Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: How can Obama take the oath of office without lying?

  1. #1
    Myra Bronstein Guest

    Default How can Obama take the oath of office without lying?

    On January 11, 2009 Barack Obama answered the following question:


    "Will you appoint a special prosecutor ideally Patrick Fitzgerald to independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping."

    OBAMA: "We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."


    Then on January 20 he's supposed to take the following oath:

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."



    Unless he brings the lawless Bush administration to justice he'll be lying during his oath. He (and congress) must be pressured from day one to bring the criminals to justice. He should have no "honeymoon" period.

  2. #2

    Default

    He can't Myra. All that stuff is just theatre for the masses. Bread and circuses.
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

  3. #3
    Myra Bronstein Guest

    Default Obama sells out to Wall Street

    The president-elect's support of the bank bailout is payback to his wealthy Wall Street supporters.
    By David Sirota
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...rce=newsletter

    Jan. 17, 2009 | The veto is the legislative equivalent of a nuclear warhead -- a rarely used instrument of devastating force that singularly vaporizes the votes of 535 elected representatives. So when a president-elect issues a veto threat before being sworn into office, it sets off a particularly big explosion because it is a deliberate agenda-setting edict about priorities for the next four years.

    That's why every American who isn't a financial industry executive should be nervous.

    After President Bush this week asked Congress to release the bank bailout fund's remaining $350 billion, Obama pledged to veto any bill rejecting the request, meaning he is beginning his presidency not by "turn[ing] the page on policies that have put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of folks on Main Street," as he once pledged. Instead, he is promising a mushroom cloud unless lawmakers let taxpayer cash continue flowing to the biggest of Big Money interests.

    Amid paeans to "new politics," we're watching old-school paybacks from a politician who raised more Wall Street dough than any other -- a president-to-be whose inauguration festivities are being underwritten by the very bankers who are benefiting from the bailout largesse. Safely distanced from electoral pressure, Obama has appointed conservative economists to top White House positions; floated a tax cut for banks; and is now trying to preserve corporate welfare that almost exclusively benefits the political donor class.

    This isn't much-ballyhooed "change" -- it's money politics by a different name. How do we know? Because neither Obama nor anyone else is genuinely trying to justify the bailout on its merits -- and understandably so. Even the most basic queries prove such merits don't exist.

    Has the bailout increased bank lending, as was its stated objective? "Hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending," says a new report by the congressional panel charged with overseeing the money.

    Do federal officials have a solid plan to improve the bailout? The report raises alarms about "the shifting explanations of its purposes," noting that the government has "not yet explained its strategy."
    Is the cash being spent responsibly? The report says a lack of transparency means the public "still does not know what the banks are doing with taxpayer money."

    But the most damning question isn't even being voiced: Is a bank bailout the best way to boost the economy?

    Somehow, immediately releasing more bailout funds is being portrayed as a self-evident necessity, even though the New York Times reported this week that "the Treasury says there is no urgent need" for additional money. Somehow, forcing average $40,000-aires to keep giving their tax dollars to Manhattan millionaires is depicted as the only "serious" course of action. Somehow, few ask whether that money could better help the economy by being spent on healthcare or public infrastructure. Somehow, the burden of proof is on bailout opponents who make these points, not on those who want to cut another blank check.

    This bizarre dynamic is anything but the "pragmatism" Obama rhetorically fetishizes -- and America's anti-bailout majority knows it.
    Sure, Obama might believe he's deft enough to seem courageously populist while using his White House to perpetuate kleptocracy. Perhaps he thinks the gravity of a veto threat will, for a second time, trick the nation into reluctantly accepting theft.

    Or maybe before attempting more sleight of hand, Obama should take a moment away from studying Lincoln's speeches and Roosevelt's fireside chats and recall the irrefutable sagacity in one of the most (in)famous Bushisms of all.

    "There's an old saying in Tennessee," the outgoing president said early in his first term. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me (twice) -- you can't get fooled again."

  4. #4

    Default

    Continuation they can believe in.
    He's their man. He'll work for them.
    "I think it would be a good idea." Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization.

    The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.
    Karl Marx.

    "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies, 1963, replied Ms Rice Davies when the prosecuting counsel pointed out that Lord Astor denied an affair or having even met her.

  5. #5

    Default

    Not since JFK, has an American President so embodied the hopes, dreams and aspirations of a nation. And, in truth, of people around the world.

    In the popular mind, Obama symbolizes the end of the arrogance, corruption and incompetence of the Bush-Cheney regime. Millipede Minor, what passes for a British Foreign Secretary nowadays, has even officially banished the phrase "War on Terror" from the official lexicon.

    Sadly, the hopes, dreams and aspirations of ordinary people around the world are almost certainly going to be brutally crushed as the world economy shrinks, tens of millions of jobs are destroyed, and homes go up in flames.

    It will be grimly, disgustingly, voyeuristically fascinating to see what Shakespearian part They have chosen for Obama.

    If the real Tragedy can be seen through MSM's web of lies and deceit...
    "It means this War was never political at all, the politics was all theatre, all just to keep the people distracted...."
    "Proverbs for Paranoids 4: You hide, They seek."
    "They are in Love. Fuck the War."

    Gravity's Rainbow, Thomas Pynchon

    "Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta."
    The last words of the last Inka, Tupac Amaru, led to the gallows by men of god & dogs of war

  6. #6

    Default

    Jan, if "War on Terror" is out of vogue, how about pushing for "War in error" instead?

    Will Millepede buy it do you think? After all, he's not that bright is he.
    The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
    Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myra Bronstein View Post
    On January 11, 2009 Barack Obama answered the following question:


    "Will you appoint a special prosecutor ideally Patrick Fitzgerald to independently investigate the greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping."

    OBAMA: "We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand I also have a belief that we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."


    Then on January 20 he's supposed to take the following oath:

    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."



    Unless he brings the lawless Bush administration to justice he'll be lying during his oath. He (and congress) must be pressured from day one to bring the criminals to justice. He should have no "honeymoon" period.
    Many of us believe the Constitution was suspeded using COG legislation [it is secret, but was passed by Congress] on 9/11/01 - so now they ['THEY'] can do whatever they want and think it legal, but they ['THEY'] did so before when it was still illegal. The remedy prescribed during the French Revolution for this kind of hubris was beheading. I think Gitmo will do this time around - since [lastest] Obama will 'try' to close it by the end of his first term........

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jan Klimkowski View Post
    Not since JFK, has an American President so embodied the hopes, dreams and aspirations of a nation. And, in truth, of people around the world.

    In the popular mind, Obama symbolizes the end of the arrogance, corruption and incompetence of the Bush-Cheney regime. Millipede Minor, what passes for a British Foreign Secretary nowadays, has even officially banished the phrase "War on Terror" from the official lexicon.

    Sadly, the hopes, dreams and aspirations of ordinary people around the world are almost certainly going to be brutally crushed as the world economy shrinks, tens of millions of jobs are destroyed, and homes go up in flames.

    It will be grimly, disgustingly, voyeuristically fascinating to see what Shakespearian part They have chosen for Obama.

    If the real Tragedy can be seen through MSM's web of lies and deceit...
    As I watch this historic moment in history, I am also reading Obama's book "Dreams From My Father". This book reveals him to be a man who truly believes in change. At the grassroots level. So when he finally get it, sees what "THEY" have in mind for him, it will be a measure of the man to see his response. Shakespear could not have written it better.

    Yes, the hopes of the people are burning already. Does he get it, I wonder? Does he care any longer? He's reached his golden ring. Now what?
    Dawn

  9. #9
    Myra Bronstein Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawn Meredith View Post
    ...
    Yes, the hopes of the people are burning already. Does he get it, I wonder? Does he care any longer? He's reached his golden ring. Now what?
    Dawn
    Oh he knows the score. He threatened a veto if the second half of the financial welfare package wasn't distributed in spite of the fact that the money is going towards executive bonuses. And he voted for the looting in the first place. He voted for telecomm immunity. He filled his cabinet with neocons; his economic team is a bunch of discredited free market evangelists.

    To put it another way, what has he done to indicate he's not part of the machine?

  10. #10
    Myra Bronstein Guest

    Default Venezuela's Chavez says Obama has "stench" of Bush

    Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:16am EST

    CAMPO CARABOBO, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday Barack Obama had the "stench" of his predecessor as U.S. president and was at risk of being killed if he tries to change the American "empire."

    Most world leaders expect a new era of U.S. foreign relations when Obama, a Democrat, is sworn in as president on Tuesday after Republican George W. Bush's eight years in the White House.
    But Chavez said frayed ties with Washington were unlikely to improve despite the departure of Bush, who the Venezuelan leader has often called the "devil."

    "I hope I am wrong, but I believe Obama brings the same stench, to not say another word," Chavez said at a political rally on a historic Venezuelan battlefield.

    "If Obama as president of the United States does not obey the orders of the empire, they will kill him, like they killed Kennedy, like they killed Martin Luther King, or Lincoln, who freed the blacks and paid with his life."

    Obama, who will be the first black president in U.S. history, was given Secret Service protection on the campaign trail earlier than is customary for candidates and security for Tuesday's inauguration is extremely tight.
    Venezuela is a leading supplier of oil to the United States and the two countries once enjoyed close ties.

    Relations deteriorated after Chavez first won election in 1998 as he took on U.S. companies as part of his socialist agenda of nationalization of various industries and accused Washington of backing a brief coup against him.

    Last year, he expelled the U.S. ambassador from Venezuela.
    Chavez's foreign policy is based on countering U.S. global influence and promoting countries like Russia and China as world leaders. He has close ties to U.S. foes Cuba and Iran.

    Until recently, Chavez had said he hoped relations with Washington could improve. But in the last few days, he has picked up on comments he attributes to Obama accusing him of obstructing progress in Latin America and exporting terrorism.

    (Reporting by Jorge Silva; Editing by John O'Callaghan)"


    I'm a little surprised Reuters published some of that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •