*** Apologies – NJ.Com took down the photos, which were originally published on my “NJ Voices” column at NJ.Com. I was able to save the text, but not the photos. What assholes.
I just read an important article about a disturbing pattern of how right wing conservatives use visual and verbal “frames” to manipulate media and politics. In this case, Obama is the target of the latest racist swiftboat operation.
Because I have posted images and criticism of Obama here that could be manipulated or misinterpreted as discussed in this article, I’d like to distinguish my work from the racist attack that is now underway.
See below – The images I’ve posted (under the headline”Obama Rocks Harrisburg“) are dignified positive frames of the Obama Harrisburg Pa. primary rally. They show Obama against a backdrop of the Capitol building (symbolic power); an enthusiastic audience; and inspirational supporters and speakers (black and white folks).
The criticism I’ve offered is principled – regarding the AIPAC speech, Iran, and the disappointing position to support the FISA “compromise”. But the headlines I have used (“caving”) could be distorted and do (unintentionally) reinforce a bad frame.
I strongly urge folks to read this article.
The Bad Frame: Why Are the New Yorker, Salon and Other Liberal Media Doing the Right’s Dirty Work?
This week’s New Yorker cover image of the Obamas is shocking in the racism and gross stereotyping that is built into its supposed satire.
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/91355/?page=entire&ses=57a3bafcab043fa51b657c026fe992b7
I’ve had an *Obama* sign taped to my car window since Super Bowl Sunday. Last week’s FISA bill signed by Obama has me glaring at the *Obama* sign each time I go to my car. Part of me wants to take the sign down and part of me knows Obama is the only chance of a reasonable administration being elected in November. Yesterday I think I found the solution… I think I’ll print out this month’s New Yorker magazine cover and tape it to my window.
Yeah, Dionc9, the guy who ran an anti-war primary is still promising to move the troops out of Iraq(‘subject to military advice’) but now he’s going to move them to Afghanistan! No one’s invaded and won a war in Afghanistan, does Commander in Chief BHO think he can? On what basis? The USSR lost with 120,000 troops, so why does this character think he can win with 60,000 worn out troops?
Does he think they’re toy soldiers? Bring them home ,BHO, like you promised, and stop flip-flopping like a fish out of water. Show a little spine.
blarneyboy – Did you read Obama’s Op-ed in NY Times today?
He left the door open to permanent bases adn endless presence in Iraq, while saying the surge was a success.
In the same piece, he want to shift troops to Afghanistan!!!
Who got to this guy? He’s completely lost it.
“Yeah, Dionc9, the guy who ran an anti-war primary is still promising to move the troops out of Iraq(‘subject to military advice’) but now he’s going to move them to Afghanistan!”blarneyboy
Hey blarneyboyObama has been addressing Afghanistan for literally years now. Watch
Not that I’m standing proud with Obama on his militaristic goals. Just pointing out that his position about Afghanistan is nothing new.
“blarneyboy – Did you read Obama’s Op-ed in NY Times today?
He left the door open to permanent bases adn endless presence in Iraq, while saying the surge was a success.nohesitation
Hey Bill, below is a direct quote from the NY Times piece.
“I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.” Obama
Obama’s NY Times Op-Ed My Plan for Iraq
dionc9 – I must respond on the permanent bases and ongoing presence.
Obama called for redeployment in Iran to a training and security mission – given the fact that permanent bases and a huge Baghdad “Embassy” are built and under construction (and a long term agreement is being negotiated with the Iraqi’s as we speak, about which Obama has said nothing), the US will be in Iraq for a long long time.
This is why Obama talks about redeployment of combat troops (in consultation with the Generals) and not withdrawal. He knows that if he called for full troop withdrawal, the right will do attack ads showing those US helicopters being bulldozed off the deck of an air craft carrier in 1975 as the US exited Vietnam.
One sentence from a NY Times Op-Ed can not reverse facts on the ground in Iraq that Bush has committed us to – worse, the Congress under Democratic party control, approved funding for these permanent bases with no conditions to stop construction. The deal is done.
sorry for typo in first sentence – I was referring to Iraq (obviously) not Iran.
Is there such a thing as a Freudian keyboard slip?
Bill, Iraq isn’t going to sign any long term deal with the USA on permanent bases. The Iraqi government won’t even sign on to a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement). You mentioned to blarneyboy that Obama’s Op-Ed “left the door open to permanent bases adn endless presence in Iraq, while saying the surge was a success.” which after rereading the op-ed to see how it was stated, I didn’t see it. I didn’t see it Bill. I, myself am not nearly as much in love with Obama as say, last month but I will not be silent when Obama is falsely accused of leaving open the door for permanent bases. I’m very open to honest criticism of Obama. Bill, you ended your last post with what GWBush and congress have done… and they are very different from Obama.
Check out the second page of the Emergency Supplemental Funding for Iraq (June 19 2008).
No Permanent Bases in Iraq
No Permanent Bases in Iraq: Prohibits military construction funds from being used to establish permanent bases in Iraq.
You are wrong on the permanent bases issue – Bush threatened a veto and Dems backed down on those conditions.
Even if COngress passed them, they are unenforceable because of Bush signing statement.
Obama inherits what Bush creates.
Bush is creating facts on teh ground in Iraq.
Obama and Dems have not objected to or blocked them.
Obama created room or McCain to argue the surge is a success.
Obama has now agreed with Bush on Afghanistan
The AIPAC speech said nukes were on the table as an option to block Iran from getting nukes. Dems in Congress are pushing for blockage, which is a act of war. Obama has not objected. Threatening a sovereign nation itself is a war crime.
I don’t see how it gets any worse on foreign policy and middle east.
dionc9 – Don’t ever cite and rely on a press release on amendments being considered to the bill that was being considered.
Get the version of the bill (Emergency Supplemental) Bush actually signed, with any signing statement, adn then get back to me.
“You are wrong on the permanent bases issue – Bush threatened a veto and Dems backed down on those conditions.” nohesitation
From your lips to my computer screen but where is it *official* so I can read it for myself. Also, where can a citizen read a version of a bill including *Signing Statements*? I don’t think we are able.
“The AIPAC speech said nukes were on the table as an option to block Iran from getting nukes. Dems in Congress are pushing for blockage, which is a act of war. Obama has not objected. Threatening a sovereign nation itself is a war crime.” nohesitation
I don’t like the saber rattling either Bill. But you probably know U. S. politics demands the unconditional love for Israel… no matter what the cost to real peace and stability in the world. Israel is America’s cross to bear. Obama was pandering to Israel and the millions of Americans that see Israel as the land of *God’s Chosen People*. These same people view Muslims as the scum of the Earth (painting with a broad stroke). Obama will do much better than McCain is what I cling to with all my bitterness toward warmongers.
dionc9 – here is the operative language and link to Bush signing statement on Iraq supplemental (in context, as a matter of law, Bush does not recognize Congress’s power to limit his powers as commander in chief – this is what is referred top as “without tying the hands of commanders” – Bush is our “Commander in Chief” and he says his CIC hands can not be tied by Congress)
“I appreciate that Republicans and Democrats in Congress agreed to provide these vital funds without tying the hands of our commanders, and without an artificial timetable of withdrawal from Iraq.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080630.html
I don’t want to feel like a dog chasing my own tail Bill so can you show me the *Signing Statement* in regard to permanent bases in Iraq or do we call it a day? If you’re right, I’ll tell you so immediately but I’m not seeing anything yet that shows me that. GWBush’s talk of *hands being tied as CinC* has no direct tie to permanent bases being funded. You’re reading to much into his statement. Again, I direct you to the *Emergency Supplemental Funding for Iraq (June 19 2008).* If there is a *Signing Statement*, the citizenry will not see it. If there is a *Signing Statement* it can be changed January 20 ’09 by President Obama. But again, we have no proof there is a *Signing Statement*. Or do we???
In small protest of Obama’s saber rattlin’, I’ve removed an *Obama* sign from my car today.
The link is to the signing statement. The excerpt is from the signing statement.
HR 2642 was the bill passed.
I am NOT reading too much into his signing statement – I am merely restating the Bush Administration’s longtime advocated and implemented views of CIC executive power.
Bush does not recognize legal constraints of Congress – PERIOD.
Congress can not tell him to stop building military bases via the appropriation power – this is Bush’s longstanding position. Bases are a military field decision he says he as exclusive power to decide.
Bill, A statement read by GWBush in the Oval Office after signing a bill into, does not a *Signing Statement* make.
Below is excerpt from a signing statement (so is what I provided)
While it is not legally exactly on point, there are many other broader signing statement exertions of commander in chief powers with respect to Iraq war appropriations I can provide for you. WHile do you keep resisting this point?Is is consensus.
“Subsection 1304(a) of the Act amends section 550 of Public Law 109-102 to purport to require the President to consult with committees of the Congress prior to exercising authority granted to the President by section 550. Subsection 1304(b) purports to require the Secretary of State to consult such committees prior to exercising authority under that provision. Because the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and take care that the laws be faithfully executed cannot be made by law subject to a requirement to consult with congressional committees or to involve them in executive decision-making, the executive branch shall construe the references in the provisions to consulting to require only notification.
The provision under the heading, “Joint Explosive Device Defeat Fund,” Department of Defense-Military, that calls for the reporting to congressional committees of information that may include highly sensitive and classified national security information, will be construed consistently with the President’s constitutional responsibility to control the dissemination of such information.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060615-14.html
dionc9 – do you think I am an idiot?
I will not do your homework for you. There are examples out there of Bush signing statements with respect to Congressional legislative and appropriations powers and Bush CIC powers.
Bush does not recognize them.
John Yoo has written on the topic as well – he analogized to Congress prohibiting funding for bullets. Congress has no battle field powers, according to Bush
here is another example – this is Bush legal opinion re defense appropriations:
Section 8007 of the Act prohibits use of funds to initiate a special access program until 30 calendar days of congressional session have elapsed after the executive branch has notified the congressional defense committees of initiation of the program.
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the President’s authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security flows from the Constitution and does not depend upon a legislative grant of authority.
Although 30-day advance notice can be provided in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must promptly establish special access controls on classified national security information under his constitutional grants of the executive power and authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.
The executive branch shall construe section 8007 in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020110-8.html
This one is legally on point and policy precedent:
Pres Bush Signing Statement 01-28-08 for HR 4986 and
Texts of Affected Sections: 841, 846, 1079 and 1222
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080128-10.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 28, 2008
President Bush Signs H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 into Law
Today, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The Act authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, for military construction, and for national security-related energy programs.
Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the President’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as Commander in Chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 28, 2008.
# # #
TEXTS OF SECTIONS OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
“WAIVED” BY PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENT:
http://www.beaboutpeace.com/archives/2008/01/pres_bush_signi.html
dionc9 – Just In case you missed this text – Note permanent base issue:
SEC. 1222. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES RELATING TO IRAQ.
No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.
I guess I was looking for an actual edict from GWBush about *Permanent Bases* rather than something so all-encompassing. Three equal branches of government is gone.
“dionc9 – do you think I am an idiot?” nohesitation
Was that was rhetorical Bill? I’m attempting a civil discussion here.
dionc9 – does this close the deal for you? Note that Bush explicitly, via signing statement. asserting constitutional executive CIC power to not comply with or be bound by a Congressional restriction on PERMANENT BASES!! THis is common knowledge, that’s why I got a little ticked in having to prove it to you.
SEC. 1222. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES
RELATING TO IRAQ.
No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in
this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of
providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in
Iraq.
Yes Bill, it’s a done deal for me. Yet now I’m not only bothered by the *Signing Statements* themselves, I’m also very bothered by how vague they are. Which adds more power to the Executive Branch to do as it pleases without any oversight by the other branches of government.
I’m going to listen to a Democracy Now! piece from ’06 to hopefully learn a little more.
Democracy Now July 06
You seem to lay the anti Obama view to racism. This may be partially true, but I think it’s minimal. I would vote for Colin Powell in a heartbeat.. Sen.Obama wants to socialize medicine and education, which gave me my first clue, but when he opined that the answer to the gas problem was to federalize the oil industry (ala Hugo Chavez in Venezuela) it helped me make my final determination that he is indeed a Socialist. I am a registered Independent who left the Democrat party when it was taken over by the radical left and then left the Republican party whan it was taken over by the radical right. I hope and honestly believe that John McCain will be the centrist he has proven to be in the past, often infuriating his fellow Republicans, but doubt Obama will do anything to antagonize the radical leftist faction of his party. I am truly fearful of the “change” Obama espouses
Right Dion, three equal branches of government are gone, as is “government of the people”. But I think you and I have different views on this. It doesn’t matter how the people vote on an issue, what any president decides or what bills are enacted by congress. The deciding vote of one Supreme Court justice can overturn the will of a majority of more than two hundred million people, sorta like a dictatorship.
“I hope and honestly believe that John McCain will be the centrist”RichBSr
Let me know how that plays out for ya.
“The deciding vote of one Supreme Court justice can overturn the will of a majority of more than two hundred million people, sorta like a dictatorship.”RichBRs
How cool, I’ve got competition for dumbest poster on NJVoices.
Pingback: WolfeNotes.com » News You Won’t Get From The Hometown Cheerleaders
Pingback: WolfeNotes.com » Obama Deal Outdoes Christie in Slashing Clean Energy Funding