Thursday, July 15, 2010

Defending the Indefensible

I’ll give Obama this much, I certainly see liberals in a whole new light because of him. Liberals aren’t interested in ending the Terror Wars, all they care about is getting one of their own in office. All liberals care about are symbols and having a Black Democratic president is a powerful symbol.

I think the belief that merely reiterating facts will effect progressive change is a fool’s errand. Facts are good but people in general are all too good at ignoring facts when they don’t line up with their beliefs. When liberals are confronted with the facts surrounding Obama’s continuing culpability in mass murder they respond with a few sympathetic noises and quickly move on to another topic putting it all down to the harsh realities of reality. “Besides,” they say, “Obama would be shot if he did the right thing.” This tells me two things. First, liberals are actually aware that Obama is a murderer but it doesn’t matter because he is a Democrat and the first Black man to be a president of the United States. Secondly, it tells me they don’t know who Obama is but then neither do the conservatives who see Obama as a Socialist and a Commie.

Obama has kept and or expanded every rapacious and murderous policy that George W. Bush introduced or expanded, and has moved this country even further to the right without so much as a whimper from the liberals. And why don’t liberals complain? Because if a Republican gets in office it will be the end of the universe of course! Amazingly, I, personally, have lived through Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, two Bushes, and I have yet to see the end of the world. In fact, I’m fairly convinced that I will end before the world does. What liberals are ignoring is that all these leaders – in both major parties – have been, and are, ending the world for people even as I write this. And that’s the real problem with believing if we just leave things to the Democratic Party that this will make everything okay. It doesn’t and it won’t and it doesn’t help the people who die under the jackboot of America’s imperial wars.

The plain and simple truth about liberals is that they do not care about the slaughter that has been ongoing for nine years, possibly the longest slaughter in our slaughter-fest history. I don’t know why Republicans think Democrats are wimps. All you have to do is attack or question THE OBAMA and sit back and watch the fireworks explode. But then liberals are such super duper patriots, it’s patriotic to criticize Republicans, don’t you know? Liberals have their very own War in a Box with Afghanistan, and they love it. You know, that was Obama’s big selling point, “[T]he right war is the one in Afghanistan”, never mind that Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 and al Qaida is long gone because that was all bullshit from the beginning. The Democratic Party was going to prove once and for all that they could wage war better than the Republicans and indeed war is the only promise Obama kept.

I don’t care for the Republican Party either but at least they are more honest about why we are in Afghanistan than the Democratic Leadership now residing in their rotting house of power. Here’s Dick Cheney (Darth Vader to liberals) telling us exactly why we are in Afghanistan, or pretty close to it.


[T]he oil in the Caspian basin is estimated to be worth over US $12 trillion. The sudden collapse of the USSR and subsequent opening of the region has led to an intense investment and development scramble by international oil companies. In 1998 Dick Cheney commented that "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."

How clear can Dick make it? See Dick, see Dick run, see Dick run and jump. What, you thought we were in Afghanistan to catch Fidel Castro? At least Dick was honest about why we are there, what is Obama’s excuse? The only conclusion I can draw so far is that liberals don’t care that people are dying so that Obama and crew can carry on their mad schemes for world domination. And it is crazy, completely crazy. Are you ready to fight a war with Russia and China over the Caspian Basin? I’m not. But that is the logical conclusion and end game for the U.S. plot of world dominion. Haven’t you ever wondered what the Russians and Chinese think when they see us playing in their back yard? Can you imagine what the United States would do if Russia invaded Mexico?

Liberals should ask themselves some questions.

Do you support the murder of millions of innocent people, the fact that millions more were wounded, that millions more were forced to flee for their lives to other lands and that this continues under Obama?

Do you support the use of torture against helpless prisoners that is likely still occurring if not in Guantanamo then in other more secret redoubts of dark design?

Do you support the domestic spying that now continues unabated?

Do you support murder? Do you, well do you? If you support Obama then you do. You can equivocate and invent the loveliest of excuses for the Sainted, and Holy, the one and only The Obama all you want but it won’t change a thing. Neither will this post come to think of it. Still, I find the position that those liberals who support Obama take indefensible. Murder is murder no matter which way you slice it.


At July 16, 2010 3:31 AM, Blogger Mimi said...

Rob, I quoted some of your essay on my blog, the part about O. being shot if he did the right thing. As ever, you cut right through to the bitter truth about liberals.

At July 16, 2010 7:26 AM, Blogger Bob In Pacifica said...

Definition of liberal:

"a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States."

Does anyone here disagree with that? Or do you disagree with people who are labeled liberal by mass media or who aren't liberal but self-describe themselves as liberal?

There are many people, most people who are actually liberal, who don't support the wars at all, who want a more egalitarian society, etc., and yet are given a choice between corporatist McCain or corporatist Obama. What's the rational choice? Obama? Certainly not McCain. And when discouragement reaches a certain level those people stay home and don't vote, which means in our "democracy" the McCain will win. Some people will argue that the misery the Right brings on the average citizen will propel the average citizen into the arms of the left. But it never happens. Not in America.

So which liberal are we insulting here? Real liberals or faux liberals? And what new word will we use until its meaning is subverted?

At July 16, 2010 1:01 PM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

Bob, don't most supposed liberals run away from the label as much as possible, and isn't that, in practical terms, what "progressive" actually means?

I'm not saying either word is intrinsically wrong or bad. They're just words. But as far as I can see "progressive" has come to mean somebody who's perceived as liberal but is desperately trying to shake the label.

Or to put it another way, a progressive is a liberal who's handed over his lunch money to a conservative, usually without a fight.

At July 16, 2010 8:59 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Hi Mimi,

Hey thanks, that's really nice of you. As you can see, nothing has changed but at least we can still say what we think.

At July 16, 2010 9:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


...What's the rational choice? Obama? Certainly not McCain.

Why not? Once you face the fact that both men are figureheads, what use is there in saying, "But I don't want McCain to win!"

They work in concert. They always win, no matter which one actually inhabits the White House. The voters never win, though they think otherwise if their favored figurehead gets the nod.

-- ms_xeno

At July 16, 2010 10:02 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Hi Bob,

When I was a young musician I used to walk fifty miles to school through eight foot drifts of snow, no, wait, that’s another story. When I was a young musician the best teacher I had told me to record my practice sessions and then listen to them carefully. To cut a long story short he was teaching me to be objective and I can tell you listening to those tapes wasn’t an enjoyable experience, until I began to be objective about my playing and I put aside my ego. You can be angry with criticism coming from someone else but the tape is an inanimate object, something that does not lie to you, it became my best friend. This allowed me to be honest with myself about my musicianship. And that’s all I’m doing here. If people are insulted I cannot help that though honestly considering the immense and unimaginable suffering instigated in our name my own sympathy is for the victims not the people who are victimizing them. What about all the dead bodies strewn about the place?

It is pointless to argue about if McCain would have been better or worse, that’s one of your own axioms that the president isn’t that important, which I agree with. I repeat, which I agree with. This isn’t about McCain, it’s about Obama and the blind support that has been given to him though I see that is now beginning to fade as the economy remains flat, and he appeared as weak when dealing with BP. And if the war is unpopular it is only because most see it as a failure which for me is neither here nor there.

To date I have not seen a president who has decided to fight against the implacable forces arrayed against him. I see a president who enthusiastically embraces the entire Establishment mantra of American exceptionalism, imperialism, and slaughter in a most enthusiastic manner.

At July 18, 2010 8:05 AM, Anonymous Jacob Russell said...

Forget the skinny guy with the scythe. Think: those gigonomamoth mowing machines cutting wheat on the great plains, the Grim Human Reaper, a.k.a. America Inc.

Oh dear oh dear, we cried, pointing to the Driver's Cab with Bush and Cheney and his bad bad heart; oh dear oh dear, we need a GOOD driver for our GHR! So we elected Obama--who's not only a pretty decent fellow, but black! How good that made us feel! So now we have a nice guy driving the GRH, blowing up men women children and many animals of other kinds.

When will we learn to stop pretending that individual morality--or some such--is what matters? If electing Obama didn't change the GRM, neither will blaming him. Time to throw some big ol' wrenches in the gears and treads of the goddamned machine.

At July 18, 2010 1:04 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Hi Jacob,

The post is about the people who support the Democratic Party and Obama despite what the Democratic leadership does more than it is about The Obama. And in writing about these people part of the deal is one needs to give a brief outline of the Obama presidency. The entire argument over Republican or Democrat, left or right, conservative or liberal is a huge waste of time and ignores the fact that there is only one party, the War Party. Unfortunately, though I agree with you regarding a monkey wrench it’s not going to happen. The masses have long been subdued to the power of the State and have been conditioned to not think, in fact the State hardly needs us any longer. When we allowed manufacturing to be exported we also exported any of what little power remained to the public in general. The police have become the military or like them, the super wealthy own the courts and the federal government, they write the laws that screw us and apply only to us, in other words ‘control’ is complete. I’m afraid the imperial wars will keep rolling to their final destination.


Post a Comment

<< Home