Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 20, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

First Solar Bread Oven Takes a Bow
Drought Adds to Syria’s Misery

The Divide

Truthdig Bazaar
Acts of War: Iraq and Afghanistan in Seven Plays

Acts of War: Iraq and Afghanistan in Seven Plays

By Karen Malpede (Editor); Michael Messina (Editor); Bob Shuman (Editor); Chris Hedges (Foreword)

more items


Obama, Meet Obama

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

Posted on Mar 31, 2011
White House / Pete Souza

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

Someone should introduce the Barack Obama who addressed the nation Monday on Libya to the Barack Obama who has been dancing around the edge of the budget fight.

In his Libya speech, Obama was clear, forceful and principled. Yes, there were some ambiguities, but these were dictated by a genuinely uncertain situation on the ground, not by muddled thinking. The president made the case for a foreign policy rooted in morality yet also alive to the difficulties of acting wisely in an imperfect world that does not bend easily to one man’s or one country’s will.

On the budget, by contrast, it’s hard to know what the president’s bottom line is, what deals he would regard as reasonable, or when he will even join the fray.

The White House is so determined to keep the president antiseptically distant from the untidy wrangling on the budget that it will not even allow its allies in Congress to cite the administration’s own analyses of how harmful some of the Republican cuts would be. They can use the facts, but not let on that the administration put them together. What’s up with this?

Obama was not afraid to take risks on Libya, including the hazard of criticism from all sides for his resolute refusal to lay out an all-encompassing policy toward the various uprisings in the Middle East. It’s amusing to watch us journalists assume the mantle of medieval scholastics as we parse his every word in search of an “Obama Doctrine.”


Square, Site wide
But the last thing the United States needs is a doctrinaire approach to a series of conflicts that affect our interests in different ways and in which we have very different capacities to influence the outcomes. When “history is on the move,” as Obama put it nicely, rigid policy frameworks can be dangerous.

What Obama did offer was an exceptionally honest and rigorous defense of humanitarian intervention.

“It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs,” he said. “And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country—Libya—at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence.”

He was right to keep using that word “particular,” and also right to argue that we should not have acted unilaterally. The United States will better maintain its power and influence by expanding the ways in which it can work in concert with like-minded nations.

Putting aside the whatever-Obama-does-must-be-wrong wing of the Republican Party, there are two legitimate lines of criticism of his Libya policy.

One is the realist’s view that the U.S. should not have intervened because we are already overcommitted and don’t even know who the rebels are. The other is that having declared that Moammar Gadhafi must go, we need to go all the way, arm the rebels and do whatever else is needed to ensure their victory.

Realists (and, for that matter, pacifists) won’t be moved by Obama’s humanitarian case, but I suspect many Americans were persuaded that the U.S. and its allies could not stand by facing “the prospect of violence on a horrific scale.” As for giving more help to the rebels, it may come to that. But after our experience in Iraq, I’d prefer a president who is wary of the costs of a military mission devoted to regime change and doesn’t lightly brush aside the risks of a quagmire.

Perhaps Obama has the same fear of quagmires when it comes to the budget fight, but this is not a battle he can avoid. So far, he has been more of a pundit or a distant judge, rendering verdicts from afar on the behavior of the various parties. “Both sides are going to have to sit down and compromise on prudent cuts,” he said a few weeks ago. Well, yes, but isn’t he on a side here? He talks periodically about his priorities, but he hasn’t put any muscle behind those who are actually trying to defend them in the brawl that’s raging at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

In his speech on Monday, the president spoke of our obligation “to live the values that we hold so dear.” He’s done a decent job of that in Libya. He needs to do the same closer to home.

E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)
© 2011, Washington Post Writers Group

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 berniem, April 4, 2011 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

I’m afraid that in light of Mr. Obama’s accomplishments he should be shown the door back to Chi-Town. Personally, I’d like to see the reactionaries take over ala Wisc., Ohio, Pa., NJ., and Ind. and see if this nation has the will and desire for democracy needed to overthrow the impending fascist dictatorship coming our way no matter which of the parties get into office! The only difference at this point is that the republicans are so “Koch” sure that they can pull it off immediately that perhaps their actions will trigger a rebellion before the good christian conservative rubes fall back to sleep!

Report this

By Jim, April 4, 2011 at 7:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“foreign policy rooted in morality”

Are you kidding me?

Why is Mr. Dionne published on this site? I thought this was a Progressive web-site?

Report this
Lafayette's avatar

By Lafayette, April 4, 2011 at 5:27 am Link to this comment

EJD: The president made the case for a foreign policy rooted in morality yet also alive to the difficulties of acting wisely in an imperfect world that does not bend easily to one man’s or one country’s will.

Quite right. But what is this “imperfect world” as mentioned?

Uncle Sam has promised nothing to the world. But he did commit to helping passage of UN Resolution 1973 and the initial bombarding of the Libyan Army and not an inch more.

Why? Because both Cameron of the UK and Sarkozy of the France said they would do the heavy pulling when the time came. The time has come.

The principal responsibility for supporting this pocket-rebellion has shifted to NATO of which both the UK and France are members. Which is right and proper since Libya, across the Med from Europe, is its “back-yard”.

What more can the US, with its chronic national debt but world’s largest Defense Budget, ask for? A capital infusion from the European Central Bank … a sort of reverse Marshall Plan?

Shall we discuss more our national economic recovery or helping out our neighbors who were there when we needed them (in Afghanistan, notably)? Which is more important?

The former, I suggest - which is killing the jobless in America, not Gadaffi.

Report this

By Alan MacDonald, April 3, 2011 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

Lately, and because of Libya and the prospect of a coming explosion of a vastly broadening war from N. Africa, through the entire Middle East, and on to the very boarders of India and China, there has been a lot of talk in the corporatist “Vichy” media about, “What is the Obama Doctrine?”

Here’s the definitive answer:

The Obama Doctrine = lies of omission about global Empire. (period)

Obama himself is the faux-emperor/president of the hidden global Empire.

Obama is lying through his teeth (via lies of omission) that any such thing as a disguised global Empire even exists.

Everybody, including the American people could easily understand precisely what is going on in the war in Libya and this entire “Gap” region, this “Crescent of Instability”, and this 5000 mile swath “from Mauritania to Pakistan” that CIA-connected “journalist” Bob Woodward cynically hinted at last week on “Meet the Press”, if only the real truth of the war plans behind Thomas Barnett’s Naval War College 2004 book, “The Pentagon’s New Map” were to be disclosed by any of this global Empire’s political hacks or media pawns, some of whom—- at least at the NYT——know exactly what that hidden information would reveal if anyone had the courage, independence, and concern for the American people and our fading democracy that they so pompously claim to have.

Alan MacDonald
Democracy over violent empire—People’s party 2012

Report this

By john from ojai, April 2, 2011 at 3:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Everything Obama does is motivated by his need to be reelected. He’s eloquent in speech but his actions are much like Bush’s. Libya benefits the oil companies and military industrial suppliers, the health care bill gave millions of new customers to insurance companies, bailing out Wall St. benefits Wall St., his UN veto of a resolution criticizing Israel for illegal occupation, his proposed budget that increases the military 3-5% and Israeli military 10%, all while cutting social services.

He and most of the US government are a disgrace. Work for publicly funded elections and a break up of the media conglomerates.

Report this

By NABNYC, April 1, 2011 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

Oh for heaven’s sake.  This reminds me of Chris Matthews gushing that he got a little tingle up his leg whenever he saw Obama speak.  What’s wrong with you men?  When Obama talked about Libya, he was not being courageous or principled.  He’s taking the U.S. into a war without the legal authority to do so.  That’s not principled—it’s just more the bush-cheney Imperial presidency, above the law, accountable to no one.  Theoretically, since the president has no legal ability to send our military into war, anybody who’s killed can sue in criminal court, and the participants, and those who directed it (Obama and his inner circle) would be liable under criminal law.

Beyond that, are you kidding?  Obama suddenly has a swelling desire to have his own war?  Right before an election?  Perhaps as a distraction from his primary role as President to serve the Wall Street boys with martinis and cigars, satisfy their every need.  He thinks all the broke Americans will say “Well yes, we are bankrupt, living in the car, but my, isn’t Obama a manly dude?” 

It didn’t take courage to send fighter jets in to bomb another country.  It would have taken courage for Obama to show up in Wisconsin and sit-in with the workers, say he’s not going until these people’s unions are respected.  It would have taken courage for him to create a jobs program to employ Americans with a guaranteed living wage, by investing in infrastructure or education or healthcare.  It would have taken courage for him to end the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan.  It would have taken courage for him to say Libya has an internal civil dispute, but the U.S. cannot involve itself because of other concerns.  That would have taken courage.

But no, starting wars is just Nixon/Reagan/Bushes/Clinton, the same old tired murderous tool of the ruling class to steal resources for corporations and distract the public with patriotic songs while their bank accounts are being looted.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, April 1, 2011 at 11:22 am Link to this comment

I mentioned no feelings, Virginia 666, you on the other hand seem content to project, and call it real..

It however is not… real…

It may be acceptable to you for Obama to trash this country, without conscience, because he is not in the Republican party, but his actions are facist, none the less..

So I will say it again, take a good long look in the mirror, Mr. Obama, and maybe Virginia 666 should take a good look as well….

He who laughs last, laughs best…

Report this
AnAlienEarthling's avatar

By AnAlienEarthling, April 1, 2011 at 5:04 am Link to this comment

My comment concerning ‘pause’ was advised to EJ. As
for our fellow Americans, I am in agreement with you:
simply pausing is woefully inadequate.
As trite as it has come to seem, Americans - and
their companions in all other developed,
industrialized countries - need to eradicate the
numerous “addictions” - literally - of which their
consumer behaviors are symptoms.
From Reagan to the present, our government has come
to behave like the Pusher of an illegal narcotic and
we Americans as the most preferred customers. We have
entrapped ourselves and our nation in a self-
destructive paradox.
Like addicts, we have come to compulsively substitute
genuine, caring, compassionate, loving, affectionate
human relationships by surrogates manufactured of
clothing, food, cars, houses, movies, drugs, work,
sex, etc., and these surrogates have assumed such
importance in our lives that we will pay any price,
sacrifice any family member, friend, neighbor,
community, ..., society, to insure the consumption of
the surrogate - paradoxically, even the very society
we aim to preserve (thus behaves the Tea Party and all their Libertarian compatriotes).
Looking at us from the perspective of neuroscience,
until we retrieve the natural cerebral structures
that ground caring human relationships, we will
eventually face extinction - for the addictions are,
by and large, the ultimate causes of global warming
and the motivations for supporting political
candidates, i.e., those who seem most able to get our next fix!
Yes, MarthaA, our therapy requires so very much more than just “a pause.”

Report this

By JP, April 1, 2011 at 2:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I cannot agreed with EJ that Obama’s actions in Libya are wise or principled. We go to war in this country, this beacon of democracy, without the public being informed and without debate in congress. How about fighting for democracy in America?”

We find out today the CIA has been at work behind the scenes and one of the rebel leaders spent time in Virginia (a short distance from CIA headquarters) before the rebellion began. 

This is an oil grab disguised as a humanitarian mission.

Obama morphing into George W. Bush is not what we voted for.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, April 1, 2011 at 1:48 am Link to this comment

Let me get you a bandaid prisnersdilema for your hurt feelings and disappointments. Lol.

Those of us who are smart are going to fight the Real enemies, the neo-fascists, you can nurse your petty wounds and will.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, April 1, 2011 at 1:46 am Link to this comment

Someone should introduce E.J. Dionne, Jr. to reality.

I am beyond fed up with Truthdig’s trashing Obama all the time. We have the Republican fascists tearing our Country apart, this divisive carping is Destructive!

Wake the freak up and work towards productive resolution of the crises our Country is in.

(one can ask)

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, April 1, 2011 at 1:24 am Link to this comment

Take a good long look in the mirror Mr. Obama, if you can still stand to look at yourself in the mirror….

Take a good long look….at what you have become….

Instead of what you could have been…

Report this

By Marc Schlee, March 31, 2011 at 11:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When politicians lie their way into office voters should have the power to give them a ticket and introduce them to the AIRPORT.



Report this
Clash's avatar

By Clash, March 31, 2011 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

The empire and the culture are now in a rapid rate of decay, the emperor has no close. Yet the party apologists keep coming on and on.

It seems so coincidental, gotta blast Libya while Japans nuclear tea kettles continue to burn their way into the biosphere ( just rumor so far but some say unit 2’s core has melted through the containment vessel). No big deal radioactive iodine has and is already being found in trace amounts on the west coast. Go Obama go more reactors are the answer, just ask your buddy’s at GE.

Bait and switch, an old trick, but ignorant always fall for it. The emperor truly looks good with blood on his teeth. I just love morality plays.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 31, 2011 at 10:38 pm Link to this comment

AnAlienEarthling, March 31 at 11:20 pm,

It must give us more than pause, it must stop us, the majority
population as a class and culture, from allowing the conservative
duopoly to continue to use us, the majority population, as children
assisting them in the destruction of the United States and the
world.  We the majority population must unite as a class and
culture and take progressive control of the Democratic Party to
represent the common majority population, like the conservative
EXTREMIST Tea Party did the Republican Party that represents a
free ride for the elite, mega corporations, mega bankers, mega
insurance, mega capitalists and their judges to the exclusion of
the public’s majority population class and culture.

Report this
D.R. Zing's avatar

By D.R. Zing, March 31, 2011 at 8:32 pm Link to this comment

Mr. Dionne,

I’ve enjoyed your writing for a long time, but you’re way out of touch here. 

Arming the rebels will not ensure victory. It will ensure more violence and it will ensure the most violent person takes power from Gadhafi.

President Obama is doing what other presidents have been doing for decades: discussing the tactics of a failed strategy. Armed rebellions produce dictators and dead civilians.

We need a new strategy of disarming dictators and disarming rebels, that’s the only way any type of legitimate, non-violent government will be able to gain a foothold. 

Your last statement is sad because it verges on delusional:  “He’s done a decent job of that in Libya. He needs to do the same closer to home.” 

No president will ever be able to do a good job at home until he starts dismantling the global war machine that constitutes American foreign policy. Until that takes place our infrastructure will crumble, our schools will suck, our people will suffer, and we will continue to lose cities for years—as we did with Katrina—to what in more sane times would have been a mild natural disaster that we could have easily averted or recovered from.

Good luck, Mr. Dionne. Your playing the role of the moderate liberal commentator on NPR seems to be making you delusional. What you propose is not a moderate middle ground. It’s the well traveled road of an insane foreign and domestic policy. Time to find a path less traveled.  It just might make all the difference.

Report this

By Geoph, March 31, 2011 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After reading the first few paragraphs of this article - which I couldn’t bare to
finish due to all they sugary-sweet syrup for Obama - I must say my spirits
were lifted when not one single commenter shared the same view. EJ may still
feel Obama has principles but many here have finally figured it out (or already
knew) that Obama is nothing more than a mascot for corporations.

EJ: Look into Obama’s failed attempts to sell military equipment to Libya in
2009. Look into how he arranged the largest weapons sale in history to the
Saudis. Obama has no principles. He’s just an employee of the rich. Want to
know the only reason Obama didn’t take the lead and instead is letting NATO
take the lead (whatever that really means)? It’s because 95% of Libya’s oil goes
to Europe. THat said, his failed attempt at selling Libya weapons was also
primarily to the benefit of a European contractor.

Please EJ, the romance is over. Obama was just leading you on. Take down the
posters, stop texting him your love poems and realize there was never anything

Report this
AnAlienEarthling's avatar

By AnAlienEarthling, March 31, 2011 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment

Like most of the other commentators here, I also cannot understand the appraisal for Obama’s speech
that oozes from this article. “Honest”?
Seriously, although I supported Obama, I have come to regard him as a vile, dishonest demagogue, albeit articulate and eloquent. His speeches in Brazil and India (where GE and Boeing CEOs were present to greet him) were at once emotionally provocative, condescending and patronizing, and argued the same style of free-market exchange that only lines the pockets of the rich and tragically gorging the lives of the non-rich and impoverished of the world.

History will reveal the truth of the uprisings we are witnessing today. Thus, to use the adjective “honest” simply begs the question. What’s more, given our history, there is reason to believe that the US was involved in Libya long before even the ‘uprisings’ in Tunisia or Egypt (perhaps, these also were orchestrated by the US (and some of its allies?)). Let us not forget the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the lies on which it was predicated (or the Gulf War, or the Iraq War, or the war in Afghanistan). What nobody seems to have noticed is
that Secretary of State Clinton stated that we were seeking a regime change in a press conference (from France or England, can’t remember) at least one day BEFORE Obama’s speech - suggesting regime change has always been the purpose (as in Iraq and Afghanistan) and that Obama was actually lying!

Let me fashion some terms: political, social,
regional annealing (a process used in metallurgy), to refer to “scrambling” or “inducing chaos” (disaster?) into a political or social arena, or geopolitical region to eventually engender some kind of “socio-political equilibrium.” That is the process to which Africa (cacao) and the Middle East (oil and Israel) seem to have been subjected, and most likely by western-European-American design. Is it simply historical ‘serendipity’ that only a few years ago the western nations welcomed Libya back into the “international community”?

In short, it is completely baffling to me, I cannot even begin to understand the praise you heap on Obama for his speech. His political posturing, his refusal to commit and fight for a position should give you serious pause!

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 31, 2011 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

At least 40 Libyan civilians have been killed as a consequence of
airstrikes carried out by the United States and other Western
powers, the leading church official in Libya said.

There is undoubtedly more of these supposed humanitarian
deaths than can be imagined.

Is it more humanitarian for the supposed cash strapped economy
of the United States to kill Libyan citizens; instead of their leader
Kadahfi in a Libyan Civil War?

Report this
mitchum22's avatar

By mitchum22, March 31, 2011 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

And someone should introduce EeeeJaaay to a real journalist. Libya & the budget? Same corporate/national security pimp.

Report this

By ocjim, March 31, 2011 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment

President Obama,
Your cowardice, most likely based on Republican intimidation, unwillingness to cross the rich, and politics, is one of your worst features.

Lack of loyalty, in this case to the majority of voters, is a quality most of us tend to loathe.

Get back in the realm of backbone and strength.

Your cowardice in defending what is right in terms of the budget, the economy and reason is disgusting.

Report this

By Michael Cavlan RN, March 31, 2011 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

You all were introduced the real Barack Obama.

The one who told you this was not the Madison Ave campaign of Barack Obama (registered trademark, rights reserved)

The one who told you all was called Ralph Nader.

Most of you told him to shut up. Then cheered when Obama’s party, the Democrats (registered trademark, rights reserved) pulled a series of anti-democratic and at times even illegal actions to keep Ralph off the ballot and free from virtually all corporate media coverage.

Then Ralph Nader called publicly for Obama’s Impeachment. On Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now. Right before his interview ended. Almost like it was cut at that point.

If we see Ralph Nader on Democracy Now again to talk about Impeachment, then we can know that it was simply a timing issue.

If not then we can assume that it was something else.

Do Americans have the moral and political courage and integrity to oppose our own corporate regime? I remain willing to be convinced.

Egypt is not a river in denial.

Report this
RayLan's avatar

By RayLan, March 31, 2011 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

What I heard of Obama’s speech (as much of it as I could listen to without becoming nauseous), it was not distinguished by principle, reason, clarity or an other attribute belonging to Reality. It had exactly no correspondence to Washington actual practice in the last several decades. The idea that we the US go to war for high moral reasons has alwasy been the platitudinous pretext of its mercenary agendas. Same Obama different day.

Report this

By Susana Montana, March 31, 2011 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

E.J. wrote: “In his Libya speech, Obama was clear, forceful and principled.”

That’s not the speech I heard. The one I heard Monday night sounded an awful lot
like GWB.

Report this

By philippe, March 31, 2011 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

dionne, your persistent defense of obama betrays a co-dependency of the most pernicious and potentially deadly kind. i understand truthdig aims for some kind of perspectivism, but your opinions are so completely out of whack with reality as to make me wonder why scheer hasn’t flushed you yet. i’m almost embarrassed to recommend truthdig because of you.

Report this

By dihey, March 31, 2011 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When the moniker “pragmatist” appeared for the first time in connection with Mr. Obama I pointed out that pragmatism always trumps principles. No one should therefore be surprised that this King of Pragmatism has abandoned any principle he may have once had.

Report this

By samosamo, March 31, 2011 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment



o knows who he is and who he works for. Not surprising he’s
still trying to speak the 2008 ‘campaignese’ that tricked those
looking and expecting ‘change to believe’ or whatever rubbish,
to vote him into office. I would expect the samosamo scenario
for the 2012 but hopeful that by primary time, he will have
ceded his run for traitor-in-chief.

All that is pending on how the department of voter fraud’s plans
work. They will be in it full tilt, make on mistake about that.
Hope for the best but be prepared for the samosamo.

Report this

By felicity, March 31, 2011 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment

“...violence on a horrific scale..” is what
revolutions always are.  The US doesn’t seem to get
that, as it doesn’t seem to get that wars are always
violence on a horrific scale. 

We glibly enter into other people’s revolutions and
civil wars and we glibly attack, invade and occupy
other countries and are continually surprised that
people get killed and countries are reduced to basket
cases. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and
apparently now Libya…our simplemindedness is

Report this

By glider, March 31, 2011 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

Confused?, LOL!,

In one case Obama is resolute in serving the MIC war machine.

In the other case Obama wants to appear reluctant to turn the screws on the American People.  But turn them he will.

Report this

By Member Veterans for Peace, March 31, 2011 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dropping bombs on tiny countries is easy.

Standing up to mean Republicans is hard.

Never in forty years of voting have I regretted a vote so as much as the one I cast for Obama. I should have written in none-of-the-above as I most certainly will in 2012.

Obma, in almost every regard, Obama is a third term for Bush. And I’m including his healthcare reform which is based on Republican ideas.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 31, 2011 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

The 1st priority should be real living wage jobs for all the people of the United States, not just a few of the supposed middle class.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, March 31, 2011 at 11:21 am Link to this comment

The 1st priority should be the real living wage jobs for all the people of the United States.

Report this

By SarcastiCanuck, March 31, 2011 at 9:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well,maybe Mr.Obama is a schizophrenic.Better get Dr.Phil over to the Whitehouse and quick,before that budget is tabled.

Report this

By Big B, March 31, 2011 at 9:00 am Link to this comment

My mother used to warn me about the dangers of “believeing your own bullshit”. I think Barry is following the same primrose path followed by Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and W. Except that Barry is a lousy salesman.

We are finding out now why Barry and his cadre of clintonian scum did not chase down the Bush war criminals. They (he) want to continue the back door right of the commander in chief to declare war on anyone he wants, torture anyone he wants, and of course, be the voice for the american aristocracy.

Every man has his price, and unfortunately for us, Barry’s has always been too low.

Report this
MK Ultra's avatar

By MK Ultra, March 31, 2011 at 8:25 am Link to this comment

While you’re at it, introduce the Barack Obomber in the White House to Barack Obama, the presidential candidate.  I have a feeling them two have never met.

Report this

By madisolation, March 31, 2011 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

Back the garbage truck up, E.J. What about those of us with this viewpoint: a president should go before Congress if he wants to squander our hard-earned tax dollars on an oil and defense industry war? What about those of us with the viewpoint that it’s illegal to bomb another country that didn’t pose a threat to us? How about those of us who say Obama should go before Congress now and answer questions in an impeachment hearing?
The silence, too, of the members of the Senate and the House is deafening. It seems they prefer not to have their votes recorded on Obama’s War. They’re taking no chances: a “yes” vote could come back to haunt them in 2012. As usual, they remain the slimy, dirty, silent cowards they are as they collect their taxpayer-funded pay and benefits.
“Principled.” E.J. had the guts to use that word in the same sentence as “Obama.” I would say when a man spits on the hopes and dreams of millions of citizens and crushes their trust and fragile optimism beneath his heel, he does not even vaguely understand what “principles” are. E.J. ought to be ashamed to shill for him.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, March 31, 2011 at 7:00 am Link to this comment

Let’s be clear here. The values that President Obama holds so dear has absolutely no concern for the non-rich citizenry of the United States. When it comes to upholding the agenda of the ruling elite, the President is their champion. Promoting more wars and international violence under the rubric of humanitarian action, is but the latest example of the cynicism and deceit accepted as everyday business in the sewer of Washington.

Report this

sign up to get updates

Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

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

Like Truthdig on Facebook