Obama's FISA

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 01:40:10 AM EDT

Ari Melber, Obama Network Organizes and Revolts over Spying:

Since launching last week, the protest group, "Senator Obama Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right," swelled to one of the ten largest campaign groups on Sunday. (FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which the Democratic Congress is poised to amend under White House pressure.) It is the largest group of its kind on MyBo, which focuses on local networking, official campaign events, and constituency groups like "Women for Obama." It looks like the group grew through the Obama network, with a few web mentions on liberal sites such as OpenLeft and TPM, and it urges Obama to reject the "politics of fear" and lead Democrats to oppose the White House bill. Blogger Mike Stark says the effort demonstrates the kind of civic engagement and "open government" that Obama espouses, even if it delivers the "sting of social networking" pushback during a tight campaign.

 

One Democratic Internet consultant predicted that Obama's reaction could reveal his commitment to meaningful engagement with supporters. "How Obama responds will tell us a great deal about both his willingness to listen to input from his supporters and what influence the MyBarackObama community has on the campaign itself," said the operative, who wished to remain anonymous while working on another campaign. "In the meantime, this is a huge opportunity for Obama's supporters to organize around an issue, not just the candidate, and take action beyond using their credit card."

 

The Wanker-In-Waiting, Keith Olbermann, who has flipped his position to become the defender of Obama now supporting FISA, is expected"to deliver a "Special Comment" on Monday's show to elaborate on his "Obama/FISA" defense."

Now, which tactic works better? The use of BO's tools to organize and send a message from within that pushes for change, or the sycophant use of television by a tool? I guess it depends on what outcome you'd like to see.

What I'd like to see is some investigative reporting down that shows why in the world Obama actually flipped his position to take the lead on supporting the "compromise" FISA bill. Is it really just the "move to the center" that Glenn talks about, or is there something else to it?

There's more...

War on Terror in Campaign 08

by Jerome Armstrong, Mon Apr 30, 2007 at 12:43:43 PM EDT

It's how these debates work-- where during the middle of it, something that seems eventful becomes meaningless a few days later; and something that didn't seem like made a big splash at the time, becomes a more substantive definition as as time goes on. Ari Melber writes about the latter today:

The most significant moment in last week's Democratic presidential candidate debate came during the evening's most simplistic question. Moderator Brian Williams asked for a show of hands on whether the candidates "believe" there is a Global War on Terror, yielding a four-to-four split. It was a silly choice, since Williams was technically asking if the candidates believe that Bush's foreign policy exists, but it could still spark an important discussion. John Edwards was the only one of the "top three" candidates to vote no, which swiftly brought him praise, scorn and ridicule. After saying the U.S. must strongly deal with "dangerous leaders in the world," Edwards emphasized the need to use all the tools of foreign policy, not simply hard military power. His argument was not really a denial of the existence of Bush's Global War on Terrorism, but a nod towards an alternative.

There is really no denying that President Bush has organized U.S. foreign policy around an endless Global War on Terrorism (or "GWOT" in government circles). As he declared in his historic address to a joint session of Congress after 9/11, even if Al-Qaeda is destroyed, Bush envisions a war that "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." He means that literally. It is a war that targets a tactic instead of an enemy; like declaring war on war, as Zbigniew Brzezinski has noted.

As Matt and Chris have been writing about here, and the discussion that it sparked here the night of the debate, it matters. Conservatives would like to thing that the GWOT is an un-touchable rightwing frame of national security. But that four candidates wouldn't raise their hand to give a symbolic buy-in to that frame is a good start. Of course, of the four, it'd be expected that Kucinich and Gravel would say that, and as for Biden, it's probably because he has his own acronym instead; the case of Edwards stands out, as well it should, and hopefully other Democrats start calling this rightwing frame out in public, as it's ramifications reaches beyond the symbolism:
Without a defined enemy, of course, it is a war that can creep far from our vital security interests. In 2002, administration officials claimed Bush could invade Iraq without any congressional authorization at all, based on GWOT, and Condi Rice made the same claim about Syria in 2005. The administration invokes the same endless war to justify imprisoning American citizens without trial; suspending habeas corpus; illegally spying on American citizens; and detaining hundreds of people for years without charges in the lawless Gitmo prison. The policy is built on the twin fallacies that the best defense is a reckless offense, and the world wants (and hates) our freedom. In the name of fighting terror, President Bush aims to advance democracy abroad while restricting it at home, treating Congress and the Courts as barriers to national security.
And this:
To that end, some Democratic bloggers are cheering Edwards and pressing other candidates to challenge the GWOT. MyDD's Matt Stoller writes that Edwards' opposition was a welcome "departure from the bipartisan consensus" backing GWOT. Writing on the same blog in 2004, Chris Bowers called on Democrats to abandon the war on terror frame. This argument is not confined to bloggers or liberal critics, either. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, an influential foreign policy adviser to Democrats across the political spectrum, argued in 2005 that while GWOT had "entered the English language" as the "way our highest national priority is described by almost everyone," it was simply "not an accurate description of America's enemy or of what we are engaged in." He called for jettisoning GWOT and adopting a more focused attack on Al Qaeda.

The public should demand leadership and bold policies from these candidates who would be president. So how about a show of hands of voters who believe in this position: Any candidate who cannot outline an effective alternative to Bush's failed Global War on Terrorism does not deserve to be president.

There's more...

  • 36 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------