Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 21, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Saving the Obama Revolution

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Sep 22, 2009
Obama
AP / Charles Dharapak

President Barack Obama boards Air Force One at Albany International Airport after he spoke about the economy at Hudson Valley Community College in Troy, N.Y., on Monday.

By Robert Scheer

The Obama revolution, and there was the hope of one, might still succeed. But only if Barack Obama follows the model of the incredibly successful Reagan revolution and heeds the political base that made his presidency possible.

Love him or not, Ronald Reagan had at least one outstanding political virtue—his respect for the concerns of those who placed their trust in him. And whenever the political vultures that feast on power tried to lead him astray, they were fired at the insistence of Reagan or his remarkably savvy wife, Nancy. Hopefully Obama and his no-less-impressive mate, Michelle, will do the same.

The first obligation of Obama as president is to be a peacemaker, since he as a candidate seized that mantle, successfully exploiting his early opposition to the Iraq war, which his closest rival, Hillary Clinton, had supported. Obama, as opposed to her flirtations with U.S. imperial arrogance, has stuck to a vision of a complex multipolar world in which the military option is to be chosen only as a last resort.

In that regard the president is making some progress, particularly with his decision to stop provoking the Russians with an unneeded and unworkable missile defense on their border. He also seems serious about getting the Israelis and Palestinians to peace negotiations, the one issue in the Mideast that must be solved if the region’s religious fanatics are to be neutralized. And he will deserve credit if he backs his attorney general’s quest to hold the enablers of a U.S. government torture policy accountable.

The deal breaker in foreign policy so far has been his escalation of the folly of U.S. nation-building in Afghanistan that feeds rather than mitigates terrorist recruitment. That is the unmistakable, if unintended, conclusion of the 66-page declassified report of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal that became public this week. It states:  “ … many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating. We face not only a resilient and growing insurgency; there is also a crisis of confidence among Afghans—in both their government and the international community—that undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
The report makes clear that the insurgents are deeply divided into three camps (one of which previously fought against the Taliban) and are basically homegrown, and provides no evidence that defeating them has anything to do with making us safer from attack by al-Qaida terrorists. Lest we forget, the 9/11 hijackers found it easier to operate from Germany, San Diego and Florida rather than forlorn Afghanistan.

The foreign influence behind the insurgency comes primarily from one of the countries we are allied with; as the report notes, “Afghanistan’s insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan.” And the document goes on to say that the historical India-Pakistan rivalry has now been transferred to Afghanistan, where “the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian.” Great, another Kashmir battlefield in the making.

Obama was right during his appearances Sunday on the TV political talk shows to put the emphasis on going after what remains of Osama bin Laden’s forces in Pakistan and elsewhere rather than simply throwing more troops into the Afghanistan war. He raised the all-important question of what U.S. troops in Afghanistan are expected to do.

The McChrystal report agrees that the key is the question of mission rather than simply increasing troop numbers: “Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or ‘doubling down’ on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way we think and operate.”

There is a sobering honesty to McChrystal’s report that those who want to “win” in Afghanistan must take into account. The mission the general outlines is one of nation-building with a vengeance by U.S. forces that must forsake the safety of their bases, learn the local languages and enter into the administration of local life without being able to count on the support of the hopelessly corrupt and, after the rigged election, illegitimate Afghan government. “Afghans are frustrated and weary after eight years without evidence of the progress they anticipated,” the report says. 

It’s the old winning-hearts-and-minds strategy that has never worked—as Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s point man in the region, should know from his failed efforts to win hearts and minds during the war in Vietnam, where he specialized in “rural pacification.” That was a Democrat’s war, and the base of the party, which knows better than to repeat that disastrous error, should tell the president so.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: President Zelaya and the Audacity of Action

Next item: A Puzzling, Dangerous U.S. Policy Comes to an End



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By elisalouisa, September 23, 2009 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

SaveTheTenth:-(Obama) Called the late Paul Wellstone “something of a gadfly
____________________________________
Thank you SaveTheTenth for your very informative post. I supported Obama up
until the moment more money was thrown at Wall Street under Obama’s watch
without accountability or reform demands. There could have been “change” right
from the beginning.
The Paul Wellstone comment was not well publicized. Senator Wellstone and his
family met an untimely end in a plane crash twelve days after telling Chaney he
did not support the Iraq war.

Report this

By doublestandards/glasshouses, September 23, 2009 at 7:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No president can save us now.  I really think that
Ralph Nader has the right idea.  Corporate power is
too firmly entrenched for the president to change
what needs to be changed and then there is the
lunatic fringe and their friends in the media.  Obama
is getting 30 death threats a day for governing right
of center.  What would happen if he tried to do
anything on the progressive agenda?

LIFE INC. How the World Became a Corporation and How
to Take It Back by Douglas Rushkoff

IDIOT AMERICA How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the
Land of the Free by Charles Pierce

ONLY THE SUPER RICH CAN SAVE US NOW by Ralph Nader

Report this
LostHills's avatar

By LostHills, September 23, 2009 at 7:12 am Link to this comment

The revolution has been called off due to lack of credibility….

Report this

By Kay Johnson, September 23, 2009 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

“The Obama revolution, and there was the hope of one, might still succeed.”—Robert Sheer

Does anyone really think Obama will lead a revolution?

By now, his “health insurance reform”—instead of health care reform—is a mandate for another upwards shift of wealth to the already massively wealthy health industry executives, and Obama has made backdoor deals with PhRMA’s Billy Tauzin to NOT negotiate the price of prescription drugs—along with other deals.

The mantra of our fearful leaders is always about national security and keeping us safe. However, what does being and feeling safe really mean? If 45,000 U.S. citizens, and others living in the U.S., die every year due to lack of health care, how safe are we?

Certainly, they know how to distract us, and to change the subject, don’t they?

Ardee already asked the questions, concerning several other critical issues that we face in this country, and I agree with him—and this is a revolution?

The thought of revolution is nothing less than laughable—if only we had real leadership from our own government, a government, BTW, that “we the people” fund.

The U.S. still has 130,000 troops in Iraq. What happened to getting out of that country? In addition, Obama, currently, is considering sending more troops, again, to Afghanistan. But now, with the new polls showing that “we the people,” 57% of us, oppose that decision, he is back to posturing and acting with caution. Then, there are the 7 military bases he wants to build in Columbia. And, for these acts, he is called a peacemaker? In what dictionary?

The way I see it, Obama is fighting for the other side—the corporations and the IMC, not for “we the people,” or in the public interest.

Yesterday, the big news on the electronic ticker tape in Times Square was that the F.D.I.C. is going to borrow money from the “HEALTHY” banks.

Since Mr. Sheer is so good at unraveling financial issues, I was hoping, this morning, to find his column addressing this new revelation which seems rather circular to me—the way the money keeps passing through the hands of the same men on Wall Street. There must be money to be made, or they wouldn’t be doing it!

I’ll be happy to give Obama credit when he deserves credit, but I’m not nearly as hopeful as Mr. Sheer appears to be.

Report this
earthwirehead's avatar

By earthwirehead, September 23, 2009 at 7:02 am Link to this comment

The only “hope of an Obama revolution” I ever saw was an exercise in self-deception as millions of progressives and disaffected independents projected onto Obama their own hopes after eight years of watching Bush destroy what little dignity or honor the United States had left.

That said, I agree that it is far past time that Mr. Obama remembered who elected him and why, and started ACTING with a little audacity… as opposed to merely giving speeches about it.

Report this

By rolmike, September 23, 2009 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

Obama revolution? A fraud from A to Z. This is Bush III all the way except to some extent of the health care effort and the cap on emissions. Obama has broken 9 out of ten of every one of the “change we can” specifics. There’s good reason Goldman-Sachs with a million bucks was his single most powerful campaign contributor. If Bush’s was the Enron Presidency, this is the Goldman-Sachs revolution. Don’t misuse the word “revolution” Mr. Scheer.

Report this

By SaveTheTenth, September 23, 2009 at 6:28 am Link to this comment

With all due respect from a longtime fan Mr. Sheer: What “revolution”?
Here’s just a bit of what we now know of Obama:

-Favored expanding the war in Afghanistan

-Supported the PATRIOT Act

-Supported Real ID

- Wouldn’t rule out first strike nuclear attack on Iran

- Called Pakistan “the right battlefield ... in the war on terrorism.” Threatened to invade Pakistan

- Opposed gay marriage

- Opposed single payer healthcare

- Supported restricting damage awards in medical malpractice suits

- Favors individual healthcare mandates that would help insurance companies and banks but not citizens

- expanding the size of the military.

- Called the late Paul Wellstone “something of a gadfly”

- Was ranked 24th in the Senate by Progressive Punch

- Said “everything is on the table” with Social Security.

-Endorsed US involvement in the failed drug war in Colombia.

-Lent his support, as Paul Street of Z Mag noted, ” to the aptly named Hamilton Project, formed by corporate-neoliberal Citigroup chair Robert Rubin and other Wall Street Democrats to counter populist rebellion against corporatist tendencies within the Democratic Party. .

-Went to Connecticut to support Joe Lieberman in the primary against Ned Lamont

-Had the most number of foreign lobbyist contributors in the primaries

-Was even more popular with Pentagon contractors than McCain

-Was the most popular of the candidates with K Street lobbyists

I’ve got more but I think readers get the point. I dare any sycophant to call *me* a racist.

Report this

By Ivan Hentschel, September 23, 2009 at 6:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How lovely, how unrealistic and how incongruously inept, as a prediction. A revolution requires radical newness, i.e., a new menu with fresh food and ideas. Obama is serving Bush-Reagan warmed up leftovers. Reagan served up trickle-down economics, Bush served up blathering blundering and Obama has recycled it all as dwindle-down hope. Obama is proving that the more things “change”, the more they remain the same. His faux speech on health care, his faux warnings to Wall St and his Sunday morning talk show self-marketing blitz were all show-business. He is a Madison Avenue status quo lawyer.

Report this

By fredmoz, September 23, 2009 at 6:09 am Link to this comment

I think collectively President Obama and his two lieutenants Mr. Axelrod and Emanuel from the roof of WH are screaming “SUCKERS!!!”
I can not believe that Senator Rockefeller who for 8 yrs turned a blind eye to W’s secret illegal actions has now become the poster boy of Health Care Reform instead of the three above mentioned individuals.

Report this

By Big B, September 23, 2009 at 5:57 am Link to this comment

There will be no “Obama” revolution.

There will be none because he has abdicated his policy making bully pulpit that is the oval office to the dimmocratic leadership in the congress. He has made a classic mistake that most dimmo presidents have made in the last century, and that is he has drastically overestimated the ability of congress to actually legislate. He forgets that congress has achieved the ultimate equilibrium in the “checks and balances” arena, and that is, everything that is attempted, can be blocked or eliminated by a smaller more vocal opposition.(a game the dimmocrats have never learned to play) And all this leads to a stagnant and ineffective government.

The problem is that as government continues to roll around in it’s own shit, the corporations keep taking a larger and larger roll in the final days of the American experiment. Unless pres Barry steps up and shows the kind of leadership that america so desperately needs, and unless we the people step up and demand that he does, we will be living in cardboard boxes and standing in line for our daily ration of soylent green. We need to ask ourselves very soon, will there be a prosperous and generous america in second half of the 21st century? Or do we just taste like chicken?

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, September 23, 2009 at 5:19 am Link to this comment

I, too, agree with ardee.  I find this article astonishingly naive—or perhaps its author is writing from a not-so-parallel universe.

It is also wrong about Reagan.

Report this

By elisalouisa, September 23, 2009 at 5:19 am Link to this comment

Obama the impotent
              Steven Hill
      guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 September 2009 13.00 BST
      Article history
Much hope has been invested in Barack Obama’s ability to strike a new course
for the US following eight years of Bush administration unpopularity. Yet many
in the US and abroad are impatient with the pace of progress under the Obama
administration. The president made the rounds on five news talkshows on
Sunday as he pressed his policies and vision, preparing for what is likely to be a
difficult week.
Besides the ongoing battle over healthcare, this week sees two showdowns
between Europe and the US that will reveal further slippage in American global
leadership. The first showdown comes today at a UN special session on climate
change in New York City; the second will come at the end of the week at the
G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, where America and Europe will butt heads over
financial system reforms designed to ensure that the AIGs of the world can
never again cause an economic collapse.
Europe has been increasingly critical of America’s failures to live up to its global
responsibilities. The US is not only the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse
gases but is by far the largest per capita emitter of carbon and other
pollutants. China comes close to the US in terms of total carbon emissions, but
it has four times more people, who each belch far less individually. Europe,
while having much the same high living standard, has an “ecological footprint”
that is only half of America’s, since Europe has taken leadership in
implementing renewable technologies and conservation practices.
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama promised to reverse the Bush
administration’s terrible ecological record. Yet so far the world has seen more
symbolic gestures from the Obama administration than accomplishments. Its
biggest achievement so far has been a disappointment. President Obama
signed an executive order to increase US motor vehicle mileage standards – but
only to a level that will push fuel efficiency by 2020 to a level that European
and Japanese cars reached several years ago, and even China has already
achieved.
Europe has announced donations of $2bn to $15bn a year for the next decade
to help developing nations cope with climate warming, yet the Obama
administration has not offered anything close to that amount. Europe also
wants binding, near-term targets for developed nations, proposing a 20%
reduction from 1990 levels by 2020, or 30% if everyone agrees. The Bush
administration of course rejected such targets – but now it looks like the
Obama administration is not willing to go much further. It has said such targets
should be voluntary but verifiable.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, September 23, 2009 at 5:18 am Link to this comment

Send CEO’s not Troops.
Our Elite industrialist love to claim our Economy would fall apart without their over paid ‘Talents’.
Lets make them put their money where their mouth is.
Not only sending over the means to move from an Ag economy to a Industiral Economy- but the ‘leaders’ who proclaim their unique abilities to accomplish such a transition.
Let’s be honest our Current ‘Titans of industry’ were handed the tools to their Trade.They are not the ones who Built it, and obviously are responsible for it’s deterioration and collapse. Yet we continue to allow them to make big bucks and control the levers because they are ‘indispensible’ to our ‘recovery’.
They may be right since we are beginning to see signs of recovery. But that may have more to do with the Bailouts, Stim plan and American fortitude than anything else.
Iraq and Afghanistan have been the cause of the huge Deficit run up by the Bush Admin and we are sinking money into them still with no results. Iraq will finally stop costing US Billions a month in the next year- but what about Afghanistan. Adding more troops will only increase the costs, while Afghani’s pay nothing and do nothing for their own reclaimation. Repugs love to claim Private Industry is the backbone to our Economy- so lets make them prove it.
Don’t just Recruit These Titans, but Draft them. Much like the concept of forgiving college debt by working in distressed areas (inner city schools, rural clinics), These ‘titans’ could forego repayment of some of the Bailout by performing the magic they calim to possess. Call it private industries Community Service.
If we can help build a real economy- not based on Poppy production- the Afghani’s could begin to contribute to the rebuilding of their nation and exorcising the blood thirsty parasites from their country.
Our ‘Titans of Industry’ have used the efforts of those who actually created the industrial revolution as their credentials to claim Outragous salaries and Ben packages are compensation for their ‘emmense and Unique Talents’. Afghanistan could be a Test to validated or dispute such claims.
Make these Auto execs go over a build an Afghani car co. Have these ‘indispensible’ investors begin investing in small business. Make Big Ag prove they can create a Bread basket in the Desert.
Afghanistan is a Tribal Society, not a antionalist society. The only thing that can bring together all these various groups, the one thing they seek is Prosperity. Lets draft those who claim they provide the ‘Prosperity’ to a nation and it’s masses.
At the very least they may finally be earning the money they make now and liveup to the Reputation they like to claim.

Report this

By elisalouisa, September 23, 2009 at 5:18 am Link to this comment

Obama the Impotent Part 1A
With the US Senate bogged down in the fight over reforming healthcare,
American leaders have said that the senators might not move on climate
legislation until 2010, well after the global climate change conference in
Copenhagen in December. That drew a sharp response from John Bruton, head
of the European Union delegation: “The United States is just one of the 190
countries coming to this conference,” Bruton said, “but the United States emits
25% of all the greenhouse gases that the conference is trying to reduce. I
submit that asking an international conference to sit around looking out the
window for months, while one chamber of the legislature of one country deals
with its other business, is simply not a realistic political position.”
Even Europe’s conservative politicians, such as Connie Hedegaard, Denmark’s
minister of climate and energy, are expressing impatience: “It’s rather crucial
that the US can show a credible pathway,” Hedegaard said, pointing out that
the US emits twice as much carbon dioxide per capita as Denmark, without
gaining anything in improving its quality of life.
That’s the start of President Obama’s week. At the end of it, President Obama
will appear at a meeting in Pittsburgh of the G20, a bloc of both developed and
developing nations, representing 85% of the world’s economic output and most
of its population. On the table will be reforms designed to avoid a repetition of
the financial panic and global economic collapse perceived as having originated
on Wall Street. Despite immense, taxpayer-financed rescue packages needed to
overcome the crisis, the financial sector in the US is rapidly returning to
business as usual. Indeed, three US banks – Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley
and JP Morgan – which received some $45bn of bailout aid, each paid billions of
dollars more in bonuses in 2009 than they earned in 2008.
Here again, Europe is leading, while the Obama administration is dragging its
feet. Europe has proposed far-reaching reforms designed to impose new rules
on executive pay and bonuses, requiring that banks link pay to long-term
rather than short-term performance, and that they “claw back” any bonuses
received in the face of losses. Europe wants a financial police force that has
powers to slash payments where investments prove to have failed, and to force
boardrooms to control levels of speculation. Europe also wants to block the
exercising of stock options for set periods and expose top bank directors to
penalties, following huge payouts to failed bank chiefs.

Report this

By texasdeb, September 23, 2009 at 5:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It seems to me that one of the things people fail to acknowledge is this: every Presidential candidate lies, period. Some simply lie better than others, and as such good liars, they get elected. Although Mr. Obama is a smooth talker, and can speak in circles without anyone really taking note, the simple fact is he has not done anything yet that has been in the best interest of the general population. He, like Mr. Kennedy of old (John not Ted)took advantage of a public that was sick and tired of being put on the hot seat, a public that was torn on nearly every major issue (healthcare, war, failing economy) and he spoke to each one, with his inexperienced optimism. He did what we all have done at some point in our own lives, he played the crowd.
Mr. Obama is using our money to bail out companies who don’t deserve it, he is using our money to offer healthcare to people who disrespect this country so much they refuse to even use the language, he has publicly stated the USA is no longer a Christian country, and we are in worse condition now than we have ever been. One should not make promises one annot or will not keep, a basic lesson we have been teaching kindergarteners for years.

Report this

By elisalouisa, September 23, 2009 at 5:14 am Link to this comment

Obama the impotent - Part 2
The Obama administration’s approach has been much more tepid, to say the
least. The US financial industry, as expected, is fighting these reforms, but
what do we make of a recent quote by President Obama questioning the need
for supporting Europe’s proposals. “Why is it,” he asked during a recent
interview, “that we’re going to cap executive compensation for Wall Street
bankers but not Silicon Valley entrepreneurs or [American] football players?”
Besides the fact that President Obama was wrong – the National Football
League does have salary restrictions – Silicon Valley businesses and NFL
quarterbacks don’t cause an economic collapse when they screw up. It’s very
sobering that, if David Letterman read that quote on his TV show and asked his
audience: “Who made this clueless statement, former President Bush or
President Obama?” we know what the response would be. Or would have been.
In response to American foot-dragging, European leader Jean-Claude Juncker
said Europe should act on the bonus issue “whether the Americans are with us
or not.” He said that a Europe-only charge “will take on such force over time
that the Americans will not be able to sit on the sidelines.”
Many leaders and supporters are beginning to wonder what is causing this
growing gap between the Barack Obama that many people saw on the
campaign trail, and the Obama they see in the White House? Beyond Obama’s
oratorical skills, which excited not only American voters but people all over the
world, he is mostly untested as a politician. His previous experience was only a
few years in the US Senate and a few years more as a state senator. A sinking
feeling is arising among many that President Obama may not be up to the task,
that he may not possess the artful skills needed to accomplish even his own
goals.
But it must be recognised that it’s not just Obama’s shortcomings that are
causing the problem. The very structure of the American political system is at
the heart of these failures. For example, thwarting Obama on a regular basis is
an unrepresentative senate where “minority rule” prevails and undermines what
a majority of the country may want. With two senators elected per state,
regardless of population, California with more than 35 million people has the
same number of senators as Wyoming with just half a million residents. This
constitutional arrangement greatly favours low population states, many of
which tend to be conservative, producing what one political analyst has called
“a weighted vote for small-town whites in pickup trucks with gun racks.”
In addition, the senate’s use of that arcane rule known as the “filibuster” means
you need 60 out of 100 votes to stop unlimited debate on a bill and move to a
vote. A mere 41 senators, representing as little as 20% of the nation’s
population, can stymie the other 80%. Given a vastly unrepresentative senate
wielding its anti-majoritarian filibuster, it is hardly surprising that minority rule
in the senate consistently undermines majority rule, whether on healthcare,
financial industry reform, environmental legislation and many other policies.
Pile on to that an uncompetitive, winner-take-all electoral system, marinated
in money and special interest influence, and the sclerotic US political scene is
deeply troubling. None of these anti-democratic structural features are going
away any time soon. Unless Barack Obama is able to demonstrate a better level
of political skill than he has shown so far, everyone needs to fasten their
seatbelts. The world is about to enter a challenging phase where the US – the
undisputed leader of the free world for the past 60 years – is going to rapidly
cede its place at the head of the line.
It appears that the wheels may be coming off the world’s post-war leader, and
not even Barack Obama can stop it happening.

Report this

By Sylvia Barksdale, September 23, 2009 at 5:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I believe President Obama must be granted the time to realize his ambitions and further, he must be recognized as president rather than a man of different colour than pure white.

Afghanistan is an impossible quagmire that should be abandoned.  Granted, Obama wasn’t the president who put America into this no-mans land but he must be the one to extracts us from it.

Iraq is a place we never should have attacked in the first place.  However, Bush’s insane determination to kill Hussein couldn’t be quelched and as a result, 4,000 Americans have died plus countless innocent Iraqis.  Iraq should be abandoned immediately.  President Obama is directly responsible for ending this money eating misadventure.

To imagine all the great good for our country the funds going into keeping these wars hot is mind boggling.  On top of it all, homeland security should be top priority.  It is sheer folly for our leadership to believe that terrorists do not reside in America and in the countries of our allies.

Report this
Magginkat's avatar

By Magginkat, September 23, 2009 at 4:48 am Link to this comment

I have to agree with ardee & godistwaddle.  This administration, so far, has been a major disappointment.  Obama seems to think that his pretty speeches will solve everything.  Frankly, I think his speaking style stinks to high heavens.  He’s almost as irritating to listen to as Bush, Jr.

AND he seems to have totally forgotten who put him in office.

The illegal & illicit war goes on.  Don Siegelman is still fighting the corrupt Bush appointed U.S. Attorneys in Alabama to clear his name of phony, political prosecution led by the Nazi Karl Rove.  Why are the Bush appointed thugs still in office and still doing their dirty work?

Report this

By dihey, September 23, 2009 at 4:35 am Link to this comment

Revolution means turnabout. There have been only two real revolutions in our history. One was the replacement of a British Royal Overlordship by an independent country. The other was the abolition of slavery. Both have cost lives. What Obama proposed during the presidential campaigns was not “revolution” but more hot air on the margins compared to those achievements. And let’s face it, American progressives are also tinkerers at the margins. Talking about an “Obama Revolution” is silly.

Report this

By oldhippie01, September 23, 2009 at 4:10 am Link to this comment

ardee; while there is certainly some merit to your claims and I am a bit skeptical as well, I am withholding final judgement until the end of his first year. I think that it is important to fully grasp just what this man inherited from “W”. In fact the very fact that we aren’t in the midst of a World Depression at this point is border line miraculous within its self….......

Report this
godistwaddle's avatar

By godistwaddle, September 23, 2009 at 3:49 am Link to this comment

Revolution?  He joined Bush in saving capitalism when it should have been allowed to destroy itself.

Revolution?  Our drones still massacre Afghan wedding parties.

Revolution?  Claiming Afghanistan is essential to our national security.  That’s a flat out lie.

Revolution? Mandating that we pay premiums to health insurance companies who caused the health crisis and will cheat us? 

Please.

Report this

By ardee, September 23, 2009 at 2:49 am Link to this comment

The key to this assumption by Mr. Scheer, of an “Obama revolution” is that it is in the mind of the beholder and not in any desire on the part of the President to actually make serious and lasting changes to this American Empire.

A man who campaigns on peace and then escalates war is not a revolutionary, a man who preaches about the importance of caring for our citizenry and gives away our childrens future to the wealthiest and most crooked among us is a practitioner of the status quo and not a revolutionary. A man who promised a line by line accounting of our budget and then raises the defense budget yet again and ‘forgets’ about that audit is not a revolutionary.A leader who stifles the desire of his own Attorney General to investigate the law breakers is not a revolutionary.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Duringt he campaign Obama made eloquent speeches filled with promises, and those who voted for him were simply suckered.

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook