Today is a national holiday where we honor Martin Luther King, Jr. On this day we are supposed to honor a man who stood up for equality, freedom, and non-violence. It is for this reason that I find it ironic that Barack Obama's inauguration was held during this time in 2009. Here we have a president who claimed that he would close Guantanamo Bay but throughout these years in office he had reneged on that promise. He also continued George Bush's needless war in Iraq, and has enshrined indefinite detention into law. Each of these acts completely violate everything Dr. King stood for.
Obama is a hypocrite. He has also dishonored his ancestors who fought so hard for their freedom and equality. As an African American Obama knows his ancestor's history, when powerful nations came to Africa and enslaved and brutalized the people living there. Several centuries later we have an African American in Obama who is as imperialist as the “white man” who came and took that freedom from his ancestors and the Native populations who lived on this land before the profiteers and others came.
But Obama is nothing more than a politician. He doesn't seem to really care about what King stood for. He only uses his heritage as a tool to create nice soundbites for the ignorant sheep who listen to him. He is no different than the men who came and enslaved his ancestors and that makes him one of the largest hypocrites around.
Isn't this just a little harsh? Would MLK be supporting the Republicans who put up the main roadblocks to closing Guantanmo, and who started the Iraq war (which Obama is ending, now, on schedule), and who promote every civil-liberty compromising measure on the docket? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteObama's job is not just to dream the dream, but to run a country- a pretty complicated job. For instance, he couldn't just cut and run out of Iraq, but handle it so that Iraq had the best chance for a stable transition, and so the US preserves its interests and overall position in the world. On all that .. job well done.
Similarly, closing Guantanamo isn't up to Obama alone. If snapping his fingers were all it took, I am sure it would be done by now.
And anyhow, are the Republicans *not* politicians? For that matter, was not MLK a politician in some substantial sense? Compromises have to be made, and a sausage comes out the other end. That is how it is with large groups coming to terms. I realize that you are impatient and idealistic. I wish for more from Obama as well. But I think he has done a truly excellent job so far.
Hi Burk,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your...let's just say, interesting take on the matter. You might believe Obama has done a “great” job but you're ignoring the fact that the reason he ended the Iraq war was only because the Iraq leadership wouldn't grant the american troops immunity for their crimes, such as the murder of civilians. I wouldn't call that a “job well done” by any means. Had the Collateral Murder video not helped to expose the military's crimes the troops could very well still be in Iraq. I believe he did it also for political reasons: It was nearly re-election time so he wanted to be “the” president that “ended” the war.
It's also not a complicated matter to close Guantanamo. Most of the people there have actually been cleared for release but remain there. For what reasons I do not know. Those who are there for legitimate reasons could be put in regular prisons, given their civil rights back, and placed on trial to determine their guilt or innocence. Once the people are moved close the thing for good. It's not that difficult. I don't see why you're making excuses for Obama (kind of reminds me of religious apologists who make excuses for cruel acts by god when it's obvious to any reasonable person what the correct and moral thing to do is).
I don't think one could reasonably say that Dr. King would support immoral actions, such as those that the republicans (and even democrats) support, like Guantanamo. King spoke out against needless wars like Vietnam (the Iraq war is one such example of a needless war), and advocated helping the poor, and about freedom. The actions of Obama have been entirely contrary to these principles.
It's not idealistic by any stretch of the imagination to wish for those that (unfortunately) govern our lives to help the poor, rather than spending trillions on needless wars and occupations. It's simply a matter of priorities and those in power do things at the peoples' expense, and for the wealthy's benefit. They always have and always will.
1. Seeing as we invaded and occupied Iraq, their granting or not granting immunity was hardly germane to the issue. It merely showed that we had, however horrifically, created a sufficiently autonomous political system that it could say "no". Our military may have wanted a different answer, but I doubt Obama did.
ReplyDelete2. Why is it that legitimate prisoners at Guantanamo can't be put into regular prisons? The Republicans on congress have explicitly prohibited putting them there. Thus we have been sending them to Samoa and elsewhere, to whoever would take them. "Congress has pretty well tied the administration's hands, prohibiting prosecution in U.S. federal courts and making it extremely difficult to transfer them to other countries, according to Clutter." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
3. Obama didn't start the Iraq war. So what you are saying here doesn't make any sense. Faster or slower.. we are getting out of there. You may not appreciate how slowly the US military operates.
4. As for serving the wealthy, I am with you there. The administration is virtually (but not quite) as corrupt as the other party. It is worth fighting against on all fronts. But that means favoring the less corrupt choice, when making a choice, among much other work.
Thanks for the reply Burk.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that the Iraqi's mandate that if the troops remain they will be charged with their crimes (as they should, but I think we both know that likely won't happen here) was a large incentive to leave. I find it very suspicious that Obama would end the war 1) So close to the presidential re-election; 2) Only after the Iraqi people demanded the troops be charged for their crimes; and 3) After he was in office for the last three years only after the near end of his last term did he end the war.
Even CBS News seems to wonder the same thing. It wrote, “U.S. and Iraqi officials have spent months debating whether to honor a planned December 31 deadline for troop withdrawal, set in 2008, amid concerns that the full withdrawal of U.S. forces could put the country at risk. Many U.S. officials wanted to leave a few thousand military trainers in the country past the end of the year, but, as the Associated Press reported Sunday, "Iraqi leaders have adamantly refused to give U.S. troops immunity from prosecution in Iraqi courts, and the Americans have refused to stay without it."
They've been debating whether or not they wanted to leave Iraq but all of a sudden they leave earlier (December 15) after Iraq wanted to charge the troops. It surely appears that it's entirely “germane” to the issue.
Regarding Guantanamo, it appears I was wrong, though the situation surely doesn't appear cut and dry. Obama doesn't seem to be standing up to Congress like he should if he really wanted Gitmo closed. However, I was wrong about that issue, so thank you for correcting me.
Of course, I'd like to get back to the original reason I wrote the above post to begin with. In many cases Obama is no better – if not worse – than Bush. I say this because he not only enacted into law the ability to detain someone indefinitely without charge or trial, which is a tremendous violation of the constitution, Obama also ordered the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki without charge or trial (let alone any evidence whatsoever of his guilt). This is another reason I wrote the above post. They also murdered al-Awlaki's 16 year old son. Do you believe these actions are the work of a president who is doing a “great” job? I hope you'd say no. These are the actions of an dictator.
All in all, Obama is no better than any other president who favors the wealthy and refuses to respect the rights of human beings just as those who came to the New World killed thousands of Natives and enslaved them and Africans.
There is a fundamental problem with using language like "is no better than". It evades distinctions that need to be made. Sure there are problems with the Obama administration. But "throwing the bums out" only brings in a far worse administation.. perhaps that of Newt Gingrich. Our choices drive from those we as people made in the past. I had a friend who, during the Florida recount, said that he didn't care who was elected, just so that it was over as soon as possible. Is that your attitude as well?
ReplyDeleteBush was re-elected, for heaven's sake, after starting two wars. That is why we are faced with today's choices. If the Republicans didn't get any votes, then the center of the political discussion would migrate much farther to the left, which certainly the anti-war end of things (and the ACLU end of things). With all its problems, our system is built around finding the political center, which Obama very much occupies. It does not (and can not) suit everyone's taste, but if you care about civil liberties and neocolonial interventions, then your choice between right and left should be obvious.
If I may add, here is a blogger you may find interesting.
ReplyDeleteA dictator does not only act cruelly or selfishly. Some dictators do work to better the infrastructure of the area they are governing. However, my comparison is based on the fact that dictators kill people with impunity and for no good reason. They seek to consolidate their power at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve. Likewise, Obama has continually deregulated the corporate sector, which only harms the majority and helps the other rich people. Obama has killed numerous people without due process. In that statement I'm also including the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, which he started, killing thousands of innocent people. He has also, like Bush, expanded government power, just as dictators often do.
ReplyDeleteI actually reject both the “right” and the “left.” I am a-political. That's what anarchism is. I don't sanction or agree with any form of power that anyone has regardless of their political bent. Even Ron Paul, who says many things I agree with, I would not vote for since he is simply another aspect of this immoral system. Hopefully that answers your question. While I do acknowledge some people are better than others in some respects (though that's not really saying much since both the right and left have killed innocent people, expanded government power and intrusion, and have largely ignored the majority) it's the system that must be fixed. It doesn't matter who holds the gun, the gun must be taken away (metaphorically of course; the “gun” is unjustified power and authority over others, ie. government). In other words, it's not the people, but the system that must be fixed.