Chris Floyd: Have Bush's "rank crimes" been converted to Obama's "practical politics"?

[Karmadillo]

Floyd is very critical of Obama, but he backs up what he says with a substantial array of facts.

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1917-obamas-wild-weekend-a-worldwide-surge-in-warmongering.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+empire_burlesque+%28Empire+Burlesque+-+Chris+Floyd%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Obama's Wild Weekend: A Worldwide Surge in Warmongering
Written by Chris Floyd
Monday, 01 February 2010 22:57

Even as progressives were savoring Barack Obama's "masterful" – indeed, "brain-searing" – performance at the House Republicans' retreat last Friday, their dazzling champion was busy applying himself with renewed and reckless vigor to that most un-progressive of occupations: saber-rattling around the world. The last few days have certainly seen a remarkable display of bellicosity by the Obama Administration, putting almost every tool in the militarist kit to use: nukes, ships, missiles, money, proxies and war-profiteering. With just a few flicks of the imperial wrist, Obama sent waves of destabilization through some of the most volatile regions on earth.

<edit>

And no one has laid out the case against attacking Iran with more depth, power, eloquence and persistence than Arthur Silber. What's more, Silber has offered practical steps that even those obsessed with retaining their "serious" and "politically savvy" cred could employ. Of course, most of these steps were first offered back in the bad old Bush days, when "progressives" were castigating the government for its reckless warmongering toward Iran -- not to mention its drone attacks on civilians in Pakistan, its plans for "modernizing" the nuclear arsenal, and its war-profiteering sale of death machinery in every volatile region on earth. Back then, you could still hope -- or pretend -- that the dissent against Bush's rapacious and criminal policies was more principled than partisan, and thus that reasonable suggestions for lowering the war fever might gain some traction.

These days, alas, we find that to many progressives, actions that were considered rank crimes and national shames under Bush have been magically converted into "tough choices," "necessary evils," "practical politics" or even far-seeing "11-dimensional chess" when they are committed by Obama. So the anti-war row is now a lot harder, and longer, to hoe.

But some hardy cultivators, like Silber, are still out there hacking away at the flinty soil, planting seeds of truth in the almost-but-quite-yet-impossible hope that they will bear good fruit some day, in some way, somewhere down the line. And so I urge readers to set themselves to school on some or all of these remarkable Iran-related articles by Silber, while following up on the wealth of links each one provides: here, here, here, here, here, and here.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. K&R

[Karmadillo]

2. Thanks for the rec. Too bad the unreccers don't want to explain where Floyd goes wrong.

nt

[FiveGoodMen]

3. Unrec was such a bloody awful idea

[Luminous Animal]

4. I'm glad to see the links to Arthur Silber's blog.

He is fantastic.

[Karmadillo]

15. Just about everything he writes is must read. I wish he would collect some of his best in book form.

It would make it harder for the Village to ignore him.

[Luminous Animal]

5. Glenn Greenwald makes a point here...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/02/bush/index.html that many Democrats now support policy that, during Bush's presidency, they loudly protested. And given the attitude that, when Obama does it, it's okay, Greenwald asks, "Doesn't all of this bolster the Republican claim that those attacks on the Bush administration for civil liberties abuses were not due to genuine conviction, but rather for partisan gain (in the case of Democratic officials) and cheap, preening, wet-finger-in-the-air moralizing (in the case of media stars)? "

[FiveGoodMen]

6. Evidently, many here at DU really were just criticizing Bush for being on the wrong team

But at the time, you couldn't tell them from people with actual principles.

Now it's much easier to tell.

[OnyxCollie]

7. K&R. nt

[unkachuck]

8. K&R....n/t

[amborin]

9. k and r

[Octafish]

10. THAT is the crux of the biscuit...

These days, alas, we find that to many progressives, actions that were considered rank crimes and national shames under Bush have been magically converted into "tough choices," "necessary evils," "practical politics" or even far-seeing "11-dimensional chess" when they are committed by Obama. So the anti-war row is now a lot harder, and longer, to hoe.

It has to do with apostrophes and commas.

[maryf]

11. Thanks!

Floyd and Silber, apple pie ala mode...

[MadMaddie]

12. Well if the crimes weren't allowed in the first place then

we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place would we?

There were warnings that by setting bad precedent it opened the door for any President and any Congress to continue and possibly expand bad policies.

I beg to disagree with the writer in the below snip, this is Reagan, Clinton, Cheney, * , CIA and coveted Oil policies that have brought destabilization to the middle east. Obama didn't start this shit and now he is stuck with trying to manage a "volatile Middle East".

<snip>
Obama sent waves of destabilization through some of the most volatile regions on earth.
<snip>


We have sanctions on Iran for very good reason, they are a threat. We could also say that about several dictatorships, religious states etc.
They can gain access to dangerous weapons and loose nukes.

I don't condone attacking Iran because it would be a horrific mistake and I don't believe for minute that Hillary Clinton is going to pursue that.

[slipslidingaway]

13. knr nt

[JoeyT]

14. Don't worry

Most liberals are still screaming their heads off.
Of course we're not listened to any more now than we were during Bush's presidency.