Obama

No, I really didn't expect you to have an answer to your delusion that Obama "compromises" instead of actually fully supporting and advancing the neo-conservative agenda.Re-read Rrhain's Message 71 of 217 (596085).Re-read Xongsmith's Message 191 of 214 (597273).Now tell us, has Obama ever FOUGHT the GOOD FIGHT FOR liberal causes? AGAINST expanding War? AGAINST Torture? AGAINST Wallstreet? FOR Public Health Care? FOR a two-state Palestinian solution?Edited by dronester, : clarityEdited by dronester, : added message

I think in the abstract, the USA, at one time, stood for Democracy, Human Rights, Equality. When I travel, I often talk to naive people who have glowing ideas of what "America" stands for. That is what I meant.However, in actuality, if one is knowledgeable about American history, I concede your point. As you were defending Crash's position, it seemed likely that you were at least content with Obama. If I inferred incorrectly, I apologize. Please expand your position so I am clear.

quote:

---

BREAKING: FCC breaks Obama's promise, allows corporate censorship online with fake Net Neutrality

---

quote:

---

President Obama's Federal Communications Commission betrayed the fundamental principle of net neutrality and sold us out to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

​

. . . the FCC, let by Obama-appointee Julius Genachowski and cheered on by the White House, voted to adopt rules that will enshrine in federal regulations for the first time the ability of AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other ISPs to discriminate between sources and types of content.

---

They're calling it net neutrality, but it isn't. What the mainstream media isn't reporting | Media | Before It's NewsBREAKING: FCC breaks Obama's promise, allows corporate censorship online with fake Net Neutrality | HuffPost ImpactWhaaa, . . . But Obama is a "liberal". How can this be??!!!

Hey Xongsmith,Thanks for the tip, however, I believe I was using the term "liberal" in accordance with its classical definition (as per wiki), and its modern American usage. Do you still not agree?:Liberalism - WikipediaBecause I really hate playing the definition game, and so we don't unduly derail the thread with definitions or semantics at this point, would you still object if I compromised and temporarily used the term "progressive-liberal"?

No response to my post (597519) "Obama's net neutrality betrawal"? Not surprised. For the "many-th" time, Obama has not withdrawn all troops in Iraq. Not even close. Obama is a war-monger, currently: See, your dishonesty in not acknowledging you are wrong is what prompts remarks like this: Here's another item that I am sure you will continue to avoid and/or deliberately misconstrue:Obama Administration Worked With Republicans To Kill Bush Torture ProbeObama Administration Worked With Republicans To Kill Bush Torture Probe, WikiLeaks Cable Reveals | HuffPost Latest NewsNo wonder Bush Jr. and Cheney have no fear of a war crime tribunal and often brag PUBLICLY that they have ordered torture. Obama is on their side.I guess you must believe that Cheney and Bush Jr. are liberals too, right Pops?

Still no response to my post (597519) "Obama's net neutrality betrawal"? Not surprised. My dearest Crash, you continue to debate disingenuously.For the "millionth" time, technically no, you did NOT say "withdrawn ALL troops in Iraq". But when you keep bragging about Obama's list of "accomplishments", there is an attempted implication, by you stating "Obama has withdrawn troops," that Obama did good on his campaign promise to END the Iraq war.However, you know Obama did no such thing. You know this, at the very least, by my repeated corrections: There are still 50,000 combat troops, 100,000 mercenaries, a dozen permanent bases, and a MASSIVE "embassy" that is certainly not being used as an embassy. In fact, this is actually EVIDENCE that Obama is doing his best to PROLONG the US's involvement in Iraq. This is EVIDENCE that Obama is ACTIVELY forwarding a neo-conservative agenda.The above is apparently just one example AdminPD is talking about when she stated about you: (BTW, with courtesy and professionalism, she extended a generous offer to debate this item with you. Not only did you run away from her offer like a frightened child to its mothers apron, but now you call her a liar? Very classy Crash, how proud your parents must be.) With word-contortionisms like that, you could get a job at Ringling Brothers circus. (Try getting the booth next to the bearded lady, . . . her face is sub-par, but the body is reeeal nice!)Seriously, it may very well be impossible for the Bush Jr. Admin to be tried for their war crimes. But only because Obama is ACTIVELY forwarding a neo-conservative agenda and has reneged on his oath to the office.Obama is not a liberal.Edited by dronester, : quote wrongly attributed

Still no response to my post (597519) "Obama's net neutrality betrayal"? Not surprised. This is just laughably specious. Really Pops, sometimes it is best not to reply at all, lest you remove any benefit of the doubt that you are indeed dishonest.Still comparing Germany and Japan to Iraq, huh Pops?The difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is that America didn't immorally or illegally invade Germany or Japan. The difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is the people of Iraq don't want the presence of illegal and immoral occupiers. The difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is America wants to control Iraq's energy resources and politics. The difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is America wants to use Iraq to expand its hegemony among Iraq's neighbors. The difference between Iraq and Germany or Japan is that our occupation is CAUSING instability and violence and the inevitable blowback/world terrorism. This was explained to you before. But as AdminPD correctly said: First: Obama pledged he would END the Iraq war. Not merely reduce it insignificantly.Second: Oh, how very, very, very generous of you. Without any concern about what the Iraqi's want or need, you alone declare, for the Iraqis, that they should see Obama's non-serious micro-step toward "justice" as "a good start."The Iraqi people didn't ask to be illegally or immorally invaded nor deserved to be illegally or immorally invaded. The invasion was COMPLETELY based on transparent lies. The assertion that the US has ANY legal or moral rights to be occupying Iraq is utterly false.If you didn't have a callous indifference to Iraqi's mass suffering, you might consider that since America's illegal and immoral invasion, today there are over one million Iraqi civilians dead, over four million Iraqi refugees, two million widows, five million orphans, inadequate electricity, inadequate clean water, children with chronic malnutrition, etc.. That's not even considering the constant day-to-day horrific violence.But since you don't have any degree of compassion, you declare that Iraqis "living" with the violence that 50,000 combat troops, 100,000 mercenaries troops, permanent bases, and a MASSIVE "embassy" that isn't being run as an embassy, causes is . . . "a good start."Wow.Those three words encapsulates every vile spin you have written in support of Obama's criminal actions in this thread.If you were raised with any sort of basic fairness and humanity, you would instead demand your representatives stop CAUSING harm, stop criminal activity, instigate legal procedures to punish war criminals, demand the US pays for reparations for damages and lastly pay full compensation to the victims of aggression.Now, THAT would be "a good start." So, regarding torture, you are basically saying: "Since Obama can't contain the epidemic, Obama might as well drive the infected monkey to the airport."Sorry Pops, that's both stupid and wrong.As I wrote before, torture is already illegal in every case. It is banned by our Bill of Rights, the Geneva Convention, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Title 18 US Code Section 2340A. You yourself wrote Obama reinstated the Army Field Manual guidelines to interrogations of terrorists by the US military and intelligence services, which prohibit torture.Thus, Obama doesn't have to write any new law (executive order) or even persuade any lawmaker to create a new law. Torture is already a crime.In adherence to the Convention Against Torture, Article VI of our Constitution requires criminal prosecution of torturers. And because Obama took an oath to defend the constitution and laws of the USA, he ONLY needs to enforce the law by appointing a prosecutor to indict all who violated the law.But that won't happen because, as Rrhain, Xongsmith, Oni and I have showed clearly and repeatedly, Obama is not a liberal.

You mean like how you continue to avoid answering the following question? For the third time: Instead of sampling just a few items from my bountiful cornucopia of evidence (as if this forum was some Country Kitchen Buffet), why not specifically address ALL my points Pops? Try again: Yeah, that was/is my point. If you were less selfish, and showed the slightest understanding/empathy/experience from the Iraqis POV, you wouldn't praise Obama for doing nothing to alleviate the suffering of the victimized Iraqis by boasting that his nothingness is "a good start." You say "impossible," yet you still have not shown me where it has been engraved in stone and disseminated by Moses. What work is that? You mean like the work that will stop Child Torture? Ahh, what??? Where did I state that? It seemed Xongsmith eloquently stated, at the very least, Xong and I BOTH want to see Obama get his hands dirty fighting the good fight. But instead of Obama fighting AGAINST torture, Obama is CONSPIRING WITH war criminals (Instead of preventing the spread of the epidemic, Obama is driving the infected monkey to the airport. Get it?). Perhaps a few examples will clarify:

quote:

---

Obama has consistently and willfully RESISTED holding war criminals (Bush Jr. Cheney, Ashcroft, Tenet, Yoo, and Bybee) accountable to the crime of torture. He has OPPOSED a commission of inquiry, FAILED to order a criminal investigation, and successfully DEFEATED all suits seeking damages for victims.

​

At Bagram, when four habeas corpus cases filed reached a US court, the Obama Administration refused to distance itself from its predecessor's blanket refusal to open up any kind of outside scrutiny, stating that "Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position". When the implications of Judge Bate's ruling became clear, instead of abiding by the decision, the Obama administration APPEALED. The NY times declared that the appeal "signaled that the Obama Admin was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight".

​

The other shock concerned a case initially brought by the ACLU against Jeppesen Dataplan. The Bush administration had intervened the first time around, invoking the little-used state secrets doctrine, and requesting a dismissal of the entire action before Dataplan filed an answer to the complaint, and when the case was revived in February, the Obama administration again followed suit, slavishly copying its predecessor, as it did with Bagram example above.

​

However, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just demonstrated so admirably, by setting new rules for appropriate conduct while holding at bay any accountability for the Bush administration’s crimes, Obama is not only shielding those who are no longer in office from full disclosure of their activities, but is also allowing himself to be infected by the same disdain for the separation of powers, and the same endorsement of unfettered Executive power, that was the Bush administration’s most toxic legacy for the values on which the republic was founded.

---

zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.Obama is not a liberal.*(You should have read my original unedited grandstanding text. It even put me to sleep)

With hand-waving like that, you can become the next Doug Henning.Seriously, it seems more probable that you are using a dishonest debate tactic. If my post was unclear, why not just ask instead of remaining silent and having me repeatedly beg you to respond?
The above argument is SIMILAR to all my other arguments: Obama's overt and willful neo-conservative actions directly support corporate world over the public's interest. From my post (Message 217), here it is once again (for the fourth time):

quote:

---

BREAKING: FCC breaks Obama's promise, allows corporate censorship online with fake Net Neutrality

---

quote:

---

President Obama's Federal Communications Commission betrayed the fundamental principle of net neutrality and sold us out to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.
. . . the FCC, let by Obama-appointee Julius Genachowski and cheered on by the White House, voted to adopt rules that will enshrine in federal regulations for the first time the ability of AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other ISPs to discriminate between sources and types of content.

---

They're calling it net neutrality, but it isn't. What the mainstream media isn't reporting | Media | Before It's News
BREAKING: FCC breaks Obama's promise, allows corporate censorship online with fake Net Neutrality | HuffPost Impact Are you referring to my "MASSIVE embassy" words again? Oy vey. I've already CONCEDED that someone who dishonestly takes the quote out of context could, theoretically, willfully misconstrue it as you have done. That is why I went on to clarify it countless times. Oni, and Xongsmith stated I resolved it. AdminPD also agrees, and asks us to drop it and move on. If you can't get past this, stop replying, no one has a gun to your head.Now, how about responding to my OBAMA CONSPIRING WITH FCC argument above or the OBAMA CONSPIRING WITH WAR CRIMINALS argument from my very last post Message 246?:
zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information. Here's a clue for you Sherlock, the Iraqis, not the Americans, are the victims. What your snarky comment really reveals is that you have an ass-backward, racist attitude and hateful contempt toward the Iraqi VICTIMS:1. Civilians are more valuable than troops. International law says so, they are not to be targeted (although Obama illegally and enthusiastically supports the Israelis in targeting women and children with weapons made in the USA).2. Illegal (show me the UN Security Resolution that specifically authorized the invasion. You know, not Resolution 1441, but rather the one that Bush Jr. frantically bribed and threatened other countries to get, but FAILED) and immoral invaders and occupiers, basing their actions on transparent lies, are MUCH less valuable than civilians.3. The radical disproportionate death of civilians versus troops means one should have an even MORE preferential consideration FOR Iraqi civilians. [Grandstanding alert] Keeping in mind the Iraq invasion was /is illegal and immoral, today there are over one million Iraqi civilians dead, over four million Iraqi refugees, two million widows, five million orphans, inadequate electricity, inadequate clean water, children with chronic malnutrition, etc.. That's not even considering the constant day-to-day horrific violence.This MASSIVE Iraqi civilian atrocitieS (millions!) does not compare to the much SMALLER American troop casualties (thousands) that were instigated by Americans.With those three points above, I would think an intelligent and moral person would sympathize/empathize FOREMOST with the innocent Iraqi civilians. But apparently, . . . not you. And I showed you before, REPEATEDLY, Obama's OVERT and WILFULL ACTIONS directly SUPPORT war crimes, illegal actions, corporations over public welfare, and directives against human rights and liberties. (Obama is not preventing the epidemic, rather, Obama is driving the infected monkey to the airport, get it?) See the two examples in this post. Why not address those? "Last Stand"? How about ANY stand? ANY stand. ANY.Re-re-read Xongs (Message 191) and Rrhains (Message 71) posts.Instead: Obama's overt and willful actions directly SUPPORT war crimes. Obama's overt and willful actions directly SUPPORT illegal actions. Obama's overt and willful actions directly SUPPORT directives against human rights and liberties. Obama's overt and willful actions directly SUPPORT the corporate world over the public's welfare.In many cases, like the torture issue, Obama simply has to enforce laws ALREADY on the books, but he won't even do that. Instead, Obama will get involved to allow the transgression to stand (as in the example in my last post Message 246). Obama SUPPORTS the transgression. Obama continues to drive the infected monkey to the airport, get it? Oh, . . . by COMPLETELY changing the OP topic, is this your special way of admitting that you are completely and utterly wrong, and you do not wish to continue the established topic? Hmm, I think it may be yet another dishonest debate tactic. So, before I reply about my activist activities, please confirm.Obama is not a liberal.Edited by AdminPD, : Made links to posts functional.

From Message 249: As to the SUPPOSED invisible and cowardly members who ONLY PM you in your support, how sad that you are in alliance with cowardly pussies. This is an anonymous forum, yet they still hide their avatars. How proud THEIR parents must be. "diplomatic relations." Yeah, that's what they are doing in an "embassy" larger than the size of the vatican. "Diplomatic relations", Good one Pops. Now, did you hear the one about Bush Jr. volunteering at the soup kitchen? There's something on the internet called "Google." It acts as a search engine for items that you are unfamiliar with. Try it sometime Pops (unless you prefer being an ignoramus):Doug Henning - WikipediaFrom Message 249: No reply about this but I am sure an OFF-topic question about my breakfast cereal will be forthcoming. So you yourself will decide what my pertinent facts are. So you yourself will decide what my words mean? So you yourself will decide what my arguments mean? So you yourself will decide what my private thoughts mean? (Well, gosh, with masterbatory skills like that, why am I needed here at all?) The laughable irony is all the while you declare you won't answer my continuing ON-topic items, you simultaneously push me to answer OFF-topic questions like: Nice dishonest conflation: " . . . me AND Obama . . ." Your dishonesty knows no bounds does it? Sorry Pops, I will not allow you to dishonestly use your avoidance/obfuscation debate tactic. When you declare you are horribly and utterly wrong with the ON-topic subject, THEN I will then address your OFF-topic questions. (If your cowardice is as long as your dishonestly, I predict you will continue your OFF-topic questions.) That is why I have been giving you examples where Obama has specifically NOT been constrained by ANY system. (You know, the parts where Obama himself is driving the infected monkey to the airport, get it?) Instead of running away from these items, why don't you address the pertinent point:From Message 217: Crash, "led by Obama-appointee Julius Genachowski" and "promised to defend net neutrality" are the key terms. "OBAMA APPOINTEE." Perhaps, reading comprehension is not a strength of yours? Obama CAMPAIGNED that he would not allow corporations to impede the internet. But when in the white house, Obama backed FCC Genachowski to do the opposite. Corporatism over public welfare. Obama was not "constrained by any system of government, at all", he APPOINTED Genachowski. (Obama himself is driving the infected monkey to the airport, get it?)http://beforeitsnews.com/...et_neutrality,_but_it_isnt..html
HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPostHere, for the second time, is my evidence that Obama has willfully and overtly SUPPORTED the war crime of torture and NOT have been constrained by ANY governmental system. I noted you cowardly skipped this too. From Message 246:

quote:

---

Obama has consistently and willfully RESISTED holding war criminals (Bush Jr. Cheney, Ashcroft, Tenet, Yoo, and Bybee) accountable to the crime of torture. He has OPPOSED a commission of inquiry, FAILED to order a criminal investigation, and successfully DEFEATED all suits seeking damages for victims.

​

At Bagram, when four habeas corpus cases filed reached a US court, the Obama Administration refused to distance itself from its predecessor's blanket refusal to open up any kind of outside scrutiny, stating that "Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position". When the implications of Judge Bate's ruling became clear, instead of abiding by the decision, the Obama administration APPEALED. The NY times declared that the appeal "signaled that the Obama Admin was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight".

​

The other shock concerned a case initially brought by the ACLU against Jeppesen Dataplan. The Bush administration had intervened the first time around, invoking the little-used state secrets doctrine, and requesting a dismissal of the entire action before Dataplan filed an answer to the complaint, and when the case was revived in February, the Obama administration again followed suit, slavishly copying its predecessor, as it did with Bagram example above.

​

However, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just demonstrated so admirably, by setting new rules for appropriate conduct while holding at bay any accountability for the Bush administration’s crimes, Obama is not only shielding those who are no longer in office from full disclosure of their activities, but is also allowing himself to be infected by the same disdain for the separation of powers, and the same endorsement of unfettered Executive power, that was the Bush administration’s most toxic legacy for the values on which the republic was founded.

---

zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.And here is yet another item that shows that Obama willfully and overtly SUPPORTS war mongering, and was NOT constrained by ANY governmental system:Though Obama pledged, as an "anti-war" candidiate, that he would not only end the Iraq war, but he would also "end the mindset that led to war". So why did he stack his cabinet with war-mongerer appointees to influential positions with foreign policy; Biden, H. Clinton, Gates, Blair, J. Napolitano, Holmbrroke, and Emanuel? These people all fully supported the Iraq war with a disdain against international law, United Nations Charters, and international treaties. Furthermore, H. Clinton, (while continually funding the death to innocent Iraqi women and childrenas did Obama), continued to parrot Bush Jr. lies long after truth's were self evident. Yet Obama still appointed H. Clinton to SOS.Obama CHOSE to staff his cabinet with immoral, mentally slow, and hawkish representatives. Obama was NOT constrained by ANY governmental system to do this.Obama is not a liberal.

Coyote,You whined, cried, and bellyached that there are already too many political threads in EvC.Yet you add your two cents in this POLITICAL thread that will just serve to EXPAND the presence of political discussion in EvC?Hypocrite much?

Your previous whining, crying, and bellyaching was not about WHO STARTS a thread.None-the-less, welcome to the thread.

From Message 249 and From Message 261: "to conduct humanitarian work" Good one Pops. Then, pity that you couldn't have somehow originally expressed my wit falling flat AND not concede you were an ignoramus. I do not agree with you. Oni does not agree with you. Kofi Annan does not agree with you. And the Bush Admin. does not agree with you. That is why the Bush Admin. spent fruitless months bribing and threatening other countries to get a security resolution that specifically authorized an armed invasion. But failed. This is just dumb Pops. You see, when you live by spinning dishonest notions, you often make a fool of yourself. The US has VETO powers. The US WANTED to invade Iraq for hegemony purposes. What country would bother to nominate a resolution of illegality knowing that the US would VETO it in a nanosecond? Shame, shame, shame, you are fibbing again Pops. I've certainly NOT agreed he is COMPLETELY constrained by our system of government. Remember: bully pulpit, executive orders, signing statements, cabinet assembly, preferential appointments, congressional negotiations, lawful actions etc.. Indeed, Rrhain, Oni and I have given you many, many, many specific examples of Obama not being constrained by our system of government. In fact Obama has often/usually gone out of his way to act in neo-conservative ways, such as the following additional points you may have "mistakenly" overlooked previously:Here, for the third time, is more evidence that Obama has reneged on his oath to the office. Obama continues to willfully and overtly SUPPORT the war crime of torture and has NOT have been constrained by ANY governmental system. From Message 246 and Message 261:

quote:

---

Obama has consistently and willfully RESISTED holding war criminals (Bush Jr. Cheney, Ashcroft, Tenet, Yoo, and Bybee) accountable to the crime of torture. He has OPPOSED a commission of inquiry, FAILED to order a criminal investigation, and successfully DEFEATED all suits seeking damages for victims.

​

At Bagram, when four habeas corpus cases filed reached a US court, the Obama Administration refused to distance itself from its predecessor's blanket refusal to open up any kind of outside scrutiny, stating that "Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position". When the implications of Judge Bate's ruling became clear, instead of abiding by the decision, the Obama administration APPEALED. The NY times declared that the appeal "signaled that the Obama Admin was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight".

​

The other shock concerned a case initially brought by the ACLU against Jeppesen Dataplan. The Bush administration had intervened the first time around, invoking the little-used state secrets doctrine, and requesting a dismissal of the entire action before Dataplan filed an answer to the complaint, and when the case was revived in February, the Obama administration again followed suit, slavishly copying its predecessor, as it did with Bagram example above.

​

However, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just demonstrated so admirably, by setting new rules for appropriate conduct while holding at bay any accountability for the Bush administration’s crimes, Obama is not only shielding those who are no longer in office from full disclosure of their activities, but is also allowing himself to be infected by the same disdain for the separation of powers, and the same endorsement of unfettered Executive power, that was the Bush administration’s most toxic legacy for the values on which the republic was founded.

---

zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information.For the second time, here is yet another item that showed Obama willfully and overtly SUPPORTING war mongering, and was NOT constrained by ANY governmental system. From Message 261:Though Obama pledged, as an "anti-war" candidiate, that he would not only end the Iraq war, but he would also "end the mindset that led to war". So why did he stack his cabinet with war-mongerer appointees to influential positions with foreign policy; Biden, H. Clinton, Gates, Blair, J. Napolitano, Holmbrroke, and Emanuel? These people all fully supported the Iraq war with a disdain against international law, United Nations Charters, and international treaties. Furthermore, H. Clinton, (while continually funding the death to innocent Iraqi women and childrenas did Obama), continued to parrot Bush Jr. lies long after truth's were self evident. Yet Obama still appointed H. Clinton to SOS.Obama CHOSE to staff his cabinet with immoral, mentally slow, and hawkish representatives. Obama was NOT constrained by ANY governmental system to do this. But, but, but . . . that's not what my grandmother keeps telling me.Obama is not liberal.

My, my, my. My original, one-lined Doug Henning joke was merely intended as light-hearted banter and should not have engendered such a histrionic reply. It seems when you are badly losing an argument, your mental-instability greatly exacerbates. (How proud your parents must be.) I already reminded you that America has VETO power in the UN. With that in mind, what "repercussion" would the US allow the UN to vote for. Be specific.(Since 1967!, what specific "repercussion" has Israel been punished with for its refusal to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 242? Be specific.)Lastly, I noted you skipped over naming the UN resolution that the Bush Admin SPECTACULARLY failed to get from the UN Security Council to specifically invade Iraq. You know, the one where the US bribed and threatened other countries (for many, many, many months prior to the invasion in order to get their votes), but ultimately failed. Please specify that one (hint, it's not United Nations Security Council Resolution 1440). Try again, in your contested list of acknowledgements, you "accidentally" left out "executive orders". For the fourth time, address "executive orders." Here for the FOURTH time is specific evidence that Obama continues to willfully and overtly SUPPORT the war crime of torture and has NOT have been constrained by ANY governmental system. Please address the SPECIFICS of the following case this time and not gloss over it with a not-applicable, generic reply.From Message 246, Message 261, and Message 269:

quote:

---

Obama has consistently and willfully RESISTED holding war criminals (Bush Jr. Cheney, Ashcroft, Tenet, Yoo, and Bybee) accountable to the crime of torture. He has OPPOSED a commission of inquiry, FAILED to order a criminal investigation, and successfully DEFEATED all suits seeking damages for victims.

​

At Bagram, when four habeas corpus cases filed reached a US court, the Obama Administration refused to distance itself from its predecessor's blanket refusal to open up any kind of outside scrutiny, stating that "Having considered the matter, the government adheres to its previously articulated position". When the implications of Judge Bate's ruling became clear, instead of abiding by the decision, the Obama administration APPEALED. The NY times declared that the appeal "signaled that the Obama Admin was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight".

​

The other shock concerned a case initially brought by the ACLU against Jeppesen Dataplan. The Bush administration had intervened the first time around, invoking the little-used state secrets doctrine, and requesting a dismissal of the entire action before Dataplan filed an answer to the complaint, and when the case was revived in February, the Obama administration again followed suit, slavishly copying its predecessor, as it did with Bagram example above.

​

However, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just demonstrated so admirably, by setting new rules for appropriate conduct while holding at bay any accountability for the Bush administration’s crimes, Obama is not only shielding those who are no longer in office from full disclosure of their activities, but is also allowing himself to be infected by the same disdain for the separation of powers, and the same endorsement of unfettered Executive power, that was the Bush administration’s most toxic legacy for the values on which the republic was founded.

---

zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information. I over-reached. However, some cabinet appointees like the National Security Advisor, ARE appointed by the President without any confirmation process.In addition, some appointees serve at the pleasure of the President, also without any confirmation process, such as RICHARD HOLBROOKE, special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.Presidency of Barack Obama - WikipediaNone-the-less, my MAIN point (the one that you glossed over) is that Obama broke his campaign promise NOT to hire "minds that led to war" by specifically appointing . . . "minds that lead to war" (RICHARD HOLBROOKE, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Robert Gates, Dennis Blair, Janet Napolitano, and Rahm Emanuel). Even IF Obama was somewhat constrained, it doesn't explain why all, ALL, his choices needed to be war-mongerers. "Constrained by the senate" doesn't mean "MANDATED by the senate to only do their bidding," does it?Obama signed into law more repeals of good gun policies than President George W. Bush. He signed legislation letting people carry concealed weapons in national parks (Obama refused to appeal the decision and the president signed the bill with no comment on the gun provisions).Obama also signed legislation that allowed guns in checked luggage on Amtrak trains. As the recent Gifford shooting has shown, Obama believes America just can't have enough child-deaths from hand-guns. I'd prefer he "die on the hill" for sensible gun control legislation. Dare I say, so would the parents of nine-year-old Christina Taylor Green.Obama is not a liberal.

Unsurprisingly, the Obama administration continues the NON-LIBERAL foreign policies of former US presidents such as Bush Jr., et al, in its criminal punishment of the Palestinians while rewarding the criminal Israelis. As the US has been actively doing for the past 40 years, the recent (Feb 18, 2011) VETO in the UN security Council will allow Israel to criminally continue building its settlements on Palestinian ground. President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tried to convince the Palestinian leader to abandon the UN resolution.The two-state solution has been brokered by virtually ALL THE WORLD, even the Arab states. But the Obama administration actively pushes AGAINST the two-state solution (as well as against all human rights in the area).The recent loss of Obama's close dictator friend Mubarak in Egypt, has caused Obama to be rightly concerned. An independent Egypt may no longer be bribed with American "foreign aid", and Egypt may ultimately pressure Israel to stop its criminal policies. This would be horrible news to Obama.Oh well, one way Obama will keep the recession down and keep the US workers employed, . . . by continuing to make illegal weapons such as phosphorus bombs so the Israelis can continue to use them against Palestinian women and children. Obama should NOT cut THAT part out of the military budget, right? zcommunications.org - zcommunications Resources and Information. Obama administration rejects Israel resolution, using U.N. veto for first time – Foreign Policy Will Obama Use His UN Veto? :: Middle East Forum