Message body
"We don't believe in the kind of smallness that says it's okay for a stage full of political leaders -- one of whom could end up being the president of the United States -- being silent when an American soldier is booed. We don't believe in that," said Obama to loud cheers and a standing ovation.
"We don't believe in standing silent when that happens. We don't believe in them being silent since. You want to be commander in chief? You can start by standing up for the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, even when it's not politically convenient. We don't believe in a small America. We believe in a big America -- a tolerant America, a just America, an equal America -- that values the service of every patriot."
Gary
16 comments:
Good for him! I just hope that all this 'recognition' is not too late.....for Obama that is!
I also don't believe in an America where it's ok for the president to order assassinations of U.S. citizens without any due process of law.
I condemned it when Bush was abusing the powers of his office; it's just as bad when Obama does it.
An U.S citizen????
Emotively it seems to me he surrendered all righst of citizenship by treasonous activities. . .or does that matter any more?
Justin, according to the U.S. Constitution, due process of law is mandatory, not optional. Nowhere does it say that a president can decide that some citizens aren't entitled to due process. Also, in our criminal justice system everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Two U.S. citizens were targeted and killed by our government without ever having been charged, much less convicted, of treason or any other crime.
And it can't be argued that they were in a war zone. They were in Yemen, not Iraq or Afghanistan. It's a really dangerous precedent to allow any president to authorize the killings of U.S. citizens. It's an equally dangerous (and foolish imo) precedent to justify these killings by claiming that any place in the world with alleged Al Quaida members is a war zone.
I concede your position. Thank you.
Interesting point, gp. Are you saying that White House lawyers were either unaware of the U.S. Constitution's requirements or ignored them when they gave Obama the go-ahead to take out the al-Qaeda operative? Surely, Obama can't make these kinds of decisions off his own bat.
Let us remember that our very articulate and intelligent President was professor of Constitutional Law . . . .prior to his formal political career in legislative and executive branches of government.
Gary- i haven't read anything to indicate whether there was a difference of opinion among all the White House lawyers who considered the legality of these killings. My best guess is that there was a split of opinion, and it seems very few presidents will take the advice of the side that sees limits on their authority. It also should be kept in mind that any lawyer selected to serve as chief legal counsel almost certainly has a well-established track record regarding his/her views on executive powers. Based on his actions in office, I'm sure Obama chose an attorney whose positions on executive authority were, like his, very expansive. I don't think i'm wrong in saying that most credible constitutional scholars agree that Obama has retained and/or expanded on all the claims of executive power advanced during the Bush administration.
Justin, in response to your comment, i don't dispute that Obama is very intelligent and i agree that he's a gifted, articulate speaker. I'm not aware, however, that he ever developed a reputation as an especially distinguished scholar during his tenure as a constitutional law prof. I think he served as a state legislator and a prof at the same time. Between those two jobs and writing 2 or 3 books for the general public, I'm guessing he didn't devote huge amounts of time to intense researching/thinking about/writing about constitutional issues.
It also seems to me that a politician's overall political stance has a big impact on their understanding of the law. Obama, like Bill and Hillary Clinton, is essentially a neo-liberal Dem, not a liberal Dem like Russ Feingold. Neo-libs are much more supportive of business interests, of asserting U.S. influence all over the world and engaging in power politics (sometimes militarily, sometimes not). These policies require that the president exercise a lot of executive authority, unencumbered or delayed by Congressional or judicial restraints. It seems to me this greatly influences how they interpret (or misinterpret) Constitutional provisions.
PHEW, GP. . .that is a large portion to swallow in 3 paragraphs! LOL
Let me tart with this one. . ."Neo-libs are much more supportive of business interests, of asserting U.S. influence all over the world and engaging in power politics (sometimes militarily, sometimes not)"
WHO are the "neo-libs"? Are you pointing at the Democrats here???
T'would seem to me what you write here applies explicitly to the GOP!
. . ."supportive of business interests". . .asserting US influence all over the world. . ."
Methinks you'll have a hard time defending those accusations. . .right?
I am sick and tired of the criticism of the President "for a lack of leadership". . .Seems to me when he does exercise "leadership" he gets BULLY-ed down by his opponents. . mainly and assertedly GOP. EVERYTHING he has tried to lead on has been vetoed/bully-ed by/defeated/screamed and hollered at by those "saviours" of the AMetrican Way of Life. . .yes, by THAT crowd whose sole aim is to get re-elected and take over governing. . .who from the beginning of this administration have had ONE SOLE GOAL: to assure Mr Obama is defeated from a second term of office. The GOP is on record as having asserted that publicly in the House and in the media.
I'd be careful pointing the finger too sharply. . .there are four others pointing back. . . .;-))
Whoooweee....aint this fun fun fun. . ...why haven't had so much fun since all the Micks got drunk at 96 yo Aunt Millie O'Shea's WAKE!
Rowdy bunch! The Boston WASPS found them all a bit too much for their Snob Hill hypocrisy . . . LOL
No Justin, i wasn't talking about the republicans. With very few exceptions, they're essentially neo-fascists, much worse than neo-liberals.
On economic issues neo-libs advocate deregulation, privatization, "free" trade, etc... all the stuff that allowed the '08 financial meltdown to happen. One of Obama's chief economic advisers before he took office was Robt. Rubin, who had been the head of Goldman Sachs & Treas. Sec. (i think) for Clinton. He promoted the hell out of all this stuff, as did Larry Summers. Of course Obama chose Summers to be his administration's chief econ. adviser, on Rubin's recommendation. He also recommended Geithner who had been chairman of the N.Y. Fed. Reserve for Treas. Secretary. Geithner had promoted all the same deregulation/privatization stuff and also totally failed to provide any control of the Wall St. mega-banks.
Rubin, Summers and Geithner are neo-libs through and through. They were instrumental in creating the financial mess that Obama inherited. They should've been the last people you'd want involved in trying to fix the mess. The govt. then dumped something like $300 billion into the bankrupt insurance giant AIG. Guess where all that money went? To pay 100 cents on the dollar for the money AIG owed to the Wall St. mega-banks and a few giant European banks. Meanwhile, Geithner, Summers et al., invested a tiny fraction of that amount to help the millions of home-owners who were losing their homes and being evicted every month.
I could go on and on Justin...
Just a few observations on military/foreign policy. During the campaign Obama said he'd increase military spending and escalate the war in Afghanistan, and he's done both. We proved in Vietnam that it's an exercise in futility to try to prop up a government that's corrupt, that's not supported by its citizens and that doesn't really function beyond its capital city. Afghanistan is exactly the same; it seems clear that the surge hasn't made any significant change in the situation there.
Finally, Glen Greenwald outlines in this article some of the other major complaints that real liberals have about Obama: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jul/21/barack-obama-social-security-cuts
My complaints about Obama are because he's been too conservative, so it goes without saying that i disagree with everything that republicans in Congress have been doing. The republicans have been waging a "class war" against working people, children, the underprivileged, etc. for the past 30 years. They've created the biggest income/wealth inequalities in the U.S. since the 1920's and they're hell-bent on making things even worse.
WoWzzer. . .who'd a-thunk? LOL
OK. . .thanks, now I have a better Idea of where you are heading. . . In this complex world it takes a bit of listening to get the picture.
Sometimes, too, there may be a slow audience. . .i.e., "slow to hear". ;-)
The "slow audience" on the internets has tens of millions of members, moi included. As a charter member, i can say definitively that you don't qualify for membership Justin. You can reapply when you've done lots more solar revolutions and those synapses start misfiring on a regular basis :).
hahahaaaa. . . .Thank you, kind Sir. ;-)
Speaking of republican economic ideas, i just saw this story: this is in a nutshell (sorry about the word choice) their idea of how to promote "freedom" and create jobs: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/cerabino-lawmaker-wants-state-to-reinstate-dwarf-tossing-1898183.html
I just ran across this article Justin in case you want to include it: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44794516/ns/world_news/#.To3O9clCqU9
Coop- count me as one who's not in favor of lower taxes. Pretty much every developed nation in the world has higher taxes than the U.S. and provides services such as education, health care, transportation, etc. more efficiently and effectively than we do. I disagree with where our tax money is spent, not on how much we pay.
We waste hundreds of billions every single year on the military, on 50 different (competing) "intelligence" organizations, on warehousing citizens with drug addictions, on subsidizing mega-corporations, etc. I'm in favor of investing that money in our young people and our infrastructure, not in more tax breaks for millionaires, billionaires and big business. Contrary to republican claims, those people just buy up more assets and invest their money in foreign countries, not in putting Americans to work.
Post a Comment