With our lick that nimrod will probably be the longest surviving President in history.
I find it amazing that the country that has been multi-cultural and homogeneous for one of, if not the longest period of time is the one that gets singled out as having a "racist" past. I bet Japan and China don't get those accusations. Nor the middle eastern hell-holes.
I read the piece and I have to give Carter credit for consistency: few on the left are willing to call out the Obama administration for the things they routinely castigated Bush for. So good for Jimmah, and good for Glenn Greenwald too.
The pearl-clutching treacle was thick in Carter's piece, but not as thick as some of the dope I've read from him.
It should be acknowledged that a great many of the objections to the NDAA and widespread drone killing - including kills of American Citizens - come from conservative and libertarian people.
Speaking ex cathedra as a unapologetic and unreconstructed neo-con with a long record of public comment to that effect: I don't see any contradiction between a hawkish and uncompromising anti-jihadi foreign policy stance and a deep unease with unrestricted and unaccountable Presidential power to kill people with drones.
Bush's policies were (very charitably) less than successful but they were part of a strategy.
Obama's grand strategy is... what, exactly? Nobody in the press has forced him to articulate it in any meaningful way. People point to his Cairo speech of 4 years ago but the meddling in the wake of the "Arab Spring" has rendered that (non-interventionist) document a dead letter.
I've been deeply skeptical of the war in Afghanistan since the Obama "surge" there, which seemed nothing more than a cynical political stunt with no hope of achieving its stated "objectives".
The territory held by jihadhis has expanded under Obama. Apparently he's working with and arming some (Syrian opposition)... and drone killing others. Why? Any rhyme or reason there?
It seems that the expansion of lethal power is an end in itself for this administration. The "anytime, anyplace" nature of the war on terror is exactly what the lefties accused Bush of. Obama is claiming more "decider" status than Bush ever did.
I don't mind being on record as opposing that and I don't see it as being soft on Islamist terror in any regard. If that puts me on the same side of the issue as Jimmy Carter and Glenn Greenwald, then so be it.
With our lick that nimrod will probably be the longest surviving President in history.
ReplyDeleteI find it amazing that the country that has been multi-cultural and homogeneous for one of, if not the longest period of time is the one that gets singled out as having a "racist" past. I bet Japan and China don't get those accusations. Nor the middle eastern hell-holes.
Wonderful threadline, Dances. Bravo.
ReplyDeleteI read the piece and I have to give Carter credit for consistency: few on the left are willing to call out the Obama administration for the things they routinely castigated Bush for. So good for Jimmah, and good for Glenn Greenwald too.
The pearl-clutching treacle was thick in Carter's piece, but not as thick as some of the dope I've read from him.
It should be acknowledged that a great many of the objections to the NDAA and widespread drone killing - including kills of American Citizens - come from conservative and libertarian people.
Speaking ex cathedra as a unapologetic and unreconstructed neo-con with a long record of public comment to that effect: I don't see any contradiction between a hawkish and uncompromising anti-jihadi foreign policy stance and a deep unease with unrestricted and unaccountable Presidential power to kill people with drones.
Bush's policies were (very charitably) less than successful but they were part of a strategy.
Obama's grand strategy is... what, exactly? Nobody in the press has forced him to articulate it in any meaningful way. People point to his Cairo speech of 4 years ago but the meddling in the wake of the "Arab Spring" has rendered that (non-interventionist) document a dead letter.
I've been deeply skeptical of the war in Afghanistan since the Obama "surge" there, which seemed nothing more than a cynical political stunt with no hope of achieving its stated "objectives".
The territory held by jihadhis has expanded under Obama. Apparently he's working with and arming some (Syrian opposition)... and drone killing others. Why? Any rhyme or reason there?
It seems that the expansion of lethal power is an end in itself for this administration. The "anytime, anyplace" nature of the war on terror is exactly what the lefties accused Bush of. Obama is claiming more "decider" status than Bush ever did.
I don't mind being on record as opposing that and I don't see it as being soft on Islamist terror in any regard. If that puts me on the same side of the issue as Jimmy Carter and Glenn Greenwald, then so be it.
Obama has a strategy? Who knew?
DeleteActually, I agree with a lot of carter's complaints, here.
ReplyDeleteIndefinite, non-court-ordered detention and drone strikes within the US are frightening foreshadows of a budding tyranny.
And since Barry0 has already given up any chance of a 'win' in Afghanistan, there is no reason to continue them there, either.
But, it's Carter, fer Gossakes.
I agree with lewy; this is a very clever threadline DWT.
DeleteAnd yeah. Agreeing with Jimmuh doesn't sit well with me either. Bleh.
Of course, the first thing that came to mind was RIP Ford's classic Jimmuh ~
ReplyDeleteimg:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y117/floranista/jimmuhbyripford.jpg"