Post Reply
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Chickenhawk Warrior President
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 4:56PM #1
arielg
Posts: 9,102

The Democratic case for Obama's foreign policy greatness is most significant for what it blissfully ignores



 Peter Bergen, the Director of National Security Studies at the Democratic-Party-supportive New America Foundation, has a long Op-Ed in The New York Times today glorifying President Obama as a valiant and steadfast “warrior President”;

it begins this way: THE president who won the Nobel Peace Prize less than nine months after his inauguration has turned out to be one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades.
Just ponder that: not only the Democratic Party, but also its progressive faction, is wildly enamored of “one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades.” That’s quite revealing on multiple levels.
Bergen does note that irony: he recalls that Obama used his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech to defend the justifications for war and points out: “if those on the left were listening, they didn’t seem to care.”


 He adds that “the left, which had loudly condemned George W. Bush for waterboarding and due process violations at Guantánamo, was relatively quiet when the Obama administration, acting as judge and executioner, ordered more than 250 drone strikes in Pakistan since 2009, during which at least 1,400 lives were lost.”

To explain the behavior of “the left,” Bergen offers this theory: “From both the right and left, there has been a continuing, dramatic cognitive disconnect between Mr. Obama’s record and the public perception of his leadership: despite his demonstrated willingness to use force, neither side regards him as the warrior president he is.”


 In other words, progressives are slavishly supportive of “one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades” because they have deluded themselves into denying this reality and continue to pretend he’s some sort of anti-war figure.
------------------------------- 
Contrary to Bergen’s generous belief that progressives are deluding themselves about Obama’s militarism, many are fully aware of it and, because it’s a Democrat doing it, have become aggressively supportive of it. That, without a doubt, will be one of Obama’s most enduring legacies: transforming these policies of excessive militarism, rampant secrecy and civil liberties assaults from right-wing radicalism into robust bipartisan consensus (try though they might, not even progressives will be able to turn around and credibly pretend to object to such things the next time there is a GOP President).
-------------------------
Thus, Bergen — who has spent the last several years dutifully defending in Democratic journals Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan and escalated drone war – writes almost 2,000 words hailing Obama’s spectacular foreign policy achievements. And not once do the words “civilians” or “innocent” appear. There is no mention — zero — of the numerous innocent civilians who have been killed by the policies of militarism Bergen celebrates. They simply do not exist. Bergen — who has previously claimed, contrary to substantial evidence, that civilian deaths from drones in Pakistan are overstated — here does not even acknowledge their existence. As usual, the deaths of numerous innocent foreigners from American drones and bombs and missiles, including children, is the unspeakable, irrelevant truth about American militarism. It’s certainly not surprising that some think tank “terrorism expert” like Bergen finds civilian deaths at the hands of American militarism to be too insignificant to note, let alone to interfere with his giddy veneration. But the fact that so much of the Democratic Party, including its progressive faction, now follows suit is telling indeed.
One last point: for the full eight years of the Bush administration, Bush, Cheney and scores of other political and media supporters of their militarism who had not served in the military were routinely derided by Democrats and progressives as “chickenhawks” (an accusation, which, with some caveats and modifications, I supported). What happened to that?

Now we have a President whom Bergen hails as “one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades” despite having not served a day in the military, and hordes of non-military-serving Democrats who cheer him as he does so. Similarly, George Bush was mercilessly mocked for declaring himself a “war President,” yet here is Bergen — writing under the headline “Warrior in Chief” — twice christening the non-serving Obama as our “Warrior President.” Did the concept of chickenhawkism, like so many other ostensible political beliefs, cease to exist on January 20, 2009?

www.salon.com/2012/04/29/celebrating_our...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 5:05PM #2
teilhard
Posts: 48,255

The Facts of History indicate that -- thus far -- President Barack O'Bama has given EXEMPLARY Service as Commander-in-Chief of The United States Military Forces ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 7:46PM #3
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,537

Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:05PM, teilhard wrote:


The Facts of History indicate that -- thus far -- President Barack O'Bama has given EXEMPLARY Service as Commander-in-Chief of The United States Military Forces ...





Wow, Greenwald describes you perfectly:












Contrary to Bergen’s generous belief that progressives are deluding themselves about Obama’s militarism, many are fully aware of it and, because it’s a Democrat doing it, have become aggressively supportive of it. That, without a doubt, will be one of Obama’s most enduring legacies: transforming these policies of excessive militarism, rampant secrecy and civil liberties assaults from right-wing radicalism into robust bipartisan consensus (try though they might, not even progressives will be able to turn around and credibly pretend to object to such things the next time there is a GOP President).[\quote]

Moderated by rangerken on May 01, 2012 - 01:34AM
Gary Johnson 2012
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 8:28PM #4
arielg
Posts: 9,102

 


Bush convinced the regressives  that the "War on terror" is the patriotic thing to do.  Obama convinved the progressives. There is   bipartisan consensus after all.  Who says "we can't all get along?.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 9:51PM #5
teilhard
Posts: 48,255

Like it or not, The United States in at War ...  


The Constitution designates The President of The United States as Commander-in-Chief of The Military ... I think that's a GOOD Thing (Civilian Control, and all that) ... Where's the Problem ... ??? 


President O'Bama has ENDED our Occupation of Iraq and is winding-down our Activities in Afghanistan ... Hello ... ???


Apr 30, 2012 -- 7:46PM, Nepenthe wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 5:05PM, teilhard wrote:


The Facts of History indicate that -- thus far -- President Barack O'Bama has given EXEMPLARY Service as Commander-in-Chief of The United States Military Forces ...





Wow, Greenwald describes you perfectly:





Wow, Greenwald describes you perfectly:


Contrary to Bergen’s generous belief that progressives are deluding themselves about Obama’s militarism, many are fully aware of it and, because it’s a Democrat doing it, have become aggressively supportive of it. That, without a doubt, will be one of Obama’s most enduring legacies: transforming these policies of excessive militarism, rampant secrecy and civil liberties assaults from right-wing radicalism into robust bipartisan consensus (try though they might, not even progressives will be able to turn around and credibly pretend to object to such things the next time there is a GOP President).[\quote]





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 10:10PM #6
arielg
Posts: 9,102

You are a clergy and are asking what is the problem with killing people?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 30, 2012 - 11:53PM #7
teilhard
Posts: 48,255

VERY Good Point ...


I am NOT in favor -- AT  ALL --  of "killing People" (as al Qaida and their Apologists ARE) ...


But I recognize that SOMETIMES (thank God, RARELY) one is required to ACT decisively in order to Protect and Defend INNOCENT Persons from being killed (BY Groups like al Qaida) ... Hence, the unfortunate but Real-World NEED to interdict al Qaida ...


Apr 30, 2012 -- 10:10PM, arielg wrote:


You are a clergy and are asking what is the problem with killing people?





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 1:24AM #8
rabello
Posts: 19,325

snipped for brevity


Apr 30, 2012 -- 4:56PM, arielg wrote:


Now we have a President whom Bergen hails as “one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades” despite having not served a day in the military, and hordes of non-military-serving Democrats who cheer him as he does so. Similarly, George Bush was mercilessly mocked for declaring himself a “war President,” yet here is Bergen — writing under the headline “Warrior in Chief” — twice christening the non-serving Obama as our “Warrior President.” Did the concept of chickenhawkism, like so many other ostensible political beliefs, cease to exist on January 20, 2009?

www.salon.com/2012/04/29/celebrating_our...




Yes, it did end on Jan 20, 2009....like a lot of other things the man was given automatic credit for just because he used the antiwar rhetoric others before him composed.


Thank you for sharing this article, arielg.  It is very frustrating, I agree.  Whenever you hear somebody say "he's ending 'the wars!" remember the number of private contractors who will be in Iraq indefinitely, and the huge increase in the number of unmanned drone bombings in Pakistan and Yemen, where we are not "at war".


I sometimes wonder how Democrats and liberals would have reacted had Bush2 order the execution of someone without trial by home invasion that required a breach of protocol between sovereign nations, and then secretly dumped the body at sea without any independent investigation, with 5 others killed, and then telling the American people "trust me".  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 1:49AM #9
teilhard
Posts: 48,255

You're kidding, right ... ???  Osama bin Laden ... ???


May 1, 2012 -- 1:24AM, rabello wrote:


snipped for brevity


Apr 30, 2012 -- 4:56PM, arielg wrote:


Now we have a President whom Bergen hails as “one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades” despite having not served a day in the military, and hordes of non-military-serving Democrats who cheer him as he does so. Similarly, George Bush was mercilessly mocked for declaring himself a “war President,” yet here is Bergen — writing under the headline “Warrior in Chief” — twice christening the non-serving Obama as our “Warrior President.” Did the concept of chickenhawkism, like so many other ostensible political beliefs, cease to exist on January 20, 2009?

www.salon.com/2012/04/29/celebrating_our...




Yes, it did end on Jan 20, 2009....like a lot of other things the man was given automatic credit for just because he used the antiwar rhetoric others before him composed.


Thank you for sharing this article, arielg.  It is very frustrating, I agree.  Whenever you hear somebody say "he's ending 'the wars!" remember the number of private contractors who will be in Iraq indefinitely, and the huge increase in the number of unmanned drone bombings in Pakistan and Yemen, where we are not "at war".


I sometimes wonder how Democrats and liberals would have reacted had Bush2 order the execution of someone without trial by home invasion that required a breach of protocol between sovereign nations, and then secretly dumped the body at sea without any independent investigation, with 5 others killed, and then telling the American people "trust me".  





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 8:55AM #10
Fodaoson
Posts: 10,906

It seems some of the “Peace “posters ignore the reality of life, the realty and reason for war.  Suppose on Jan 22, 2009 ,Obama had told the military et.al. to get out of Iraq  and Afghanistan.  The Taliban ,Al Qaida, Iran, and the Ba’ath  would have ravaged the  people and themselves  even more than they did.  War without an occupation or some transition never ends in peace.


We left Vietnam without contractors and advisors and two year later the north took over;. 200,000  or more were sent to “Reeducation camps “ where disease and treatment killed thousands. 1.5 million  people were “evacuated” from  Saigon. Hundreds of thousand disappeared for villages and hamlet.   


In  Cambodia after the Khmer rouge  took over the Capital was totally evacuated , miu illion died in the”killing fields”. Anyone connected with the former government was executed or murdered maliciously. Teachers, Doctor , persons wearing glasses were brutally killed.  


Look at the recent history of Afrca where in several countries atrocities after a civil war were rampant.


  

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 4  •  1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook