Hillary Clinton, architect of the Iraq War, is Obama’s secretary of state. Obama says “America doesn’t torture. It was only a matter of time before Obama let us down, but this is unprecedented. And not even one liberal in the cabinet. And Larry Summers! And…
Generalissimo Obamo
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
27 Comments. Leave new
Maybe because it's two in the morning, but what's your point? Are YOU trying to be cute?
"Obamo"? Ya don't really have to change Obama's name to hispanicize it. Latin American history is full of proper names like Batista and Zapata that end in the letter a. Obama would be a perfectly good Spanish surname. The stress is even on the right syllable.
Ted, I think you may have misconstrued or decontextualized the America doesn't torture quote. I say this because everyone else in the world, including people in the middle east, are taking it the opposite way you are.
The entire quote from 60 minutes:
"America doesn’t torture, and I’m gonna make sure that we don’t torture."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/did-brennan-wit.html
Which I take to mean, "My America doesn't torture, it's unAmerican".
But of course, you are entitled to your unique slant.
The Obama picks might not be what you or I would hope for, but except for Gates, I wouldn't really worry about them. When Roosevelt was elected, he wasn't the big economic liberal he eventually turned into, but the crisis he encountered molded his agenda. Obama could become the next FDR. Give Obama and his appointments some time.
I think you may have misconstrued or decontextualized the America doesn't torture quote
I heard Obama on NPR (yes, I know, I'm a glutton for punishment), and he said "America doesn't torture" without any qualifiers. Last week, I posted something about this highly annoying quote. Maybe Ted lifted the idea from me…
But really, are we ever going to hear a politician tell us the truth? This culture is bankrupt; our actions are hideously monstrous, and the those who make up a majority of the electorate are self-satisfied pigs.
Yes, I'm disappointed by his failure to appoint any liberals and I agree there are plenty valid criticisms of Obama's performance so far. And plenty to be worried about when he takes office.
But do you really need to take a quote completely out of context to make your point, Ted? That was uncharacteristically lame of you. He was talking about closing Guantanamo for fuck's sake! Please explain how you interpret that as endorsing/denying torture.
Obama isn't made of silly putty. Just wishing for it isn't going to make him do anything. "What I take to mean" and "could become the next FDR" leave the reality of it unspoken: he's not going to act in the way you'd hoped and has no obligation or even pressure to.
I don't think it was ambiguous. Even with Bush, I never deliberately took quotes out of context, and I wouldn't do it to Obama. But, to me, this reads like he's trying to assuage the Right by saying that we don't torture ad that we won't start torturing.
The truth is, of course, that the U.S. does torture. If Obama has ever said that America does torture and should not torture in a clear way–and the guy is nothing if not careful and precise and articulate–I haven't been able to find it.
Furthermore, Obama refuses to countenance war crimes prosecutions of Bush and the other henchmen who eliminated habeas and Geneva and anti-torture conventions. To me, that meshes with his statement that we don't torture. If we torture, it logically follows that torturers should be sent to prison.
Right?
Yes Ted, War crime trials for all the bushies! Right after trial for treason, for exposing an covert C.I.A. agent during a time of war!
But, to me, this reads like he's trying to assuage the Right by saying that we don't torture ad [sic] that we won't start torturing.
YES. But it serves a duel purposes. It's vague politico-speak. Both the left and right can–with a little double-think–believe it to mean whatever they want it to.
It's like when McCain said that health insurance was a "responsibility." A friend of my mine thought that he meant that the government has a responsibility to provide it. I thought he meant, fuck you, it's your own responsibility.
The job of the modern speechwriter is to say nothing at all. Has our discourse always been so vapid and devoid of meaning? I grew up during the Regan years, so this is all I've known…
Ted,
Maybe you published the cartoon a little too soon:
Gates to stay on as Pentagon chief, aides say
And, of course, he has Paul Volcker on board. But I trust the party faithful will swallow this, and a whole host of other nominations, with stoic resignation: after all, it's our bastard now.
Well, if you want to spend the next four years fighting the last eight, then, yes, by all means prosecute them and have their lawyers tie it up in appeals until 2016.
I agree that there should be prosecutions, but not 20 minutes after the inauguration, and certainly not with a media circus. Let the DOJ quietly build up its case (it has all the documents anyway), and issue the charges at about 430pm on a Friday before a long week-end.
You leftists are so easy to fool, which is probably why you end up with so many leftist dictators. A clean cut black man, with a nice smile comes along and you all swoon because now you get to get rid of your white liberal guilt. Doesn't matter he doesn't stand for anything but hopenchange. On DU someone posted "HOTOS: President-elect Obama hands out food at a Chicago church: "You can call me Barack", and the girls over there are getting their panties wet over it.
Barack is a phony. You got suckered and you deserve it. Unfortunately you dragged the rest of along with you.
Suckers
The only torture that is happening is watching this ship hit the iceberg we all saw coming.
The only torture that is happening is watching this ship hit the iceberg we all saw coming.
BF'er (Barney Frank) and his fellow Democrats were warned about this iceberg and did nothing. Do you think Citi Bank's Robert Rubin (DEMOCRAT) saw it coming?
Can't help but notice everyone's reading tealeaves.
The guy said the change will come from him, the others are there to do help him realize the vision he will provide.
Maybe we should wait until he becomes president and does something before we tar and feather him.
Anon 11:41 PM is clearly a bitter conservative, left with only belittling and mockery in his/her arsenal with which to feel better. It's like a guy on the titanic laughing at another guy because he's drowning. You're in the same boat, pal!
I'm not worried, Obama was never going to please Ted Rall. The fact that he's unhappy with Obama is not a surprise.
In the end, Ted knows who he voted for.
Obama isn't even president yet.
To Anonymous 11:41, if we didn't have Barack Obama, we would've had Sarah Palin, who would have been much, much worse. I for one was not taken by Obama's "Change" hook, because Bill Clinton had a similar hook back in '92.
Correct, Susan: if we didn't have Barack Obama, we would have John McCain. Sarah Palin was not running for President any more than Joe Biden was. Frankly, I am sick of people acting as if she were and jumping all over the idea as if she's worse than Reagan and Bush combined. Palin is a typical modern Republican and that's how I frame my perceptions of her, coupled with the fact that – allow me to say it again – she was NOT running for President.
However, in this age where sexism is a-okay while we've brushed racism under the carpet, making Palin as big of a monster as Hillary Clinton is par for the course.
an observer of this board commented to me :
"Geez – everyone's so quick to point the finger at Barack as if he were going to either save or destroy us. The truth is if people don't gather en masse to demand jobs, infrastructure, green energy programs, the right to health care, and the end of violent American imperialism abroad – no politician is going to initiate them. Who do we think the president elect is, Saint Nick? FDR was centrist when he entered office. Faced with a major economic crisis and an American population on the edge of hunger and revolt, he was forced to respond in favor of the working class and the unemployed."
I would add:
If we expect any politician to stick his/her neck out without thousands of people all but banging on the gates of the Whitehouse and the houses of congress on a daily basis, we need to wake the fuck up.
Seth Warren:
To me Palin appears worse than the "typical modern Republican." She's closer to the anti-science, evangelical fringe, and she appears to have even less intellectual curiosity than Chimpy. Her crypto-race baiting and overt red baiting were beyond the pale–much worse than anything we saw Karl Rove slinging at Al Gore in 2000. Bush II presented himself to the national stage as a much more moderate figure.
But beyond her policies and the shameful way she campaigned, the really bad thing about Palin was the simple fact that she utterly lacked an elementary fundamental understanding of national and international issues. As C. Hitchens pointed out, her nomination was a profound insult to the American electorate.
And Hillary. She's smart and experienced. But she's a triangulating monster, with a lot of Iraqi blood on her hands. That's why many progressives hate her. Not because she's woman.
The mainstream media might have been obsessed with their gender, but there were real reasons beyond sexism to oppose these two very different women…
"Obama was never going to please Ted Rall"
It's not like he tried to please me. Or anyone to the left of William Kristol.
Why? Why hasn't Obama appointed a single liberal to a key position in his Administration? Are we really supposed to think this doesn't foreshadow his future policies?
"Hillary Clinton, architect of the Iraq War"
Have you lost your marbles??? There are many faults with Hillary Clinton, but being the 'architect' of the Iraq war isn't one of them.
I use to read you a lot more often than I do now Mr Ralls. Statements like that are the reason why.
Anon 11:41 PM is clearly a bitter conservative, left with only belittling and mockery in his/her arsenal with which to feel better. It's like a guy on the titanic laughing at another guy because he's drowning. You're in the same boat, pal!
Wrong Aggie, I am not in the same boat as those who look to their Dear Leader. I don't look for my "Hope" in another human. And I certainly don't look to the government for success in my life. And frankly, after 8 years of Bush Derangement Syndrome, I don't need any lefties telling me about bitterness. You lefties are exactly the hate you claim to hate.
Now go back to your theories.
"Why? Why hasn't Obama appointed a single liberal to a key position in his Administration? Are we really supposed to think this doesn't foreshadow his future policies?"
See Ted? You have no hope!
He is only appointing these non-liberals because he knows the only way to bring about the drastic changes we need is by acting through experienced insiders. They are all sleepers. They will do his liberal bidding.
Just you wait!!!
Hope and Change, Ted. Embrace it!
""Hillary Clinton, architect of the Iraq War"
Have you lost your marbles??? There are many faults with Hillary Clinton, but being the 'architect' of the Iraq war isn't one of them."
How not? It wasn't her idea, but she repeatedly added to the pro-war rhetoric during the build-up. At the time, she was a former First Lady and frontrunner for the future 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Her voice mattered a lot. If she had come out against the war, it could have made a difference.