How long before Obama is on the hook?

Whew.  Can't believe I just wrote that headline. 

 For all this time, we have been told to keep our powder dry.  That he's on our side, got our best interests at heart.   For all this time, the focus and outrage has been directed to Bush/Cheney. There is plenty of evidence he's doing the bidding of the military industrial complex, and not the bidding of his constituents. 

Obama has been in office for just over 4 months.   In that time, he has had the time to:

1) Extend warrantless wiretapping, and even extend his claim to that power

2) Defend government secrecy – even exceeding Bush's claims of executive power.

3)  Publish evidence of Bush era war crimes

4) Declare theintention not to prosecute said war crimes

5) Close, then not close GTMO

-calling the detainees 'too dangerous to let go'

6) Reinstall military commissions for 'dangerous terrorists we CAn prosecute'

 7) Continue unabated the TARP program, while doing little to save people's homes from foreclosure.

8) Bail out giant carmakers without requiring the money be used to support jobs at home.

9) Kept key Bushies like Gates on – keeping the previous military structure in place so propaganda can leak out just like before. 

10) Asserted the intent to keep Don Seigelman in jail.

 

How on earth does this look different, other than the party label, than the last 8 years? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've had enough “change I can believe in ” already.  

 

I say no more.  I say it's time to call it – Obama has no intention to carry out his consitutional dutueson war crimes.  I say a tyrant that is calmer, gentler, and more eriudite, is still a tyrant.  It's high time to hold Obama accountable for being an accessory after the fact to war crimes if his DOJ refuses to name a special prosecutor.   Show me where I'm wrong about this. 

 

I'v signed petitions, will be marching when and if that comes about in my town, and call my reps at least once per week.  What else can I do?  

 

So I'd:

1) Pressure him to name a special prosecutor, and if that fails,

2) Mount a campaign to impeach

 

Over the top? Would we be saying the same thing about a president McCain?  I think we would. 

 

Thanks for reading my first post.  

Is the Pony/Pie/Hide rating system too cutsie?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

12 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. When his poll numbers fall below 50%.

  2. the line of succession isn’t very heartening, is it?

    1 Vice President and President of the Senate Joe Biden

    2 Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi

    3 President pro tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd

    4 Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

    5 Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner

    6 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

    7 Attorney General Eric Holder

    8 Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar

    9 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack

    10 Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke

    11 Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis

    12 Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius

    13 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan

    14 Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood

    15 Secretary of Energy Steven Chu

    16 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan

    17 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki

    18 Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano

    via Wikipedia

  3. There is plenty of evidence [Obama is] doing the bidding of the military industrial complex, and not the bidding of his constituents.  

    …that’s the truth. Where the hell we supposed to go now?

    • Inky99 on May 30, 2009 at 4:46 am

    An Early Call for Obama’s Resignation


    With Democrats Like Him, Who Needs Dictators?

    by Ted Rall

    We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.

    From healthcare to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn’t have the ‘nads to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?

    Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now–before he drags us further into the abyss.

    I refer here to Obama’s plan for “preventive detentions.” If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in “prolonged detention.” Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama’s shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.

    In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street.

    Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people’s lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can’t control, what Orwell called “thoughtcrime”–contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.

    Locking up people who haven’t done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to “preventive detention” is an outrage. That the President of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself.

    Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed Bush, I won’t follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.

    “Prolonged detention,” reported The New York Times, would be inflicted upon “terrorism suspects who cannot be tried.”

    “Cannot be tried.” Interesting choice of words.

    Any “terrorism suspect” (can you be a suspect if you haven’t been charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried. Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners “cannot be tried”?

    The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this “entirely new chapter in American law” in a boring little sentence buried a couple past the jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: “Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted.”

    In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that people against whom there is a “lack of evidence” are innocent. They walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in power, “tainted evidence” is no evidence at all. If you can’t prove that a defendant committed a crime–an actual crime, not a thoughtcrime–in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the judge and jury for wasting their time.

    It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush’s lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama shouldWith Democrats Like Him, Who Needs Dictators?

    by Ted Rall

    We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.

    From healthcare to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn’t have the ‘nads to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?

    Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now–before he drags us further into the abyss.

    I refer here to Obama’s plan for “preventive detentions.” If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in “prolonged detention.” Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama’s shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.

    In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street.

    Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people’s lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can’t control, what Orwell called “thoughtcrime”–contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.

    Locking up people who haven’t done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to “preventive detention” is an outrage. That the President of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself.

    Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed Bush, I won’t follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.

    “Prolonged detention,” reported The New York Times, would be inflicted upon “terrorism suspects who cannot be tried.”

    “Cannot be tried.” Interesting choice of words.

    Any “terrorism suspect” (can you be a suspect if you haven’t been charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried. Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners “cannot be tried”?

    The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this “entirely new chapter in American law” in a boring little sentence buried a couple past the jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: “Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted.”

    In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that people against whom there is a “lack of evidence” are innocent. They walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in power, “tainted evidence” is no evidence at all. If you can’t prove that a defendant committed a crime–an actual crime, not a thoughtcrime–in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the judge and jury for wasting their time.

    It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush’s lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama should resign.

    © 2009 Ted Rall

    • Viet71 on May 31, 2009 at 12:45 am

    Obama, like anyone, should be judged not only by his words but also by his actions.

    His actions on so many issues are hard to distinguish from Bush’s.

    The notion that there’s some deep game plan underlying his actions is pure speculation and unsupported by evidence.

    Obama is a big disappointment.  Bigger than I expected.

Comments have been disabled.