Barack Obama: From anti-war law professor to war monger in 100 days(Alexander Cockburn)

[billyoc]

How long does it take a mild-mannered, anti-war, black professor of constitutional law, trained as a community organiser on the South Side of Chicago, to become an enthusiastic sponsor of targeted assassinations, 'decapitation' strategies and remote-control bombing of mud houses at the far end of the globe?

There's nothing surprising here. As far back as President Woodrow Wilson, in the early 20th century, American liberalism has been swift to flex its imperial muscle and whistle up the Marines. High-explosive has always been in the hormone shot.

...

The mild-mannered professor is bidding to be as sure-footed as Bush and Cheney in trampling on constitutional rights. He's planning to restore Bush's kangaroo courts for prisoners at Guantanamo who've never even been formally charged with a crime! He's threatening to hold some prisoners indefinitely in the US without trial.

He's even been awarded a hearty editorial clap on the back from the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Obama deserves credit for accepting that civilians courts are largely unsuited for the realities of the war on terror. He has now decided to preserve a tribunal process that will be identical in every material way to the one favoured by Dick Cheney."

It didn't take long. But it's what we've got ­ for the rest of Obama-time.

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/47696,opinion,barack-obama-from-anti-war-law-professor-to-warmonger-in-100-days
*Edited to fix link.

[tabatha]

1. Alexander Cockburn is a bit of a self-righteous bloviator.

[NYCGirl]

9. You're too kind. He's more than a bit.

Cockburn is a full-blown, overstuffed self-righteous bloviator.

[question everything]

58. Second that (nt)

[Joe Chi Minh]

70. Deleted.

[moodforaday]

65. How many people did Cockburn kill

or cause to be killed, or wrongfully imprisoned without recourse to the law? How many wars did he start, or how many does he intend to continue? How many crimes against humanity did he ever allow to go unpunished?

He can be self-righteous all he wants, as long as he also happens to be RIGHT.

[NYCGirl]

83. Does he have to kill anyone to be a self-righteous bloviator? Who made you

the arbiter of what constitues a bloviaor?

He's a left-wing Limbaugh (without the audience).

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beachmom]

88. Cockburn has ZERO credibility and should never be listened to by any thinking person

This is that slime Cockburn writing about John Kerry on July 29, 2004 BEFORE the SBVT ads hit in August:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07292004.html

Hail, the Conquering War Criminal Comes!
What Kerry Really Did in Vietnam
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

LOTS of the Swiftboat lies in that article.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

101. You seem tense. Have you tried the decaf?

:crazy:

[happydreams]

92. Coburn tells it like it is bewitched baby.

[SIMPLYB1980]

2. .

:eyes:

[jenmito]

FAIL. And I don't mean Obama.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Cockburn: From some dick I've never heard of before...

to some dumbass I'm going to forget in 1 minute.

[vaberella]

5. +1. n/t

[moodforaday]

66. Ignorance is no reason

to be proud. But go on making a dunce of yourself.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

82. "But go on making a dunce of yourself."

If I wanted to make a dunce of myself I'd respect this douche's opinion.

[Mass]

4. Counterpunch, again. Sigh\nt

[grantcart]

8. yes but they hid the link to get people to click

[jenmito]

10. Yup. When I saw it WASN'T a site like counterpunch I clicked. I was duped. n/t

[billyoc]

20. I put Cockburn's name right in the subject to warn people.

[vaberella]

6. More of the same...and I don't mean Obama. n/t

[Baikonour]

7. Alexander Cockburn.

I think I've said enough.

[dionysus]

12. is he the counterpunch whackadoo?

[Teaser]

49. Yeah, Cockpunch is his thing

.

[moodforaday]

67. Being anti-war is "whackadoo" now?

And so is being anti-torture?

Wow. Just wow, how winning changes some people.

[dionysus]

76. uh, no mr self righteous... strawman fail.

[beachmom]

90. No, being a liar makes him a "whackadoo". nt

[dionysus]

11. billy, i'm just starting to get a sense that you're not too keen on Obama... say it ain't so...

:rofl:

[Cha]

16. Yeah, what's up

with that? At least get something real that hasn't happened fast enough instead of hyberbolic trash talkin' cockburn.

[billyoc]

18. I think he's the best president we've ever had, and I'm glad he won.

These wars will never end without unrelenting pressure from the left, though.

[dionysus]

21. "I think he's the best president we've ever had, and I'm glad he won." hoooookay....

yeah, that's the ticket
:rofl:

[billyoc]

22. Don't take my word for it.

Ask around.

[dionysus]

23. .

:spray:

[billyoc]

27. Drink your way through the primaries, didja?

[avaistheone1]

47. There is nothing that tells me he is the best president yet.

However Obama has only been in office 100 days. Obama has great potential.
Yet he has already made quite a few bad decisions and seems to be way to comfortable pandering with all the corporate honchos.

It is gone to take a big turn around and a lot of courage for Obama to reach the heights of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy and even Johnson.

[Connie_Corleone]

13. Who said Obama was anti-war? Even Obama never declared himself to be anti-war.

The title alone makes the whole article not worth reading.

[Occam Bandage]

28. The Kounterpunch Krew can't even claim they were duped,

because they spend most of the primaries bashing both Obama and Hillary for being warmongers.

[avaistheone1]

45. Who says Obama is anything.

He seems to be everything and nothing to everyone and Obama seem to like it that way.

[Connie_Corleone]

59. Only people who really paid attention to what he said during the election know what he is.

He clearly stated from the beginning that he wanted to focus on Afghanistan and get out of Iraq in about a year and a half, while leaving a residual force there for training, etc.

So no, he's not everything and nothing to everyone. Only to those who picked and chose what they wanted to hear from Obama.

[emulatorloo]

14. What's with all the HYPERBOLE? I am not sure this Excessive Exaggeration helps the author's case

EOM

[Occam Bandage]

15. I have to think this kind of wild hyperbole hurts the author's cause more than it helps. nt

[stevenleser]

62. Some progressives eat it up because that is what they want to hear

Just like Freepers eat up the "He was born in Africa" crap.

[Cali_Democrat]

17. During the campaign Obama said he would expand the war in Afghanistan

So I don't think he was "anti-war" in the first place.

[rug]

19. It's about escalation in a "dumb war". I don't care who wrote it or who printed it.

The policy is complete, indefensible bullshit.

[SIMPLYB1980]

24. Actually Afghanistan was not a dumb war, Iraq was.

As much as I hate the war in Iraq and never supported it, I do and did support the war in Afghanistan, because we actually were fighting an enemy the Taliban which sported Al Qaedaand and the attacks on 911.

[rug]

25. Aghanistan is worse than Iraq. The whole notion of a war on terrorism is ideological crap.

To invade a country because of an act of dozens or scores of extraterritorial conspirators makes no military or political sense.

To stay, and then to escalate this war borders on the criminal.

Sorry you fell for the 9/11 hype.

[avaistheone1]

50. rug, you are spot on.

Anyone who has opened their mind and studied Afghanistan knows we are going into another Vietnam there.

Obama's policy on Afghanistan is stupid.

[stevenleser]

63. But I suppose, its ok if its sea instead of land and the dozens or scores are on ships and we call

them pirates instead of terrorists? Or should we not defend shipping?

Again, I don't think the logic being peddled by some Progressives on this issue works.

The problem is that Afghanistan, back in 2001-2002 wasn't treated with proper seriousness by Bushco because they were more worried about trying to create a false justification for Iraq. If we do the war against Bin Laden's gang in Afghanistan properly, it ends in less than six months back in early to mid 2002. Now, its a much bigger problem.

[rug]

80. There is actually a huge difference in combatting piracy than in the drone war in Afghanistan.

[stevenleser]

84. Take me through the logic then, because I dont think it will hold up. (n/t)

[rug]

86. It's a matter of observation, not logic.

Curtailing piracy does not involve the military invasion and occupation of large swaths of sovereign territory. It does not involve unmanned drones targeted on civilian populations. And it does not involve an ideological and propaganda war to justify.

Feel free to supply the latter.

[sandspur]

73. So how do you get to the extraterritorial conspirators when the repressive

fundamentalist regime is allowing them save haven and has political and ideological ties to the conspirators? We had a lot of good will with in Afghanistan and in the international community. There was a huge opportunity to do some real good in that country, but was squandered by Bush or used irresponsibly to invade Iraq. Hell, the torture in Afghanistan started to try and find or fabricate a link from Al-Qaeda and Iraq so Bush could invade, not to root out Bin Laden.

[stevenleser]

85. Exactly Sandspur. I notice the crickets in response to you...

I would love to hear any attempt at an answer but I suppose none would be forthcoming.

[rug]

89. You suppose wrong. But then you suppose Afghanistan is not a "dumb" war.

[rug]

87. You have too many assumptions in your post to provide a quick response.

Instead, consider:

How severe, really, was and is the threat of al-Qaeda?

Was a conventional air and land invasion the only viable means to dissipate that threat, such as it was?

How firm and broad was the international community's support compared to 1991?

Was the purpose of the invasion in fact "to do some real good" or was it a gloss?

Flesh out your post as an OP and you will have a substantive discussion.

[leftstreet]

105. +1

[democracy1st]

26. dayum you guys are just posting bs by anyone!

[billyoc]

29. Ahem...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x130179

[rug]

30. "17. That is the most asinine thing I've seen on DU yet."

:rofl:

[billyoc]

31. Until now.

:evilgrin:

[kiva]

104. Very nicely done. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

32. He had no anti-war record in the US Senate. nt

[polichick]

33. He was only anti-war until he won the primary.

[asphalt.jungle]

34. "Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally."

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

<snip>

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech
---

That's from his 2002 Iraq speech.

[polichick]

35. You can't fight al-Qaeda by going to war - al-Qaeda isn't a country.

[asphalt.jungle]

39. that was simply the answer to your claim that "He was only anti-war until he won the primary."

unless this 2002 speech occurred after some other primary, it seems like you made that up.

[polichick]

41. Please see #40 (sorry, got distracted by the idea of going after al-Qaeda)

[stevenleser]

61. Really? You can't fight groups who don't have a country?

Are you sure you don't want to think that through some more? I know I see that soundbite on a lot of progressive forums, but I wonder if those repeating it have really thought it through. I can give examples of why I think it is wrong if that helps.

[billyoc]

36. It's been "three dimensional chess" since then...

:eyes:

[polichick]

37. Oh yeah, I keep forgetting. :)

[Occam Bandage]

38. He wasn't ever anti-war. Not even when he was running for Senator. nt

[polichick]

40. I meant anti-Iraq war - that's how he built momentum for his run.

[Occam Bandage]

42. He was always for a slow drawdown,

with the pace set by the conditions on the ground and the advice of his generals, and with a residual training and counterterrorism force remaining. He was never a "bring 'em all home NOW" guy. It's fine to say you think his position sucks, but claiming that it's a different position than he used to have is false.

[polichick]

43. Sure, that's what he said eventually - but in the beginning he used...

...his anti-Iraq war position to differentiate himself from Clinton and the others.

[Occam Bandage]

44. He used the fact that he wouldn't have gone into Iraq to differentiate himself.

It doesn't necessarily follow that opposition to a hasty and poorly-thought-out invasion is equal to support for a hasty and poorly-thought-out withdrawal. He used his opposition to the invasion of Iraq to justify his belief that he would be a rational, careful Commander in Chief. His plan for quitting Iraq does not conflict with that--indeed, it is careful to a fault.

[polichick]

46. Of course it doesn't mean he'd yank them out willy-nilly. But to claim that...

...he didn't capitalize on his anti-Iraq war position in the Senate is just wrong ~ people got energized about his run because of it.

[Occam Bandage]

51. I didn't say he didn't capitalize on it. Of course he brought it up.

And of course many people assumed it meant things it did not, perhaps yourself included.

Many people preferred to ignore what he said. Hell, he spent the vast majority of the campaign (both primary and general) saying he was for increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, and yet when he actually followed through on that repeatedly-made promise, an inordinate number of progressives called it a "betrayal" or a "reversal."

However, that is not to imply that it was impossible to divine his true position. All throughout the primaries, the most outspoken/bombastic among the Kucinich supporters called him a warmonger, and the more sensitive-to-hypocrisy Clinton supporters pointed out that there were few if any substantial differences between Obama's and Clinton's policy positions.

[polichick]

56. Well, I'm not surprised at his moves in I and A - but I can also see...

...how people can be disappointed ~ his run wouldn't have even been possible without the emphasis on his anti-Iraq war position.

[MadBadger]

72. OBAMA WAS NEVER NEVER EVER ANTI-WAR

Maybe the caps lock will get through to you. He never was and he never said he was. He was against the war in Iraq because he thought it was a dumb war.

Spread your Bullshit elsewhere.

[jeanpalmer]

96. He was anti-Iraq War when he started

That was part of his change message. He gave the clear impression he thought it was a dumb war. It was the issue that gave him the edge over Hillary. Then when he started winning, he changed to withdrawal within 16 months. A lot of people felt betrayed by that, myself included. Then it was withdrawal of combat troops in 16 months, and now 19 months. If from the start he had advocated withdrawal only of combat troops in 19 months and 50,000 non-combat troops staying behind, I doubt he would he would have beaten Hillary. I know a lot of people who believe he intentionally misled them on Iraq.

[Teaser]

48. Cockpunch is the dumbest magazine of all time

.

[Raine1967]

52. WARMONGER?

Has ANYONE been paying attention to information we have been seeing from LEGIT news sources these days?

It's not President Obama that is a war monger that is for damn sure.

[Raine1967]

53. Definition:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/warmonger
One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.


-----------------------------------

I don't know about advocation, I know that he was already given a war upon entering office. It would be really nice to just pick up and leave, it really would --- but we to say that he advocates war is a very simplistic view.

He has ALWAYS said Pakistan is a concern. Look at pakistan right now -- a country with Nukes.

[Occam Bandage]

54. It's from Counterpunch. They hate the Dems more than they hate the Republicans. nt

[Raine1967]

55. I hate these kind of links.

This idea that he went from point A to Z (or Black to White--- as it seems to be.) with such flacid proof is silly.

[happydreams]

95. And with good reason; there is nothing worse than Repuke in

Dem clothing, which is about 90% of what the dems have gutless wonderland called Congress.

[leftofthedial]

57. Alas, I like Cockburn way better

than I like Obama's decisions so far on constitutional issues and on the occupation of the Middle East.

[Drunken Irishman]

60. C'mon. All history points to Obama being a pragmatic person.

Who sees issues not in black and white, but in grays, as well.

I doubt Professor Obama was 100% anti-war.

I doubt President Obama is 100% pro-war.

[Ozymanithrax]

64. We are Empire.

An empire does what an empire does.

The election was never about peace. Obama never said he would end the war, he ran on winning the WAr in Afghanistan. If people want peace, find someone like Ghandi and begin a real attempt to change things. Non-violent non-comliance of the law is the way to go.

But it would take a massive movement, and Americans are too compromised by Consumerism to actually work or sacrifice anything.

[opihimoimoi]

68. Instead of contributing to SOLVING...we continue drivel and moot shit

The discourse must elevated...the Pubs come to weaken us with dilution to discourage, distortion to confuse, and denigration to distroy.

cockburn is smoking some strange shit

[Krashkopf]

69. That's not CHANGE . . .

that's more of the same! - Joe Biden

[MadBadger]

71. Obama was never anti-war. NEVER NEVER NEVER

[Forkboy]

74. I'm pretty far left (relatively speaking), and even I can't take Counterpunch seriously.

[Jennicut]

78. Thank you. Its absurdity.

And Forkboy, you are one of the most fair and objective people we have around here.

[Forkboy]

79. well thank you.

Not sure that's really true, but I try to be...sometimes. ;)

I'm highly suspicious of emotions and how easily some of them let us be manipulated (fear seems to be the most effective, but love and anger make one easy to use as well). And politics is the art of manipulation, so we have to be aware of it's use as much as possible, not just of the fear we saw from Bush, but the appeal many see in Obama as well. Both can, and do, lead to some fairly questionable tactics and reasoning. And usually, though we'd like to blame it on Rush or Rachel or the MSM, it's really ourselves that lets us think that way. Sometimes we need to step back and analyze our own bullshit, or at least our willingness to buy into it, from any angle (and trust me, I'm no good at that either lol).

And to be honest, I can't even take any credit for thinking this way because I'm bipolar and I need constant data input from all angles, so a lot of this is just my brain sorting through every single permutation it can and occasionally coming up on the right side of the equation. It's out of my control. :D

[Jennicut]

81. LOL. I like constant data input from everywhere as well.

Must be the Sagittarius/Capricorn in me. We like to argue and debate and philosophize.
I don't always agree with others who criticize President Obama but you always do it in a way that is fair and looks at all the angles. I think Obama can make mistakes and he has disappointed me in some areas (gay rights, for sure) and pleased me in many other areas.
I am a probably a more moderate liberal then some here (but not DLC-yuck) but I like to see arguments from all sides, not attacking just for attacking but real arguments. I have very conservative parents so I argue with them all the time and you better know what you are talking about with my Dad. He is good, but what he believes in is not.

[happydreams]

94. "relatively speaking".....

WTF is that suppose to mean???
:puke:

[Forkboy]

97. It means I like to make you puke.

:eyes:

How fucking hard is it to figure out what that means? I mean, seriously? It's not a brain teaser you know.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Butch350]

75. I guess

How long does it take a mild-mannered, anti-war, black professor of constitutional law, trained as a community organiser on the South Side of Chicago, to become an enthusiastic sponsor of targeted assassinations, 'decapitation' strategies and remote-control bombing of mud houses at the far end of the globe?


Answer

When his job title went from Senator to President of the United States?

[BeyondGeography]

77. Absurd

[redqueen]

91. LOL

Man, this place.

[happydreams]

93. Coburn kicks ass!! He always does. Kick this up top and keep it there.

Coburn saw all of this shit coming from way back. I've been reading his stuff for over 20 years and he is 1st rate. He flat shakes shit up!!

[NYCGirl]

102. If you've been reading his stuff for over 20 years you should've learned what

his name is by now.

[Forkboy]

106. He couldn't spell through his haze of self-righteousness.

;)

[NYCGirl]

107. LOL!

:thumbsup:

[anonymous171]

103. lol cockburn. nt

[CreekDog]

108. oh he's a *black* professor huh?

Cockburn's an idiot and no, I didn't just discover this. :eyes: