Not What Obama Promised

[davidswanson]

In six months as president, Barack Obama has aggressively done the opposite of many specific things he explicitly and unequivocally promised as a candidate. A lot of these were things Obama's fiercest opponents never wanted. And Obama's fiercest supporters favor censoring this information. But if we expect public servants to be public servants, the public must know the facts, make of them what it will.

Here's a video of candidate Obama promising not to change laws with signing statements and denouncing that practice as unconstitutional. In 2007, Obama filled out a questionnaire for the Boston Globe in which he said "It is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability. I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law." Obama now does this routinely. His nominee for the Supreme Court (verbosely) refused to answer a question on the constitutionality of signing statements. She should have asked pre-election Obama to share with her his clear and compelling analysis.

Candidate Obama went beyond promising to sign and enforce laws as written (or veto them). He also promised to take each new bill that reached his desk and post it online for five days before signing or vetoing it, to give the public a chance to review it and weigh in (video). This promise was posted on Obama's campaign website. Of course, it would make far more sense for Congress to take this step before voting on legislation, but the president's doing it would be a good thing. Obama hasn't taken this step with a single bill and has tended to sign them within hours. In the same video, you can watch candidate Obama promise that when a tax bill is debated he will post online the corporations that would benefit. He promised to post online every corporate tax break and every pork barrel project contained in new legislation. He has not done so.

Bush did not just ignore long-standing laws and treaties and rewrite new ones with signing statements. He also invented law out of whole cloth, publicly and privately, through executive orders, alteration of existing executive orders, memos drafted by the Office of Legal Counsel, and the creation of secret programs. Candidate Obama promised to thoroughly review Bush's executive orders immediately upon taking office. Obama promised to swiftly undo all of Bush's executive orders that "trampled on liberty." Obama has had six months and has failed to produce any review of Bush's hundreds of executive orders and signing statements. Obama has overturned a handful of Bush's executive orders, not on the grounds that a president cannot make law, but on the grounds that the new president disagrees with those particular orders. Obama has instructed government employees to ask his new Justice Department before complying with Bush's signing statements, but not rejected those statements publicly on the grounds that a president cannot rewrite laws. And, just as he has written his own law-altering signing statements, Obama has routinely written his own law-making executive orders. He's even floated the idea of using an executive order to create a formal program of preventive detention (thus eliminating both the legislative branch and habeas corpus in one stroke).

Candidate Obama's website defined Bush's use of "state secrets" claims as a problem that Obama's election would solve. Asked about claims of "executive privilege" to keep secret activities of government employees that did not involve the president, candidate Obama told the Boston Globe "My view is that executive privilege generally depends on the involvement of the President and the White House." President Obama has used "state secrets" claims more broadly than did President Bush, and used them repeatedly to keep secret the rendition, torture, and warrantless spying programs created by Bush, including by re-asserting the same "state secret" claims made by Bush. Obama's White House has used "executive privilege" claims to block full compliance with a congressional subpoena by Karl Rove despite Rove's claim that the President was not involved in the crimes and abuses under investigation.

Candidate Obama told the Boston Globe, "I believe the Administration’s use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy – which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center." President Obama continues to propose this idea, while failing to act on it, and while classifying information left public by Bush.

Obama's campaign promised: "Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government." President Obama has signing statemented away constraints on his power to retaliate against whistleblowers by firing them.

The St. Petersburg Times (Florida, not Russia) maintains a list of Obama's promises and tracks those kept and broken. While this newspaper lists some important promises that have indeed been kept, I don't share all of the same priorities (or care that Obama promised to get his daughters a puppy and followed through). And I do not want to hold a president to promises to do things only Congress can constitutionally do. The St. Petersburg Times ignores important issues that I discuss here, but I give them credit for doing more than any other media outlet I've seen. They list seven broken promises (as well as many compromised or partially fulfilled), and this is one of the broken ones: Candidate Obama promised not to hire lobbyists, saying, "I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House." Candidate Obama's website said: "No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration." This promise has been tossed in the trash.

Candidate Obama's war related promises is a muddy area. Many Americans heard Obama promise to "end the war" at rallies and interpreted that to mean something similar to what it sounds like it means. But candidate Obama told reporters fairly consistently that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan. And, while he denied that a president had the power to strike another nation (such as Pakistan) he also proposed doing just that. And on Iraq, candidate Obama said he would withdraw all the troops over a period of 16 months, with the exception of what he called "non-combat troops" and possibly mercenaries and other contractors. Obama's campaign website said that he would "remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." But candidate Obama did not make these promises in terms of fulfilling the requirements of the treaty made between Bush and Maliki, misleadingly often called a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). Obama was promising a speedier withdrawal than the treaty required, and his position as a candidate was that the U.S. Senate should review the treaty. Our Constitution makes invalid any treaty not consented to by the Senate. With this one, Congress was not even consulted.

As president, Obama has indeed struck Pakistan repeatedly and escalated the war in Afghanistan. It would be difficult to argue that the former is constitutional, and the constitutionality of the latter depends on the disputed claim that when Congress funds war it thereby declares war as well. It is on Iraq, however, that President Obama differs most from candidate Obama. President Obama no longer wants Congress to approve the Bush-Maliki treaty, but frames his own plans in its terms. At the same time, Obama has violated the treaty's requirement that all troops leave localities by June 2009 by reclassifying troops and redrawing urban boundaries. The U.S. military commanded by Obama is opposing allowing the Iraqi people to vote the treaty up or down by the end of July 2009, which was a condition of the treaty's ratification by the Iraqi Parliament. And top U.S. generals have openly stated their intention to violate the requirement of complete withdrawal by the end of 2011, without any retraction of those statements being issued by the White House. Meanwhile, Obama quickly extended his partial-withdrawal timetable from 16 to 19 months and made it subject to the wishes of the generals he supposedly commands. Yet, even that slowed withdrawal is not happening, and the Pentagon is maintaining troop levels in Iraq at their current numbers into 2010.

Candidate Obama promised to "end the abuse of the supplemental budgets, where much of the money has been lost, by creating system of oversight for war funds as stringent as in the regular budget." President Obama then proposed a regular budget that included war funds and set the record as the largest budget for military-war spending in the history of the planet. Shortly thereafter, Obama requested a war supplemental bill, which some congress members said they were voting for to please the president and others said they were voting for because it was the last such supplemental. Immediately after it passed, Congressman John Murtha revealed that another supplemental was planned for later this year. The White House did not dispute that statement.

Candidate Obama did not oppose striking Pakistan without congressional authorization, but did make statements on the idea of attacking Iran that showed his understanding that such strikes were unconstitutional. He told the Boston Globe:

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action. As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that 'any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.' The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons."

The Boston Globe asked candidate Obama "Do you agree or disagree with the statement made by former Attorney General Gonzales in January 2007 that nothing in the Constitution confers an affirmative right to habeas corpus, separate from any statutory habeas rights Congress might grant or take away?" and Obama replied: "Disagree strongly." Obama's campaign statement was this:

"The right of habeas corpus allows prisoners to ask a court to determine whether they are being lawfully imprisoned. Recently, this right has been denied to those deemed enemy combatants. Barack Obama strongly supports bipartisan efforts to restore habeas rights. He firmly believes that those who pose a danger to this country should be swiftly tried and brought to justice, but those who do not should have sufficient due process to ensure that we are not wrongfully denying them their liberty."

President Obama has fought in court and made a speech in front of the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives asserting the power to do exactly what candidate Obama said was unconstitutional. Obama is imprisoning people outside of any rule of law in Bagram and Guantanamo, and proposing to keep some of them in prison indefinitely without ever bringing them to trial. He is proposing to formalize such a system and dress it up in "due process" reviews. He asserts the power to render prisoners to other nations, as well. Having promised not to render prisoners for the purpose of having them tortured, Obama now claims the power to render prisoners while promising not to use it for torture, yet failing -- in the view of many human rights advocates -- to justify the practice.

The Boston Globe asked candidate Obama: "If Congress defines a specific interrogation technique as prohibited under all circumstances, does the president's authority as commander in chief ever permit him to instruct his subordinates to employ that technique despite the statute?" And Obama replied:

"No. The President is not above the law, and the Commander-in-Chief power does not entitle him to use techniques that Congress has specifically banned as torture. We must send a message to the world that America is a nation of laws, and a nation that stands against torture. As President I will abide by statutory prohibitions, and have the Army Field Manual govern interrogation techniques for all United States Government personnel and contractors."

Obama also told the Globe: "It is illegal and unwise for the President to disregard international human rights treaties that have been ratified by the United States Senate, including and especially the Geneva Conventions. The Commander-in-Chief power does not allow the President to defy those treaties. The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional. Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional. The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea."

But, of course, President Obama has declared his predecessor and his predecessors' lawyers to be above the law and forbidden the Attorney General of the United States to prosecute lawyers who facilitated torture or torturers who claimed to rely on those lawyers' memos. When candidate Obama went back on a promise to filibuster immunity for telecoms that violated FISA and the Fourth Amendment, many believed he would reverse his position once elected president. He has not done so, and has gone out of his way to continue protecting the secrecy and immunity given to such crimes. Numerous reports find torture to be ongoing (as might easily be predicted for a crime not being punished), the new director of the CIA has stated that the new president maintains the power to torture, and presidential advisor David Axelrod refuses to dispute that assertion.

Obama's promise to close Guantanamo was always a dubious promise, because Guantanamo was never the only location where the United States was holding prisoners outside the rule of law and abusing them. Candidate Obama called closing Guantanamo the first step he would need to take. The St. Petersburg Times classifies this promise as stalled. In Obama's defense, Congress is resisting this move. Against that defense, Obama is not trying very hard and refuses to counter some of the key lies used by fear-mongers to keep Guantanamo open. Another promise that the Times considers stalled is Obama's promise to "reject the Military Commissions Act." Obama now supports the use of military commissions.

Candidate Obama promised to immediately have his attorney general review whether his predecessors had committed any crimes. This promise ignored the then public knowledge of indisputable crimes awaiting prosecution, and ignored the fact that an attorney general has this responsibility with or without a presidential directive. But it was a promise that went in the direction of upholding the rule of law, something President Obama has run from, while Attorney General Eric Holder has told the media he might consider it but would have to overcome pressure from the President not to.

While my own work is focused on ending abuses of power through accountability and systemic reforms, there are many other areas in which President Obama has broken his campaign promises. Obama promised that he would work to renegotiate NAFTA to respect the rights of workers and to protect the environment. He opposed "free-trade" agreements with Colombia and South Korea. Now the President supports such new agreements and has shown no interest in renegotiating NAFTA. Candidate Obama promised to support the Employee Free Choice Act, and while he has not explicitly opposed it he has not as president made a priority of passing it the way he has done with healthcare, and economic stimulus, and other pieces of legislation. With Congress working to pass a healthcare bill that the president approves of but working to gut the Employee Free Choice Act, President Obama's public statements are focused on healthcare. However, meetings on healthcare organized by the White House have generally been behind closed doors rather than televised on C-Span as candidate Obama promised.

Candidate Obama promised to support eliminating capital gains taxes for small businesses, providing a refundable tax credit to businesses that hire new employees, suspending 401(k) withdrawal penalties, ending income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000, creating a $4,000 college credit, allowing bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of a home mortgage, enacting a windfall profits tax for oil companies, repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, and recognizing the Armenian genocide. None of these promises have been kept. Obama has not supported these steps as president. While candidate Obama promised to end unconstitutional violations in Bush's "faith-based" programs, president Obama has moved in the opposite direction.

I voted for Barack Obama for president with my eyes wide open. He refused to promise most of what I wanted. His best promises at rallies were hedged and minimized in interviews. And when he promised specific positive actions, I didn't believe him. But a lot of people did. And a lot of people believed the vague, soaring promises at the rallies as well. A lot of people even just assumed he'd promised things he never had, because he intentionally avoided taking any position. He's even made wonderful remarks as president while simultaneously taking quite different actions. It's worth focusing, however, on the key promises that candidate Obama actually did unequivocally make, and how they compare to six months of Obama's presidency. And, as always, it's worth quoting Willie Nelson:

"And the bewildered herd is still believing
Everything we’ve been told from our birth
Hell they won’t lie to me
Not on my own damn TV
But how much is a liars word worth
And whatever happened to peace on earth"

The lesson is not that you voted for the wrong guy, given the choices. The lesson is not that rightwingers who hate Obama are right about anything. The lesson is not even that Obama has betrayed you. The key lesson should be that change does not come from electing someone. Change comes from forcing our culture to change, creating better communications systems, and disrupting the pleasant existence of our representatives in Congress. But we'll never stop cheering for nonviolent activists in other countries and become them ourselves as long as we believe our role consists of loving or hating an elected official, and one whose job was supposed to consist of merely executing the will of the legislative branch.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. He'a still better than Bush

Just not as good as Jesus.

k & r for an open discussion.

[PurityOfEssence]

41. Why don't ya just lay the bar on the floor?

That's not much of a standard to have to better.

Many of us saw all this coming, and many of us spoke out about it amid the rapturous din. More than anything else, we DON'T have to just sit back and tolerate whatever this administration cares to do. They work for us. Much as they studiously avoided trying to make specific promises, they made some and should be held to them. The vague homilies of their emotional rabble rousing has benefited them mightily, and they should be called to account for these airy intents, rather than left to do as they please.

Maybe people will realize with time what a supreme disservice Bill Clinton did to us all with his third-waying appeasement, but maybe it will take this repeat of the folly for it to be driven home. These are pivotal times, and half-measures and cautious consensus tippy-toeing isn't going to help much.

Yes, he's better than Bush. Yes, he's better than McCain. What's nauseating about this line of approach is that we should be thankful in our pathetic hope-filled serfdom and let our betters do with us as they will.

[Cronus Protagonist]

44. I certainly didn't advocate a pathetic hope-filled serfdom

And you agreed with me that he's still better than Bush, so why add all that other crap to the mix? for the record, IMHO, hope is frosting on shit, and I want no part of it. Neither do I want serfdom and have never advocated that.

[defendandprotect]

102. ...but you're tolerating potential for more wiretapping, torture, and secrecy . . .

and that doesn't lead to "serfdom" . . . ???

[PurityOfEssence]

142. Hey, you ASKED for discussion...

We have been lulled into complacency by the brutal reactionary transformation of this country during the last 28 years into Fuckyouistan; selfishness always was a component of the American character (the flip-side of the self-reliant cowboy persona, and writ large by incipient libertarianism), but it wasn't considered a virtue until the Reagan years.

I want more than just a slightly less corporatist theocracy. I'm not pleased just because this operation is less greedy, monarchic and beholden only to the powerful, THEY'RE STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH. They're not by a long shot, and the chirpy reminder that they're better than EXTREMELY BAD gives me small comfort.

These are supposed to be the good guys. These (the Democrats) are the ONLY realistic hope for us, and when they behave as corporate front-men, religious zealots and warmongers, it's infuriating. We have the right and the means to make these people behave as they insinuated they would, and the constant blathering that we should be thankful it's not McCain at the wheel misses the point entirely: we are not impotent weaklings at the mercy of our betters.

Sure, your missive wasn't all that combative, but it used a fulsome cliche that carries a lot of baggage. If you don't understand that attempting to quell discord by using a shopworn observation can spark some annoyance, you would do well to heed the responses: use off-the-shelf snotty dismissals, and you risk the backlash of ire engendered by all the others who've used the same verbal door-slamming.

Does this make sense?

It should.

If it doesn't, then please be aware that some of us don't consider Bush the norm, and we aren't particularly grateful for anything that falls short of that kind of feudalism.

You weren't particularly snide, but the phrase you used was LOADED with the reverberations of censorship of many less polite commissars of groupthink.

[The Source]

65. Wait... he's not Jesus?

Seriously?

[Cronus Protagonist]

78. I don't think so, but some do appear stricken as if this were the coming of the Lord!

hehe

[leftofthedial]

74. And he's better than Nero.

And he's better than Caligula.

And he's better than Henry VIII.

And he's better than Hitler.

And he's better than Mussolini.

And he's better than Stalin.

And he's better than Pol Pot.



BFD. He's worse than he promised.

[QC]

90. But he's so fetching in a swimsuit! And he eats ice cream! And he has a puppy! n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

120. !

:applause:

[defendandprotect]

101. Rejoice . . . !!! We've stopped the downward spiral just before hitting the deck --!!!

[LWolf]

2. I'd like to repeat this one key line out of an excellent piece:

The key lesson should be that change does not come from electing someone. Change comes from forcing our culture to change, creating better communications systems, and disrupting the pleasant existence of our representatives in Congress.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Ocracoker16]

5. yes, change entails a little bit more than a good leader

Obama always said at campaign events that he would need our help to enact change. He would need us to work in our own communities across the country to create a culture of change.

[G_j]

21. the last paragraphs are very good

they describe my position pretty well also.

[Solomon]

25. Ah but it takes a good leader to facilitate good change.

The fact that he hasn't been able to live up to what he wants to do doesn't mean it doesn't believe it nevertheless.

He now has information that he didn't have before. Millions of lives are at stake. I agree that he is treading gingerly. But I'm willing to give him a bit more time.

His words will force the change to come about even if he is long gone by the time it happens. Just as surely as the words in the Declaration of Independence forced equality to happen.

[G_j]

34. I believe the premise is, people getting involved to strongly voice progressive views

so that our voices have some force.

[Solomon]

38. Exactly. And this is what I heard Obama saying

constantly in his campaign. He knew he was not going to be able to completely move the aristocracy unless he could show quick mobilization of the citizenry. He constantly invokes us to get involved.

[defendandprotect]

105. It takes a leader who is FREE from corporate dictates . . .

a leader who isn't PRE-BRIBED --

[Solomon]

156. Ok I'll bite. Who bribed him? Why?

And why would he take a bribe?

Does he need bribes to get rich?

He said it best, "don't let the perfect fight against the good."


You ain't never gonna get perfect. Stop dreaming.

[The Source]

67. That is on fraking target

I like Obama still... a lot. And I wasn't expecting perfect. Perfect would have been unbelievable. But if he successfully closes Gitmo, passes a public option, and continues to get us out of Iraq... I will have to admit that's pretty damn close. But we def need to make it happen. I don't think Obama will bring everyone home unless we push him.

In fact, why isn't anyone talking about Iraq?

[mistertrickster]

92. Totally agree.

Absolutely right.

Obama isn't going to do anything that he doesn't feel the public compells him to do.

Change comes from the bottom up, not the top down.

On edit--just look at how long JFK dragged his feet before he actually did something for Civil rights, and that was only because people like MLK and Medgar Evers forced his hand.

But wait. Who forced King and Evers to get more confrontational?

The college students in North Carolina who staged sit ins . . .

[defendandprotect]

104. We are competing with corporations which control our government and

elected officials -- if you don't end that, you have nothing.

45,000 corporations involved in war in Iraq!

We are here to educate ourselves and to move information to others --

I agree that we should disrupt the "pleasant existence" of our elected officials in Congress --

the halls of Congress are full of lobbyists rather than citizens!

HOWEVER . . . we have to expand on this idea "creating better communications systems"

while keeping in mind that we largely have a CIA/propaganda corporate-press.

And that corporate press is chin deep in aiding and abetting most of the government corruption.

Our corporate press is largely a propaganda machine -- which we are way behind on understanding.

I'd say look at 40 years of unlikely election returns and how the corporate press has been

involved in those steals.

When the large computers used by corporate press began to come in during the mid-1960's it

gave them not only the ability to report totals -- but to predict winners -- to call winners.

To call states.

Reflect on 2000 and John Ellis/Fox News and that event which triggered a quite noisey election

steal. Look at 2004.

Here's also something to think about . . . while we do have some very responsible people like

David Swanson trying to wake up Americans, we have to understand that there is a lot of trust

in the corporate press still which is undeserved -- actually, insane!

One must understand that mainstream figures like Dan Rather and Keith Olbermann are not going to voice our outrage against the current regime. They will pretend to fight George Bush, Barack Samebama, John McLame, and all of these other frontmen so that we don't look to the men behind the curtain. One way to keep us from being pesky and fighting these folks is to make us think that "heroes" like Dan Rather are already doing it for us. Evil genius, huh?

Also see: Votescam/The Stealing of America
Two journalists did investigate computer voting in the late 1960's --
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam_.htm
James & Kenneth Collier

[LWolf]

153. So you see the media as the "slingshot"

we have to gain control of to take down the goliath insurance industry.

:thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

155. I see the corporate press as complicit in delivering corporate fascism . . .

AND stolen elections --

[Eric J in MN]

3. Obama also wrote that he supported signing statements in 2007.

On Signing Statements, McCain Says 'Never,' Obama and Clinton 'Sometimes'

By Michael Abramowitz
Monday, February 25, 2008

Responding to a questionnaire late last year by the Boston Globe, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) made clear their view that Bush has gone too far in issuing signing statements -- but that there are circumstances in which such statements are necessary.

"The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives."

In her own Globe questionnaire, Clinton made a similar point about legal issues. "I would only use signing statements in very rare instances to note and clarify confusing or contradictory provisions, including provisions that contradict the Constitution," she wrote. "My approach would be to work with Congress to eliminate or correct unconstitutional provisions before legislation is sent to my desk."

Personally, I believe that a president should veto any bill which he considers to contain unconstitutional sections.

However, that isn't what Obama wrote in response to that 2007 questionnaire.

"No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives" is in Obama's answer to the same questionnaire which you quoted. The quote is doubly obnoxious because Obama both supported signing statements and implied that everyone does.

[defendandprotect]

107. And do you support "SigningStatements" . . . do you agree with this?

Keep in mind it is the job of Congress to ensure that legislation they pass

is carried out with the "intent and spirit" with which it was passed!

Where's our Congress on this???

Let's not hide behind semantics -- let's be clear about the right thing to do!

[Eric J in MN]

113. I disagree with Obama.

My position is that if a president believes a bill contains unconstitutional sections, then he should veto the entire bill.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frog92969]

6. Maybe we can do better in 2012

I agree that he's better than bu$h or McSame,
and a step in the right direction (ie: D after his name).

We really need somebody who follows the law, puts citizens first, and admits that borderline genocide is not the solution to any problem.

[Echo In Light]

8. Mmm, no. It doesn't matter who corporate America decides is "electable" for us to "choose."

It's a private club for team players. Trouble Makers not allowed.

[FREEWILL56]

81. Seems to be all too true.

Even bush made us to be of no consequence by throwing elections too. I think this one lied to us just the same and is in club elite too. A previous post said he needs the people's support and must mobilize. That describes a revolution, not a democracy.

[defendandprotect]

109. The GOP didn't begin stealing elections in 2000 and 2004 . . . !!!

Didn't anything seem odd to you about out elections over decades????

See the investigation done in the late 1960's by two journalists from Florida --
James & Kenneth Collier -- re the computers which began coming in during the late 1960's --
Coincidentally, about the time we passed the "Voting Rights Act" --

Some say this secret may have been the heart of Nixon's fears and his break into
Democratic National HQs --

[defendandprotect]

108. "If we continue to do the same thing" . . .

as the saying goes . . . "don't expect different results" -- !!

[hfojvt]

7. I applaud your effort here

although some of it is a mixed bag. I am not unhappy, for example, that he has not eliminated capital gains taxes for small businesses or eliminated income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 a year. So if you have Obama supporters that oppose a promise and others who support it, it sorta depends on who pushes harder.

[foginthemorn]

9. Yes, it is a mixed bag at the moment.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. So you like to over tax the elderly and disabled?

Why?

[hfojvt]

30. What is over-taxing?

If I have to pay taxes on income of $14,000, why shouldn't another person with income of $49,000 have to pay taxes too? Just because they are over age 65? Social security income is already taxed at a very low rate, and then only for people with other income. People over 65 already get an extra exemption too. How much more should the tax system be tilted in their favor and against that of younger working people? Lots of working people would love to make $48,000 a year. A retired person with that income is not filthy rich, but they are about four times better off than I am (at least in terms of income).

[katkat]

79. young and old

If you make $14,000 a year and have no deductions other than yourself, you pay taxes of $132. Plus, you are likely healthy, since you are young.

A senior citizen with income of $50,000 pays taxes of $8,850, and is likely NOT healthy. Even without a major illness, older people cannot even walk as well as a younger person, climb stairs comfortably, etc. Thanks to Congress, they pay thousands of additional dollars a year for medication (which you likely don't need) because they fall into the Medicare donut hole.

Social Security should not be taxed at all. The average person who has worked their whole life has paid more into Social Security, taking into account compound interest, than they will ever receive in benefits. Ditto Medicare. With regard to these, seniors are getting back -some- of what they have been taxed for for decades, the rest is gravy for the government. Obama's campaign pledge would have rectified this a little.

[Mythsaje]

82. Welcome to DU

and well said. I heartily agree.

[hfojvt]

100. not sure where you got those numbers but they are way off

First, you forgot that I pay $2,071 in payroll taxes. Second, I get $6,018 for their taxes even without the other assumption. The other assumption depends on how much they get in social security. Figure that is at least $800 a month, since that is what I am projected to get. That's $9600 (or more) that goes on line 20a. Then for the taxable amount there is a worksheet on page 24. That $9600 IS already tax free, UNLESS the senior has other income such that half their social security income and their other income is more than $25,000.

That's a confusing sentence, but in this case the $9600 would be tax free unless the senior has other income of $20,200 or more. Wow, people with higher incomes have to pay more taxes. What a concept. It's called progressive taxation. There are a whole bunch of other calculations to figure out how much of it is taxable, which is hard to describe. But in the case I have given only $8,160 of it, or 85% of it is taxable. If the imaginary senior didn't have other income of $40,000 then less of the social security income would be taxable. But I am quite comfortable with taxing people like McCain on their social security income.

As for how much a person has paid in, that depends on when they retire. The taxes and ceiling have been going up since 1985 to pay for baby-boomers. Somebody who is 62 now paid those higher taxes from the time they were 37. For the 15 to 20 years they worked before that, they paid lower social security tax rates. If they are 80 now then they paid lower rates for all but six of their working years.

As for the donut hole, you are missing the donut. Because of Congress, seniors get lots of their medications paid for. If they pays thousands of dollars, the government is still kicking in thousands of dollars too.

As for health, that depends on the person. I know one retired guy who spends lots of his time golfing. My dad is 75 and still reasonably healthy. Certainly able to climb stairs, although we were sorta afraid for him and mom on our recent canoe trip.

Obama's pledge would just have given some higher income people who are not working for their income, a big tax cut. Meanwhile lower income working people would still be paying taxes on their much lower income.

[davidswanson]

31. yes

as it should

[Javaman]

10. What??? a politician breaking a campaign promise? Say it isn't so!!!

:eyes:

[mmonk]

11. I voted and was a delegate for Obama, not because I'm an uncompromising

liberal and thought he was too. I voted for him for putting his signature to the following on October 2nd, 2007:

“We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal remedy, we do not tap people’s phones and emails without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power.

"I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from assault by any President."



His signature on this pledge was dishonest. Bottom line, a politician will say anything to get elected and if you believe them, I have learned you set yourself up as an idiot.


http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63

[defendandprotect]

106. Thank you for your honesty . . .

I think it takes a lot of courage to say what you're saying --

and it comes from the ranks -- from having worked at this idea of democracy --

[nolabels]

136. Squeezing hard makes for good lemon juice

Expecting Obama to do much is a mistake many might make. The Establishment let him take office because they knew he actually would do little other than act the fireman. The nice thing with honeymoon being over is that we can all get some kind of bearing on where things are and the roads we can take.

[defendandprotect]

138. My vote went in the spirit of hopefulness against all odds --

Expecting Obama to do much is a mistake many might make. The Establishment let him take office because they knew he actually would do little other than act the fireman. The nice thing with honeymoon being over is that we can all get some kind of bearing on where things are and the roads we can take.

And, I pretty much agree --

but the public is the wild card -- especially, while we're mainly still well fed and mobile.

We have to begin to intimidate Congress -- to wake up America to the immense

propaganda of CIA/corporate press --

And there has to be a viable Plan B -- that is something other than we've usually been doing

where we continue "to expect different results"!

See Wm. Greider's articles on that fairly recently --

and others ---

Everyone wants Obama to succeed, but obviously he's eloped with the DLC which continues to

pull him and the party and Congress to the right.

We need to break that downward spiral --

At least strengthening third parties, understandinging other progressive platform, their

debates would give us new confidence to move the party to the left. And especially

studying the debates and issues and arguments of the fairly recent past before we got so

far moved to the right.

Of course, we also need IRV voting and needless to say Democrats understand the threat that

would represent to them. If they keep taking corporate BRIBES, they're a sure win.

But it doesn't work out very well for us!

[nolabels]

140. Obama eloped with the DLC because of the vacuum he found himself in

The large space in middle was uninhabitable even though it filled with large groups of people it had little power to move anything. It was only natural for him to end up there, it's not that he wants to be there, it is just place he can get something done. He stands there because that's place he found he can stand. He is a creation of the establishment and to change his positions the public itself will have to change the establishment.

It's a nice challenge for us, but mostly it's just unfinished business that was present while Bill Clinton was in office. It's much like weeds in garden, the good stuff can't grow unless you get rid of weeds that are choking the good stuff out. Takes awhile but when it gets going good its rather quite nice :-)

[defendandprotect]

149. OK . . . the first "weed" is corporate BRIBERY . . . let's go --

[nolabels]

166. Locating or establishing a debate and or an exact reason why a corporation are not persons or......

legally entitled entities would be the key here. Corporations will just find someone else bribe if politicians are to be held accountable. Corporations and other cooperatives are a requirement in most any economic system. The idea of giving the right of free speech to corporations when they do not have birth certificates and or could not be arrested for criminality committed indicates they are not legal entities and thus should be incapable of having any kind of rights in popular consent of the construction in any legislative body. Since they are not actual members of the population then too their actual participation in governance of such population should be null and void since they are not susceptible the elements of it's construction. In other words, something that cannot actually be part of reality and is actually only an agreement should not be able effect others that live in such reality.

The Constitution of the United States of America does give any rights to ideas or agreements but only dictates how those ideas and agreements can be constructed. It in such gives no identity to things without substance

[defendandprotect]

171. Corporations don't breathe, corporations don't have a conscience . . .

and corporations don't learn their lesson as we see from the continuous
defrauding of government in Medicare programs by corporations, in pollution
of the planet, and by the drug companies -- to name just a few things
Obviously, they have no human needs, have no human qualities -- they are not "persons."

I agree with you, however...

I disagree that we need corporations -- we don't.
Originally they were raised to do a specific job and then folded.
They were under heavy restriction and regulation.
And we should reapply those terms where they are under complete control of government
and the public.

We also have anti-monopoly/anti-trust laws which have been ignored permitting
the "too big to fail" corporation to rise

When we begin to hold our representatives responsible for the BRIBES they
are taking we may begin to get somewhere!

What difference if we had never had bus-i-ness . . . corporations . . . or
the ability to acquire all the junk they've produced?
Those who have looked at this say that we'd have been ahead in having saved our
planet from this gross pollution and destruction of air, water, soil - etal.

I agree with that!

[mmonk]

147. You're welcome.

All one can do is try and make a difference, even if you keep getting burned.

[berni_mccoy]

12. You're equivocating no results yet with breaking campaign promises, which IMO is unfair

For example, you don't know that Holder *hasn't* reviewed evidence of torture by the Bush Administration. In fact, it's pretty clear that he has, given his recent movement toward appointing a special prosecutor: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/07/holder_considers_torture_prosecutor.php

The problem is there are a large number of promises to live up to and Obama has started working on many of them and initiated solutions for some of them, for example, closure of Guantanamo. Some prisoners have already been released and others are getting trials. The fact that these actions have yet to lead to completion of the promise does not mean he has broken his promise. Bush had 8 years to wreck America, Obama has had 6 months to clean it up and you are passing judgement already.

[davidswanson]

32. what is "movement toward"?

you appoint one or you don't

[defendandprotect]

110. OBAMA has eloped with people who are making policy which prevents change . . .

we need a divorce from the Wall Street gang - the DLC gang --

$8 TRILLION in bailouts while we're being told that we have to become

"Third World America" -- and take a back seat to corporations --!!!

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[johnaries]

24. Yep. Especially the part about signing statements.

Most of his signing statements have been to praise or clarify the legislation. Only in one case that I read did he "refuse" to carry out a section under the grounds that his legal advisors felt it was unConstitutional. And it clearly was.

[davidswanson]

33. sorry you haven't read much

but i included links so you could CHANGE that situation

[johnaries]

36. Actually, I HAVE read quite a bit and also comprehend what

I have read.

You might want to read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6110317&mesg_id=6110317

[berni_mccoy]

45. Wow David, you've really jumped the shark.

I used to respect your work.

[frog92969]

47. When bu$h was pResident?

David's a stand up guy.
His lack of wingnuttyness gets him alot of hatred on this board though.

[HamdenRice]

88. He's right, David. Your post fundamentally doesn't understand the term "signing statement"

Presidents have always used signing statements as part of the signing ceremony and in order to contribute to legislative history.

Bush used signing statements to say that he would not follow the law.

Obama is using signing statements in their routine sense. I explained it a few weeks ago here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5962706

[billh58]

37. True to form for this "journalist" n/t

[Orwellian_Ghost]

50. Be more specific

Take a few points in the article and de-construct David's arguments.

[johnaries]

76. Althugh you didn't reply to me, you can look at any of my posts

regarding his interpretation of Obama's signing statements.

[dysfunctional press]

14. welcome to the real world.

ALL politicians say things to get elected, and then on occasion do just the opposite once in office.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. They are all liars

That is the word, and there is no other. They lie for a living.

[Echo In Light]

17. However, IMO greater blame rests w/those who repeatedly believe the liars

[SammyWinstonJack]

94. +1

:thumbsup:

[cascadiance]

18. Please remind Obama that we DON'T WANT private military interrogations of detainees!

or no requirements to video these interrogations that is currently in the National Defence Authorization Act before the Senate but which Obama's administration wants REMOVED! These are another example of this administration trying to 'quietly' keep in place some of the same flaws of the Bush administration's people that have gotten us into trouble and prevent transparency from happening to keep us from making these mistakes again!

Please go to CCR's page link from this thread and send an email to your senator on this now!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6109642

[johnaries]

23. YES WE DO! We need that information. What we want

is for the interrogations to follow the rules laid out in the Army Field Manual which comply with the Geneva Convention. Which Obama has already ordered.

[cascadiance]

26. Yes, but don't we want folks like the CIA, U.S. Military, etc. doing it and NOT Blackwater, etc.?

THAT is what this petition is trying to make sure happens.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do interrogations, but we need to have it so we don't have muddy rules about what private industrial firms are obliged to do versus what a government employee is obliged to do. Those in the military are subject to military court justice if they break the rules. Companies like Blackwater, etc. try to have it both ways in places like Iraq, where they don't want to be held liable to military courts since they're "civilians", but don't want to be subject to other courts there as agents of our military forces. It's crap like this that will get us to trouble if we have interrogations done by private industry. Not to mention, the private companies profiteer a lot more from us than those hired by the government do too, and profiting in this area serves as another incentive to have us involved with "perpetual wars" or "look for" interrogations we can do, instead of doing them when they are necessary!

And why is this administration against a stipulation requiring such interrogations be captured on video? I think we need explanations why that doesn't work for them. Not just a hushed "no we don't want this".

[johnaries]

27. Ooooh, you meant "private contractors"! Sorry.

Yes, I'll agree with that but Panetta already halted that back in April.

edit to add link: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/09/panetta.interrogations/index.html

[cascadiance]

29. It sounds like they want to allow for them in the current bill under discussion though...

From the CCR's page:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/383/t/4089/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=27695

is this report, there seems to be some "wiggle speak" to allow for ways for this practice to happen again...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/sap_111/saps1390s_20090715.pdf

July 15, 2009
(Senate)

STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY

S. 1390 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
(Sen. Levin, D-Michigan, and Sen. McCain, R-Arizona)

The Administration supports Senate passage of S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The Administration appreciates the Senate Armed Services Committee’s continued strong support of our national defense, including its support for the Department’s topline budget requests for both the base budget and for overseas contingency operations.

The Administration appreciates, among other things, the leadership of the Committee in supporting many of the President’s initiatives to terminate or reduce programs that have troubled histories or that failed to demonstrate adequate performance when compared to other programs and activities needed to carry out U.S. national security objectives. In addition, the Administration appreciates that the Committee included some authorities that are important to field and combatant commanders, such as the Commanders’ Emergency Response Program, the Security and Stabilization Assistance program, and the extension of Contingency Construction Authority.

The Administration believes that the Committee has identified many of the key elements that need to be changed in the existing law with respect to military commissions in order to make the commissions an effective and fair system of justice, and looks forward to continuing its close cooperation with the Congress to further refine any issues of potential concern.

...

Interrogation Duties: The Administration objects to section 823 in its current form, which would prohibit contractor personnel from interrogating persons detained during or in the aftermath of hostilities under any circumstances. In some limited cases, a contract interrogator may possess the best combination of skills to obtain critical intelligence and this provision, therefore, could prevent U.S. Forces from conducting lawful interrogations in the most effective manner. The Administration fully supports the application of ordinary Defense Department rules and regulations to contractors engaged in interrogations (as contemplated in subsection (a)(2) of the current section 823), and could support a revised version of the section that would apply such provisions to contractors who participate in interrogations. The Administration also would object to any amendment requiring video recording of all intelligence interrogations. Although the Administration is open to studying a possible video recording requirement, implementing a mandatory requirement at this time would be imprudent, unduly burdensome, and could risk significant unintended consequences in current and future military operations.

...

Sorry, did leave the "contractor" word out of my previous subject line by mistake... Understand your confusion now...

[johnaries]

39. Well, the key phrase is "under ANY circumstance".

I can see where a private professional (such as a psychologist or a cultural expert) or some private individual with specific skill-sets might be contracted because they could get better results.

The important thing is the statement "The Administration fully supports the application of ordinary Defense Department rules and regulations to contractors engaged in interrogations". Which means NO TORTURE by ANYONE.

I'm certain they don't have Blackwater in mind for these "limited cases".

[cascadiance]

40. I think the key thing is to not find these are "outs" buried in John Yoo-style legalese...

I've not myself studied the details of this as much as probably I should. I'm hoping that CCR is looking at them more in depth. But the radar flag goes up. It's the same kind of logic that is also used to justify continuing the H-1B Visa program to allow companies to get cheap labor (that they need certain people with certain kinds of expertise, which is another legalese crock and not of course why most companies really use H-1B).

They've had over 6 months now to figure out how to properly frame the requirements for videotaping. It sounds like they're saying that its "too early" to make this requirement. Well, they should have thought through how they are going to do this by now in the way that they feel its appropriate and stated that here. It's kind of like the excuse we get when they were continuing to use state secrets privilege to stop certain civil cases in their tracks the way the Bush administration did earlier. At some point, a decent leadership has people tasked how to change the system to deliver on promises and still do the needed things, or at least have a well thought through argument of what the issues are and state that for the record.

[defendandprotect]

111. Yes -- 45,000 private contractors in Iraq alone . . . !!! Privatizing military . . .

Keep in mind, it's not only our domestic downfall to have policy made

by private corporations over the needs of the citizens --

It's also our downfall to have military contractors owning our elected representatives!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. Promises are to politicians what holes are to donuts. Makes 'em look pretty but worthless.

[latebloomer]

20. Very good summary

Thanks!!

[Orsino]

22. There's too much suck in Congress for one election to heal.

Keep changing minds, keep trading up with our representatives.

[bigwillq]

28. Wow, a politician not keeping promises.

Shocker! Why did people think Obama was going to be any different? :shrug: He's just a typical politician. Granted, better than No. 43, but a politician nonetheless.

[denem]

35. "Emperor Barack"? I don't give much credence to a writer

who routine refers to Barack Obama as 'Emperor'. EOM.

[redqueen]

125. Who called him "Emperor"? (nt)

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

42. I don't think Jesus Christ himself could meet your expectations of perfection...

Do you meet the all of the expections that are made on you? I know I've failed. It's called living in the real world and being human. Interestingly enough, those who truly care for me usually give me a second chance. Take that whatever way you want.
Twisting ones own panties sure is a favorite past time around here.

unrecced

[Orwellian_Ghost]

51. Nothing to do with perfection

You avoided every single salient point the man made instead using the red herring of "you want perfection." That's quite expected but completely unexcusable. You are simply sticking your fingers in your ears like a petulant child who does not want to hear the truth.

[defendandprotect]

114. ... the "pony" argument again -- ??

Being "human" would demand an immediate end to these wars --
45,000 private contractors --
1.3 million Iraqi citizens dead --

[gimama]

43. Extra points for quoting Willie Nelson..

DS, YOU are doing great Work, just had to tell You,again.
Now back to MY Work, calling/emailing OUR elected employees.
PEACE ~===]

[johnaries]

46. Question: are you the same David Swanson

that is referred to in this diary post at dkos?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/20/751956/-President-Obama-Has-NOT-Broken-His-Promise-re-Signing-Statements

Hmmm....

[davidswanson]

48. you've misread 6 signing statements

Look at how the latest war supplemental funding bill was passed. The Emperor's people wrote most of the bill. The Emperor combined it with the IMF banker bailout. The Emperor threatened and bribed his way to deals with enough congress members to pass it. The Emperor preemptively told other nations the bill would pass and then badgered congress with the claim that this nation (He, the nation) would be damaged if he turned out to have lied. The Emperor lied to congress members and the public that this would be the last war supplemental bill. Congress members claimed to back it because it was the last one (not that this made the slightest sense), and others openly, proudly, and obliviously declared that they were switching their votes to yes in order to please the Emperor.

When the bill came to Emperor Barack he signed it and released his sixth and only legal signing statement announcing that he'd signed it. Two days later (Fridays being the favored day for signing statements) Obama released his seventh signing statement, claiming to have signed the same bill on that day as well, but perhaps beginning to establish the precedent that "signing statements," like "executive orders," can be issued at any time.

The seventh signing statement did what the first five had done: it illegally and unconstitutionally altered the law in favor of bestowing illegal powers on the Emperor. The seven statements are posted here. Here's the heart of the seventh statement:

"

rovisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403 and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations."

An executive would be someone who executed the laws of congress, suggesting that a different capitalized E word is actually intended, that "Executive" is now a stand-in for "Emperor." Similarly, "constitutional" in this context refers to dictionary.com's third definition of "constitution", namely "the aggregate of a person's physical and psychological characteristics." In other words, "constitutional authority" is "imperial authority" derived from the character of the Emperor. We know this because the U.S. Constitution does not create any presidential authority to conduct foreign relations (only to "receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers") but does require the advice and consent and two-thirds approval of the Senate in order to make treaties, and does give congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign nations" as well as complete power over the raising and spending of public funds, not to mention the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

The sections of this latest law tossed out by Obama were ploys to win the bill's passage, including requirements that he work to strengthen labor and environmental standards at, and report to congress on the activities of, the IMF and the World Bank. Unlike an emperor, an executive would be required by the U.S. Constitution to "take Care that the Laws by faithfully executed," stated by candidate Barack Obama thus:

"I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law."

Obama's first signing statement made part of the law his right to use the hundreds of billions of dollars appropriated in that bill in "new" and "far-reaching" ways that he would "initiate," as well as the understanding that an "oversight board" created by the executive branch -- rather than congress -- would oversee the activities of the executive branch, or as Obama calls it "the Federal Government."

Obama's second signing statement declared his intention to violate dozens of sections of the law he was signing, including sections providing for the spending of funds, sections related to the creation of international treaties, and sections restricting retaliation against whistleblowers.

Obama's third signing statement, on the "Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009," announced his intention to violate requirements in the law related to the appointment of a government commission.

Obama's fourth signing statement, on a bill creating a "Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission" threw out a requirement that the Emperor provide that commission with information.

Obama's fifth signing statement was applied to a bill that created a commission and included on it six members of congress. The signing statement declared that those six commission members ...

"will be able to participate only in ceremonial or advisory functions of Commission, and not in matters involving the administration of the act."

Is it time to stop endlessly being "shocked" by these yet? Obama, like Bush, argues in his signing statements that the sections of law he intends to violate are unconstitutional. The problem is not that either one of these presidents is necessarily always wrong or that such questions can ever be decided to everyone's satisfaction. The problem is that the Constitution requires the president to veto a bill or sign and faithfully execute it. The time to argue against the constitutionality of a provision is before a bill is passed or upon vetoing it. Such an argument can even be made upon signing a bill. It just can't be accompanied by a declaration of the power to violate the law.

Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton made innovations in the abuse of signing statements without which Bush Jr. could not have done what he did. Now Obama is further advancing the genre. At some point, of course -- as Germans once learned (and learned before nukes or climate crises were on the table) -- it can become too late to act.

http://www.davidswanson.org

[scentopine]

60. Damn funny reply - folks he is easily one of the best at DU

"...An executive would be someone who executed the laws of congress, suggesting that a different capitalized E word is actually intended, that "Executive" is now a stand-in for "Emperor." Similarly, "constitutional" in this context refers to dictionary.com's third definition of "constitution", namely "the aggregate of a person's physical and psychological characteristics." In other words, "constitutional authority" is "imperial authority" derived from the character of the Emperor."

Excellent. Thanks for making me laugh and being even a small thorn in the side of the Obamanauts. Great job defending your position, as well as laying down the ground work and sticking to principal. You are one of the most informed, insightful and principled writers we have. Helps keep me sane amid the "Yeah! Obama's approval rating is 59% Woot!" crowd.

[johnaries]

72. Well, it WOULD be funny if he weren't serious.

Come on, equating "Executive" with "Emperor" simply because of a capitalization? And that nonsense about the definition of "constitution"? Ravings of an obvious lunatic.

Sad, because if he's the same David Swanson of Democrats.com he has done some excellent work in the past that I will applaud him for. But it looks like he misses having Bush to attack and so projects onto Obama.

[johnaries]

61. You must be insane. Or you can't read. Or you're just paranoid.

Obama's first signing statement made part of the law his right to use the hundreds of billions of dollars appropriated in that bill in "new" and "far-reaching" ways that he would "initiate," as well as the understanding that an "oversight board" created by the executive branch -- rather than congress -- would oversee the activities of the executive branch, or as Obama calls it "the Federal Government."

You are cherry-picking. Here is the "offending" paragraph (emphasis added).

"My Administration will initiate new, far-reaching measures to help ensure that every dollar
spent in this historic legislation is spent wisely and for its intended purpose. The Federal
Government will be held to new standards of transparency and accountability. The legislation
includes no earmarks. An oversight board will be charged with monitoring our progress as part
of an unprecedented effort to root out waste and inefficiency. This board will be advised by
experts—not just Government experts, not just politicians, but also citizens with years of
expertise in management, economics, and accounting."

Sounds to me like the board is intended to be independent of both Congress and the Executive Branch. The entire statement is just reassuring us that he will spend the money wisely AND "and for its intended purpose".

Obama's second signing statement declared his intention to violate dozens of sections of the law he was signing, including sections providing for the spending of funds, sections related to the creation of international treaties, and sections restricting retaliation against whistleblowers.

The first 2 bulleted points of the statement refer to Constitutional powers in which the President acts with the "advice and consent" of Congress. However, in this legislation Congress was reaching beyond advice and consent into dictating terms. The Constitution clearly gives the power of negotiating terms to the President. Then and ONLY then can Congress reject the terms. The other 2 bullet points are very similar. In each case the Congress is reaching beyond it's Constitutional authority. With Bush's signing statements, the opposite was true.

Obama's third signing statement, on the "Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009," announced his intention to violate requirements in the law related to the appointment of a government commission

What the signing statement actually says is:
"Section 8203 of the Act provides that the Secretary of the Interior shall appoint certain
members of the Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor Commission "based on
recommendations from each member of the House of Representatives, the district of which
encompasses the Corridor." Because it would be an impermissible restriction on the
appointment power to condition the Secretary's appointments on the recommendations of
members of the House, I will construe these provisions to require the Secretary to consider
such congressional recommendations, but not to be bound by them in making appointments to
the Commission."

Again, advice and consent vs. dictating terms. Once again, Obama has it right.

Obama's fourth signing statement, on a bill creating a "Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission" threw out a requirement that the Emperor provide that commission with information.

"Threw out"? Hardly. What it simply says is:
"As my Administration communicated to the Congress during the
legislative process, the executive branch will construe this subsection of the bill not to abrogate
any constitutional privilege."

So, first of all, he talked this over with Congress to begin with. Otherwise he simply says he will do it within the Constitution.

Finally:

Obama's fifth signing statement was applied to a bill that created a commission and included on it six members of congress. The signing statement declared that those six commission members ...

This is a bill about building the Reagan Memorial!!!!!!!!!! You're trying to make a big deal out of the way he wants to build a fucking memorial? I won't even dignify this one with a response.

You don't even mention his last 2 signing statements. The 6th was a simply pat on the back to Congress for signing it. The 7th you might object to because of this paragraph:
"However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403
and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign
relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with
international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the
Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting
my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations."

But, again, it falls under the category of "advice and consent" vs. dictating terms.

Now, Which of us "misread" them? I think you read a lot into them that simply wasn't there.

Bush used his signing statements to grab power unConstitutionally. Obama is protecting his Constitutionally granted powers. BIG fucking difference.

[onenote]

73. let's give him the benefit of the doubt (undeserved) and say he can't read

Here is the entire text of the first signing statement,.. the one that allegedly usurps the power to take the money appropriate by Congress in the recovery act and spend it willy nilly however he sees fit. If you can find that statement, or anything approaching that statement, in the following text, you need a lesson in reading comprehension:

February 17, 2009

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." The Act provides a direct fiscal boost to help lift our Nation from the greatest economic crisis in our lifetimes and lay the foundation for further growth. This recovery plan will help to save or create as many as three to four million jobs by the end of 2010, the vast majority of them in the private sector. It will make the most significant investment in America's roads, bridges, mass transit, and other infrastructure since the construction of the interstate highway system. It will make investments to foster reform in education, double renewable energy while fostering efficiency in the use of our energy, and improve quality while bringing down costs in healthcare. Middle-class families will get tax cuts and the most vulnerable will get the largest increase in assistance in decades.

The situation we face could not be more serious. We have inherited an economic crisis as deep and as dire as any since the Great Depression. Economists from across the spectrum have warned that failure to act quickly would lead to the disappearance of millions of more jobs and national unemployment rates that could be in the double digits. I want to thank the Congress for coming together around this hard-fought compromise. No one policy or program will solve the challenges we face right now, nor will this crisis recede in a short period of time. However, with this Act we begin the process of restoring the economy and making America a stronger and more prosperous Nation.

My Administration will initiate new, far-reaching measures to help ensure that every dollar spent in this historic legislation is spent wisely and for its intended purpose. The Federal Government will be held to new standards of transparency and accountability. The legislation includes no earmarks. An oversight board will be charged with monitoring our progress as part of an unprecedented effort to root out waste and inefficiency. This board will be advised by experts—not just Government experts, not just politicians, but also citizens with years of expertise in management, economics, and accounting.

So much depends on what we do at this moment. This is not about the future of my Administration. This effort is about the future of our families and communities, our economy and our country. We are going to move forward carefully and transparently and as effectively as possible because so much is on the line. That is what we have already begun to do—drafting this plan with a level of openness for which the American people have asked and that this situation demands.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House,

February 17, 2009.

[johnaries]

75. It's his interpretation of the first line of the next to last paragraph.

"My Administration will initiate new, far-reaching measures". But, if it's the job of the Executive to Execute the laws, doesn't that mean he has to initiate measures to do so?

Only a very jaundiced eye would interpret it as he does.

[The Source]

69. Damn it

These signing statements are ridiculous. I thought I was paying attention.

[Laelth]

97. Welcome to DU. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[defendandprotect]

115. Seriousness of all this can't be understated -- and it is Congress's

responsibility -- which they have failed to take on --

to see that the legislation which they pass is carried out according to

the "spirt and intent" with which it was passed.


I think it was Chomsky who said that government is simply like a typewriter --

it depends upon who is doing the writing.


If "Signing Statements" were in any way enhancing our freedom, ending corporate BRIBES,

increasing pledges to end wars and our now corporate-run wars, if they were providing

a way to make government clearer and more effective for the citizen -- who'd be complaining?

[KoKo]

54. I love Daily Kos...but they are DLC ...always have been...and if someone

was insinuating something about Swanson...it probably was intentional "DLC."

[johnaries]

63. No, he just posted some of the same crap over there

about the signing statements and one of the members ripped it to shreds. Nothing "DLC" about it, just simple facts.

[defendandprotect]

117. DLC also working here at DU . . .

often hidden in the ranks --

but often wonder about what higher influence they may have

on the website?

Granted -- I hope not because DLC is a poisonous influence on the Democratic Party

and everything it touches!

[kayakjohnny]

49. Man,this is well done. Thanks.

It really is up to us. The founders tried to hit us over the head with that notion. But 'us' hasn't been up to the task. The founders gave us too much credit and thought we might be more like the original revolutionaries. Oooops. Not.

[KoKo]

52. "Change comes from forcing our culture to change, creating better communications systems"

How long does it take for our Democrats to "create better communications systems?" If they haven't learned by now...why do we identify ourselves as Democrats for these losers who can't seem to get it together even when we get "Our Own into Power?

[debbierlus]

53. A truly excellent post and a sad example of the new unrecommend feature

There is NO reason for this post to be unrecommended.

It is factual, provides specific statements and links. It clearly shows the discrepancy og what Obama said (or promised) and what he has actually done.

It is a cowardly thing to unrecommend such a important and factual post. A truly head in the sand ostrich approach to unpleasant reality...See speak no evil, see no evil, hear no evil...complete with the monkey with eyes and ears covered.

[KoKo]

55. It's up +24 now...I didn't see it when it was being trashed...but "Kick" is still your friend and

a "Reply" to further discussion is even better. It kind of gets around the "Hit Key" folks.

[HamdenRice]

89. I think the reason to unrec it is that the first graphs have a lot of misinformation-not that I did

but David is dead wrong about signing statements. If a DUer thinks that misinformation shouldn't be on the GP, that person would unrec it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5962706

[defendandprotect]

118. The "UNs" are really trying to suppress criticism which they can't handle in debate . ..

And, thanks for the reminder because I handn't "rec'd" the post!

Often I forget --

[varelse]

56. "The key lesson should be that change does not come from electing someone."

That last paragraph was worth 10x ALL of the other ones.

:kick:

[McCamy Taylor]

57. Sorry, but "Obama breaks his promises" is a script written by Karl Rove BEFORE the election.

It is propelled by the same mainstream media players who once sniffed at Monica's little blue dress. It is intended to divide and conquer Dems and create a sense of apathy and helplessness, so that another George Bush (probably Rick Perry) can sneak into office and continue the fascist coup.

I document Rove's role in creating this story in one of my old journals.

[Fumesucker]

91. One word..

Or an acronym actually..

FISA

[defendandprotect]

119. Right . . . and we think Watergate and wiretapping are over -- !!!!

FISA was already a violation of our Constitution --

and it's now an extended violation thanks to Obama!

[maryf]

58. K&R

thanks...

[BlueIris]

59. Wow, a president not being able to live up to campaign promises? Shocking.

I'm not defending his shortcomings, but I think it's curious people are so surprised. Did anyone really think Obama was going to be able to do everything he promised? Or anything he promised?

[Boomerang Diddle]

62. Didn't you already make this post?

The one where you called him "Emperor Barack?" The one that got locked? Oh yeah, this one:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5942811&mesg_id=5942811

Time to move on dude!

We got it. You hate Obama. Regurgitating your previous talking points only shows you have one intention only, that being to bash Obama. It's old. It's childish. You lost. Obama won. Whining about Obama isn't going to change that. Acceptance. That's what you need. Acceptance.

[johnaries]

64. I think he's just trying to generate more hits for his website

which "appears" to be Progressive until you get to this shit.

[Boomerang Diddle]

66. I understand he posted this crap on DKos too.

And promptly got shot down by the good folks over there!

[f the letter]

68. Are you kidding?

Have you read his other work? This is not about 'talking points' or 'hating Obama,' and it's very far from being about 'whining'. It's about accountability and acknowledging that the package we paid for isn't the package we got. Cheerleading will do the world little good in this case.

These are not insignificant promises listed in this post. i refuse to accept that i should say "well at least it's not bush or hitler or pol pot" and lay down. i intend to hold these promises up as important, and really wish that his constituents would do the same.

Your "It's old hat, it's childish, Obama won and you lost" could not be any more hypocritical. Tying this to a win/loss attitude indicates some sort of sports mentality that has no place in these issues. You gain nothing by minimizing thoroughly valid points by telling the person that they lost so their perception is void.

i think that international law matters. i think the Geneva Conventions matter. i think that signing statements intended to nullify the applicable law are wrong. i think that Obama's campaign promise of leaving lobbyists out of government decisions as much as possible was a good idea, and that Goldman Sachs probably shouldn't run the treasury. i think that Guantanamo and the long list of 'black sites' should be closed by now, not just given lip service towards closure. i think that the Bush administration should be held fully accountable for its long list of crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Do you disagree?



__- on edit - fixed punctuation issue in third paragraph

[Boomerang Diddle]

70. Something tells me you never liked Obama to begin with.

Just a hunch.

[f the letter]

71. That's not really an adequate reply to the message

of either my reply to the above or to the original post. Do you disagree with any of that last paragraph? My preference for Obama really has nothing to do with the issue of backsliding on critical campaign promises, and even less to do with international law.

[defendandprotect]

121. I didn't vote for a president I "liked" . . . I voted for a president who would carry out

the things that needed to be done for our citizens -- including reinforcing, reinstating

the Constitution, upon which our nation is based!

[bkozumplik]

126. you are not the only one who thinks this

the "give Obama some time" shtick is getting pretty thin.

We have given this congress a lot of time now, and I dont see a worthwhile pile of accomplishments for our trust. I remember the "give it time" shtick with them, and now you just dont hear much about it at all.

Remember these?

You know what would be amazing? if dems controlled the president and both houses of congress. Then we could actually get things done, right.

Then it was, "We dont have a filibuster proof majority" (which is ridiculous, when we sell so much off alrady in the name of politiccing)

and now its, "But the blue dogs won't let us get a darn thing done".

I wonder what the next excuse will be. Probably failure to keep individual dems from breaking ranks, or something like that.

very depressing.

[FlyingSquirrel]

77. No animal shall sleep in a bed... with sheets. n/t

[troubledamerican]

80. Poll: Over 50% of U.S. citizens support torture

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/03/poll-slight-majority-of-a_n_210700.html

Politics is the art of the possible.

[Mythsaje]

83. Who the fuck cares?

It's still immoral, illegal, and dangerous to Americans abroad.

What was the percentage of people who supported denying women the right to vote? Who supported segregation and Jim Crow? Bans on interracial marriage?

This is not a winning argument, I'm sorry to say.

[troubledamerican]

84. Choose your battle. You only get one victory, if over 50% aren't on your side.

Choose your battle. Wiretapping? Torture? Economic recovery? Economic reform?

If Obama loses more than 50% approval, then ALL the Bush/Cheney Agenda becomes ascendant again.

Hillary wouldn't have done anything differently, except to be less adept and more polarizing. Obama ain't Harry Reid yet. There's a difference.

[Mythsaje]

85. Oh, I won't argue about Hillary...

Unfortunately, both of them were way too status quo for my liking.

:shrug:

Let's say that most of this doesn't surprise me, and I actually LIKE Obama. But the fact that over 50% of Americans support it just proves that over 50% of Americans are fucking stupid. It doesn't work, it violates important agreements with other nations, it requires the abandonment of any sense of human decency, and it makes it that much more likely that Americans will be tortured by other countries.

Considering how we're doing on the rest of them, I'm not sure torture isn't the one we CAN win.

[troubledamerican]

86. I'm looking at Siberia.

I have problems with Australia, Bolivia, Canada, and all of the other nations to expatriate to which were at the top of my list.

My final conclusion is that the only safe place will be a non-NATO country after the plane crashes into the Capitol Dome and all the national-level Democrats are wiped out and Roberts swears-in Palin or Giuliani as "emergency President".

Allende had a marginally successful first year, parallel to Obama, followed by a Kissinger/Neocon recipe of "make the economy of Chile scream" and finally the military coup. Which ushered in the torture state, and Operation Condor's secret police roundups in cooperation with all Latin American nations.

My guess is that there will be a sudden heart attack, blamed on "cigarette smoking". The chessgame strategy of delaying action on war crimes to defuse the economic timebomb & root-out the Cheney Sleeper Cells will become defacto policy as President Biden plays a holding pattern until Hillary can be elected in 2012.

Palin will run as a Third "Maverick" Party candidate. The electoral votes will be split below the required 270. There will be a repeat of the Election of 1824. The election will be thrown into the House of Representatives. Hillary will be chosen and immediately labelled "illegitimate" by the Right.

Now is the time to get out, before the next wave of economic crisis hits around late September/October. If hyperinflation takes hold, travel (and escape from this tomb) will be prohibitive.

Siberia has a golden future as the new breadbasket of the globally-warmed world.

[Mythsaje]

87. Pretty detailed vision there...

I'm sure much of it's a Freeper's wet dream, but most of it strikes me as fairly unlikely. Well, maybe except hyperinflation, but they might actually figure out a way to avoid that too. I guess we'll see.

[chill_wind]

93. Oh Whew! That makes it legal and moral, then.

Bush and Snarl will be so relieved to know they can be vindicated by some insane public opinion poll.

[defendandprotect]

122. They've been educated to that position by our CIA corporate press --

One must understand that mainstream figures like Dan Rather and Keith Olbermann are not going to voice our outrage against the current regime. They will pretend to fight George Bush, Barack Samebama, John McLame, and all of these other frontmen so that we don't look to the men behind the curtain. One way to keep us from being pesky and fighting these folks is to make us think that "heroes" like Dan Rather are already doing it for us. Evil genius, huh?

[troubledamerican]

161. No disagreement. My interpretation is even darker than yours.

[Laelth]

95. K&R for the truth.

Even if that truth is uncomfortable.

:dem:

-Laelth

[defendandprotect]

96. Change will come when we end campaign finance BRIBERY . . . and only then -- !!!

[johnaries]

98. Unfortunately, that won't happen. At least as long as the SCOTUS

still maintains that money is "free speech". Therefore I suggest we focus our efforts elsewhere.

Obama HAS initiated a lot of change, although the OP refuses to see it or acknowledge it. Please see this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8538282

Although Obama's Admin has not been "perfect" by any means, the OP is full of misinformation.

[defendandprotect]

99. It won't happen as long as you don't fight for it -- Obama is BRIBED . . .

Money is not "free speech" of course since free speech is a right of all Americans,
and dollar bills are not equally distributed.

This is an essential area to work on -- we of course cannot control government or
elected officials who are PRE-BRIBED -- can we?

And you're suggesting that David Swanson doesn't see the glory of what Obama has done so far?
Get off of it!!

I've seen the baloney thread -- which amounts to poney, dogs, and incidentals --
as compared to torture, wiretapping and no restoration of habeas corpus and
new plans for indefinite incarceration.

David Swanson is correct by all means -

[johnaries]

112. Although I agree with you on the inequal distribution of money

unfortunately the SCOTUS has ruled differently. Congress has tried to address this issue, but those "solutions" produced problems of their own. I do support Campaign Finance Reform, but there are hurtles to overcome and over-simplification doesn't help.

As for David Swanson "seeing the glory of what Obama has done so far" it certainly isn't evident from this thread where he distorts and twists facts and makes ridiculous statements that simply bash Obama.

As far as your references to "torture, wiretapping and no restoration of habeas corpus and new plans for indefinite incarceration":

- Obama has ENDED torture.
- Obama is in the process of closing Gitmo despite resistance from Congress and others.
- Obama has a task force actively reviewing cases of detainees by Executive Order:

(a) Establishment of Special Interagency Task Force. There shall be established a Special Task Force on Detainee Disposition (Special Task Force) to identify lawful options for the disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ReviewofDetentionPolicyOptions/

Unfortunately, the warrantless wiretapping is a policy I take issue with and would like to discuss, intelligently. But rabid attacks full of twisted facts and logic like this one do not make for intelligent discussion.

[defendandprotect]

123. Supremes also put Bush in the White House . . .!!

We c an also impeach Justices on the Court -- and IMO we should be thinking of

enlarging the court to add a few women to create "gender balance."

I think it's "oversimplification" to look to decisions biased toward corporations and
expect that they would continue --

As the public wakes up to campaign finance BRIBERY . . . we will go from a small hole
in the dyke to a flood. The public is waking up as they begin to leave their TVs behind.

Granted our corporate-press doesn'trepeat "campaign BRIBERY" every five minutes ....
Repetitious propaganda is reserved for rightwing issues . . . and it looks more like t
hey're using another false event to start a campaign to attack Iran.

Congress is doing all it can to surrender it's ability to effect issues . . .
economic decisions are political decisions and should be made by Congress upon which
their re-elections and non-elections should be decided. The Federal Reserve Bank should
not be making decisions which block economic democracy.

Nor should a right-wing Corporation for Public Broadcasting be controlling PBS --

Nor should we folow Orrin Hatchet's suggestion that we have a new committee to decide
on medical issues --

NO -- THAT'S WHAT CONGRESS IS THERE FOR --!!

And this couldn't be clearer as to your blocking info you don't like . . .

As far as your references to "torture, wiretapping and no restoration of habeas corpus and new plans for indefinite incarceration":

- Obama has ENDED torture.
- Obama is in the process of closing Gitmo despite resistance from Congress and others.
- Obama has a task force actively reviewing cases of detainees by Executive Order:

Obama has reserved the right to renew torture !!!
We have tons of prisons -- and still unnamed prisons around the world -- and secret prisons !!!
Obama now tells us that he has the right to incarcerate citizens indefinitely!!!

As long as you want to discuss politics, I think you're going to have problems with the
"my feelings are hurt" outlook.

[johnaries]

127. First, I would suggest you put down the crack pipe

since your rant is mostly incoherent. Especially the final "my feelings are hurt" comment.

I will respond to the one seemingly coherent section:

"Obama has reserved the right to renew torture !!!"
When? Got a link?

"We have tons of prisons -- and still unnamed prisons around the world -- and secret prisons !!!"
Not anymore:

The CIA no longer operates any secret overseas prisons, Director Leon Panetta said yesterday, and has not detained anyone since he became chief in February.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR2009040902497.html

"Obama now tells us that he has the right to incarcerate citizens indefinitely!!!"

Please refer back to the Executive Order I already posted that debunks this.

[defendandprotect]

132. "A crack pipe" defense . . . try debate . . .

Do you have a LINK to where Obama and Panetta say -- "No torture, ever again"--?

"We have tons of prisons -- and still unnamed prisons around the world -- and secret prisons !!!"
Not anymore:

The CIA no longer operates any secret overseas prisons, Director Leon Panetta said yesterday, and has not detained anyone since he became chief in February.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Thank you for that good news!

Let's hope it's true --

I'll recheck what you posted . . . when I have time -- unless you want to repeat it --


Meanwhile, every day, the corporate-link between Obama and Wall Street gets bigger.

He needs to divorce himself from the DLC and Goldman Sacks, especially.

Unfortunately, David Swanson is right overall.

And, if you didn't understand what my post was saying you need to review some of the issues.

Especially the final "my feelings are hurt" comment

In finding no recognition in that comment suggests you don't understand that discussing politics

isn't for the faint-hearted!

[johnaries]

135. You are welcome for the good news.

And I AM trying debate. I'm sorry, but your previous post was mostly incoherent whether one is familiar with the issues or not.

And cn you please tell me where I gave a "my feelings are hurt" or any indication that I am not aware that "discussing politics isn't for the faint-hearted"? I have been trying to have an intelligent debate. And I have provided resource after resource to prove that David's OP is NOT correct.

As to your request about Obama's statement on torture, I refer you to his EXECUTIVE ORDER -- ENSURING LAWFUL INTERROGATIONS, section 3:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations/

Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States.

[defendandprotect]

137. Claims of your superiorty aside . . .

Unless you have a problem with comprehension and issues, my post was perfectly clear --

You are signaling that you take offense at criticism of Obama --
and, in fact, to a degree which suggests that you are less concerned with the issues
than with "Obama-bashing"...

As to your request about Obama's statement on torture, I refer you to his EXECUTIVE ORDER -- ENSURING LAWFUL INTERROGATIONS, section 3:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawf... /


Consistent with the requirements of the Federal torture statute, 18 U.S.C. 2340 2340A, section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, 42 U.S.C. 2000dd, the Convention Against Torture, Common Article 3, and other laws regulating the treatment and interrogation of individuals detained in any armed conflict, such persons shall in all circumstances be treated humanely and shall not be subjected to violence to life and person (including murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture), nor to outrages upon personal dignity (including humiliating and degrading treatment), whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States.

And did not Panetta "limit" the restrictions at the hearings -- leaving the door open to
using torture again?

Nor have I seen Obama make a statement to the military -- in public -- where they are called
upon to whistleblow and to defend prisoner rights. That needs to be done to make it clear
not only to all of America but to all of the military that in resisting unlawful instructions
they will be protected.

[johnaries]

141. Excuse me, but WHAT "claims of superiority"?

I merely said that I am trying to have a debate. I'm sure the post in question made sense to you since you knew what you were trying to say. However, it was extremely rambling and full of sentence fragments which did not communicate anything. If you care to clarify any of those I would be happy to discuss them.

As far as Panetta limiting the restrictions, I'm not sure what hearings you are referring to or what restrictions you are talking about. But it doesn't matter because Obama's EO overrides anything Panetta says. And it clearly says "no torture", "no outrages upon personal dignity" and clearly says that it is to be consistent with the Federal torture statute and "other laws".

In other news, both the Detention Policy Task Force and the Interrogation Policy Task Force issued preliminary reports yesterday and today, but have been granted 2 month extensions for their final reports.

In both cases, however, the Task Forces were asked to review LEGAL methods and alternatives. This would preclude toture. I am particularly interested in the detention prelim report, although it has not been made public as yet.

[defendandprotect]

150. " ... since your rant is mostly incoherent" . . .

Excuse me, but WHAT "claims of superiority"?


Right -- you're not intentionally trying to be insulting!

And, I'm illiterate -- and you're the judge of that, right . . . ???


OKay . . look, I don't have time for nonsense. If you do, good for you.


Again, they have NOT totally closed out re-using torture.

Let's hope all you say is correct -- however, even if all you were claiming

is correct -- it does not rebalance all that still needs to be corrected.

Again -- the DLC influence on Obama should be of great concern to us all in its

pushing for corporate interests and pushing the party to the right.


Bye --

[johnaries]

164. Once again, you are putting words in my mouth.

I never called you "illiterate". I said that one - and only one - of your rants was incoherent. And it was. I myself have been guilty of incoherent rants on occasion.

Can you show me any evidence that they have not totally "closed out" torture? I showed you where Obama most certainly did, unequivocally. Do you "not have the time" to present the evidence or is it because it's simply not true?

And I agree about the DLC and the Blue Dog Dems. But this entire thread was about Obama, NOT the DLC. And in case you haven't noticed Obama is currently fighting the DLC and the Blue Dogs in Congress. Let's go after them, shall we?

As for what Obama has accomplished (which is quite a bit) not "rebalancing all that needs correcting", I agree that there is a lot to rebalance to undo the damage Bush and the Republican Congress has done. It may be decades before it CAN be undone. But Obama is not through, yet. And despite the OP and your statements, Obama has made great strides in the short amount of time he has been in office.

[mvd]

103. I don't agree with everything he's done

But I didn't expect to agree - I didn't even expect to agree on MOST things. Also, I'm giving him more time.

I think there has been a lot of progress: we now don't have torture as policy, recognize global warming, gave states and the unemployed needed help, signed some important items on stem cells and equal pay, changed our policy on GLBTs, got rid of cowboy foreign policy, gave tax cuts to those who need them most, increased funding for education, transportation, and the sciences, wants meaningful reforms to health care, etc. Those are important.

[johnaries]

116. Well said! nt

[defendandprotect]

124. kick for ending wiretapping . . .

[Greyhound]

128. OMG! You've attacked "Teh One"!

Boy, are you in it now.
:sarcasm:

[Blue_Roses]

129. this is the biggest bunch of bullshit...

it's obvious you hate Obama--WE.GET.IT. :eyes:

You forget to mention anything possibly remote to this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8538282&mesg_id=8538282

[Kid Dynamite]

130. Could you quote the sentence where the OP states his personal opinion o Obama?

I can't find it

[johnaries]

145. Try the entire OP.

[johnaries]

146. Try the entire OP.

[OwnedByFerrets]

131. Well researched....

I love your last paragraph.

[johnaries]

148. If you actaully follow his links, you'll find they don't say

what he claims they do. For instance, there is a long discussion upthread wherein I prove that his statements concerning Obama's signing statements are either wrong or twisted. When he claims that Obama's executive orders "make new laws" if you follow the link you'll find that they either establish commissions, repeal some of Bush's executive orders, but they do NOT Make new laws".

He supplies suorces, but he twists and distorts them.

[Cha]

157. Not what the Obama haters want

to hear. They got their hate goin' on and nothin's gonna stop it.

But, thanks for your exposure on this crap.

[OwnedByFerrets]

158. IF you are calling me a hater, stfu....

if not, have a nice day.

[Cha]

160. You stfu..

[OwnedByFerrets]

167. NO, YOU STFU.

:rofl: :rofl:

[johnaries]

162. I think you're right. They don't want to hear the truth.

Each time this thing dies it pops back up.

[blindpig]

133. k&r n/t

[earth mom]

134. Great post! It's sick that DU apologists & bankster bailout cheerleaders live on in denial.

My first post on this thread is gone, but heads up peeps and do a google search of the Obama deception if you really want to connect the dots and know what really is happening to the U.S.A. and exactly who is pulling the strings.

[johnaries]

144. What denial? If you will read my posts upthread you will see

that I provide links and resources that absolutely refute many of his accusations. I am not an "apologist", I have criticisms of some of Obama's policies myself. But I want the truth, not distortions.

And why are you recommending a piece by a RightWingnut?

[defendandprotect]

151. Agree -- Wall Street is running theWhite House ....

[DireStrike]

139. Thank you for this post. I've bookmarked it.

Keep 'em honest!

[johnaries]

143. Don't bookmark it. It's full of distortions. Please read upthread.

[Piewhacket]

152. Too late to rec. sorry. kick. Nice article David.

[defendandprotect]

154. k i c k

[scentopine]

159. Tiny Tim Pops Us the Bird

This is my favorite part of the signing statements - Tiny Tim gives trillions to Wall Street and here it is in plain English that he will not be held accountable to our elected representatives.

"Yet another provision requires the Secretary of the Treasury to accede to all requests of a Board of Trustees that contains congressional representatives. The Secretary shall treat such requests as nonbinding."

Wall Street sociopaths get trillions with no accountability (Obama's gottcha covered) and those of us less than Wall Street rich get lectures on our behavior.

What's the next big plan from this administration? Whip Recession Now buttons? Speaking of bad behavior... Obama needs to stop lecturing the public and democrats on our behavior and start cracking and chopping heads on Wall Street and at CIA. Someone needs to find the valve that controls the endless streams of cash to these two entities and turn it off until there is accountability.

We are planning a mission to Mars - yet we can't account for any of the money handed over to Wall Street investment banks. There are some very sick and cynical people controlling our treasury if they expect us to believe that horse shit.

[johnaries]

163. That's because the Secretary of the Treasury serves under the

White House, not Congress. And in case you haven't noticed, Obama began attaching requirements to the TARP loans and the banks began paying them back. We even made a profit in some cases.

[scentopine]

168. Nonsense

1. Your argument that executive branch functions are not required to answer to congressional inquiry is nonsense and *exactly* the same argument Bush and Cheney attnys used to keep exec staff members from testifying in front of congress. We can do it the easy way or the hard way with subpoenas and law suits. Supplying a full accounting to congress (our representatives) is not usurping executive priority. For the moment, let's push aside the technical mechanisms at our disposal to force disclosure from the Obama administration (and the treasury) - why would the president not demand full accountability and communicate that to the public? According to the Obamanauts, we should simply sit back and be happy and just trust the purity of his constitution and his Wall Street lobbyist, Tiny Tim. I don't agree. This is completely wrong on so many levels - from duplicitous claims of transparency to criticizing Bush for the same behavior. It is wrong, wrong, wrong (but politically convenient, I get that part).

2. Approx. 10% of TARP money been returned. Approx. $50 billion out of $500 billion returned. A total of 1.2 trillion is available. There will be more cash given out, and the largest wall street firms will probably repay some of it. The returned amount is less than the amount Madoff stole in his ponzi scheme. As I am sure you know, the inspector general weighed in on the subject and simply echoed legitimate concerns some of us democrats have been voicing for six months. We gave cash to banks with no strings attached. Have you ever filled out a mortgage application? Banks know how to track their cash. They have the most sophisticated computer systems in the world for managing accounts, in and out. To say it can't be done is insulting and arrogant.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25205.html - one of many, many articles and opinion pieces available.

Obama's apoplectic sycophants seem especially testy these days. Why not direct your anger at Obama instead of those of us working for change?

[johnaries]

170. Not nonsense at all. There is no comparison between Obama and Bush.

1. The difference between Bush's signing statements and Obama's is that Bush was trying to grab more power, primarily using the Theory of the Unitary Executive. In Obama's signing statements, the Congress is trying to dictate terms preemptively and, in essence, trying to grab power. Obama's signing statements are simply preserving the Constitutionally granted powers of his office.

2. Although the TARP funds were originally given "no strings attached", Obama added strings which the financial institutions did not like at all. I did not say that I didn't support more transparency in the process - I do. But you stated that the funds were given "with no accountability" which isn't true. More accountability would be nice since all of the funds are not being used in the way they were intended. However, the funds did loosen the business to business loans which was the main purpose, and the financial sector is becoming more stable.

I am not a sycophant. There are some aspects of the Obama Administration I disagree with strongly. However, Mr. Swanson's OP distorts facts. He makes accusations against Obama that are not true. If you are going to criticize Obama, do it correctly. OP's like this cloud the true issues - such as warrantless wire-tapping. If you criticized Obama for his policy there, I would be right beside you.

And I charge that it is the Obama-bashers who have mis-directed their anger. You should direct your anger at Conservative Democrats and the Republican "think-tanks" that Obama is fighting.

Don't blame Obama for the actions of the people he is fighting.

edit to add: Oh, and you might want to link to some other source than the RW Politico for opinion pieces.

[upi402]

165. I wish I'd have said that

I couldn't agree more!

[Gin Blossom]

169. I think this is a great thread...

And shows some in-depth discussion I value about DU.

The last sentence of the OP hits a nail on the head: "...as long as we believe our role consists of loving or hating an elected official..." It's one of those phrases I wish I had thought of.