Tariq Ali Book Equates Obama and Bush

[MineralMan]

Arguments to the contrary, Tariq Ali's new book, "The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad," clearly equates President Barack Obama with George W. Bush in a number of areas, including the cover art for the book, which you can see below. The cover shows an image of President Obama, with his face peeling off to reveal George W. Bush under the skin:



Was this just a publisher's decision or does Tariq Ali agree? Well, in an interview with Amy Goodman, it appears that Tariq Ali agrees with my assessment. Here is one of the points in the interview that makes it clear that Ali believes that Obama and Bush are equivalent. Emphasis in the quotation is mine. You can read a transcript of this interview at: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/21/tariq_ali_on_the_obama_syndrome

-----------------
AMY GOODMAN: The cover of your book, The Obama Syndrome: Surrender at Home, War Abroad, is a picture of the face, the head of President Obama, and half of it is peeled away to reveal President Bush.

TARIQ ALI: Well, this, you know, I think, is a sort of very brilliant West Coast montage artist, and they are the best. Whenever there’s a crisis, they come up with an image which says it all. And I like that image a lot, and I used it very deliberately to show the continuation, that it’s not a case that we have a new administration. {snip} He turned out to be an apparatchik and a political operator from one of the worst Democrat areas in the country, Chicago, and that’s what he behaves like.
------------------

Now, I'll have to read the entire book to see if this attitude is carried throughout the book, but the cover illustration seems to make it clear how Tariq Ali feels, and his statement in the interview backs that up.

I'm alarmed by this. Not for President Obama, who still maintains a very high approval rating with most liberals and progressives, but for the congressional races in 2010. If people like Tariq Ali convince some progressives who are usually very active in Democratic campaign activities, to sit out this year's election and not work to help get Democrats elected to Congress, predictions of a Republican takeover of Congress may be the result.

I don't see any chance that President Obama will fail to win a second term, but he'll be even more crippled by a Congress that has a Republican majority. Even with the current Democratic majority, getting any progressive legislation through Congress has been a trying ordeal. With "friends" like Tariq Ali, President Obama and progressive goals don't need enemies, it seems to me.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

2. K&R...

Good post. Glad you expanded it into it's own thread.

Sid

Edit: better wording.

[flamingdem]

3. Thanks for your thoughts on this MM nt

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Yeah, they were unclear in the other thread about this same issue.

:eyes:

[MineralMan]

13. My friend, it's not at all uncommon for more than one thread

to appear about a single issue. I believe you've probably done that yourself. The content of my OP is unique, and has no relationship to any other OP on this subject. Are you suggesting that I should not be allowed to post an OP containing my views? I'm sure you're not.

[EFerrari]

96. How was the content of your thread unique?

Besides blowing up the cover image?

[MineralMan]

115. Well, the OP in the other thread from yesterday didn't include the

question and answer about the meaning of the cover art, so I included that, along with my own comments. In fact, there was nothing in common between the two original posts. I checked after someone made a remark.

And, I didn't actually blow up the cover image. It's actually just about actual size.

[flyarm]

119. the discussion of the cover of the Book was in the NPR video ..did you listen to it?

or even attempt to listen to it? or just remove it from being posted here so no one could hear it???????

Directly from the Amy Goodman interview of Mr Ali!

Seems someone wanted to make sure no one heard that interview eh?????????


Please read or listen to the full interview at:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/21/tariq_ali_on_the_...

[MineralMan]

124. I included that link to democracynow.org in my OP.

Go check. I try to remember to link to all source material, and I did in this OP, too. You may have missed it.

[flyarm]

129. I didn't miss a thing until my posts were removed, that gave the links as well.

but you didn't answer my question..did you watch the interview, because you stated that the cover was not discussed..when it most certainly was in the interview, that was posted yesterday.

The Op yesterday followed DU rules only posting what was allowed per the rules and copy-write rules here at DU, but everyone who read the OP yesterday had the opportunity to watch the interview as it was linked on that thread..did you listen to the interview..it clearly included a discussion of the Book Cover!

[MineralMan]

131. I don't know anything about posts being removed.

So I don't know what you're talking about.

[flyarm]

136. But you did post this:

"Well, the OP in the other thread from yesterday didn't include the
question and answer about the meaning of the cover art, so I included that, along with my own comments. In fact, there was nothing in common between the two original posts. I checked after someone made a remark. "

The thread yesterday included the interview link..did you listen to the interview Yesterday?


Because the Book Cover was Clearly addressed in the interview..it was extremely clear to me and anyone else who actually listened to the interview! The OP from yesterday was following DU and copy-write rules! Which linked to interview for all to see and hear or read.

[MineralMan]

138. Not the point. Not the point at all.

That's why my post is very different from that other one. I focused on another aspect of the interview. One post covered part of it. Mine covered another part of it. Different OPs. Different subjects. I read the transcript. That's how I found the part I quoted here in this OP. How else do you suppose I got it?

You're right. The book cover was addressed in the interview. That's why I made my post. I found that alarming. You seem to be failing to understand that different people can post different things about the same event. I quoted the part that I found interesting. That's why my OP is different from the one in yesterday's thread. It's really quite simple.

[flyarm]

141. Not my point eitther ..this point was clearly addressed in the interview posted yesterday! eom

[USArmyParatrooper]

42. No, the last thread was supportive of that tool bag equating Obama to Bush

And ridiculous shit like that is no different that the wingnuts comparing Obama to Hitler. Yes he has a right to write a book. But so does the KKK so that's not saying much.

[Stinky The Clown]

50. Refutation to that meme could have been accomplished there

In fact, maybe more effectively.

Lots of people tend to ignore threads by certain people. Me included.

[MineralMan]

59. Or, it could be done, as I did here, in a new thread

with a different approach to the book. DU offers many ways for members to say what they want to say and to present their opinions. While some may ignore my threads, you apparently do not, so thanks for visiting it and adding your comments. I'm always happy when people post opinions in my threads, whether they agree or disagree.

[Stinky The Clown]

64. Yes, I read your threads. I'm very Ceasarean that way.

[MineralMan]

66. Well, again...my thanks to you for visiting my threads and

sharing your opinions and concerns. That's what DU is about: discussion. I look forward to our next conversation.

[USArmyParatrooper]

72. So what are you getting at?

If someone makes a tread about a subject members can't make a new thread with an opposing point of view? That's absurd.

[EFerrari]

89. So this respected historian, novelist and director is like the KKK?

Embarrassing.

[EFerrari]

95. Everyone knows we should judge a book by its cover.

:shrug:

[NJmaverick]

5. An aging liberal who's time has come and gone, hoping to cash in on a quick buck

off the Quixote liberals who will readily believe anything negative written about President Obama

[Beetwasher]

8. Jumping The Bandwagon?

Seems like it.

[MineralMan]

9. Well, Ali has every right to write a book containing his opinion.

I suppose he'll have a modest success with it, since books about Obama are pretty popular right now. I disagree with his premise, though, and wonder about his motivation for writing the book. It's his opinion, of course, and he's welcome to express it. Mine differs, though. I will read the book, if only to see what other anti-Obama stuff he's included. I'm sure we'll be seeing quotations from this book in many different discussions and on lots of different sites. Controversy sells.

[wookie72]

11. Liberal? Don't make me laugh

Ali is a hard core lefty, the real kind.
And whenever Democrat faithful rail against criticism from the left, I wonder, well, why not throw them a few bones? Why is veering right considered the only viable option?

[NJmaverick]

14. You can try and laugh, but it will not change the correctness of my statement

[wookie72]

19. Not so much.

He's actually a Marxist, and he's no Johnny-Come-Lately to criticizing the American presidents. And there *is* a lot of continuity from Bush to Obama.

[NJmaverick]

21. How is that Marxism working out these days?

have we gotten the worker's paradise they promised?

[wookie72]

27. Marx's criticism of capitalism was actually spot on

In any case, I trust Ali's opinion more than yours.

[NJmaverick]

29. Results matter more than words. Marx was a fool who had no clue about human nature

or what sort of socio-economic systems would actually work in the real world. As for who's opinion's you trust, I could care less. I don't let other people do my thinking for me, so I form my own opinions (rather than trust others to form my opinions for me).

[wookie72]

31. If so, don't go with the ad hominem attacks.

Provide examples that prove him wrong.

[NJmaverick]

33. Actually you did that for me as you pointed out the author has extremely poor judgment

the proof being his strong adherence to a proven failure of a socio-economic system (Marxism).

As for your misuse of the term "ad hominem attack" I would respectfully suggest more careful use of that term in future posts.

[wookie72]

41. SO I guess

" An aging liberal who's time has come and gone, hoping to cash in on a quick buck" was a compliment.

Again, prove him wrong.

[Beetwasher]

43. "Prove" Him Wrong? How Do You Prove Someone's Idiotic Opinion Wrong?

Blue is the best color. Prove me wrong.

[NJmaverick]

45. Now what's wrong with you? being all sensible and logical

is that any way to act?

[wookie72]

46. Is Guantanamo closed? ARe the predator drone strikes stopped?

[NJmaverick]

47. Have "the predator drone attacks strikes stopped"?

Has Al Qaeda stopped plotting/trying to kill us?

[wookie72]

53. Sorry multiple reply

[wookie72]

54. Sorry multiple reply

[wookie72]

55. Sorry multiple reply

[NJmaverick]

61. Defending one's self from terrorists is a good thing

believe it or not Al Qaeda has killed thousands of innocent Americans.

[wookie72]

63. SO you approved of it when Bush did it?

and how does that alter the fact that O is repeating bush policy?

[NJmaverick]

77. I approve of the use of drones to defend our nation from Al Qaeda

who is president doesn't change the morality of the action. Self dense is a morally justifiable use of force. My hatred for George Bush and what he did doesn't change the moral justification for self defense.

Knee jerk reaction that 100% of Bush's actions are wrong are just plain silly. Bush declared areas struck by natural events disaster areas. Should I be screaming and jumping up and down and declaring Bush=Obama because President Obama also has declared areas disaster areas?

[wookie72]

85. No, you should be upset when Obama doesn't do what he promised

And tacitly approves of undeclared wars that result in the death of innocent civillians.

As someone with personal ties to Pakistan, Ali is very much within his rights to criticize the drone attacks.

[NJmaverick]

126. President Obama promised to concentrate on Al Qaeda and take the fight to them

how did he break that promise?

[USArmyParatrooper]

78. I did.

I disagree with Obama about some things but I agree with him about getting out of Iraq and going after al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Just because someone doesn't disagree with literally everything Bush said and did does not make them "like Bush" Every single Democratic congressman voted for some legislation Bush signed. I guess they're all "like Bush"

[wookie72]

87. In any case, I fail to see why Ali's argument is unfair or inaccurate.

[USArmyParatrooper]

94. I haven't read the book. Have you?

Do you support his claim that Obama is like Bush?

[EFerrari]

98. So, let's run this down. You haven't read the book.

There is no indication that you have seen the lecture or read the transcript.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqvpGT1aymk

The entire lecture is linked at the print version:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2010/04/19/tariq-ali/obamas-war/print

So, what is your opinion, again?

[USArmyParatrooper]

103. And yet, you haven't read it either.

Next you're going to rebut by saying I'm assuming - knowing full well that I'm right.

Do you believe Liberalism is a mental disorder? OMG how can you possibly have an opnion if you haven't read Michael Savage's book???

Since you appear to be defending a guy who says Obama is like Bush and even put an Obama/Bush hybrid photo on the cover....

Do YOU beleive Obama is like Bush?

[EFerrari]

105. What? I have read it and I'm watching it now.

You should really do one or the other. It would make your sniping so much more credible. :)

ETA: By "it" I mean the lecture. The book isn't even available yet according to Amazon. lol

[USArmyParatrooper]

107. You accidentally forgot to address the rest of my post

Do you believe Liberalism is a mental disorder? OMG how can you possibly have an opnion if you haven't read Michael Savage's book???

Since you appear to be defending a guy who says Obama is like Bush and even put an Obama/Bush hybrid photo on the cover....

Do YOU beleive Obama is like Bush?

[EFerrari]

112. Well, no, I didn't. I'm still trying to figure out

how you formed your opinion of Tariq Ali and how you got the idea that he is comparable to the KKK since you don't appear to ever have read him or, actually, even know anything about him at all.

[USArmyParatrooper]

117. "Obama = Bush" Is ignorant and inflammetory garbage

The same as the rhetoric from the KKK.

BTW, was I not supposed to notice you still haven't answered if you agree with him that Obama is like Bush?

[EFerrari]

123. It is ignorant inflammatory crap and brought to you not by Tariq Ali

but by Obama loyalists on this site because Ali is comparing policy, not people.

And I'm so sorry, what you notice or don't notice is thankfully not my resposibility.

[USArmyParatrooper]

128. Yeah, not people. Just when you peel back Obama's skin you get Bush underneath

So are you saying as far as governance Obama is no different from Bush?

[Puregonzo1188]

150. No, what's ignorant and "inflammetory" garbage is comparing

a noted and acclaimed, Pakistani-British radical historian and tireless campaigner for social justice and a better world to the Ku Klux Klan because he criticized an elected-official you happened to have voted for.

[USArmyParatrooper]

154. Please. Spare me your indignant, phony outrage.

The analogy made the point that free speech applies to any ridiculous crap, and that saying Obama is like Bush is exactly that. Ignorant crap. Nowhere did I compare Ali to the KKK.

Unless of course you agree with him. Is Obama just like Bush?

[Puregonzo1188]

162. Well then I apologize. However, judging by some of the other

replies I'm not the only person who thought you were comparing Ali with the KKK.


As far as agreeing with Ali, honestly, does anyone dispute the fact that Obama has continued some of the worst War on Terror polices? Certainly, the ACLU or the Center for Constitutional Rights don't. Both of which are filing a lawsuit right now to stop Barack Obama from imposing the death sentence on a US citizen without trial ("targeted assassination). He's defended warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act, etc. He hasn't closed Gitmo, and has been expanding Bagraam/upholding the Bush Cheney arguments about detainees there. We're still have 50,000+ troops in Iraq and we're going to keep our permanent bases there as a sort of permanent colonization of that country. The drone strikes are killing civilians, and inciting much of the world to hate us, which makes us less safe, not more.

Although, I suppose this is all just ignorant crap, isn't it?

[USArmyParatrooper]

183. Ignorant crap? Yes.

I would need to research some of those accusations. Others, I can refute of the top of my head.

"death sentence on a US citizen without trial"

This one isn't a factual refutation, but more an issue of perspective. If a US citizen joins an enemy, uniformed army are they not legitimate targets? Can they attack US troops with impunity because our only recourse is to issue a warrant for his arrest? The fact that al-Qaeda chooses not to adhere to the Geneva Convention doesn't grant them, or any of their members special treatment.

"He hasn't closed Gitmo"

He tried to and got his legs cut out from under him by Congress.


"We're still have 50,000+ troops in Iraq"

As promised he's doing a gradual withdraw from Iraq. He's right on schedule and in his address he promised to have the rest out by the end of 2011. Why not leave en mass? Because frankly it would be incredibly stupid to leave Iraqi forces high and dry like that. As it is they're already getting their ass handed to them with just a reduction. They need to do a proper RIP/TOA

"and we're going to keep our permanent bases there as a sort of permanent colonization of that country."

That is an absolute, 100% lie. The "bases" (which shouldn't be confused with an *actual* base like Fort Bragg) are actually called FOBs (forward operating bases) have already been converted to JSS's (Join Security Stations) - which is a precursor to turning them over completely to the Iraqis.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/132/no-permanent-bases-in-iraq/

No permanent bases in Iraq

Defense Authorization Act puts it in writing

[wookie72]

56. Sorry multiple reply

[wookie72]

57. So going after a few hundred people, killing several innocent people

is a good thing? I suppose if Bush was doing it, you'd approve as well?

[dionysus]

180. that has nothing to do with marxism sucking ass.

:shrug: carboard cutout comrades make me laugh.

[wookie72]

189. Cardboard cutout comrades?"

Cute phrase, but Ali has been a strong supporter of real reformers like Tony Benn in the UK for decades.

He was pals with another revolutionary, you might have heard of him. John Lennon.

[Spheric]

156. Simple. Provide specific examples of how Obama's policies differ from Bush's.

This ain't rocket science.

[Beetwasher]

159. You Mean, You Don't Know Of Any?

And that's bullshit anyway. Because his opinion would still be "Those aren't any different". You can't prove someone's opinion wrong. Prove blue isn't the best color.

[Spheric]

163. You assert that there are stark differences between the policies...

of our current president and the previous one. It doesn't seem to be too much to ask for you to demonstrate that with some specifics.

But hey, if you want to segue into some side conversation about which color you like best, I guess that's okay. To each his own.

But, you have the chance to win this particular argument hands down. Take it or leave it.

[Beetwasher]

164. The Author Has An Idiotic Opinion "Asserting" That Obama=Bush, It's His Opinion

There's no proving an opinion wrong. If you're inclined to believe it, and cherry pick your misinformation to support your opinion, no one can "prove" to you otherwise.

I can't "prove" that men landed on the moon to idiots that believe it was all faked either, and I won't bother trying. It's an idiotic opinion.

I can't "prove" that the holocaust happened to holocaust deniers. That too is an idiotic opinion.

And I can't "prove" that Obama is not like Bush to the idiots who hold that particular opinion.

[Spheric]

166. Still no facts. See, facts can actually prove opinions wrong.

If I give you my opinion that water is not wet, and then you pour a bucket of it over my head, I will be wet. You have proven me wrong.

Like I said, this isn't rocket science.

[Beetwasher]

167. No, Facts Don't Matter When You've Already Made Up Your Mind That Obama=Bush

There are no facts to "prove" anything to idiots that believe that any more than I can "prove" a negative to anyone about anything. I can't "prove" there AREN'T ghosts either, can I? If some shmo wants to believe in ghosts, nothing I say can persuade them otherwise. If some dolt believes Obama=Bush, there's no "Proving" anything otherwise to THEM.

[Spheric]

170. I don't believe that has anything to do with this.

I am not asking you to prove a negative. Every disagreement doesn't require one side or the other to prove a negative.

There are those who positively assert that Obama's policies are very similar to Bush's policies. There are others who positively assert that Obama's policies drastically differ from Bush's policies. Both are making an assertion. Neither side needs to prove a negative. All they need to do is back up there assertion with facts.

And actually, neither side really even needs to do that if it's just opinion. Opinions are just opinions and as such are worthless. But, if one wishes to convince others that their opinions have any merit whatsoever, it usually helps to back them up with some facts.

What I have personally noticed is that one side of this particular argument frequently does so (ad nauseum, really). The other side, not so much.

But, there is still the opportunity to change that. Are you game?

[Beetwasher]

184. Of Course You Don't! Because It's A BELIEF/Opinion. That's Why Facts Will NEVER Matter To You! Duh.

It's a faith that Obama=Bush and there are NO facts that will convince one otherwise. Just like there are NO facts that will convince the idiot birthers that Obama is US Citizen and NOT a muslim.

People just need to admit they have a faith based belief, just like the birthers, and get it over with and stop pretending it has anything to do with facts or that if they "just had the darn facts" they might give up their faith. It's bullshit and you know it.

And of course it's proving a negative. The argument/assertion is: "Obama=Bush" prove he's not!" You know damn well that's the argument.

[Spheric]

192. Claiming that facts wouldn't matter is a cheap way of avoiding having to provide any.

And, of course, once again, it's so much easier to attack the messenger rather than the message, n'est pas?

As far as "Obama=Bush" goes, I believe it's already been proven they are not the same person. They don't look anything alike and they've been in the same room together. I agree they are not the same person.

The argument/assertion is that Obama's policies significantly differ from Bush's policies. Should be a simple matter to show that. Here, I'll give you a hint on where you might want to start. Compare Obama's policies towards veterans vs Bush's policies.

But, that's just a jumping off point. It should be very easy to show how different their policies are from each other by comparing them. No need to prove any negative.

[Beetwasher]

196. Facts Don't Matter When It Comes To Faith Based Belief Or Opinion, I'm On To The Pathetic Game

And it is a ridiculous, pathetic game. You don't want facts, you want an opportunity to spew your opinion ABOUT the facts.

For example:

Fact: Obama appointed Elizabeth Warren to set up the Consumer Protection Agency. Bush would never have done so.

Idiotic, faith based distortion and opinion about that fact: It's a toothless position and has no relevance, so, he's still like Bush.

No facts will convince the idiots who believe and have faith that Obama=Bush any more than facts convince a Holocaust denier, or moon landing denier.

[Spheric]

197. Yes, I get it, You can't argue against the message, so you try to paint the messengers as wingnuts.

Why not just call anyone who points out the obvious and backs it up with facts a "fucking retard." Oh yeh, that's been done. But of course, that's not derogatory or divisive enough is it?

I understand that the liberals in this country must be neutralized because they are the only ones trying to stand up against the Republican agenda. Thanks for you contribution to that cause.

[Beetwasher]

198. Not my fault the mindset and game is the same faith based nonsense demanding "proof" of a negative

I bet you can't "prove" Obama's not an alien either, can you? So how can anyone "prove" he's not like Bush. Its a pathetic, tiresome game.

[dionysus]

181. if you can't tell the difference, i question your ability to read.

[HughMoran]

6. K&R

Smearing Obama unfairly and comparing him to Bush is the last thing we need right now.

[wookie72]

67. How is it unfair to hold him to his promise

to close Guantanamo?

[HughMoran]

68. Smearing Obama unfairly and comparing him to Bush is the last thing we need right now.

:thumbsdown:

[wookie72]

70. I agree, but this is not an unfair smear

He hasn't kept his promise, and conitnued many of Bush's worst policies.

[HughMoran]

73. Yes, we know the Titanic had too small of a rudder to turn on a dime.

It's election time, let's not snap the rudder off just because we can.

[wookie72]

86. "It's election time."

This is the standard argument given to critics of Democrats on the left.

"Shh... it's election time. We need to support our candidates."

Then, after the election, it's "why are you being so unfair? Give them some time."

This dance has been going on my whole voting life, about 20 years. And yet it's never a matter of "let's make some concessions to the left." It's "fall in line, *ssh*les, what, you want the Repugs in power?"

And that's not a response to whether it's an unfair attack or not, because, well, it's not.

[HughMoran]

90. No, it really is election time.

And we really have finished all the primaries.

This is it.

Let's be honest here.

[wookie72]

93. It's never NOT "election time" that's my point.

There's never not an excuse for ignoring the left.

[HughMoran]

100. That's just not true

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

[Spheric]

158. Was it election time six months ago?

Or a year ago? I have noticed no difference in how specific criticisms of Obama's policies have been treated. Seems to me it IS always election time.

:shrug:

[HughMoran]

160. No it wasn't.

And you've not seen me or anybody I'm familiar with state that it was "election time", so chill on the attacks until this past week when election season officially began (after the last primaries were over and there's only 6 weeks 'till voting.)

Is there ever a time when viscous attacks against Democrats and Obama should be stopped in your opinion?

[Spheric]

171. Analyzing policy is "viscous attacks?"

I always assumed that election time was the most important time to analyze policy.

Do you think I'm wrong about that?

[HughMoran]

172. Would you be OK savaging Democrats right up until election day?

Nobody has any issue analyzing policy here - it's the ridiculous attacks that mimic the language of our Republican opponents that I and hundreds of others here object to. I'll discuss policy all day long - so long as hate-filled screeds aren't what is considered "policy discussion".

[Spheric]

175. Well, all I'm interested in is a discussion of policy.

I have seen it asserted repeatedly here, elsewhere on the net, and in the media that Obama's policies are very similar to Bush's policies. That appears to be the opinion of the author of the book in the OP, and the substantive issue of this thread.

It seems to me that it should be an easy assertion to debunk with facts. And, it also seems to me that it would greatly benefit the president in particular and the democrats in general to do so. Policy, and perception of policy, most matters during election time.

I am just wondering why no one appears willing to do it. Specifically, with facts. Why is the message left untouched and only the messengers are attacked?

Seems like the wrong approach to me.

[HughMoran]

178. It's been debunked a thousand times here

Asking people to debunk the same effing crap day after day is tremendously tiresome.

[wookie72]

188. Making a factual comparison is a vicious attack?

[HughMoran]

191. Making over the top exaggerated claims is just dumb

I don't have a lot of respect for people who don't understand politics and who can't control their tempers. Flaming outbursts are not helpful.

[Puregonzo1188]

152. Who is we? Does it include any of the innocent civilians killed

in drone strikes? How about the innocent people still being held at Gitmo? Does it include the Palestinians under siege in Gaza right now or whose land is being stolen for settlements in the West Bank? Are they part of this "we"?


Or does we only include Americans? And if so does include the American soldiers killed in Iraq even though "combat is over?" Or does it include the 40,000 troops sent to Afghanistan, even though we know there is no possibility of a military victory there? Does it include the ones who have died? Or how about their families? Does it include Furkan Dogan? What about Emily Henochowic?


Please, tell me who this we, and what exactly it is that they do need.

[HughMoran]

155. "WE" are Democrats.

...the alternative is Republicans - the party that started the conflicts and would start one in Iran if they were in power now.

[quinnox]

7. Time for a book burning

Maybe you all can set up a bonfire like the guy in Florida was going to.

Jesus, its a free country and yes, even Saint Obama can have negative books written about him. If most of the liberals and progressives are solidly behind and happy with Obama as you say, then there is nothing to worry about in some random political book that most people probably never heard of.

[MineralMan]

12. It is a free country. I'll actually buy this book, and I don't burn

books. As you say, everyone may express his or her opinion. I just expressed mine about this book.

[G_j]

10. the only question is:

does the author have a legitimate POV based on factual information.
Does does the book contain lies? Does he cherry-pick facts in order to distort the truth? That's all that is important.

[MineralMan]

15. I don't' know yet. I haven't had a chance to buy and read the book.

Facts are facts. Opinions, however, sometimes don't reflect those facts. After I read the book, I'll be better able to discuss the facts that are presented, and whether I think they are cherry-picked.

Also, I did not say that the author did not have a legitimate point of view. I said that I disagreed with it, as it appears to be expressed in this interview and the cover art for the book. I do not believe that Obama and Bush are equivalent. Do you?

[G_j]

20. no, I didn't hear you say

that the author did not have a legitimate point of view.
I don't have a problem with your post.

[MineralMan]

22. Thanks. I'd never comment on the contents of a book I hadn't

read. I'll do that, perhaps, once I've read it, if there's still any interest left in the book on DU.

[G_j]

187. I listened to the DN interview

harsh indeed, though what he said is true, especially about foreign policy, perhaps it's his obvious outrage that bothers people.

[NJmaverick]

16. To answer you question- No he does not have a legitimate POV

based on factual information. Rather he is simply pandering to the Quixote liberals who believe anything negative about President Obama.

[G_j]

17. and I should take your word on that?

got a link or something??

[NJmaverick]

23. If you have some facts to back up your contrary opinion I am all ears (or in the case of message

boards all eyes).

[G_j]

44. I didn't realize I had expressed an opinion -nt

[NJmaverick]

49. Actually you did You expressed the opinion that you doubted my opinion

and then went on to demand I provide facts (beyond that fact that the author uses Republican talking points (like Chicago Style Democratic gangster politics) to support my opinion, while oddly not providing any to support your own opinion.

[G_j]

62. I asked why I should accept your statement

I think that is called a "question".

[NJmaverick]

76. why did you ask that question?

[MineralMan]

18. I'm going to wait until I have a chance to read this book

before I comment on more than its cover and the author's statement in an interview. Certainly, the cover and the statement appear to be pandering to the negative publicity campaign that equates Obama and Bush, but I don't know what is between the covers. I will.

[NJmaverick]

25. I am going to go by the nonsense he spouted in his interview

His "Obama is just another gangster Democratic politician from Chicago" was a message he copied right from the GOP issued talking points.

[MineralMan]

32. Well, right now, that's all we have. That's why I posted this.

It appears that Tariq Ali had his mind made up before he began writing. That's a dangerous thing for a political writer. It can lead to selective fact-finding, rather than finding facts then forming an opinion. Based on his other writings, I suspect that's the case here too. He starts with an anti-Obama attitude and finds whatever he can to support it. But, I will read the book and see if that's a correct assessment in this particular case.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. "Quixotic liberals"? Is that the "professional left"? Or, just "Reds" that you're baiting?

[NJmaverick]

26. You need to be familiar with the Novel: The Ingenious Hidalgo Don Quixote of La Mancha

to appreciate the reference

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. You should be familiar with Joe McCarthy and his list.

[NJmaverick]

30. That would certainly be a good example to support my reference

The Quixote liberal would certainly imagine themselves off on a noble crusade with their faithful squire Sancho Panza trying to destroy the monsters and wizards who are creating evil lists. Lists designed to destroy all that is good and chivalrous

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. It's the "sensible liberals" who see the Left as monsters and the right as their allies.

See Rahm and Gibbs statements about the Left and Obama's and the Dems "compromises" with the right for reference.

[NJmaverick]

37. Yes there are always evil villains in the world of Quixote liberals

Sometimes the monster's only crime is the imagined slight to the hero's honor. A slight that demands harsh retribution. Of course one familiar with the story can't help but notice how much havoc is caused by Quixote as he rights all those imagined wrongs and slights on his knightly honor.

[MineralMan]

39. Yah know, you're still misquoting Rahm and Gibbs. I'm one

of the sensible liberals, and my philosophy is far, far to the left of US politics. I also realize that what I'd like to see will never happen in this country, so I'm practical in my expectations. I know for certain, though, that the Republicans will not advance the country in a progressive direction, while Democrats will make some progress. That is what informs my politics, even though my political philosophy is impractically to the left.

I'm about tangible results, even if they are small steps. We've had those already with this administration. I guarantee that if Republicans retake the Congress, the small steps will end abruptly. We will go into gridlock mode for the next six years. You want a recession to remember? Put the country into gridlock and you'll get it and damn quickly.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. I don't think it's very sensible or practical to abandon the left in favor of "bipartisanship".

And, then blame it when the "sensible", "practical", politicians fail to get it's votes because they moved to the right.

I don't think Obama is just like Bush. (Except in Afghanistan). I do think he is just like Clinton. A politician with his focus on reelection who panders to the right to hopefully secure the center/right votes by distancing themselves from the left.

The votes of the left are available. The trick for the politicians is to convince us that their worthy of them. If not, they lose those votes. That's "reality".

[USArmyParatrooper]

75. How far to the left can an EX-congressman move the country?

You can't demand things that don't stand a chance to get the votes in Congress. If you're only for all or nothing you're going to left with the latter every single time. Rigid demands based on ideology will neither grant you single payer health care, nor will it force insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, allow depenents to remain covered untill 26, provide subsidies for low income people, or accomplish anything else for that matter.

[MineralMan]

82. Nobody has "abandoned the left." The bottom line in this

country is that it's about equally divided, politically, with a huge majority of its citizens falling in the middle somewhere in the political spectrum. We elect our legislators and executives, both nationally and locally. What that means is the the left end of the political spectrum rarely gets a candidate elected who represents their values exactly. It's unreasonable to expect that legislators elected primarily by voters who fall near the center politically would take leftist positions. Quite logically, they take centrist positions. Thus, we don't get legislation that we approve of 100%. It simply does not happen. Nor will it, unless the left manages to shift the population in its direction.

So, we don't get single payer healthcare, which is what I want. We don't get an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't get a lot of things that many of us would like to see happen. What we get, and what we have always gotten via our system is gradual movement in one direction or another. Inertia keeps more drastic movement from happening. It takes a lot of time and a lot of force to swing the US in any direction. The left does not have that force, so we don't get leftist measures. We get gradual progressive movement when we have a Democrat in the Presidency and both houses controlled by Democrats. We get some sort of health care reform. We get some sort of economic measures. We get something. When the situation is reversed, we get something else.

A leftist United States is a pipe dream. It will not happen. Ever. The country's too big, too divided, and too laden with inertia. The best we on the left will get is a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic President. When that occurs, we get some progressive movement. It's never enough. It will never be enough. But, it's what we can get. That's not defeatism. That's pragmatism. It is what it is.

[G_j]

48. good call

ever get tired of the meme that the left is the enemy?
Ronald ("L" word) Reagan sure cast a long shadow!

[NJmaverick]

51. Do you ever get tired fo the meme that sensibility is the enemy?

the idea that being sensible, practical and grounded in reality are bad things? Don't deny this meme as it's been expressed in poorly done (but highly supported by some at DU) cartoons and even worshiped (as expressed by their cartoon avatars or signatures paying homage to the cartton)

[G_j]

69. IMHO, the

Tom Tomorrow cartoon is right on the money.(my OPINION) If you missed the subtlety, he attempted to demonstrate through humor, why "sensible" was a misnomer.(his opinion)

[NJmaverick]

79. So you support the sadly misguided meme that being sensible, practical a

and grounded in reality is a bad thing. That's is the beginning of the path toward being a Quixote liberal tilting at windmills.

[Radical Activist]

108. Judging by his interviews

he engages in frequent cherry-picking, exaggeration and distortion.

[flyarm]

127. please do be more specific..where does he " cherry pick"or engage in "exaggeration and distortion"

please be specific. making mere claims of this does not make it so.

[Radical Activist]

186. Here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9182465&mesg_id=9183208

[young but wise]

34. Whoever thinks this is a true idiot. Short memories in this country.

[POAS]

91. I cannot make heads nor tails out of this!

Are you referring to the author of the OP or subject of his post, Tariq Ali?

What exactly is the difference between a "true idiot" and a false idiot.

Anyway welcome to DU, may your stay be enjoyable.

[young but wise]

101. Whoever thinks Obama=Bush is true idiot.

[POAS]

125. Thanks for clearing it up! n/t

[Kahuna]

36. No one can say that the "Professional Left" is out to make a buck

at America's expense. :sarcasm:

[MineralMan]

40. Well, they're "Professionals," innit?

That implies that money is being made, if I'm not mistaken.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

38. O has repeated far too many --

of the worst Bush policies, especially in the areas of privacy, security, and enemy combatants. :( As a lawyer specializing in the Constitution I expected better of him.

[NJmaverick]

58. Of course the alternative explanation is that he has a better understanding of the Constitution

and you are mistaken in your belief that he has violated the constitution.

[Usrename]

133. Presumption of innocence is fundamental to the American way.

There is no argument that can be made about "better understanding of the Constitution" that will change this fact.

Why do you choose to look the other way? Why do you make these kinds of excuses?

I have no idea how you come up with this stuff, and any possible explanations that I can fathom are pretty far-fetched.

How did you come up with this?

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

52. For those who aren't familiar with Tariq Ali...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ali

He's a British Citizen, born in Pakistan and has been writing for many years from a Leftist or even Marxist position. Although not a US Citizen, he frequently writes about the United States from his unique perspective, but he also writes extensively about Pakistan, his native country. He's on the editorial board of The New Left Review, a British publication.

www.tariqali.org/

He also has a web site, where he actively promotes his many books and speaking engagements and posts blog entries. He recently was in Washington, DC to promote the book that is the subject of this OP.

[Scurrilous]

60. Thanks MineralMan.

K & R :thumbsup:

[MineralMan]

65. Well, I'm sure many don't even know who this writer is, so

it seemed fair to give them a source.

[EFerrari]

97. Except they had sources available in Better Believe It's thread

so you really didn't give them anything new at all. :)

[MineralMan]

99. Oh, not everyone clicks through to read the original

material. Some of it that I consider important wasn't included in that post from yesterday evening, so I created my own thread about the book, and supplied that material. In addition, the other link didn't show the book's cover, which I though was pertinent.

Also, not everyone reads threads from the day before. So, people who never saw that thread got another chance to hear about Tariq Ali's book in this thread. People post about subjects that were covered the previous day all the time here on DU. And I posted from a different perspective altogether. You disagree with my perspective on it, and that's just fine. But, I can't see any reason to object to my posting it. This is, after all, DU, where all members can post OPs, as long as they have no rules violations in them.

Thanks again for visiting this thread and for your comments. Your comments help keep the thread alive and near the top of the General Discussion list, so it can be read by more people. I appreciate that help. I hope to see you again soon in another of my threads. :hug:

[EFerrari]

102. No. What you did was blow up a book cover image

and you encouraged the denizens of DU to evaluate the book by its cover, literally. Thanks for your illustration of the MineralMan School of Literary Criticism.

And I'm very happy to have your OP seen by as many DUers as possible. :hi:

[MineralMan]

104. Actually, I reduced an image that was too large, and hosted it

myself. If you read my OP, you'll see that I said that I couldn't judge the contents of the book, but was only commenting on the cover and the answer to one of the questions in the interview. It seemed pretty clear to me when I wrote it, and others seemed to have understood that pretty well. I ordered the book, so I'll get it soon and read it. Then I'll know what he said in the contents. If there's any continued interest, I'll do a review of it once I've read it.

Also, the links I gave in this subthread were to a wikipedia article on Tariq Ali and to his own website. Those were not in that other thread at all. I wanted to help people learn who this writer is. Not everyone has read his works, I'm sure.

I'm glad you enjoy helping my posts be seen by as many people as possible. That's showin' the real DU spirit! :pals:

[EFerrari]

110. So, you went to the trouble of editing the image, hosting it

and posting it here to DU. That's very industrious of you and shows your commitment to quality of posts to DU that you'd go to all that trouble to slam an author you obviously don't know and a book you haven't read.

You should get some kind of commendation for going to all that trouble just for the benefit of DU.

lol

[MineralMan]

113. Thanks, I don't like hotlinking images from other sites. Bandwidth

is expensive. Plus I wanted a life-sized image of the book cover, so I did that, and hosted it on my own server.

It's nice of you to offer that compliment, but I should say that I have read Tariq Ali's writings, although not all of his books, like I'm sure you have. Besides, I wasn't commenting on the content, but rather his interview and the cover art, as I said in the OP. I found them somewhat alarming. I'll be reading the book shortly.

I don't need a commendation, though. I enjoy political commentary and discussion, so it's a real pleasure to share this, and well worth the trouble. :toast:

[EFerrari]

116. Bandwidth is "expense". And I look forward to more of

MineralMan's Judge a Book by its Cover reviews from you. :)

[HughMoran]

121. In this case, a picture speaks a thousand words.

;)

[MineralMan]

122. Oops. Thanks for the correction. I edited the post. I guess I was

distracted while typing. My cat jumped up into my lap.

[MineralMan]

130. I included a link to the transcript of the interview in my OP, as well.

Perhaps you missed it. It's the underlined text in blue or red, depending on whether the link is already in your browser's history.

[SunsetDreams]

74. WOW, K&R! Thank you for this Mineral Man.

I had heard about this on here. Thank you for putting this book in context.
That is so important!

[MineralMan]

80. Thanks for reading the thread!

[AtomicKitten]

81. Lending further credence to the admonition "consider the source."

K&R

[HughMoran]

83. The 18 unrecs to date seem to be promoting the Bush = Obama meme

...or continuing the "DU Wars".

Either way, it's a fascinating study in human behavior.

[JNelson6563]

84. Thank you for pulling back the curtain

This is blatant Obama = Bush stuff. What utter nonsense. I feel sorry for the naive fools who buy that bridge.

Julie

[EFerrari]

92. What curtain, exactly? What new information did you get in this OP?

Besides the cover image being blown up 25X, that is?

[spanone]

88. bullshit, but hey it's opinions

[Radical Activist]

106. "from one of the worst Democrat areas in the country, Chicago"

AKA Chicago, the most liberal and environmentally friendly major city between the east and west coast. What an ignorant asshole.

[MineralMan]

109. Well, in Tariq Ali's defense, he's British, you know.

Over there, they think Chicago is the home of those Gangsters like Al Capone. Most Brits aren't all that familiar with the American Midwest, it seems. So, he may have an odd idea about Chicago, or maybe he even remembers the 1968 Democratic Convention from the BBC coverage. It didn't seem to friendly a city that year, either.

So, give Ali a break for not being that familiar with Midwestern politics. He's probably never even heard of Minneapolis or Saint Paul. Many people haven't.

[Radical Activist]

114. And he probably has no idea that

the Democratic (not Democrat, I thought that was a right wing talk radio thing) has many factions in Chicago, and that Obama was not part of the Daley machine. Fucking moron.

[EFerrari]

118. Ali probably knows Chicago better than both of you together

and, man, how embarrassing is this thread any more. I hope the mods lock it just so it won't come up on google searches.

Holy cr@p.

lol

[Radical Activist]

120. How would he?

I've actually lived there and know something about city politics. What does Ali know from England?

[EFerrari]

173. How would he? Because he is an edcuated man

who knows you don't have to go to Saudi Arabia to study algebra or to Spain to study Spanish.

Good grief.

[Radical Activist]

185. lol Just like the people who think Rahm is the frontrunner for Chicago mayor

just because he's the only city politician they've ever heard of.

[EFerrari]

190. No, Rad, not like that.

I don't think he does mean girl jpgs, either. He's a grown up.

[NJmaverick]

132. How on earth can you make that claim?!?!

Some foreign writer knows our cities better than Americans. Surely you must be joking

[VMI Dem]

135. +1.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VMI Dem]

134. Obama is carrying out the Bush Doctrine in Afghanistan.

That is one similarity.

[MineralMan]

137. He's also the President of The United States.

That's similar to what Bush was...sort of. Yes, there are similarities between Presidents. Comes with the office and being Commander in Chief. Bringing wars to an end is a very difficult business. It's very sad that President Obama was saddled with that ugly task. I think he could do better with ending them, but that's not his only responsibility.

[Bonobo]

194. He has allowed or caused more drone attacks in 2 years than 8 years of Bush.

Not a good way to "end the wars". Wouldn't you say?

[Spheric]

139. You know, the best way to refute this meme would seem to be to actually refute it.

I have yet to see anyone point out the stark differences between the policies implemented under Bush and those implemented under Obama using specific comparisons. I see the similarities pointed out repeatedly with great precision, however the differences are generally just asserted without any backup.

Seems like it would be an easy exercise to accomplish if in fact their policies are so different, and it would put to rest this entire discussion once and for all.

Makes one wonder why that isn't done? Perhaps it's not possible.

[MineralMan]

140. Hmm...I've seen that done many, many times on DU. Perhaps

you're not seeing those posts. This thread is about Tariq Ali and his book and the interview he gave.

[Spheric]

142. Links would be nice.

More mere assertions isn't what I was suggesting.

[MineralMan]

143. I don't have time at the moment to do the search required. Sorry.

This thread is not about refuting the meme. It is about a man, a book, and an interview.

[Spheric]

144. I understand.

Seems that it would help make your point, though, if you actually had some evidence to back it up. Actually, it seems like you could actually win this argument hands down with a little grunt work.

[MineralMan]

145. Another day, perhaps. But it's been done before by others.

Finding those threads would take some time, and I just don't have it right now.

[Spheric]

146. Oh well. And the beat goes on. /nt

[chowder66]

168. Please tell us what specifically you would like to know....

Is this about the wars? If we provide the differences for the wars will you then ask for differences on the economy? If we provide those differences will you want to know the differences on foriegn policy, economics, education, vacation time, verbal gaffes, etc?

Seriously, what specific differences between Bush and Obama would you like to discuss. I would suggest at the very least starting with one so it doesn't get too sidetracked.

[Spheric]

176. Policy differences. /nt

[chowder66]

193. okay...but will they satisfy? doubt it....

First of all, don't take this as a dictate of satisfaction Just take what is given or not.

What comes across is a president deeply skeptical about the Afghan war, suspicious of the advice of military leaders and obsessed with finding exits and setting withdrawal deadlines. To a press or political aide in the administration, this must seem like the public relations sweet spot: Since Americans are conflicted about the Afghan war, won't they be reassured to know that the commander in chief is conflicted as well?

But a president has a number of audiences, including American troops, the allies who fight at our side and enemies who constantly take the measure of our resolve. None of those groups is likely to be impressed by America's reluctant warrior.

The craziness of the process is not irrelevant. Historians will study the Afghan policy review as a warning, not as a model. Obama's ambivalence has created a national security team in which arguments fester instead of ripen. The process revealed and widened divisions among civilian and military leaders, within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, between the National Security Council and the Defense Department, and between American and Afghan officials. How can America's ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, possibly continue in his job, now that his views on President Hamid Karzai's mental health have been made public?

Obama eventually imposed the broad outlines of an outcome. But the assent he demanded did not create agreement or consensus. There is no evidence that past arguments -- particularly concerning the hardness of the July 2011 withdrawal deadline -- have ended.

The process was not only chaotic but highly politicized, with national security adviser James Jones criticizing the role of the "campaign set," which he also dubbed the "Politburo" and the "mafia." Obama himself tied the outcome of the policy review to political considerations. "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party," he reportedly told Sen. Lindsey Graham.


Cynics may regard this as typical. Actually, it is remarkable. It is the most basic duty of a commander in chief to pursue the national interest above any other interest. The introduction of partisan considerations into strategic decisions merits a special contempt.

The largest problem is the president's own ambivalence. "This needs to be a plan about how we're going to hand it off and get out of Afghanistan," Obama is quoted as saying. During his campaign for president, Afghanistan was the good war, the war of necessity, the war that had been ignored but must be won. As president, Obama's overriding goal is retreat. "Everything we're doing has to be focused on how we're going to get to the point where we can reduce our footprint," Woodward quotes Obama as saying. There can be no "wiggle room."

This attitude led to the president's decisive intervention -- a six-page memo designed to impose time and resource limitations on a reluctant military. Generals, of course, are not always right, as President George W. Bush discovered in the early years of the Iraq war. But are we supposed to be reassured that a president, of no proven military judgment, driven at least partially by political calculations, imposed a split-the-difference approach only loosely related to actual need or analysis?

A temporary increase of 30,000 troops coupled with a withdrawal deadline, it now seems, was an arbitrary compromise, not a fully developed military strategy. The armed forces were told to salute and make do. No wonder an Obama adviser complained to Woodward that the strategic review did not "add up" to the president's eventual policy.

Woodward's book appears to be genuinely reassuring about Obama in some areas -- his general commitment to fighting terrorism, his focus on the possibility of nuclear terrorism, his understanding of the threat originating in Pakistan. But the more we know about Obama's views of the Afghan war, the less confidence he inspires. Is there a historical precedent for an American president, in time of war, hoping to convey an impression of studied, professorial ambivalence about the war itself? Is it possible to imagine Franklin Roosevelt or Harry Truman purposely cultivating such ambiguity?

Yes, President Obama has sent more skilled, well-led troops to Afghanistan. But he has also created a strategic challenge for America. Our enemy is patient and determined. Our president, by his own account, is neither.

[e-mail]



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/23/AR2010092304743.html

ummmmm.... I don't think the same could be said about Bush.... therefore.....a difference.

[Usrename]

195. Actually, their policy (and their rhetoric) is virtually identical.

I can translate it directly into the Orwellian dialect for you:

In order to leave, we have to stay.

What, specifically, is the tactical or policy difference that you see? Evidently you see one. I surely don't.

[Usrename]

177. The current war policy was enacted under Bush.

There hasn't been any change in our war policy in the last two years, has there? I don't think the economic policy is any different either, is it. I know Obama talks about letting the tax cuts for the rich expire, but it doesn't really look like he's going to do that. It looks like they will be continued because of those pesky Republicans. If so, there's no change there, right? I don't see any change in our posture toward any other foreign country. The embargo on Cuba continues. The settlements in Palestine continue. Obama is continuing the bust up the public school system which Bush started. You could say that calling his base a bunch of retards is a verbal gaffe, but that isn't really a policy discussion.

Why don't you pick the area where you see the greatest difference in policy?

[Stinky The Clown]

147. Do you REALLY think the author will "convince some progressives" of anything?

Really?

And I hardly think the author is a friend of Obama. Or even a "friend".

Please endeavor to refute the assertions he makes if they bother you so much. Apart from that, this is simply your opinion vs his. That's not much of a reason to consider him wrong. Why won't you try to write cogently in an effort to convince us to disbelieve him?

[MineralMan]

148. It IS simply my opinion vs. his. Thanks for recognizing that.

Equating Obama with Bush is a meme that is wrong on its face. That's why there's a rule on DU about it. You disagree with the statement that it is wrong on its face. Not my business. I posted an OP that is my opinion. Hundreds of such OPs get posted daily. I didn't say it was anything else, did I?

I can post my opinion here, as you can. It's what DU does best...letting people express their opinion about news events. I don't see why you'd have a problem with my doing that. You're welcome to dispute that opinion in this thread. I've thanked you for doing so. I'm not necessarily trying to convince anyone of anything. I find that equation of Bush and Obama to be troubling. I said so. You may say something else. Opinions.

On another day, I might write an OP that outlines the reasons that Bush and Obama aren't the same. This day, I opined about an interview given by an author and the cover of his book. That's my privilege to do. It's your privilege to say I'm wrong. Thanks again for posting in this thread. All opinions are interesting, and many are worth reading.

You write many OPs that are your opinion. I write some like that, too. DU is great! :toast:

[Stinky The Clown]

161. I don't actually disagree with the statement.

In fact, predating your reply to me, I wrote this in response to a similar thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9188109&mesg_id=9189250

It might just as well apply to your thread.

If you've not read the entirety of the original cite, by the way, then you're as guilty as I admit to being with respect to willful ignorance. And if, in fact, you're sooooo bothered by something that you'd start on OP about it stating your opinion, then it seems to me that if you indeed *are* willfully ignorant, you deserve to be called on that. On the other hand, if you're so knowledgeable as to the original cite's intent, then don't you feel that, apart from saying "i feel this" or "i feel that", you have some obligation to try to convince?

Or your thread had some other purpose that I'm too thick headed to understand.

[MineralMan]

174. But I have read the entirety of that interview. I have said so

several times. It's how I found the quotation that lies behind my OP. I also went to Amazon and ordered a copy of this book which will be here shortly. So, I'm not "willfully ignorant." In fact I'm far from ignorant at all. I do not have to convince anyone that Ali says that Obama is a Bush equivalent. He said it in his own words, when asked about the cover art for his book. There's no controversy over whether he said that.

That was the entire OP. I said that he said that and illustrated the fact that he said that. That's not the opinion. The opinion comes at the end of the OP, where I said that I found that alarming and worry that it will affect the election of Democrats in 2010.

Did you even read my OP? It does not seem so.

[HughMoran]

151. Opinion

It's what we do here.

[Spheric]

153. Indeed. And opinions don't specifically require validation.

But, I find people are generally less dismissive of opinions that are backed up with facts. That is obviously not a requirement, though.

Vive la difference!

[Stinky The Clown]

165. Hugh

It isn't working any more. You're welcome to keep trying, but the magic is gone and you won't get what you want. I promise. I've moved on.

[HughMoran]

169. No more free pop tarts?

You're really mean :(

[Puregonzo1188]

149. Not on every issue.

He says he's worse on "Af-Pak."

[celebritymagnet]

157. Who says Obama isn't creating jobs?

http://www.northjersey.com/arts_entertainment/movies/103191554_Stars_in_his_eyes__and_in_his_sights.html


Encounter with Obama turns Frankln Lakes man into
"Celebrity Magnet"

BY WILLIAM LAMB
The Record
STAFF WRITER

http://media.northjersey.com/images/0918L_L1ObamaRST.jpg

FRANKLIN LAKES — The way Tom Murro tells it, a chance
encounter with President Obama on a Martha's Vineyard golf
course last summer had a transformative effect on him.

Suddenly, the Franklin Lakes father of two became the
"Celebrity Magnet," known for an uncanny ability to
attract, rub elbows and be photographed with some of the
world's most famous people. Last April, Murro folded the
mortgage company he had run for two decades and took to
chronicling his exploits and conquests online at
celebritymagnet.com.

"Some say it's been parlayed," Murro said.
"Some say it's the magic of meeting Obama. Some say
President Obama has turned an ordinary man into a celebrity
magnet. There are many headlines that have been written."

The reality, of course, is more nuanced. But a cursory scan of
Murro's website yields plenty of evidence of Murro's good
fortune — or hard work — at finding himself at the right place
at the right time. There he is posing with Dustin Hoffman,
James Gandolfini, Kathie Lee Gifford, Todd Bridges (Willis
from "Diff'rent Strokes") and scores of others.

And then, of course, there is Obama, or "Celebrity No.
1," as he is known on Murro's site. Murro and his older
daughter Lauren, then 10, had just finished lunch at the Farm
Neck Golf Club on Martha's Vineyard one afternoon in August
2009 when they glimpsed the president teeing off. As they
walked toward him, they happened upon the filmmaker Spike Lee
sitting on a bench.

The president's Secret Service detail passed a wand over the
three of them, then asked them to leave. Lee invited Murro and
his daughter onto his property, which overlooked the 18th
hole, Murro said. Obama drove up, greeted Lee and gamely posed
for photos with Murro and Lauren, taken with Lauren's pink
Kodak camera.

Murro parlayed media coverage of the encounter into an
invitation to the 2009 Gotham Independent Film Awards, where
he walked the red carpet alongside Natalie Portman, Brooke
Shields, Rosie Perez and Chris Rock, and to the TriBeCa Film
Festival, where he ate popcorn with Ellen Barkin. "It's
funny, she swears like a truck driver," Murro said.

Subsequent encounters on Manhattan streets with Dustin Hoffman
and Daniel Craig "really kind of cemented me as a
celebrity magnet," Murro said, "because there are a
lot of people who walk around the city for 10 years, who work
in the city, and never meet or walk by celebrities, for some
strange reason."

By April 2009, Murro says, he was earning enough in ad revenue
from his website and from freelance writing gigs (he pens a
column for International Watch magazine and contributes a
"Celebrity Magnet" column to The Washington Times
website) that he folded the mortgage company he had run for
two decades to devote himself full time to celebrity
magnetism.

"The mortgage business turned into a mess," he said.
"It was a debacle for a year and a half, two years. It
made it much easier to walk away."

Gary George Girdvainis, the editor and publisher of
International Watch magazine, hired Murro on a freelance basis
shortly after the Obama encounter to write a monthly column on
celebrity wristwatches.

"I think it was chance at first, in that he found himself
at the right place at the right time," Girdvainis said.
"But without the right personality, the opportunity would
have gone by unnoticed."

Last month, Murro met Obama for a second time. Back in
Martha's Vineyard for a visit, he found himself at a
restaurant where Obama was eating lunch. He was carrying a
gift for the president — a signed 8-by-10-inch photograph of
Jackie Robinson stealing home plate in the 1955 World Series
signed by Yogi Berra: "Mr. President, He was out! Yogi
Berra." Murro had planned to give the photo to an aide
but instead presented it to Obama himself.

Murro's wife, Kelly — who was along for his encounters with
Craig, Gandolfini, Bruce Willis and others — said her
husband's new life is "exciting."

"It's a new twist on life," she said,
"something completely opposite of what he was doing
before."

Recently, Murro has forged a partnership with fellow Franklin
Lakes resident Kim Granatell, who had a prominent role in the
latest season of "The Real Housewives of New
Jersey." The two have starred in a series of
vignette-like home movies that Murro has posted on his
website. He has been shopping them around, hoping to generate
interest in a reality show pilot.

Whatever happens, Murro says, the Celebrity Magnet is here to
stay.

"You can use this: Who says Obama isn't creating
jobs?" Murro said. "I haven't used that yet. You can
Google it. It's not out there."

[HughMoran]

179. Weird.

[Panaconda]

182. I've got an idea

Let's compare the intellectual content of this thread with Tariq Ali's body of work.

Here's a word from Jorge Castañeda, former foreign minister of Mexico, professor of politics and Latin American and Caribbean studies at New York University. It was on today's DemNow program:

The other problem, Juan—and you know this, because I know you talk about this on the show—is that the federal government’s deportations through ICE and other agencies have run up under Obama. They’re going after more people than even the Bush folks were doing. And that, he doesn’t have to do. And this notion that he’s going to get some Republican votes by doing these terribly nasty things to families, to children, to women, is a ridiculous notion. You’re not going to get any Republican votes with that, so why do it?

...

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/23/former_mexican_foreign_minister_jorge_castaeda

Maybe you're okay with all your team spirit and all that but your stubborn blindness in light of these large scale injustices speaks volumes.