 | Barack Obama Goes Over To The Dark Side |
Only a little bit more than a year after Barack Obama began his career in the United States Senate with the promise of becoming the next generation’s Paul Wellstone, Obama now seems more likely to become the next generation’s wet noodle.
It was bad enough to see Barack Obama defending George W. Bush against the censure resolution from Senator Russ Feingold. Obama sure didn’t look like a liberal that day.
Now, Barack Obama seems to be fully in the thrall of the Dark Side. He’s rushing to the defense of Senator Joseph Lieberman, who was voted Senator Most Likely to Be Mistaken for Emperor Palpatine by progressives last year.
It’s hard to believe, but Barack Obama is actually campaigning for Joseph Lieberman, against Lieberman’s progressive Democratic rival, Ned Lamont.
On every issue of importance, Joseph Lieberman has spent the last five years being George W. Bush’s pet Democrat. Joseph Lieberman has stood against almost every good progressive effort in the US Senate since Bush first occupied the White House.
Barack Obama ought to be ashamed for aligning himself with a politician like Joe Lieberman. It makes one wonder if Barack Obama is really a progressive after all, or if he’s just playing us all for a bunch of suckers.
Fortunately, when Barack Obama went to Connecticut to praise Senator Lieberman in front of a crowd of Democrats, nobody seemed to take Obama’s admonitions to support Lieberman seriously. Instead, the Connecticut Democrats booed and hissed when Joseph Lieberman took the stage.
Connecticut is not a conservative state. Connecticut can do better than Lieberman. This year, Connecticut is aching to vote for a real progressive Democrat, Ned Lamont.
Contact Us
From the contact I’ve had with politicals, I wonder if this is a case of a “they” becoming a “we” or “dancing with them as brung ya”.
Comment by Sarge — 4/4/2006 @ 10:06 am
This doesn’t surprise me one bit. Obama’s “progressive” orientation was always vastly oversold, based on nothing more than his charisma. He is very much in the Hillary Clinton mold — talking a good game when he wants to attract liberal support (and money), but toeing the DLC line when it really counts.
Comment by The Continental Op — 4/4/2006 @ 10:41 am
My disappointment in Senator Obama grows. FWIW, here’s his response to my suggestion that the senate should censure President Bush.
- - - - - -
Dear Frank:
Thank you for writing about Senator Russ Feingold’s proposal to censure President Bush. I understand your strong feelings on this issue. While I share your frustration and anger, I do not think censure is justified at this time.
I agree with Senator Feingold that the Administration’s attitude toward congressional oversight and the FISA law has been cavalier and arrogant. We are a nation of laws, and those laws should be applied to all of us, from humblest citizen to the president of the United States. No president should be allowed to knowingly and willing flout our laws, and I believe the President exceeded his authority with his domestic wiretapping program. The justifications offered – that the president possesses inherent presidential authority under Article II, or was granted that authority in the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force — seem to contradict prior precedent and our constitutional design.
But my and Senator Feingold’s view is not unanimous. Some constitutional scholars and lower court opinions support the president’s argument that he has inherent authority to go outside the bounds of the law in monitoring the activities of suspected terrorists. The question is whether the president understood the law and knowingly flaunted it, or whether he and his aides, in good faith, interpreted their authority more broadly than I and others believe the law allows. Ultimately, this debate must be resolved by the courts.
Also, a censure resolution does nothing to deal with the underlying problem of unchecked executive power. It would not force the president to modify his domestic surveillance program or force the Senate Intelligence Committee to do its job. In order to do that, Congress must reassert its constitutional role in overseeing the domestic surveillance program. And it should bring the warrantless wiretapping program back under the authority of the court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Therefore, my focus is on crafting an effective surveillance program that both combats terrorism and contains meaningful judicial review of wiretapping, which is the most effective way to restore balance between the battle against terrorism and the rule of law.
Again, thank you for writing. I will closely follow the hearing on Senator Feingold’s bill taking place in the Judiciary Committee this week to see if any further information surfaces that might impact my decision.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
Comment by Frank Mullen III — 4/4/2006 @ 6:19 pm
Frank,
Thanks for sharing that letter. It’s a very odd argument indeed: I believe Bush broke the law, but I don’t think action on that is appropriate? Them’s weasely words.
I think the best word to describe Senator Obama is “careful.” He’s protecting his political future, at the cost of the principled present.
Comment by Jim — 4/4/2006 @ 7:49 pm
Barack Obama is a sellout of the highest order.
From backign Joe Lieberman, to becoming yet another pawn of AIPAC and the pro-Israel Lobby, Obama might as well BE Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman for that matter.
If he is the hope of the Democractic party, then abandon hope, because Jenna Bush’ll be president before two-faced Barack
Comment by Kellie — 5/11/2006 @ 2:10 pm
I’m not surprised. So what if he has more melanin than some of the other policos on the hill? High amounts of melanin do not guarantee his honesty or his actual political alignment.
I think the real reason Obama is such a sensation is just flat out White Liberal Guilt. Probably explains why instead of talking about his record and the very notable stands he’s taken recently everyone talks about how “articulate” and “well spoken” he is. Well I know that routine. That’s what has historically been said about any black person who doesn’t scare the piss out of his white peers on a regular basis when they aren’t paying attention to anything but his skin color.
Just my two cents.
Comment by Vin — 10/4/2006 @ 7:40 pm
DIPLOMATS SUPPRESSED DOCUMENT :
It’s the equivalent of another Downing Street Memo… Huge news!, but I’ve found only ONE MSM news report of it in this country, ” Ex-British expert on Iraq says intel overstated “. And Google News returns ZERO matches for that one news report! Imagine that …..
Diplomat’s suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war
The Government’s case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. A devastating attack on Mr Blair’s justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain’s key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act… ( more )
In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, “at no time did HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] assess that Iraq’s WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests.”
Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been “effectively contained”.
He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. “I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed),” he said.
“At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that ‘regime change’ was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos.”
He claims “inertia” in the Foreign Office and the “inattention of key ministers” combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war.
Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict.
The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act.
It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, “there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material” held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. “There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US,” he added.
Mr Ross’s evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be “activated” within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross.
His hitherto secret evidence threatens to reopen the row over the legality of the conflict, under which Mr Blair has sought to draw a line as the internecine bloodshed in Iraq has worsened.
Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment.
“What had changed was the Government’s determination to present available evidence in a different light,” he added.
Mr Ross said in late 2002 that he “discussed this at some length with David Kelly”, the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had “sexed up” the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr Blair and Downing Street of “sexing up” the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings.
Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act.
“Mr Ross hasn’t had any approach to tell him that he is still not liable to be prosecuted,” said one ally. But he has told friends that he is “glad it is out in the open” and he told MPs it had been “on my conscience for years”.
One member of the Foreign Affairs committee said: “There was blood on the carpet over this. I think it’s pretty clear the Foreign Office used the Official Secrets Act to suppress this evidence, by hanging it like a Sword of Damacles over Mr Ross, but we have called their bluff.”
Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons who was Foreign Secretary during the war - Mr Ross’s boss - announced the Commons will have a debate on the possible change of strategy heralded by the Iraqi Study Group report in the new year.
The Government’s case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.
By Colin Brown and Andy McSmith
Published: 15 December 2006
Be sure to snag a personal copy of the full transcript of evidence given to the Butler inquiry ….
WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, WHY, AND HOW ?
We certainly know now that Republicans in power cannot be trusted with the Constitution or the Budget.OR ANYTHING FOR THAT MATTER:
Twice now they just found it easier to go off and make wars rather than tackle the real reforms America needs. Don’t forget that Bush Father also caved in on taxes & spending, once he started his war, just as his son followed the same path. The warfare state always pays homage to the Welfare State.
Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A nonpartisan, international foundation advocating free press and speech rights for all people.Has been under attack for the last six years.
Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President.
Many committees in the House and Senate, without taking any energy away from ending the war, can finally conduct the investigations that have gone undone for 6 years, exposing evidence that could very well lead to criminal, civil, or political accountability, as well as pressure to end the war and precedent to help prevent the next war.
State-Watch encourages the publication of investigative journalism and critical research in the fields of the state, civil liberties and openness,regarding telecommunications surveillance initiatives. Statewatch is a non-profit volunteer group comprised of lawyers, academics, journalists, researchers and community activists. The Global Internet Liberty Campaign is dedicated to promoting fundamental rights in the information society and cyberspace; towards that end, it has campaigned heavily against various government data retention proposals.
We’re sorry, the page you’re looking for has
been moved or been deleted by order of your
government. It is coming if our first Amendment rights
are not protected.
Freedom of expression, speech, and press has been
deluted down to. Yor have such right as long as it is
Politically correct, does not offend the executive department,
and conforms to its way of thinking. You are on my side or
you will pay penalties for it.
Penalties such as 112 Journalist killed, press offices being
blown up. Shot at newly established check points, or fired
if your information is somewhat incorrect.
The rules coming from the executive, influenced by
lobbies foreign or corporate, with no regard for the
people.
I notice, which I hope you have, the Media seems
more willing to report , and under less restraint the
last couple of weeks. Like since the last election.
The caution now remains with the “ownership of”
and influence by outside lobbies, over mainstream
media.
AMERICANS must remain vigilant, in protecting
OUR Constitution. STAY INVOLVED…
Contact the Media About Impeachment Coverage
The Bush Administration has ignored the Constitution. Impeachable offenses need to be investigated. These are two statements that are true, yet are rarely heard via the mainstream American media. We have all seen what complacency in the media can bring. The Iraq War could not have been executed without it. Impeachment is being framed as a distraction or as revenge. It is time for the media to discuss the real evidence that supports Impeachment and leave the opining to the citizens of this country.
Comment by RONALD L. WALDRON — 12/20/2006 @ 1:57 pm