Top Menu

Why I Support Jill Stein for President of the United States

(Note: This is my personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the views of LoonWatch overall.)

LoonWatch stands for peace, tolerance, and mutual understanding.  It is no surprise then that I would support Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party for President of the United States.   She embodies the virtues and principles that guide our website; more importantly, she represents the best of our nation’s tradition.

For those of you who don’t know her, Jill Stein is a Harvard-educated physician and activist from Lexington, Massachusetts.  She has been involved in politics for over a decade.  Dr. Stein just won the presidential nomination for the Green Party, perhaps the most well-known third party in the country.  Although a long-shot, she would be the first Jew and woman to be President.  More importantly, she is one of the only peace-loving candidates running for office.  She strongly opposes America’s wars and military occupations in the Muslim world, which are both the cause and result of Islamophobia.  She wants to put an end to the militarism which has defined our nation for at least the last decade.

The Republican Party has been taken over by hate- and war-mongers.  But, the Democratic option has failed us miserably over the course of the last four years.  President Barack Obama has expanded the misguided “War on Terror”, which is not just the cause and result of Islamophobia, but is itself responsible for causing more terrorism than anything else.  Obama has in fact done nothing but establish bipartisan consensus towards the Bush/Cheney world view.

In the past, I’ve spoken favorably of Ron Paul’s foreign policy views.  To be sure, Dr. Paul should be credited for bringing national attention to this matter, if but fleetingly.  But, the libertarian candidate’s opposition to the wars is based more on Constitutional procedure than moral fortitude, more on financial necessity than humanitarian concern.  While opposing U.S. military intervention in Iraq and Iran, for instance, Paul seems to have no problem with an Israeli attack on both of these countries.  Jill Stein, on the other hand, opposes such warmongering on moral grounds, no matter who engages in it.

Not surprisingly, Stein’s domestic views are much more in line with my progressive politics than Paul’s.  We should be investing more in social welfare, healthcare, education, and the environment, not less.  In fact, by de-funding America’s wars and military, the U.S. can easily afford to focus on these sectors.  (Additionally, Jill Stein has not sullied herself like Ron Paul has with racist newsletters.)

From a moral standpoint, there is no question that Jill Stein is the superior candidate.  There is an argument to be had about practicality and the utility of voting for a third party in a system that makes it virtually impossible for anyone other than a Democrat or Republican (the difference between Coke and Pepsi) to win.  Surely, progressives living in non-swing states should vote with their hearts and choose Jill Stein.

But, what about swing states? Is there an argument to be had that the Republican side is just so extreme that Barack Obama must be selected as the lesser of two evils?  My personal opinion is that the last four years have proven this argument, logical though it is, false.  At least when a Republican was in power, the “progressives” in the Democratic party opposed many of the more extreme measures in the War on Terror.  With the ascension of one of their own to power, even this feeble protest has died.

Furthermore, when it comes to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, is there really any substantive difference when it comes to their warrior credentials?  Democrats and Republicans merely disagree on which Muslim countries to bomb (Afghanistan vs. Iraq), but they all agree on bombing some Muslim countries.  When it comes to the general contours of the War on Terror narrative, there is bipartisan consensus–which is exactly why I look to a third party now.

Nonetheless, I am open to discussion of the question (should those in swing states vote for Obama as a means of choosing the lesser of two evils?) from a purely tactical standpoint, and I could be swayed in the other direction.  For now, however, Jill Stein has both my heart and my ballot.

Danios was the Brass Crescent Award Honorary Mention for Best Writer in 2010 and the Brass Crescent Award Winner for Best Writer in 2011.

, , , , , , , ,

  • Saladin

    @AJ sorry I haven’t responded to your post I will very soon but I have exams to do at the moment.

  • Pingback: Read My Lips – No More Wars « Musings of a Muslim Pakistani American Mom in Riyadh()

  • AJ

    Saladin,

    You are plain wrong with the “any future president” bit.The President has full powers to indefinitely detain ANYONE since AUMF 2001 passed. All the bill of NDAA 2012 has done is to reaffirm those powers. Obama has created a loophole via his directive of February, 2012 JUST for his tenure where he would effectively direct all traffic to FBI and civil courts – once he is gone, AUMF 2001 stands in full force unless it is repealed.

    Here is btw a link to refute the 3 myths Greenwald article that you quoted from Salon. It will give you a comparison between the language of AUMF and NDAA 2012. Of course this is before Obama’s directive.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/20/1047407/-Greenwald-s-3-NDAA-myths-is-moony-and-wrong

    Here is another after the directive of Feb. 2012.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/03/1070450/–Obama-just-Vetoed-Indefinite-Military-Detention-in-NDAA

    So did Greenwald ever write a feature about the policy directive? Wouldn’t it have been a responsible thing to do as a follow up on his 3 myths article? I am asking since you quoted him..

  • Saladin

    I do not how else to say it he has reserved the right to imprison people indefinitely for the Executive branch there is no way around that. The reason he was threatening a veto was not because he opposed but because he wanted the the power for him self and any future president will now have the power of indefinite detention thanks to Obama.

  • AJ

    As a test let’s try both headlines:

    Something from Salon would look like this:

    Obama seeks wider powers regarding indefinite military detention of terrorism suspects with the National Defense Authorization Act 2012 or else he will veto it.

    Whereas a more accurate news item would be:

    Obama seeks wider provisions with the National Defense Authorization Act 2012 to remove US citizens, non-citizens and permanent residents from indefinite military detention or else he will veto it.

    Of course # 1 sounds scarier and juicier.

  • AJ

    @Saladin

    Here is the timeline.

    Senator Carl Levin and Senator John McCain propose the indefinite detention in NDAA 2012.

    http://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005047

    Obama threatens to veto the bill if the indefinite provision is not removed.

    Dianne Fienstein presents the Due Process Guarantee 2011 asking to remove citizens and permanent residents from indefinite detention.

    A compromise is reached and wording added to the bill that protects citizens and permanent residents sort of.

    Another compromise reached is that Obama is allowed to define the covered persons under the non- citizens category within 60 days of the bill.

    Obama signs the bill.

    Within 60 days he issues the policy directive that would make it nearly impossible to place non-citizens in indefinite military detention.

    Here is the bill signed into law.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ81/pdf/PLAW-112publ81.pdf

    If Obama did not have the provision to define the covered persons in section 1022, the defacto outcome of the bill is “indefinite detention”. So do you think that the President, having built in a series of waivers, through his directive that could get the non- citizen out of indefinite military detention worse than having ” indefinite military detention”?

    Forget all the wordiness. The question you need to ask yourself is whether Obama through his actions, made the NDAA 2012 better or worse?

    If you ask me, of course he made it better. He removed the indefinite detention provision for citizens and permanent residents and for non-citizens through a class of waivers, he made it nearly impossible for them to end in military detention. Does the policy directive make it 100% sure that non-citizens will not end in military detention – perhaps not but the directive definitely strives for that and I would much rather have that than mandatory indefinite military detention.

    A common misconception propagated through many sites such as Salon is that Obama was threatening to veto since he wanted to get the chance to determine who to place in military detention. – and the story ends there. What they do not add is that if he was NOT striving to make the decision on who to place in military detention, then the defacto outcome of the un amended bill was to place everyone in indefinite military detention – everyone caught under the AUMF 2001. Obama’s purpose in having that chance to define what section 1022 covered was to get people away from military detention and NOT for placing people in military detention. There is a small difference in wordings about Obama’s threat of veto but it makes a world of difference on how it is perceived. Quite a few people present the situation to be the latter which is equivalent to spreading misinformation.

  • Saladin

    @AJ You completely ignored what I wrote he never nullified it he just removed the mandating of military detention MEANING THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE PLACED IN MILITARY DETENTION UNLESS THE PRESIDENT ASKS TO HAVE THEM PLACED IN INDEFINITE DETENTION. So the final decision is with the president the indefinite detention provisions still stands Obama was threatening to veto if HE did not get that authority .

  • AJ

    And just so you know, for next year, again the Congress is trying to keep Gitmo and the detention facility at Bagram, Aghanistan (both military detention facilities), open and to stop the inmates to transfer anyone else as can be seen by the NDAA 2013 (Bill no. H.R. 1430) that has gone to the Senate.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310rfs/pdf/BILLS-112hr4310rfs.pdf

    Obama has again threatened to veto H.R. 1430, unless Congress modifies sections 1035 – 1043 of it that affects detainees.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr4310r_20120515.pdf

    Bagram, of course, wouldn’t matter that much now anyway since after the recent deal (thanks to Obama, not Bush), it will be transferred to Afghans in the next few months but if Gitmo, stays open due to this bill, I hope the prophets of doom are able to assign the blame where it is due and not count it as a broken promise for Obama. 

  • AJ

    @Saladin,

    Here is basically the short of it. The Authorization of Military Force 2001, signed into law in 2001, basically already authorizes indefinite military force or detention. Now the National Defence Authorization Act is something that the Congress does every year for defense budgets and stuff. What basically happened last year was that the Congress affirmed AUMF 2001 in the NDAA and sneaked into the NDAA provisions regarding “covered persons” as stated by the AUMF 2001. Obama was not happy with it and threatened to veto it. Congress didn’t budge and since the NDAA 2012 carried additional benefits for military personnel, Obama signed it instead of vetoing it. But then when he was required to define the section 1022 regarding “covered persons” within 60 days of the NDAA 2012, he placed all sorts of waivers in his policy directive, shown below:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/02/28/presidential-policy-directive-requirements-national-defense-authorizatio

    You have to wonder why Obama would sign something and turn around in 60 days to nullify it unless what he was presented by the Congress (and was signing) was not something he wanted in the first place. But the key thing to remember is that AUMF 2001 and NDAA 2012 are still part of law since the Congress obviously has no plans for repealing it. The moment, Obama is gone, his policy directive, a temporary measure for avoiding military detentions for non-citizen terrorism suspects, goes away. Guantanomo Bay (and perhaps torture too) whose population has started going down since Obama has come into power becomes again the standard rather than civil courts.

  • Saladin

    @AJ First of he eliminated the requirement to place them in Military detention meaning they don’t have to be in Military detention unless the president want’s to have them placed in indefinite detention. So the final decision is with the president the indefinite detention provisions still stand.

    http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-directive-ndaa-detention-539/

  • AJ

    Saladin,

    I don’t think you have paid attention the fact that Obama through his executive directive of Feb, 2012 has already changed the section 1022 so now there will NO military detentions of terrorism suspects. Maybe instead of relying on the fear mongering done by Salon and others, you go straight to the horse’s mouth – THOMAS, Library of Congress and look for yourself what the elected congressmen of the USA are upto. Here is the link:

    http://thomas.loc.gov/home/multicongress/.html

    For example, on the subject of Guantanomo Bay, it’s very easy to find out who is trying to keep the detention facility open. On THOMAS, you can do a search on multiple congresses ( the link above is multi congress search), it’s the 112th Congress now. I did search for “Guantanomo Bay” exact words only and selected 112th and 111th Congress. You can search previous congresses to perhaps find what Obama did when he was a Senator. Anyway, It will bring other bays such as Chesapeake also, ignore that. For some reason, a search on single word guantanomo doesnt work – a bug perhaps. Here is a partial list of the bills that have been presented – there are many. Either our elected Congress members are trying to keep the detention facility open or they are trying to stop the people at GB to be moved else where. As I said Obama swims with sharks. These elected Congressmen that create roadblocks after roadblocks for Obama have to take the blame as well. Obama still defeated them by manipulating the 1022 section in the NDAA to not place non-citizens in military detentions but these sharks and alligators in the Congress don’t like that and will try to overcome that as well. 

    7 . [112th] Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility Detention Act of 2011 (Introduced in Senate – IS)[S.1046.IS ][PDF]
    18 . [112th] Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act of 2011 (Introduced in Senate – IS)[S.944.IS ][PDF]
    19 . [112th] Detaining Terrorists to Secure America Act of 2011 (Introduced in Senate – IS)[S.982.IS ][PDF]
    23 . [112th] To direct the Secretary of Defense to prohibit family members of individuals detained at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from visiting such individuals. (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.1877.IH ][PDF]
    24 . [112th] Detainee Trials at Gitmo Act (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.388.IH ][PDF]
    28 . [112th] To prohibit the use of funds to transfer individuals detained by the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and certain other enemy belligerents to the United States. (Introduced in Senate – IS)[S.209.IS ][PDF]
    35 . [112th] To prohibit the use of funds to transfer individuals detained by the United States at Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and certain other enemy belligerents to the United States. (Introduced in House – IH)[H.R.513.IH ][PDF]

    But see here is the problem with Muslims. We never contact these Congressmen or form any lobbies to pressurize them. We get our opinions from third party editorials that put their own slant on things. How about seriously seeing what is Congress upto and how to stop their activities? Maybe look at the names of the people who sponsored, cosponsored or supported these bills – don’t vote for them. You can’t just blame everything that Congress does on Obama. Judge him by his own thoughts and not through the bills presented through Congress. His own record shows clearly that at very point in time, he has been anti-war.

    Nasbx I don’t like kool aid, I don’t drink it nor do any of my family members.

  • JD

    Pat Robertson On 700 Club Warns Christian Against Marrying Muslim

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/pat-robertson-on-interfaith-marriage_n_1677175.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

    Pat Roberston

    Rev. Pat Robertson weighed into the fraught world of interfaith marriage with some advice for a Christian fellow who plans to marry his Muslim girlfriend.

    “I’ve been with my girlfriend for three years and we’re planning on getting married,” writes Brad in the friendly Q&A section of Robertson’s 700 club. “Here’s the thing. I’m a Christian, she’s a Muslim. People have told me to break it off with her. But she seems open to the faith, and I’m worried that leaving her will turn her off to Christianity and it isn’t exactly Christ-like. What do you think.”

    Robertson lost no time in telling Brad to get rid of his Muslim fiance with a warning about being yoked with ‘unbelievers’ and referencing the Old Testament when Jews were forbidden to intermarry with the ‘heathen.’

    No way! No way! She’s going to want to do her Muslim thing and your going to want to do your Christian thing. There will be constant struggle and strife. Walk Away!

    This may be good advice as many studies show that interfaith marriages are more likely to fail than people of the same views on religion. Just look at TomKat.

    Robertson’s solution in the end is for the young man to pray that the Muslim girlfriend become a Christian. And if that doesn’t work, Robertson tells the young man, “Then say goodbye!”

  • nasbx

    @AJ, keep on drinking the Kool-Aid and ignoring the posts. The question is why does the US need an embassy the size of the Vatican in Iraq? That seems to be an awful lot of embassy for ambassadorial activity. Why not have this Vatican sized embassy in an allies country, like Israel for example? The rest of the links go directly to Obama’s war policies, but since you are a fellow kool-aid drinker, you totally ignore those. Tell you what pall, you go vote for this clown in November, just keep in mind that you had a hand in his election next time a drone wipes out an entire family for being the in wrong place at the wrong time. But don’t worry, its the Republicans fault…lol.

  • Saladin

    @AJ assigning statements mean nothing and he has supported the Patriot from when he was a Senator. He has authorized the execution of American Citizens without trial there is now way you can sugar coat that. He has given him self the power to authorize Indefinite detention of whom ever he likes and said that his administration will not use but any other administration has the freedom to do it now. And like I said let us not forget redefining the term militant to include any adult male in a strike zone. He has declared a war on whistle blowers. He Has destroyed transparency.

    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/16/three_myths_about_the_detention_bill/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/guantanamo-forever.html

    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/15/obama_to_sign_indefinite_detention_bill_into_law/singleton/

  • AJ

    @nasbx,

    We are trying to see if Obama wants (or ever wanted when he had not become a President but was a Senator from Illinois) wars in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan. Your response is that the American embassy in Iraq is the largest. Hmm.. Okay!

  • Lawrence of America

    @danios
    With all due respect, i have to say that voting for the green party is not but only a wasted vote, but in actuality a votte for Romney and the party of hatred.
    whileknow reasonable person can deny that the democratic party is a corpratists party, the republicans are the party of vast ignorance and bombing brown people. As much as we should live in the Ideal world were the green party stands a chance, we do not..protest votes are ludicrous.
    while Obama may be killing citizens like awlaki, ramping up drone attacks and carrying on some of the vile tactics celebrated by the right..he has also made some very excellent decisions such as supporting the libyan revolution. I know that die-hard leftisits and even some of my arab and muslim brothers who are not Libyan, may think of that as a negative..believe me the NATO intervention in Libya saved my country from 42 years of a very brutal tyrant, this is undeniable. compared to the bush admins. stupid and illegal invasion of Iraq, Obama’s limited involvement and “no boots on the ground” policy was very effective, and saved countless lives.

  • JD

    Ohhhh Bigots of small memory were do we start

    john spielman Says:
    July 14th, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    Dear Danios; Please explain again how the attacks of Sept 11 2001 which caused the US invasion of Afganistan was caused by “Islamophobia”? The US was clearly and deliberatly targeted by people using Islamic theological principles (cf Osama Bin laden’s diatribes against the USA) as a basis to killand destroy.

    ====================
    “God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the Towers, but after the situation became unbearable—and we witnessed the injustice and tyranny of the American-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon—I thought about it. And the events that affected me directly were that of 1982 and the events that followed—when America allowed the Israelis to invade Lebanon, helped by the U.S. Sixth Fleet. As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way: to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.”

    — Osama bin Laden, 2004
    ===========================================

    The Afgan govt at the time ie Taliban refused to hand him over to the US, hence the military intervention.
    ================
    Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan for one reason: the Taliban government refused to comply with his demand to unconditionally deliver bin Laden to the United States. He always made it clear that if the Taliban delivered bin Laden to the United States, such action would spare Afghanistan from a U.S. invasion. The “offer” that he made to the Taliban was not significantly different from that made to Pakistani military dictator Pervez Musharraf, a close friend of the Taliban, after 9/11: play ball with us and you stay in power; refuse to do so, and you’re history.

    So why did the Taliban refuse to turn over bin Laden? For one thing, there wasn’t any extradition agreement between Afghanistan and the United States. And there is a long tradition in Muslim countries to treat foreign visitors as guests. Nevertheless, the Taliban did express a willingness to deliver bin Laden over to the United States or to a third country if U.S. officials provided convincing evidence that bin Laden had, in fact, been complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Was the demand unreasonable? Well, it would be nothing more than any government, including the United States, would expect in any extradition proceeding.

    Bush’s response was that U.S. officials would not furnish any such evidence to the Taliban government. The Taliban simply needed to follow U.S. orders and turn bin Laden over to the United States, with no guarantees of what would happen to him once he was in U.S. custody. That is, there were no assurances that bin Laden would be brought back to the United States for trial for terrorism in federal district court instead of being turned over to the CIA for torture and execution.

    The Taliban refused to accede to Bush’s unconditional demand. The result was the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the ouster of the Taliban from power, the installation of a U.S.-approved regime, a nation ruled by regional warlords, the deaths of countless Afghanis, the failure to capture bin Laden, and an ever-growing terrorist movement generated by ever-deepening anger and hatred against the United States.

    Lets Put this another way…..

    The Government of Iraq is demanding the US unconditionally deliver George Bush with in 32 hours for terrorist crime that caused the death of over 1455590 Iraqi Civilians or face invasion by the Afgan Military… no trials no lawyers no legal anything with the Agfan US goverment pack his stuff stick it in a bag put him on a plane and get him there.There is no guarantees of what would happen to him once he in Iraq custody

    john spielman I will wait for your reply if

    a. That is ok legally and morally and under Inter-nation law
    b. when you got him on that plane..

    and also remember he eventually died how … Not on trial but end of a SEAL team gun in a spec op operation. Why could we not do that to start with
    =========================

  • Pingback: Why I Support Jill Stein for President of the United States | Islamophobia Today eNewspaper()

  • The Investigator

    TO john spielman,

    Please examine the 9/11 photos of the Pentagon, does it LOOK like a plane crashed into it? No. The video released by the FBI clearly shows a US drone hitting it, they also confiscated the gas station CAMERAS because it doesn’t show a plane (but a drone), suggesting an INSIDE JOB. Many of the “hijackers” are alive, ALL Evidence points to CONTROLLED demolition of the WTC towers. You are ONE OF THOSE 9/11 Inside Job Deniers who is IN LOVE with America by watching pro-American Hollywood movies like “Independence Day” and “Battleship” and “Hurt Locker” that portrays America as a “hero” when it has KILLED millions upon millions of people. You justify the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan based on INSIDE JOB and justify the bombing of Hiroshima despite the FACT that Japan was ready to surrender. You just wanted to TRY OUT your chemical weapons on a defenseless civilian population, now you consprie to bomb the Muslmi holy cities of Mecca and Medina and think IF the Kaaaba is destroyed, Islam would be “disproved”. But GOD failed Judaism by allowing the Temple to be destroyed TWICE. You want to bomb a Sacred House (Kaaba) simply to anger Muslims. You could CARE LESS about the lives of Non-Westerners and Muslims while screaming “USA!” and “Go home” when its YOU must GO HOME back to Europe where you CAME FROM and give the Lands back to the Natives

  • nasbx

    @AJ
    1) World’s largest embassy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Baghdad
    2)PolitiFact.com lists Guantanamo Bay as a “Promise Broken” by Obama.
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/
    3)Regarding the war on terror and drone strikes. “Some of the names are adolescents; some are Americans. The Times report implies that sometimes whole families are wiped out when a single suspect is targeted by a drone strike.”
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100161507/barack-obamas-war-on-terror-is-nastier-and-less-ethical-than-george-w-bushs/
    4)Obama not commenting on the “wisdom” of the so called Ground Zero mosque.
    http://abcnews.go.com/WN/president-obama-supports-building-mosque-ground/story?id=11401964

    You want to keep patting the man on his back and saying “good job”, then be my guest. Bottom line is that the last 4 years have not been any better than the prior 8 for Muslims, either in the US or overseas. At least Bush had the audacity to come speak in a US masjid during his presidency, in meantime, we got behavior like this from the current president’s campaign 4 years ago (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3uhVYPe6Rw), what a sign of things to come.

  • AJ

    @Saladin

    Patriot Act is part of law since October 26, 2001 signed in then by Bush. Obama has extended temporarily (Republicans wanted permanent extension) until 2015 three provisions of it (that are a small subset of the humongous law) that were expiring. People seem to think Obama has the powers to do everything alone which is nothing but assumed naivety. The Senate voted 72-23 and the House voted 250-153 in favor of continuing the expiring provisions. Unless Obama keeps on vetoing every bill, that the Senate and House passes – he can only add his own twists on it like he did for NDAA.

    @nasbx, facts and citations please.

  • nasbx

    @Danios, thank you for reminding us we have a choice in November. It isn’t as clear cut as voting for the white Obama or the black Obama. At this point Dr Stien has my vote, and I look forward to reading up on her.

    @Saladin, you pretty much took the words out of my mouth. Obama is a smooth talker (a gift GWB didnt have), but his policies have wrought nothing but death and destruction to innocent people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and who have wronged no one.

    @AJ, you tout Obama’s ‘successes’ like he’s some kind of rock star, and it pains me when I see fellow Muslims who believe this. Let’s step away from the Kool-Aid for a minute and understand that the president is a charlatan. Let’s also understand for better or for worse that US foreign policy is and has been a straight line since at least Reagan (maybe all the way back to Nixon), especially when it comes to the Middle East(and/or Muslims).
    1) The war in Iraq is officially over, but like Saladin said, what about all those US mercenaries running amuck over there. Fact is, Obama oversaw the world’s largest embassy open in that country.
    2)He “plans” to end the war in 2014? Why not end it now if he’s such a good guy?
    3)Last I checked Obama is the commander in chief of the military, if he wanted to shut down Guantanamo he should/could have. Watch this program, and tell me if this kid has had any due process http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/witness/2012/01/20121121051543501.html .
    4)He’s continuing the “War on Terror” policies with more death and destruction despite the deaths of the phantom cleric and OBL.
    5)Its not for Obama to back or speak out against building of a mosque anywhere in the US, since this is always a local or regional issue. At the end of the day, the 1st Amendment to the Constitution is what counts. Last I heard, Obama backed off his “strong support” and said while he supports freedom of religion, he didn’t think it was good “wisdom”, to use his word.

    The two party system has failed the citizens of the United States, and sooner or later more and more people will realize this. Obama is a tool of a bigger system and kept in place by the corporate cronies, just like Mitt Romney. I believed his rhetoric in 2008, but you know, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice…at the end of the day, whether Obama wins or Romney wins, its going to be the same for us either way.

  • Mike Armstrong

    The argument that we should not vote our hearts because it might help Republicans only slows our march. We must vote for what we know is right. Only by doing this will we be able to build momentum towards a truly viable and influential national party.

  • AJ

    @Saladin,

    The NDAA:

    Obama passed the NDAA with reservations as can be noted in this speech of Dec. 31, 2011:

    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=98513&st=&st1=#axzz1iE5qy7a3

    But then he issued a policy directive on February 29, 2012 defining Section 1022 of it (which he was required to do within 60 days of passing the NDAA) and basically voided military detentions of non-citizens from the NDAA. American citizens and permanent residents are already excluded because of the Due Process Guarantee Act 2011. So basically what Obama has achieved is the reversal of Cheney era policy of military detentions of non-citizen terrorism cases.

    Voiding military detention in section 1022 of NDAA will effectively give Obama the power to transfer cases out of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba into civil courts. Yay! The guy knows how to swim with sharks. He issued the NDAA to pacify the warmongers but then redefined everything later. But I am sure the media never reported the voiding of military detentions. It suits to spread fear about Obama.

    http://verdict.justia.com/2012/02/29/chipping-away-at-the-ndaa

  • Saladin

    He has also reauthorized the Patriot Act

Powered by Loon Watchers