0
   

Hey 'Progressives': Where is Code Pink?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 05:53 am
Bait thread, bait thread . . . get yer live bait here ! ! !
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 09:47 am
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:
They were quite vocal when it was Bush in charge of the bombs. Now that Obama is in charge of the bombs, these people either have:

-Changed their philosophy, and now don't mind it when the US bombs innocent civilians.

-Never cared anyway, but were just making political hay.

Or, tell me a third option? Why are they quiet?

Well, hell! He's been in office for a whole month, now! He must have solved all of Earth's woes!
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 02:55 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:

Well, hell! He's been in office for a whole month, now! He must have solved all of Earth's woes!


Where did the 'progressives' go, DD?

I'm OK with Obama's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, btw. He seems to handling the situation just fine.

What Setanta and others are avoiding are the uncomfortable issue of libs who have always appeared to be ethically opposed to war when Bush was in charge now seeming to be understanding of the complexities of the situation.

Code Pink, Setanta, whatever 'progressive' flavor of the month one may choose; where did they go?

Are they still opposed to war? Or, as I believe, were they simply opposed to Bush and all the hollering and carrying on just made for good politics?

A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 03:04 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:

Bait thread, bait thread . . . get yer live bait here ! ! !


Sigh.

Such child like simplicity, so typical of the 'progressive.'

It really isn't that difficult of an issue, is it?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 03:07 pm
@A Lone Voice,
My point is that rational people understand that any large undertaking, such as war, cannot be turned on a dime. Further, Obama has made it clear that there is a difference between the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

You're trolling here, as others have pointed out. I'd suggest that if you haven't gotten any bites here, that you should try casting your line elsewhere.
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 03:53 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:

My point is that rational people understand that any large undertaking, such as war, cannot be turned on a dime. Further, Obama has made it clear that there is a difference between the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

You're trolling here, as others have pointed out. I'd suggest that if you haven't gotten any bites here, that you should try casting your line elsewhere.


Why is this so hard for you guys?

Cyclops provided his viewpoint; I respect his answer. He just spoke for himself, though.

Funny how libs wanted everyone to denounce Bush over every perceived wrong, yet when asked why the antiwar effort has gone silent, we hear crickets.

Is your ideology so rigid that you can't question anything any 'progressive' has ever done?

You do realize that's a bit scary for us normal folks?

And you do realize this 'fishing' analogy is wearing thin? It really is an avoidance ploy...

I realize ‘progressive’ A2Kers are most comfortable with snarky, two sentence responses where they mostly agree with one another, but you guys should really try to stretch yourself a bit.

C'mon, DD, it's not that difficult of an issue:

Where did the antiwar crowd go?

Anyone else? Any 'progressives' out there willing to engage in uncomfortable conversation?

(Sounds of crickets)
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 03:58 pm
I am not and never have been "ethically opposed" to war, nor have i ever been anything which one would justify calling "a progressive." I've never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and consistently opposed an invasion of Iraq. Obviously, this gobshite ALameVoice has not read my posts over the more than six years this site has been in business, and doesn't know a goddamn thing about me or the positions i have taken and supported. All he's been doing here is flailing around with a pretty damned pathetic bunch of scarecrows . . . which is to say, straw men . . . because, this is a . . .

Bait thread! Bait thread! Get yer live bait . . .



. . . whew . . . this thread really stinks . . . i don't think that bait is very damned fresh . . .
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:24 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:

I am not and never have been "ethically opposed" to war, nor have i ever been anything which one would justify calling "a progressive." I've never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and consistently opposed an invasion of Iraq. Obviously, this gobshite ALameVoice has not read my posts over the more than six years this site has been in business, and doesn't know a goddamn thing about me or the positions i have taken and supported. All he's been doing here is flailing around with a pretty damned pathetic bunch of scarecrows . . . which is to say, straw men . . . because, this is a . . .

Bait thread! Bait thread! Get yer live bait . . .



. . . whew . . . this thread really stinks . . . i don't think that bait is very damned fresh . . .




You keep on flailing about, puffing and posing, accusing me of not reading your response.

Yet....

You haven't read, and answered, my very simple question:

Where is the antiwar crowd now that Obama is president?

All the carrying on aside, you can choose to either give your opinion on the question or not.

What your feeling is about Code Pink, how long you have been a Very Important Poster here at A2K, your propensity for avoidance, I really don't care.

I am curious as to your opinion of why 'progressives', who were so vocal in their opposition of US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan when Bush was president, are now silent with Obama in the White House.

I have my opinion, which I’ve shared. Now, you can choose " or not " to provide your own opinion.

This is what us grown ups call dialogue…

0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 04:52 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:
Where did the antiwar crowd go?

Perhaps you're looking in the wrong place.
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 11:22 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:

Perhaps you're looking in the wrong place.


Is it so hard to make a statement that might be construed as making a judgment call on an issue? For being so quick with your opinions when it comes to conservatives, you guys sure are shy when it comes to issues that question party loyalty.

OK, so maybe you're not an anti-war guy; you won't come out and say it, you kind of imply it here, but who knows at this point? But that's not important.

But do you have an opinion? Isn't that what this place is for?

Where did the anti-war crowd go now that Obama is in the White House?

What do you think, DD? I've voiced my opinion; agree? Disagree? They do seem quiet as opposed to when Bush was in the White House; why?

Setanta finds it easier to flee; I realize there is some close minded thought here, but I didn't think this would be so tough...
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 01:23 am
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice--According to the Chicago Tribune( one of Obama's most fervent backers) the budget proposed by Obama for Defense/Military under
'PROPOSED DEFENSE BUDGET INCLUDES COST OF ONGOING OPERATIONS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN-

2009-Bush-Obama --Estimated--654.7 Billion
2010_Obama-projected --663.7 Billion PLUS 4.7 billion( additional
2009-10 stimulus package funding

2010 Obama projected total 668.4 Billion.

Chicago Tribune---Friday February 27, 2009--P. 4

******************************************************************

As Cicerone Imposer might say, Bush wasted so much money on the Military--that's why we have so many homeless people."


0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 01:32 am
A Lone Voice--Do you remember how the left wing was howling in rage when we went into Iraq?

Very few of them posted the authorization for the war. I will post it.

from "Bush at War" -Bob Woodward( no right winger) p. 351

quote--

...on October 10th and 11th the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to grant the president full authority to attack Iraq unilaterally. The vote in the House was 296 to 133 and in the Senate 77 to 23. The Congress gave Bush the full go-ahead to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend against the threat of Iraq"

**************************************************************

Quite different from Clinton's bombing of Kosovo and Baghdad WITHOUT Congressional Approval.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 01:39 am
Lone Voice--How long will we be in Afghanistan?(Student Protestors from the US East Coast--Where are you when we need you?)

According to Feb. 27th Chicago Tribune--P. 13, General David McKiernan, top US Commander in Afghanistan replied when aked how long it would take to get to the point where we can win in Afghanistan---

"It's hard to predict that. But I think we need to stay on a fairly LARGE SUSTAINED commitment on the part of the international community FOR THE NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS A S A M I N I M U M.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 01:43 am
Lone Voice--Here's what a "left wing" site has to say about Obama's turnaround on Wiretapping and Torture>

Bush III: Obama on Torture & Wiretapping
Written by Thomas R. Eddlem
Sunday, 15 February 2009



Just as President Bush publicly and repeatedly stated that “this nation does not torture,” but then secretly engaged in torture, President Obama’s public rhetoric against torture is increasingly at odds with his decisons to defend John Yoo (the former Justice Department official who authored the "torture memo" justifying Bush administration policy), keep in place policies that have protected torture, and even keep in office Bush-era appointees who helped establish torture policies.

Obama made a public spectacle of signing the executive orders banning torture and closing Guantanamo within a year. Flanked by a dozen former generals, the public show contrasted with Obama’s quiet signing of an order overturning the “Mexico City policy” banning the funding of abortion providers abroad with U.S. foreign aid funds.

But for the second time in a week, the Obama administration maintained the “state secrets” defense the Bush administration used to shield torturers and other illegal activities from court scrutiny. This time the “state secrets” gambit protected warrantless (i.e., unconstitutional) wiretapping of terrorist suspects in San Francisco U.S. District Court on February 11.

“They have drawn a line in the sand between the executive and the judiciary, saying, 'You do not control these documents, we do,’ " said Jon Eisenberg, the attorney for the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, which filed the suit against warrantless wiretapping. The Obama administration’s assertion of the phony “state secrets” privilege strikes at the heart of the Constitution and justice system. Eisenberg is right in that if courts cannot get at the facts, they cannot decide justly. And if the executive branch can cover up crimes against the Constitution (as warrantless wiretaps are) by keeping all of the facts secret, then the court system itself becomes corrupted and irrelevant.

The Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation charged in the lawsuit that the U.S. government unconstitutionally wiretapped them. The irony of the “state secrets” argument in this case is that the federal government accidentally faxed a document to the foundation in 2005 proving it had been wiretapping the organization without a warrant before it had listed the organization as linked to terrorism. The organization seeks the document so that it can be submitted to the court as evidence " something the Obama administration does not want to do because it would supposedly jeopardize national security.

Here’s the irony of the case: the Obama administration is essentially saying that even though organizations designated as terrorist have already had lengthy access to the document, it would jeopardize national security to allow U.S. district judges and lawyers to see the document as well. Imagine that. Terrorists can see our memoranda, but judges cannot. Such is the official Obama policy these days.

The same day that the Obama administration issued its second “state secrets” argument in federal court, the ACLU released copies of previously classified documents where Defense Department investigators admitted several detainees had been tortured to death. Most of the deaths occurred at the infamous secret prison at Bagram Air Force in Afghanistan, the site of most other publicized torture deaths.

Obama’s presidency started out on a positive note regarding the subject of torture, with executive orders commanding executive branch employees (including the CIA) not to commit felony torture. But his actions since that time tend to indicate that we may witness another term of lawless Bush administration policy. Americans have a clear choice of demanding their officials live under the chains of the Constitution or groveling under the dictatorial “leadership principle” where whatever the president says is law is legal. Obama's recent embrace of "state secrets" policy suggests he's a move in the latter direction.

0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 01:45 am
Something SMELLS --but it isn't "bait". It's the stink from Obama's old promises.

Setanta is and always has been a leftist. Look at his posts! I think his dog is a Russian Wolfhound!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 11:43 am
@A Lone Voice,
I gave my opinion, twice. Obama's only been President for a month. Reasonable people know that it takes time to effect change.

In pursuing this, you are showing yourself not to be a part of the set "reasonable people."

I'm not anti-war, per se. I'm anti-stupid-war. It was obvious to me from the beginning that the Iraq invasion was a stupid war.
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 06:06 pm
@DrewDad,
Quote:

I gave my opinion, twice. Obama's only been President for a month. Reasonable people know that it takes time to effect change.

In pursuing this, you are showing yourself not to be a part of the set "reasonable people."

I'm not anti-war, per se. I'm anti-stupid-war. It was obvious to me from the beginning that the Iraq invasion was a stupid war.


Really? You provided a couple short responses as to your beliefs, wrapped around a snarky answer or two (as provided). But I've asked you to comment on the anti-war left as a whole; why are you so hesitant to criticize (or commend, if that's the way you feel) other's who spout what I believe are your same political beliefs?

You have no problem criticizing (and ridiculing) those you disagree politically with; why not those you consider allies?

I've read your posts for awhile here, DD, and you seem to firmly entrenched on the left. Am I mistaken? I realize it is difficult to pigeonhole individuals - I'm pro-abortion and for gay marriage, for example, but firmly conservative in most other areas - but I believe I have a good handle on your beliefs from your posts.

I'm really bothered by this political correctness, this inability to judge, this being frightened of being accused of being disloyal, or whatever the reason to toe the party line from the left. We saw this with only the most partisan of repubs when it came to Bush; here, it seems to be mandatory if one wants to call oneself 'progressive'.

So to clarify: You believe the anti-war left, who oppose war in every way and took to the streets in massive protests, calling Bush a war criminal, are now simply waiting, because war can't be turned on a dime? Even though Obama went back on his campaign promise re Iraq?

It just doesn't have the ring of sincerity, does it?

Me? I’m actually glad Obama didn’t sacrifice Iraq for political expediency, as it appeared he was going to do when he was elected. I’m also glad to see he is taking Afghanistan seriously. I thought pressure from the left and the Afghan gov was going to prevent the use of drone bombers, which would put our soldiers at risk.

To my surprise, the left has been silent. A good thing, but it puzzles me. (And the reason for this thread).

In some ways, Obama is pragmatic, which is a good thing when it comes to our military…

BTW, I'm really not trying to take shots here, and I appreciate you sticking it out. I'm just curious about how people who appear so passionate in their beliefs can suddenly become so quiet and passive...

Your responses from earlier...

Quote:

My point is that rational people understand that any large undertaking, such as war, cannot be turned on a dime. Further, Obama has made it clear that there is a difference between the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

You're trolling here, as others have pointed out. I'd suggest that if you haven't gotten any bites here, that you should try casting your line elsewhere.


Quote:

Well, hell! He's been in office for a whole month, now! He must have solved all of Earth's woes!


Quote:

Poor alone voice....



DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 07:15 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:
You have no problem criticizing (and ridiculing) those you disagree politically with; why not those you consider allies?

What makes you think I don't? I've been critical of posts from Cyclo, Ebrown P, JoeFromChicago, etc. Your suffering from a selection bias; apparently you've only read/remembered some of my posts.
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 07:41 pm
@DrewDad,
In that case, I apologize. You're correct, I don't recall them. Then again, I haven't read every post of yours (just as I hope you haven't read every post of mine, what with stalking and all) Smile

But since you've stuck it out this long, what do you think is the deal with the people who were marching every other weekend? I live in CA, where the media frequently covered anti-war demonstrations when Bush was in office.

Since Obama was elected, they have been quiet. At first, I just thought it was the media, but in checking some of the Indymedia and peace websites, I've noticed the anti-war left has stopped with the protesting.

When I saw the report of the Afghanistan civilians killed by the bomb from the drone plane, I thought this might stir their outrage. But again, silence.

Frankly, I question their sincerity. I'm not sure if they are anti-war or were just anti-Bush. Or what we call infected with BDS.

Now...

What do you think about these protesters? Agree with me? Disagree?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Feb, 2009 09:24 pm
@A Lone Voice,
http://able2know.org/topic/129598-2#post-3585934
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 09:00:53