The Two Conventions: Night & Day

[Ben]

Obama won't talk about drones

POLITICO...


By BYRON TAU 9/5/12 10:47 AM EDT


In an interview with a local Ohio TV station, President Obama refused to discuss any of his administration's targeted killing drone programs, citing national security reasons.
Asked by FOX19 reporter Ben Swann about targeting killings without trials — including the death of two American citizens — Obama refused to confirm or deny the program.
"First of all, you're basing this on reports in the news that have never been confirmed by me. And I don't talk about our national security decisions in that way," Obama said about the reporter's question.
"Our goal has been to focus on al-Qaeda, to focus narrowly on those who pose an eminent threat to the United States of America," Obama said.
But Obama's reticent to discuss the program is a bit at odds with previous administration efforts to bring more transparency to the program — which officials insist is carefully targeted, legal and justified.
The details of the drone program is all but an open secret now and the Obama administration itself has pledged more transparency about the program.
Obama himself acknowledged a Pakistani drone and targeted killing program in a January online chat, when he was asked about it. Administration officials denied that Obama slipped up in revealing the program.
A few months later, Obama's counterterrorism and homeland security adviser John Brennan delivered specific remarks laying out the scope, legality and ethics of the drone programs at the Woodrow Wilson center.
"Staying true to our values as a nation also includes upholding the transparency upon which our democracy depends," Brennan said.
Attorney General Eric Holder spoke in Chicago about the legal justification the administration used to kill al-Awlaki.
And many Obama administration officials cooperated with a long New York Times piece published in May on the program — a story that has become part of the charge that administration officials are selectively leaking secrets to reporters.

[Ben]

Here's the video:

Reality Check President Obama 1-on-1: How does he justify having a "kill list"?

http://www.fox19.com/story/19456470/...ng-a-kill-list

[Ben]

[Ben]

We're only one night into the DNC and Michelle Obama on her own has already bested the entire RNC, not that the RNC put up much of a fight. The RNC had angry old men yelling at empty furniture, Chris Christie reciting Machiavelli, and Anne Romney pandering to women all amidst Ryan & Romney's deep deep dishonesty.

Patrick Deval, Julian Castro and Michelle all had great speeches that spoke to the American dream but the DNC could quit now on the power of Michelle's speech and get a huge bounce. It's just not fair, Democrats have far better speeches and far more popular policies. And of course there's none of the hateful divisive rhetoric that dominated the RNC, the Democrats offered a powerful and positive message that Americans are hungry for. The rats over at Fox News will be drinking heavily tonight.

Well, the difference between Dems and Republicans -- the so-called "political" parties -- is that the Republican Party serve the super-rich -- or 0.01 percent of the population and the Dems -- the Party, that is -- are rapidly moving in that direction.
American politics today is in a state that has no analog in American history.
I mean, Obama, granted, is somewhere in the real world.
But Obama won't do anything about global warming. Which is scary. Because he knows it's happening [he, again, does live somewhere in the real world] and poses dire consequences for future generations.
But politics doesn't work like that. I mean, he's focused on the next 4 years. Not 40. Not 50.
And being part of the structure, well, he has to serve corporate interests. He's totally beholden to Wall Street, big oil, big mining, big insurance...

[hippifried]

Well geepers... I guess we should just blow off the election & choose who will be the most powerful person in the world via YouTube poll.

[Ben]

Democrats parade Osama bin Laden's corpse as their proudest achievement

It's one thing for Democrats to fete Obama's tougher-than-thou national security credentials, but this ghoulish jingoism is warped:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...n-laden-corpse

[broncofan]

There are a ton of things I wish Obama would do but can't because they're not politically feasible. This is the world we live in. If we are going to continue to have what appears to be a two party system it is going to come down to who offers the better choices. None of the things Obama does wrong or fails to do would be fixed under a Republican administration.

[Ben]

Do titanic transnational corporations (meaning: corporations having no allegiance to any country) have utter control over our government? If so then they've essentially become our government. Which, in essence, means we've a private government.
So, if we've a private government, composed of banks, insurance and oil companies, well, how do we hold them accountable? I mean, we can't turf Rex Tillerson out of his job like we can Obama.
So, we've essentially a private government -- ha ha ha! Everything is comical. Especially corporate control.... Or: private government.

[robertlouis]

Well, the difference between Dems and Republicans -- the so-called "political" parties -- is that the Republican Party serve the super-rich -- or 0.01 percent of the population and the Dems -- the Party, that is -- are rapidly moving in that direction.
American politics today is in a state that has no analog in American history.
I mean, Obama, granted, is somewhere in the real world.
But Obama won't do anything about global warming. Which is scary. Because he knows it's happening [he, again, does live somewhere in the real world] and poses dire consequences for future generations.
But politics doesn't work like that. I mean, he's focused on the next 4 years. Not 40. Not 50.
And being part of the structure, well, he has to serve corporate interests. He's totally beholden to Wall Street, big oil, big mining, big insurance...

Ben, you're a good guy and at one level there's little to choose between the Dems and the GOP in terms of their craven approach to big money, BUT, and it's a big but, don't you think that the differences beyond that critical issue, especially in relation to social policy and outlook, are enormous? The libertarians are going nowhere. Ron Paul is going nowhere in terms of electoral reality. When it comes down to a straight choice please tell me you'll vote for Obama. Anything less and it's the dark ages for America, and in your heart of hearts you know that's the truth.

[Ben]

There are a ton of things I wish Obama would do but can't because they're not politically feasible. This is the world we live in. If we are going to continue to have what appears to be a two party system it is going to come down to who offers the better choices. None of the things Obama does wrong or fails to do would be fixed under a Republican administration.

Politically feasible. Exactly. Meaning: corporations don't want it. That's why we've a profound democratic deficit in this country. Meaning: the great gap between public opinion and public policy.
I mean, either we have a democracy or we don't.
Noam Chomsky sums it up well: "... maybe the public wants it, but that’s not what counts as political support. The financial institutions are opposed, the pharmaceutical institutions are opposed. (Corporations count. People don't.)
"This is [a] very revealing insight into how American democracy functions and what's meant by the term “political support” and “politically possible.”'
Ya know, Americans want a reduction in military spending. But they don't count.
Americans want higher taxes on the corporate sector. But they don't count. Americans want higher taxes on the rich. But they don't count.
What about handing the banks trillions of dollars? I don't really recall any democratic debate about that one -- ha ha ha!