President Obama: A tough-talking coward
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
President Obama: A tough-talking coward
You probably heard President Obama trying -- a tad clumsily, in my opinion -- to channel Ronald Reagan the other day. It was Reagan who famlous quoted Clint Eastwood's Dirty Harry and challenged congressional Democrats to, "Go ahead, make my day." The other day, Obama was asked at a news conference about Republicans who accuse him of "appeasement." "Ask Osama bin Laden," the president responded.
I'm sure that boosted his approval rating by a point or two. Indeed, a lot of respectable people say that Obama deserves a lot of credit for the way he handled the killing of bin Laden earlier this year. One of them is Admiral William McRaven, who said this week that Obama was "the smartest guy in the room" in the bin Laden deliberations. That's great.
I have to say, though, that my sense was always that all that presidents I've seen in my lifetime, Democrat or Republican, would have made the exact same decision. Let's be honest, for a president, the most hawkish choice is usually the most "popular" -- even if it fails. This may shock you, but the appoval ratings of Jimmy Carter (Iran hostage rescue) and JFK (Bay of Pigs) rose in both cases after their failed efforts. So Obama ordering the bin Laden raid may have been the right choice, but not a profile in remarkable courage.
No, you know what takes real courage? Of course you do. What's courageous is doing the right thing when it's politically unpopular, when it's going to cost you in the polls and cause a lot of screaming and shouting from all the usual supects but when you've decided that it's better to gamble your presidency on being moral, on returning America to the values that have been exceptional since the Bill of Rights was adopted 220 years ago on this very date.
Barack Obama had a remarkable chance to be that most courageous president in American history. He became the 44th president after a dangerous, generations-long slide of a national security state run amok was punctuated over the last decade by some of the most outrageous abuses in America's long history -- the acceptance and carrying out of unlawful torture and the establishment of a gulag of prisons, some secret and one in Guantanamo Bay that stood for the world as a dark beacon of everything that had gone off the tracks in the 2000s. At the very core was the chucking of the longstanding right of habeas corpus, that anyone suspected of crimes -- no matter how henious -- would get a day inside a court in what was once the world's greatest criminal justice system.
But President Obama was not courageous. He is a coward. He did the easiest, most politically expedient things. He backed down from closing Guantanamo without a fight, asserted a right to hold terror suspects forever without facing trial, ordered and successfully carried out the extra-legal killing of an American citizen, and now he's about to sign a bill that not only ratifies some of those terrible things but broadens his power to hold even citizens indefinitely.
Glenn Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer and writer who was radicalized by the abuses of the Bush years, warned in the run-up to the 2008 election that the vast expansion of presidential powers could and probably would be just as easily abused by a Democratic president like Obama (or Hillary Clinton) as had been done under Bush. Now he writes:
I need to say that again: long before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. That’s what makes the apologias over Obama and GITMO so misleading: the controversy over Guantanamo was not that about its locale — that it was based in the Caribbean Sea — so that simply closing it and then re-locating it to a different venue would address the problem. The controversy over Guantanamo was that it was a prison camp where people were put in cages indefinitely, for decades or life, without being charged with any crime. And that policy is one that President Obama whole-heartedly embraced from the start.
Adds Mother Jones' Adam Serwer:
This morning I wrote that by making the mandatory military detention provisions mandatory in name only, the Senate had offered the administration an opportunity to see how seriously it takes its own rhetoric on civil liberties. The administration had said that the military detention provisions of an earlier version of the NDAA were "inconsistent with the fundamental American principle that our military does not patrol our streets."
The revised NDAA is still inconsistent with that fundamental American principle. But the administration has decided that fundamental American principles aren't actually worth vetoing the bill over.
Or, in the infamous words of Dan Rather...courage.
This is nothing new, sadly -- just an extention of what we've seem startng a couple of months into the Obama administration. I won't belabor the point, but this is why "The Protester" (and yes, I'm including the rank and file of the Tea Party along with Occupy Wall Street) is Time's person of the year. Because there's no other recourse to correct this sad state of affairs other than taking to the streets, when the leaders are so far removed from both the people and from the nation's core values. Look at the Patriot Act -- it's unpopular on both ends of the political spectrum, and yet lawmakers routinely extend it. Look at the 2012 election. Don't like the idea of a president who wants to detain Americans indefinitely or order the assassination of citizens? Sure, you could vote for the only one candidate who opposes that, in Ron Paul, but Paul would carry a ton of awful baggage along with his flouride-frightened pals from the John Birch Society into the White House. Who wants that?
It's not the parties, or the president. It's the system, and it needs to be changed. "Thank" our cowardly leader, Barack Obama, for proving that for once and for all.
Comments (80)
Will is right. Obama is a lousy president.— blackhawk90- I'll also note how you refuse to comment on the link I posted showing how the incentives of the safety net can discourage people from working. Its because you aren't intellectually capable of arguing it. You rely on childish emotional arguments. PEOPLE WILL STARVE IN THE GUTTERS! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!— RG
- "And yes, RG, poverty rates in this country decreased dramatically concurrent with the advent of a social safety net, and across the globe, social safety nets correlate with lower poverty."
Almost all of these countries are in massive debt, have poor prospects for future growth, and are experiencing increases in poverty. Those are the facts on the ground. For you to declare social safety nets, which have been in existence for 70-80 years (a fraction of humankinds history), before the endgame of the Western's world debt crisis has played out is truly disingenuous.— RG - "Logical, level-headed people like RG, who call tens of millions of working poor, elderly on Medicare, and children born into poverty "parasites.""
I'm sorry, apparently its logical and level headed to have a country thats $15 tril in debt to continue throwing money at the problem, although its evident that the war on poverty has been an abject failure. In your world, there is nothing that OPM (other peoples money) can't solve.
— RG - "about the "injustice" that some of his tax dollars might go towards their welfare."
Apparently, justice is government using its monopoly on force to take money away from people to give to the poor who insist on having kids despite the fact that they can't feed them.
— RG - Stop being such a drama queen. Starvation is not an imminent threat in America. The "poor" in America overhwlemingly own TVs, DVRs, PCs, internet, cable, etc.
And once again, explain why are people continuing to have kids if they cannot feed them? I do find in contemptuous for people in poverty to continue to have children, dooming them to the same fate. Once again, you can't be bothered to comment on the explosion of single parent households in this country.
I'm also contemptuous of people like yourself who will never, ever dare criticize the people who can't feed their own kids, yet have no problem criticizing people who don't want their money taken to reward irresponsibility.
Its amazing you hate the rich so much, when without them, your beloved poor wouldn't get a cent in handouts. In other words, according to you, the poor would starve without the rich. Which is kind of the definition of a parasite, whether its in good taste or not. Remind us what you do to alleviate poverty, again? That is next to being a long winded blowhard.
— RG - TPS>>>}}}{{{{{ STARVE IN THE GUTTER!!! }}}}{{{{<<<...The only ones in the gutters are the addicts and the daily quota of dead gangb*n*ers with multiple gunshot wounds in their pathetic, wretched bodies.LOLs— lefty
- BTW - Will -
--snip--
Following the Obama administration’s withdrawal of its veto threat Wednesday, the National Defense Authorization Act passed both houses of Congress easily and is now headed to the president’s desk.
So what exactly does the bill do? It says that the president has to hold a foreign Al Qaeda suspect captured on US soil in military detention—except it leaves enough procedural loopholes that someone like convicted underwear bomber and Nigerian citizen Umar Abdulmutallab could actually go from capture to trial without ever being held by the military. It does not, contrary to what many media outlets have reported, authorize the president to indefinitely detain without trial an American citizen suspected of terrorism who is captured in the US. A last minute compromise amendment adopted in the Senate, whose language was retained in the final bill, leaves it up to the courts to decide if the president has that power, should a future president try to exercise it. But if a future president does try to assert the authority to detain an American citizen without charge or trial, it won’t be based on the authority in this bill.
So it’s simply not true, as the Guardian wrote yesterday, that the the bill “allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay.” When the New York Times editorial page writes that the bill would “strip the F.B.I., federal prosecutors and federal courts of all or most of their power to arrest and prosecute terrorists and hand it off to the military,” or that the “legislation could also give future presidents the authority to throw American citizens into prison for life without charges or a trial,” they’re simply wrong.
--snip--
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/defense-bill-passed-so-what-does-it-do-ndaa— Talking point sleuth - ===}}} Yea, RG's desription was in poor taste... {{{===
lol!
His description of tens of millions of Americans as "parasites" completely consistent with the disregard for their welfare reflected in his preferred policy options. If it were just out of character "poor taste," that would be one thing, but it isn't. It's an expression that full captures his contempt for people he considers to be beneath him, and his horror about the "injustice" that some of his tax dollars might go towards their welfare.
"Poor taste." That's a good one.
— Talking point sleuth - TPS: Give it a rest. Yea, RG's desription was in poor taste, but your rant is just plain wearying.— philly2flag
- TPS: Give it a rest. Yea, RG's desription was in poor taste, but your rant is just plain wearying.— philly2flag
- {{{=== It's not a win for logical, level-headed people like RG to leave the country. ===}}}
Yes, indeedy.
Logical, level-headed people like RG, who call tens of millions of working poor, elderly on Medicare, and children born into poverty "parasites."
What we need is more such logical, level-headed people in this country. Too bad people who hold such extreme beliefs are only a tiny minority.
Imagine how much better off we'd be if there were more people who had as much contempt for their fellow Americans as RG.— Talking point sleuth - ===}}} You have it reversed, which is why your correlation is all messed up. You need a high standard of living to have entitlement programs. Thats why poor countries don't have them, they can't afford them. {{{===
Wow! You're really confused, aren't you. Correlation is not directional, causation is. I didn't attribute causation. I stated a fact of correlation. It doesn't prove causation, but it shows that your notion - that social safety nets are causal to poverty - are disproven by the facts on the ground. And yes, RG, poverty rates in this country decreased dramatically concurrent with the advent of a social safety net, and across the globe, social safety nets correlate with lower poverty.
===}}} It shows that poverty is indeed relative, in how it is measured today. Thats alot of disposal income going to nonessentials. With tens of millions in poverty, how could this be possible? Because we have one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. {{{===
That's right, RG, a country with a well-established social safety net has one of the highest standards of living in the world. As do all other countries on the planet with the highest standards of living. But you make an excellent point: the size of the video game industry proves that there aren't children, elderly, and working poor in this country who depend on a social safety net.
Look, RG, you have called the working poor, the elderly on Medicare, and children born into poverty the "parasite class." Just stick up for your beliefs. You think they are parasites, like leeches or pin-worms, and that informs your perspective on social policies. You're entitled to your belief. You don't need to try to fabricate excuses for what you believe. Stand up for yourself, man, stand up for yourself.
— Talking point sleuth - ===}}} And I'm the binary thinker. Not subsidizing now equals kids starving. {{{===
I know that you're probably unaware of this, RG, but there are kids in this country who depend on something like food stamps in order to eat. Sure, you have called them "parasites," and so you obviously have contempt for them, but your contempt or lack thereof doesn't change the fact of their existence.
===}}} Apparently, there's no charity, or other ways that the parents can feed the kids. {{{===
Binary thinking, RG. I never said that there is no charity. The fact remains, however, is that there are children who depend on the social safety net in order to eath.
===}}} Let's just keep subsidizing them. {{{===
Or, the alternative as you prefer is to let them starve in the gutter. I know that you call them "parasites," but I'd prefer that tax dollars go to prevent kids from starving. I just roll that way.
— Talking point sleuth - ===}}} Note how TPS calls anyone who questions the status quo {{{===
RG, are you completely incapable of reasoning that isn't based on binary thinking?
There are plenty of people who "question the status quote" that I don't think are extremists. But yes, I do think that people that refer to tens of millions of Americans as "parasites" as extremists.
Here's the reason for that, RG. Only a tiny % of Americans hold such a viewpoint. That's what makes you opinions extreme - the fact that so few people are in agreement.— Talking point sleuth - Note how TPS calls anyone who questions the status quo (which has led to record debts, cycles of poverty, poor educational outcomes, etc) an "extremist".— RG
- Here's a balanced post on how all of these subsidies can make it unprofitable to actually take a job.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/when-it-comes-to-taxes-on-the-poor-the-supply-siders-are-right/250099/— RG 
Comment removed.- Funny article Will, GW Bush took on the Arab world and now the regimes are falling. The Arab spring is a result of the wars fought for the last decade. Of course, that took courage. I still disagree with the how the USA went about it, but it did take courage. Clinton re-arranging welfare benefits took courage, Obama as reversed nearly all of such. G Bush cut defense spending and stated we would become the world's police force. Again courage, it cost him a re-election. Reagan took on inflation and the USSR. He created policies and programs which creating growth period from 1983 to 2008 (minus about 36 months). The stagnation of growth and inflation during the 1970s was ended. He also embarked on a peaceful war to bankrupt the USSR. However, your book foolishly argues otherwise.
Basically, 4 of the last 5 presidents have exhibited courage.
— Fisher - It's not a win for logical, level-headed people like RG to leave the country.— sadim
- "I agree, RG. It's better that those kids starve in the gutter than get some of my tax dollars. Better for me and better for the country. No doubt." And I'm the binary thinker. Not subsidizing now equals kids starving. Apparently, there's no charity, or other ways that the parents can feed the kids. Let's just keep subsidizing them."And that's why countries with social safety nets have the highest standards of living. And that's why the standard of living in this country increased dramatically concurrent with the advent of social safety net programs."You have it reversed, which is why your correlation is all messed up. You need a high standard of living to have entitlement programs. Thats why poor countries don't have them, they can't afford them. Otherwise, poor countries could simply institute social safety nets, and magically everyone would be better off. Anyone with half a brain realizes this isn't how it works."Brilliant, RG. The size of the video game industry proves that social safety net programs increases poverty." It shows that poverty is indeed relative, in how it is measured today. Thats alot of disposal income going to nonessentials. With tens of millions in poverty, how could this be possible? Because we have one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Once again, try to rebut my actual points. (HTML deleted)— RG
- ===}}} TPS, its a simple question. If a single woman continues to have kids with different fathers, how many of them are we responsible for subsidizing? {{{===
I agree, RG. It's better that those kids starve in the gutter than get some of my tax dollars. Better for me and better for the country. No doubt.
===}}} Why, despite all those wonderous anti poverty programs, do we still have such high "poverty"? {{{===
Ah yes, the ol' RG binary mentality. Because poverty still exists, therefore anti-poverty programs that feed children, support poor elderly, and help out the working poor, create more poverty. Yup. And that's why countries with social safety nets have the highest standards of living. And that's why the standard of living in this country increased dramatically concurrent with the advent of social safety net programs. Because they make poverty worse.
Classic, RG, just classic.
===}}} Ahh, yes all those poor skinless kids. I'm sure thats why videogames are a multibilion dollar industry. {{{===
Brilliant, RG. The size of the video game industry proves that social safety net programs increases poverty.
Just brilliant
You just gotta hand it to RG - he is a real pro at finding rationalizations for his hatred of human beings he calls "parasites."
— Talking point sleuth - Admiral McRaven had to be talking fashion.— 2ndNlong
- TPS, why don't you move to Southern Europe, where you can retire early, and be subsidized the rest of your life?— RG
- TPS, its a simple question. If a single woman continues to have kids with different fathers, how many of them are we responsible for subsidizing? What would ever incentivize her to stop as long as someone else has to pay for them?
Why, despite all those wonderous anti poverty programs, do we still have such high "poverty"?
"It's not like rich trust fund kids who work their fingers to the bone scrubbing floors on a daily basis." Ahh, yes all those poor skinless kids. I'm sure thats why videogames are a multibilion dollar industry.
No one is buying your narrative.
— RG - ===}}} Obviously, I should be forced to subsidize other people's kids. {{{===
Poor, poor, RG. He has to endure the injustice of tax dollars going to feed the children of the "parasite class." It's a wonder that he doesn't move to a tax-free society where such injustices don't take place.
Might I suggest Somalia, RG? Perhaps you could bring over some kids from the "parasite class," to build you a bunker over there. You know, teach them about the benefits of responsible work. I mean, as Newt said, poor kids just don't know how to work. It's not like rich trust fund kids who work their fingers to the bone scrubbing floors on a daily basis.
So you'd be killing a couple of birds with one stone. You'd have a safe place to hide out in a tax free community, and you'd be doing your part to elevate someone from the "parasite class" to your level of nobility.
It's a win-win-win (the 3rd win being for the rest of the country having one less extremist libertarian to deal with).— Talking point sleuth - ===}}} TPS -- I agree that at the outset of the war, there was popular support. However... it's pretty clear that even by as early as 2004/2005, that support had eroded completely amongst liberals, and by 2006 most of the country no longer supported it. {{{===
Iggy - please.
You said that he went with a decision that was HUGELY!!! unpopular.
Support eroded when it became apparent that the rationale he promoted to justify the war was incorrect, the promises they made about how the war would go were completely incorrect, and major mistakes were made in how the after-invasion plan was conceived and executed.
But the lack of support because his administration messed it up so badly is not germane to your assertion that because his decision was HUGELY unpopular, it was an indication of his "courage of conviction."
It wasn't unpopular, and to the degree that it was popular, it was because everything they said about their rationale for the invasion turned out to be false, exaggerated, or based on incompetence. When it became clear just how incompetent his decision was, that's when it became unpopular.
Now Iggy, if you keep this up someone reading your comments might be inclined to think that you're a Republican toady.— Talking point sleuth - After reading "Bunch of B.S."'s daily Libby rants what more does anyone need to know about why Libs shouldn't be anywhere close to running this country: murderers should be allowed to have conjugal visits, families, work out, watch TV, etc. while their victims suffer. Terrorists who killed 3000+ innocent people should be treated with respect while their victims suffer. Most victims will say they do get closure when they feel justice is served, and most agree execution, waterboarding to stop future acts (how do you think they found OBL???)is justice in the best way!! Libs don't even get these basic concepts and they want to run the country...VERY scary!!!— sarah89
- RG, Remember how the left and its controlled news sources, AKA MSM, counted every single drone attack during Bushes last year in office? Remember how the sources traveled to outlying regions of Afghanistan to report how a school house the size of an igloo was hit or a family left to live in someone's else's hut? At the time, I think the count got to 26 or 27 drones. I imagine the counters were struck dead by a errant drone shortly after Obama's inauguration because the only time since 2009 that a drone was mentioned was when one recently fell into Iran's hands. LOL's.— lefty
BTW Bunch still no story about Fast And Furious ? *LOL* hypocrite— PAEnglish- President Obama did NOT kill Bin laden.. A soldier did it while Obama was in bed asleep, politicians would never do anything to endanger themselves. Politicians start wars soldiers fight and die in them, and of course provide said politicians with photo ops and talking points. I simply fail to understand why Obama or any other politician ever gets 'credit' for the work the military does.— PAEnglish
- Obama talking tough? That's funny! But then again, Reagan only picked fights he could win unlike W the Texas Bumbler. Also nice to see conservatives cutting funding for the military and eliminating socialized medicine (Medicare Part D). Obama may be disappointing, the problem for the GOP is that their alternative is much, much worse. Cheers!— chasing history
- As bad as Obama is the lack of a decent candidate to run against him could mean Obama wins by default, that's how Blair stayed in power in Britain and was able to complete his monumental f**k up of the country. — PAEnglish
- Cornholio (great name, btw) -- I thought about that while writing it. It doesn't take courage if you have no conscience. If you have a conscience, then ordering people to their possible death has to be a tremendously difficult decision. Everything that I saw about President Bush seemed to indicate that he had a conscience, and was very active in thanking, supporting wounded soldiers, and families who had lost a loved one. (Cue TPS with a link about veterans hospitals).— IggleFan68
- BTW, here's some Occupy Student Debt failure for you. Only 2k+ signatures so far.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/12/16/occupy-student-debts-failure-to-launch/— RG - And, of course, poverty if what the government controlling the purse strings defines it as. No perverse incentives there. "Tons of people in poverty, need more tax dollars!"— RG
- So, despite all the entitlements, tax code help (EITC), free public education. etc., we still have tens of millions in poverty. Of course, lets not only stay the course, lets throw more money at the problem! Its clear that the 1% needs to subsidize these groups, that'll fix all the problems.
Let's not bother to look at immigration of low wage earners, the increase of single parent families, globalization and automation, the population increase, etc. Nope, this can be fixed with some gold old fashioned OPM.— RG - Iggle: It takes courage to go into battle yourself. It takes no courage to send others into battle when you risk nothing. That is the Bush-Cheney way.— The Great Cornholio
- "And worst of all, tens of millions of children born into poverty."
Obviously, I should be forced to subsidize other people's kids. Its a strong argument, I'm sure there's no moral hazard there. How are single parent family rates going? Up or down?
— RG - TPS -- I agree that at the outset of the war, there was popular support. However... it's pretty clear that even by as early as 2004/2005, that support had eroded completely amongst liberals, and by 2006 most of the country no longer supported it.— IggleFan68
- MSL -- apparently, WMD's were found left and right in Iraq in artillery shells. This was not widely reported by the US military, nor the media. You have to wait 15-20 years to determine if invading Iraq was the right thing to do, because you need a historical perspective, and you need to judge the results of that invasion. If you judge it now, it's a spectacular success. The US removed a horrible dictator and person who threatened the stability of the entire region, and only lost 4500 lives. And I do say only 4500 -- check out how many lives were lost in WWII, Vietnam, Korea and you will see that this is a startlingly low number for a 9 year armed conflict. The death rate in Iraq was eerily equivalent to the murder rate in Philadelphia. If, over the next 20 years, Iraq becomes a stabilizing force in the middle east, and a valuable partner, then Bush was right, and he's a top 5 president for his visionary leadership. If in 20 years, it's a civil war disaster, then Bush was wrong and is a bottom 5 president. You see -- THAT takes courage, to take on that kind of initiative. It takes courage to send people into battle, knowing that some of them are going to die. How many of us can honestly look at yourself and say you would have the courage to order men/women into battle?— IggleFan68
- RG - Just a friendly tip.
It might be time for you to get new supplies for your bunker. Some of that stuff you put in there when Obama first got elected might have expired on its sell-by dates.— Talking point sleuth - ===}}} That was HUGELY unpopular, {{{===
Really? Do you have some evidence for the, Iggy?
--snip--
By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans favor invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Not since November 2001 have they approved so overwhelmingly. Nearly six in 10 say they're ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two."
--snip--
Looks like your myth-making about Bush stands in contrast to the facts.
— Talking point sleuth - ===}}} as long as they can continue to push for their handouts, or their right to get paid for not working (UE, SS, pensions, welfare, etc). {{{===
I see that RG's still at it, whining about that "parasite class." You know, tens of millions of working poor. Tens of millions of senior citizens on Medicare. And worst of all, tens of millions of children born into poverty.
Parasites, one and all, eh RG? How does someone become so hateful?— Talking point sleuth - "And you wonder why the world is laughing at your candidates"
They're not my candidates. And can it get more dense than proudly proclaiming that "Obama got Osama"?— RG - "It didn't take Gitmo, a trillion-dollar war in Iraq, or suspension of our civil rights to do it."
You're truly a disgrace. Gitmo si still open, the war was still going on, and the Patriot Act has been expanded. Heck, now Obama claims the power to use drones against American citizens, and to hold them indefinitely. You've show how much of a joke your moniker really is.
If you had any courage or intelligence, you'd name what Obama has done to right Bush's civil liberty wrongs.— RG - Jeez, you're dense RG. Of course he hasn't done anything. How many times did I warn the neo-cons before Obama was elected that this is what you should expect by asserting some lame concept of unitary power of the executive branch? Now you want to blame me? Take some personal responsibility, eh? But nooooo. Instead the right wants to go to even further extremes toward fascism by painting Obama as still too 'soft'! And you wonder why the world is laughing at your candidates. — montani semper liberi
- Barack Obama...a solid contribution to the Peter Principle.— Trashcan_Man
RG, Obama did get Osama. It didn't take Gitmo, a trillion-dollar war in Iraq, or suspension of our civil rights to do it. As Will pointed out, nor did it take special courage. What makes it a great bumper sticker is that for all their chest-pumping, the neo-cons couldn't (or deliberatley wouldn't) accomplish that simple act of justice after a decade of a phony war on terror. All it took was the command of a Kenyan anti-colonialist. Woof!- "Hide under your beds, righties."
Stop with your sanctimonious nonsense. What happened to your standard response "Obama got Osama"? You happily and moronicly spouted that bumper sticker instead of saying peep about indefinite detention, etc.
Most of the left doesn't give a crud about civili liberties or war, as long as they can continue to push for their handouts, or their right to get paid for not working (UE, SS, pensions, welfare, etc). Its why MoveOn moved on from Iraq after Obama was elected.— RG - The bleating is unbearable. In the end the sheep will vote for who provides them with the most handouts that other people have to pay for. That would be a democrat no matter if you argue over what consittues a liberal. Or not. Baaaaaaaaah, Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.— tr88
- "Doesn't that sound EXACTLY like what President Bush did with his invasion of Iraq?" . . . . Only if you consider the invasion of Iraq the "right thing" to do. Why should we wait 15-20 years to judge? Is that when we'll find the WMDs? Or we'll somehow reap the trillions of dollars in costs with interest (remember, this was the war that would pay for itself)? Heck, by that measure, why not wait 15-20 years to judge the stimulus bill or the health care reform law? Silly, huh? Ron Paul spoke some truth to power (or should I say truth to cowardice) last night that's long overdue. But then who knows, maybe Iran has already developed the technology to make box cutters. Hide under your beds, righties.
- Will, it's no secret that you're expressing a major concern of the left. It's no secret that you lack the cajones to go it alone. It's also no secret that the left lacks the courage to compliment its genetic makeup by selecting someone more to its liking, like a McGovern or McCarthy. If you and your party had an ounce of courage, you would have programmed the occupy folks to chant anti-war slogans and erect paper mache puppets in the likeness of your lying leader. But that means being forthright and excising the gene which plagues the progressive psyche.— lefty
- Now Will, we know the progressive left wing of the democrat party is still stewing over Obama's clever ploy to get their ducks in a row, quieting their anti-war mentality and expanding aggression in Afghanistan; but calling the manchurian candidate a coward, from a guy whose spent his childhood crouching behind parked autos in order to hold on to his lunch money? That's the laugh of the day. Thanks!— lefty
- Funny that you would call courage "doing the right thing even if it's unpopular". Doesn't that sound EXACTLY like what President Bush did with his invasion of Iraq? That was HUGELY unpopular, yet he had the courage of conviction that his decision was right. And we will see in 15-20 years if he was correct.— IggleFan68
- Will, what you provide here is sport - left vs right bickering... but make no mistake - at the presidential level there is no difference. In fact, a better photo would have been the Wizard - you know, don't look behind the curtain and all that...— michael_b
- Do you honestly think he's not a conservative? Man, you people need to actually read some Burke instead of listening to Fox News.— HandNik
- Comment removed.
- You lost me at "Obama had a remarkable chance to be that most courageous president in American history". Keep the laughs coming Bunch.— jimmymack
- "This is the man who requested specific verbiage that allows for the US military to detain US CITIZENS, indefinitely if he (or future) presidents deem them a "threat.""Its alsot he man who tried to extend our presence in Iraq past his campaign promises and past the SOFA Bush agreed to with Iraq. Luckily Iraq said no thanks. No, this idiot acts like he "ended" the war and no one calls him on it. Obama wanted troops there past the end of this year. (HTML deleted)— RG
- Comment removed.
- He's been a coward on economic issues too. He can call it compromise, but it's really been kowtowing. Of course, when the competition is the special olympics team put up by the Rs, it makes the decision pretty easy.— etotheb
- Liberals are easily fooled. Obama talks like one, ran as one but knows he wouldnt stand a chance in any election if he actually governed as the far left hopes. In the end they will vote for him because they rely on the democratic machine's redistribution of other people's money.— tr88
- Come to think of it, don't lump the Tea Party in with the OWS. The Tea Party peacefully demonstrated and organized for change in Washington. They got candidates elected, and they got candidates thrown out of office. The radical leftist President now talks about tax cuts and deficit reduction. All because of the Tea Party. The OWS crowd sat in poop.— jmc
- What an obvious transparent attempt to try to make Barry look like a moderate. Lame, Will. Try your unethical decepation some other way.— CD75
- Not a fan of Obama, but I'm not about to label him a coward. I will go so far to suggest that his campaign promises were more than what a celebrity candidate (read: white enough for whites, black enough for blacks) with very little governmental experience could hope to deliver. If that sounds racist, it's because the current system has made it such - I meant only to point out what I feel has made a mockery of the Office of the POTUS.— Atomic Fury
- Not a fan of Obama, but I'm not about to label him a coward. I will go so far to suggest that his campaign promises were more than what a celebrity candidate (read: white enough for whites, black enough for blacks) with very little governmental experience could hope to deliver. If that sounds racist, it's because the current system has made it such - I meant only to point out what I feel has made a mockery of the Office of the POTUS.— Atomic Fury
- Not a fan of Obama, but I'm not about to label him a coward. I will go so far to suggest that his campaign promises were more than what a celebrity candidate (read: white enough for whites, black enough for blacks) with very little governmental experience could hope to deliver. If that sounds racist, it's because the current system has made it such - I meant only to point out what I feel has made a mockery of the Office of the POTUS.— Atomic Fury
- Comment removed.
- If this is what you spent your day working on, you wasted a beautiful Thursday. One of the most vacuous pieces ever posted. Frankly if you can make a living with this drivel, I should should be able to write the great American novel. You really get paid for this? Unbelievable!!!— georgel
I couldn't agree more about Obama and his failure to protect our civil liberties. But as you note, we don't even have a candidate who would in either party (Ron Paul sort of excepted, although he has shown that there may actually be too much liberty). Congress is the worse problem. While Obama failed to protect, Congress attacked our civil liberties and the courts as well. It is not going well for the U.S.- wow! Will Bunch is an idiot!— DEH
- The FAA is proposing drone use over the U.S.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/15/9476623-domestic-drones-coming-soon-over-a-home-near-you— RG - you geniuses have any alternatives with these morons in the gop circus???— tuttobene
- Comment removed.
- Comment removed.
- Will, it was obvious from the beginning that Obama was in way over his head. 'Hope and Change' was only a campaign slogan. He used the American people and their trust to advance his career. As most things in life it was all about the money. Just ask Blagojevich.— RufusG
- Sorry Will, it aint gonna work. Pretending to attack Barry from the Left is not gonna make him a moderate. HaHa— catwalks
- Yeah, Will. And we all know Obama only left Gitmo open to round up all the conservatives in advance of the election next year, to complete the stalinist-jihadi-kenyan-anti-colonial coup d'etat. But they needn't worry. Waterboarding is harmless fun, right?
1
Popular Posts
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: