Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[Beskar]

I see, that's not quite the same thing as jews being responsible for 9/11. Not at all.

The website who you linked from does, however, believe that. I was criticising the source, not Ron Paul himself.

[Fragony]

The website who you linked from does, however, believe that. I was criticising the source, not Ron Paul himself.

Misunderstood you there sorry (although I can't find it on the site). I do not know that site didn't look all that bad. I'll explain myself, got the story from here http://www.nrc.nl/buitenland/article...n_die_van_Bush , a highly respected Dutch newspaper. Translating it to english got me there, my bad.

[Beskar]

Absolutely no problem, I wasn't out to get you. I was just surprised you linked Prison Planet.

[Fragony]

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't put too much stock in public opinion polls, but it does feel good to be back in the majority, even by Gallup's metrics.

[Xiahou]

He has done plenty that I don't like. What, you want a list? Shall we start with the most recent, his siding with the RIAA and MPAA on a "three strikes" law in the US?

But had you posted any of it?

And when I call you "conservative," I mean in that radical, tradition-ignoring, un-conservative social re-engineering sense that we Americans mean when we call someone "conservative." It's what the rest of the world would call, I dunno, "reactionary" or "rightist" or something like that. Certainly nothing that the father of modern conservatism, Oakeshott, would recognize.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Lemur]

But had you posted any of it?

I just did, sunshine, which is rather more than you've ever done.

Meanwhile, another top Al Qaeda operative is killed, which means we will never be able to waterboard him. Cue "conservative" unhappiness.

Al-Qaida leader believed killed

An al-Qaida leader believed to have played a key role in the bombing of a CIA post in Afghanistan last December was apparently killed by an American missile strike last week, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday.

The counterterrorism official said Hussein al-Yemeni was believed killed in a strike in Miram Shah, the main town in North Waziristan. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

Drone strikes in Pakistan's border region, largely conducted by the CIA, have escalated in recent months, proving an effective way to target al-Qaida and Taliban leaders hiding in the rugged mountainous border. While Pakistani officials have criticized the strikes, it is widely believed that Islamabad privately supports the attacks and works with the U.S. to provide intelligence.

Al-Yemeni is considered an important al-Qaida planner and explosives expert who had established contact with groups ranging from al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula to Afghan and Pakistani Taliban militant groups. He is also known as Ghazwan al-Yemeni.

[Xiahou]

I just did, sunshine, which is rather more than you've ever done.

Hang in there, sweetcheeks, I think you're close to a breakthrough. See, when I suggested that you haven't posted anything negative about Obama, I was making a rhetorical point. I have sense enough to realize that even you have a few bones to pick with Obama. Even though you haven't posted anything but praise or defense of Obama, I knew that you can't approve of every single thing he does. You generally approve of Obama, and don't feel the need to chronicle every single thing he does that you don't think is perfect. Now think on that for a minute- do you think that someone might generally disapprove of Obama and not feel the need to chronicle every time they don't think he's screwing up?

Either way, it's fallacious to try and dismiss someone's criticisms or praise simply because they "always" criticize or praise. The arguments stand on their own, yes?

Oh, just in case your head hasn't already exploded- you named one thing Obama did that you didn't like. I'll do the opposite. I liked that he was willing to commit more troops to Afghanistan.

[Lemur]

Either way, it's fallacious to try and dismiss someone's criticisms or praise simply because they "always" criticize or praise. The arguments stand on their own, yes?

Point taken, but there's a certain hypnotic monotony to the way you're willing to attack the current president on any and every point that I find silly. Your insistence that he is killing too many terrorists is a particularly ironic example, especially given the attack you would obviously make on him if he were not killing so many terrorists.

[Xiahou]

Point taken, but there's a certain hypnotic monotony to the way you're willing to attack the current president on any and every point that I find silly. Your insistence that he is killing too many terrorists is a particularly ironic example, especially given the attack you would obviously make on him if he were not killing so many terrorists.

Well, IIRC, you posted some link about the GOP criticizing him for assassinating terrorists. I posted a link to a WaPo story, in an attempt to show that the concern isn't limited to far-right lala land. Some people are legitimately concerned that Obama may be authorizing assassination in favor of capture due to the fact that the administration has no coherent detention/interrogation system in place. The CIA's interrogation unit has been shut down, and as we learned during the underwear bomber saga, it's replacement is not yet operational. You also have to take Obama's unfullfilled promise to close the Gitmo detention center into consideration. The fear is that the assassinations are being carried out for political expediency.

Personally, I think it's great for Obama to order assassinations of known terrorists. However, I hope it's not being done at the expense of valuable intelligence assets because Obama wants to avoid having to figure out what to do with them once they're captured. If they can be captured instead of killed, it may sometimes be better to detain and interrogate them. I think it's a valid concern.

[Lemur]

Let's unpack the host of unspoken assumptions and Fox News-style elisions in the latest:

Obama may be authorizing assassination in favor of capture due to the fact that the administration has no coherent detention/interrogation system in place.

Which implies that there has ever been a coherent detention/interrogation system in place, which demonstrably there hasn't. Even George W. Bush was declaring how he'd like to close Gitmo down for the latter half of his presidency, torture was sorta-renounced in 2004, an ad hoc system has been letting people out of Gitmo since 2005, etcetera. The entire system of detention/enemycombatant status was a fudge from the beginning. The incoherent policies we have now are either a continuation of or an improvement on the policies we've had since 2001. But you state this as though some sort of well-oiled machine has been stripped out by the new kids who don't know what they are doing. As per usual, your argument lacks anything resembling good faith.

The CIA's interrogation unit has been shut down

Every single CIA interrogation unit has been shut down? Do tell. Or are you conflating the Cheney/Bybee/Yoo torture system with all interrogation?

and as we learned during the underwear bomber saga, it's replacement is not yet operational.

What's replacement? And how exactly did the undie bomber demonstrate that we don't know how to interrogate terrorists? You state this flatly, without backup, as though we're all reading NewsMax and Breitbart and nodding our heads to Drudge. It's the blank assertion of rightwing talking points like this that really rob your arguments of credibility. You're taking the assertions of political operatives and accepting them as given truth, utterly ignoring what, say, the FBI has to say on the matter. At the very least you should concede that there is "controversy" over how well the FBI's methods work; I'd cut you slack for that. But to just flat-out declare that the black-site torture system worked and the FBI interrogations didn't indicates that you are either privy to the deepest levels of CT intel, or that you're talking out your posterior orifice.

[CountArach]

I don't put too much stock in public opinion polls, but it does feel good to be back in the majority, even by Gallup's metrics.

One day of noise should not be quoted as evidence of anything... By Pollster.com's rolling average of just Gallup polls their average is 48.4-44.7. Pollster.com's overall disapproval rating of Obama is in the negatives, that's true, but Rasmussen (being an incredibly prolific pollster who uses a likely voter model that is best left out for Approval rating questions IMO - as it is not a reflection of the approval given by a country, just a series of people likely to vote in the midterms, a different subset altogether) forces this about 3 points anti-Obama.

[Xiahou]

The entire system of detention/enemycombatant status was a fudge from the beginning.

I would agree. I often criticized the Bush administration's handling of the enemy combatant situation. They seemed to want a 'make it up as we go and take our word for it' approach with no clear delineation on who was an enemy combatant and who was a domestic criminal. That lack of clarity rightly earned Bush much criticism. I support being able to detain enemy combatants, but we should be very clear about where and under what circumstances we do so.

Rather than casting to broad a net, it seems that Obama may be unwilling to cast a net at all. The concern voiced is that rather than figuring out how to handle detainees, it's much easier politically to not capture any alive. I certainly think that terrorist leaders are better off dead than running free- but I would hope that we wouldn't miss out on intelligence gather just because Obama doesn't want to face the problem. We may never know if that's the case.

What's replacement?

I was referring to this(from Newsweek):

Earlier this year, Obama administration intelligence officials came under heavy criticism from Capitol Hill Republicans for not deploying the HIG to question Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian terrorist suspect who tried to blow up a Christmas Day flight from Amsterdam to Detroit with a bomb hidden in his underpants. At the time, it was unclear, based on signals coming out of the administration, whether the HIG was sufficiently well organized to participate in the underpants-bombing suspect's questioning, which ended up being conducted by the FBI. (The HIG is supposed to be an interagency unit composed of top intelligence and interrogation experts from across the government.)

and from the AP- How U.S. botched interrogation of Christmas Day plane bomb suspect

There was no effort to call in the elite federal High-Value Interrogation Group, a special unit of terror specialists that the Obama administration said early last year it would create to deal with terror suspects captured abroad.

Last week, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said the unit should have been called in after Abdulmutallab’s arrest. But even if federal officials wanted to expand its use to domestic cases, the special team was not ready for action, FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress last week.

Notice- no FoxNews, no Breitbart, no Drudge. Indeed, I think you'd find I never link to any of those sources and generally stick to mainstream news outlets. You just seem to automatically assume everything I post is from the Free Republic for some reason. Pretty much anytime I'm going to post something in the Backroom, I attempt to verify it via other news outlets- if I can't, I usually keep it to myself. If I may pat myself on the back, I think that's a good practice.

[Lemur]

I was referring to this(from Newsweek):

A fair-minded article that does nothing to support your flat assertion that the current administration has no method for interrogating terrorists. From your link:

The suspect spoke openly, said one official, talking in detail about what he’d done and the planning that went into the attack. Other counterterrorism officials speaking on condition of anonymity said it was during this questioning that he admitted he had been trained and instructed in the plot by al-Qaida operatives in Yemen.

The interview lasted about 50 minutes. Before they began questioning Abdulmutallab, the FBI agents decided not to give him his Miranda warnings providing his right to remain silent. [...] Investigators are allowed to question a suspect without providing a Miranda warning if they are trying to end a threat to public safety. [...]

Based on the instructions from Washington, the second interview was conducted by different FBI agents and others with the local joint terrorism task force.

Such a move is not unusual in cases where investigators or prosecutors want to protect themselves from challenges to evidence or statements.

By bringing in a so-called “clean team” of investigators to talk to the suspect, federal officials aimed to ensure that Abdulmutallab’s statements would still be admissible if the failure to give him his Miranda warning led a judge to rule out the use of his first admissions.

Even if Abdulmutallab’s statements are ruled out as evidence, they still provided valuable intelligence for U.S. counterterrorism officials to pursue, officials said.

So the suspect was interrogated and he gave up intel which the FBI claims was worthwhile. Please state the nature of your objection.

[KukriKhan]

Please state the nature of your objection.

Not to put words in Xiahou's mouth, but: with more than 50 minutes, and without Miranda, maybe they'd have gotten more. Names of contacts in Yemen, Britain, Nigeria, rumors of other planned attacks, and the like.

[Xiahou]

Please state the nature of your objection.

It was the AP that said the interrogation was botched. I only brought up the underwear bomber because it was during the hearings in the aftermath of the attempted bombing that it was revealed that the HIG was not yet up and running. Further, the Newsweek article says the HIG is now up and running, but still isn't being used.

The links were only to answer your question "Whats replacement?". I probably should have included this snippet from the Newsweek article as additional background:

Last summer, the Obama administration announced that, as a replacement for the Bush administration's secret CIA terrorist detention and interrogation program, it would create a SWAT-style team of interrogation experts to travel the world squeezing terrorist suspects for vital information

The article itself isn't directly about the assassination/detention debate, I only referenced it because it had information on what you seemed to be confused about.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You don't hold political opinions based on rational consideration. Your political convictions are a function of physiological reactions.

In particular, Conservatives are ruled by fear, and are less capable of creative response to changing challenges.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the impact that politicians' facial appearance has on voters' choices. Another big predictor of electoral success is the policies of the candidate's party. Is it possible to predict which policies will be attractive to voters?

Stereotypes suggest that different types of people are drawn to different ideologies. The liberal is a beard-wearing, sandal-sporting, yoghurt-eating wimp. The hawkish conservative is made of sterner stuff. But do actual voters conform to the mould?

To find out, a group in America invited voters with strong political beliefs to their lab for some tests. On the basis of a questionnaire, they split the volunteers into two groups. The first group wanted to increase political protections, and typically wanted more military spending, warrantless searches, and the death penalty. The second group were more likely to be pacifists and open to immigration.

The scientists then set about scaring the participants and measuring the results. In the midst of a series of innocuous pictures, they showed them a large spider on a terrified face, and a maggot-infested wound. They startled the volunteers with sudden blasts of loud noise.

To find out how successful they'd been at frightening their participants, the scientists measured two things. When we're faced with a threat we sweat a little, and this increases the conductance of our skin. We also blink more when we're startled. On both of these measures, the volunteers who had stronger support for protective policies frightened more easily. It was those with the more liberal outlook who had a smaller fear response.

This isn't the only study which found that conservatives and liberals react differently to surprises. David Amodio and colleagues asked students to play a game of 'Go / No Go' whilst their brains were scanned. In this game, a signal telling the player to quickly hit a button is repeatedly flashed on a screen.

Occasionally, an alternative message is shown instead, and when this happens, players must resist hitting the button. This isn't as easy as it sounds, and the button was hit about two-fifths of the time when it shouldn't have been. But the students who described themselves as being more liberal were better at playing the game than the conservatives, and their anterior cingulate cortices (a bit of the brain which, amongst other things, has a role in overriding automatic responses) were more active when the 'No Go' signal was displayed.

Rather than being solely determined by cold, rational thought, our political views are influenced by our physiological reactions and automatic brain responses. But it's the liberals rather than the conservatives that seem better at coping with shocks. Perhaps it takes a certain toughness to go out in public with sandals and a beard.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/scien...eally-wet.html

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Kind of off topic...but I guess this is the general politics thread.

When did the daily show turn from light hearted humor (how I remember it) to Jon ranting angrily and making sloppily bad political points?

Some time after the election?

[gaelic cowboy]

Kind of off topic...but I guess this is the general politics thread.

When did the daily show turn from light hearted humor (how I remember it) to Jon ranting angrily and making sloppily bad political points?

Some time after the election?

Hmm he was right on the money with Glenn Beck though roasted him alive and ate the fella with no salt

[Lemur]

When did the daily show turn from light hearted humor (how I remember it) to Jon ranting angrily and making sloppily bad political points?

TDS has always been political under Stewart. Hey, comedy is hard; that show has its good nights and its not-so-good nights. That's the nature of the beast. Even The Onion isn't funny every single outing, and they've got a lot less content to fill than TDS.

Look at the attempts to copy TDS. They are not pretty. Comedy is hard.

[Subotan]

Hav I Got News For You is a good contender though



Bit NSFW

[a completely inoffensive name]

Jon Stewart is always funny. If you truely think both sides are completely rediculous you find TDS is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Otherwise, you are not gonna like it because he does point how the stupidity of both sides which turns people away.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Republicans Block Start of Debate on Financial Bill Published: April 22.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked an effort by Democrats to start debate on legislation to tighten regulation of the nation’s financial system, and the two sides traded bitter accusations about who was standing in the way of a bipartisan agreement.
The majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, asked Republicans to agree to begin debating the measure, which would impose a sweeping regulatory framework on Wall Street and big financial institutions. But the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, objected, saying Democrats were pre-empting negotiations to reach a deal.
In response, Mr. Reid said he would call the first procedural vote on Monday in an effort to stop the Republican filibuster. That vote could test Republican resolve to oppose the measure in an election year, amid public dismay over big Wall Street profits and bonuses even as unemployment remains high.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/bu...ef=global-home

Partisanship is at it again.

Naturally, I blame the Republicans.


In healthcare, indeed in much else in Obama's first year, a cooperative tone was chosen by the Democratic party. This ended in public opinion verging on the point of deciding Obama incapable of actually delivering on anything. So this time, or perhaps from now on, a more agressive approach is chosen from the start. I wonder how it will play out.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Blocked an effort...to start debate??

[drone]

If Reid had any cajones (or brains), he would make the Republicans hold the floor for the filibuster. Watch them make fools of themselves rambling aimlessly and sticking their collective feet in their mouths (5 months before the midterm elections). But he doesn't, so he won't.

[Lemur]

Blocked an effort...to start debate??

Unless I'm massively mistaken, that's what a filibuster is. As soon as debate is allowed, a simple majority can pass the bill. But by preventing debate or discussion, the filibuster somehow makes the threshold 60 votes before anybody can discuss the thing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If Reid had any cajones (or brains), he would make the Republicans hold the floor for the filibuster. Watch them make fools of themselves rambling aimlessly and sticking their collective feet in their mouths (5 months before the midterm elections). But he doesn't, so he won't.

I agree with this. If you're going to filibuster, then do it -- paralyze everything if you think it is THAT important. If it isn't then don't filibuster. This filibust by proxy thing is a weakness.

As it is now, there is little or no political consequence for obstructionism (saying "no" just cause its the other party's idea). If you believe in something passionately enough that you are willing to physically filibuster it, AND pay the political price (if any) in the court of public opinion, then it's fair.

[drone]

I agree with this. If you're going to filibuster, then do it -- paralyze everything if you think it is THAT important. If it isn't then don't filibuster. This filibust by proxy thing is a weakness.

As it is now, there is little or no political consequence for obstructionism (saying "no" just cause its the other party's idea). If you believe in something passionately enough that you are willing to physically filibuster it, AND pay the political price (if any) in the court of public opinion, then it's fair.

If I'm not mistaken, Reid (as the Senate Majority Leader), can force them to do it old-school. If he had done this at the start of Obama's term when the GOP first started this nonsense, I'm guessing the physical and mental toll on the GOP senators trying to maintain the block would have exhausted them by, say, July 2009. And then the Senate could actually try to get things done, hopefully with a little civility.

I've said it before,and I'll say it again: Reid and Pelosi need to go. They are terrible Congressional leaders, the sooner the Dems replace them the better.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Republican Governors' Association urges you to take back America. All that's missing is a call to armed insurrection in this video:


http://remembernovember.com/



What an irresponsible party. The GOP is testing the boundaries of what is still democratic. Shameless and dangerous. Sheer sedition. Treason.


'Remember November' alludes to the anti-governement terrorist Guy Fawkes.

[drone]