Tag Archives: Obama re-election

The bin Laden assassination account du jour

OK, so first, we were told that Osama bin Laden was armed and posed an immediate threat to the U.S. Navy SEALs who shot him dead in Pakistan this past weekend.

Then, we were told that he wasn’t armed, but that nonetheless he still somehow was threatening to the SEALs — maybe he had a bomb* on him, even! (Of course, anyone could have a bomb hidden on [or in…] his or her body, so using that “logic,” it’s OK to shoot dead anyone.)

Now, we are being told that the SEALs had planned to kill bin Laden no matter what.

Reports Yahoo! News today:

The SEALs’ decision to fatally shoot bin Laden — even though he didn’t have a weapon — wasn’t an accident.  The administration had made clear to the military’s clandestine Joint Special Operations Command that it wanted bin Laden dead, according to a senior U.S. official with knowledge of the discussions.  A high-ranking military officer briefed on the assault said the SEALs knew their mission was not to take him alive.

Publicly, the White House insists it was prepared to capture bin Laden if he tried to surrender, a possibility senior officials described as remote.

John Brennan, the administration’s top counterterrorism official, told reporters on Monday if “we had the opportunity to take him alive, we would have done that.”A senior intelligence official echoed that sentiment in an interview [yesterday], telling National Journal that if bin Laden “had indicated surrender, he would have been captured.”

But bin Laden didn’t appear to have been given a chance to surrender himself to the SEALs.

“To be frank, I don’t think he had a lot of time to say anything,” CIA Director Leon Panetta said in an interview airing on “PBS NewsHour.”

There is a word for this kind of thing: Fuck.

One of my U.S. senators, Dianne Feinstein, who is chair of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, has said that she was informed of the planning of the raid on the compound in Pakistan that held bin Laden in December.

In December.

One, if bin Laden (still) were such an imminent threat that he needed to be summarily executed on the spot, then why did it take the Obama administration that long to finally get him?

Two, since the Obama administration had bin Laden’s nabbing in the works at least since December, why the fuck has it been unable to get its fucking story straight?

I have as much confidence in the Obama administration as I did in the bumbling Bush regime.

This bullshit bungling is supposed to help Obama’s re-election campaign how?

*The Los Angeles Times reports:

After saying Monday that the American operatives who raided the Pakistani compound had orders to capture Bin Laden if he gave himself up, U.S. officials [yesterday] added an important qualifier: The assault force was told to accept a surrender only if it could be sure he didn’t have a bomb hidden under his clothing and posed no other danger.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Obama sells us farther down the river

US lawmakers reach deal to avert govt shutdown

Reuters photo

Barack Obama last night hailed the largest, non-military (of course) federal budget cut in U.S. history as a “compromise” (and not a cave-in) and said he hopes for more “compromises” with the Repugnican Tea Party traitors in the future. Goddess save this nation from Barack Obama’s “common-sense” “compromises.”

In December, Barack Obama reneged on his campaign pledge not to extend the unelected Bush regime’s tax cuts for the rich and the super-rich. Last night, Obama caved in to $38.5 billion in federal budget cuts demanded by the Repugnican Tea Party and then announced it as a victory for bipartisanship.

Which side is Barack Obama on?

(That’s a rhetorical question. He always has been, and always will be, on his own side.)

The consensus the morning after is that in the budget fight, the Repugnican Tea Party traitors, as usual, won. Reports The Associated Press:

Washington – Republican conservatives were the chief winners in the budget deal that forced Democrats to accept historic spending cuts they strongly opposed.

Emboldened by last fall’s election victories, fiscal conservatives have changed the debate in Washington. The question no longer is whether to cut spending, but how deeply. Rarely mentioned is the idea of higher taxes to lower the deficit.

Their success is all the more notable because Democrats control the Senate and White House.

But more difficult decisions lie ahead, and it’s not clear whether GOP lawmakers can rely on their winning formula. They pushed Democrats to the brink, then gave in just enough to claim impressive achievements, rather than holding the line and triggering a government shutdown that might have yielded far less politically.

The GOP victories came on spending. Their concessions dealt mainly with social issues, where they tried to limit abortions and restrict environmental rules.

House Republicans who care intensely about such social issues may fight harder next time, giving Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, fewer bargaining chips to appease Democrats. Tea party Republicans, some of whom found the cuts too small in [last night’s] last-minute agreement, might insist on deeper ones from now on. …

The Repugnican Tea Party traitors in Congress know what they want and they go after it, viciously. They are undaunted by the fact that the Democratic Party controls the White House and the U.S. Senate, and they pay “bipartisanship” lip service, only when they are trying to get what they want. The Democrats, on the other hand, are all too happy to give away the store in the name of “bipartisanship,” even though the other side never acts in true bipartisan spirit.

Even when the Democrats were in control of the White House and both houses of Congress in 2009 and 2010, they were too timid to spend their political capital, and now that opportunity is lost. It would not have been lost in November 2010 had they actually found their testicles that the voters had handed to them and spent their fucking political capital. But no one respects cowards, and people don’t tend to vote for people whom they don’t respect.

This is a long-standing fucking pattern with the Democratic Party.

We got “President” George W. Bush because in late 2000 Democrat Al Gore was too pussy to fight for the White House that he had won. Gore was too above it all to fight, and in the name of his “bipartisanship,” the nation suffered eight long nightmarish years of the unelected Bush regime. (But Ralph Nader, not Al Gore, still gets the brunt of the blame for this.)

In the name of “bipartisanship” under Obama, the rich and the super-rich got their BushCheneyCorp-era tax cuts extended, and the social Darwinist right wing is realizing its long-standing wet dream of shrinking the federal government down to the size that it can be drowned in the bathtub, so that corporations have no restraints on their treasonous, anti-people, anti-planet profiteering whatsofuckingever.

Barack Obama should be a blockade on the right-wing road to totally wiping out the middle class and the working class, but all that he has done thus far is to present a few “bipartisan” speed bumps.

But trust him, ye ignorant, mere mortal! He has A Plan!

No, he doesn’t. Well, yes, he does: his plan is to continue to sell us out — because we let him.

While Obama can’t be bothered to put up a fight, the right wing incrementally moves the boundaries that increasingly squeeze the working and the middle classes and ensure that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

The Repugnican Tea Party traitors made ridiculous demands in their federal budget plan, such as defunding Planned Parenthood and defanging the Environmental Protection Agency. They probably never expected to actually get these things, and while the Democrats successfully fought back against those ridiculous demands, the Repugnican Tea Party traitors still got a $38.5 billion budget cut.

According to the AP,

Boehner, a skilled legislator, spent weeks talking with House conservatives who insisted on $61 billion in current-year spending cuts. That was the pro-rated remainder of conservatives’ campaign pledge to cut $100 billion in the 2011 budget year, now half over.

Democrats complained bitterly about the first $10 billion in cuts, but eventually said they could not go above $33 billion. The final deal calls for $38.5 billion in cuts.

Boehner and his lieutenants repeatedly told the adamant budget-cutters, some of them new to public office, that they were getting a good deal. A short time ago, he told them, Democrats would not have considered anything approaching $40 billion. Take your victory and get ready for the next fight, he urged them.

Isn’t that what you do in cut-throat negotiations: Always demand much more than you ever actually expect to get (such as $61 billion), so that what you actually do get ($38.5 billion) is still significantly more than what you should get?

And how tough are the Democrats when they claim that they won’t go above $33 billion but then agree to $38.5 billion?

The Democrats should have stuck to their guns for once and allowed the Repugnican Tea Party traitors to shut down the federal government. Instead, as usual, they caved and they put the Repugnican Tea Party traitors further along their path not to our prosperity, but to our complete and total serfdom to our corporate masters.

And this when Barack Obama is telling us that we should re-elect him so that he can finish what he started.

God save us if Obama finishes what he started.

Our only hope at this point is a strong 2012 primary challenge to DINO Barack Obama.

Howard Dean, where are you? Russ Feingold? Hell — Dennis Kucinich?

Someone, anyone with balls — hell, even if she has ovaries.

Just not Barack Obama for 2012. With “friends” like him “on our side,” who needs the Repugnican Tea Party?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Obama 2012: Count me OUT

“ANNOUNCING: PRESIDENT OBAMA’S RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN,” reads the Internet ad that I just saw (with “PAID FOR BY OBAMA FOR AMERICA” at the bottom of it). “ARE YOU IN?” asks a button that you are supposed to click.

When you click on the button, you don’t get to actually answer the question. A new window pops open and instructs you to “GET INVOLVED TODAY” — by giving up your e-mail address and ZIP Code, for starters.

It’s assumed that you’re in, you see. Of course you’re in. It’s Barack! Obama!

Obama’s message in 2008 was “hope” and “change.” His message for 2012 apparently is “Really this time!”

And anyway, what choice do you have?

Well, I have choices. I won’t give the man another fucking penny or another vote. (As “President” George W. Bush once so eloquently put it, “There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on … shame on you. Fool me… You can’t get fooled again!”)

To cite just one of many of Barack Obama’s broken campaign promises, in 2007, while on the campaign trail, he proclaimed, “If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I’ll walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.”

Yet where has Obama been while Repugnican Tea Party governors work overtime to (try to) destroy the public-sector unions of their states? Maybe we should start a campaign of mailing him comfortable shoes. What shoe size does he wear? (No, actually, he’s more deserving of having shoes thrown at him, a la George W. Bush, not given to him as gifts.)

Back in 2008 I gave Obama hundreds of dollars (primarily to knock Billary Clinton out of the painfully prolonged Democratic presidential primary race), believing his campaign promises, only to have his spokesweasel Robert Gibbs later snarkily refer to me and my kind as “the professional left” who should be tested for drugs — because we had the audacity to actually believe Obama’s campaign promises of “hope” and “change.” I mean, really, what had we been smoking that we actually expected Obama to deliver upon his campaign promises?

(One pundit aptly responded to Gibbs’ incredibly retarded slam: “We ‘professional leftists’ do indeed need drug testing, because apparently the … hallucinogenic [effect] of ‘hope and change’ has worn off and the ugly mediocrity of modern Democratic leadership stares us in the face with the not-so-friendly smugness of a hookah-smoking caterpillar.”)

It was an appallingly politically stupid swipe at Obama’s base. As I noted at the time, not even George W. Bush or any of his spokesweasels, as stupid as they all are, slammed Bush’s base. And then Obama himself went on shortly thereafter to slam progressives (again, a.k.a. his base) as “sanctimonious” and “purist.”

Obama’s arrogance — and it is arrogance, not “audacity” — has worn itself out. We’re all just too fucking stupid to understand his genius game plan, which one day will magically work itself out. Meanwhile, he amps up the misguided warfare in Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of winding it down, extends the BushCheneyCorp tax cuts for the richest Americans that he promised he wouldn’t extend, he keeps on as his economic advisers the same Wall Street crooks who destroyed our economy, he is ineffectual while Big Oil destroys the Gulf of Mexico, he stays mostly silent and invisible while the Repugnican Tea Party launches an assault on what’s left of our labor unions, and he attacks Libya when we’re told that we can’t afford our public-school teachers and when we’re still in Vietraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East. And that’s just a partial list.

The differences between the Obama administration and the BushCheneyCorp are insubstantial. They’re mostly differences of style and tone, not of substance, because the Obama administration sells out us Americans to the corporateers and the war profiteers almost just as much as the BushCheneyCorp did.

Having hoped to prevent Billary Clinton from sitting in the Oval Office, I find that we have another President Clinton sitting in the Oval Office anyway.

Yes, it was Bill Clinton who sold out the Democratic base, figuring that there was nowhere else we could go anyway.

Then, Barack Obama came along from nowhere, having accomplished little to nothing, riding the wave that Howard Dean had created, promising “hope” and “change.”

But Obama’s first two years in the Oval Office so inspired his base — not — that the Repugnican Tea Party took over the U.S. House of Representatives, and it’s not Obama who is fighting the Repugnican Tea Party now, but it’s the citizens in the streets of Wisconsin, who first staged Vietnam War Era-sized protests in their capital’s cold streets and who now are collecting petition signatures for recall elections to fix the mess in their state that might not have been created had Obama actually inspired the state’s Democrats to get to the ballot box in November.

Any enthusiasm that Obama’s base might have in 2012 won’t be out of anything positive that he has done, but will be out of the realization that Obama is a lazy fucking liar who can’t be bothered to lift a fucking finger, and that the only thing that is going to save the nation from the Repugnican Tea Party is we, the people. Because it sure the fuck won’t be Barack “Trust Me This Time!” Obama.

Rest assured that Obama will take the credit for his almost inevitable re-election, however. That’s how he has lived his entire political life: off of the backs of others.

His game has brought him this far. Don’t expect him to change it now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized