejected military use of course), ALbright finding all the guesstimated deaths from the sanctions "worth it", etc, was the standard defense of Bushbots for years. I see used still today. WHat I always found amusingly stupid, is the way the rightwingnuts took the guesstimated number of deaths due to the sanctions as gospel, but found the surveys calculating the deaths due to the war bunk.
Secondly, for all the hoopla about the CIA and M16 ignoring intel circulating here and in Great Britain right now, I fail to see the big deal, since it really did nothing more than support for the "intel" we had during the Clinton admin
In a 25 January 1999 report to the U.N. Security Council, UNSCOM declared that the history of the Iraqi weapons inspections "must be divided into two parts, separated by the events following the departure from Iraq, in August 1995, of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_Kamel_al-Majid
So while Bush has complete ownership as the "decider" for misusing the Iraq AUMF and launching that illegal/immoral war of aggression, the dems were extremely helpful in creating -- unwittingly or not -- the situation underwhich it was conducive to sell the threat as a real one to the public. Their "certainty" imo was due to a desire to maintain the brutal sanctions that like with Iran now, which only escalated the human misery in the population, leaving those in power untouched. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/07/iran-santions-suffering
If this anniversary should be used for anything, it should be to ask the question as to whether history is on course for repeating itself. The biggest diff at this point seems to be that between the "Q" and "N" at the end of the name of our victims, separated by an "O/P".
Posted by stupidicus | Tue Mar 19, 2013, 11:20 AM (0 replies)
and the most common denominator in the endless quest for control our wouldbe empire has embarked upon is of course, controlling the currency they are purchased with.
preserving the petrodollar http://ftmdaily.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system-part-3/
which of course is tethered to and part of the bigger picture -- watch this when you get the chance, and spread it around
It's a pretty good presentation of what most who've explored/study these issues, already knew or strongly suspected.
Posted by stupidicus | Fri Feb 15, 2013, 11:09 AM (2 replies)
until he does
Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:30 PM PST.
and then there will plenty of "good reasons" for it that no objection can possibly overcome.
Posted by stupidicus | Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:08 PM (63 replies)
so what's the problem?
He's also armed with the historically speaking, the now Burning Bush's playbook, which redefined the word imminence. I'll leave the readers to determine what BHO's definition is (although it is far removed from what my dictionary says) but in Bush's case I think he confused and interpreted the "imminent" hostilities language in the 1973 War Powers Act upon which the Iraq AUMF was based (like the one BHO cites for legal authority) with the imminent nature of his attacking them, as opposed to a response to an imminent threat or otherwise, Iraq never posed.
Commentators have admirably analyzed the flouting of the U.S. Constitution. Jeffrey Rosen of the New Republic hits the mark in his critique of the legality of the recently-leaked Justice Department white paper. The Obama administration vindicates the potential liquidation of American citizens through a spuriously broad redefinition of “imminent threat,” even when the U.S. government does not have “clear evidence that a specific attack…will take place in the immediate future.” The administration holds that the use of deadly force is “reasonable” even in the case of relative ignorance. This “trust us” argument moves against a core constitutional right of citizens to neutral judicial review. Yet the Justice Department rationalizes quashing speech and assassinating citizens without sound evidence of an imminent threat.
And of course, whatever efforts are made to impede or deny judicial review in any case, kinda reeks of an effort to diminish the role and power of the judiciary in this country, as established long ago in Marbury v Madison.
And of course any OWS preemie here like myself surely remembers, we've been here before, and some innocent Americans even died over it at Kent State when they got uppity.
The bombing of Cambodia, along with the revelations of the Pentagon Papers and Watergate, helped create a climate of doubt about the balance between means and ends in American foreign policy. Through Senator Frank Church’s Select Committee, Congress began to investigate the FBI and the CIA. After exposing just the details that led to the conclusion that the CIA “a rogue elephant rampaging out of control”—emphasizing plans in the early 1960s to “neutralize” Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Abdul Kassem of Iraq, and Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic—the committee turned to the international impression such activities left. Targeted killings, even on a far slighter level than the thousands of drone strikes since 2008, produced a backlash that threatened Americans’ safety.http://www.juancole.com/2013/02/precedent-cambodia-dietrich.html
I know, I know, but those drones are so much more "surgical" than those big old bombs, and that dreaded "collateral damage" consequentially lowered, which is no doubt why BHO like Bush before he leveled Fallujah, he made sure that no male between the age of 15-55 were allowed to leave, because they were "insurgents/terrorists" by definition. Guilt by association through the wisdom of Bush, now means "in the geographical vicinity". I lost count of how many rightwingnuts back in the Iraq War day, when their back was up against the wall in the justifying all the innocent and dead Iraqis, would pull out the "well, if they didn't wanna die they shoulda desposed him!" card, which bears a remarkable resemblance to the defense we always see from Israel defenders when issues like proportionality and the collective punishment it turns into comes up. I suppose one could really say, that a lot of this stuff is really outta the Israel playbook, given our outrage prior to 9/11, over their targeted assassinations and whatnot.
At that time, spokesman for the American State Department Richard Boucher condemned both violence by Palestinians and targeted killings by Israelis during a State Department news briefing. American Secretary of State Colin Powell registered his opposition to "a policy of targeted killings" and the U.S. State Department urged Israel to stop them.
Amazing isn't it? Now that we've become a nation of pants/bedwetting, and figurative depend wearers, everything has changed besides Biden's pov. And in some ways it's worse than merely being entitled to their own set of facts, because they can kill American citizens without having to share them with even a court, and the danger posed to the dictionary is imminent. Who will speak for it? "First they came for the dictionary....". "Imminent" is now synonymous with obscure.
There’s another principle of international law called distinction, which requires that the attack be directed only at legitimate military targets. We know from the New York Times exposé that the kill list that Brennan brings to Obama to decide who he is going to take out without a trial – basically execute – can be used even if they don’t have a name, or if they are present in an area where there are suspicious “patterns of behavior.” These are known as signature strikes. That means that bombs are dropped on unidentified people who are in an area where suspicious activity is taking place. That goes even beyond targeted killings.http://consortiumnews.com/2013/02/10/assessing-the-laws-of-the-drone-wars/
It's kinda like being guilty of being black while in a hoodie in the wrong neighborhood, ain't it?
Go America! Life is getting cheaper than the bombs and bullets used to take them, here and abroad.
Posted by stupidicus | Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:10 AM (5 replies)
How could that be?
I thought the table had been yanked from underneath such propositions that had never ever existed to begin with.
President Barack Obama urged Congress Tuesday to replace the automatic spending cuts of the budget sequester with a balanced set of deficit reductions that included cuts and revenue. He also indicated that, as far as he's concerned, a "grand bargain" is still possible.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/06/1185112/-Austerity-showdown-Safety-net-cuts-still-in-nbsp-play
Posted by stupidicus | Wed Feb 6, 2013, 08:06 PM (22 replies)