Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

Thursday, May 21, 2009

BRAVO, MR. PRESIDENT!

"This must be our common purpose. I ran for President because I believe that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together. We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America -- it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people, as one nation. We have done so before in times that were more perilous than ours. We will do so once again."



"But I want to be very clear that our goal is to construct a legitimate legal framework for Guantanamo detainees – not to avoid one."



"These issues are fodder for 30-second commercials and direct mail pieces that are designed to frighten. I get it. But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes."


Also: THE BASIC DISHONESTY OF THE RNC:

RNC Hits Obama For Criticizing Slavery

On May 21, 2009, the RNC tweeted an out of context quote from Barack Obama regarding a flaw in the constitution. The "fundamental flaw" Barack Obama was referring to was slavery.
RNC: as he prepares to deliver remarks in hall that holds the constitution, flashback obama: "constitution flawed" http://mediamattersaction.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fbit.ly%2FtFL7O #RNC [Twitter, 5/21/09]

FACT: Obama Explains The Constitution's "Fundamental Flaw" Was Slavery. The out of context video the RNC links to contains audio from a September 6, 2001 program called "Slavery and the Constitution" on WBEZ Chicago. On the show, Obama explained that the "fundamental flaw" was "Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers." In addition, the framers did not "see...it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth." [WBEZ Radio, accessed 5/21/09]

Others Who Have Made Similar Statements To Barack Obama:


George W. Bush: "Their [abolitionists] moral vision caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race. By a plan known only to Providence, the stolen sons and daughters of Africa helped to awaken the conscience of America. The very people traded into slavery helped to set America free. My nation's journey toward justice has not been easy and it is not over. The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times." [Remarks by President Bush on Goree Island, 7/8/03, emphasis added]


Condoleezza Rice: "In our first Constitution my ancestors were three-fifths of a man. What does that say about American democracy at its outset? I've said it's a great birth defect. And we've had to overcome a birth defect, and like any birth defect, it continues to have an impact on us. It's why we have such a hard time talking about race and dealing with race." [Council on Foreign Relations, 7/18/08, emphasis added]


Colin Powell: "It took us a while to recognize that we could not live our Constitution truly unless we eliminated slavery, and hundreds of thousands of young men fought a civil war to end slavery and then it took us a long time to get rid of the vestiges of slavery and we're still working on it to this very day." [CNN, 7/11/03, emphasis added]

9 comments:

Patrick M said...

We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America -- it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people, as one nation.Wait just a minute. Every talking point he's put out about national security from the beginning of his campaign 2 years ago has been to oppose whatever Bush was doing, i.e. using it as a wedge.

And he's only been getting closer to doing it right (i.e. the Bush doctrine) since it's been his ass in the Commander-in-Chief's seat, despite what he says.

BTW, must you have at least one pat on the back title for the Prez or First lady every other post?

(If you're angling for a job disseminating white house propaganda, though, keep up the good work.)

Joe "Truth 101" Kelly said...

This is the pandering among politocos that I've been talking about.

There are hundreds of thousands of scumbags in our jails every bit as dnagerous as any scumbag in Gitmo. To think we would be unsafe if they were here instead of there is stupid. To think it would make us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks if they were here instad if there is stupid. Like the "terrorists" are waiting for another reason to want to kill us.


Both parties pandered to the fear of being labeled soft on terror so they voted not to close Gitmo. In their effort to show tougness, they showed themselves to be the ball less chumps they are.

Excellent post Shaw. And excellent presidenting and first ladying President and Mrs. Obama.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Patrick:
We have heard the arguments back and forth: The Cheney claim that torture can extract useful information; the rebuttal that says torture yields false and misleading information; those who say torture degrades our national character; those who say the law is unclear on the use of waterboarding; those who want Congress to explicitly outlaw waterboarding; those who consider the issue too divisive to serve the cause of justice or the public interest; and those who call for prosecutions to prevent future abuses.

These are the facts: In its zeal to extract intelligence, the government relied on lawyers to find loopholes in the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. They scoured legal texts for opinions that would give the administration exactly what it wanted. Any scholar will tell you that any work of literature can support any interpretation or conclusion, and it doesn’t matter whether one quotes the Constitution, the Bible, the Qur'an, or Shakespeare. An honest accountant says: “Two and two equals four.” The toady says: “What do you want two and two to equal?” Thus, any argument, no matter how thin, can be made plausible.

When we engage in this kind of debate, we lose sight of simple a truth and what is really at stake. The arguments, the artless legalisms, the words remove us from the reality of naked bodies and broken bones, of windowless cells in extraordinary rendition sites, of years of confinement without the right to prove one’s guilt or innocence. When preoccupied with the argument, we forget the immediacy of a sixteen kid, more victim than terrorist, lost in the gulag of self-indulgent words.

Like the reality of Maher Arar, for instance, a Canadian citizen who was detained at JFK Airport, held in solitary confinement, denied access to legal counsel, and deported to Syria where he endured tortured. Our government violated his constitutional, civil, and international human rights yet, to this day, failed to acknowledge this miscarriage of justice with a simple apology.

Should we pass more laws? What good are more laws when those who break them get a free pass?

Shall we say some human beings and some human rights are more equal than others … and dismiss the immorality of our actions in the name of our national self-interest?

Why not discuss the merits of lynching, castration, and rape with the same moderation and civility? Of course, there are Republicans out to protect their brand, their image, their cronies, and themselves … as there are accused murderers and rapists who always deny their crimes. Is moral relativism a necessary consequence of political expediency?

These are NOT WEDGE ISSUES! This debate will define our national character ... whether we are truly a moral and civilized people, or whether we are hypocritical savages making convenient arguments to justify what 60 years of International Law have clearly defined as criminal behavior.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Dear 8(O)PUS,

May I have your permission to post that most elegant and righteous comment on torture and America and give you credit?

Also Patrick, every other post is not about patting the POTUS or the FLOTUS. A lot of my posts are about GOP hypocrisy, the Hindenberg of Gasbags, and other things.

It appears that when the POTUS or the FLOTUS are given props, it irritates the hell out of conservatives/libertarians.

LOL!

I visit a lot of conservative/libertarian blogs, btw, that have Saint Ronnie's photo embedded all over the place.

Does that noodle your artichoke as well?

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Shaw, I sent a revised comment via e-mail (attachment) with permission to post.

AdamS said...

I like the US Constitution. If anything slavery wasn't a flaw with the text - it says "all men are created free and equal" - rather it seems Negroes didn't qualify as "men" in the eyes of the pre-abolition establishment. So really it could be said that abolishing slavery was following, rather than changing, the Constitution.

But don't worry, they're going to try to "update" that Constitution alright - certain pesky parts like Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 are so old-fashioned and just get in the way of the Communitarian agenda.

Oh, and I consider myself a libertarian but I disapprove of many things Reagan did. Meh. The Rs are fake small government, at least the Ds tell you they're going to put a boot on your neck before they do it. The two party dictatorship marches on, and the TV news tells us it's good.

Oh, and if you want to help the ongoing process of Stasifying a once free nation, you may join a uniformed civilian Corps to really help the change...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDcL12DdxUs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

Shaw Kenawe said...

Adam S typed:

"I like the US Constitution. If anything slavery wasn't a flaw with the text - it says "all men are created free and equal" - rather it seems Negroes didn't qualify as "men" in the eyes of the pre-abolition establishment. So really it could be said that abolishing slavery was following, rather than changing, the Constitution."

The Constitution doesn't say that.

I think you have the Constitution mixed up with the Declaration of Independence, which says, among other things:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

The southern states would not sign onto the Constitution if there was anything that dealt with the prohibition of slavery. The early colonists made a deal with the devil in order to get the southern states to sign onto the Constitution and, therefore, join in the Union. They got their way and it was agreed that the issue of slavery would not be visited for 20 years.

Patrick M said...

101: One simple reason not to let terrorists who are in GITMO in this country: recruitment. If they come here, they'll not leave their prisons. But the people they convert to their perversion of Islam will.

8pus: For some reason, you assume that the only thing I'm talking about is the interrogation/torture debate. Especially since the big issue in 2007-2008 was the debate over Iraq.

I'd go into this more, but it requires a proper post with more research and thought than I have right now (at work).

Shaw: I'll withdraw the mockery when I find a post that criticizes Obama for changing his positions on anything.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Patrick typed:

"One simple reason not to let terrorists who are in GITMO in this country: recruitment. If they come here, they'll not leave their prisons. But the people they convert to their perversion of Islam will."

Really? REALLY? Ever hear of solitary?

Who are they going to recruit? Other prisoners in for life?

You have no confidence in this country's federal prison system; either that or you're deliberately being disingenuous on this subject to promote the conservative talking points..

This country has the capacity to keep and hold the most dangerous criminals. It is doing so even as I type this.


I don't understand why you would believe we are so weak and feckless that we wouldn't be able to deal with terrorists. We already have domestic terrorists in our prison systems.

Patrick also typed:

"Shaw: I'll withdraw the mockery when I find a post that criticizes Obama for changing his positions on anything."

The ability to reassess one's position on a subject after receiving information that alters one's position is a sign of maturity and intelligence.

Sticking to a decision [staying the course, if you will] when new facts become available that makes that decision unwise is a sign of weakness and stupidity.