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

In Defense of My Stance Against Cornel West

Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

In Defense of My Stance Against Cornel West

.

In response to my last column, Dr. Boyce Watkins Announces His Withdrawal from Cornel West Controversy , one reader said the following:
.
"Wattree – you should stop kissing President Obama’s ass without thinking about your political decisions. He hasn’t done anything for you, but you talk about him like you work for him."
.
Such comments are so typical of Cornel West supporters that they’ve become a mantra. They invariably accuse anyone who dares to point out that West’s blatant public slander of the President of the United States was counterproductive, unsubstantiated, and frankly, stupid, as only being interested in defending President Obama. They try to avoid the issue of West’s grossly unprofessional behavior by accusing his critics of being Obama cheerleaders. So let me dispose of that allegation at the outset.
.
As I’ve mentioned many times before, I’ve written several articles that are highly critical of President Obama - one, long before Obama was even sworn into office. In the article, A Journalist’s First Responsibility, written on July 8, 2008, I point out unequivocally that it’s not a journalist’s responsibility to try to protect a favored candidate:
.
"On June 20th Senator Barack Obama announced that he was supporting the current FISA bill before the senate. That bill gives retroactive immunity to all telecommunications companies against all private law suits for cooperating with the Bush administration's program of spying on the American people without a court order, as currently required by current law . . .
.
"I've been roundly criticized by fellow Obama supporters for bringing this issue out. They say that ‘I'm hurting our candidate’, and ‘I'm not seeing the big picture.’ But in response I suggest, when truth becomes a hindrance to a candidate's viability, it's not truth that's the problem–it's the candidate. And when the "greater good" involves journalists keeping the people in the dark, it becomes the nation's problem. Thus, it's not up to journalists to keep Obama's candidacy viable--it's up to Obama."
.
Thus, my strident criticism of Cornel West has nothing to do with trying to protect Obama. I’m speaking out against West’s unmitigated stupidity. Period.
.
Any Black person who doesn’t recognize the importance of, at the very least, respecting the first Black President of the United States is an idiot. While that doesn’t preclude one from criticizing Obama’s policies, just like any other president, West criticized him as a Black man, which is an exercise in self-hatred, and betrays his true attitude toward Black people in general. So West didn’t merely make himself look stupid, he made the Black community look stupid as well. First, West clearly demonstrated that many of us don’t have any self-respect. And secondly, since his high profile sends the false impression that West is one of the best and brightest in the Black community, his reckless and unprofessional assertions and behavior reinforces the racist belief that Black professionals are something less than their White counterparts.
.
To this day, there are many racists who claim that Black professionals are professionals in name only. They contend that due to Affirmative Action, Black professionals didn’t have to pay the dues to obtain their credentials that their White counterparts had to pay. Therefore, they’re less qualified. As a direct result of that attitude, many highly qualified Black professionals are being passed over for upward mobility in their chosen professions.
.
But Black professionals have been slowly proving that contention is a lie. People like Johnnie Cochran and Colin Powell have stepped up to the plate to demonstrate that they were not only as good as their White counterparts, but in many cases, much better. That accounts for why so many White folks hated O.J. Simpson. While many simply wanted to see justice prevail, there were others who hated O.J. for much more than the fact that they thought he was a murderer. The primary reason they hated O.J. so intensely was because he brought Johnnie Cochran to the world’s stage, and Johnnie proved beyond a doubt that the racist contention that Black professionals were inferior was, and is, a lie.
.
Think about it. At the very height of the affirmative action controversy Johnnie Cochran walked into the courtroom from, essentially, out of nowhere. He then told some of the most celebrated attorneys in the world to scoot over, and then proceeded to play the legal system like a fiddle. Thereafter, for the very first time, instead of racists saying that a Black man was inferior, they claimed that O.J. got away with murder because he could afford to hire the very best - Johnnie Cochran, a Black man. And now, the very same is true of President Obama with respect to our political system, regardless to what you think of his politics. It's no accident, therefore, that people like Cornel West, Tavis smiley, and many rabid conservatives hate President Obama as well - and, ironically, for the very same reason.
.
Thus, we were well on our way to proving our point regarding the competence and intellect of Black professionals. Then a jealous, self-serving, 19th Century-thinking idiot like Cornel West comes along whose words and behavior essentially says, Naw, naw, White folks,  y’all right about this dude. Obama ain’t nothing but another Black pickaninny. I’m the genius! I’m the one you should be listening to! I was at Harvard long before he was. He butted in line. It’s suppose to be my turn now!  He’s just "a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats." And further, "I think my dear brother Barack Obama has a certain fear of free black men" (The latter statement seems to have been designed to trigger a knee-jerk response from the few unthinking, reactionary Black people in the community).
.
But that latter statement was also just enough for racists to point to as confirmation of their contention that Black "intellectuals" are inferior thinkers. As a scholar, West should have known better than anyone else that you should never make an assertion that you can’t substantiate in the very next sentence, or no later than the following paragraph. Yet, he states, among other things, that due to Barack Obama’s background, he has "a certain fear of free Black men." What evidence does he have of that? Absolutely none. So he’s guilty of reckless, unscholarly, and frankly, ridiculous thinking.
.
I mean, I could say that because Cornel West - this so-called passionate lover of Black people - married a White woman and never taught at a school that more than a lucky few Black people could even get into, that he’s afraid of free Black women and has no respect for Black scholarship. But unlike West, I wouldn’t dare make such an idiotic assertion. Why? Because I can’t crawl into his head to substantiate my facts. In addition, I wouldn’t want to embarrass the Black community with such stupidity. But the most important reason that I wouldn't make such a reckless assertion is because I - this unabashed and unrepentant hood rat - understand the importance of disciplined thought.
.

Once Again Nader and West Team to Elect a Republican President

.

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

A JOURNALIST’S FIRST RESPONSIBILITY

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE . A JOURNALIST'S FIRST RESPONSIBILITY: TO PROTECT HIS FAVORED CANDIDATE, OR THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KNOW? As anyone who has regularly read my column is fully aware, I've been one of Barack Obama's most fervent supporters since hours after he first declared his intention to seek the presidency, and I continue to support that effort. But I was bitterly disappointed with the position he's taken on the FISA bill now before the U.S. Senate, and I've been quite vociferous in making that disappointment known to all who would listen. On June 20th Senator Barack Obama announced that he was supporting the current FISA bill before the senate. That bill gives retroactive immunity to all telecommunications companies against all private law suits for cooperating with the Bush administration's program of spying on the American people without a court order, as currently required by current law. If that bill is passed, it will preclude private law suits that would reveal when they started spying on the American people, who they spied on, their justification for spying on them (in cases where it was unjustified), and who in the administration the information went to. Bush claims that it wouldn't prevent criminal charges from being brought against administration officials for abuse, but if the administration remains true to form, once the bill is passed, Bush will simply give a blanket pardon to all those involved. Obama's position on this issue is a complete departure from the position he took during the primaries while running against Hillary Clinton. While he "missed" the vote on a similar bill by the senate on February 12, he issued a statement indicating, "I am proud to stand with Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold and a grassroots movement of Americans who are refusing to let President Bush put protections for special interests ahead of our security and our liberty." I've been roundly criticized by fellow Obama supporters for bringing this issue out. They say that "I'm hurting our candidate", and "I'm not seeing the big picture." But in response I suggest, when truth becomes a hindrance to a candidate's viability, it's not truth that's the problem–it's the candidate. And when the "greater good" involves journalists keeping the people in the dark, it becomes the nation's problem. Thus, it's not up to journalists to keep Obama's candidacy viable--it's up to Obama. While I desperately want to see Obama become our next president, we simply cannot allow him to take our vote for granted. We must support ideals, not individuals. What is the sense of voting for a class of people who feel safe in ignoring us once they've secured our vote. I understand that Obama is going to have to make some compromises, but we're talking about modifying the United States Constitution here! If he'll compromise on something as important as that, what else might he compromise? I'd like to ask my fellow Obama supporters a question: Would you think your arguments regarding remaining mute in order to get Obama elected still be valid if he compromised on an assault on the Voter's Rights Act, or a Woman's Right to Choose? Would you still be as adamant about keeping it on the down-low? Well, his position with respect to FISA is every bit as serious, and as a journalist, I have an obligation to inform the people of that fact. We simply cannot pick and choose what rights are important, and which ones we can do without. When a journalist start saying to himself, I can't tell the people that, because it may hurt my candidate, it's time for that journalist to stop writing, because then he's no longer a journalist--he's a political hack. And if I did it, I'd be buying into the very same philosophy that too many journalists have embraced over the past seven years with regard to Bush. My first allegiance is to the people and the American ideal that keeps them secure within their person, and only then, to a particular political candidate. I can't allow myself the luxury of getting so caught up in a personality cult that it obscures my objectivity. Thus, I'm not at war with Obama due to one isolated decision--I'm at war with a political class who feels free to ignore the will, and the best interest of the people. Therefore, I'm not moving away from Obama, he's moving away from me. We've already gone much too far down the road of compromise. As I mentioned in an earlier article, they started chipping away at the constitution when Ford pardoned Nixon. Then they went a little further when Reagan was not impeached after Iran/contra, and when he flooded the Black community with drugs to finance his illegal war in contravention of the Boland Amendment. Now congress is refusing to address the lie that Bush told to take us into Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and allowing Bush cronies to ravish the treasury, and take away our right to due process. Now, in spite of the fact that Bush's job approval is at 28%, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich spent over five hours listing 35 articles of impeachment against the Bush/Cheney administration, they've been buried by this Democratic congress because Democratic Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is insisting, "impeachment is off the table." We were angered by these betrayals, but we held back to put our faith in Obama, a brother who is talking about change. But now that he's secured our support, he not only supports blocking an opportunity to investigate Bush's spying on millions of Americans, but giving retroactive immunity to both the administration officials, and the communication companies involved, precluding any law suits by private citizens to bring out the facts regarding this abuse of the American people. So exactly what do they have to do before I have permission to speak out? So to Sen. Obama: I urge you to reconsider your position on this bill. Your current position is not only a gross assault on the rights of the people, but it's greatly undermining your credibility among many of your most ardent supporters. The entire thrust of your campaign has been about change. So I have but one question begging to be asked--when? 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