The bill now gives the President the immediate power to issue a waiver of the military custody requirement, instead of the Defense Secretary, and gives the President discretion in implementing these new provisions.

“We have concluded that the language does not challenge or constrain the President’s ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President’s senior advisors will not recommend a veto,” the White House statement said. [emphasis added]

On December 31, 2011, a day when most Americans weren’t paying attention, he signed it into law.

There are plenty of places where you can read what is wrong with this law. My biggest issue is that it takes Bush Era policies and expands them. No longer are we just hunting al Qaeda, but any terrorist organization that may have had contact with them. At one point, there was a defined end to this mythical war, but this new law removes that.Prior to this, the end of the “War on Terror” was defined as the point at which the leaders of this organization– “the people who knocked these buildings down”– were caught or killed. And that would be it. We would be done saving the world. Except the definition of “terrorist” has expanded. Or rather, it’s been made purposely vague.

Of course, there’s the part of this bill where our military can detain citizens of other countries until “the end of hostilities”. What hostilities? How will they end? Again, we’re dealing with nebulous non-definitions. Many are minimizing the impact of the bill by saying that Americans can/can’t be detained. It’s not just about Americans. It’s about human beings, even if they aren’t citizens of this country. Anyone the government identifies as a terrorist or someone who has provided support to a terrorist organization can be made to sit for however long our President deems appropriate without even getting a chance to defend themselves against the accusation that they are conspiring against us. And they can’t get representation so that this can come before our own Supreme Court, because our government doesn’t have to disclose that we even have them! But it’s not bad because, well, Obama signed it. And, well, he’s a Democrat.

I’m not writing this post about this abhorrent law though. I made my case against these kinds of abuses when Bush was doing them¹. Just because a Democrat signed this law does not make it acceptable. All it means is that a fucking Democrat signed a law that strips people of basic human rights. I’m writing this post because of the goddamned nuPUMAs who are twisting themselves silly trying to excuse this nonsense.

This isn’t about “debunking” anything, though the nuPUMAs are busy trying every manner of misdirection to “debunk”² our outrage that this shit was signed. This is about pointing out absolute hypocrisy, lies and apologia. Of course, this is to be expected from either side of the political divide, but it especially sickens me when people who claim they are progressive do this shit. Here is the basic logic:

1) Democrats are good.
2) Our guy is a Democrat.
3) Our guy embraces Neocon policy.
4) We embrace Neocon policy because our guy is good.

According to his most ardent supporters, Obama had no choice but to sign the bill. Here are some of the reason why he supposedly had no choice.

He has to work with that Congress. They forced him to sign that.

See this argument may have worked the first few times he “compromised” against the interests of his base, but it’s weak sauce at this point. Why? Because Obama has shown that he can absolutely get what he wants when he wants it if he wants it bad enough. Even with this Congress. Yes, there are a lot of whiny ass titty baby teatards playing silly games. But when it comes right down to it, Obama can get the important policy through the wall of obstinacy.

Example: The fight for extension of unemployment benefits. Eric Cantor and John Boehner were fools to try to push through their shit, but they’d done it before so probably expected to win that fight. But our leader took control of that situation. He didn’t want that mess with the XL pipeline in the UI bill. He told his people that it was a no-go. The Senate did what they were supposed to do, but the House, like petulant children, stomped, sputtered and refused to budge. The President got out in front of the American people and reminded them that it was the GOP that was holding unemployment hostage; it was the GOP that was trying to ruin Christmas for millions of struggling Americans; that it was the GOP that was working in a way that would cause millions of people to become homeless. He went on television and made speeches and did his job.

The GOP stood down. Obama won the message war and that two-month extension was passed without the XL pipeline bullshit stuck to it. He wanted that XL pipeline out of that bill. They let it go. Because he was strong.

To say that he was “forced” to sign this bill is to also say he is a weak leader. That doesn’t work when you look at the single incident which I just mentioned. He’s done it before, with the debt ceiling, with ending DADT. He has the power and the strength to use that power.

So, no, Congress didn’t force him to sign this bill against his own wishes. He made sure that the bill he signed was good enough for him. If he didn’t get what he wanted the veto pen would have been dusted off and finally used.

But they passed it with a veto-proof majority!

Apparently. But we don’t know how that really would’ve played out had he not announced he was going to sign prior to the vote. He gave political cover to Democrats³ who don’t want to go home to ads claiming they didn’t support the War on Terror. They were safe to vote with the next election in mind, because he told them he was signing anyway. Politicians make deals with each other. All the time. They give and take so they can vote yea or nay on whatever issue. That’s a fact. So, we really won’t know what might have happened had this to gone back to Congress after a veto. He didn’t do it.

On the other side of that excuse, so what if he did? So, they override his veto and it gets passed anyway. It wouldn’t be Obama’s law at that point. It actually would be the fault of Congress. And he, along with other Dems, could’ve used that against any GOP member who voted in favor. Scary voice says: “John Boehner wants to end habeas corpus for American people. He voted to remove your civil liberties and voted to gut the Constitution.” Cut to Teabaggers behind bars, Grannies for Peace behind a fence, Lactivists and their nursing infants sitting inside a fenced box.

I believe that if he’d have held his ground and pushed, as he did with the unemployment extension and the debt ceiling, there would have been no veto-proof majority. In the end, the Dems would have fought tooth and nail to get their people to fall in line. It was an important bill and they would have needed to stand behind him during an election year. I refuse to believe that President Obama is so weak and powerless that he couldn’t have safely vetoed that bill. I’ve decided that he’s strong enough that when it matters, he gets his people in line. I’ve seen him do it and I think he’d have done it here.

He got what he wanted in the bill and he supported it. So he signed it. The signing statement was for our benefit, to ease our outrage. Not because portions of the bill were so terrible that he felt uncomfortable they were included.

But the GOP would have called him “weak” on terror and use that against him in the election!

That’s just fucking tomfoolery. The GOP is probably at this very second doing up ads showing Americans behind fences, dressed in orange and a sign overhead that says “Guantanamo”. The scary voice will warn Americans who are already afraid that the scary black mooslim president is going to throw them in jail. The people in “Obama’s prisons” will be holding bibles in one hand and little crying blonde children in the other hand. The voice will insinuate that Obama will lock away anyone who speaks against him– roll scene with teapartiers locked in Gitmo. BAM!

There is nothing this president will do or has ever done that will not be used against him to scare the fuck out of white, christian voters. This just gave them a bit of a larger demographic– those who do not trust government and who are afraid of what happens when the president gets too much power like that. You may laugh and call them kooks. But they’re also voters. They may not be afraid of scurry mooslims, but those people are scared to death that our country will become some goddamned totalitarian/fascist/nazi strong hold. They will see those fucking ads.

The really bad ones have already lost their minds and have run from Obama when news of the signing came out. But there are the others that will see those ads. I can see them now, al Awalaki will become a martyr to them because he was a citizen that our President assassinated without benefit of trial. “Who else will he assassinate?”, the scary voice whispers.

So, he was afraid of looking “weak” in a GOP ad. Which one of those ads would Democrats prefer to see at this point?

But the military families would have gone without FOOD.

Besides the fact that military paychecks would not have stopped, that’s just overall bullshit. He shamed the GOP with the unemployment extension, and those people were going to lose their money right before Christmas. Yet, he was willing to risk that their benefits. That was ok for the unemployed to potentially lose their holiday, get their utilities disconnected or lose their homes. Democratic leadership was going to keep Congress in D.C. until the UE extension passed. President Obama went on the offensive and asked Americans to call their congresscritter and demand they pass the extension. And then the GOP caved.

He threatened to veto the bill already. He was already playing hardball. He got what he wanted and if that hadn’t happened then hypothetically military families were going to suffer⁴. So, no, he wasn’t forced to sign the NDAA in order to ensure military families received their money. That’s a bullshit excuse.

But the signing statement!

You can read the entire signing statement here. I’m putting a portion of it here.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.

I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States. As my Administration has made clear, the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa’ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system. Otherwise, investigations could be compromised, our authorities to hold dangerous individuals could be jeopardized, and intelligence could be lost. I will not tolerate that result, and under no circumstances will my Administration accept or adhere to a rigid across-the-board requirement for military detention. I will therefore interpret and implement section 1022 in the manner that best preserves the same flexible approach that has served us so well for the past 3 years and that protects the ability of law enforcement professionals to obtain the evidence and cooperation they need to protect the Nation.

My Administration will design the implementation procedures authorized by section 1022(c) to provide the maximum measure of flexibility and clarity to our counterterrorism professionals permissible under law. And I will exercise all of my constitutional authorities as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief if those procedures fall short, including but not limited to seeking the revision or repeal of provisions should they prove to be unworkable.

The biggest problem with the signing statement is very clear: President Obama will not be the president forever and ever amen. He is, as of now, restricted to two terms by the highest law of the land. Because I am not an idiot, I realize that this law in the hands of someone, I dunno, like George W. Bush is going to be very, very bad for our Constitution. Especially if we get some nutter who decides that “belligerent acts” against the U.S. include pitching a tent in Zucotti Park without a permit. Those protesters can be deemed hostile, become “terrorists” and are then potentially thrown into a cell somewhere until the “end of hostilities”–which probably will never come because we’ll be fighting the War on Terror until god knows when. It’s no longer just about al Qaeda. It’s about anyone “hostile” to the United States and our “interests”⁵. Let another GWB get a hold of that and see what happens.

And we’re supposed to believe that the NDAA is too broad for President Obama with regards to detentions and fighting this “war”. However, the words “restricting” and “minimally acceptable” and “flexibility” stand out to me. There are too many restrictions in this law. The restrictions inhibit their ability to get information and keep us safe⁶. That is alarming to me. This is a Bush policy. It is codified into law and now he’s signed it.

We can blame Congress until the cows come home. But I said it on Twitter and I’ll say it here– when he signed it, it became his. Just like the laws Bush signed– they became his, not the Congress that gave them to him. There’s this amazing tool that Presidents have to prevent abhorrent bills from becoming laws: the veto pen.

It was current law/status quo/nothing changed. It was like this since Bush, so what’s so bad about it now?

Because Bush was a wonderful President, right? Nothing at all wrong with his policies. No one expected those policies to change drastically. I mean, Progressives who voted for the end to Bush military policy regard the War on Terror certainly have no reason to complain. Nothing changed! Why, that right there is why it’s good enough.

That weak sauce is worth nothing but total mockery. It’s a serious case of cognitive dissonance. Instead of being pissed at our guy for signing this piece of shit, we’re just going to pretend it was never that bad to begin with. It’s the “Our Guy is the good guy so everything he does is SUPER” argument. Similar to “My kid is the good kid so if she regularly steals from the store that’s SUPER.”

Why do we care about terrorists? They’re not Americans and want to kill us.

Ah, it’s always refreshing when that freaking worm turns. Here we have Nutter talking points spewed by so-called progressives. Isn’t that so cute? As they sit on Twitter, attacking any progressive who doesn’t agree with them, they sometimes laugh at Teatards for being hypocrites and misinformed, but have no problem spouting talking points straight from Rove circa 2005. I’ll consider, for a split second, that they aren’t hypocrites themselves. That must mean they really did support these policies under Bush and are, therefore, fake fucking liberals/ratfuckers.

Since this thing has been signed, I have seen many self-described progressives poo-pooing the rest of us as deranged and hair-on-fire, while they twist themselves silly trying to excuse Bush so they can’t be decried as hypocrites and/or liars. They will claim that our President is so weak that he can get nothing done because of Congress⁷, but that he is a strong leader for having to compromise. Or some such shit.

So, while I was working on this long-ass post⁸, another interesting thing happened. More Bush apologia from one of the biggest opportunists on Twitter:

Bush’s complex issues were distorted by Glenn Greenwald.

This was probably made because he has a huge flame-war going on with Greenwald. I get that. People are generally stupid when they’re trying to smash someone else’s argument. Greenwald’s argument is the civil liberties violations that the NDAA contains are bad; they were bad when Bush did it and they’re bad now that Obama is doing it. So, the argument used against that is Bush’s issues were “distorted” for all those years. We’re so eager to make the furtherance of Bush policy palatable that we’ll go ahead and make the entire Bush era ok. I can’t even properly mock that because it’s so fucking ridiculous that it mocks itself.

nuPUMAs, fauxgressives, PragHags, what-the-fuck-ever you want to call it these excuses are made in a way that’s dishonest and laughable. Well, I guess I can’t say “dishonest” because I’m wondering if those pushing these arguments the hardest were actually progressives to begin with. So let’s call them “revealing” instead. I’m having a really hard time believing, at this point, that they ever had a problem with Bush’s War on Terra. If that’s true, then they aren’t being dishonest, are they? They aren’t being inconsistent in their beliefs, either. I will maintain that their arguments are inconsistent and dishonest, though. If they can’t make that round peg fit into the square hole, they sure will force that motherfucker in there.

I supported Obama⁹ through most of the insurance fight. I was not crying in my beer wishing for my pony. I was glad that he signed Lily Ledbetter and that he increased Pell grants. I was glad when GLBT servicemen and women were allowed to serve openly. We were all happy that the occupation of Iraq ended¹⁰. I’m happy he didn’t cave on the XL pipeline (yet). He did some recess appointments today that were good. This post isn’t about all of those other things. And anyone who knows my history, knows that I did support him when I decided against Clinton. I knew I would have some disappointments¹¹ from what he said and to whom he said them. He was very good at talking out of both sides of his mouth. I knew there would be no change, rainbows or lollipops. I did not, however, believe that he would continue with the idiocy Bush/Cheney began with this War on Terra. If there was a single issue that glued the Progressive blogosphere together throughout GWB’s entire tenure, it was our hatred of that “war”. By signing the NDAA, Obama told that portion of his base that he didn’t hear a fucking thing we said about the war.

For the people who have been screaming, writing, and hair-on-fire against this war since Bush started it, that really does matter. There’s nothing inconsistent with that. There most certainly was no distortion of Bush policies. The people who supported Bush and have no problem with the continuance of those policies, who also support Obama, well, I guess they’ll find any reason to support their guy– even if it means making up bullshit excuses.

Reviewed by Tricia

1. The same Bush that progressives were screaming be brought to trial for war crimes.
2. “Debunk” usually means there is a myth being exposed as false. The NDAA is not a myth. It’s a fact and it’s a law. There’s no “debunking” that bullshit.
3. Possibly even Republicans.
4. Not really because they would’ve continued to get their pay, but we’ll play along for now.
5. Considering who decide those interests at this point, that bit is terrifying by itself.
6. Where have we all heard that before?
7. And couldn’t get anything done with the previous Congress, mind you, though they do credit him solely for passing the Affordable Care Act.
8. Considering how unfocused I am anymore, it’s a surprise I’ve made it this far.
9. I hate having to put this disclaimer, damn it all. My history stands in my archives.
10. Not the War on Terror, though. Just the occupation of Iraq.
11. Like when he came to my school and promised to rein in NAFTA and fill our manufacturing plants with solar panels and other new innovation. Then he went to Brownsville, TX and told them he would keep NAFTA because they were doing well on the border. Pandering bullshit.

They are no different than the PUMAs were with Clinton back in ’08.

Sure, they’re smarter and don’t use so many exclamation points. But they behave the same when someone dares write anything negative about Obama. The same refusal to believe that he can be at all fallible. He’s no more than a rock star to them and damned anyone for saying otherwise.

This is illustrated best by the most recent event– the failure of the Super Committee to kill Medicare come to a compromise. Previous to the final decision, some of the nuPUMA² kept reminding people that Obama couldn’t work with the Congress he has. They were hamstringing him and there was nothing he could do. He was powerless against them. Some were saying that Obama was staying out of the Super Committee workings; keeping hands off. He is, afterall, at the mercy of Congress and has no influence over them.

Then the Super Committee failed. No compromises on killing Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security and making the Bush tax cuts permanent. No accepting GOP extortion, in my opinion. Suddenly, the nuPUMA are celebrating Obama’s victory. He put pressure on them, you see, it was all his doing.

Good grief, make up my fucking mind. Either he has no influence and can get nothing done, or he can twist arms and get his way.

Well, see, if you ask this question then the issue becomes “Are you going to vote?” I don’t know why. I don’t understand the way that works. Ask an honest question and get that shit back. Of course, PUMA didn’t make sense to me either.

Another example is the police violence on Occupiers. I am a staunch supporter of the Occupy Movement. I truly believe that this country is fucked because politicians are bought and paid for by the banks and their lackeys. I understand the movement and get their point. I roll my eyes heavily when someone says “What do they want?” It’s a leaderless, nonpolitical movement. There is no Heritage Foundation to make the message palatable. You have to actively discuss the issues with occupiers and pay attention. Even if you don’t agree with the movement, the violence against the Occupiers is uncalled for. It’s extreme, ugly and is obviously an attempt to suppress the message. Tear gas, rubber bullets, arresting the press, confiscating equipment, using billy clubs against student, pepper spray on elderly ladies, ramming people with horses. If you watch what is happening you’d think it was happening somewhere else³.

I was one person that questioned why Obama will make a statement in support of Egyptian protesters, but ignore the violence perpetrated against American citizens. We wondered why he didn’t issue a statement against the violence. He is, afterall, a Constitutional scholar and the leader of this country. Was a simple statement too much to ask?

Apparently it was. The nuPUMAs were up in arms. Why hadn’t we spoken out against police violence before? Why would we think the President would have any influence over the local law enforcement agencies⁴? Why would he want to get involved? He has no responsibility, you see, to the people of this country. That responsibility lies solely with the mayors and police chiefs. Or something. It’s crazy to expect the President of the United States to have any kind of influence over local politics or to be able to issue a simple statement against the use of force on the Occupiers. He is just the President. Only one man. No one important. I mean, not even he mentioned the police violence against Black folks in this country.

Until someone came across an article from May that said the U.S. was going to investigate cities for civil rights violations (police brutality⁵ and what have you). Well, there you go! That should be enough! That action back in May was actually Obama’s action against violence used on the protesters. Of course, it also shows that Obama didn’t ignore police brutality against People of Color, but that is not the point. I’m such a negative nelly. Forgive me.

I think the nuPUMAs do more damage to Obama than we do. The teabaggers are out for blood, but nuPUMAs excuse his worst offenses and his weakest policy with “He’s got no power.” How is that possible? I actually saw a nuPUMA say that if someone is accused of terrorism they don’t deserve due process. Remember who else said that? I do and his name was Cheney. Assasination lists are ok, as long as Obama is in charge; keeping someone imprisoned without a trial is ok, as long as Obama is in charge; rendition is ok, as long as Obama is in charge; etc etc. Remember when Bush used his Executive office to give himself unprecedented presidential powers? I do too. Obama, gods love him, has helped himself to those same powers.

I’ve also recently seen “Inside Job”. I’ve got to say, the fact that Obama kept many of Bush’s financial advisers makes me ill. But I really expected him to be another Clinton, so that’s not too surprising. What’s surprising is that his Bush-like policies are getting lauded by some of the same people who want Bush in jail⁶.

I don’t like the nuPUMA and that’s who this post is about. I know in 2012 I’ll cast a vote for Obama because I’ll have no other choice. I’m pretty sure he’s already won the election considering the candidates that have been chosen to run for the GOP side⁷. I don’t like nuPUMAs because I didn’t like old PUMAs. They bug the shit out of me. Always twisting and turning and putting aside their previously held beliefs. Honestly, I think I’m going to start just copying and pasting their silly contradictions just so I can keep them bookmarked while pointing and laughing at the same time.

1. The people that have come up with those labels are themselves paid pundits, or trying to be.
2. I’ll come up with a better name for them, but this one will do for now
3. I realize these things happen here all the time. But with Twitter and other social networking tools the images get out much, much faster.
4. The very agencies that were, of course, authorizing the force used against the protesters.
5. I’ll look for it. I don’t have the link handy right now.
6. Which is never going to happen because we have to move forward.
7. Could they get anymore comical? Really?

Both of them got their asses readily handed to them in this interview. Neither of them came out of it looking like less than zombified freaks on a hunt for fresh brains. Watch and see if you can make any kind of sense of their stance.

Enjoy.

(Totally safe for work and kids- if you don’t mind them being exposed to complete lunatics.)

Update

Christina at The Anti-PUMA has more details and tells how it was her work that Shuster used to back these two in a corner.

Does it matter?

Click the link to find out.