Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion
In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit DiscussionIn a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Obama cites faith as key to change, says today’s headline for the Boston Globe (Actually, it’s an Associated Press article - the newspapers don’t bother writing their own stories much any more).
Is it true? Is Obama right? Is faith the key to change?
Well, gosh, but that’s sure how it looks with the FISA Amendments Act.
Barack Obama says that the FISA Amendments Act isn’t a cover up of Bush’s criminal spying against millions of Americans without any criminal suspicion, any search warrant, or any notification of any court as required by law and the Constitution. Yet, the FISA Amendments Act gives retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that helped George W. Bush break the law, preventing information about the illegal program against the American people from entering the public record. Gosh, that sure looks like a cover up. Oh, but Barack Obama says it isn’t, so have faith, and don’t think about it any more.
Barack Obama says that the recent Inspectors General report into illegal hiring practices is a “strong example” of how there might still be some accountability for Bush’s crimes, in spite of the FISA Amendments Act blockage of the normal forms of investigation. Yet, the Inspectors General report that Obama cites resulted in no accountability whatsoever for anyone responsible for the crimes it describes. Gosh, that doesn’t look anything at all like a “strong example” of accountability. Oh, but Barack Obama says it’s true, so have faith, and just don’t think about it any more.
Barack Obama says that the FISA Amendments Act will stop George W. Bush’s massive programs of physical searches of Americans’ homes and eavesdropping on Americans’ electronic communications. Golly, if you take the time to read the FISA Amendments Act, though, it allows the President to continue those programs, without any actual restraint. Oh, but Barack Obama says that all the spying is going to stop, so have faith, and don’t worry your little head about it any more.
Barack Obama says that the FISA Amendments Act restores the exclusive jurisdiction of the FISA court to control George W. Bush’s big spying programs against Americans. Gee whillikers, though, the FISA Amendments Act that I’ve read actually gives the Attorney General of the United States the exclusive power to both operate the spy programs against Americans and to be the watchdog of those same spy operations. The FISA Amendments Act that I’ve read actually cuts the FISA court OUT of the process. Oh, but Barack Obama says it isn’t so. He says it’ll be okay. He says you don’t have to worry. He says yes you can send him a big donation. So, have faith.
See, with the power of faith, there can be change! The change in this case, is that the FISA Amendments Act and its attack on the Constitution gets passed, but who needs to be picky?
Change is change, right? Who cares about the details?
Yes we can! Baaa! Change we can believe in! Baaa! Hope! Baaa!
(73 votes, average: 3.05 out of 5)
Top Two Articles Last Week
Irregular Times
New Button Designs
65 queries. 0.801 seconds
July 6th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Campaign finance
Last month he announced that he would be rejecting public financing for his campaign, and would instead rely on private donations.
The McCain camp accused Mr Obama of “going back on his word”, although Mr Obama insisted that he had never made a promise to stay in the public finance system.
Surveillance programme
Mr Obama also raised eyebrows when he announced that he would not be opposing a bill going through Congress giving immunity to telephone companies involved in the Bush administration’s controversial warrantless wiretap programme.
His decision angered many of his supporters on the left, who accused him of going back on his 2007 pledge “to support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies”.
Gun control
When the Supreme Court decided to overturn Washington DC’s handgun ban, Mr Obama declared that the ruling “provide[d] much-needed guidance”, despite having previously argued (in a written answer that he says was drafted by an aide and which he had not approved) that the ban was constitutional.
Iraq
Withdrawing troops from Iraq has long been one of the central planks of Mr Obama’s campaign, and was something that set him apart from other Democratic candidates running for the party’s presidential nomination.
Since his campaign began, however, conditions in Iraq have changed, violence has reduced, and some commentators have suggested that Mr Obama’s position is out of date.
Mr Obama himself has announced that he plans to visit Iraq, where he will make “a thorough assessment” which could lead him to “refine” his policy.
Some critics have seized on this as an indication that Mr Obama is laying the groundwork for a change in position.
Free trade
Mr Obama recently hinted to Fortune magazine that his strong anti-free trade rhetoric during the primaries may not be reflected in his actual trade policy should he become president.
His remarks are a neat summation of the pressures and temptations that lead politicians to shift their positions during the process of running for office.
“Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified,” he said.
“Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself.”
July 6th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Paul, you have described only a very small part of the problem with the FISA Amendments Act. Saying that the FISA Amendments Act is “a bill going through Congress giving immunity to telephone companies involved in the Bush administration’s controversial warrantless wiretap programme” is like saying that a giraffe is an animal with ears.
Also, we have not “accused him of going back on his 2007 pledge”. We have observed that he has gone back on his pledge. Barack Obama has not taken part in the filibuster efforts.
July 6th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
We are in a situation where neither the Republican nor the Democratic candidate is suitable for the Presidency based on this single issue alone: McCain is a raving lunatic, declaring that the Supreme Court was wrong; Obama is tap-dancing to “slip slidin’ away” while singing that the bill is better than what we had (which it isn’t).
We need other candidates: neither of these two are suitable. And I’m not talking third party here and I’m not talking Hilary either.
Is there some procedural way to choose completely new candidates at the conventions? The voters need to show their power and to point out that these two guys are both inadequate to the task for this reason alone.
July 7th, 2008 at 2:53 am
Notice to “Jody” - WE DON’T ACCEPT cut and pasted comments here. It’s spam.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Obama will not have a chance to become the president of the United States if he does not become “mainstream”. He knows that and he is desperate. Sure, we need other candidates, a third, fourth, fith party, and having them gaining acccess to all the televised debates, etc. But we just don’t have it right now. Obama IS the man for many reasons, and the biggest one of them is the fact that putting another “Bushite” in the White House will not only be criminal, but suicidal.
July 7th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
You say Bushite, I say Bushlite.
Same difference.