Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 22, 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!


The War to Start All Wars
In 2008 Mumbai Attacks, Piles of Spy Data, but an Uncompleted Puzzle






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Two Sides of the Obama White House

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

Posted on Dec 9, 2009
Obama signature
White House / Chuck Kennedy

President Barack Obama’s signature is shown Wednesday on a memorandum expanding funding for health clinics across the U.S.

By Bill Boyarsky

Two Obama administrations are now on view. The good one is struggling to push a weakened health reform plan through Congress. The bad administration has decided to expand the Afghanistan war and prolong it for years.

Last weekend, President Barack Obama himself led the good side, going to the Capitol to give senators a 30-minute pep talk on passing the health care legislation.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton represented the bad side. They assured the generals and Republican and Democratic supporters of the war that the president really didn’t mean to say that the United States was setting a 2011 deadline for beginning to withdraw from Afghanistan. He had implied such a deadline in his West Point speech on the war.

“It will begin in July 2011,” Gates said on “Meet the Press.” But he made it clear that this was a deadline that doesn’t mean much, saying “how quickly it goes will very much depend on the conditions on the ground.” He said the U.S. will have “a significant number of forces in there” for “two to three to four years.”

Clinton said, “What we’re talking about is an assessment that in January 2011 we can begin a transition, a transition to hand off responsibility to the Afghan forces.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
And no matter what he said at West Point, Obama has warned that we’re in Afghanistan for the long haul. Talking to reporters before the West Point speech, he said, “... after eight years—some of those years in which we did not have, I think, either the resources or the strategy to get the job done—it is my intention to finish the job.”

What job? Conquering the Afghanistan-Pakistan borderlands—an impossibility—would not stop killers from emerging all over the globe. Remember Fort Hood? And what about David C. Headley of Chicago, accused of spotting targets for the Mumbai terrorists?

Many progressives are surprised and angered by Obama’s move, but they shouldn’t be. I share their anger, but not their surprise. He may have promised a rose garden, but he didn’t promise peace. Listening to him during the campaign, I could foresee an extended war, a nagging pain that wouldn’t go away. I thought of the old colonial United Kingdom, with troops in hostile lands, engaged in perpetual wars they inevitably lost.

From the first days of his presidential campaign, Obama said he favored keeping enough troops in Iraq to protect themselves, American civilians and Iraqis who had helped the United States. And he consistently advocated a stepped-up war in Afghanistan. Adding it up, that was a lot of troops.

Only two candidates for president, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, favored bringing our forces home.

As Democratic excitement over Obama grew through 2008, progressives thronged to the rallies and buried themselves in the grass-roots work so essential to the Obama campaign. This was history, and they were part of it. By Election Day, the country was deep into the Great Recession and Iraq and Afghanistan had faded from public consciousness, as had what Obama said about them.

Looking ahead, the additional troops in Afghanistan face great difficulties. That was shown in a report on a workshop held in Afghanistan on Nov. 27 by the United States Institute of Peace, an independent, nonpartisan, national organization created by Congress to help prevent violent international conflict and promote stability and post-conflict development. It was not an anti-war meeting. The workshop was convened at the request of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander in Afghanistan, and was attended by nearly 60 members of the armed forces.

One of the purposes of the workshop was to let troops know what they’ll encounter in the justice system as they go about following the president’s order to “finish the job.” The report, found on the institute’s Web site, www.usip.org, said that troops will probably find “no state justice institutions … yet one of the key demands in cleared areas [is] for justice and fair and transparent means to resolve … disputes.” Afghan community leaders fear the “Taliban will someday return and exact revenge” against those who cooperate with the Americans and their allies. The troops will have to work with these leaders, unfamiliar to most of them. Another threat is criminal control of traditional justice institutions.

In the difficulties facing the troops and their surge, the justice system, while important, doesn’t rank with key tasks such as building an Afghan army and police force, stopping the drug trade and ridding the central government of corruption.
As Tom Engelhardt blogged on TomDispatch.com, “this war looks to be all job and no finish.”

As we’re preparing to pour troops into Afghanistan while maintaining a substantial force in Iraq, the Senate slowly debates the health bill with Democratic leader Harry Reid and his allies trying to fashion a compromise that will satisfy the handful of conservative Democratic holdouts.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland told the Senate the legislation is “the most important social justice vote we will cast in this decade.” If she and the other Democrats can put it all together, Obama will have left a great legacy. This is the good side of the Obama administration.

But the accomplishment will be diminished, perhaps all but forgotten, if he and his generals and diplomats—the administration’s dark side—lead the country into a war that extends past his presidency.



TAGS:


Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Dear Barack, Spare Me Your E-Mails

Next item: Making Gun Safety (Politically) Safe



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.

Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 29, 2009 at 6:01 am Link to this comment

ITW, - “Al Qaeda operatives remaining in Afghanistan was less than 100—a trivial number.”

-

And it took less than 200 men and woman to attack the Pentagon and bring down two of the largest buildings in the U.S.. An attack that killed nearly 3000 human beings. But 100 is trivial?

It took less than 20 people to bomb London’s transportation system.  But 100 is trivial?

It took less than 10 men to bomb the USS Cole.  But 100 is trivial?

I can’t help but note how you usually dismiss as lies what comes from the U.S. military and intelligence services.  Yet on this single point, only 100 al qaeda in Afghanistan, you use the information from these same entities in support of your stated agenda.  It’s interesting that you would do this.

-

Men can disagree while being agreeable and civil? Yes?

Report this
Hollywood Russ's avatar

By Hollywood Russ, December 25, 2009 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

I couldn’t agree more! There are eerie comparisons between LBJ’s Great Society versus Viet Nam. His bold social dreams were crushed by the legacy of Viet Nam. It has been my contention all the time that before pursuing health care reform, Obama should have pulled 99% of the American troops out of the Middle East and used the peace dividend to help finance health care reform. As usual, Mr. Boyarsky hits the nail on the head.

Report this

By liecatcher, December 24, 2009 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment

To:Gerri Allen, December 24 at 1:44 am

Hey Gerri Allen:
You asked: “But why didn’t Obama stick to what he
said in his campaign about a
public option?  Why didn’t he really stand for and
behind it with force and
honesty?”
The answer is that he is the most consummate deceiver
to ever occupy the White House. He was installed to
carry out the agenda of the fascist NEW WORLD
ORDER:ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. He is Bush3 and is
completing the destruction of America millions of
jobs at a time & $trillions at a time-obamageddon.

Report this

By Gerri Allen, December 23, 2009 at 9:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m wondering what the real truth is about Iraq and Afghanistan.  I’m suspecting
that we are still (guided and forced by what powers and forces into) determined to
build an empire.  Meanwhile it doesn’t matter whether we kill ourselves or not. 
Will we the people ever get the truth and the whole truth about these two wars? 
Seems to me, in my present frame of mind, that the healthcare reform has come
quite handy.  But why didn’t Obama stick to what he said in his campaign about a
public option?  Why didn’t he really stand for and behind it with force and
honesty?

Report this

By ardee, December 20, 2009 at 4:29 am Link to this comment

Those who belittle folks for changing their position on issues show only that their own ideology is inflexible and not subject to reality checks.

As ITW rather aptly notes in his defense of his own position change, as things change so should ones opinions. Of course, in my own opnion, ITW seeks truth and some others here, well…not so very much at all.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 19, 2009 at 8:36 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man, December 10 at 9:38 am #

What about Afghanistan?  Bush ignored Afghanistan!  The perpetrators of 9/11 are in Afghanistan! Osama bin Laden is on Afghanistan!  Why Iraq when we should be in Afghanistan!  Take troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan!  The enemy IS in AFGHANISTAN!!!!!!!!

I have been following the comments on this site for three years.  I find it fascinating that next to no one in the media, no one on TruthDig and no one in Washington was talking about pulling out of Afghanistan prior to this fall.  There were plenty of anti-war activists that took the position, yes. They were honest and consistent about it, yes (very commendable).  But very few posted on this site.

There will plenty of TruthDig posters who will disagree with me by claiming they have always been against the U.S. military in Afghanistan, however, this will be an outright UnTruthDig.

Let the name calling begin.
***************************************************

Congratulation, GRYM. You have finally posted a cogent, perceptive and accurate statement.  And you are right.  (it reminds me how hard it was to find a Nixon voter in the summer of 1974).

Now, here’s what changed, at least for me, who supported the war in Afghanistan, rather than Iraq. 

Recently (as in the last couple of months) the US military or whatever put out an assessment that the actual numbers of Al Qaeda operatives remaining in Afghanistan was less than 100—a trivial number.  Also put out was the assessment that the priorities of the Taliban had changed, specifically to being a) no longer friendly or tolerant of Al Qaeda (whom they see as having brought the USA down on them) or b) particularly interested in anything outside their own homeland.

For me, this is a game-changer. It means our reason for being there no longer exists and, therefore, we don’t belong there.  The reason for the mandate is gone.

Report this

By jean Gerard, December 13, 2009 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“One of the key demands in cleared areas will be for justice and fair and
transparent means of resolving disputes.”  (a subject of discussion at the
meeting of military personnel plus Institute of Peace people, according to
Boyarsky.)

Like they don’t have any already.  Or, like let’s immediately overturn whatever
system they already have for creating justice and fair and transparent means of
resolving disputes!  Sure, The peoples in this area are probably used to some
variant of Sharia Law. Now we don’t want that, do we?  Do we even vaguely
understand Sharia Law?  Or how it relates to our concepts of justice and
fairness?  Where similar?  Where different?  Or how willing or unwilling they may
be to change?  Probably even our high command is ignorant on these points.

So if that is the case, are we thinking of forcing our concept of justice and fairly
resolving disputes down their throats?  And if so, how long will that take?  And
to what degree will they accept it, or pretend to accept it?  Who will be fooling
whom? And for how long? And is it even fair, let alone possible?  How many
Americans on the spot can actually speak any one of the several local
languages?  How many are scholars of the social customs etc.,  so they know
more or less what they are dealing with?

One of our biggest problems is that we automatically assume that we are
“right,” or our way is “better” and, even though that may be true in some cases,
we don’t even bother to learn the best ways to bring about change.  Further, we
can’t even change ourselves! 

It’s all so naive of us, so lacking in consideration.  So near-sighted.  And so
inefficient to boot.  Costs more lives, more pain, more money, more time, more
effort.

Was is not only hell.  It’s ignorance as well.

Report this

By mandinka, December 12, 2009 at 7:54 pm Link to this comment

The only side that I have seen is the stupid quota one. This guy has zero experience and has no idea about economics, how could he have an idea when he never held a job. His education was based on a quota admission and less rigorous course load.
Bottom line barak = an empty suit

Report this

By CliffLA, December 12, 2009 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How come none of the posts, or the article, addressed the geopolitical issues of a nuclear-armed Pakistan, the Pakistan ISI trying to use Afghanistan as buffer against India, the Taliban as hosts to Al Qaeda, the Taliban as oppressors of women and non-Muslims, the Taliban as mass murderers in Pakistan?

How come none of the posts projected what the future would be if the writers got their way, but only projected failure for Obama?

Are the posters unconcerned with what will happen next if their policies are adopted?

Report this

By Mary Ann McNeely, December 12, 2009 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

There is only one Obama Regime.  And it’s all BAD NEWS and BULLSHIT.  Obama is just another totally corrupt and interchangeable sociopath fitted into the engine of death and serfdom that is the inescapable future of the United States.

Report this

By ardee, December 12, 2009 at 4:05 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man, December 11 at 9:22 am

Yet you continue to demonstrate only childishness, stupidity and avoidance of any clear and concise criticism of what I posted.

You think most here dont see right through you?

Report this

By TAO Walker, December 11, 2009 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment

So is Bill Boyarsky saying here the U.S. is being “run” by yet another regime in dire need of serious psychotherapy?  Looks like theamericanpeople just can’t catch a break, here in the waning days of empire.

When everybody finally heads screaming for the exits of this “global” MADhouse only to find the doors chained shut, remember what your Indian Guide here has been saying for three years now about The Tiyoshpaye Way.  Us surviving free wild Human Beings will be keeping it open for you.

HokaHey!

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 11, 2009 at 5:22 am Link to this comment

Manchild, - “If ever you remove your head from your rectum perhaps you might explain where my post was in factual error.”

-

Sure.  I have an extra three minutes this morning.  Which of your posts would you like me to completely debunk today? 

Proving you incorrect is child’s-play.  You don’t know the world, Little One.  You know the media from your Barko-Lounger.

Report this

By ardee, December 11, 2009 at 3:25 am Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man, December 10 at 11:27 pm

If ever you remove your head from your rectum perhaps you might explain where my post was in factual error.

You embarrass yourself more with each passing effort.

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 10, 2009 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment

Manchild, -“The events of 9/11 were planned in Spain and Germany, training for it took place mostly in Florida. Currently our best intelligence estimates indicate that there are approximately 100 members of AlQaeda still in Afghanistan.”

-

Don’t forget how you once unbendingly insisted the Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over to George Bush. 

I can see why you would be the one to explain the world to us all.

LMAO….Thanks again for the chuckles.

Report this

By ardee, December 10, 2009 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

Go Right Young Man, December 10 at 9:38 am #

What about Afghanistan?  Bush ignored Afghanistan!

Well, on this planet Bush invaded Afghanistan, but never mind that particular truth for the moment.

The events of 9/11 were planned in Spain and Germany, training for it took place mostly in Florida. Currently our best intelligence estimates indicate that there are approximately 100 members of AlQaeda still in Afghanistan.

But thanks ever so much for playing.

Report this

By tp, December 10, 2009 at 5:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

From Yeswecanistan in the never ending war on terror abroad to wealthcare in a hopeless healthlessness here at home, we venture forward. What are Barack Obama’s goals? I don’t think there is evidence, so far, that peace and our health are among them. His agenda consist of Propaganda, political advancement and giving all the rewards to the wall street banksters.
That pep talk for the nation in front of our cadets was an image I can’t shake.

tp

PS:The name Yeswecanistan I borrowed from William Blum in an article he wrote @—-> http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16470 < an excelent article.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, December 10, 2009 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

you are so right, Jean Gerard

Report this

By Jean Gerard, December 10, 2009 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Be careful about this good guy/bad guy stuff.  That over-simplified either/or
thinking doesn’t represent the complications of reality.  There are always more
choices than two, but if you only see two, you can’t find the others because you
aren’t looking.

We are all brought up on either/or: “Don’t do this.  Do that.”  “Eat this.  Don’t
eat that.” “Those people are good. These people are bad.”  The English
language (and lots of—but not all— languages) are based on a strict this or
that choice.  We grow up expecting that to choose one thing means not to
choose the other, or others.  That’s it. Stick to your guns!  Stand pat!  It’s
called “commitment,” “righteousness” or “smart”  or “patriotic” and if you
wander off the beaten path, you are “too complicated,” “devious,” “not to be
trusted,” “indecisive” etc.  It’s the nature of the way we think (to a large extent)
and it tends to limit possibilities rather than open them.

Global warming is the current victim of “either/or” thinking.  Is it real? Or is it a
scam? Millions of words aiming to prove one or the other. Sides are
immediately chosen—for or against!  The truth about the cause and extent of
global warming is as yet unknown, so it’s too early to make an accurate choice, 
due to the fact that we don’t know much about it yet.  But because it appears to
be a worldwide problem that must be addressed, we need to get together and
pool our resources, not choose sides and start fighting. 

The present evidence is that there is such a thing, and that modern
industrialism is a visible cause of pollution which burdens the atmosphere to a
visible extent.  Yet, because knowledge about the possibility of global warming
means the very possible need for big changes in the way powerful
corporations make money, the advertising immediately goes out that “global
warming is a scam” and therefore we don’t need to study it or plan for change. 
Whereupon thousands follow the advertising without a second thought.  Why? 
Because change is too complicated, learning more about it is too complicated.

If life were simple we wouldn’t have so many possibilities.

Report this

By tropicgirl, December 10, 2009 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bill Clinton and Barak Obama are having a joke on the American Democrats.
Neither one of them were EVER ANYTHING BUT BLUE DOGS. That is why Clinton
so readily signed the bills that have ruined our economy, ruined media
competition and real news, and ruined our future for our kids. Along with Phil
Gramm and the rest of the criminal Republicans, his buddies and mentors, he
turned over the keys to our future to the Wall Street. His so-called “health care
reform” would have been just as bad as Obamas or worse. Another handout to
the crooked insurance companies.

Hopeychange is also a weak, triangulating joker who is depending upon his
appearance and vague speeches to distract sincere progressive from realizing
what he is. He STOKES the fires of the likes of Rush and Fox to make himself
appear liberal to the base, but this is a sham designed to fool you. He loves it
when you freak out and criticize Sara Palin because it makes him appear to be
something he is not.

That is why he is not mad at Lieberscrew, for example. They are working in
tandem with Rahm Dead fish, Dirty Harry and all the others.

The words, “public option” mean nothing anymore, so neither do the polls.

Obama and the sham Democrats are about to learn what happens when you
pass legislation with 30% approval or less. This is why the TARP and porkulus
are STILL HAMMERING THEM. PASSING THOSE BILLS, WITH ALMOST NO PUBLIC
SUPPORT, has totally undermined EVERYTHING Hopeychange can hope to do
because NO ONE BELIEVES OR TRUSTS THE DEMOCRATS AND HOPEYCHANGE.
The Democrats are praying that the Republicans can make this thing still fail,
believe me.

Report this

By liecatcher, December 10, 2009 at 11:47 am Link to this comment

To: SoTexGuy

Ron Paul did emerge to promote his book.
He always talks the talk, and has for decades, but
delivers only babies.
BTW,IMO, after reading Ellen Brown’s “WEB OF DEBT” &
two classics about the FED: “THE SECRETS OF THE
FEDERAL
RESERVE” BY EUSTACE MULLINS, & “ON THE HORNS OF THE
BEAST:THE FEDERAL RESERVE & THE NEW WORLD ORDER” BY
BILL STILL,Paul’s book isn’t worth the paper it’s
printed on. It’s full of self aggrandizement & an
infomercial for an economic group he worships.
Whereas the other books contain countless documentary
footnotes,Paul’s is primarily from his group.

Report this

By donnasaggia, December 10, 2009 at 10:49 am Link to this comment

Wrong: the bad Obama is trying to push a weak health care reform bill through Congress (well, not really trying very hard) as well as escalating the war. The “good” Obama disappeared after the campaign. He would have pushed a strong health care bill and not escalated the Afghan war.

Report this

By Stencil, December 10, 2009 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

Watch out, there is probably a stoned and totally nude NSA agent reading this right now while playing World of Warcraft…

Don’t be a bad jam!

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, December 10, 2009 at 9:50 am Link to this comment

and prole, you are right in one sense, Boyarsky is extremely compromised.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, December 10, 2009 at 9:48 am Link to this comment

Liberals are useless, when they, like Samson, gripe about Democratic propaganda

(as the fascist right comes marching in, on a WAVE of propaganda!)

Report this
prole's avatar

By prole, December 10, 2009 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

How ironic that there should be an ad about the odious Joe Lieberman alongside the repellent Boyarsky’s blather – and how appropriate! Birds of a feather flock together – and Boyarsky and Lieberman are two of the worst vultures in the flock, both rabid zionists with hidden agendas. “It’s payback time for Joe”…and it should be payback time for Boyarsky and his predatory zionist cronies, too. So for the deceitful Boyarsky, “Many progressives are surprised and angered by Obama’s move, but they shouldn’t be. I share their anger”…but not their “progressive” concerns.
  As usual Boyarsky can’t get his facts straight, claiming: “Only two candidates for president, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, favored bringing our forces home.” Actually Mike Gravel did too, not to mention Ralph Nader and C. McKinney, whom Boyarsky probably has never heard of.  But then again Nader and McKinney would have to be unmentionables to a great “progressive” like Boyarsky since they also favored bringing Israeli troops and illegal settlers home from Gaza and the West Bank and ending the zionist chokehold on American foreign policy. Not surprisingly, the ever-prescient Boyarsky couldn’t “foresee an extended” Occupation “a nagging pain that wouldn’t go away” there. He obviously didn’t think of the old colonial South Africa, with troops in hostile lands, engaged in perpetual apartheid they inevitably lost, like his Jewish state today. “From the first days of his presidential campaign, Obama said he favored keeping” a ‘special relationship’ with the outlaw Zionist entity. “And he consistently advocated a stepped-up” military aid package to the occupiers – much to the delight of the Boyarsky’s and Lieberman’s. “He may have promised a rose garden, but he didn’t promise”…there was any place in it for Palestinians.  And while the self-styled ‘angry progressive’ Boyarsky was cheering on the Jewish stormtroopers in their criminal assault on Gaza last January, Obama himself was a silent accomplice, showing his worst side – the Boyarsky side! “As we’re preparing to pour troops into Afghanistan while maintaining a substantial force in Iraq”…and escalating support for Jewish war crimes in Palestine…“the Senate slowly debates the health bill Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland told the Senate the legislation is ‘the most important social justice vote we will cast in this decade.’ If she and the other Democrats can put it all together, Obama will have left a great legacy”….a massive subsidy to giant insurance corporations. “This is the good side of the Obama administration”…???! “But the accomplishment will be” far worse “perhaps all but forgotten, if he and his generals and diplomats—the administration’s dark side—lead the country into a war that extends past his presidency” – and continues funding the Jewish State’s illegal Occupation and all the horrific crimes that go with it. On both “sides”, Obama is anything but ‘progressive’. And in both respects, the baleful Boyarsky shows he has two sides, too – both of them bad!

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, December 10, 2009 at 9:19 am Link to this comment

Idarad - Your comment about our “dysfunctional government” is spot-on. There are several other dysfunctional components to consider:

1) The Internet and viral information has all-but-eliminated the notion of “professional journalism.” The last administration was essentially given a pass in terms of Media coverage, analysis and criticism. This is due, in large part, because the Internet, social media, etc. had not taken root as they have now. The traditional print media and news outlets had not yet caught up with the technology. Now, hardly a nano-second goes by that some sort of “story” emerges that is critical-of or overly attentive-to every minuscule thing the president does.

2) The vast majority of Americans are unaware that the founders designed our political process to be messy, slow and downright difficult. Unfortunately, because Americans totally lack any sense of history and are (let’s face it) dumb about their own government, they expect black and white, simplistic answers to all of Life’s tough problems. This is why it’s so easy for the Media to manufacture a huge amount of worthless news which is nothing more than entertainment-tonight twaddle.

I personally believe it’s healthy to hold public officials accountable for their actions (or non-actions); however, this constant, obsessive fixation with President Obama would have been a far more productive exercise had it been applied to the last administration. Indeed, just go back and assess the “accomplishments” of the last President in 8 years and compare them to the activism of the current administration. One may not like how it “feels” but confronting real issues (which GWB never did) is nasty stuff. President Obama is a different kind of executive; whereas the last incompetent was a “one-trick-pony,” Obama is taking on some of the most difficult issues of our time. If the American people are too stupid or too apathetic to understand this, then we are truly a 3rd rate country.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, December 10, 2009 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

This is becoming a standard Democratic propaganda theme ... that’s there’s a ‘good Obama’ and a ‘bad Obama’.

The bad Obama we see in public every day.  We see him give billions to wall street.  We see him keep the war in Iraq going.  We see him staging a coup in Honduras. We see him threatening Iran with war.  We see him pushing a fake ‘health reform’ bill that favors all of his rich buddies in the big HMO’s, insurance companies, for-profit-hospitals and big pharma companies.  We see the ‘bad Obama’ every day.

Democratic propaganda therefore requires this myth of a ‘good Obama’.  There is the mythical Obama that’s really a progressive who’s on the side of the people.  Unfortunately, no hard evidence of the existence of this good Obama has emerged outside of Democratic propaganda pieces like this one.

The myth of the ‘good Obama’ is largely based on all the lies that Obama told last year when pretending to be to the left of Hillary in order to gain the Presidency.

The myth of the ‘good Obama’ is key to the Democrat propagandists who want to try to con progressives and anyone left of Obama’s favorite President, Ronald Reagan, into the mistake of voting Democrat again in 2010.

Had enough yet?  If yes, start organizing progressive independent campaigns in the 2010 elections.  Preferably in the closest House and Senate races near you to have maximum effect.

Report this
Samson's avatar

By Samson, December 10, 2009 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

SoTexGuy ... you can obviously add Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Mike Gravel, and Bob Barr to the list of now hidden presidential candidates who opposed the war.

Report this

By John Andersen, December 10, 2009 at 8:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sensible citizens see through all of this, and are wisely losing interest in the federal government.  They are turning their attention to their local communities as the only place they can make a difference.

And, they are closing their accounts with big banks, and opening accounts with local credit unions.

Report this

By NYCartist, December 10, 2009 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

The legacy of Obama will be war, bad/worthless health care legislation(unless you are the health industry,which will get lots of cash).
On the acceptance speech in Oslo today:
the faces of the audience (excepting the family and administration) say it all: http://www.democracynow.org
I saw the show live at 8AM EST, video up and transcript a bit later.  The first prowar speech I’ve heard given as a peace prize acceptance speech.  I give Pres. Obama a chutzpah award for Chanukah.

Report this

By SoTexGuy, December 10, 2009 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

One thing of note; it’s unlikely an average American who accumulated more than a dozen library fines or parking tickets could escape the notice, good or bad, of our poking and prodding internet and information society..

How is it then that Ron Paul is able to so obscure himself from professional news sources and commentators?

B.B. wrote; “Only two candidates for president, Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, favored bringing our forces home”.

It’s a secret he could sell to quite a few people who would care to be less prominent in the news!

Have a great day.

Report this

By Stencil, December 10, 2009 at 7:05 am Link to this comment

If the good one is pushing through the insurance windfall act, how did we elect the bad one? I voted for Cynthia McKinney so don’t look at me!

Honestly, from our two party 100% institutionally owned democracy the transmogrification of his platform to his policy is just change I can believe in.

Report this

By Howie Bledsoe, December 10, 2009 at 6:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

smells like “good cop, bad cop” to me…
business as usual, yes indeed!

Report this
Go Right Young Man's avatar

By Go Right Young Man, December 10, 2009 at 5:38 am Link to this comment

What about Afghanistan?  Bush ignored Afghanistan!  The perpetrators of 9/11 are in Afghanistan! Osama bin Laden is on Afghanistan!  Why Iraq when we should be in Afghanistan!  Take troops out of Iraq and send them to Afghanistan!  The enemy IS in AFGHANISTAN!!!!!!!!

I have been following the comments on this site for three years.  I find it fascinating that next to no one in the media, no one on TruthDig and no one in Washington was talking about pulling out of Afghanistan prior to this fall.  There were plenty of anti-war activists that took the position, yes. They were honest and consistent about it, yes (very commendable).  But very few posted on this site.

There will plenty of TruthDig posters who will disagree with me by claiming they have always been against the U.S. military in Afghanistan, however, this will be an outright UnTruthDig.

Let the name calling begin.

Report this

By Tim Kelly, December 10, 2009 at 4:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s just more examples of compromising to obtain support.  We’re not really arguing over ending war; we’re arguing over how many people to kill in that war.

Report this

By ardee, December 10, 2009 at 3:59 am Link to this comment

With all due respect to Mr. Boyarsky, and none at all to our partisan poster who believes any negative assessment of President Obama’s actions or lack thereof is somehow a crime, there is no good and bad side. What we see is bad and worse.

Increasing troop strength in Afghanistan is pandering to warhawks and those who profit from war. Any solutions to radicalism, anywhere, is not military might but economic assistance that weakens the hand of said radicals.

As to the president’s leadership on Health Care Reform, I fail to see where turning the mess over to the Legislature and allowing a weakened and hopeless effort to result is either leadership or even positive at all.

Report this

By nubeewon, December 10, 2009 at 3:42 am Link to this comment

Yeah,  I have to agree.  Obama is the reason this country will not have another colored President for at least a hundred years.

Report this
LostHills's avatar

By LostHills, December 9, 2009 at 10:59 pm Link to this comment

News flash: there’s only one side. Whether it’s good or bad is a test of one’s
judgement…

Report this
Russian Paul's avatar

By Russian Paul, December 9, 2009 at 10:55 pm Link to this comment

Virginia777 is so deluded that she is actually confusing Boyarksy’s very light,
cautious, apologetic critique as Obama-bashing. Wow. So all criticism of the wars
we are fighting = Obama bashing, no matter how delicately it is stated. This is
truly scary that so called folks on the left can become this blind.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, December 9, 2009 at 10:41 pm Link to this comment

It’s tough finding out your no different than what came before. But facing the truth can also be tough.

At this point developing a multiple personality, is cold comfort.

Because all your really saying is that Obama needs a good psychiatrist, to figure out who or what he really is.

True believers like your mom, will always stand buy you, making excuses even after the court has convicted you.

But he was such a good son. Famous last words.

Report this
Virginia777's avatar

By Virginia777, December 9, 2009 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment

oh gosh, yet another bash “OBush” article on Truthdig, by Bill Boyarsky no less (who revealed himself to us Truthdig old-timers to be rather too fond of Zionism)

what a freaking nightmare!!

Report this

By john crandell, December 9, 2009 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment

If they feel that they have to make the moves they’re making so as to prevent the Mideast from exploding in flames, then why don’t they say so?

Instead, all that we’re hearing is warmed-over McBundy/Rostow/McNamara/Rusk with Hillary con carne with predator drones for salsa.

If this is truly the case then OBush should have gone before the General Assembly instead of the cadets at West Point. He should have presented his case at the U.N. and requested assistance from the nations of the world.

Thumbs up or thumbs down.

And at least one cadet should have yelled out: “We who are about to die salute you!” and tossed a shoe as well.

Report this

By Jon, December 9, 2009 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Americans in general have no idea how corrupt the Congress and White House are.  (going way back, not just now)

What is beneficial today is that we’re seeing very clearly how corrupt our political system is.  Bankers get billion dollar bonuses, while citizens face foreclosure, homelessness, electricity shut offs, and no health care, while bankers bask in the Caribbean sun, along with their Congressional slaves.

The answer?  A people generated revolution, on the streets, including Wall Street. Violence. Kidnapping bankers and members of Congress.  Unless we do this, we will not be heard.  We cannot care about emails or letters or excessive blogging.  What will matter is violence against those who seek to enslave us.

Report this

By liecatcher, December 9, 2009 at 7:55 pm Link to this comment

Bill Boyarsky’s Columns
Two Sides of the Obama White House

And they are playing good cop bad cop screwing we the
people.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland told the Senate the
legislation is “the most important social justice
vote we will cast in this decade.” And when Bill
Boyarsky said:

“If she and the other Democrats can put it all
together, Obama will have left a great legacy. This
is the good side of the Obama administration.”,

this is pure fecal vomiting, because there is no good
side to Obamageddon.
Bill Boyarsky needs to revisit the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL CONSPIRACY (permanent wars, like Korea,the U.S. will never leave Iraq & Afghanistan) & especially the MEDICAL INSURANCE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIAL CONSPIRACY, MIPIC, author of the healthcare hoax bill. Just as
Bush 3 let big tobacco write the tobacco bill. And
Bush 2 let big oil write the energy bill. Preventing the public from viewing White House visitor logs is just part of the secrecy, duplicity, and fascism of this administration.

Report this

By idarad, December 9, 2009 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

Mr. Boyarsky - you don’t, we don’t, have a good obama and a bad obama - you simply have a dysfunctional “government”, nothing more nothing less.  A system that portrays itself to be of the people, constituted by them to protect them from all enemies foreign and domestic, yet has itself morphed into that
very enemy. If all we had left was the Constitution, I would suggest there would be a chance to save the country, but the government has no foundation, the constitution is in shreds - misread, misquoted, misinterpreted and misunderstood.  From that we are fast moving to self destruction.  With that said, I am the enduring optimist, and what may be our (humanity’s) best chance is the implosion of empire and an awakening of the mind of the soul. We are better than the few who have taken our humanity to satisfy their greed, we are better than the few who have channeled their hate through narrow views of good and evil, we are better than those who would sell our fundamental rights of being for a quick return of profit.  We are better, and we will endure and again be a part of the whole world, that is our destiny.
Forget obama, forget the congress, forget the deal making deal breakers.  It is the works in the community -both small and large- that will be our way through this travesty.

Report this

By starfish, December 9, 2009 at 7:19 pm Link to this comment

The current healthcare legislation is nothing more than a giant gift to the big health insurance corporations.

Report this
Russian Paul's avatar

By Russian Paul, December 9, 2009 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment

Boyarsky, the “health reform” plan is not weakened, it is officially dead. The public
option, which was a weak plan to start with, is now absorbed by the insurance
companies. No escape! We all must pay out of our pocket to these middlemen. If
this is your idea of “good Obama” fighting the good fight, you are either a liar and
a manipulator or a horrible columnist with your head so far up your ass, even
when you criticize Obama you are still kissing his butt! I think Boyarsky is little bit
of each.

Report this
Russian Paul's avatar

By Russian Paul, December 9, 2009 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment

Boyarsky, the “health reform” plan is not weakened, it is officially dead. The public
option, which was a weak plan to start with, is now absorbed by the insurance
companies. No escape! We all must pay out of our pocket to these middlemen. If
this is your idea of “good Obama” fighting the good fight, you are either a liar and
a manipulator or a horrible columnist with your head so far up your ass, even
when you criticize Obama you are still kissing his butt! I think Boyarsky is little bit
of each.

Report this
 
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