Blood in my Eyes for You: The Deep Progressive Love for the Laureate's "Industrial Killing Machine"

[Karmadillo]

http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2205-blood-in-my-eyes-for-you-the-deep-progressive-love-for-the-laureates-qindustrial-killing-machineq.html

Blood in my Eyes for You: The Deep Progressive Love for the Laureate's "Industrial Killing Machine"
Written by Chris Floyd
Tuesday, 03 January 2012 01:17

Lately there has been a minor imbroglio in the blogosphere between progressive stalwart Roy Edroso and Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald. The former took umbrage at the latter's comparison of the foreign policy positions of Barack Obama and Ron Paul. I won't bore you with the meat of the matter, but I would like to focus momentarily on Edroso's umbrage, which is so unfortunately emblematic of the progressosphere at large.

In sum, Edroso's "eyes filled with blood, he said -- from outrage and insult, presumably -- at Greenwald's description of what any supporter for Barack Obama is actually supporting. To wit:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) ...

This, it seems to me, is the most basic statement of unequivocal, undeniable fact imaginable. It is simply true that if you support the continuance of Barack Obama in power, this is what you support. I have been pointing this out from various angles here for years; Arthur Silber was pointing out exactly what supporting Obama meant even before the candidate of hope and change was elected. (See this, for example, from 2007.) There is nothing new in Greenwald's recitation of the blunt, plain, unvarnished facts.

Yet confronting this reality -- the actual reality of what supporting Barack Obama and his policies means -- caused Edroso's progressive eyes to "fill with blood." All he could muster in answer was an ironic jibe at Greenwald for acting like a pantomime villain -- "Jesus, Glenn, why not add 'Mwah hah hah' ... while you're at it?" -- for simply stating the mundane truth.

more...

[ixion]

1. Indeed.

And it is why I can no longer support Obama. I will never support a continuation of the Endless War. Ever. I'm sure I'll be flamed, mocked and scolded, but I'm secure in my position here. It is an ethically, morally consistent opinion. I was opposed to aforementioned acts when Bush was in office, and I'm opposed to them now.

[sabrina 1]

2. Not by me.

I was opposed to Bush's forever war and nothing has changed my mind. Just putting a new face on the war machine didn't do it for me. I'm for cutting the military budget so deep that they have to forget all their war games. And using that money to feed America's hungry children.

Anyone who flames you for being consistent will make the point of Floyd's article, who btw, is one of the best writers on the Internet, and pretty fearless.

[Karmadillo]

3. Kick