"Now that a massive political movement to elect Barack Obama as a way of fixing the abuses of the Bush era has largely failed,"
While I greatly appreciate Dr. Cole's writing about these protests, I am perplexed whenever anyone expresses this sentiment. For cryin' out loud, what campaign were people watching in 2008 that they thought this would happen?
Any president, no matter what he promises beforehand, can only effect but so much "change" if he doesn't have willing partners, and Obama does not have many of those, even within his own party, which is home to influences from all across the ideological spectrum. Add to that a stultifying bureaucracy that always wants to maintain the status quo, and the fixing Dr. Cole is talking about is something that will take generations.
We had been laying the groundwork for the abuses of the Bush era for long before Bush was elected. It's taken a good thirty years, at least, for this country to drift into where we are now, and it's going to take a good thirty more to pull ourselves out, if that's even possible.
I'm not sure why anyone ever takes Glenn Greenwald seriously, particularly when discussing complicated geopolitical issues. The man is ideologically blinkered, impractical, and allows angry sneering to overwhelm his writing. He gets attention by essentially yelling his points very loudly and overwhelming opponents with tides of snark and insults. I don't find him to be a clear-headed thinker at all. From what little I've read of his commentary on Libya, he seems to have been too busy with his usual "the U.S. is an imperialist monster" spiel to make any sort of cogent argument against intervention.
Plus, does not the War Powers Act authorize the President to send the military into action if he feels time is of the essence, so long as he notifies Congress in writing within 60 days of his reasons for doing so, which Obama has done? If so, then an argument about violating the Constitution here is sort of moot.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
"Now that a massive political movement to elect Barack Obama as a way of fixing the abuses of the Bush era has largely failed,"
While I greatly appreciate Dr. Cole's writing about these protests, I am perplexed whenever anyone expresses this sentiment. For cryin' out loud, what campaign were people watching in 2008 that they thought this would happen?
Any president, no matter what he promises beforehand, can only effect but so much "change" if he doesn't have willing partners, and Obama does not have many of those, even within his own party, which is home to influences from all across the ideological spectrum. Add to that a stultifying bureaucracy that always wants to maintain the status quo, and the fixing Dr. Cole is talking about is something that will take generations.
We had been laying the groundwork for the abuses of the Bush era for long before Bush was elected. It's taken a good thirty years, at least, for this country to drift into where we are now, and it's going to take a good thirty more to pull ourselves out, if that's even possible.
I'm not sure why anyone ever takes Glenn Greenwald seriously, particularly when discussing complicated geopolitical issues. The man is ideologically blinkered, impractical, and allows angry sneering to overwhelm his writing. He gets attention by essentially yelling his points very loudly and overwhelming opponents with tides of snark and insults. I don't find him to be a clear-headed thinker at all. From what little I've read of his commentary on Libya, he seems to have been too busy with his usual "the U.S. is an imperialist monster" spiel to make any sort of cogent argument against intervention.
Plus, does not the War Powers Act authorize the President to send the military into action if he feels time is of the essence, so long as he notifies Congress in writing within 60 days of his reasons for doing so, which Obama has done? If so, then an argument about violating the Constitution here is sort of moot.