Brogressives
Adele Stan with a serious takedown of the obnoxious, overrated, and generally awful David Sirota, who attacked her with a typically aggressive, sloppy, and falsifying column when she questioned progressives who ignored all the terrible things Rand Paul stands for to support his grandstanding and almost meaningless filibuster over extrajudicial killings, even though his stand was in fact completely related to all those terrible things.
Sirota is the typical brogressive, as Stan and Megan Carpentier call them–hypermasculinized self-described progressive men like Greenwald who trivialize any concern outside of their own definition of what is important and then taunt everyone who disagrees with their tactics as apologists for killing Yemeni babies, falsifies their arguments, papers over nuance in favor of denunciation, and generally channels sexist and misogynistic values of shouting and exclusion over debate and inclusion.
As Stan says, “So much easier than organizing!” Indeed.
I don’t want to get on the wrong side of the the dispute between LGM and Greenwald & C, therefore I will ask:
are you the Judean People’s Front?
I was going to say “Splitter”, but you beat me to it.
Tiago Splitter is a team player.
I gotta say, I never (before now!) thought of Glenn Greenwald as ; but then, I don’t get out much.
The word choice is questionable. It’s hard to argue with a characterization that he is relentlessly aggressive and combative, though, even if you’re being neutral about how he chooses to deploy those traits.
Gave up on Sirota after I slogged through that wretched book he wrote about 80s movies and politics, but the Alternet click through it worth it for the picture alone. It’s him, dressed in a shirt and tie in a running (and very fancy looking) shower looking weary but wise at all the things he’s seen, credit “davidsirota.com”. It is just precious.
For crying out loud, if you’re going to do a cliched “fully dressed in a running shower” photo, you should be faithful to the tradition and be curled up in a ball in a corner of the shower, weeping.
And Adele Stan isn’t a brogressive because… he’s right? Sirota started it?
Stan’s a she, but I agree with your point. I don’t see Stan’s posts as any less forceful than Sirota’s.
Stan’s main complaint is that Sirota totally misrepresented her and took things out of context in order to discredit her. That’s not being forceful, that’s dishonest.
Funny enough, that’s Greenwald complaint against Cerpenter…
That’s his complaint against everyone who criticizes him. It’s more in-your-face than the McArdle-esque “you misread me,” but it’s cut from the same cloth.
Don’t know about the Stan-Sirota thing, but Greenwald won that contest with Carpentier. She paraphrased him as saying X, he responded in comments with actual quotes showing he said Y, and she replied with paraphrasing that he said X.
You decide, but I’ll take quotes over paraphrasing.
(I’ll note in this case that Sirota’s quotes of Stan are way too short to speak for themselves.)
oh come on – greenwald?
Pretty soon Loomis is going to break out his smoking gun photo of Greenwald at Cato.
Shorter Loomis — and Stan: to praise a pol for one action is to ignore all his other actions. [That's why I tend not to praise Obama, because if I do, then I'm ignoring his coddling of Wall Street, killing of children, and effort to craft a Grand Bargain.]
I assume you’re a strong supporter of McCain then, as his anti-torture policy is pretty good.
It would, after all, be completely wrong to not like him. Since he is anti-torture. You can’t possibly not like him. You said so yourself. We can only judge politicians by one thing!
Well, no, McCain’s anti-torture record is monumentally awful. Yes, he talks a good game – but when it mattered, back in 2006 or so (2007? I forget, exactly), McCain talked that same good game, effectively claimed the moral leadership of an empowered anti-torture faction in the Senate, stood ready to legislatively and meaningfully ban torture – and then, once he’d wrung all the acclaim he possibly could out of this noble stance, once he’d convinced every media chinstroker he was still their knight in shining armor, and doubtless with an eye to the backers he’d need in 2008, he sold the anti-torture side out. He went behind the back of the Senators united against torture, cut a deal with the Bush Administration that ensured torture would continue as before (the only accomplishment being that the military wouldn’t sully their hands with torture), and announced his accomplishment as if it were great progress in the fight against torture. Because McCain had worked so effectively to become the public face of legislative opposition to torture, with the complicity of the media, once he was backing a face-saving move that would perpetuate torture the fight was necessarily over: thumbscrews to maximum.
Nah, if you say that Obama supporters are in favor of his policies like the drone strikes they’ll talk about what a stupid argument that is. It’s only if you say that you agree a single position of someone like Paul (not support him or vote for him, but agree with one of his positions) then suddenly that means that you ignore or are OK with all of his other positions. Because, you know, leftier than though brogressives or something…
Exactly.
And if and when a liberal champion (still waiting) in Congress gets serious stopping drone killing, they’ll go back to downplaying drone warfare, calling it just “a tactic” and better than indiscriminate killing.
Ron Wyden and Mark Udall did a lot of the research that Paul relied upon, who are also investigating creating a FISA-like process for such strikes. Rand Paul’s best move so far has been to sponsor a badly written, useless No Droning Americans In America Act with Ted Cruz, not at all for the purpose of grandstanding for rightwing paranoiacs in advance of 2016. So . . . yeah.
Actually, Rand has been working for months with Udall and Wyden:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/26/rand-paul-and-ron-wyden-drone-odd-couple.html
These are not the liberal champions david is looking for.
Well, since they’re working with Paul I suppose they’re not true liberals but just brogressive rubes, right?
By the war a drone-court is a bad idea, but I’ll save that debate for another thread.
Erasing the bright line between military powers and police powers is, indeed, a terrible idea.
But isn’t that what they’re saying about the “Obots” who “tolerate” what he does on some things?
And, yes, by the way, it very much matters to me who the current president is. I wouldn’t want Bush to have the power to wield a fork, much less a drone. (Though in reality he had command of our nuclear arsenal.)
I’m a happier person with Obama on the trigger. I guess this makes me an Obot who hates civil liberties and wants to kill Yemeni children for lulz. For some reason, being able to tell the difference between people makes you a murderer.
This also is a good point. I don’t trust Hitler with the power to prosecute criminals. This does not mean I don’t believe the government shouldn’t have the power to prosecute criminals. This is directly addressed in the Federalist Papers at some point IIRC.
We can agree that many Obama supporters aren’t OK with everything he does and many people that liked Paul’s filibuster aren’t OK with everything he does (or might not even like the guy), yes?
It’s been pointed out a thousand times now, Paul filibustered against a position that he pulled out of his ass. So liking the content of his filibuster doesn’t make you Satan but it does make you a rube. Which is what the Paul family has always depended on.
Step 1. Fabricate an insane conspiracy theory about black people using the federal government to get you and your family.
Step 2. Raise funds and build support networks on the crazies who respond.
That’s what Rand Paul spent 13 hours doing, just like his dad. If you liked that then yes, I have a very legitimate criticism of that.
Well yeah, I can see you really went after Scott when he said the filibuster was a net positive.
This, but I think Loomis has consciously chosen bullshit as his medium for attacking Greenwald. Note that the Carpentier link is to Glenn’s *refutation*. I’m defining bullshit classically, as bunk concocted with a cheerful unconcern for truth. The charge in his first paragraph is so laughable, so demonstrably false that Loomis could not have written it except as a deliberate rhetorical deployment of bullshit.
Also, too, misogynistic? Sexist? Greenwald? The jaw slams to the floor.
Finally, “self-described” progressive? This sneering reference might make sense if you could point us to the place where he declared a non-progressive position. About anything.
Yes, Greenwald. He’s a sanctimonious prick, and has a preposterously high opinion of his own shitty writing.
so he can’t be sanctimonious with an inflated opinion of his writing AND be right?
No, I mean he is right about some things. Namely, indefinite detention. On drone warfare/targeted killing, he is wrong in the same way many liberals are wrong, but louder.
How is he wrong? Is it wrong to ask that the President at least show why he thinks he should be able to kill Americans without a trial?
It’s wrong to ask that when the question had already been answered numerous times.
For one thing, it leads well-intentioned but low-information observers to think the administration hadn’t already answered the question numerous times.
It would be hugely different if only more voters were aware of the poor and inadequate answers that snidely unconcerned white people find sufficient.
Nice elitism, honky.
The American public would surely rebel against the pernicious doctrines in these memos, if only they knew!
Sure they would.
It’s the inverse of “if only the tsar knew”! If the voters knew, they still wouldn’t care.
What do you mean by “show”? He’s already disclosed the general legal rationale in various forms.
He wants the long-form legal rationale.
These memos, white papers, letters, and testimony to Congress could be forged.
If he wasn’t so enamored of his own voice and person, he’d be right more often. Even when he has a kernal of rightness to begin with, his need to indulge himself consistently causes him to screw it up.
For instance, the way he takes an issue like drone strikes, and writes a piece about how the (entirely imaginary, 180 degree wrong) decline in liberal opposition to them during Obama’s term demonstrates that he, Glenn the Great, is a much more moral, decent person than the “disgusting hypocrites.”
His need to fluff himself led him, in that case, to postulating a shift in liberal opinion which not only never happened, but is exactly the opposite of reality (that is, liberal opposition to drone strikes consistently grew after Obama took office).
Is that true? I thought opinions hadn’t changed that much in either direction.
I don’t have polling at my fingertips right now, but certainly, there has been a great deal more commentary in opposition to the strikes, from liberals, since Obama took office.
In fairness, there have been great deal more strikes since Obama took office as well.
Unlike Greenwald, I’m not denouncing anyone for their change of mind, on this issue or on Afghanistan (another matter on which liberal opinion has shifted significantly away from the President). There have been more drone strikes under Obama. The Afghan War has gone on a great deal longer today than it had at the end of Bush’s presidency. There are legitimate reasons why someone’s priorities might change.
I’m pointing out that his posturing self-regard doesn’t even have a legitimate factual basis. He doesn’t just render a poor moral judgment about something; he invents that thing, out of his imagination, so that he can then issue that moral judgment.
Yet less war.
I’m pointing out that his posturing self-regard doesn’t even have a legitimate factual basis
I missed the earlier comment. I sort of assumed it was a comment on Mizner-style freak-outs. My bad.
Yet less war.
Let me be clear:
I prefer strikes to war war. I believe the strikes as carried out to this point are legal and not-unjustified. I’m ambivalent about their continued necessity and not at all enamored of the disposition matrix. Mostly I’m concerned that we’re creating a legal regime that might lead to some horrible policies or abuses in the future.
I could only find change in opinion stats for 2012 to 2013.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/11/continued-support-for-u-s-drone-strikes/
Not even sure Pew asked about drones during the Bush years. But if it follows support for the Patriot Act then I think Greenwald has a point.
http://www.pewresearch.org/2011/02/15/public-remains-divided-over-the-patriot-act/
I wasn’t aware that liberal opposition to drone strikes had increased during Obama’s term. And he has never declared that he is a more moral, decent person than anyone. If it pains someone to be painted as immoral and indecent for supporting indiscriminate drone strikes and targeted killing of American citizens without trial, perhaps they should reconsider their support for Obama’s policies in those areas.
How is this even possible? How can somebody not be aware that liberals are complaining more about drone strikes under Obama than under Bush? Right now, the drone strikes are a top-tier issue in liberal political discussion, and have been for years. Meanwhile, I have to remind these liberals that Bush launched the first drone strike in Yemen, and killed an American in that strike, because opposition to drone strikes was such a hot topic in 2002 that the people complaining today generally never even heard of the issue back then.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Are you out of your mind? Why would you write something this stupid, in a comment you seem to hope people will take seriously?
Since you can’t manage to find it within yourself to even accurately describe the events you seem to think you have a meaningful opinion about (“indiscriminate drone strikes?” Is that like “jumbo shrimp?” You know that “indiscriminate” isn’t just a modifier meaning “bad,” right?), you’ll forgive me if I don’t accept your implication that objecting to being bullied with insults can only indicate that one is uncomfortable with one’s position.
“Look, you child-slaughtering murderer, no one has ever said they were more moral than you!” Thank you for that.
Why is this an argument?
It makes a difference who is president. This is why it is important to vote. Clinton left no magic powers to Bush and he still took them. Obama reserving executive powers will not stop Jenna Bush from nuking brown people if she wants.
I want Obama to be able to do all kinds of things Bush couldn’t do, starting with wielding the veto pen.
precedents, both for the presidency and for the public.
the window of acceptable, public, executive actions moves to the right, and public opinion moves with it.
drone killing in afghanistan -> drone killing in pakistan -> drone killing in yemen -> drone killing of US citizen and his son in Yemen -> drone surveillance in the US -> drone killing in the US -> drone killing of US citizens in the US.
thin edge of the wedge and all that.
No it’s not. During Bush it was constanly being denounced on so-called ‘liberal’ blogs.
Once Obama started doing it, only a few ‘radicals’ like Greenwald kept criticizing.
They rest of you started playing Team Democrat and Team Obama and attacking any and every person who dared to point out this was the same illegal, immoral behavior.
No it’s not. During Bush it was constanly being denounced on so-called ‘liberal’ blogs.
[cites omitted]
Don’t you know to privilege TONE over facts or arguments? Where else would rogues like Anon21 find sanctuary?
The irony being this as more projection of Loomis than fact of Greenwald.
Having watched Loomis and his cheap-shots over the years, my opinion is Loomis just has his underoos in a bunch because Greenwald dares to call out the Obama-bots who protested mightly when Bush was doing the same crap they give Obama a free-pass on.
Hypocrites really don’t like it when their hypocrisy is exposed.
Haven’t read Sirota is quite some time, and yep, he’s still reall fucking stupid. Of all the tropes these “brogressives” bring out, this “Red Team vs. Blue Team” charge is among the very worst. Hey, David, there’s a reason I support Demcorats unequivocally in general elections: it’s because they are preferable on every single issue than their “Red Team” counterparts. I would love to vote in a general election that pitted and Obama as the conservative versus, say, Bernie Sanders as the liberal option, but I have not yet had that opportunity.
I started fisking that Salon column, and literally almost every single sentence is a gross distortion, pointless strawman beating (I epsecially like how he lumps Alternet and the WaPo editorial page together), or so completely ignorant of any larger context as to make me wonder if this guy does anything but follow Glenn Greenwald and Matt Stoller’s twitter feeds. Reading that column (admittedly I didn’t make it to the end), I wonder if he’s even aware that Paul ultimately voted for the Brennan appointment?
Not quite. Paul voted to invoke cloture but he voted against Brennan for confirmation.
Thanks for the clarification. Should have double-checked before writing that part. However, in wingnut world, isn’t invoking cloture the same thing as an “Aye” vote?
Nice try to cover your error.
The only Dems to vote against him were Leahy and the increasingly impressive Merkely. Sanders also voted no.
Nice try to cover your error.
Are you shitting me? So you think that when Leiberman voted for cloture on the bankruptcy bill but then voted against the bill, that the latter was more important?
Yes. He is bullshitting you, in the classic definition of the term.
Like ever other question, david is on whatever side of this question about cloture voters he finds convenient in the moment he is writing, and will be on the other side the moment that opposite position becomes convenient.
That’s right, Vermont, beyotches!
*ahem*
I mean, I am glad to see that my delegates are voting in a manner that I feel is appropriate. Good day.
I thought we were discussing the “self-described” progressives, not the wingnuts.
The ‘brogressives’ are also ‘progressive’, they are just single-issue progressives.
I’ve seen brogressive used as a term for reddit’s political attitude pretty frequently as well. and generally channels sexist and misogynistic values of shouting and exclusion over debate and inclusion<-especially that part.
Ok, I agree Greenwald can be insufferable.
But, the actual nature of the dispute between the left and liberal imperialists is precisely that the left thinks that liberals who support murder as long as they can talk themselves into the position that the US is on the “right” side are still evil, disgusting murderers.
Indeed they are worse than the right, because people who think their murders are morally justified are even more dangerous.
If you don’t want Greenwald to criticize you, get some intelligence and stop supporting US imperialism.
Oooh! Looks like we got a live one!
How do you like your pancakes, sir?
No, actually, this guy is serious, not trolling.
He actually thinks he’s articulating a meaningful position when he uses phrases like “liberal imperialists” and describes the difference between his position and others as “disgusting murderers.”
This isn’t an attempt to troll; it’s how Dilan actually conceives of the debate, and is his best good-faith effort to sum up the disagreement.
Which is a little sad.
Its really hard to debate people who label anybody who disagrees with them on a foreign policy issue an imperalist.
Obviously, a program of targeted strikes in the tribal parts of Pakistan, the rural areas of Yemen, and Somalia is best understood in terms of securing resource-rich areas and establishing military and political hegemony.
Because drone strikes are so effective at that, and those areas – nay, not “areas,” but lush garden spots, renowned for their natural resources – have always been of such vital strategic importance.
And, you know, it’s perfectly possible and coherent to to think that we should continue drone strikes against al Qaeda leadership (where arrest warrants are not likely to be enforceable), but should get the hell out of Afghanistan.
You know what? It’s perfectly possible and logical to think that the air strikes against al Qaeda are being launched for a legitimate self-defense motive which has nothing to do with our imperialist lust to control the Pak-Somali-Yemeni monopoly on the global nothing supply, and still consider them a bad policy that should be ended.
Qat is not nothing. It is a terrible tasting leaf that gives you a buzz like drinking way too much coffee.
Sometimes, J. Otto, I just want to give you a big hug.
Qat heads qat heads
Roly-poly qat heads
Qat heads qat heads
Eat them up, yum.
” It’s perfectly possible and logical to think that the air strikes against al Qaeda are being launched for a legitimate self-defense motive”
I’ve read some stupid shit today, and this is certainly right around the middle of it.
No blood for a buzz like drinking way too much coffee!
There is more to governing the US than drone strikes. Single issue voting is stupid and assuming that others are judging based on a single issue is also in need of getting some intelligence.
It is true that there is more to governing than drone strikes. But since the Paul filibuster was about drone strikes, the anti-war left should support it no matter what other liberals think about Rand Paul.
I don’t think people on the liberal imperialist side of this debate realize the extent to which the left opposes US imperialist warfare. We think it’s murder. When people are murdering in your name, you tend to want to form alliances with anyone you can in order to stop it.
His filibuster wasn’t about drone strikes. His filibuster was about drone strikes on American soil.
If you think Paul does not support bombing the living shit out of Arabs you have been duped.
I suspect you’ve been duped.
Paul has explicitly come out in favor of the drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, and said they would continue if he was President.
But Dilan really admires his jaw line, so therefore, he’s just gotta be opposed to drone strikes.
You used to see this same fanboi wishful thinking back in 2000. Thousands of people convinced themselves that Ralph Nader was a vegan. Idiots.
I have got to stop trying to read two LGM threads in parallel. It merely astounded and saddened me to read this sentence, up until the very last word, when I realized you weren’t talking about Paul Campos.
His filibuster wasn’t about drone strikes. His filibuster was about drone strikes on American soil.
No, no, no, if you’re a committed leftist it’s crucial to project your positions onto Paul. Please don’t bring facts about Paul’s positions into the discussion.
Yes and no. His focus was on drone strikes and American citizens, but the issues he touched on — the scope of the AUMF and the legal reasoning in the White Paper, for example — concern the entire TK program.
Which is why people who have been front opposing the “targeted” killing of Muslims praised Paul whereas they people who, well, haven’t criticized him for not going far enough. How dare Paul fail to blast Obama for doing something I support!
Speaking your the English please?
Paul supports practically every civil libertarian abuse you can think of. As Stan notes, his courageous stand against nonexistent drone attacks against American citizens on U.S. soil was a call-out to his right-wing survivalist base and nothing more. And that’s what people like Sirota are “standing with.”
And people like Lemieux and Loomis, who’ve both praised the Paul filibuster, but criticize people who praise it more, or who do so without also calling him a racist in the same sentence.
Actually doing a ‘talking’ filibuster, if it was to oppose an actual policy, would be courageous and awesome. Rand Paul did a talking filibuster to oppose a policy that he made up in his head.
This is exactly right.
The Paul filibuster wasn’t about drone strikes. The Paul filibuster was about “Oh yeah? Never mind any long-established legal rights for federal law enforcement to use lethal force inside the US. Never mind hypotheticals about acting to stop an attack inside the US. What about using drones to kill white conservative patriots while they’re eating breakfast, huh? HUH?!?” Whereupon the AG said, “Well, the answer to that question, which is not the one I was originally asked, is No.” And Paul said, “All righty, then,” and dropped it.
Well, then, maybe you should take your tongue out of Rand Paul’s asshole and try to find someone to actually form alliances with, because Rand Paul demonstrably doesn’t give a fuck how many people the US murders in our name, as long as they’re the appropriate sort of people to murder, American citizen or not.
Thanks for that. It is very well-established that the Pauls are white supremacists, going back decades now. They have a long history of endorsing murder, mass incarceration, and martial law for black minorities. They would not hesitate to carpet bomb Jewish targets, and want to militarize the US border (yes, using drones) so they can kill Hispanics. They are genocidal douchebags and you don’t get to side with them and then claim some kind of moral high ground.
Old Birchers through and through. You know, before the Zionist Jews took over the organization(yes this is a real position and real schism in the John Birch Society).
I’m sorry but you clearly don’t actually care a lick bout the issue of drone warfare overseas, otherwise you wouldn’t have written so many incorrect things in such a small space.
1. Rand Paul agrees with the existing policy on drones for TK and endorses deploying them on US soil to spy on US citizens. He just wrote an op-ed in Washington Times not three weeks ago reiterating that.
2. Everybody already knows that the drone memo explicitly rules out that Executive has power to strike either in the US or any other nation where capture can be affected. Furthermore if they get a chance to capture the military target during the operation they have to stand-down. There are some additional stipulations that make it harder for the president to drone-kill a terrorist than it is for a run-of-the-mill domestic police officer to shoot you when you steal a car and run a few people over.
3. Ron/Rand Paul have spent decades pulling this same shtick, they make up a bogus conspiracy theory about the federal government that any halfway-intelligent person can see is total BS, then fund-raise off of the gullible and the weak-minded.
4.” What about the President’s power to rape babies? The administration has not clarified that position, and it’s a very important civil liberties issue, and we should stage a filibuster until we get a straight answer on the possibility that the Executive has seized a new baby-raping power to itself.” That’s pretty close to what Rand Paul spent 13-hours doing. Don’t fall for it.
Who are these “liberals who support murder as long as they can talk themselves into the position that the US is on the “right” side” of whom you speak? Are they found anywhere outside of the editorial page of the Washington Post?
LOL. You are just trolling, right?
Pretty funny that you make this comment as we “celebrate” the 10th anniversary of Iraq War, launched with the support of a host of liberals, from Matt Yglesias to George Packer to Juan Cole to Josh Marshall to David Remnick…
Based on that list, I think you’re and Dilan’s use of “liberal” is pretty subjective,and means anyone who supported Obama over John McCain and/or Mitt Romney.”
It also conveniently ignores the hundreds of thousands who marched against the Iraq War, view Obama’s record on the War on Terror specficially and his civil liberties record generally as the worst features of his presidency, yet still find him infinitely prepferable to the alternative.
Exactly. It’s really very simple.
Well it’s really both-and:
We should remember the hundreds of thousands who marched against the war…though we should also remember that the anti-war movement was the victim of an enormous amount of sniping from “serious” progressives in 2002-3 who were terribly, terribly upset that it included ANSWER (who deserve plenty of criticism, but whose participation should not have vitiated the much larger movement of which they were a part).
I’m perfectly comfortable saying that the Lesser Evil is significantly Less Evil. That’s why I voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. But the evil that the Obama administration does in, e.g., the “War on Terror” is, nevertheless, evil and deserves to be characterized as such.
There is no doubt that there were segments of the liberal commentariat, broadly defined, that supported the Iraq War. At the same time, the only meaningful political opposition to the GWOT and all of the abuses associated with it also came from liberals, broadly defined.
It seems obvious to me that the Obama administration has walked back many of the worst abuses of the post-9/11 aftermath, but good luck getting anything but a throat-clearing “yes, but” moving of the goalposts from the “left.”
In the present case, I think that citing Rand Paul as a principled opponent of either the mindset that led us into Iraq or the abuses commited under the banner of the GWOT is borderline delusional, and will ultimately be counterproductive.
“but good luck getting anything but a throat-clearing “yes, but” moving of the goalposts from the “left.””
This. I don’t recall anybody ever having a problem with GWB using targeted strikes to kill al-Qaeda members. NOBODY was complaining about that at the time, certainly not these ‘leftists’.
They complained about torture, large-scale land invasions that left hundreds of thousands dead, warrantless wiretapping, lying about basic intel on WMDs, and other abuses. All of which Obama has wrapped up, which is what I voted for him to do.
But at no point was anybody complaining about our systematic targeted killing of members of al-Qaeda and Co. overseas. That’s some new thing that these people just pulled out of their collective butts.
Oh, Obama’s the guy who’s getting us out of Afghanistan next year also, the other guy wanted us to stay there indefinitely.
In fact, they were complaining about military actions being taken against people who had nothing to do with al Qaeda, on the grounds that they had nothing to do with al Qaeda.
In fact, we opposed the 2001 AUMF and the invasion of Afghanistan. And Obama’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan.
And Bush’s drone strikes and Obama’s expansion of drone strikes. And we opposed the 2002 AUMF and Bush invasion of Iraq. And Bush I’s invasion of Iraq. And Bush II’s strikes in Yemen and Obama’s expansion of war in Yemen. And Obama’s expanded war effort in Northern Africa.
We oppose stupid wars, which are almost all wars — get it?
David is hoping that nobody will notice his changing use of “we,” which began the debate meaning “liberals,” and now apparently means “david and the six people he talks to.”
“Why are we in Afghanistan? There are less than 100 al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan! You say you want to fight al Qaeda, but…HEY! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE DOING IN YEMEN?!?”
This is not quite true. The paleocons who wrote for The American Conservative (including, notably, Justin Raimondo and Daniel Larison) were loudly opposed to the war from the start. Andrew Bacevich, who’s certainly no progressive, has consistently been one of the clearest voices of opposition to the “War on Terror.” How did such folks constitute a less meaningful opposition than “liberals, broadly” defined?
Certainly a higher percentage of the left of (our very right-shifted) political spectrum opposed the war than of the right. And there are many reasons why one would prefer left opposition to the war to right opposition to the war. But the War was supported by a number of prominent liberals and opposed by a number of articulate (if not particular prominent within the neo-con dominated GOP) conservatives.
Just a reminder that, when we’re considering liberal support for the War on Iraq, we’re not just talking about a handful of bloggers, 29 of 50 Senate Democrats voted for the authorization to use military force in Iraq in the fall of 2002. Among the “yeas” were plenty of prominent liberals, broadly understood: Akaka, Biden, Cantwell, Carper, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Harkin, Kerry, Kohl, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, and Torricelli. (And though most of the 21 Democratic “nays” were liberals, some were not: Byrd, Conrad, and Graham were among those who voted against the resolution.)
What are you, some kind of brogressive?
Sorry, by “meaningful political opposition” I meant people who could vote on the decision to go to war or could directly influence that vote. While it is to the Democratic Party’s everlasting shame that it to a large degree acquiesced in the decision to invade Iraq, please note that 21 of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution versus one Republican, and that 60% of Congressional Democrats opposed it.
Then I take it that you’re not counting the hundreds of thousands of people who marched against the war as meaningful. Good to know.
Nonetheless, sixteen liberal Democratic Senators voted for it.
If the question is: which political party was more enthusiastic about the War on Iraq? The answer is: the GOP.
I’m pretty sure, however, that’s not the question I was answering.
“In fact, we opposed the 2001 AUMF and the invasion of Afghanistan.”
By any reasonable measure…this is complete and utter horseshit.
Whatever do you mean? There were a whole bunch of “we” that opposed the AUMF and the invasion of Afghanistan. You might not love Barbara Lee, but she exists. It might be instructive to go back to the archives of this blog–August 2008–and see the argument over the invasion of Afghanistan.
It was not a universally-beloved policy.
In the sense that there’s 7-10% of the population who would be against free ice cream and guaranteed oral sex every day, anyway. So far as it goes, the portion of the population who opposed the Afghan War and the AUMF from the get go, even on the left, was vanishingly small, and even as late as the 2008 election they were dwarfed in size by the contingent still arguing that Afghanistan was “the good war” and that Bush had fucked up by diverting resources away from it and into Iraq.
So far as it goes, the portion of the population who opposed the Afghan War and the AUMF from the get go, even on the left, was vanishingly small
Atrios wept.
Oh man, ANSWER brings back memories.
“There’s a rally in D.C.!”
“Cool!”
“Wait, will ANSWER be there??”
“Uh … looks like it.”
“Oh I’m not going! No one should go! If you go you’re a doody head!”
Stupid. Fuckers.
I got the feeling ANSWER’s presence at a rally was greeted with relief by people who wanted an excuse not to go to a rally.
I have to confess that ANSWER’s leadership of the anti-war rallies did stop me from participating at the time. (I was dumb and barely old enough to vote, but still.) I was all for stopping war (in Iraq; I felt the involvement in Afghanistan was justified) and all for ending racism, but felt like the anti-war rallies were turning into a ridiculous spectacle of giant anti-capitalist puppets, Free Mumia protesters, etc.
Yeah, I had similar feelings. When there’s a large amount of the organizers that are viewing a march not merely as a protest but as a way to try to gather support for what they view as a broader “revolutionary” movement, it makes you think twice before joining (or regret joining after it’s over).
It’s funny, because there’s a similar feeling I get with Paul.
That’s a like about Juan Cole, based on pulling one statement about being hopeful out of context.
Juan Cole definitely opposed invading Iraq pretty definitively. Josh Marshall was a huge skeptic at the time, too.
I recall Josh Marshall was a bit queasy on the war prior to its start, hardly a full throated critic. Same for Kevin Drum. Could be wrong. Let me know.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2003_03_18.php&hl=en&strip=0” title=”∈҉∋” rel=”nofollow”>A relevant post:
Oh here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2003_03_18.php&hl=en&strip=0
Juan Cole:
http://www.juancole.com/2003/03/my-mind-and-heart-are-like-those-of-so.html
based on pulling one statement about being hopeful out of context.
link me to where he came out against the war.
And that’s not a statement about being hopeful. He’s convinced it will be worth it.
Right here, liar:
http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/coles-opposition-to-iraq-war-in-january-2003.html
I was reading Cole at the time, he was definitely very opposed to launching a war with Iraq. Next you’re going to tell me Jane Fonda supported Vietnam War I imagine.
I’ll do you one better: I’ll link you to a source from which you can go to numerous such statements.
And that’s not a statement about being hopeful. He’s convinced it will be worth it. When you pull it out of the context in which he’s talking about that being his hope, it sure looks like one.
Once Cole came out in favor of the Libyan revolution, it became fashionable in certain circles to pretend he had supported the Iraq War.
Telling the propagandists from the propaganda victims is a difficult task, so I don’t think it’s helpful to call mizner a liar. Noting that the claim in a lie, without attribution, is fairer.
Telling the propagandists from the propaganda victims is a difficult task, so I don’t think it’s helpful to call mizner a liar. Noting that the claim in a lie, without attribution, is fairer.
Fair enough, I regretted the words a few minutes later on my own anyway. In my defense the person I’m responding to, I’m only half-convinced is actually a ‘leftist’ though.
Look at what he says about Benghazi for example. It’s kind of…odd…that a self-proclaimed ‘leftist anti-imperialist’ is suddenly really concerned about CIA officers and US diplomats being attacked by the natives in a foreign country where we are trying to establish hegemony.
Juan Cole’s analysis has always been poor regarding regular people. You know, the type of people that die in meaningless wars.
You are a repellent human being, wengler, a low-functioning sociopath.
Well geez. And I didn’t even bring up Libya.
Also, you do realize that the number of military lost in Iraq is very small compared to the large number of civilians killed?
Liar liar pants on fire:
http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/coles-opposition-to-iraq-war-in-january-2003.html
I was reading Cole at the time, he was very opposed to invading Iraq.
No, he was not “very opposed.” Having read the post Wengler linked to, I think I was wrong to call him a support, but he wasn’t an opponent either.
He declined to come out against it. Thanks for nothing.
Sure, the UN Security Council was against Bush’s invasion of Iraq, and a majority of Congress & the most trusted members of his inner circle were all for it, but if just one more college professor with a blog denounced it beforehand the whole thing might’ve been stopped.
One of these statements is the sort of blatant lie that shows complete contempt for the reader.
Nice try to cover your error.
Nice try to cover your error.
+1
He didn’t say the magic words!
I’m still looking for a link to something he wrote pre-October 2002 (when it mattered) in which he opposed the war.
As far as I can tell, the war against Iran would be the first American war he opposed.
All this demonstrates is that he might have supported a war against Iraq under different circumstances, but not circumstances that ever actually existed.
Now, I agree with you that in an alternative universe in which the UN security council authorized military action against Iraq, it still would have been a bad idea. In some alternative universe, you and I were right and Cole was wrong about the Iraq war. But that’s not the universe we live in.
I’m still looking for a link to something he wrote pre-October 2002 (when it mattered) in which he opposed the war.
You must be tired from carrying around goalposts all day.
Or any post! Pre invasion.
He had a blog, yet no one has linked me to a post in which he opposed the invasion. All we have are his assurances after the fact that he was.
Here you go. Now I’m finished doing your goddamn homework for you, punk.
I never considered Cole a ‘liberal supporter of the Iraq war’ but it appears he was not focused on opposition to the war in his blog posts in the run up to the invasion.
Yeah, I boggled when I saw the bit about Juan Cole supporting the Iraq War. WTF? He never did.
…to Glenn Greenwald.
David, I opposed the Iraq War II from the get go because I knew it would up as a giant cluster fu*k. However, I also recognize that there could be people on my side who disagree with me on a particualar issue with good faith and that simply because they don’t agree with doesn’t mean that they aren’t true “liberals”.
People can be wrong on issue, they can miscalculate and misjudge and change their minds latter. The Bush administration was going to go forward with Iraq whether Mattew Yglesias supported it or not. He should have been a bit more skeptical but he is not the world’s greatest monster for being way too optimistic about it.
The Iraq War was so clearly wrong that the mistake of supporting it is pretty meaningful. It’s a litmus test for me.
I’m generally of the same opinion of distrusting people who supported Iraq, with a few exceptions:
1. They were really young (Yglesias wasn’t old enough to buy alcohol at the time).
2. They were conservative Republicans at the time, and the consequences of Iraq changed their politics. (They’re like someone who escaped from a cult to me).
They were really young (Yglesias wasn’t old enough to buy alcohol at the time)…
…yet he was certain enough (he’s from Harvard, you know!) to have strutted and preened about his rightness. This is a pattern he has repeated, esp. w.r.t. labor law.
Yeah, Yglesias isn’t getting older and more correct, he’s getting older and more right, as in glibertarian. His age was not an excuse for his wrongness, it was merely a figleaf that he has grown out of.
Yeah. So? He’s often wrong, and never humble. Still often right, though, too. It would be a really bad idea to hand over your moral judgment to him, but it’s not a bad idea to read him with an open mind.
There are other people to read; he’s not a requirement.
I agree. But most liberals did oppose it.
And you know, Yglesias was a 20-year old college student at the time, and one who very shortly thereafter, shifted to active opposition to the war.
This is another reason not to get all hissy about Yglesias’ initial support for Iraq II, he was very young. I was young around Iraq II and had all sorts of stupid ideas about matters large and small. I wouldn’t want these to be used against me latter either.
I was never in favor of the Iraq War, but when I was 20 and in college, I dyed my hair orange and then shaved off the left half.
So, yeah, cut him some slack.
Pics or it didn’t happen.
from Matt Yglesias to George Packer to Juan Cole to Josh Marshall to David Remnick…
Ahem.
Or, what people upthread said.
…to Glenn Greenwald.
Wouldn’t those “liberals” be the entire Obama administration? Or are we down the “actually, liberal means socialist” rabbit-hole of definitions?
The notion that anyone in charge of our military-industrial complex can be considered “liberal” on matters of national security from a Greenwaldian perspective is pretty suspect. That said, Obama is winding down two massive wars that he didn’t start, which I would think is “liberal” by most definitions.
But aren’t the brogressives the ones most fond of reminding us that Obama “isn’t really a liberal” anyway?
By ending the Iraq War, winding down the Afghan War, and putting serious effort into the fight against al Qaeda, Barack Obama is implementing a foreign/military policy to the left of the Daily Kos in 2006.
Obama also isn’t getting us into a war with Iran and kept the United States safely distant from the current unrest in the Arab world.
I know it’s a silly, old-fashioned quirk of mine, but I actually consider negotiating nuclear reduction deals to be a core plank of modern liberalism.
Thats just crazy talk. Everybody knows that the core blank of modern liberalism is to engage in theatrical and useless protests rather than doing anything effective.
Modern Liberalism is about one thing and one thing only:
Giant. Puppets.
Get with the program, Joe.
Awesome.
He deserves credit for ending the war in Iraq (though not as much as the Iraqis themselves.)
Obama deserves scorn and fury for massively and disastrously escalating the already-disastrous war in Afghanistan.
I would have preferred a quicker withdrawal date, but he’s been clear for 4 years now that we’re getting out in 2014. McCain and Romney (the only two guys who had any chance of being in Obama’s shoes at any point) ran on staying in Afghanistan and Iraq forever.
McCain, for example, literally proposed staying in Iraq for the next century.
And let’s not forget (even though it was spoken by the other guy) “Double Gitmo.”
But yeah, Obama sucks. The worst choice available for president, except for everyone else who could have actually won.
That quip about doubling Gitmo really sealed the deal for me in terms of viewing Romney as a tool. It makes no sense at all logically. Are there actually other prisoners who belong in Gitmo but can’t be put there? Is capacity an actual issue for that military base? Is anything possibly stopping them from expanding it if they desired? Or is this just a bunch of raw shit to throw to the rabid base?
“Obama deserves scorn and fury for massively and disastrously escalating the already-disastrous war in Afghanistan.”
which he stated he would do, during the 2008 campaign. anyone who voted for him presumably accepted this. to now be “scornful & furious” at him, for doing exactly what he said he would do, suggests that perhaps you weren’t paying attention at the time, or just forgot.
So you wanted me to vote against him even though he had the horrible policy?
Anyway, he said he would focus in the war in Afghanistan, not escalate three times.
Excerpted from Barack Obama’s speech on Iraq and Afghanistan, July 15, 2008:
Talk about a campaign promise he should have broken.
On that I largely agree, but he was fairly explicit about what “focus” meant regarding Afghanistan.
Who are these “liberals who support murder as long as they can talk themselves into the position that the US is on the “right” side” of whom you speak? Are they found anywhere outside of the editorial page of the Washington Post?
Most of the critics of the Paul filibuster. These are generally people who supported our operation in Libya, for instance, which resulted in the deaths of 4 brave Americans as well as the murder and sexual assault of the country’s former leader and complete chaos in the country.
These are also generally people who attack anyone who criticizes Obama’s drone or Afghanistan policies.
Look, in a just world, Obama would be facing mass protests everywhere he goes and would have his feet to the fire to stop murdering foreigners and to embrace a less imperialist, less bellicose foreign policy. But it’s not happening, because liberals run interference for him and attack the left.
I question the assumption that liberals have the power you cede them in this statement.
I’m pretty sure it’s not happening because the general American consensus is Obama does not cause enough damage overseas.
But yes. We should destroy Obama and vote for Paul because Obama is the reason we have awful foreign policy. He’s doing this because he wants to. There’s not like some huge group of people foaming at the mouth that he chooses to appease and use his political capital elsewhere.
But it’s not happening, because liberals run interference for him and attack the left.
I think I understand why you think that third party vanity campaigns can push Democrats to the left; your notions of causality seem to be wholly imaginary.
I agree. This was one of the most illuminating statements in all of these many long threads on this and related issues.
What about Dilan’s statement about United States actions in Libya resulted in Gaddafi sexually assulated and murdered?
Some people base their view on the idea of persistent anti-Americanism. If the United States takes a stance on a particular foreign policy issue than that stance is wrong, evil, and imperialist automatically.
That section deserves to be see in all its glory:
Trying to get from “our operation in Libya” to “BENGHAZI!” without filtering it through a wingnut world view is pretty much impossible.
Its the very scary place where the Far Left and Far Right manage to meet each other. Politics is really more of a circle than line.
Is he actually the ‘Far Left’ or is he the ‘Far Right’ pretending to be the ‘Far Left’? Remember that most of the Green Party’s funding for several years came from GOP sources.
Random, I think that Dilan is generally Far Left. The Far Left and Far Right have been able to get along when oppossing Centrists of all sorts. See Stalin during the Spanish Civil War. To Stalin, it was preferable that the Fascists control Spain than Spain end under a center-left government that doesn’t toe the Soviet line.
The Far Left and Far Right are also similar in the idea that compromise is always bad, that there is one true answer to all policy questions, and that heretics are evil people.
I realize they have a lot in common. But it’s 180 the opposite of everything else they’ve ever said to be upset about the killing of US government officials and the burning of a hegemonic US outpost by the rightful native inhabitants of an oil-rich foreign nation.
If you want a less imperialist, less bellicose foreign policy, it’s not the ‘liberal imperialists’ you should be opposing. It really isn’t.
In a just world, you wouldn’t have voted for Ralph Nader and gotten so many innocent people killed in Iraq. But because you chose to murder all those innocent civilians we have to clean up your mess now. Don’t blame us for all the children you murdered.
Seriously, anyone who still supports Nader’s campaign to throw the election to Bush should permanently stay off their high horse about Iraq.
There are no mass protests because the drone strikes are happening in rural areas with the full support of the national governments in Yemen and Pakistan.
The drones are simply doing the work of kill squads in previous wars. It is effective in the short-term but horrible policy in the long-term.
I wouldn’t say the full support.
You talk about the deaths of those “4 brave Americans” like you’re sure Ambassador Chris Stevens would have preferred to have Gaddafi still in power.
Wait, I’m supposed to feel bad about how it ended for Qaddafi? I mean I would have rather seen him face a tribunal in Tripoli but c’mon it was clear how it was going to end once he decided to massacre his opponents and failed instead of taking the initial offers of exile.
This is a feature not a bug for some self-described progressives. The condition seems to be evenly distributed without regard to race, gender, orientation, &c. Because the whole point is to outshout everyone else.
The fact that they’re shouting about things that I might agree with and/or they vote the same way doesn’t detract from the fact that they’re authoritarian dickeads.
This:
This seems to be the case for both sides here.
I read the Stan article in which she criticizes the fact that No Democratic Senators opposed the Brennan Nomination, and then Sirota criticizes her for not supporting Rand Paul when he is right (blind pig, acorns).
I am confuse.
What is Rand Paul correct about that Obama doesn’t agree with him on? How is Rand Paul’s policy on drones different from Obama’s?
I’ve asked this question a million times and never gotten an actual answer. I’m asking it again, explain to me right now how Obama’s drone policy differs from Rand “I Want Drones Spying on Americans” Paul?
I’ve heard this described accurately as Fantasy Politics. To brogressives, politics isn’t about effecting acutal change. Its about whats doing good for soul and being pure.
Which makes it the liberal equivalent of Tea Partyism.
Only they get to decide what is good for the soul and sufficiently pure and anyone who disagrees is WORSE THAT BUSHITLEROBAMA.
It’s like organized religion, an institution to which I am severely allergic.
I don’t get the paean to debate and inclusion in the context of ignoring everything Rand Paul says on drones because a lot of other stuff he says and does is bad. Also, you taunt a lot of people who disagree with you.
A “brogressive” is only when other people do it.
If it’s Erik, different rules apply.
As far as I can tell, the people who don’t want to talk about Paul’s actual position on drones are Paul’s progressive friends.
…who also don’t want to talk about Obama’s actual position on drones, and prefer to dwell in some fantasy-land where he supports firing missiles as “dissidents” as they sit stateside cafes.
People who actually work on these issues like the ACLU and CCR cheered Paul’s filibuster. As have Muslim groups. They know exactly where Paul stands on these issues.
Aclu? They are brogressives!
So they have secret evidence that Paul opposes the targeted killing of anyone but Americans on American soil? I wish they’d share it, because there’s no evidence of it in the public record.
My (obvious) point is that the people who actually work on these issues fully understand the weaknesses in Paul’s views but are still glad he did what he did. The point is to get the president to define whom he believes he has the authority to kill.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/09/opinion/the-drone-question-obama-hasnt-answered.html?_r=0
Incidentally, my org has been out front opposing rhetoric and positions that distinguish Americans from non-Americans. That’s why we opposed Feinstein American-citizen carve-out to the NDAA.
There’s something we can agree on: the way we treat non-Americans shouldn’t be different than the way we treat Americans. Rand Paul disagrees with you and me on that point, he believes that Americans should get special rights that other people don’t get.
You know, it is possible to oppose Obama’s policy without supporting Paul’s policy, you fucking idiot.
Highlighting an issue of importance on the national scene doesn’t necessarily mean that the issue will be represented the way Paul wants it to.
People who actually work on these issues like the ACLU and CCR cheered Paul’s filibuster. As have Muslim groups. They know exactly where Paul stands on these issues.
The evidence suggests that they don’t know exactly where he stands on these issues, or they wouldn’t support him. Hell, Muslim groups in favor of drone attacks as long as Muslims are the target, and not Christian Aemricans?
Given that you can’t actually point out a difference between Rand’s position on drones and Obama’s position on drones, I think we have a pretty solid reason for ignoring anything Rand has to say about drones.
?
This is debate about legal authority. Paul, for one thing, opposes the ridiculous legal argument in the White Paper, or as it put it:
Only a bunch of lawyers could come up with a definition of imminent that doesn’t also mean immediate.
Al-Awlaki was definitely, definitely an immediate threat of waging a terror attack. The rate of attacks he was claiming operational responsibility for at the time he was killed guaranteed that he would launch another terror attack sometime in the next 3 months, with a reasonable chance of killing a few dozen innocent civilians.
Where was your concern when OBL was killed by soldiers without a trial? If you didn’t oppose that you can’t really oppose killing al-Awlaki either. Unless you think Americans deserve special rights that other people don’t get.
Re: Rand Paul
Even a blind nut stumbles over a squirrel every now and then.
The only progressive I’m aware of actually called Paul is a hero is Van Jones, but then calling him a “bro-gressive” takes on a slightly different odor.
I agree that Sirota is a dick. I also agree that Rand Paul believes some things which I find abhorrent. However, when Rand Paul does something I agree with, I’m willing to say, “Hey, I agree with that, and I am glad you did it.”
To my knowledge, there have been no other filibusters based around obtaining the President’s justification for extra-judicial killings of American citizens.
I happen to think assassinating American citizens is an extremely important issue. And, perhaps displaying white privilege, I believe that the government’s ability to kill you without any explanation pretty much trumps most other civil rights concerns, because once you are dead you can’t fight for, organize about, or exercise any other rights. I do recognize reasonable people can differ on priorities, but I think this one should be high on everyone’s list.
Still, the fact that the person making a stink about an extremely important issue is wrong on other extremely important issues is upsetting, but no more erases a good deed than his good deed erases his sins.
That said: Sirota is a douche.
I agree that Sirota is a dick. I also agree that Rand Paul believes some things which I find abhorrent. However, when Rand Paul does something I agree with, I’m willing to say, “Hey, I agree with that, and I am glad you did it.”
I’d be willing if I thought that Rand Paul actually cared about the subject and wasn’t using it solely as a cheap “Grr, we hate Obama” talking point. The moment President Jeb! gets sworn in, Rand Paul will become an enthusiastic supporter of using drones to kill any American he wants…
As Jonathan Chait noted in a post from last week, Rand Paul’s support of civil liberties seems to depend on which side of a specific issue Obama is on. Obama says potato, Paul says po-tah-toe.
In this case, it seems to extend to opposing positions Obama has never articulated or supported, and has even come out against.
“Do you support chopping up puppies?”
Um….no. That’s a pretty outlandish question.
“Ah-ha! You said ‘um!’ I’m now going to talk for thirteen consecutive hours about your puppy-chopping support. Why won’t Obama answer the question?”
Why do you think that Paul doesn’t care about the narrow issue that he claims to care about: U.S. citizens targeted by drones on American soil? That seems entirely consistent with his other political views. It’s a concern that, as Scott pointed out a few days ago, stops well short of a more general critique of drone usage, due to Paul’s unjustifiably narrow view of the scope of the U.S. Constitution (Paul applies it only to citizens). But it seems wholly sincere to me. Like his dad’s, Rand Paul’s generally objectionable worldview leads him to ask some actually important questions that otherwise go unasked in our mainstream political discourse. No, the fact that he asks them doesn’t mean progressives should feel good about Rand (or Ron) Paul. And, yes, it would be much better if, e.g., Bernie Sanders had led the filibuster against Brennan. But I see no reason to think that Rand Paul’s opposition to drones’ targeting US citizens is any less sincere than his dad’s opposition to the Iraq War was.
Godwin time: Hitler believed in public works programs, but this neither makes Hitler good, nor public works programs bad. Nor can one conclude that, since public works programs in the midst of the Great Depression are a good idea, Hitler could not have believed in them sincerely because he was bad.
Because some U.S. citizens have darker skin, and some U.S. citizens are Muslims. And because he demonstrated that he doesn’t care about U.S. citizens targeted by drones on American soil by dropping his filibuster once AG Holder answered his much narrower hypothetical with “No.”
Uh, maybe because me, you, him, and everybody else already knew that wasn’t a legitimate concern in the first place? Also because he and his fascist father have established their MO for several decades now:
1. Fabricate a bizarre, bogus conspiracy theory about blacks, Jews, and Latinos in the federal government coming to get decent white Americans.
2. Fund-raise and build mailing lists of the rubes stupid enough to fall for it.
Those of us who are not US citizens think that the “assassination of US citizensOMFG!!!11!!!” thing is pretty lame, really; because, like, if you don’t care as much when it’s us in the crosshairs, fuck you.
Look we wrote you guys off a long time ago. I don’t know when the first documented assassination by the CIA happened. But, the CIA was involved in killing Lumumba and that was at the end of the Eisenhower administration. So a number of decades ago. Killing US citizens especially on US soil is breaking some still existing taboos even though it has been done in the past.
I mean, there was that whole Civil War thing. I’m pretty sure the Union soldiers at, say, Gettysburg weren’t picky about only shooting the Confederates who were from states that actually seceded.
No state actually seceded.
Dave, if I could edit my comment I would.
That said, there are both moral and legal arguments against extra-judicial killing. I happen to think the moral argument against is so obvious, and applies to absolutely everybody that there shouldn’t be a need to make that moral argument. (There probably is a need, however, which is an awful thing about modern times.)
The legal argument, though – which is what Paul was harping about – does draw some distinctions depending on whether a person is a U.S. citizen, or a non-citizen on territory within the constructive control of the United States. if you’re a non-citizen doing things in a foreign country, the U.S. Constitution by itself doesn’t do very much to protect you.
The legal argument, though – which is what Paul was harping about – does draw some distinctions depending on whether a person is a U.S. citizen, or a non-citizen on territory within the constructive control of the United States.
Non-citizens on US soil get due process, just like citizens do.
Yep! But if you’re a non-citizen in a “truly” foreign country (as opposed to Gitmo where in theory you have some kind of process right because it’s effectively under US control) you’re kind of SOL on due process.
If you are against all killing of non-citizens on foreign soil for any reason, that makes you a pacifist.
He’s also wrong on this extremely important issue as well though. Anybody who’s been paying attention to the drone debate already knew that the President didn’t have the power to kill anybody for any reason, as did Paul. Didn’t stop him from mounting a 13-hour filibuster to demand an answer to a question he and everybody else already knew.
Rereading the post, I will say that I agree with it. I would agree more if it also added that Eric Loomis is guilty of exactly the same things that he accuse the “brogressives” of:
namely, of having priorities and not understanding that other people may have different priorities, and accusing them of not being “true” progressives (but only “self-described” ones).
Dear God, you could get a WaPo column with that quality of false equivalence.
Pretty serious list of accusations against Sirota and Greenwald. Much easier than citing actual examples of objectionable things they’ve said.
The case against Greenwald pretty much makes itself, he is constantly lying about Obama’s previous efforts and powers to close Guantanamo for example. He lies every article I’ve ever read from him about Obama’s position on NDAA too.
In between the lying and his promotion of a full-on fascist white supremacist like Ron Paul, I think I’m well-justified in questioning his sensibility and his morality.
Wow, that’s fortunate for you, relieves you of having to make the case.
“The case against Greenwald pretty much makes itself.”
I love it when that happens.
Did you read the rest of what I wrote? When someone systematically makes the conscious decision to lie to their audience, that probably is a pretty good reason to not trust their writing.
Greenwald did not promote Ron Paul. He promoted one thing Ron Paul agrees with him on. Once again we see the all-or-nothing no-true-progressive argument.
You didn’t read what I wrote at all, I didn’t say that. I pointed out the irrefutable fact that Greenwald systematically and consciously chooses to misrepresent the Obama Admin’s position on civil liberties topics like Guantanamo and indefinite detention. Since he constantly lies about these subjects in order to convince his audience that Obama supports things that Obama’s opposed to, it’s fair for me to assume he’s not a reliable source for information.
Which part of “serial liars probably shouldn’t be trusted” is not registering here?
My favorite Greenwald lie is this bit about Bradley Manning:
When Greenwald wrote that, he knew that Manning watched TV for a few hours each day when he was in his cell. Think about the dishonesty, the contempt for the reader, it takes to craft those sentences.
As I recall, he reported what was told to him in “[i]nterviews with several people directly familiar with the conditions of Manning’s detention, ultimately including a Quantico brig official (Lt. Brian Villiard) who confirmed much of what they conveyed.”
Think about the dishonesty, the contempt for the reader, it takes to claim that Greenwald was out-and-out lying when he was relaying what was told to him by third parties and confirmed by at least one official. And think about how irrelevant it is whether Manning was allowed to watch TV for one hour or “a few” (how many? 3? 4?) in concert with all the other circumstances of his confinement.
But this is all about OBAMA, according to Eric Holder’s sockpuppet, aka “Joe from Lowell.”
I’m the one who tried to change the subject back to legal doctrine, numbnuts.
Dickweed.
Obama has tried to shut down Guantanamo several times and got rebuffed by overwhelming public opinion and Congress and the Courts. Greenwald doesn’t like to tell you that part.
Obama tried to get these guys moved into the domestic US, which gives them a lot more legal legroom. Guantanamo is not on domestic soil explicitly to deprive its detainees of normal legal recourse. Greenwald flat-out lied and told his audience that this attempt to move them into the US would somehow reduces their legal options, which is the bald-faced opposite of true.
Obama opposes indefinite detention and had it foisted upon him by a veto-proof Congressional super-majority. Again, Greenwald will flat-out lie and tell you Obama supports indefinite detention, which is exactly the opposite of truth.
Which part of “people who don’t tell you the truth probably aren’t trustworthy sources” is not sinking in here?
He really said that?
Do you have a link, perchance? Because that’s pretty mendacious if it is as you describe.
But look at how he wrote that; he covered his tracks. He doesn’t actually say that Manning wasn’t ever allowed to watch TV; he only leaves the reader with that implication. (For 23 hours…during the 1 hour he’s allowed out, he’s not allowed to watch TV). This is too carefully crafted; it’s evidence of guilt that he wrote it that way.
It’s not that he wrote “Manning isn’t allowed to watch TV ever.” That could be a fact he got wrong because he got bad information. He clearly knew what the facts were, and set out to write something that looks like that assertion (looks enough like it that it fooled you into defending him for writing it), while staying just inside the lines.
Think of the sociopathy it takes in the present context, where the prisoner is confined in solitary, humiliated daily, and held without charges for months to attach any consequence to a claim about the number of TV hours.
Greenwald supported the Iraq War. A mistake on that order disqualifies him in my mind.
Bully for you. Doesn’t disqualify him for me.
Obama marched in protest of the Iraq War before it began, became president, and ended it. Then he went after the people who actually did attack us and killed most of them, and is now working on ending that conflict too.
Greenwald supported the Iraq War to kill people who did nothing to us, complained about Obama going after the people who actually did attack us, and writes a lot of factually-inaccurate articles.
Obama could smoke Greenwald on the topic of Constitutional law, smoke him like a roach in Tommy Chong’s ashtray.
Obama never marched in protest of the Iraq War.
He spoke at one anti-war rally to about a thousand people on the day W. Bush signed the AUMF. After the invasion, Obama removed the text of his speech from that rally from his website because it was “outdated” and replaced it with a note expressing his anxiety about the cost of reconstruction in Iraq.
So speaking to a rally doesn’t include marching now?
It mostly justifies my opinion of him as clueless in line with his qualified support for Citizen United.
He is not leftist. I don’t know why people can’t tell.
Really? Stan’s pretty clear outlining of how Sirota clearly pulled quotes out of context to obscure what she was talking about and didn’t note hoe she opposed Brennan’s nomination isn’t specific enough?
As Stan says, “So much easier than organizing!” Indeed.
Show me a blogger on the left that’s engaged in organizing and I’ll give you a cookie. Hell, show me one that even talks about organizing more than they do about stupid things other bloggers have said.
Kos?
Does Kos do much organizing? I’m never able to find anything on his site whenever I look, but it’s possible that he does a lot offline.
May I introduce you Erik Loomis?
What organizing has Loomis done? I haven’t seen him writing about it, and more of his writing snipes at people on the left than talks about organizing.
I actually have helped organize a union, CWA Local 3865.
Yes, but, but, sniping at lefties…heads on sticks…TEACHING KIDS PORN!!!!
Huh? Weren’t you at the university of Tennessee over a decade ago?
That must have been difficult to do from Atlanta and Albuquerque. Ever organize a union that you would not have been a member of – Union Summer, Justice for Janitors – anything like that?
Leftier-than-thou infighting is like nails on a chalkboard to me.
At least one of the parties always comes out on top as supremely obnoxious.
At least one.
So, who is “winning” the competition in this comment thread? The Judean People’s Front, or the People’s Front of Judea?
Define “winning.”
The people who imagine that Barack Obama maybe kinda supports droning domestic critics seem to be doing the best job of casting themselves as put-upon victims, which seems to be their definition of winning.
Oh, a good one from Joe for the Judean People’s Front! (I hope I am not mixing them up).
When I discover a conversation that I believe I’m too good to participate in, I generally have the good sense to not participate in it. The need to repeatedly let the world know you’re above all these silly people does not reflect well on you.
Why should I think I am superior?
And why did you break your own advice?
I don’t think he did, actually.
Why would he drone them when he can hold them forever without trial?
…another action he has made clear he would never support, but which you like to pretend about.
…which explains why he is still doing it at Gitmo.
That would be this, actually.
If you bothered to get your information from a reliable source instead of Glenn Greenwald you would know that Obama has repeatedly tried to shut down Gitmo, move the detainees into the US to improve their legal options, etc. He’s up against Congress, the Courts, and public opinion on that one.
All things that Greenwald willfully misinforms his audience about on a regular basis, for the express purpose of casting himself as the One True Champion of civil liberty.
Let me put it to you like this, if Glenn Greenwald were the President the last 5 years, there is zero debate whatsoever that:
1. Guantanamo Bay would still be open for business.
2. Indefinite detention would be enshrined into law.
If Greenwald really cared a lick about either of those issues he would direct the vast bulk of his criticism at the people who are making those things be policy instead of deriding the people who have worked to make those things not be policy.
In addition to what Random said, there’s also the matter that every single person detained for terrorism since Obama came to office – every. single. one. – has been put into the civilian criminal system and tried in federal court (or an ordinary court martial in the case of Major Hassan).
That is, every single terrorism suspect that this President got to determine the disposition of, was kept out of military detention.
Jesus Fucking Christ, how dumb do you think we are?
Obama perhaps not. Those who follow him?
It is I will admit an acquired taste in entertainment, but one that I still find quite amusing.
I just fear that one day, my eyes won’t be able to roll down again.
It is as amusing as rightier-than-thou infighting.
You say so only because you are a brogressive!
Otherwise you would see that the first duty of a true progressive is to attack anybody that may agree with him on some topic for not being sincere enough.
But you’re forgetting that if these silly ladies really understood politics, they would know that Eisenhower is a plausible model for Romney’s Supreme Court nominations and that Sotomayor is more conservative than Alito.
I look forward to President Rand Paul’s nomination of Zombie Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.
No, you don’t understand, Rand Paul would nominate Zombie William Douglas.
Glenn Greenwald dropped the dumbbells and sighed as each fifty-pound weight thudded on the floor’s padding. Only twenty reps, still? He’d need to do better than that if he planned to do better than fourth place in this month’s contest at Bubba’s BBQ Bar, and he was determined to win the complete Entourage DVD set up for grabs this month. But how could he beat Cooter McLeary? He needed to clear his head to plan, and he knew just how to do that.
Twenty minutes later, the satisfying clang of can after can sailing off the fence had brightened his mood. He looked down at the AR-15 and smiled.
I’d pay five dollars for that.
The argument that people who are against shooting at al Qaeda should disassociate themselves from Rand Paul because of his views on other issues is not terribly compelling.
A better argument would be that such people should disassociate themselves from Rand Paul because of his views on using drones against al Qaeda.
No, I take that back. As someone who supports shooting at al Qaeda overseas, I hope the leftists who disagree with me embed themselves as thoroughly as possible in the black-helicopter nonsense of the tea party. Knock yourselves out. Please don’t throw me in the briar patch.
Just curious, do you remember anybody complaining about GWB using targeted strikes to take down al-Qaeda? Because I sure as hell don’t. I don’t remember anybody being outraged by that at the time, myself included.
I remember being outraged by him lying about WMDs and starting massive land invasions, torturing people, appointing Mustache Man to the UN, and a million other things, most of which Obama has rolled up. But anytime a headline about us killing a high-ranking AQ member came up, nobody would complain about that.
I do remember there being some opposition to drone strikes under Bush. It was much less of an issue back then, because he did it so seldom, and because there were much bigger fish to fry, so it’s not too surprising that that opposition doesn’t stand out in your mind.
I’m for the end of the forever war and the destruction of the emergency laws.
I endorse using a flyswatter against al Qaeda and affiliated groups instead of a sledgehammer.
If you want to talk about how fun it is to shoot people overseas, go ahead, every Fox News viewer in a LazyBoy gets off on that. But the remember the remedy to every political problem is not a military solution.
I would characterize drone strikes as a ‘flyswatter approach’ in contrast to Bush’s “launch a full-scale ground invasion and occupation’ sledgehammer approach. The third option is ‘let religious fundamentalists massacre people here and abroad’ but I’m not a fan of that either. Flyswatter approach it is.
How comforting to those swatted by mistake, er, “collateral damage.”
The fourth option is ‘quit blowing up everyone around a suspected “terrorist” and go after the real causes of religious fundamentalism: ignorance and hopelessness.’
go after the real causes of religious fundamentalism: ignorance and hopelessness.’
In what possible way can this be accomplished without resorting to some kind of imperialism?
Drop money on them from jets.
Why did you put ‘terrorist’ in quotes? Al-Awlaki never hesitated to brag about his role in murdering civilians, and announced his intention to step up the murdering of civilians, right before we blew him up and ended the imminent threat he presented using proportional and legally-authorized force.
Al-Awlaki was a flaming beacon of ignorance and hopelessness. Go read the guy’s public statements. He made it adamantly clear that if he were left alive he would have killed hundreds more people than he already had killed at that point.
Also a neo-conservative would be in office right now making our Afghanistan occupation permanent and gearing up for a massive war with Iran, and expanding a drone war way beyond anything Obama’s doing.
How comforting that taking George Bush’s approach to terrorism, as of August 6, 2001, doesn’t produce any collateral damage.
The fourth option is ‘quit blowing up everyone around a suspected “terrorist” and go after the real causes of religious fundamentalism: ignorance and hopelessness.’
Yeah, Dr. Zawahiri, the heir to the bin Laden fortune, and the guy with the urban planning masters were all ignorant and hopeless. That’s the ticket.
Religious fundamentalists have been massacring people abroad for the whole of human history. It is not the place of the US to police the entirety of humanity looking for people to incinerate.
There is also absolutely no proof that militarizing conflicts against religious fundamentalists is the right approach either. Look at what Waco did for energizing the rightwing nuts in this country. It only cost us 168 people in Oklahoma City.
The war on al Qaeda must end. They are not wizards. They do not need to be killed at every available opportunity. They need to be squeezed and leveraged and turned against each other like any other criminal organization.
Every drone strike is a propaganda victory for them. An over-reliance on technology and brute strength to repress an ideology instead of exposing it as a ridiculous farce.
The problem with this is your assumption that absent Waco the right-wing nuts would stay calm. If they reacted proportionately they wouldn’t be nuts in the first place.
I see. When you do it, it’s “a flyswatter.” When anyone else does, it’s “fun to shoot people overseas.”
There is nothing to anything you write except your incomprehensible self-regard.
How is “we should make common cause when we can with people we find detestable” equivalent to saying “RAND PAUL GIVES ME BONERS HE IS THE BEST U GUIZE”? It seems to me that Adele Stan is turning a disagreement about tactics into something personal.
Obviously, Sirota’s posts are full of stupidness, accusations of hypocrisy, and more-bipartisan-than-thouship, but his basic point seems pretty sound. Or at least, defensible in pragmatic terms as a tactical argument without psychologizing the discussion to attack his motivations.
Christ, did you even read the Stan and Sirota pieces in question? Sirota basically ignores everything she says in opposition to Brennan (“no Democrat was willing to make as dramatic a stand against having a torture apologist and assassination strategist for a CIA director — not to mention an attorney general who is game to give cover to the unconstitutional actions of the administration”), and accuses her of being both a Democratic party operative AND someone who besmirches the good name of Paul Wellstone, simply because she criticizes progressives for helping to elevate Paul’s profile (which, in the end, was the whole point of his filibuster stunt). That’s pretty blatant dishonesty, and certainly doesn’t make anything he says “sound.”
Rand Paul and I are in agreement in our opposition to the possibility that the President may have claimed the power to rape babies. Of course, the President didn’t claim the power to rape babies and in fact put out a statement explicitly saying that he couldn’t rape babies. But still, we must be ever vigilant….
Again, the Paul family MO has been this for several decades now:
1. Make up an extremely far-fetched conspiracy theory about blacks and Jews in the federal government killing and incarcerating decent white folks
2. Raise funds and build mailing lists of the gullible paranoid nutjobs that respond.
We’re watching you fall for this obvious scam and we’re concerned about it. Because it’s the exact same BS you’ll find in the Ron Paul Newsletters.
Oh no, they got me, I tweeted something nice about Rand Paul! How will progressivism in America survive!?
Did you also make sure to say something nice about Obama, since they have the exact same policy on drones?
When the tactic in question can be boiled down to “I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part,” the response is bound to get personal.
I understand the anti-drone caucus is relatively small, but seriously… Rand Paul? This perceived commonality of purpose is more about political desperation than anything else, evidenced by the fact that those who give the most full-throated defense of Paul from the left are doing nothing more than reading their own criticisms of the national security apparatus onto his, which are entirely different.
Ooooh, burn. She made a feminist argument against Sirota. He’s a “bro.” Must be wrong then.
She has a very strong argument. Ceding power to a fascist white supremacist because you mistakenly think he agrees with your foreign policy, even though he actually doesn’t, is a pretty stupid move.
Ceding power? What power was ceded to Paul? I don’t like Rand Paul, I think dr0nz are fine, and am therefore an O-killbot. Or whatever. But, I just don’t understand how Sirota’s purported masculinity has anything to do with the merits of anything anymore than her non-masculinity does.
Also, what power was ceded to Paul? He’s a senator. He can filibuster. It sucks, but be mad a Carl Levin and Harry Reid for chickening out about that.
Lol, indeed. That’s because all the infidels are motivated by misogynism and/or racism. What else could explain their bizarre behavior?
Good point. They could be Paragons of Leftist Virtue ™ who realize that misogyny and racism are not even real things.
In the past several of these individuals advocated the idea of maybe voting for the aforementioned white supremacist (Ron, not Rand) on the grounds that his foreign policy was better. Making Ron Paul the president would empower him, yes?
Jesus, this blog gets more childish by the minute. There’s more actual content in the YouTube comments of a Bieber video than in a post like this. If I want mindless schtick I’ll take a vacation in the Catskills, okay?
Jesus, this blog gets more childish by the minute.
No it doesn’t.
Does too does to does too.
Does not does not does not!
I said NO BACKSIES!
DOES TOO TRIPLE INFINITY
I’m getting my dad and YOU’LL see.
It better be soon–I can only stay out until the streetlights come on.
This isn’t argument, it’s just contradiction!
No it isn’t!
Greenwald is very self-righteous which is unfortunate because he often has very good points to make.
However, in terms of the actual issues, I think a self-righteous prig is less insufferable than people who are
fine with extra-judicial murder simply because the person ordering it is someone they like.
As for Gitmo, and torture more generally, note that a) Obama appointed Petraeus, who it is now clear to the average public, was personally responsible for torture as a element of policy in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and b) has now appointed Brennan as the latest CIA director, who was responsible for providing a great deal of support to the same torture policies. I think these make Pres. Obama’s credibility on these matters somewhat a question.
Greenwald is “hyper-masculinized”? Really? Afaik he’s done some good work, taken some bad positions, and I don’t know enough to net it all out. But he looks to me like the kind of guy who probably got his lunch money taken on a regular basis in elementary school. If this comment is nitpicking in the context of a blog post, which is a relatively transient thing, I apologize. But… it just sounded so wrong. If you really meant exactly what you said, I’d be interested in understanding more about what concept of masculinity you have in mind (seriously).
In a similar vein, the sexism and misogyny charge…the mind boggles.
Get Greenwald 10ccs of self-awareness, stat!
Despite my reluctance, I read the Greenwald piece, in which he demeans, diminishes, mocks, scolds and vomits contempt on Democrats and Liberals in general, and MSNBC hosts and liberal blogs in particular (including this one, by link not by name) “which still amusingly fancy themselves as edgy and insurgent checks on political power rather than faithful servants to it…”
I then scrolled the first page of comments and ran across Greenwald’s reply to a commenter who proposed more unity between progressives and conservatives:
Someone has an affliction all right, but I’m not sure what the cure is. Should one give Greenwald a mirror, or take his away?
It’s a lot harder to form those trans-partisan, trans-ideological coalitions when one also gives a fuck about issues other than the National Security State.
You have to give LGM credit – no one does unapologetic, spittle-flecked invective and sophomoric slapfights better than they do.
Shorter scott: I’ve never heard of Michelle Malkin.
Or AssProf
There’s something very fitting about you basically calling Erik a catty bitch for this thread.
No drone strikes have occurred on US soil because they’re not a peacetime defense tool. It’d be like using A-10 Warthogs to blast crackhouses in Watts.
The only thing Paul’s waste of time speech did was get Holder to confirm something we already knew.
Otherwise there would have been armed drones bombing Americans like Greenwald AND Sirota during the Bush Admin years by either the Bushtards or Sheriff Arpairo (of the legendary Lawman tank fiasco). But they’re still alive, so ‘where are the bodies’?
If Paul is right and Holder is wrong, then it’s time to produce a ‘test-case’. I demand that Paul or Greenwald or Sirota do (or say) something that will meet the criteria that gives the President the authority to launch drone strikes after them. Put some “skin in the game” instead of hiding out in Brazil or Manhattan or behind your keyboard, bro-gressives. Show me the bodies and then I’ll care. Prove yourself right or prove Holder’s right and stay off my blogroll.