This picture says a lot about modern politics

[Charles Kozierok]

You didnt answer it.

Yes, I did. You said, and I quote: "The anit-war left has fallen silent since Obama came into office."

That is not true. They were not silent at all.

It's just that, after a certain amount of time, there's no point in beating your head against a brick wall. The outcry over the Iraq War also died down. All you've shown is that people have limited stamina for protestation.

You pointed to two articles from nearly 4 years ago.

Yes, which I found with ease. There are many more. The left has not been silent; the claims are false or at best grossly exaggerated.

This is 2013, the war continues, the drone strikes continue, gitmo remains open, american citizens are still targetted, civil liberties still trampled.

You're conflating a whole bunch of things in there. Some are valid criticism of Obama; some are not.

The bottom line is simple: Bush started all of this mess, and he made far bigger messes than Obama has (with many of Obama's being a result of having been stuck with Bush's messes). So he deserved a lot more criticism than Obama does.

When Obama decides to trump up charges against a country and invade it costing hundreds of thousands of lives, then that cartoon will have some merit. When Obama decides to start torture programs and then lie about it being torture, then there'll be a point if the left doesn't protest. Until then, it's just as much bullshit as all the right-wing-nuts who scream and moan and sit in sackcloth and ashes over four dead guys in Benghazi, but never said a peep when 4,000 guys were dying in Iraq.

PS You bring up Guantanamo? Really? Are you now going to whitewash history further and claim Obama didn't try to shut that down?

 

[Ausm]

No, but I expect them to do the right thing when it's fairly plain. I'm glad you are disappointed with what Obama has/has not done, and that's not said in any sarcastic way. My expression is one of frustration that people don't hold their own truly accountable.

Let's go back a bit and look at the Bush era. Despite what some say there were many who identify with the Right who found themselves supporting Bush because he was their guy. After all when someone is working to attack us with a NBC program of mass destruction and terrorism, why wouldn't one want to prevent that. Remember I'm talking a perspective, not objective truth here. So when the preponderance of evidence showed that the premise for the war and terrorism in general was false what happened? Some circled the wagons and decided that protecting their President and Party took precedence over anything else. They engaged in an all too common behavior and denied facts in order to preserve their sense of things. It's a mass delusion, something as damaging as any WMD in my opinion. It allows evil to prevail, and yes I believe in that quaint term. There were some however who realized that they were led astray, that what was done was wrong and they didn't appreciate it at all, but when it came down to it none of them did what I would have and cried that they were lied to and in righteous indignation demand a full accounting. Yes there were a few I know who did, but not many, certainly not enough to make a difference. It mostly came to "it shouldn't have happened, but what President does what everyone wants?" Sound familiar?

So today many programs are strengthened, none of those responsible held accountable, and the supporters of the Democrats, even those like you who know a wrong was done never become as outraged against their own side as the other. It's a completely understandable phenomena given that people are social animals and nothing is more a social construct as political ideology and party. That is a failing of our species of animal which ought to be constantly remembered and fought against. I did have hope that things would change to make a play on words, that promises of accountability would be true, but it was a deception. Consequently it's hard for someone like me to forgive and forget because it was done out of concerns for political gain. So while I understand what you are saying I am still disappointed that those who cried out based on supposed moral wrongdoing nevertheless do not pursue it with the same vigor now that their side is in power. The blood of many cry for justice, but that will never be had, nor indeed be wanted in anything but words.

That doesn't sit well with me.

The only way this will ever occur is if the following things were to happen 1)Term Limits-End the career Politicians who are bought off 2)Eliminate the revolving door from a Politician to a Lobbyist 3) Put a cap on how much you can donate to a Politician and lastly overturn Citizen's United which has turned our Election process in a money laundering scheme. I doubt if any of these would ever occur in my lifetime.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There are still double-digit percentages of Americans who, to this day, think the Iraq War was justified. Many of them are eager to do the same to Iran.

But hey, we all know the real problem is that leftists aren't out protesting drone strikes every day.

BTW, one of the best known, persistent attack dogs of the Obama administration on these issues is Glenn Greenwald, formerly of Salon and now on The Guardian.

 

[shadow9d9]

Your statement was " you still believe there's a "left" in this country ", there are a LOT of leftist in this country. Now if you meant there's no extreme left in Congress then fine, even though there probably are some that hold individual beliefs that would be left be even you standards.



Reducing it to one point? Kind of disingenuous don't you think?

The Democrats are to the right of every other first world conservative party. Just because the Republicans are as extreme right as you could get, outside of Pakistan, does NOT make a magical equivalent on the left.

In a time where enacting the healthcare plan of the Heritage foundation is considered "liberal," it is safe to say that there is no left.

 

[Moonbeam]

As I say I agree, but there is a larger point which I've gone over. What can be done?

I see the question in two ways, what I think should be done and what I want done, and what can be done as politics, the art of the possible.

I feel much the same as you do about Obama but perhaps I see it differently, more as a matter of what is possible than what should be. I think Obama settled for something less than the ideal or ideal from a different philosophy, that he wanted to be President of all the people, that he wanted, as President, to represent both the left and the right, that compromise would be his mode of operation.

I think, therefore, that to achieve an accommodation to the right, he chose not to go after war criminals, that such an act would have given fact to the hysteria we see on the right, that it could have resulted in far more social upheaval than we actually got, that he might even have been assassinated by those in the government itself. I don't know, but I see Obama as an accommodate who will lean this way and that for the sake of overall governance, that he is a pragmatist first and an idealist second. And he is still the lesser of two evils, that he has moved the country to the left with some pretty amazing deftness. He has the right on the run and kept most on the left on his side. But he can only do what is possible and the right makes that almost nothing.

As for your objections to Obama care, I do not know. I don't know much about it. I know that some folk in my family will be able to get health care in 2014 that can't today because of job changes and preexisting conditions.

 

[Genx87]

Yes, I did. You said, and I quote: "The anit-war left has fallen silent since Obama came into office."

That is not true. They were not silent at all.

It's just that, after a certain amount of time, there's no point in beating your head against a brick wall. The outcry over the Iraq War also died down. All you've shown is that people have limited stamina for protestation.

Their stamin runs out like clockwork with their guy getting into office? How convenient.

Yes, which I found with ease. There are many more. The left has not been silent; the claims are false or at best grossly exaggerated.

For all intents and purposes they have been silent. Compared to when Bush is in office the protests, the editorials, the outcry has all but disappeared.

You're conflating a whole bunch of things in there. Some are valid criticism of Obama; some are not.

The bottom line is simple: Bush started all of this mess, and he made far bigger messes than Obama has (with many of Obama's being a result of having been stuck with Bush's messes). So he deserved a lot more criticism than Obama does.

When Obama decides to trump up charges against a country and invade it costing hundreds of thousands of lives, then that cartoon will have some merit. When Obama decides to start torture programs and then lie about it being torture, then there'll be a point if the left doesn't protest. Until then, it's just as much bullshit as all the right-wing-nuts who scream and moan and sit in sackcloth and ashes over four dead guys in Benghazi, but never said a peep when 4,000 guys were dying in Iraq.

PS You bring up Guantanamo? Really? Are you now going to whitewash history further and claim Obama didn't try to shut that down?

Yes, I will bring up Gitmo. Him trying or not trying to close should have nothing to do with protesting it remains open. What you are saying is all Bush had to do was say he would try to close Gitmo and they would had stopped protesting it remaining open? Sersiouly? And you believe that?

And what does it matter if Obama started it or not if he continues it? The left is free to blame Bush for starting all of that. But what do they have to say about Obama continuing or expanding those practices? /crickets

The picture is really on spot with this lack of anything from the anti-war left. It displays how people are willing to forgive practices when it is their guy in office.

 

[Bowfinger]

You didnt answer it. You pointed to two articles from nearly 4 years ago. This is 2013, the war continues, the drone strikes continue, gitmo remains open, american citizens are still targetted, civil liberties still trampled. And yet the editorial pages, MSM, and the same far left that attacked Bush at every chance on the same topics is largely silent. And that is my point. The filed in line and shut the fuck up when their guy was doing it. Which plays in perfect with the cartoon.

Let's cut the revisionist history. The fact is that for the first few years of the Iraq war, the media was overwhelmingly fawning in blind support of whatever the Bush administration did in Iraq. It was only as the war dragged on, death tolls mounted, and it became undeniable that Bush's unilateral attack on Iraq was based on lies that public and media sentiment turned.

Further, the great majority of people on the left supported the Iraq war initially, I was one of only three or four people here who actively posted anti-Iraq war comments. That's because it was obvious to me from the beginning the Bush case was emotional BS, exploiting and conflating 9/11 with Iraq to create support (though the U.S. media was silent about it). Once again, sentiments here shifted as the truth became undeniable. (And for the record, while I considered BushCo to have primary responsibility for attacking Iraq, I also recognized most Democratic Congressman also supported it, at least to some extent. I called them cowards for doing so.)

In contrast, I also said from the beginning that not only did I support our actions in Afghanistan, but I regularly criticized the Bush administration for dropping the ball there. They diverted critical resources from Afghanistan to Iraq in support of Bush's dishonest war. Bush diverted America from the terrorists who were actually behind 9/11 to a country that had nothing to do with it. One of the things Obama did right was focusing more resources in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it has become another quagmire with no easy, clean exit.

I've never approved of our prison in Guantanamo, and criticized Obama for failing to close it. On the other hand, at least Obama stopped the torture, which was the single most repugnant aspect of Guantanamo, and we are now proceeding -- much too slowly -- on giving some detainees actual hearings. All in all, however, I agree Gitmo is a shameful stain on both administrations. It's simply a false equivalency to insist that Bush and Obama are the same here, however.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hay, I forgot to say what I think should be done. I believe that what we call God refers to a conscious state where the barrier between God and Man disappears, where the question of who created whom disappears. I believe also that this is the state into which everybody is born, our natural state, the ground of our being.

So the answer to every existential question is really very simple, the answer is being.

All that we need, in my opinion, is children who can grow up in a world that maximized their inner potential, that gives children what they require to grow up emotionally healthy with their empathy intact. How can that be done is a world full of emotionally damaged and needy people, would be how I would put the question. If I were to ever find the answer to my own illness, perhaps I could tell you.

 

[Incorruptible]

The hypocrisy from the left is truly stunning and sickening. Criticize bush and spout BS rhetoric but hardly anything for obama POS

Some of the members on here I cant remember the names actually justified the murder of innocent children in Pakistan from obama as "collateral damage" . They have really hit a new low, how often do they attack the killing of the innocent children? This is one of the reasons why Cornel West absolutely destroyed obama and said he wasn't worthy of using the Bible of MLK

 

[Bowfinger]

The hypocrisy from the left is truly stunning and sickening. Criticize bush and spout BS rhetoric but hardly anything for obama POS

Some of the members on here I cant remember the names actually justified the murder of innocent children in Pakistan from obama as "collateral damage" . They have really hit a new low, how often do they attack the killing of the innocent children? This is one of the reasons why Cornel West absolutely destroyed obama and said he wasn't worthy of using the Bible of MLK

Shut up you repugnant pile of slime. There were hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children killed as "collateral damage" during the Iraq invasion, and you and your hypocritical ilk just cheered for more. Obama may indeed be a POS, but you're still so far lower than that you can't even begin to hope of reaching his level. You are a wasted bag of meat.

 

[sigurros81]

Shut up you repugnant pile of slime. There were hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children killed as "collateral damage" during the Iraq invasion, and you and your hypocritical ilk just cheered for more. Obama may indeed be a POS, but you're still so far lower than that you can't even begin to hope of reaching his level. You are a wasted bag of meat.

Is that how you treat down syndromed kids? so mean.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I see the question in two ways, what I think should be done and what I want done, and what can be done as politics, the art of the possible.

This is truth, and has always been so. The question however needs to be examined in the context of what we are discussing and the parties involved. I'll get to that.

I feel much the same as you do about Obama but perhaps I see it differently, more as a matter of what is possible than what should be. I think Obama settled for something less than the ideal or ideal from a different philosophy, that he wanted to be President of all the people, that he wanted, as President, to represent both the left and the right, that compromise would be his mode of operation.

I think, therefore, that to achieve an accommodation to the right, he chose not to go after war criminals, that such an act would have given fact to the hysteria we see on the right, that it could have resulted in far more social upheaval than we actually got, that he might even have been assassinated by those in the government itself. I don't know, but I see Obama as an accommodate who will lean this way and that for the sake of overall governance, that he is a pragmatist first and an idealist second. And he is still the lesser of two evils, that he has moved the country to the left with some pretty amazing deftness. He has the right on the run and kept most on the left on his side. But he can only do what is possible and the right makes that almost nothing.

Regarding the first point, I agree with the idea that a President has to make choices of what battles to fight and what to let lie regardless of personal preference, but there are times that when a demonstrated wrong has happened there must be consequences for those involved even if there are consequences which are other than to have the greatest number of people satisfied. This is such a case. Social upheaval was what allowed blacks to sit wherever they wanted on a bus. What if we had chosen the path of least resistance then? Sometimes democracy has to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants, and I mean that in a metaphorical sense, but the point remains. Unless evil is confronted it endures.

Remember too that you and I were among those who questioned the wisdom of the war before the fact. We were few, but we passed the test. Now that it's over I suggest you consider my words. That Bush is the greater of two evils is not my point. It's that many things have been done which were not necessary accommodations, such as extraordinary rendition and lessening other invaluable rights. I know you feel the same, but when the totality of action and inaction is taken into account it's hard to imagine there being much personal torment in not pursuing the deaths on how many? How many millions died as a result? It's blood on our hands and we may try to ignore it, but it's there, and now we simply pretend it's impractical or uncomfortable, or too disturbing to address. Some say truth is beauty, but at times it can be an ugly bastard that no one wants to claim. That does not remove our obligation in any way.

My point regarding Obamacare wasn't to bring up it's merits, but to point out that however the right may react if there is a will Obama has demonstrated that he will pursue something regardless of consequences. He was outraged about the state of insurance, as were many on his team. He's doing so now with guns on the Hill. That does not mean that there isn't concern which is legitimate but it does provide testimony to my assertion that if something is considered important enough then let the chips fall where they may.

Certainly many have died from people killing with guns, but how many died because of Iraq? Ten million? A hundred million? More?

One may say it's water under the bridge, but I maintain that until we demonstrate as a people through our government that such outrages will not be tolerated, that we are a people who may err, but are just and take ourselves to task when we are wrong, then there is nothing but encouragement to make the same evil choices again.

Like the song says, "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

My thoughts, FWIW

 

[Incorruptible]

Shut up you repugnant pile of slime. There were hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children killed as "collateral damage" during the Iraq invasion, and you and your hypocritical ilk just cheered for more. Obama may indeed be a POS, but you're still so far lower than that you can't even begin to hope of reaching his level. You are a wasted bag of meat.

Shut up you repugnant pile of slime. I NEVER SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR OR CHEERED FOR THE KILLING OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, Next time try to be a little less ignorant

Consider yourself owned

 

[Bowfinger]

Is that how you treat down syndromed kids? so mean.

I know. I didn't use to be this way, but I've sadly grown so tired of dealing with abject stupidity and shameless partisan dishonesty that I'm not very patient with it now. I have a lot of respect for people like DVC (to name but one example) who have remained patient and respectful with some of these defectives.

🙂

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hay, I forgot to say what I think should be done. I believe that what we call God refers to a conscious state where the barrier between God and Man disappears, where the question of who created whom disappears. I believe also that this is the state into which everybody is born, our natural state, the ground of our being.

So the answer to every existential question is really very simple, the answer is being.

All that we need, in my opinion, is children who can grow up in a world that maximized their inner potential, that gives children what they require to grow up emotionally healthy with their empathy intact. How can that be done is a world full of emotionally damaged and needy people, would be how I would put the question. If I were to ever find the answer to my own illness, perhaps I could tell you.

What we need to do is impart the understanding that however wounded we may be that there is a right and a wrong. That to love our neighbor as ourselves is right. That to dispense justice and mercy is also right. That to take a life is always regrettable even when there is no real choice. That war is horror, not glory. That men and women who come together regardless of political ideology when done with proper intent is a worthy thing. When people are played for power that is wrong. Build up, not tear down, and sometimes one has to tear down to build up. Why and when to do that needs to be shown plainly. We need to try to live up to our ideals, and though we may fail we ought to be known for our sincere efforts.

For all the imperfections we have real or imagined I have no doubt that you wish others what is truly best. That's why I think of you fondly.

Collectively we may be beyond redemption, but our children are not if we give it our best efforts. For all my cynicism I refuse to abandon all hope.

 

[Bowfinger]

Shut up you repugnant pile of slime. I NEVER SUPPORTED THE IRAQ WAR OR CHEERED FOR THE KILLING OF INNOCENT PEOPLE, Next time try to be a little less ignorant

Consider yourself owned

Lulz. Consider yourself a useless twit. You couldn't own a stick of gum.

 

[Bowfinger]

What we need to do is impart the understanding that however wounded we may be that there is a right and a wrong. That to love our neighbor as ourselves is right. That to dispense justice and mercy is also right. That to take a life is always regrettable even when there is no real choice. That war is horror, not glory. That men and women who come together regardless of political ideology when done with proper intent is a worthy thing. When people are played for power that is wrong. Build up, not tear down, and sometimes one has to tear down to build up. Why and when to do that needs to be shown plainly. We need to try to live up to our ideals, and though we may fail we ought to be known for our sincere efforts.

For all the imperfections we have real or imagined I have no doubt that you wish others what is truly best. That's why I think of you fondly.

We may collectively beyond redemption, but our children are not if we give it our best efforts. For all my cynicism I refuse to abandon all hope.

Those are fine ideals. I apologize for doing such a poor job of living them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Those are fine ideals. I apologize for doing such a poor job of living them.

I fail as well. What matters as much as the realization of what we wish is to pursue them however imperfectly. It has been said life is a journey, and if such things as these are paths we follow we have lived a worthwhile life even though we may lose our way at times. Faith is not foolishness.

 

[sigurros81]

I know. I didn't use to be this way, but I've sadly grown so tired of dealing with abject stupidity and shameless partisan dishonesty that I'm not very patient with it now. I have a lot of respect for people like DVC (to name but one example) who have remained patient and respectful with some of these defectives.

🙂

Aw well, it's the internet. I take comfort in knowing that idiots like Incorruptible, if he carries on his ways like the way he does on here, he'd never amount to anything. Good luck getting a real world job with the sort of ignorance people like him is demonstrating. At first I thought he's trolling, but I was caught by quite a surprise when I realize he's actually that stupid.

 

[Incorruptible]

Lulz. Consider yourself a useless twit. You couldn't own a stick of gum.

The only useless one is you , Your a partisan hack

 

[PokerGuy]

The OP should be renamed Captain Strawman. His posts are a bloody fire hazard.

People "on the left" are not in favor of targeted killings. Some might be, but your generalization is bullsh*t.

Whether some are or are not in favor of targeted killings is not the point. The point is that legions of leftists were up in arms about things Bush was doing, but are now completely silent about their dear leader doing the same things (or in some cases, worse things). That just proves that they didn't really care about what was going on, they just cared about the fact that someone with an (R) behind his name was doing it.

 

[Incorruptible]

Whether some are or are not in favor of targeted killings is not the point. The point is that legions of leftists were up in arms about things Bush was doing, but are now completely silent about their dear leader doing the same things (or in some cases, worse things). That just proves that they didn't really care about what was going on, they just cared about the fact that someone with an (R) behind his name was doing it.

Well said, Just from this forum alone you can see the double standards and hypocrisy from the left. The POS obama is doing the same things as bush and even worse such as drone strikes in Pakistan killing innocent children

 

[soundforbjt]

Well said, Just from this forum alone you can see the double standards and hypocrisy from the left. The POS obama is doing the same things as bush and even worse such as drone strikes in Pakistan killing innocent children

Just curious, can you name any war where innocent children were not killed?

 

[Incorruptible]

Just curious, can you name any war where innocent children were not killed?

Just curious, Will you condemn obama for the killing of innocent children in Pakistan?

 

[Moonbeam]

This is truth, and has always been so. The question however needs to be examined in the context of what we are discussing and the parties involved. I'll get to that.



Regarding the first point, I agree with the idea that a President has to make choices of what battles to fight and what to let lie regardless of personal preference, but there are times that when a demonstrated wrong has happened there must be consequences for those involved even if there are consequences which are other than to have the greatest number of people satisfied. This is such a case. Social upheaval was what allowed blacks to sit wherever they wanted on a bus. What if we had chosen the path of least resistance then? Sometimes democracy has to be refreshed with the blood of tyrants, and I mean that in a metaphorical sense, but the point remains. Unless evil is confronted it endures.

Remember too that you and I were among those who questioned the wisdom of the war before the fact. We were few, but we passed the test. Now that it's over I suggest you consider my words. That Bush is the greater of two evils is not my point. It's that many things have been done which were not necessary accommodations, such as extraordinary rendition and lessening other invaluable rights. I know you feel the same, but when the totality of action and inaction is taken into account it's hard to imagine there being much personal torment in not pursuing the deaths on how many? How many millions died as a result? It's blood on our hands and we may try to ignore it, but it's there, and now we simply pretend it's impractical or uncomfortable, or too disturbing to address. Some say truth is beauty, but at times it can be an ugly bastard that no one wants to claim. That does not remove our obligation in any way.

My point regarding Obamacare wasn't to bring up it's merits, but to point out that however the right may react if there is a will Obama has demonstrated that he will pursue something regardless of consequences. He was outraged about the state of insurance, as were many on his team. He's doing so now with guns on the Hill. That does not mean that there isn't concern which is legitimate but it does provide testimony to my assertion that if something is considered important enough then let the chips fall where they may.

Certainly many have died from people killing with guns, but how many died because of Iraq? Ten million? A hundred million? More?

One may say it's water under the bridge, but I maintain that until we demonstrate as a people through our government that such outrages will not be tolerated, that we are a people who may err, but are just and take ourselves to task when we are wrong, then there is nothing but encouragement to make the same evil choices again.

Like the song says, "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

My thoughts, FWIW

I feel profound rage for the violence my country commits. I know the truth inwardly that what was done was evil. What I face also constantly is the impotence of rage and an unrequited desire for the revenge of justice. I used to have such big strong hands but hope was snatched from my grasp.

I see only the cross as having any hope, in the love that comes from forgiveness and surrender. Evil is never defeated. It just disappears when there is love. I pray for the death of the ego so I can be reborn.

One thing I do consider from time to time, is what would have happened if Obama had gone for prosecution of war crimes. I don't think I am wise enough to say. Obama made a call and he's the President. I am a nobody.