The Dumbing Down Of Barack Obama
I think what is clear is that the way the program operated broke the law that was existing at the time,” Obama said Monday at a news conference in Jacksonville, Fla. “On the other hand, what I’ve also seen and learned is the degree to which the underlying program itself is, in fact, necessary to help prevent terrorist attacks.
I was struck by this paragraph while reading a report linked to on the main page about Feingold and Dodd planning to filibuster the FISA bill in the Senate.
I read that paragraph three times. What struck me was the phrase "seen and learned" in the sentence: "On the other hand, what I’ve also seen and learned is the degree to which the underlying program itself is, in fact, necessary to help prevent terrorist attacks.”
Now I remember hearing the idea kicked around that the reason Obama got to the right position on the AUMF and the invasion of Iraq was that he didn't have the "benefit" of those intelligence briefings and reports the Bush administration used to pull the wool over the eyes of the Congress. Since he missed out on the briefings and the inside information, he was able to use his common sense. Anyway, some people figured it that way.
And now we find that Obama has changed his position on telecom immunity and the need for a new FISA, because he has learned something he didn't know when he started running for President.
What? And from whom did he learn it? When?
Here are a few other areas he might learn more about now that he's our nominee.
Progress on the ground in Iraq.
The catastophic consequences of ending the occupation.
The real role of Iran in Iraq and in the Middle East.
Israeli intentions toward Iran.
The date we will all realize the petroleum is gone.
The way the economy really works.
The information we obtained through torture and how valuable it was in preventing terrorist attacks.
The reason excess profits are good.
The reasons universal health insurance just won't work.
Anyway. That's the best list I could come up with. I'm not as up on the real issues facing America and the areas where Obama needs to be dumbed down by inside information as I need to be.
But I'm definitely interested in the subject now.
But what you are leaving out, Billy, is the fact that we would (and Obama would) not have to worry about the catastrophic consequences of ending the occupation of Iraq had Bush not started it.
I like your new avatar, btw. And I'm sure everyone's going to jump down my throat for arguing against just one of your many bullet points, but that first bullet point left an opening that I couldn't resist.
That said, I still like your new avatar, btw.
June 24, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh great, another 5 months of "Hillary made me do it" or 4 more years?
And by the way, Obama already said he'd turn around and head back into Iraq if things got "hot" on the ground. Sounds like our exit strategy has a very large hole in it - when has it not been hot on the ground there?
June 25, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where did he say that? Source, please?
June 25, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recall that also.
June 25, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's nice. Source, please?
June 25, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some debate or interview - "what happens if Al Qaeda acts up" "Oh, we head back in". google it, you'll find it.
June 25, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and your ilk think the clock can be turned back?
We are where we are and what Bush did to get us here has little relevance for the future.
Your argument is vapid.
June 25, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to intrude, Lis!
"The information we obtained through torture and how valuable it was in preventing terrorist attacks."
Consider yourself a high level politician in an anti-US part of the world defending your rights to torture captured US military men and women. After all, we don't have a corner on the word "terrorist".
Still agree?
June 25, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
Would you be so kind as to flesh out this claim of yours:
"And now we find that Obama has changed his position on telecom immunity and the need for a new FISA, because he has learned something he didn't know when he started running for President."
How has he "changed his position on telecom immunity"? Was he against retroactive immunity before, and is for granting it now?. Please provide any evidence that you have to support that claim. Thanks.
June 24, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Liam, come on.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_camp_says_it_hell_support_filibuster_of_any_bill_containing_telecom_immunity.php
June 24, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling him?
June 25, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good link-
Liam, come on
June 25, 2008 2:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Liam, come on.
June 25, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Eileen?
June 25, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I came on Eileen. She complained that it stained her dress.
June 25, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh, all girder rails, not a brain cell in sight.
June 25, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's willing to vote for the whole turd after the farcical Kabuki "attempt" to strip immunity fails. That good (bad) enough for you? Certainly is for me.
June 24, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gratuitous Obama bashing.
Now you are bashing Obama for HYPOTHETICAL flipflops!
June 24, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what that asshole lies for.
June 25, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."
--Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, October 24
If he supports the proposed filibuster, then there won't be any flipflopping.
June 25, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deserved Obama bashing for very REAL flip-flops, and spinelessness on what was supposed to be one of his strongest issues.
June 24, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did I miss the FISA vote in the Senate?
June 24, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
No! The Dems are going to filibuster.
June 25, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
When I'm sixty, I'll retire.
I'll never be divorced.
My kids will never get into trouble.
One day I'll have kids.
One day I'll marry.
One day, I'll live to be sixty.
If I change my mind, or those things just don't happen - will I be flip-flopping? Or lying? Or nieve? Or, or, or...
June 24, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I remember hearing the idea kicked around that the reason Obama got to the right position on the AUMF and the invasion of Iraq was that he didn't have the "benefit" of those intelligence briefings and reports the Bush administration used to pull the wool over the eyes of the Congress.
ka-CHING! I took a trip for a week to see my family and I get back and find out the Obama supporters lost their virginity in that time. It was bound to happen sometime.
June 24, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. Billy is not an Obama supporter. More like a concern troll.
And btw those people who actually did bother to read the intelligence were just as skeptical. Hillary, of course, famously read only the executive summary. But people who read the whole thing in depth noticed it was sketchy.
June 24, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL I'm aware Billy is not an Obama supporter. You can go back to sleep now.
June 25, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
You quoted him and made this comment:
"I took a trip for a week to see my family and I get back and find out the Obama supporters lost their virginity in that time."
Miscommunicate much?
June 25, 2008 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot to show me where I implied that BG was a Barry supporter.
June 25, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, we're all real excited to vote in McCain now.
I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again: Obama's detractors in the primary season painted him as the 'perfect candidate' more often than his supporters did, at least 'round these parts.
I knew he'd disappoint me eventually because I know I'm far left of center on most things in this country. Those who didn't expect a veer towards the center weren't looking at his record or listening to his words a year ago and bought into an idea, not a candidate.
There's still a lot worth supporting in Obama. There's still a lot worth shunning in McCain. So it goes, and goes, and goes.
This is entirely the wrong reading of the issue, because many of the dems who actually bothered to read the information vs. sit in at briefings voted against the AUMF. Many of us on the sidelines who got our information from outside the US felt the same way.As for the list of issues...
Progress is up because ethnic cleansing has occurred under our watch. They're running out of people to kill in Baghdad. The first needs a qualifier for rebuttal. America doesn't get it in general, but what specifically does Obama not get that McCain does? For the second, how should America treat Israel when it bumps up the rhetoric against Iran? I don't think anyone is happy with the answer to that one, but I'm curious where you're coming from, Billy. The past is the past... Also needs more qualification. Needs way more qualification. Way, way, way more. Way more. In what sectors? No candidate is running against profits across the board. Because universal health care won't pass congress presently, and besides that, universal health care isn't worth a toot if it isn't implemented correctly. There are myriad ways of doing it, so why latch on to the first one that's promised during a campaign season and judge all who attempt baby steps as unfit to lead?June 25, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Imageshack shat all over my link re. Iraqi ethnic conflict. In lieu of a better hosting option, please cut and paste this URL into your address bar for graphical edification:
http://waffleimages.nwpshost.com/files/b3/b3b4b4186ce21851de448d6f80fb02b8d09067aa.gif
I am all ears for alternatives that allow direct linking with no registry.
June 25, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's (current) FISA position is not a 'veer toward the center.'
Americans don't want warrantless wiretapping, and Americans hate George W. Bush.
Best I can tell, he's using the Democrats' usual strategy: Appeasing the worst of the Republicans so they "can't use the issue against him in November."
AKA 'abject surrender'.
June 25, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indiex, at least you didn't have to watch. I'm not usually squamish, but this was ugly sex.
June 25, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Still watching... ;)
June 25, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perv ;-0
June 25, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Photos?
June 25, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get back and find out the Obama supporters lost their virginity in that time.
Does this mean ALL Obama supporters? And were they ALL virgins two weeks ago?
Or should I just go fuck myself?
June 25, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy. Your post's flying under the flag of "information," when you're actually saying, "Capt. Obama may be a pirate." i.e. He may, underneath, just be Fast Eddie, man with no principles (other than self-interest.) Ok, fair enough, that's possible.
But your laundry list of issues where O might "learn more" (i.e. sell out) is rather "unsorted." Or perhaps they were lumped together by someone, I donno. But on some issues, I think we can agree it's very unlikely he'll "learn more" through further inside info. e.g. Health care, where he can study Europe, Canada or even Mass. & be able to proceed.
But wire-taps in relation to domestic terrorism... that's a bad-smelling piece of clothing. 1st, It CAN happen. I was in London on 7/7/05, standing at my tube stop waiting... for a train that didn't arrive. Because some homegrown, fish & chip, domestic terrorists killed 56. Same as Madrid. So, the case CAN be made - to a large & receptive pool of voters - that the threat is real.
And 2nd, What if Obama blocks this bill, and a bomb goes off. In Madrid, the bombs went off JUST before the election. Funny that. And there are people, inside US politics, for whom this would be a political godsend - as we heard yesterday. And also, there ARE terrorist groups who want to have McCain.
My question. Under any "normal" set of political circumstances, Obama beats McCain. (Esp. if O plays safe.) He's only really at risk of losing IF there is a foreign policy "event" (in which McCain has the accurate inside dope, while O does not); or IF there's a domestic terrorism event.. and Obama is tagged as having taken away the tools that would've stopped it.
This dirty lil item kindof smears off on the others. Because what would any good, hard-headed political advisor tell Obama? I know what I'd say (& feel dirty for it): "Screw FISA for now, Barack. Fix it later. The Repub's are just nuts enough to do it."
Which leaves us absent the information we need to determine whether he's really Fast Eddie On The Make, or just Barack Obama - smart, idealistic, canny... and very tough. My gut still says 9/10 chances the latter. We'll see I guess.
June 24, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You and Billy are both enlightened, in your own right. Two sides of a coin.
Reality? We shall see.
Certainty? Yet to be.
June 24, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn! I didn't recognize you. But I think that's the best comment I've seen on this topic in days.
June 24, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey 99! Yeah, got the tubes out. Was feeling distinctly less blue, so I went out for a walk. Whamo. 18 wheeler.
I'm now the Posthumous Possumus (earlier post.)
Doc says I'll be alright though. Once they get some tubes into me.
June 24, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I liked the old avatar better. This one reminds me of 'Free Cat' and I got three stray hoodlums keeping me bleeding heart up in here.
June 25, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I keep thinking "Posthummus possimus", which sounds like baklava by any other name.
June 25, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
After last night, it's balaclava for me.
June 25, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't even consider this as the reason. Lots of food for thought in this comment. Totally agree on all points.
June 25, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The best joke in the entire post is the part where Billy refers to Obama as "our nominee." What a fuckin' comedian.
June 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed this is a case that has been argued vigorously by Billy himself.
June 25, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, yes, yes! The new democratic party--we can out-"fear" the republicans.
FISA has not been repealed last I checked, by the way. All the necessary tools are currently available to the government.
Pelkyi Dorje, esq.
June 25, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Dobbs, sir...
I did not mean to imply to you that I am in favor of giving the Executive Branch more "tools that they need," as so many capitulating Asses on Capitol Hill are fond of saying.
I am not. There are way to many fucking tools in DC. Anyone can see that the last thing our government needs is more fucking tools.
I was just tying to point out that Mr. Glad's newfound anxiety is maybe a bit inconsistent.
June 25, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am no Obama basher. I'm committed to seeing him elected.
But those of us who support him need not and should not kiss his ass. Its fair to ask what he has seen and heard that convinces him that the Constitution should be ignored.
June 24, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What part of the Constitution is it that you think he's advocating ignoring?
I'm not being a wiseass. I'm not taking up for him for indicating he'll support this "compromise" even if he can't get telecom immunity out. I'm not even saying there's not a basis for outrage.
I'm just saying that a lot of the outrage seems to be based upon a serious misunderstanding of what rights we do, and do not, have under the Fourth Amendment and how that works in practice. Some people seem to think the Fourth Amendment gives them rights that they don't really have. Others seem to think that Fourth Amendment rights they actually do have are unconditional and absolute when, in fact, they are conditional and somewhat attenuated by Supreme Court opinions.
I was once one of you. I was pretty shocked by all this when I learned it in law school. Possibly, the shock wore off so long ago that I've come to accept things I should still be outraged by.
And no, I'm not planning on doing any blogs on what your Fourth Amendment rights actually are and how the Fourth Amendment works. Instead, I'm lazily hoping that if I allude to it enough times and get enough arguments started, one of the other three zillion lawyers who blog and comment here will be moved to do it for me.
So hey, any criminal lawyers out there? Any law students who still haven't erased their criminal procedure exam cramming from their heads with alcohol yet? Please?
June 25, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been noting some of your comments on these FISA threads, and I see your point. I think a rough analogy might be a given libertarian's position on right to bear, maybe a position that is informed by common sense, some Ayn Rand, and a cursory reading of both the Federalist Papers and the Constitution. On the left we will often ridicule this libertarian's position as ignorant, and with good reason-- he hasn't done his homework. As you point out, there is a massive amount of scholarship that lies a level above the education I noted- law school, sociological research, policy analysis, etc. In addition, as you also point out, ideological purity is rarely practical politically. All of this I grant.
However. In my rough analogy, wouldn't you grant that my ignorant libertarian has a friend in the educated libertarian? Is there not a class of libertarian humanity that is aware of that higher level of education you cite, that has both mastered its nuances and been humbled by them, that has studied and tested policies that could feasibly implement a mitigated form of its ideals?
And let me finally complete the analogy and point to Glen Greenwald on this issue. (This is my deus ex greenwald card I play, to win any argument). And just to be clear, hear I am not talking about liberatarianism or the right to bear; I'm talking about civil rights, the fourth, and FISA. Greenwald would be analogous to this educated libertarian I have imagined. He's aware of those issues you cite, and addresses them head on. And I find him on the side of this issue that is opposite from you.
June 25, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
hear = here
June 25, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
We've seen this plot before:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Candidate
June 24, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
How does that list differ from what GWB or McCain are "teaching"? Are we now pretending that things are just all hunky dory in GOPland?
June 24, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's rather predictable to expect a presidential nominee from either party to run toward the center in preparation for the GE.
but someone please tell sen. obama that running over the 4th Amendment or other sacred civil liberties on the way to the center is simply unacceptable.
June 24, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, if he actually was 'running toward the center', this might be understandable.
The lefty boards are all rife with posts about how Obama just HAS to do the wrong thing now, or he won't get elected.
That is utter crap. It would not be politically damaging in the least for Obama to do the right thing now.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record: Americans hate George W. Bush, and Americans don't want to be spied on without a warrant. This according to recent polls.
Who is Obama trying to please?
June 25, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink