Since President Obama's election I have told myself and others that I will support the president and hope for success. I felt it was my duty to support the president and it felt bad to wish failure upon him.
Last night this changed. I was watching an interview with Rush Limbaugh and he said something interesting. He said that he supports the president and hopes he can fix the United States, but does not want his agenda to succeed if that agenda is a far left one.
And you know what, I agree. In the spirit of bipartisanship I blindly decided to support the president no matter what. However, I forgot my values and what I believe in. Why would I support an agenda that is the complete opposite of what I believe and think is best for America? Like Rush, I hope that Obama can fix America, but I do not want a far left agenda to succeed in America. I support Obama as a person, but not his agenda.
To that end, I do not at all support what President Obama has done today. He signed executive orders today that close the facility at Guantanamo Bay within one year and define what are lawful interrogation techniques.
First off, closing Gitmo is a HORRIBLE! Idea. Intelligence shows that those who have been released and returned to their home countries end up back on the field of battle. And what does Obama want to do with those there? Send them back home! And if home won't take them, well, let's just put them in American prisons! Wonderful idea big guy.
The second hinders our intelligence gathering abilities immensely in my view. What he has defined as lawful interrogation techniques excludes many of the techniques that have gained us valuable intelligence. I'm sorry to sound like a horrible person, but I care more about getting intelligence to protect Americans than the rights and physical comfort of a terrorist.
And to top it all off, President Obama visited the White House briefing room...but didn't want to answer questions saying, "I can't end up visiting you guys and shaking hands if I am going to grilled every time I come down here." What did he expect, a tea party? I can understand his surprise, though. I don't know what I would do if the media that treated me like the messiah suddenly was a little more harsh and wanted to ask actual questions about policy and substance.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go listen to Hannah Montana and go into my safe zone, far away from American prisons full of al Queda and meanie press people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dude, if Obama were on the Far Left, then why would CHINA ever want to censor his Inauguration Address?
ReplyDeleteI think it's curious that you're so willing to blindly support the President. None of the liberals I speak to blindly support Obama, and most of the ones I communicate with on the internet are more willing to blast his policies than they are embrace them. Blind patriotism has no place in a democracy; its home is the fascist state.
ReplyDeleteNow, to the meat of your arguments:
"Intelligence shows that those who have been released and returned to their home countries end up back on the field of battle."
Gee, how surprising that people who are abducted and held without charge for eight years and then released after being tortured for doing nothing wrong *might just be a little bit fucking pissed off at the nation that did it*.
Closing Guantanamo Bay is the best course of action. It and the CIA's black sites have devastated America's credibility internationally and have done little to protect America. It is something radicals can point to and say, "Hey, this is what America is willing to do to you and your family, even if you do nothing wrong. Support our cause, Death to America." Gitmo, Abu Ghraib -- these things undermine our security more than they do bolster it.
If you want to support torture, then support torture like a grown person and say that you actively support committing atrocities against another human being, the sorts of physical and mental atrocities for which we condemned and prosecuted Japanese military officials in the wake of World War II, for the purposes of extracting information or a confession. If you're willing to sound like a horrible person, at least have the balls to admit that you are a horrible person. Don't couch it in cowardly terms like "What he has defined as lawful interrogation techniques excludes many of the techniques that have gained us valuable intelligence." Furthermore, torture does not get "valuable intelligence." CIA interrogators have said as much: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html
Then again, the New York Times is one of those lieberal rags so it's probably all misleading anyway.