Obama Talking Points: Not Funding Abortion, Persecuting Immigrants, Shielding Torturers…
Posted by Mike E on August 14, 2009
Immigration raid in New Bedford
July 21 Obama says that making abortion more available and affordable is not part of health care reform, and that anti-abortion policies are “traditions” that should be respected:
“I’m pro-choice, but I think we also have the tradition in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care,”
* * * * * *
August 11, Obama’s secretary of homeland announces that the government’s focus on immgration will be enforcement — like the last administration:
A day after President Obama announced that legislation to overhaul immigration laws would have to wait until next year, the secretary of homeland security played down the need for change in a speech here and took a tough stance on enforcing current immigration laws.
“The secretary, Janet Napolitano, defended the administration’s assertive strategy against illegal immigrants and companies that employ them, relying largely on programs started under President George W. Bush.
“That strategy has drawn fire from immigrant groups and many of Mr. Obama’s Hispanic supporters, who say the president has not lived up to campaign promises to ease the pressure on illegal workers and to seek changes in immigration laws that would give more workers visas.
“But Ms. Napolitano argued that the Obama administration had changed Mr. Bush’s programs in critical ways, such as putting an emphasis on deporting criminals and holding more employers responsible for hiring illegal workers.”
* * * * * * * *
CIA director and Democratic appointee Leon Panetta published an op ed piece in the Washington Post saying it was necessary to “move on” and not punish officials for lying about the Iraq war, authorizing illegal surveillance and conducting illegal torture.
Panetta said Democrats must recognize the “reality” of 9/11 is what drove the conduct of George W. Bush administration in the months following September 11, 2001, which somehow justifies not looking into suspected crimes. He added, in an apparent warning to the House Intelligence Committee, that “focusing on the past” could hurt the CIA’s core mission amid a climate of recriminations over its practices.
“I’ve become increasingly concerned that the focus on the past, especially in Congress, threatens to distract the CIA from its crucial core missions: intelligence collection, analysis and covert action…In our democracy, effective congressional oversight of intelligence is important, but it depends as much on consensus as it does on secrecy,” he continued. “We need broad agreement between the executive and legislative branches on what our intelligence organizations do and why. For much of our history, we have had that. Over the past eight years, on specific issues — including the detention and interrogation of terrorists — the consensus deteriorated. That contributed to an atmosphere of declining trust, growing frustration and more frequent leaks of properly classified information.”
Several paragraphs later, he appears to offer a blanket excuse for torture, CIA black sites, kidnapping, indefinite detention, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and warrantless spying, among a litany of other notable scandals.
“The time has come for both Democrats and Republicans to take a deep breath and recognize the reality of what happened after Sept. 11, 2001. The question is not the sincerity or the patriotism of those who were dealing with the aftermath of Sept. 11. The country was frightened, and political leaders were trying to respond as best they could. Judgments were made. Some of them were wrong. But that should not taint those public servants who did their duty pursuant to the legal guidance provided. The last election made clear that the public wanted to move in a new direction.”
Ah yes, a new direction.
We need a simple list
We need to keep a simple score card of the reactionary and imperialist moves of this new administration…. to simply and honestly confront its policies and arguments.
We need to list:
- the escalation in Afghanistan (with more likely to come),
- the attacks on other countries (starting with Pakistan),
- the continuing condemnation of Maoists in places like Nepal as so-called “terrorists,”
- the stark refusal to challenge the role of profit in health care (by both providers and insurance companies) and the huge toll that it takes.
- The restructuring of the auto industry with historic slashes in the conditions and benefits of autoworkers
- We need to dissect the massive handover of multi-trillions to banks (and ask if the left and progressive forces would be quiet if such massive bailouts were carried out by Republicans).
- After initially pausing the granting of mountaintopping permits (for a review), the Obama administration then started approving them again turning the beloved hills of Appalachia into moonscapes-for-profit.
And while we are talking: Why is there urgency to meet with that Cambridge cop, but not free Leonard Peltier? And why exactly are antiwar forces so silent and demobilized even while war escalates and the rest of the world is enraged by death raining down on civilians?
n3wday said
not to mention weak intentionally positions surrounding marriage for those of alternative genders and sexuality. (although i think we should frame our position around liberation rather than marriage equality)
n3wday said
should read “intentionally weak”
Times Reality said
If we’re keeping lists… “why exactly are antiwar forces so silent and demobilized even while war escalates and the rest of the world is enraged by death raining down on civilians?”
Like, who made the decision among organized antiwar forces to “sit Afghanistan and Palestine out”?
If the same people continue to run “antiwar” organizations, who do little but bullshit others for the express purpose of scuttling determined opposition to the war… why do others continue to relate to allow such duplicity?
United for Peace and Justice… or Disembling for Liberal Imperialism?
If I hear that it’s “not helpful” to say what Obama is actually doing one more time from a Democrat working inside the radical left… my head will pop off.
Stanley W. Rogouski said
If we’re keeping lists… “why exactly are antiwar forces so silent and demobilized even while war escalates and the rest of the world is enraged by death raining down on civilians?”
Except the “rest of the world” (the rich white world anyway) went out of their way to support the destruction of Gaza.
Maybe the funniest blog post title ever.
http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.com/2009/01/arayan-nations-leaders-celebrate.html
Stanley W. Rogouski said
If the same people continue to run “antiwar” organizations, who do little but bullshit others for the express purpose of scuttling determined opposition to the war… why do others continue to relate to allow such duplicity?
I thought World Can’t Wait at least tried to organize outside of UFPJ and it was partially successful in late 2005 when they mobilized protests that weren’t made up of the usual suspects from UFPJ. Then, for whatever reason, and I wasn’t privy to the discussions in their “inner circle” they stopped trying to organize high school kids and started acting just like an auxiliary to UFPJ. And their protests in 2006 just flopped. And, fwiw, some of the the biggest, most militant protests in late 2008 and early 2009 were put on by Answer (or whatever they call themselves these days) without the support of UFPJ or the Democrats.
I think part of the problem with the anti-war movement’s collapse (and I think most people realize this but don’t quite know what to do about it) is the way it swings/swung between two poles, capitulating to the Democrats or going the whole hogg Ernst Thallman social fascist route and declaring the Democrats the main enemy objectively siding with the right.