It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
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...




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

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...



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Ya it sure is hypocritical...


Glad to say I am not one of them



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Star and Flag. This proves that the supposed political spectrum in the United States (liberal vs conservative) is a flawed and manufactured spectrum by the main stream media and main stream political candidates.

The real political spectrum is freedom/classic liberalism (ie. the individual) vs. the state/corporatism.

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. It's the definition of sheeple.

Obama is the drone president; I'd think a real socialist loving liberal would be against him.
edit on 9-2-2012 by Drew99GT because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2012 by Drew99GT because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2012 by Drew99GT because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
I think many people who voted against Bush, were people who wanted to see torture end and gitmo closed. Who wanted drone strikes and other violence stopped. People who did not buy into the fear tactics and extremely blind nationalism that was peddled by the Bush Administration. If this poll is accurate of casual voters then it would be very hypocritcal.

But, unless Ron Paul is on the ticket, I will vote for Obama again because he seems to be the only one looking out for the little guy. I cannot support a party that panders to religion and talks of their eager willingness to go to war. Republicans are simply not a choice.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
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!




posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Yeah, Obama supporters... so sad....

What we need is a strong nationalist President, that gushes propaganda, instills great fear, and accuses those who don't agree with him of being Anti-American. Ah, the good ol' days... Hated around the world, invading countries on false intel, and turning citizens into modern day Nazi's. We really need that again... Oooh, and maybe a full-on nuclear war, too. That would be awesome. Oooh, and a huge fence with guns and landmines to kill Mexican families when they try to cross the border. America, F-yeah.

Hmm, now I'm thinking those ol' Republicans might be a sad bunch too.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
What we need is a strong nationalist President, that gushes propaganda, instills great fear, and accuses those who don't agree with him of being Anti-American. Ah, the good ol' days... Hated around the world, invading countries on false intel, and turning citizens into modern day Nazi's.


Uh, we kinda have that now.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
I think many people who voted against Bush, were people who wanted to see torture end and gitmo closed. Who wanted drone strikes and other violence stopped. People who did not buy into the fear tactics and extremely blind nationalism that was peddled by the Bush Administration. If this poll is accurate of casual voters then it would be very hypocritcal.

But, unless Ron Paul is on the ticket, I will vote for Obama again because he seems to be the only one looking out for the little guy. I cannot support a party that panders to religion and talks of their eager willingness to go to war. Republicans are simply not a choice.


Unless Ron Paul, you will vote for Obama....


It always amazes me that so many are convinced that they must choose the lesser of two evils. YOU CAN WRITE IN YOUR VOTE.

"Oh, but if I do that, then so-in-so will win, and I don't want that!" What a BS argument that is. You are arguing that you must sell your soul so that Satan is defeated, but Baal wins. You're screwed either way, so why vote for either one?

I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is why I will write in my vote. I do not think that my vote will change the outcome. But then again, I don't think votes really matter anyway. TPTB have a plan and it doesn't matter what face or party they put up for you to complain about. Their plan will move forward.

Voting for what you truly believe in is the only way that you are not a hypocrite who is willing to bend over and sell your soul to the system. I don't care that my vote doesn't count. I do care that so many are willing to sell out their beliefs because they buy into the idea that they have no choice (or only two choices, as it were).
edit on 9-2-2012 by ShockTruther because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2012 by ShockTruther because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
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
edit on 9-2-2012 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I can't find myself being too outraged over this. Every political and even religious groups are guilty of hypocrisy at times. Perhaps living under one of the most corrupt state governments in my life time in Texas has reduced the shock of such things.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
More liberals have been taken by this scam than I would have thought. I doubt this poll is very accurate. Sounds like just the liberal Democrats in congress were polled.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Hmm yep they sure are hypocritical don't see any 1000 post threads on here about how Obama lied and people died.

It's gotta be great to be a liberal Democrat you can litterally get away with murder.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Hmm yep they sure are hypocritical don't see any 1000 post threads on here about how Obama lied and people died.

It's gotta be great to be a liberal Democrat you can litterally get away with murder.


Hey Neo

Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive! Guess who made that possible? Our president did. Yay!



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
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!!



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join