The Rude Pundit - In Brief: The Murder of Anwar al-Awlaki Stinks

[meegbear]

Sometimes there's cases where the liberal rubber hits reality road and you gotta decide whether your beliefs are beliefs or just conveniences based on circumstances and filled with holes. See, if you believe in due process, if you believe in innocent until proven guilty, if you believe in trials, if you believe in the Constitution, then you have to believe that all of us have those rights. And that includes presumptive terrorists, like Anwar al-Awlaki, whose death by U.S. drone attack is being danced over by the supposed upholders of the very laws his murder violates. This time, no matter what, it doesn't pass the smell test. It doesn't pass the basic "What if Bush did it" test. It's bullshit.

Let's just put this in plain language: An American citizen was killed by the United States because of his speech. And, no, it wasn't Glenn Beck (although by the standards used here, it could have been).

1. Anwar al-Awlaki was an American because he was born in the United States. He was raised in the United States. He was educated in the United States. And MSNBC is one of the few places willing to call him an "American" and not just "U.S. born." He had dual citizenship in the U.S. and Yemen. He was as American as Rick Perry.

2. As far as "justifying" his murder by drone attack, he has never been charged with killing anyone or in plotting to kill anyone. His crime was "inspiring" people to criminal actions, or, you know, speaking. He was just a mouthpiece with a good internet connection, and even if you think that's awful and deserves punishment, he was one of us and deserves the same protections as you do (yeah, he does).

4. "Viewed as a spiritual mentor, Awlaki is neither a senior Islamic cleric nor the leader of AQAP, which is headed by Nasser al-Wuhayshi. Eloquent in English and Arabic, Awlaki encouraged attacks on the US and was seen as a leader who could draw in more al-Qaeda recruits from Western countries."

5. Even by that standard, Yemen sentenced him, in abstentia, to ten years in prison for the crime of "inciting" a murder. If someone strangles Michael Moore, would we blow the shit out of Glenn Beck's house?

6. Unless the world is a battlefield, he was not killed in any goddamn war. He was killed by a missile targeting him specifically in a place where no battle was occurring.

7. And if you believe that the president, any president, should have that power over Americans, then you have no right to call the president a "tyrant" on anything else.

8. And if you believe that the president, any president, should have that power over Americans, then you have no right to call yourself "liberal."

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

[Robb]

1. Again, a correction:

"...he has never been charged with killing anyone or in plotting to kill anyone."

He was charged in courts in Yemen and the UK as recently as last year. Evidence against him was brought in the British Airways bomb plot case, and the defense lawyers for the poor saps who were caught never disputed the authenticity of al-Awlaki's specific instructions regarding types of bombs they should use, which airport jobs had the most access to unprotected planes, and where they could purchase materials for detonators.

This meme that all the man did was preach hatred is as entrenched as it is inaccurate.

[sabrina 1]

32. Yemen, where that same government is currently slaughtering

its own citizens for peacefully protesting. Was he protesting in Yemen, because that could get him tortured and murdered there.

As for the UK. Who brought this evidence to them, you don't say. We have a history, a pretty recent one, of our allies, like Tony Blair, concocting 'evidence' for us, or pretending they got it from 'sources' some of which we now know were either tortured into 'talking' or drunken bums like Curveball. Britain lost its credibility on these matters a long time ago.

But lets say Yemen and the UK did have some kind of case against him? Why did the US President order this killing? Is our President king of the world now? Can't they do their own dirty work? Saleh has no problem killing his own citizens does he? Why did he need our help to kill this one?

It stinks, as the Rude one says and it is so sad to see Liberals struggling to try to defend it. As the Rude Pundit says so succinctly:

Sometimes there's cases where the liberal rubber hits reality road and you gotta decide whether your beliefs are beliefs or just conveniences based on circumstances and filled with holes.

And Al Awlaqi was here in the US openly speaking to people after the Fort Hood shootings, yet we are now told he was wanted for crimes going back to 2005 by Canada eg. Why was he not arrested here in the US, why was he allowed on a plane to leave this country if this is true, and he WAS on a terror list? Where was the TSA when this known terrorist got on a plane?

Yes, it stinks, more and more every day.

[Robb]

36. You argue the validity of events the Rude One doesn't even admit took place.

If those proceedings are, as you suggest, so easily dismissed as grand conspiracies, why pretend they never happened?

[sabrina 1]

38. I am not arguing, I am asking questions. Shouldn't ciizens

ask questions especially when their government is not being transparent and engages in actions that are against our laws and International laws? So far, I have received no answers though. But if we keep asking, maybe we will.

[Robb]

40. Not listening to answers is not the same as not receiving them.

[sabrina 1]

42. Point me to the answers. I have not seen any that adequately

explain why, if this man was quilty of being a real threat to this country, as is being claimed, going way back to 2001, he was not arrested here, or in the UK or in Yemen while in jail. And why was he, even after being connected to two of the 9/11 hi-jackers, with the FBI confirming that, and suspected of knowing about it in advance, even then, rather than being detained and questioned, as so many innocent people were, people with zero evidence of wrong-doing, other than being Muslims, he was invited to the Pentagon for dinner and according to reports at the time, vetted by the FBI, which must mean that knowing two of the hi-jackers was less of a problem than donating innocently to some charity.

Where are the answers to those questions? The only one I've seen is not helpful at all in terms of the death sentence that was just carried out 'we had no real evidence to prove what we suspected'. They heard him speak, they knew he was connected to terrorists. What new evidence is there that warranted an assassination now, when throughout the past decade, none of the evidence they did have even warranted charging him with him. An assassination btw, that is far more likely to create more terror than anything else?

Not to mention being in violation of so many laws. At least that's how we viewed it when Bush was doing it. And probably will again if we get a Republican in the WH.

[scentopine]

110. Troy Davis syndrome - murder without regard to due process makes right wingers

feel better about themselves. Right wingers in both parties have low self-esteem. Their cruelty and blood lust doesn't quite fit the spirit and intent of the American justice system or constitution so they are working hard to change things so that America is just another evil despotic government, in their own image.

They are winning, of course, having shut out liberals and any opposition completely from the process of public policy. That's exactly why things are getting worse for everyone except right wingers who agree with and support torture, wall street, BP, war, violence. Most importantly democratic party centrists are supporting the idle rich who are draining our treasury to maintain their lifestyles.

Right wing tea baggers now have secure footholds in both republican and democratic parties. That's why "centrist" Obama never scolds tea baggers and republicans like he scolds "those on the left".

In fact, Centrists are so secure in their re-election that they are telling liberals fuck you, over and over again, while denying a place at the policy table.

Here, they scold liberals for not supporting drone attacks.

Centrists are every bit the crazy right wing extremists, just like the baggers. Centrists just use more flowery language and are generally better spellers on message boards.

[spooked911]

48. link please

thanks

[Robb]

55. If your Google is broken, you can start at my journal. (nt)

[xocet]

65. Self-Delete - Thanks again...

[spooked911]

77. I didn't see it on google

so will check your page

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[xocet]

63. What were the charges? Are the court documents open to the public? n/t

[Robb]

64. Many of them, yes.

Here's a start: http://content.met.police.uk/News/Man-jailed-for-30-years-for-terrorismoffences/1260268719101/1257246745756

[xocet]

66. Thank you very much. I will read that. n/t

[AngkorWot]

2. I wonder how nuts like this would have felt about Abraham Lincoln.

That "tyrant" had hundreds of thousands of American citizens killed.

Under similar circumstances.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

22. You're not arguing for the assassination of Lincoln, are you?

[mike_c]

4. automatic rec for the rude one...

...who speaks with wisdom that is apparently way beyond the comprehension of some of the early responders in this thread.

[dkf]

6. The rude one is apparently making this guy look less dangerous than he really was.

If he did that on purpose that is simply disingenuous.

[DirkGently]

17. What's the "dangerous" level where it's okay to blow up Americans without a trial?

Other countries want to know. :D

How dangerous is Dick Cheney? Not that we'd miss him, but if Canada wanted to shoot him with a missile on the streets of some not-especially-picky foreign country for, say conducting an illegal kidnapping and torture program, would we kick up a fuss?

[sabrina 1]

37. If the Rude One is as familiar with what we all have known

about this guy, and has seen the attempts at justification, then he is NOT making him look less dangerous than he is. Is speech a Death Penalty crime in the US now? And are our Presidents from now on to be viewed, as Kings once were, as judge and jury in Death Penalty cases? Last week we were told the President has no power to stop an execution, today we are told he has to power to order them.

Awlaqi was here in this country up to approx. two years ago, living in the open, preaching as radical clerics do. Why was he not arrested if it was known he as such a terrorist at that time? And why are people on the left not even questioning this when they were screaming over Bush doing exactly the same thing?

The Rude One is correct. A lot of questions need to be answered about this killing, without evidence, without a trial, an arrest or even charges.

[truth2power]

57. All of the questions you ask are good ones, Sabrina. But there are wheels within wheels,

as they say. Nothing is ever as it seems. Just like, IMHO, the OBL operation was probably a case of rolling up a CIA asset - that which makes the most sense in terms of why they didn't capture, try, and convict him. If they had evidence, of course.

Yes, it stinks. Totally.

[tcaudilllg]

47. I don't think he was particularly dangerous.

And he was only 25 years old... I mean man, the DoD must be grasping at straws to believe al Qaeda will be frightened by this death. If anything, this trangression against our own laws will make them emboldened, because negative social change is precisely their goal. But I increasingly suspect the DoD is losing touch with reality as consequentialists grow in power there.

[bullwinkle428]

5. K&R, and enjoy the view of that bus undercarriage that so many

of us have been looking at for a while, Rude One! :toast:

[indepat]

24. Here's to you, oh

Rude One :toast:

[gratuitous]

7. Yes, it is bullshit indeed

And it is time once again to examine those core beliefs in the American system, and decide whether we really do believe in the old-timey words from a quaint old document.

[madrchsod]

8. this could happen to anyone....

[AngkorWot]

10. I'll remember that.

The next time I take up arms against the government and decide to lead a terrorist organization from some foreign country.

[stockholmer]

60. good thing for Benjamin Franklin that the Brits didn't have drones in France ca. 1789, eh?

:sarcasm:

One man's 'terrorist' is another man's 'freedom fighter'. When the due process of law is removed, the definitions of both are controlled by pure power and simply become arbitrary, as do summary executions and other assorted nastiness and barbarity.

[polmaven]

68. Please tell me that

you don't actually consider Anwar al-Awlaki to be a "freedom fighter"!

I am of the opinion that when he declared fatwa against the United States, from a foreign country, as a high level member of a terrorist organization, it is appropriate to consider that he had renounced his American citizenship.

[stockholmer]

78. no, I don't consider him a freedom fighter, just as the British didn't consider Franklin one

I am pointing out the fact that if you remove the due process of law, then power determines what definitions and actions are acceptable. I am sure that the families of innocent civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan killed by US drone strikes dint have much regard for the US way of doing things, and actions like extra-judicial assassinations hardly bolster America's case for being a beacon of justice.

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

"Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake."

Sir Thomas More in

"A Man for All Seasons" by Robert Bolt

[MineralMan]

13. Well, not anyone, exactly.

But, yes, it could happen to anyone who foments violence on an international level. No mourning here.

[msanthrope]

18. No. It could not happen to anyone. Especially not people who don't

engage in terrorist activities like inciting the murder of elected Britons, and PETN mail bombs.

[DirkGently]

25. Of course. The Innocent Have Nothing to Fear. Because governments never kill without justification.

Right?

[bhikkhu]

73. all you have to do to avoid it:

Don't advocate the indiscriminate killing of americans everywhere

Don't join a terrorist militia devoted to killing americans everywhere

Don't help anyone build or plant or plan bombs designed to kill americans

Don't, whenever someone goes off the deep end and kills a bunch of americans, call him a hero

Don't praise suicide bombers who kill americans as heroes who will go straight to heaven


...and so on and so forth.

[slackmaster]

9. My giveashitometer is stuck on zero on this one

The asshole brought it on himself.

[Imajika]

11. Didn't Anwar al-Awlaki publicly renounce his US citizenship?

Sorry, I'm not in the least bit concerned about this.

Kudos to President Obama for taking out yet another bad guy!

[stockholmer]

61. "Sorry, I'm not in the least bit concerned about this." -- the words of a model slave in training

:thumbsdown:

[MineralMan]

12. Another Rude Pundit distortion...

Unrec

[DirkGently]

14. We all have exactly the rights we afford to the people we hate the most.

Never seems to sink in for some. Good points here, especially the convenience of having someone "convicted" in a foreign country where the standards are different and the government is beholden to the U.S.

"Terrorism" is a threat to everyone, yet no one else is doing these things on this level. Why is that, and why is it okay? And by the way, isn't the military so "broke" it just told families they'll have to pay more for health insurance? What's a killer drone program go for these days?

Imagine if even the U.K. announced they'd blown a few streets in Pakistan or Yemen to get someone they claimed was a terrorist, but hadn't bothered to convict of anything.

Or just imagine the same thing, done to the same person, here in the U.S.

Unacceptable? Barbaric? The actions of a mind-bogglingly arrogant and hypocritical empire nation doomed to fail?

But not when we do it.

[stockholmer]

62. ¨+1000

[hfojvt]

15. He was not raised in the United States, nor educated in the US

according to wiki, his parents moved back to Yemen when he was 7 and he did not come back to the US until he was 20.

He's not as American as Rick Perry either. Rick Perry is a 5th generation Texan. 5 generations. Al-Awlaki is an anchor baby had by a couple of Yemen students here on scholarships.

[KamaAina]

16. "Anchor baby"?!

Are you really Lou Dobbs or something?! :wtf:

[hfojvt]

23. Don't know that much about Dobbs

But I am a person who thinks that birthright citizenship is nonsense.

[FedUp_Queer]

52. I think speed limit laws are bullshit.

Therefore, I get to disobey them. I guess someone with the attitude you've got would love someone like Bush, and now O(Bush)bama, who just ignores laws he doesn't like or finds inconvenient.

[hfojvt]

85. you sorta write like somebody who does not drive

I remember studying in school that there are many old laws that are on the books, that nobody bothers to enforce, and hardly anybody knows about.

The great thing about the American system is that laws, and even the Constitution, can be changed.

That is one law, that I believe needs to be changed. In fact, I do not think that was the original intent of the amendment.

One quote I remember, supposedly from Abraham Lincoln (although many things are attributed to him that he never actually said) is this:

"If you call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a cow have?

The answer is four, because calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg."

In much the same way, calling Alwaki an American citizen just like me, does not make him an American citizen just like me. Not in my eyes. YMMV.

[FedUp_Queer]

99. First, I do drive (and I have the parking tickets in NYC to prove it).

I hate the laws regarding parking tickets, and I ignore them at my peril. I, in fact, they are dumb. Second, the point is laws are on the books and while often not enforced, they are still on the books. Your attitude reminds me of George Bush's comment about the constitution: "It's a goddam piece of paper." Neither you nor I, no matter how dumb we think laws are, don't have the option to just disobey them (without consequence). We always have the possibility of getting caught and paying the consequences. Just because you don't like the fact that he is a Citizen; just because you don't like the fact that he did not satisfy the law regarding taking away citizenship does not mean that the law is not there. A nation of laws means we have laws, we obey them, or we face the consequences if we don't. It's that simple. There are unjust laws, there are laws I know I don't agree with. However, whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant. If I violate them, I suffer the consequences. No person is free to ignore laws and not expect consequences. You are right in saying that laws can be changed. Indeed you are right. And, lo and behold, we have a process for that. The House of Representatives passes a law, the Senate passes the law and the President signs it. There is no "well a person can disobey a law that can be changed or should be changed" exception to following the law. If, in fact, that is what you believe, then you believe we are not a nation of laws. We are a nation of men. Just as Nixon said (in a very king-like posture: if the President does it, that means it's not illegal. If that's what you believe, that's fine. However, you have departed from the notion of a nation of laws and now believe that "certain people" can disobey laws they don't like because they are just damn inconvenient. However, the fact is this:

There is no evidence that he renounced his citizenship in accordance with federal law. There is no evidence that any court convicted him of offenses that MIGHT trigger one's intent to relinquish citizenship. As such, he was a citizen. As a citizen, the Fifth Amendment entitled him to due process. Case closed.

PS - Feel free to look at 8 USC 1481 for the statutes for relinquishing citizenship.

[hfojvt]

109. if you actually drove

you'd know that most Americans do not obey the speed limit laws.

Laws, unless they are backed by some power, simply are words written on a piece of paper. And ancestry confers power.

You want to say that parvenus are the equal of myself, but I will never buy that no matter how many decks of cards you throw at me. And more to the point, there are a whole bunch of non-parvenu Americans who won't buy it either.

[FedUp_Queer]

111. That's fine. You're just not a rule of law guy.

You're an authoritarian who wants a king. By the way, if you ever get caught speeding, try the "nobody obeys the law anyway" defense. It won't work. Who knew: a real live Monarchist in DU. And, yes, drive and have the parking tickets about once per week on average to prove it.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

53. I don't know about that.

Being born here is how I became a citizen. I wasn't ever asked to take a test.

[hfojvt]

90. I was told to take lots of tests, through 13 years of compulsory schooling

But I figure that I became an American citizen at birth because both of my parents were American citizens. They were American citizens from birth because both of their parents were American citizens. Same with my grandparents and 7/8 of my great-grandparents and the 8th one came to America at age 5. Well then, only 6 of 16 of my ancestors were born in the US and then only 7 of 32 that I know of, and then 12 out of 64, at least. The others, presumably became American citizens by completing the legal requirements to do so. I haven't looked up the documentation on any of them, other than Patrick Brady, and I think his only requirement for citizenship in 1837 was that he had to establish 5 years of residency. But that was sort of when we had space enough to welcome everybody.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

95. I'm talking about citizenship tests.

The tests you take in high school have no bearing on whether or not you are a citizen. My point is that nothing was required of me to gain citizenship - I was just born here. You could go back a generation and say that both of my parents were citizens, but only because they were born here. And likewise for their parents. I don't know any farther back than that. In fact, if I had to show that at least one of my ancestors completed some requirement for naturalization, I am not confident that I could do so. Under that system, it is not clear whether or not I would be a citizen, even though I have never spent a single day of my life outside of this country.

[hfojvt]

97. What about civics class

and government? And US history?

Your parents were citizens, in my view, not because they were born here, but because they were born here to parents who were citizens.

I say that it is absurd to put somebody with 7/8 of their great-grandparents born here on the same legal footing as somebody born here when both their parents were here on student visas.

[COLGATE4]

103. Well, then ask your Congresscrittur to move to amend the

Constitution. But in the meantime according to the Constitution he's as much of a citizen as you are. Period.

[hfojvt]

107. in the meantime, most Americans are not gonna see it that way

Period that in your pipe and smoke it.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

106. It's possible to skip every day of those classes and still be a citizen.

High school dropouts are still recognized as US citizens. Passing civics class is not what makes you a citizen of the United States. The point is that I never underwent any legal process or adjudication to become a citizen. I became a citizen because I was born in Neptune, NJ. Sure, my parents are citizens, but only because they were born here, too. The same goes for their parents. By your argument, none of them would have been citizens. You can't grandfather them in because their ancestors became citizens by the means that you oppose in your argument.

Also:

I say that it is absurd to put somebody with 7/8 of their great-grandparents born here...

What does it matter that seven of the eight were born here? You are arguing that being born here should not automatically make one a citizen. By your own argument even those great-grandparents wouldn't have been citizens.

[hfojvt]

108. but by your argument they would be

at some point though, my ancestry goes back to people who became American citizens by a process other than just being born within American borders.

See how that works? First, the parents become American citizens and THEN their children do so as well.

Those who were born anchor babies are simply not as American, especially in outlook, as those whose anchor babies are four or five or twelve generations back in their ancestry.

[rustydog]

45. According to editable facts! most excellent Wiki told me!

[Bragi]

19. Question: So when did you first support extra-judicial executions?

I'm interested in whether those who are unconcerned about this always believed any President had a right to execute American citizens without judicial oversight or due process?

[RZM]

20. I see a lot of condemnation of this, but much less about what SHOULD have been done

Yes I know, try him the court system. But first you have to get him here. Relying on the Yemenis to capture him obviously wasn't an option, so that means the US would have had to do it alone. Now you're talking commando raids, with the chance of the same outcome if he resists (and I imagine a similar condemnation from the Rude Pundit) as well as the chance of US military casualties. And they could take casualties without getting him too. Can you imagine the field day the Republicans would have with that one?

[TheKentuckian]

29. He wasn't even indicted and our law doesn't carve out for inconvenient.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. Fucking-a. n/t

[malaise]

26. Sadly Rudie is correct

Just saying!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

27. was he recruiting people to kill other Americans? wasn't he a soldier for the jihad?

In my opinion, the world IS a battlefield and has been for a while now.

[MisterP]

34. how's that Bush Doctrine working out for ya?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. why don't you ask Obama? --

signed

John Wilkes Booth

[chill_wind]

28. K & R.

[Jack Sprat]

30. Okay. So I won't call myself a liberal again if you

don't think I have that right. Still, I'm not losing any sleep over this assasination regardless. This man tried to kill people and has that as a goal. Citizen or not, some people just need to be killed because they are obviously a danger to the lives of countless people. It's not complicated. The constitution isn't infallible. The SCOTUS uses it to destroy the lives of innocent people by giving political power to corporate crooks who care nothing about civil liberty or the lives and health of our citizens. It's all a pile of dung. Drones are fascinating. Long live the drones. The dude shouldn't have become a killer himself.

[EFerrari]

31. Conservatively, about 1 in 4 people killed by drones are civilians.

And dude, that makes our government a killer.

[Jack Sprat]

33. What's new?

Innocent people are dying everyday and evil people are living hearty and healthy. But my heart doesn't break for the evil ones. Listen to the President. A clear and present enemy was eliminated. He knows more than we do about the subject. I doubt there was any choice.

Not only that, but Ron Paul is as shallow and stupid as his son Rahn. They are both worm-headed.

[JoeyT]

46. Listen to the president

who certainly isn't ordering any of those drone strikes. Those civilians are being killed entirely without his knowledge.

I'm sure someone will bring it to his attention soon and that sort of thing will be stopped and the people responsible brought to justice.

[Harmony Blue]

35. "it doesn't pass the smell test"

That sums it up. I shudder to think what details will emerge years later.

[Drahthaardogs]

39. I disagree.

When you, as a citizen, (can an adult have dual citizenship in the united states? I thought only children could do that), provide aid to the enemy, the military can and will kill you if they so desire.

[DinahMoeHum]

41. You keep taunting and pulling a tiger's tail, don't act shocked, shocked. . .

when it turns around and mauls you.

This guy was no poster boy for Amnesty International.

[Canuckistanian]

43. Funny that THIS post is getting some recs

And it simply astounds me that some are using the Yemen in abstentia trial to justify this.

Yemen? Are you serious?

Look, either you agree with trials for your own citizens or you don't. And if you don't, then what is the meaning of the vaunted Constitution that is the core document for American government? Do you value the formerly sacred protections or not?

I stand with the Rude One on this.

[myrna minx]

49. I never knew how many "liberals" supported the Bu$h doctrine.

It's surreal.

[dflprincess]

72. It is

Of course, most of them didn't support it until the Obama Administration continued it. The hypocrisy makes their support even worse.

[vets74]

50. SHILL MAGNET Article of the Day

No real liberal objects to killing people who are actively at war against us.

Shill accounts, simulating insane versions of liberals... you betcha.

I'm off to Wall Street for the day. Enjoy !

[MannyGoldstein]

51. "Make no mistake: Due process is for suckers."

"I've got an election to win, chumps."

[COLGATE4]

56. After all, the Constitution is just a 'damned piece of paper'.

[Yavin4]

54. People on the Left That Are Purists and Distort Facts to Suit Their Argument

are just as bad as those on the right that are purists and distort facts to suit their arguments.

Critical thinking does not rely on orthodoxy.

[scentopine]

80. What is it about due process that is a left wing orthodxy? Or are you

happy with the wars, torture, wiretapping, oil spills, drill baby drill, wall street influence over domestic and foreign policy?

These are facts that the "left" doesn't like. More than that, these truths are destroying the country. They are. By every conceivable measure.

Unless you are a millionaire. Then, of course you probably prefer that a centrist right winger keep pushing the nation into fascism.

For example, Obama calls it the Buffet rule because he uses the rich to prop him up. He isn't principaled nor strong enough to make his argument on fairness and balance. He needs to pull out the right wing poster child for Wall Street crime so that he keeps his street cred.

Same goes for the death and destruction of our three wars. We focus on a few individuals to justify the blood splattering slaughter of women and children who have no crime other that to be born in an impoverished hell hole. So we kill them like insects.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, justifies our misconduct in these three wars.

[Yavin4]

93. So, In Order to "Win" The Argument, You Throw In The Kitchen Sink

Anyone in the world that is actively raising an army of people to conduct acts of violence against innocent people, and has been tried and convicted by courts in Yemen then that person is putting themselves in the line of fire.

[scentopine]

98. Any one who argues that killing from 200,000 to 1,000,000 people playing whack-a-mole

deserves to be called what they are. Murderers.

There are no "winners" here. Democratic right wingers think in terms of "winning". We are all suffering different rates of loss.

We need to get our own house in order. That would do more to demotivate hatred against USA than decades of random slaughter from remote controlled airplanes.

If you want to seek justice from an Army of conspirators doing damage to innocent people around the world, start with Wall Street.

We are just reducing ourselves to the level of the terrorists. And that is why the terrorists are, in fact, winning.

Of course it is absolutely relevant to throw in the kitchen sink, it all leads to a preponderance of evidence that our Government, Obama's government, is every bit the right wing killers as our previous administration under Bush.

We are past the point where everything is Bush's fault. It's even more Obama's fault for continuing to govern from the farthest reaches of the right wing.

I won't shut the fuck up about it.

[obxhead]

58. I am truly amazed at some of the comments I have read here

from many known liberals at this site.

The worst part is that Obama makes this all ok. If this were ANY Republican doing this everyone here would be foaming at the mouth with rage over this attack and the many to come.

It's a sad day for America yet there are people cheering.

I dread the day when a Republican President has this same control set by the Obama precedent.

x(

[defendandprotect]

70. True ..... President/Party over principles -- doesn't bode well for democracy -- !!!

[scentopine]

81. dupe

[scentopine]

82. Baggers have taken over the democratic party, liberals have no representation

we've been shut out of policy. As a result we have wars, shitty health care policy, wall street bailouts for billionaires, outsourcing to Asia, education costs sky rocketing, tax breaks, tax credits, tax shelters, on and fucking on and fucking on.

The right wing in both parties are on the same path. The distinctions are in the margins of policy.

For example-

A Republican bagger says (use your Rick Perry and/or Sarah Palin voice):
"Social Security is a Socialist Ponzi Scheme, we need to privatize it and turn it over to the money experts on Wall Street."

A Democratic baggger says (use your Harvard professor voice, unless your audience requires that you throw in a few gratuitous "y'alls"):
"Social Security is an unsustainable entitlement which does not align well with our obligation towards personal responsibility. All options are on the table, including a plan to let younger people make investment choices provided by Wall Street investment banks. We believe this is a sensible and pragmatic solution. Y'all."







on edit, forgot to add y'all to bolster Harvard street cred.

[Sirveri]

67. You skipped from 2 to 4. But other than that I agree with all of it.

[defendandprotect]

69. This is about ALL of us and the threat to us -- MIC and TORTURE are not our friends ....

and to expect the vile and brutal and murderous powers of the US to be

turned only on other nations -- or in some "laser like" fashion ONLY

against the truly evil -- is naive --

These tools -- Military/Torture/Violence -- are the tools of dictators --

and have been and will be turned upon us --


Wake up now or wake up enslaved --

We may have once long ago had government we could trust -- but certainly

with the coup on JFK it was over --

Members of Congress have been SELLING themselves to the wealthy/capitalists/

corporatists for decades now --

and the nightmare is in front of us --

[scentopine]

86. +1 many democrats here want torture and murder to seal their authority

to take from the non-rich and give to the rich. We are at a point where class warfare is needed to fight the right wingers occupying the democratic and republican parties.

Both parties have been engineered to serve Wall Street CEOs at the expense of civil government.

[defendandprotect]

91. 74% of the public want to see a complete overturning of Congress -- both parties -- !!!

And I think that anyone here who expects an Obama win isn't paying enough

attention to 2010 -- !!



:hi:

[bluedigger]

71. It was more convenient this way.

Despite all the evidence, they couldn't make a case against Awlaki (or didn't want him on the stand), so they allowed him to leave the US, and used other means to eliminate him at their convenience. I mean, they couldn't just blow his ass up in Jersey, now could they?

[EmeraldCityGrl]

74. bin Laden's goal was to make a mockery of our

Constitution and way of life. The more we compromise our principles, the more cred we lend to his beliefs.

What a price we payed for al-Awlaki's death. We missed a great opportunity to show the world we would
not abandon the Constitution.

[scentopine]

75. The tea bagger wing of democratic party needs to be sent packing

these fascist sympathizers should move on to free republic where they can preach their philosophies of sensible murders, executions, pollution, while denying global warming and badgering liberals who are completely shut out from policy decisions.

Democratic party doesn't need this shit.

USA has slaughtered 200,000 to 1,000,000 in Iraq alone - THE MAJORITY ARE CIVILIANS INCLUDING WOMEN AND INNOCENT CHILDREN. Meanwhile CEOs are smiling because they know that this ratchets up the stakes and that means more profits for war.

Arrogant baggers here defending this shit is stomach turning. It is cowardly. If we continue the indiscriminate blood splattering slaughter of men, women and children, we are no better than the "terrorists" we are trying to kill.

Just wait until people decide that the hundreds of thousands of deaths at Amercian justify more slaughter of Americans and American allies.

The right wingers are the worst thing to happen to democratic party. They are worse than tea baggers and far more of a threat to freedom and liberty and justice.

Two parties driving right wing policies down our throats doesn't count as representative choices at election time. We need alternatives to death, destruction, Wall Street sympathizers, amnesty for torture. That's the America in the vision of right wing assholes who can't stand the idea that justice should be served to both RICH AND POOR, WHITE AND BLACK, MUSLIM AND CHRISTIAN, POLITICIAN OR NON-POLITICIAN.

Stop voting for the cowardly right-wing unless you want more death and destruction and economic devastation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

[BetsysGhost]

76. interesting tidbit from Jane Harman

Anwar al-Awlaki was the person in San Diego who harbored the the 2 hijackers of 9/11.

Yesterday on Andrea Mitchell Reports.

[scentopine]

79. Interesting tidbit from wikileaks cables - Saudi government harbored

all the 9/11 attackers.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/insurance-firm-sues-saudi-arabia-for-funding-911attacks-16051682.html

Instead of playing whack-a-mole with angry blood thirsty Americans slaughtering thousands (or more) of civilians in random and in-discriminant drone attacks, maybe we should just get the fuck out of there and spend the money building our nation and making it a model for rest of world.

No not maybe. That is what we should be doing. I realize it isn't as cool and fun as slaughtering 100,000s of civilians in thre wars, but that should be our burden to bear.

What a fucking waste of the demcoratic party.

[Kurovski]

105. +100,000

Thank you for bringing back focus where we're "not supposed" to look.

[Raksha]

87. Self-delete

[Major Hogwash]

83. Shark jumping: It's not just for tea baggers anymore!

Since when did defending terrorists become a liberal concept, Meester Rood Pundit?

[scentopine]

84. Blood thirsty right wingers will kill millions playing whack a mole

Oh, boy another top terrorist killed. Just like the other top terrorist killed. Just like the other top terrorist killed.

In the process 10s of thousands of innocent men, women and children are killed for the crime of being in a poor impoverished country.

Noe-libs and neo-cons co-joined twins that will stop at nothing short of total fascism.

[Distant Observer]

88. I suspect that some prominent RW Repubs are scheming much more harm to the US than al-Awlaki could

[Kurovski]

89. K&R. (nt)

[me b zola]

92. Wish I had seen this in time to recommend

...and I wish that I could have given a thousand recommendations.

Yesterday, I saw from long time DUers several posts stating that those of us who do not agree with the killing of anyone without due process as "terrorist lovers", or different variations on that theme. The same kind of shit that RWers called us for being against the war in Iraq, torture, and spying on Americans.

I've been telling Mr Zola the past month or so that I expected to see here a gradual acceptance of rw policies and talking points in the future based on how people were excusing some of the actions of the current administration. I've been coming to DU less and less because of it, it is really creepy and unsettling. And now this.

99.999% of DUers would have been up in arms if bush* had done this, we would have been speaking out against this together. Now because a Democrat is in office, not only is a chunk of DU accepting (cheering actually) of it, they are attacking standard progressive values--and in the same manner that RWers do.



Thank you Rude Pundit for speaking out for the constitution, rule of law, and old fashioned liberal values.

[scentopine]

96. Dem leadership says fuck you to liberals, courts tea baggers instead because

you know, they don't think. They are easier to control. They put their brains in check and just follow their blood lust.

We have lowest common denominator politics right now. This America's gilded era of moral hazard, hypocrisy, injustice, ignorance and violence.

Right wingers euphemistically call it "centrism". That's because policy originates the center of their collective asses.

[Poll_Blind]

94. "decide whether your beliefs are beliefs or just conveniences based on circumstances"

^ This

PB

[gulliver]

100. Sad

So many of the Rude Pundit's observations have lacked proportion lately that I have lost respect for him. I think he must be having serious market share problems lately and, therefore, drifting further and further into the desert. All of the "polite" and true liberal op-ed territory is saturated. His only hope is that Republicans somehow get back into power soon. Otherwise, the Rude Pundit is going to have to keep extrapolating liberalism until he finds a definition far enough out on the fringe that he gets page clicks. Alexa barely knows http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/ exists right now.

I miss the Rude Pundit of the Bush days. Bill Maher has it right, bashing the Republicans more and more and giving Obama more and more credit.

[whatchamacallit]

101. He hasn't changed, you have

now that our democratic president has legitimized the Bush Administration.

[gulliver]

104. The Bush Administration is legitimized?

It troubles me that, in your opinion, the Bush Administration is somehow legitimized. That doesn't strike me as very liberal. The Bush Administration is not and never will be legitimized. How could Obama have legitimized something that is not, in any reasonable way of thinking, legitimized.

[whatchamacallit]

112. Do you support

all the bush era policies that Obama has continued and expanded? If so, Obama has legitimized the bush administration for *you*.

[girl gone mad]

102. too late to rec..

but I will kick.