America, some might say, has evolved since January 20, 2009 when a democratically elected president was sworn in. Since then we went from ” you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” to Glenn Greenwald’s assumption that killing Osama Bin Laden is akin to killing innocent babies. These people are not the Conservative GOP Teabaggers that infest our legislative branch of government, these are the Puritopians or emo-progressives. These are slightly pejorative terms that essentially define a liberal purist who believes a Democratic president should overstep his powers and push through a far left agenda, regardless of protocol, because Bush basically acted like this with his neocon agenda. They are far more critical of a Democratic President than they ever were of a Republican. They are against compromise at all costs. It’s nose holding, childishly obstinate politics at its worst. They feel as if President Obama’s election simply wiped out the terrorist threats ten years of war and occupation have exacerbated. Perhaps these types of sentiments seen below aren’t real?
Can’t we save the fantasy belief in unicorns for our toddlers at home Glenn, Jane Hamsher, Jeremy Scahill, Cenk Uygur and Michael Moore? I like you guys, most of the time. I think you’re bright and knowledgable about many issues. However, I disagree with the idealistic world you live in where there aren’t a few REAL threats to our security. And, no, saying this does not make me a Republican. Your assertion, Mr. Greenwald, that I “don’t support the ACLU” is asinine. There’s a difference between an American visiting another country and an American plotting the demise of his country from abroad. Sometimes, a fair trial isn’t first on the list when there’s danger lurking. Sometimes it must be stopped before it can hit. I’d post the tweet he sent me, but he took it down before I could copy it, although it was up for a few days. It was funny to see he’s removed it, so it must have been bothering him. He claimed I’m in favor of innocents being targeted in drone strikes. Innocents aren’t the targets, but an unfortunate casualty of war. So is friendly fire. Stating I wish to kill babies is a ridiculously childish assertion that appeases his own convoluted viewpoint. With drone strikes, sometimes flawed as they are, versus an occupation, the numbers are simply incomparable.
Drone strikes have, according to the most generous estimates, killed around 4,000 people. Some of these are unintended victims, innocent bystanders, and yes, this is unfortunately a consequence. The war in Iraq has killed over one million innocent Iraqi civilians, a horrible number. Some of these journalists have an axe to grind over a couple of tactics the Obama Administration has utilized. They believe he’s acted like an dictator with unlimited power. They’ve called him the jury, judge and executioner for disposing of terrorists outside the U.S.A.
If anyone claims Mr. Greenwald to be a liberal, they are sadly mistaken. A liberal would not be employed by the Koch brothers’ Cato Institute, a Libertarian think tank. Then again, he did support Ron Paul. A liberal wouldn’t concentrate his efforts on launching a rabid incessant barrage against the Obama Administration while virtually remaining silent on the lies told by the dozen by Willard Romney. A liberal wouldn’t disparage a president that on his first day in office signed a bill to end Bush Era interrogation practices. A liberal wouldn’t try to take down the president who will appoint perhaps as many as three Supreme Court Justices in the next four years. However, Glenn is fixated on his foreign policy grievances and will stop at nothing to unseat him.
One of the events that have caused such outrage is the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born al-Qaeda recruiter who was linked to several attempted, but failed, attacks against the U.S. homeland. In 2011, an American drone hunted down al-Awlaki and his entourage in Yemen, and wiped them out with a missile. Jeremy Scahill took special offense to this action. However, I feel US citizens who go to foreign countries with the intention of inspiring and directing attacks on the United States earn the deaths they receive. It’s a trade off. You leave and collude with Al Qaeda and start planning bomb detonations, we may kill you. Sorry, game over.
Then we have the outcry over the indefinite detention of Bradley Manning whose offenses, include communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source, and aiding the enemy. A CAPITAL offense, for which Manning thoroughly knew the penalties when he committed treason against the United States, but Michael Moore feels he’s being detained unjustly. I’m surprised the Teabaggers in Congress aren’t calling for his execution for treason, but this is a Democrat in office, and that would make the president look good. Prosecutors are not seeking the death penalty, however. Manning will be facing trial this September and will not be held without due process indefinitely. That leads us to another claim, that Barack Obama supports indefinite detention through the NDAA.
Current TV and former MSNBC personality, Cenk Uygur, feels President Obama supports the indefinite detention of any random U.S. citizen, for whatever reason. To summarize: Sec. 1022 of the NDAA authorizes military detention of members or associates of al-Qaeda. Cenk has been utterly disproved here. He seems to spend far more time on the egregious actions he feels the administration is taking rather than the epic destruction Willard Romney has in store when he and Netanyahu launch a massive preemptive strike on Iran.
The threats are real. They are not imagined. Hilary Clinton recently approved a $10 million bounty for the arrest of Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, founder of the Pakistani group blamed for the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. These people have accomplished massive killings or have planned to orchestrate such operations. They are not our imagination and defense, sometimes preemptively, is necessary to thwart destructive plans. Can you imagine the fallout if just one of these nuclear bomb toting lunatics gets through? Never mind the death and destruction but President Obama would be blamed one hundred times more than President Bush. Hell, Bush was practically a victim in the attacks of 2001, even though he ignored warnings and evidence President Clinton left behind.
The one common thread, aside from their hatred of this administration, is they say they don’t want to get Willard Romney elected, but want to critique injustice as they view it. Folks like me are considered to be “Obamabots” who are blind to the faults of the administration, a common assertion. This is all old news, but the recent appearances of Glenn Greenwald and his buddy Jane Hamsher on so many news programs is prompting me to write in defense of this administration. Bush-Cheney left the world in chaos, creating so many more enemies than they inherited. The hatred for the USA in the Muslim world is not an imagined threat. The actions of the Obama administration are far more responsible and logical than a preemptive war on Iran, which is the first thing on the agenda if Willard, however inadvertently, gets in office. I suppose that’ll give them a little more fodder for their blogs?