l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 Oh my: Majorities of liberal Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping
Gitmo open
posted at 6:46 pm on February 8, 2012 by Allahpundit
Pity poor Glenn Greenwald, who thought the left’s opposition to Bush’s
counterterror policies was based on something more profound than crude
partisan tribalism. Why he thought that, I don’t know: The writing was on
the wall when the anti-war movement started dying even as Obama geared up
for a surge of tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan. In fact, I’ll
bet O now regrets banning enhanced interrogation so soon after his
inauguration. At the rate we’re going, we might be seeing 60+ percent
support among liberals for waterboarding too.
The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats —
and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping
Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11
national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly
opposed.
Obama has also relied on armed drones far more than Bush did, and he has
expanded their use beyond America’s defined war zones. The Post-ABC News
poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy,
which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns…
But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones,
meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a
result of his policy in this election year.
Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high,
dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about
targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-
Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in
northern Yemen.
The most generous spin you can put on this for the left is that it’s not so
much that they’re gung ho for these policies as that they trust Obama won
’t abuse them. Some, for instance, might have opposed them initially simply
because they feared that the programs would be expanded in terrifying ways
under the dreaded neocon imperialist warmonger Bush. I remember in the last
few months of his presidency reading comments online wondering if he’d
declare martial law and cancel the election; when you’re that paranoid
about a president, you might be inclined to oppose his every move on
everything simply to tie his hands as much as possible. One he’s gone,
replaced by the smiling Unicorn Prince, the anxiety eases and opposition
sags. That’s partisanship 101: Our guy’s one of us and therefore his
intentions are good, so if he thought it was important to drop a bomb on
Awlaki, eh, I guess he had his reasons. It’s not that they’re endorsing
Gitmo, in other words, it’s that they’re endorsing O’s good faith and
responsible stewardship. Again, this is the charitable spin.
Even in that case, though, three things are clear. One: Obviously, they have
no deep objection to Gitmo or drone strikes on the merits. If the president
’s good faith is all that’s needed to sanitize the policies then there’s
nothing terribly dirty about them in the abstract. Two: Equally obviously,
they’re willing to tolerate the policies being expanded. Had Bush sent
drones after a U.S. citizen, it would have given the left aneurysms, but
here’s O doing it and everyone’s okay with that. Is that because they
think the policy is an affirmatively good thing, or is it simply that Obama
hasn’t exhausted his line of trust-credit with the left yet? I was joking
in what I said about waterboarding up top, but now I wonder. Three: They’re
repudiating their own core argument during the Bush years about the rule of
law. Public officials can’t be trusted because even the well-intentioned
ones are susceptible to being corrupted by power; only the rule of law,
replete with oversight and checks and balances, can keep them honest. Turns
out most of the left doesn’t really believe that, but apparently thinks it
’s only the ill-intentioned ones — as the Bushitler was alleged to be —
who need watching. Both sides are prone to this error when it’s their guy
in charge, but go figure that liberals, who trust government to intervene
benevolently in all sorts of policy areas, would tolerate Obama being a
little more interventionist than they thought he’d be when it comes to
killing and imprisoning terrorists.
Ah well. The silver lining for Greenwald and other principled opponents is
that these will all become horrible perversions of democracy again if/when
Mitt Romney is elected this fall. Once again he and the rest will be the tip
of the legal spear against an out-of-control warmonger president instead of
a daily dose of online absolution for those who’ve betrayed the cause. In
honor of the moment, enjoy this trailer for what I’m calling the greatest
movie ever made. It’s totally cool to hoot and laugh at it now, but if
Romney wins it’ll be quite crass and insensitive. | S*********n
发帖数: 4050 | 2 Like 98% catholic women use contraceptives while their pedophile leaders are
against it?
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb - 中文网站浏览器
【在 l****z 的大作中提到】
: Oh my: Majorities of liberal Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping
: Gitmo open
: posted at 6:46 pm on February 8, 2012 by Allahpundit
: Pity poor Glenn Greenwald, who thought the left’s opposition to Bush’s
: counterterror policies was based on something more profound than crude
: partisan tribalism. Why he thought that, I don’t know: The writing was on
: the wall when the anti-war movement started dying even as Obama geared up
: for a surge of tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan. In fact, I’ll
: bet O now regrets banning enhanced interrogation so soon after his
: inauguration. At the rate we’re going, we might be seeing 60+ percent
| y****t
发帖数: 10233 | 3 everybody eats 100%, why it has to be paid by others?
i dont want to pay for you as well, even though you eat shit everyday.
are
【在 S*********n 的大作中提到】
: Like 98% catholic women use contraceptives while their pedophile leaders are
: against it?
:
: ★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb - 中文网站浏览器
| S*********n
发帖数: 4050 | 4 Who are the "others"?
【在 y****t 的大作中提到】
: everybody eats 100%, why it has to be paid by others?
: i dont want to pay for you as well, even though you eat shit everyday.
:
: are
|
|
