Saturday, February 28, 2009
Get it straight: I don't hate Obama
Real quick-like, I just want to set the record straight. I don’t hate President Obama.
Some of you have gotten the impression that for the next four years, all I’m going to do is bash Obama 2-3 times a week here, and a couple of my friends have dubbed me a Hater and ask why “I be hatin’ on Obama”…..
Look, I’m not an Obama fan. I didn’t drink the Liberal KoolAid and I didn’t buy into all that Hope and Change drivel. I didn’t vote for the man, but he’s still the duly-elected President of the United States. Contrary to public opinion, I don’t want him to just utterly fail. Why? Because if he fails, and his policies fail, we’re all royally screwed.
As much as I am skeptical of the plans, schemes, and policies of this new administration, the smart thing is to hope that he succeeds. As my buddy Jim says, a rising tide floats all boats. If he succeeds then the nation as a whole will succeed, because sure enough if he fails, we all fail right along with him.
If President Obama does something right, I’ll mention it here. And rest assured, if I think he’s buggering it all up I’ll also let you know. I called out President Bush a few times in the past too, y’know, but by the time I started blogging regularly, he’d already botched it up past FUBAR that it wouldn’t have made a bollock’s bit of difference to add my own 3 cents.
So, while I’m not a fan, I’m also not a hater, either.
I may as well go on ahead while I have your attention and say something good about His Obamaness, albeit with some caveats attached. The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended last week that detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights. The Justice Department argues that Bagram is different from Guantanamo Bay because it is in an overseas war zone and the prisoners there are being held as part of a military action. The government argues that releasing enemy combatants into the Afghan war zone, or even diverting U.S. personnel there to consider their legal cases, could threaten security.
The government also said if the Bagram detainees got access to the courts, it would allow all foreigners captured by the United States in conflicts worldwide to do the same.
Sounds reasonably sane to me. However, they still plan to close Guantanamo and most likely just let all those scumbags go, deporting them to Allah-knows-where to hook back up with the Taliban and Al Qaeda and go back to killing us. Why, just this week we set convicted terrorist Khalid Al-Jawary free. In a week, he’ll be back amongst his cronies like a returning hero and then the countdown starts to the making of car bombs again.
So, Mister President, thanks for not giving rights to all the scumbags we have in custody around the world, and thanks for maintaining our Renditions policy going (finally saw the reason of reality, huh?) but no thanks for letting go the really nasty elite scumbags in Gitmo, etc.
And while I’m at it, I like how you’re tap-dancing around the whole Iraq redeployment thing. All during the protracted election process you prated on and on about bringing everyone home from Iraq within weeks of your coronation. I guess reality took a fat bite out of that, eh? So now you’ll placate your fellow LibDems by saying you’ll bring them home in a year, but with the provision to keep 50,000 of them behind to maintain the peace. Dude, that’s still the equivalent of two and a half heavy mechanized divisions.
But bringing them home is just a cover, because you’re shipping them right back to Afghanistan, since there’s a pestilence of Taliban and Al Qaeda all over the countryside and another 15,000 of them right next door in Pakistan. Reality’s a bitch, Barry.
If you succeed, we all succeed. Good luck. We’re all watching.