Friday, May 22, 2009

President Obama: Babysitter in Chief

Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat.

- Barack Obama
If you take Obama and members of US Congress at their word, Americans today are frightened -- literally cowering under their beds -- over the prospect that some inmates held in Guantanamo will be transferred to Super Max prisons on the mainland. In a long speech intended to reassure his countrymen at this time of danger, Obama essentially promised that he would undercut the Constitution so as to permit "indefinite detention" of any terrorists who sound really scary.

Clearly Obama views his job, much as his predecessor defined his, as making sure Americans feel safe at night. He's their Babysitter in Chief. Yesterday, you had Grandpa Cheney declaring he could do a far better job.

What conclusions about the US are the big bad terrorists going to draw from such a spectacle?


  1. What is actually scary is the deafening silence among many Dem voices on the PD proposal. As if they only thing they ever objected to with Bush was that it wasn't their party doing it.

  2. Obama doesn't have a clue what he's doing and the democrats at large are getting pissed off that he isn't doing what they want done....all the while Pelosi keeps up her denials without trying to look too stupid.

    What is the purpose of closing Gitmo when we still need to house them? Any American that believes we won't be sending any new potential terrorists to places like Egypt and the like for water boarding are living in a fantasy land.

    It will all be business as usual just not at Gitmo.

  3. AnonymousMay 25, 2009

    I suspect Talen is correct that it will happen anyway. Like most he still seems to believe that the US is at war with terrorists. And of course you can't have a better enemy for a war that will never end, and neither will the profits. Not profits for the country, it only has a rising body count and deficit financing it, profits for the banks that run the Industrial Military complex.

    I have no liking for Islamists and their medieval views, but why is the west at "war" with them? It is an Israeli problem, they stole the land and they intend to keep it. Fine, let them sort it out. Then again look at the names behind the Federal Reserve and the banksters that control the US, clarity will then ensue.

  4. Rick,

    Maybe Dems assume its a decoy, a tactic to throw off the opposition. Something he suspects the Supreme Court won't let him have, but will make him sound tough so he can achieve ________.

    So he can accomplish what? That's where I am lost, what can be more important -- on so many levels -- than restoring the rule of law?

    Or maybe the only thing that matters is that Obama has power and this kind of proposal might help him appear "serious" enough to keep it? So power is the be-all and end-all to some Democrats -- especially members of the party establishment.


    Re: Obama not having a clue what he is doing.

    I think he think's betting he can maintain a progressive facade while pursuing policies that favor the corporate interests. I think he's calculating liberals have nowhere else to turn, so he can risk losing their support.

    What I see happening, and where we get into "he doesn't have a clue" territory, is that a byproduct of this tactic is that Obama is losing trust.

    He risks losing not just the trust of the so-called "extreme left" but trust as a character attribute in the public perception of the man.

    So while Obama seems to be betting his main "problem" will be the left, actually, he's well on his way to creating a strange alliance among people who share one thing in common: they think Obama can't be trusted.

    You may recall that this was
    "the reason" a lot of people gave for having voted McCain/Palin. Now Liberals, civil-libertarians are going to start saying it. And the right-wing machine is going to broadcast the message: Obama isn't even trusted by his own supporters.

    So Obama will have created a division within his own ranks that the right will do everything in its power to exploit. Because what's going to be at issue isn't any "issue" but the candidate himself: that is, whether Obama can be trusted.

    When Obama implodes, who will be ready to seize the moment?


    Americans have seen their government take on problems it has small hope of constructively addressing, and which are costing the people plenty. This observation applies to recent US foreign policy, but also applies to the bank bail-out. Whereas in the first case the fundamental problems can't be solved by the US because they are too complex, in the second case the underlying financial problem is not being addressed by Treasury because of lack of will. But as you point out, the payers, in both cases are the same, and any rewards -- that is, those that we can be certain about -- won't go to them!


Because all comments on this blog are moderated, there will be some delay before your comment is approved.