REGARDING THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS, HYPOCRITICAL, AND IRRESPONSIBLE GOP

Beneath the Spin*Eric L. Wattree

REGARDING THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS, HYPOCRITICAL, AND IRRESPONSIBLE GOP

      .

I have a rule of thumb that has served me well throughout my adult life, and it’s quite simple - never trust the self-righteous. Self-righteous people are invariably the most malevolent people you’ll ever meet, and that tends to hold true regardless to whether we’re talking about politics or religion, and there’s a reason for that. The self-righteous tend to project their own character flaws upon others, so if you ever want to know what conservatives are up to, you simply pay attention to the offenses that they're accusing others of committing.
.
A perfect example of that is how conservatives often refer to liberals as "Commie sympathizers," yet they enthusiastically support Donald Trump who's all but a Russian ambassador. They also tend to refer to liberals as "Godless heathens," while they support the kidnapping of children from their parents and putting them in cages. So it's no surprise that a full 81% of all White Evangelical Christians voted for Trump, because they've never seen a rapist (Kavanaugh, Trump) or child molester (Roy Moore) that they didn't think needed to be elected to office. Thus, in their assessment of others they tend to say, “Aw, they’re full of crap; I know what they're up to.” The reason they feel that way is because they assume that everyone is just as devious in their motivations and as flawed as they are, and then they delude themselves into believing that they’ve managed to turn their own character flaws into what are merely useful tools to assess others. So essentially, they believe that other people are evil, but their own malevolence is a valuable source of wisdom.
.
That attitude is a fundamental part of conservative thinking. That’s what contributes to the gross perversion and religious zealotry living side by side within people Roy Moore, the highly religious child molester, and the murderous bigotry and greed living under the guise of patriotism in people like Dick Cheney and Donald Trump, and there’s a constant display of that exact same kind of delusion, malevolence and hypocrisy running throughout conservative history.
.
Conservatives have suffered from this collective flaw, this blind spot in their character, going all the way back to the very beginning of this republic. As I’ve mentioned in previous articles, Alexander Hamilton, one of this nation’s most conservative founding fathers, believed that the rich and "wellborn" should be given a "permanent share in government." He said:
.
“All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and wellborn, the other the mass of the people…. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class [the rich]a distinct, permanent share in government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second [the people], and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government.”
.
Hamilton supported a lifetime appointment of the President, after being selected by congress, instead of the people.  Can you just imagine that, Donald Trump FOR LIFE!!!?  But America dodged that bullet during the Federalist Convention that took place between May 14 and September 17, 1787.
.
Since most of the founding fathers came to America to escape the aristocratic class system in Europe, Hamilton’s desire to preserve the class system was resoundingly defeated in favor of an unfettered democracy, but that didn’t mean that people of Hamilton’s point of view would quietly go away. Instead, they lowered their profile and continued to pursue their agenda by using their wealth, power, and various strategies to divide the people to achieve their goal, and that’s what we see today.  That accounts for why conservatives tend to be specialists in obstructionism and division, and why the American people ALWAYS suffer under conservative governance.

.

.

During the 70s Howard Hughes, founder of Hughes Aircraft, was world renown as one of the richest men in the world.  When he died in 1976 his net worth was $1.5 billion, the equivalent of $6.45 billion in today’s dollars.  But today, Jeff Bezo, the 53 year-old CEO of Amazon, is reported to have a net worth of $109.9 billion.
.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, “CEO compensation increased from $1.5 million in 1978 to $16.3 million in 2014, or 997 percent, a rise almost double stock market growth. Over the same time period, a typical worker’s wages grew very little: the annual compensation, adjusted for inflation, of the average private-sector production and nonsupervisory worker (comprising 82 percent of total payroll employment) rose from $48,000 in 1978 to just $53,200 in 2014, an increase of only 10.9 percent. Due to this unequal growth, average top CEOs now make over 300 times what typical workers earn.”  So, so much for Ronald Reagan and the GOP’s “Trickle Down” theory.  Since Ronald Reagan entered office the rich have become exponentially richer, while the poor and middle class have essentially been marching in place, or in other words, losing ground. 
.
The American middle class has been in freefall every since the election of Ronald Reagan.  When I was in college in the 70s my tuition was $6.50 per term, my rent for a  two bedroom apartment with two baths and a swimming pool was $165 per month,  and I received veterans assistance of over $600 per month. Then with my late wife's salary from Rockwell International of over $2000 per month, that allowed me to get an education while raising two children in complete middle-class comfort.  But after the conservative seizure of our economy during the Reagan administration, today young people have to live with their parents and mortgage their future to obtain draconian loans just to get a college degree.
.

Thus, conservative Republicans are determined to create Alexander Hamilton’s two-tier society through hook or crook, and their reckless determination to install Brett Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court is clear evidence of that. In spite of their flag pins in their lapels and claims to be super-patriots and Evangelical Christians, they’re more than willing to support an obvious criminal and possible traitor as President of the United States, and a felonious perjurer and an attempted rapist on the Supreme Court. Just a moment's thought would suggest there's something wrong with that picture. And yes, I believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford's allegation that Kavanaugh tried to rape her. After all, if she wanted to just make up a story, why would she add a friend of the accused, a hostile witness, as being on the scene? That would be stupid. And another thing that's strangely striking is if the allegation wasn't true you'd think that Kavanaugh's friend, Mark Judge, would be anxious to come forward and say, "This woman is lying on my friend," but instead, he said he doesn't want to testify.  Could that be because he doesn't want to take the chance of going to jail for perjury?
.
So again, the GOP has a history of treason and working against the interest of the American people to promote their own malevolent interests. Richard Nixon sabotaged President Johnson's peace talks with the North Vietnamese in order to help him in his campaign for president. That caused the loss of countless American lives. Ronald Reagan later made a deal with the Iranians to continue to hold Americans hostage until after his election, and they were released as he was taking the Oath of Office. In addition, he flooded the inner-cities with crack cocaine to support his illegal war in Nicaragua. And then during the George W. Bush administration, Dick Cheney leaked the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame in retribution against her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, after he investigated and then revealed that the pretext of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq was a lie. And then there was the letter signed by 47 Republican senators to Iran:
.
“As first reported by Bloomberg's Josh Rogin, a group of 47 Republican senators signed a letter addressed to "the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran," warning them not to be too optimistic about ongoing negotiations with the Obama administration over Tehran's nuclear program.”

.

.
So the bottom line is, while President Obama was in negotiations with Iran to prevent their further development of nuclear weapons, 47 Republicans senators signed a letter warning the Iranians not to sign it.  The reason for that is since the fall of the Soviet Union they need a "Bogey Man" to justify their huge military budget that they're using to transfer the wealth of America into the hands of the top 1% of the population.  That's not only against American interests, but flat-out treason.
.
And then finally (so far), NYmag.com reported the following:
.
"Shortly before Trump’s inauguration, according to Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman, Israeli intelligence officials gathered at CIA headquarters, where they were told something astonishing: Russia, the agency believed, had “leverages of pressure” over the incoming president. Therefore, the agency advised the Israelis to consider the possibility that Trump might pass their secrets on to Russia. The Israelis dismissed the warning as outlandish. Who could believe that the world’s most powerful country was about to hand its presidency to a Russian dupe? That the United States government had, essentially, fallen?
.
"A few months later, Trump invited Russian diplomats into the Oval Office. He boasted to them that he had fired “nut job” James Comey. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” At the same meeting, Trump passed on to the Russians a highly sensitive intelligence secret Israel had captured from a valuable source inside ISIS. It was the precise danger Israel had been cautioned about."
.

DRAFT-DODGIN' DONNIE

So flag pins notwithstanding, when it comes to blatant hypocrisy - especially regarding their professed love for America - conservative Republicans tend to be a most rare and highly disingenuous breed. They live to wrap themselves in the flag as if it's their personal security blanket, yet, when it comes to their horrendous assault on the nation and the American people - like shutting down the government, needlessly putting our troops in harm's way, refusing to support our vets (after they've outlived their usefulness on the battlefield), continually holding the American people hostage for the benefit of their wealthy cronies, and their blatant obstruction of any and every attempt to provide economic relief for the average American - they're prepared to engage in the most ridiculously illogical contortions to try to justify their unconscionable behavior.  Even as we speak they're trying to take away the benefits of the American people, such as social Security and Medicare, to pay for their $1.5 trillion tax giveaway to the rich. They treat the American people like we're stupid.  They slap us in the face, and then lecture us for causing them to injure their hand.  

.

.

Eric L. Wattree
Http://wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
.
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Let's Set the Record Straight - Black People Don't Hate Tavis Smiley and Cornel West Simply Because They're Critical of Obama

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Let’s Set the Record Straight - Black People Don’t Hate Tavis Smiley and Cornel West Simply Because They’re Critical of Obama

.

Why is it that most Smiley and West supporters always jump to the unwarranted conclusion that the only reason that Black people dislike Tavis and West is because they’re criticizing President Obama? That’s an extremely presumptuous point of view, and it’s not true. The majority of Black people aren’t hostile toward Tavis and West BECAUSE they criticize Obama, but for the WAY they criticize Obama.

.

The reason we become angry every time they criticize Obama is because Tavis and West are arrogant, petty, self-serving, condescending, and disrespectful, and those flawed character traits come to the forefront whenever the subject of President Obama comes up. In addition, their criticisms never come coupled with constructive solutions, so it’s obvious to the Black community that they’re not actually interested in the issues; they’re merely USING the issues as a pretext to attack the man - and Cornel’s repeated racial slanders clearly validate that perception.

.
Black people clearly understand that ALL politicians’ feet should be kept to the fire, and that includes Obama’s. I’ve written several articles criticizing President Obama, and I’ve also written articles explaining WHY it’s important to hold his feet to the fire (http://wattree.blogspot.com/2011/01/obama-supporters-vs-cheerleaders.html), but when I criticize Obama I make sure that my criticisms are respectful, issue-specific, constructive, I ALWAYS come armed with solutions - and I send them to him. A case in point is an article I wrote in November 2009 entitled, "Could Obama Fall Victim to a Change We Can’t Believe In," where I said the following:
.
"The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands.
.
"I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the machinations of Dick Cheney make Machiavelli look like a trainee.
.
"On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and then make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify."
.
Thus, Black people are way out in front of Tavis and West on MOST issues, so the repeated suggestion by Tavis and West that Black people are blindly working on "Obama’s plantation" is a slap in the face of the Black community. They’re saying the very same thing that White racists are saying - that Black people are just a bunch of stupid zombies - "Dem niggas ain’t got sense like we do, boss."
.
That attitude is not lost on the Black community for a minute. They don’t like it at all, and as a direct result, they don’t like Tavis and West at all. The Black community looks upon them in the very same way as they do any other slanderous bigot.
.

RELATED CONTENT

The Real History of the Poverty Tours

http://wattree.blogspot.com/2013/03/beneath-spin-eric-l_24.html 
.
A List of Obama Accomplishments
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009/

 .

Eric L. Wattree
http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
.
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

　

Sphere: Related Content

Well, Mr. President, I warned You Over Two Years Ago

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Well, Mr. President, I warned you over two years ago - on November 2, 2009, to be specific - about allowing the Dick Cheney and the GOP to goad you into Afghanistan. Now, with the 2012 election coming up, they don't look so bad, because you've allowed them to entice you into getting the very same kind of uselss death and destruction on your hands as they had in Iraq, and in the end, you're going to have to do exactly what I suggested back then - simply pull back, and assist Pakistan in defending their nuclear weapons. So maybe you need to trade in your advisors for my crystal ball.

.

Could Obama Fall Victim to a Change We Can't Believe in?

At this point Obama's presidency could go either way - he can either become one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known, or go down as an exciting experiment that went bad. It's all up to how he handles the expectations of Independents.

.
The biggest problem that Obama currently faces is becoming a victim of his own effectiveness. During the campaign he raised the nation's expectation so high that just being a good president won't do. He promised a change that we can believe in, which led many of us to believe that he intended to trash the way business is done in Washington, but that promise seems to be totally inconsistent with what seems to be his irrepressible desire to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the very Republican leaders from which we wanted a change.
.
This has fueled the growing suspicion by many that both parties are beholding to the same cabal of power, and only feign having differing philosophies toward governance. That suspicion lies very close to the surface for many Independents - after all, that's why they're Independents in the first place.
.
And President Obama hasn't helped himself in that regard. For a man who is ordinarily so politically astute, even before he became president he did a curious flip-flop on the FISA issue. According to Greenchange.org, on October 24, 2007, Bill Burton of the Obama campaign indicated, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But by June 20, 2008, Obama issued a statement reversing his position, indicating that our national security needs were more important than his objections.
.
That deeply disappointed many Independents, since a citizen's right to sue a telecommunications company for invading his or her privacy in violation of the law has nothing to do with national security. Those are the very constitutional rights that we're trying to keep secure. But while many Independents have kept that in mind, at least Obama had the integrity to take that stand prior to our making the decision on whether or not to vote for him.
.
But then once he was elected President, Obama made another curious statement with regard to the criminal activities and alleged war crimes committed by the Bush administration. In spite of the fact that there are strong allegations and prima facie evidence of torture, and some of the most unconscionable violations of the Geneva Convention since the Nuremberg trials, President Obama stated that he wanted to move the nation forward, and not look back.
.
Many Independents have two problems with that. First of all, President Obama seems much too willing to move forward with regard to the fat cats, while lower-ranking personnel are rotting in prison. That's in direct conflict with the American ideal of equal justice under the law. And secondly, since most of these atrocities were committed against the citizens of other nations, it is the height of arrogance for us to be "the deciders" of whether or not those responsible should be held accountable. That also runs contrary to American ideals, and the concept of "a shining city on the hill."
.
And now we're talking about sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. The question is, why? The nation has yet to be provided with a reasonable explanation of why we should be meddling, once again, in another country's internal affairs. One would think we would have learned something about the futility of that by now. It's a recipe for disaster.
.
There's only two legitimate reasons to have our troops in that part of the world. The first is obvious - to make damn sure the nuclear missiles in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. The second reason is to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So why can't we simply pull out of Afghanistan and deploy enough troops in Pakistan to protect the missiles, then let the CIA and law enforcement deal with Osama? That way we save both treasure and lives, and we're not creating more enemies for the United States by killing innocent people.
.
But many Independents suspect that there's another agenda afoot. Actually, Cheney's giving it away. Independents recognize that Dick Cheney has absolutely no integrity, so when he gets passionate over an issue we know to follow either the money or power. Thus, many Independents suspect that what's actually behind Cheney's insistence that we go recklessly rushing into Afghanistan has much more to do with Halliburton's bottom line than it does America's best interest. And while Obama has shown himself to be an excellent president in many ways, his one shortcoming - and a shortcoming that may very well bring him down in the end - is his tendency to try to appease the stupidity and greed of the GOP.
.
The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands.
.
I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the mechinations of Dick Cheney makes Machiavelli look like a trainee.
.
On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify.
.
And he'd look even better if he allowed Attorney General Holder to do his job with respect to the Bush administration's war crimes. First, he'd firm up his base by restoring their confidence that he stands for the rule of law, and he would also allay the fear that he might be a puppet, controlled by some powerful cabal.
.
Another upside to that is that once Holder begins his investigation into the Bush administration, there's absolutely no doubt that he's going to find criminality, cronyism, and corruption seeping so deep within the GOP that Republicans will be so busy snitching on one another, and covering their own asses, that they won't have the time to plot against either him, or the American people.
.
Now, THAT, would be a change that we could believe in.

. 

Eric L. Wattree

Http://wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com

Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Mr. President, Osama’s Death Can Breathe New Life into Your Presidency

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

Mr. President, Osama’s Death Can Breathe New Life into Your Presidency

First, Mr. President, allow me to congratulate you on bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice. That one act alone separates you from the disingenuous chest-beaters who have been manipulating American misery to gain political traction. No longer can they wrap themselves in the flag and strut around in their ineffectual, faux patriotism while they accuse the President of the United States of “palling around with terrorists.” The quiet and effective way in which you’ve gone about carrying out America’s business clearly distinguishes who’s the adult in the room, and who's the true American.

But Osama’s death could also provide you with an opportunity to correct one of the biggest mistakes of your presidency. It gives you a second chance to extricate the United States from the no-win quagmire in Afghanistan, and that part of the world.

In my November 2, 2009 article, Could Obama Fall Victim to a Lack of Change We Can Believe in?, I said the following:

"There's only two legitimate reasons to have our troops in that part of the world [Afghanistan/Pakistan]. The first is obvious - to make damn sure the nuclear missiles in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. The second reason is to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So why can't we simply pull out of Afghanistan and deploy enough troops in Pakistan to protect the missiles, then let the CIA and law enforcement deal with Osama? That way we save both treasure and lives, and we're not creating more enemies for the United States by killing innocent people.

“The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands.

"But many Independents suspect that there's another agenda afoot. Actually, Cheney's giving it away. Independents recognize that Dick Cheney has absolutely no integrity, so when he gets passionate over an issue we know to follow either the money or power. Thus, many Independents suspect that what's actually behind Cheney's insistence that we go recklessly rushing into Afghanistan has much more to do with Halliburton's bottom line than it does America's best interest. And while Obama has shown himself to be an excellent president in many ways, his one shortcoming - and a shortcoming that may very well bring him down in the end - is his tendency to try to appease the stupidity and greed of the GOP.

“I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan [and now Libya] that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the machinations of Dick Cheney makes Machiavelli look like a trainee.

“On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify.”

So it seems that I was right on the money, at least, with respect to the way to go after Osama Bin Laden, and I’m virtually certain that I’m right about the rest as well. So Mr. President, at this point you should simply say, “Ok, we’ve done what we set out to do. We’ve brought Osama Bin Laden to justice so our job is done.” Then you should get the hell out of there as fast as you can go.

Eric L. Wattree

http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Could Obama Fall Victim to a Lack of Change We Can Believe in? (Reprise)

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Could Obama Fall Victim to a Lack of Change We Can Believe in? (Reprise)

In light of what's currently going on in the country I thought this would be an appropriate time to reprise this article that was published on November 2, 2009.

At this point Obama's presidency could go either way - he can either become one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known, or go down as an exciting experiment that went bad. It's all up to how he handles the expectations of Independents.

The biggest problem that Obama currently faces is becoming a victim of his own effectiveness. During the campaign he raised the nation's expectation so high that just being a good president won't do. He promised a change that we can believe in, which led many of us to believe that he intended to trash the way business is done in Washington, but that promise seems to be totally inconsistent with what seems to be his irrepressible desire to hold hands and sing Kum By Ya with the very Republican leaders from which we wanted a change.

This has fueled the growing suspicion by many that both parties are beholding to the same cabal of power, and only feign having differing philosophies toward governance. That suspicion lies very close to the surface for many Independents - after all, that's why they're Independents in the first place.

And President Obama hasn't helped himself in that regard. For a man who is ordinarily so politically astute, even before he became president he did a curious flip-flop on the FISA issue. According to Greenchange.org, on October 24, 2007, Bill Burton of the Obama campaign indicated, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But by June 20, 2008, Obama issued a statement reversing his position, indicating that our national security needs were more important than his objections.

That deeply disappointed many Independents, since a citizen's right to sue a telecommunications company for invading his or her privacy in violation of the law has nothing to do with national security. Those are the very constitutional rights that we're trying to keep secure. But while many Independents have kept that in mind, at least Obama had the integrity to take that stand prior to our making the decision on whether or not to vote for him.

But then once he was elected President, Obama made another curious statement with regard to the criminal activities and alleged war crimes committed by the Bush administration. In spite of the fact that there are strong allegations and prima facie evidence of torture, and some of the most unconscionable violations of the Geneva Convention since the Nuremberg trials, President Obama stated that he wanted to move the nation forward, and not look back.

Many Independents have two problems with that. First of all, President Obama seems much too willing to move forward with regard to the fat cats, while lower-ranking personnel are rotting in prison. That's in direct conflict with the American ideal of equal justice under the law. And secondly, since most of these atrocities were committed against the citizens of other nations, it is the height of arrogance for us to be "the deciders" of whether or not those responsible should be held accountable. That also runs contrary to American ideals, and the concept of "a shining city on the hill."

And now we're talking about sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. The question is, why? The nation has yet to be provided with a reasonable explanation of why we should be meddling, once again, in another country's internal affairs. One would think we would have learned something about the futility of that by now. It's a recipe for disaster.

There's only two legitimate reasons to have our troops in that part of the world. The first is obvious - to make damn sure the nuclear missiles in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. The second reason is to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So why can't we simply pull out of Afghanistan and deploy enough troops in Pakistan to protect the missiles, then let the CIA and law enforcement deal with Osama? That way we save both treasure and lives, and we're not creating more enemies for the United States by killing innocent people.

But many Independents suspect that there's another agenda afoot. Actually, Cheney's giving it away. Independents recognize that Dick Cheney has absolutely no integrity, so when he gets passionate over an issue we know to follow either the money or power. Thus, many Independents suspect that what's actually behind Cheney's insistence that we go recklessly rushing into Afghanistan has much more to do with Halliburton's bottom line than it does America's best interest. And while Obama has shown himself to be an excellent president in many ways, his one shortcoming - and a shortcoming that may very well bring him down in the end - is his tendency to try to appease the stupidity and greed of the GOP.

The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands.

I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan [and now Libya] that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the machinations of Dick Cheney makes Machiavelli look like a trainee.

On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify.

And he'd look even better if he allowed Attorney General Holder to do his job with respect to the Bush administration's war crimes. First, he'd firm up his base by restoring their confidence that he stands for the rule of law, and he would also allay the fear that he might be a puppet, controlled by some powerful cabal.

Another upside to that is that once Holder begins his investigation into the Bush administration, there's absolutely no doubt that he's going to find criminality, cronyism, and corruption seeping so deep within the GOP that Republicans will be so busy snitching on one another, and covering their own asses, that they won't have the time to plot against either him, or the American people.

Now, THAT, would be a change that we could believe in.


Eric L. Wattree

Http://wattree.blogspot.com/
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)

Christian bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Could Obama Fall Victim to a Change We Can't Believe in?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE Could Obama Fall Victim to a Change We Can't Believe in? At this point Obama's presidency could go either way - he can either become one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known, or go down as an exciting experiment that went bad. It's all up to how he handles the expectations of Independents. The biggest problem that Obama currently faces is becoming a victim of his own effectiveness. During the campaign he raised the nation's expectation so high that just being a good president won't do. He promised a change that we can believe in, which led many of us to believe that he intended to trash the way business is done in Washington, but that promise seems to be totally inconsistent with what seems to be his irrepressible desire to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the very Republican leaders from which we wanted a change. This has fueled the growing suspicion by many that both parties are beholding to the same cabal of power, and only feign having differing philosophies toward governance. That suspicion lies very close to the surface for many Independents - after all, that's why they're Independents in the first place. And President Obama hasn't helped himself in that regard. For a man who is ordinarily so politically astute, even before he became president he did a curious flip-flop on the FISA issue. According to Greenchange.org, on October 24, 2007, Bill Burton of the Obama campaign indicated, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." But by June 20, 2008, Obama issued a statement reversing his position, indicating that our national security needs were more important than his objections. That deeply disappointed many Independents, since a citizen's right to sue a telecommunications company for invading his or her privacy in violation of the law has nothing to do with national security. Those are the very constitutional rights that we're trying to keep secure. But while many Independents have kept that in mind, at least Obama had the integrity to take that stand prior to our making the decision on whether or not to vote for him. But then once he was elected President, Obama made another curious statement with regard to the criminal activities and alleged war crimes committed by the Bush administration. In spite of the fact that there are strong allegations and prima facie evidence of torture, and some of the most unconscionable violations of the Geneva Convention since the Nuremberg trials, President Obama stated that he wanted to move the nation forward, and not look back. Many Independents have two problems with that. First of all, President Obama seems much too willing to move forward with regard to the fat cats, while lower-ranking personnel are rotting in prison. That's in direct conflict with the American ideal of equal justice under the law. And secondly, since most of these atrocities were committed against the citizens of other nations, it is the height of arrogance for us to be "the deciders" of whether or not those responsible should be held accountable. That also runs contrary to American ideals, and the concept of "a shining city on the hill." And now we're talking about sending thousands of more troops to Afghanistan. The question is, why? The nation has yet to be provided with a reasonable explanation of why we should be meddling, once again, in another country's internal affairs. One would think we would have learned something about the futility of that by now. It's a recipe for disaster. There's only two legitimate reasons to have our troops in that part of the world. The first is obvious - to make damn sure the nuclear missiles in Pakistan don't fall into the hands of Al Qaeda. The second reason is to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice. So why can't we simply pull out of Afghanistan and deploy enough troops in Pakistan to protect the missiles, then let the CIA and law enforcement deal with Osama? That way we save both treasure and lives, and we're not creating more enemies for the United States by killing innocent people. But many Independents suspect that there's another agenda afoot. Actually, Cheney's giving it away. Independents recognize that Dick Cheney has absolutely no integrity, so when he gets passionate over an issue we know to follow either the money or power. Thus, many Independents suspect that what's actually behind Cheney's insistence that we go recklessly rushing into Afghanistan has much more to do with Halliburton's bottom line than it does America's best interest. And while Obama has shown himself to be an excellent president in many ways, his one shortcoming - and a shortcoming that may very well bring him down in the end - is his tendency to try to appease the stupidity and greed of the GOP. The President needs to recognize that there is nothing he can do that's going to make him acceptable to the GOP - that is, unless he agrees to appoint a Republican vice president, then resign. By now it should be clear that even while he's asleep, the GOP is trying to hatch plans to destroy him. So by spending more time thinking about them than he is his base, he's playing right into their hands. I mentioned power as one of the reasons that Cheney's trying to rush the president into Afghanistan. I wonder if the president has considered the fact that Cheney just might be trying to get him to make the same kind of mistake in Afghanistan that the Bush Administration made in Iraq in order to take the Iraq issue off the table for the 2012 election? If during the 2012 campaign America is bogged down in Afghanistan with the useless death of thousands of U.S. troops, all of a sudden, Bush, Cheney, and the GOP won't look all that bad. The president should think about that possibility, since the machinations of Dick Cheney makes Machiavelli look like a trainee. On the other hand, if the president would have the CIA go after Osama Bin Laden (through the use of intelligence, instead of blindly shooting at rocks), then pull out of Afghanistan, and make an agreement with the government of Pakistan to help them protect their nuclear arsenal, he'll be looking pretty good in 2012, and he won't have the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops to have to justify. And he'd look even better if he allowed Attorney General Holder to do his job with respect to the Bush administration's war crimes. First, he'd firm up his base by restoring their confidence that he stands for the rule of law, and he would also allay the fear that he might be a puppet, controlled by some powerful cabal. Another upside to that is that once Holder begins his investigation into the Bush administration, there's absolutely no doubt that he's going to find criminality, cronyism, and corruption seeping so deep within the GOP that Republicans will be so busy snitching on one another, and covering their own asses, that they won't have the time to plot against either him, or the American people. Now, THAT, would be a change that we could believe in. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content