Taibbi + rough day for liberty supporters all around

[Feeding the Abscess]

Matt Taibbi's mailrag, some poster on another forum posted this as an anti-Ron Paul argument:

h ttp://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mailbag-why-i-cant-vote-for-ron-paul-20110502

In it, Taibbi supports DHS and insinuates Ron Paul is a racist.

But I also disagree with him about other things. Paul thinks there is really no role for government in public life. He’s talked about abolishing half the departments in the federal government, including the Department of Education, the HHS, the Department of Energy, Homeland Security, the IRS… I mean, not that I enjoy paying taxes, but these are radical positions in my mind. He’s entitled to believe these things, but I don’t.

It struck me afterward that the Ron Paul strict-constitutionalist rhetoric is a very convenient mask for the Nixonian “Southern Strategy” racial-resentment politics. You rail against all government intervention, but the real anger is toward affirmative action, welfare, health care, and so on. Before George W. Bush imploded, that sort of thinly-veiled race-baiting politics was mostly the province of guys like Karl Rove and Lee Atwater and Roger Ailes. Once Bush and that brand of Republicanism lost popularity, though, the Southern-white-resentment movement needed to reinvent itself, and one of the ways it did that, I think, was to appropriate the more intellectual-sounding theories and rhetoric of Ron Paul. Instead of bluntly anti-immigrant, anti-minority manipulations like the famous Jesse Helms “white hands” commercial, now we’re just cheering for the Constitution and Freedom and “the Austrian school.”

Yuck

From the same forum:

In my own personal struggles, an apologist for Obama - who was championing Obama's actions in Libya, denying that my objections that his actions are unconstitutional were correct - is decrying Paul's Letters of Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 as "an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power," equating it to giving authority to the president to declare war. I'm guessing he doesn't understand that Congress would be passing the act, thereby granting letters of marque and reprisal, and the president would be the acting upon it. Kind of funny that we're frequently described as being black and white, and I'm pointing out that Congress delegating one action can be constitutional, while Congress delegating another is not.

Not sure if this belongs in general, but this was blissfully cathartic.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

This should surprise no one. Taibbi *might* have been *okay* on the Wall Street scam-o'-the-century, but these views are very much in line with what is to be expected of him.

:shrug:

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I was surprised that he defended the Department of Homeland Security, though. I'll say that much.

 

[Romantarchist]

Is there a comment section? We should post rebuttals to Taibbi, showing him the things he gets wrong.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Yes. One pro Obama comment is so laughable I almost cried:

It's pretty naive to think Ron Paul can just get into office and end the Aghanistan war.
I mean come on...Do we even have to argue about that?
Talk is cheap, that's what it is.
Ron Paul has no responsibilty or control concerning anything that's going on outside his pants.

If Obama before getting elected really thought he could just withdraw from the Middle East (and I don't think he was really sure about that) certainly some very well educated people in terms of what's going on in that region gave him a reality check.

Concerning the humanitarian goal both wars, Iraq and Afghanistan can be considered an impossible mission from the getgo.
Sure you can try to establish a democracy, support some development for human rights, womens rights in particular, but the second you're gone, even after 20 years, the formerly suppressed tribal interpretation of the Quran will return.
So at least in my opinion (as anyone I could always be wrong) the humanitarian nature of the mission could never be realistic.

The point is, if the US troops withdraw from Afghanistan now it will become the old/new training ground for Islamistic warriors.
While you may more or less safely neglect that fact or contain that problem with a small troop, the far more worrying point is that the situation in Pakistan can basically explode any day.

You have Taliban supporters and Osama-friends from the bottom of society up to the SIS and the government- and they have the nuke.
I call that a f*cking problem.
Just imagine the Soviet Union during the times of the cold war not only had the nuke, but there had been people in charge who don't mind to blow themselves and the whole world up.
I don't think too many of us would still be here.
So that's Afghanistan.
In my opinion the US troops are really in Afghanistan to have the ability to have a very basic control over what's going on in Pakistan.

And don't forget Iran, god forbid there will ever be a war there, I have a lot of close family members living there and I know that there are so many young and old people who are against the regime.

However the regime is trying to get the nuke as well, and they are to my knowledge absolutely capable of doing it and have a strong will to do it.
For 2 reasons:
It's been a top priority of many iranian leaders going back hundred years, to be on a technologically equal level as the West and not to be seen as some guys on camels.
It's a pride thing.
And 2ndly, what have the US taught the world in their foreign policy?
You have the nuke and they leave you alone, you don't and they're gonna kick your a** if they think it's in their interest.
If you have the nuke you can crap on human rights and sing Blueberry Hill on stage while Kurt Russel claps with the rhythm.
If you dont have the nuke, you're gonna be found in hole in the ground and ultimately hanged if that's in the interest of the US.
That's basically Realpolitik in a nutshell.

Concerning Iraq, I'm lost I have to admit.
I don't know why there are troops in Iraq, maybe it's because the US don't want the Iran get even more traction in the region, since they support the Shiits in Iraq, maybe the US really believe that the Iraq could become as successful democratic role model for the region if you support the movement for another decade.
I dunno, but I'm sure there are abstract and trivial reasons to stay there from the US viewpoint.

Now, let's talk about Guantanamo.
Obama did promise to close it, and it's not good at all to have people imprisoned without any right to have a trial let alone a conviction.
However, what happened if only one of the guys who's guitly of being a hardcore terrorist but can't be convicted gets set free blows up some place with 100 dead US citizens?

It would be political death for Obama and also the democrats for the next 5 elections.
I'm not saying Guanatanamo is right, but closing it is not as simple as some think it is.
Especially since there aren't just some innocent bystanders there, but also some really dangerous minds who can certainly not be controlled when set free.

If you're responsible for 300 million lives, for the stability of a nation and in fact the whole world, you may have to make decisions that you dislike.

I'm sure Obama doesn't like to have Guantanamo, I'm sure he' doesn't like to be in Afghanistan or Iraq.
But I'm also sure that the base for his decisions is well thought, and not only based on what's right in terms of the national interest of the US, but also in the interest of the rest of the people around the globe who more or less believe that democracy still is the best form of government that exists.
And that's what makes him different from many others Presidents before him.

I keep hearing people whining about him getting the Nobel prize of peace.
I mean, sure it was weird to give it to him at that point.
But have these whinos ever heard of a hardly known dude, called Henry Kissinger?
Just saying, because it's important to keep a healthy perspective on reality.

Anyway, if Ron Paul got elected, he would -as any President- have advisors of many sorts that will confront him with the need of Realpolitik.
He'll never be able to follow his very one beliefs without having to sacrifice anything.
And I have no doubt he'd never be as democratic, as smart, as balanced as Obama.

Some of Obama's decisions are discomforting for people who want a pure and perfect democracy.
But nothing can be pure ever.
I think that (unfortunately) democracy can only survive if it has people who get their hands dirty too.

If you ask me, if there's anyone you can trust to find the right compromise of what's right and what's necessary, it's Obama.
I could be totally wrong on that, I know that.
And I certainly don't want to paint him as Jesus.

But if I have to choose one word I can think of to describe Obama, it's trust.
He's not perfect, he's not always right, he's only human.
He knows that -and- acts accordingly.
That's what makes him stand out.

You can't make this shit up.