Hypocrisy? Majorities of liberal Democrats now support drone strikes, keeping Gitmo open, page

Wow! what a difference eh? Just because of the letter "D" written next to Obama's name.

I've certainly seen this shift first hand here on ATS. Back when Bush was the man making the counterterror shots regarding the issues of Gitmo and War, this group hit him daily with laser like accuracy. It now appears that those same lasers need a little tune up because they seem to missing the mark, Obama.

The poll shows that 53 percent of self-identified liberal Democrats — and 67 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats — support keeping Guantanamo Bay open, even though it emerged as a symbol of the post-Sept. 11 national security policies of George W. Bush, which many liberals bitterly opposed.

Obama has also relied on armed drones far more than Bush did, and he has expanded their use beyond America’s defined war zones. The Post-ABC News poll found that 83 percent of Americans approve of Obama’s drone policy, which administration officials refuse to discuss, citing security concerns…

But fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year.

Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.

Yes, those armed drones that Obama is using far more than Bush did. The same armed drones that are a key component of the new "Obama Doctrine". The same drones that are allegedly killing innocent civilians in Pakistan and beyond. Why no criticism from left?

three things are clear. One: Obviously, they have no deep objection to Gitmo or drone strikes on the merits. If the president’s good faith is all that’s needed to sanitize the policies then there’s nothing terribly dirty about them in the abstract. Two: Equally obviously, they’re willing to tolerate the policies being expanded. Had Bush sent drones after a U.S. citizen, it would have given the left aneurysms, but here’s O doing it and everyone’s okay with that. Is that because they think the policy is an affirmatively good thing, or is it simply that Obama hasn’t exhausted his line of trust-credit with the left yet? I was joking in what I said about waterboarding up top, but now I wonder. Three: They’re repudiating their own core argument during the Bush years about the rule of law. Public officials can’t be trusted because even the well-intentioned ones are susceptible to being corrupted by power; only the rule of law, replete with oversight and checks and balances, can keep them honest. Turns out most of the left doesn’t really believe that, but apparently thinks it’s only the ill-intentioned ones — as the Bu#ler was alleged to be — who need watching.

What more can you say? Do as I say, not as I do? Seems to work for Obama!! Let's all try it in our personal and work lives and see how that works out for us.

hotair.com...

During the Bush years, Guantanamo was the core symbol of right-wing radicalism and what was back then referred to as the “assault on American values and the shredding of our Constitution”: so much so then when Barack Obama ran for President, he featured these issues not as a secondary but as a central plank in his campaign. But now that there is a Democrat in office presiding over Guantanamo and these other polices — rather than a big, bad, scary Republican — all of that has changed, as a new Washington Post/ABC News poll today demonstrates:

Repulsive liberal hypocrisy extends far beyond the issue of Guantanamo. A core plank in the Democratic critique of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties assault was the notion that the President could do whatever he wants, in secret and with no checks, to anyone he accuses without trial of being a Terrorist – even including eavesdropping on their communications or detaining them without due process. But President Obama has not only done the same thing, but has gone much farther than mere eavesdropping or detention: he has asserted the power even to kill citizens without due process. As Bush’s own CIA and NSA chief Michael Hayden said this week about the Awlaki assassination: “We needed a court order to eavesdrop on him but we didn’t need a court order to kill him. Isn’t that something?” That is indeed “something,” as is the fact that Bush’s mere due-process-free eavesdropping on and detention of American citizens caused such liberal outrage, while Obama’s due-process-free execution of them has not.

Beyond that, Obama has used drones to kill Muslim children and innocent adults by the hundreds. He has refused to disclose his legal arguments for why he can do this or to justify the attacks in any way. He has even had rescuers and funeral mourners deliberately targeted. As Hayden said: ”Right now, there isn’t a government on the planet that agrees with our legal rationale for these operations, except for Afghanistan and maybe Israel.” But that is all perfectly fine with most American liberals now that their Party’s Leader is doing it:

Fully 77 percent of liberal Democrats endorse the use of drones, meaning that Obama is unlikely to suffer any political consequences as a result of his policy in this election year. Support for drone strikes against suspected terrorists stays high, dropping only somewhat when respondents are asked specifically about targeting American citizens living overseas, as was the case with Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American killed in September in a drone strike in northern Yemen.

www.salon.com...

Are You still going to support Obama with a clean conscience? If you're an undying Obama supporter that is (I know you're out there, I can hear you breathing)


The actual poll for those looking for hidden excuses to defend Obama. Probably just trick questions for the undereducated.
www.washingtonpost.com...

Originally posted by jibeho
Wow! what a difference eh? Just because of the letter "D" written next to Obama's name

Yep, from the original source:
www.salon.com...

You're quiet right Jihebo it is hypocrisy. As for myself being a liberal, on of the things that turned me off about Obama was going into Libya.... I'm still not fully on the boat with that.... I think these nations should sort out their own issues, we can't pick and choose which countries to liberate. Many liberals are proving themselves to be just as partisan as Republicans.

War is ugly, I guess it's so easy for folks to support it in the comfort of their own cities or towns...

This is a measure of both Democrats and Republicans and their support for the wars:

Seventy-eight per cent of those asked approved of Obama’s plans to draw down troops in Afghanistan, despite fierce criticism of the president’s strategy from Republican presidential candidates, including Romney.

Voters were also asked whether they approved of the decision to keep the Guantanamo Bay war on terror detention facility in Cuba open and 70 per cent approved.

Obama had vowed to close the camp, which he said was a recruiting tool for terrorists, shortly after taking office in 2009, but due to congressional opposition and complications in dispersing inmates, has so far been unable to do so.

Respondents also trusted him more on international affairs by a 56 to 37 percent margin.

tribune.com.pk...

Putting aside Ron Paul who doesn't have a stones throw chance in my opinion, a republican president won't be any different. We are slaves to the military industrial complex.... slaves to the war money making machine...

Originally posted by Drew99GT
The supposed neo "liberals" that keep supporting Obama are brain washed by main stream media. They were against exactly what Obama is doing when he ran for election - yet they support his policies.

In all fairness to Obama, he never promised that he'd be a peaceful president. While Obama was solidly behind withdrawing troops from the Iraq war, he promised to increase efforts in Afghanistan and the war against terror:

But Obama also talked about the need for the United States to turn its attention to Afghanistan. (See our related statement here .)

"Our troops have fought valiantly there, but Iraq has deprived them of the support they need — and deserve," Obama said. "As a result, parts of Afghanistan are falling into the hands of the Taliban, and a mix of terrorism, drugs and corruption threatens to overwhelm the country. As president, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counterterrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban."

www.politifact.com...

Obama actually promised to increase the war effort against terror, he did this during the primaries, so folks should have known full well what they were getting into.

reply to post by Southern Guardian

---

Thanks for your honest insight. I really hope that a reality check comes down the road soon. I honestly thought by now that Obama would have a Democrat Opponent. One committed to exposing him for what he is, what he as said and promised and above all for his actions.

What troubles me most about Obama's new policy towards Iraq and Afghanistan is that it is simply cut an run. Iraq is a mess right now and only going to get worse as the fight for internal power heats up. It will be more of the same when we pull out of Afghanistan. 10 years of war for absolutely nothing. We know who will take control when our boots leave the sand.

Egypt is a mess right now and we helped get it there. Worse now than any day under Mubarek and getting worse as the Muslim Brotherhood calls for complete power.

Many among Egypt's liberal and secular revolutionary groups have grown critical of the Brotherhood, accusing it of attempting to monopolize the political scene and of working closely with the ruling generals. The youth-dominated groups fear the Brotherhood may strike a deal with the military council — giving the military a future say in politics to ensure the Brotherhood's hold on authority and influence the writing of a new constitution.

www.usatoday.com...

Obama led the push for this and for the ouster of Ghadaffi. Now another vulnerable nation. Syria is next. Then its onto Central Africa and beyond.

It's frustrating as our nation continues spin out of balance. I'll take a center left or center right president any day of the week as long as the do as they say and speak with candor.

reply to post by jibeho

---

I agree to the absolute hypocrisy of the liberal left!
But I also feel sorry for them. What you have to understand is that the former community organizer is not, has not been a leader. Ever. His foreign policy is based on consensus. Not true leadership.
That's why we liberate Libya (we got to hide behind the french).
Aided in ousting Mubarak (it was popular)
Did nothing in Syria (not popular enough, yet)
Did nothing in Iran in 2009 (Achmadinijad scares him)

I really feel for the fans of Obama. This much back and forth, highs and lows, lefts and rights. . . . . I'd be reaching for the dramamine!

reply to post by jibeho

---

This is exactly why people like myself have been saying over and over again, that there is no difference between the two Parties. People need to vote for the Individual, not the Party they belong to. Obama has extended a majority of the Policies Bush began. These are Policies that Obama and the Democrats spoke out against. They claimed they were the exact opposite of Bush in terms of Gitmo, the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, drone strikes, War, etc etc etc. Guess what? They are no different. There is an Agenda being followed, and an Agenda does not know party lines.

This is why people need to pay attention and connect some dots when we hear the current bunch of Candidates say they would use covert Ops, they support the NDAA, they support the Patriot Act.. it is all part of the same AGENDA.

So you may change the face of the President, but your still voting to follow the same path we are on now and have been on. How people can not see this is just absolutely mind numbing to me and there is only ONE Candidate who has consistently opposed it all.... but no one wants to talk about him

reply to post by spinalremain

---

Bin Laden isn't dead. He's hanging out in Cuba on a remote beach sipping Mai Tais. Been there for years!!

Exclusive - Obama\'s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: \'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Haw
  Posted 12 days ago with 242 member flags

Ron Paul is NOT dropping out, the Mainstream Media is LYING.
  Posted 15 days ago with 111 member flags

Report: Romney Will Be Disqualified From Race Due To Fraud
  Posted 19 days ago with 105 member flags

Evidence of Vote Flipping in GOP Primary Elections
  Posted 7 days ago with 88 member flags

CNN Asks Ron Paul To Drop Out & Endorse Romney Despite His Chances To Win
  Posted 19 days ago with 70 member flags

Fox News Analyst: First American to shoot down drone will be a hero
  Posted 14 days ago with 68 member flags

Mitt Romney scared Ron Paul is winning!!!
  Posted 7 days ago with 62 member flags

Let\'s just say it: Political Parties are the Problem
  Posted 12 days ago with 60 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: