Intro: "The Chair of the Democratic National Committee is completely unaware of one of the biggest stories of the Obama years."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz the Chair of the Democratic National Committee is unaware of Obama's secret kill list. (photo: WeAreChange.org)
The Remarkable, Unfathomable Ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz
22 October 12
The Chair of the Democratic National Committee is completely unaware of one of the biggest stories of the Obama years.
n 29 May 2012, the New York Times published a remarkable 6,000-word story on its front page about what it termed President Obama's "kill list". It detailed the president's personal role in deciding which individuals will end up being targeted for assassination by the CIA based on Obama's secret, unchecked decree that they are "terrorists" and deserve to die.
Based on interviews with "three dozen of his current and former advisers", the Times' Jo Becker and Scott Shane provided extraordinary detail about Obama's actions, including how he "por[es] over terrorist suspects' biographies on what one official calls the macabre 'baseball cards'" and how he "insist[s] on approving every new name on an expanding 'kill list'". At a weekly White House meeting dubbed "Terror Tuesdays", Obama then decides who will die without a whiff of due process, transparency or oversight. It was this process that resulted in the death of US citizen Anwar Awlaki in Yemen, and then two weeks later, the killing of his 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman, by drone.
The Times "kill list" story made a huge impact and was widely discussed and condemned by media figures, politicians, analysts, and commentators. Among other outlets, the New York Times itself harshly editorialized against Obama's program in an editorial entitled "Too Much Power For a President", denouncing the revelations as "very troubling" and argued: "No one in that position should be able to unilaterally order the killing of American citizens or foreigners located far from a battlefield - depriving Americans of their due-process rights - without the consent of someone outside his political inner circle."
That Obama has a "kill list" has been known since January, 2010, and has been widely reported and discussed in every major American newspaper since April 2010. A major controversy over chronic White House leaks often featured complaints about this article (New York Times, 5 June 2012: "Senators to Open Inquiry Into 'Kill List' and Iran Security Leaks"). The Attorney General, Eric Holder, gave a major speech defending it.
But Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Democratic Congresswoman from Florida and the Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, does not know about any of this. She has never heard of any of it. She has managed to remain completely ignorant about the fact that President Obama has asserted and exercised the power to secretly place human beings, including US citizens, on his "kill list" and then order the CIA to extinguish their lives.
Just marvel at this stunning, completely inexcusable two-minute display of wholesale ignorance by this elected official and DNC chair. Here she is after the second presidential debate being asked by Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change about the "kill list" and whether Romney should be trusted with this power. She doesn't defend the "kill list". She doesn't criticize it. She makes clear that she has never heard of it and then contemptuously treats Rudkowski like he is some sort of frivolous joke for thinking that it is real:
Anyone who observes politics closely has a very low bar of expectations. It's almost inevitable to become cynical - even jaded - about just how inept and inane top Washington officials are. Still, even processing this through those lowly standards, I just find this staggering. Staggering and repellent. This is an elected official in Congress, the body that the Constitution designed to impose checks on the president's abuses of power, and she does not have the foggiest idea what is happening in the White House, and obviously does not care in the slightest, because the person doing it is part of the party she leads.
One expects corrupt partisan loyalty from people like Wasserman Schultz, eager to excuse anything and everything a Democratic president does. That's a total abdication of her duty as a member of Congress, but that's par for the course. But one does not expect this level of ignorance, the ability to stay entirely unaware of one of the most extremist powers a president has claimed in US history, trumpeted on the front-page of the New York Times and virtually everywhere else.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
truth elicits thumbs down on this site.
(democrats)
The military is in charge of killing and the president is the Commander in Chief. The military kills--who should decide who is killed?
And pathetic also that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize. Is he some kind of superior being who deserves to decide life or death?
The whole system is rotten--to the core.
BTW, if we are to condemn Mrs. Schultz for betraying the American people by NOT upholding her vow to defend the Constitution, then we had better condemn EVERY Republican member of the Congress as well as EVERY Republican member of the Senate for this same crime!
Also, go back and look up the way Congress and Senate voted on the NDAA and you will see that it was an overwhelming majority that supported it in both parties. It isn't just a Republican issue. Both parties are guilty of the crime.
More seriously the baseball card did not include more than a few dozen people, not thousands, and capture was an option. How do you capture someone with a drone?
I'll bet the attack on 9-11 was "traumatic" to New Yorkers as well. How many of them do you think have "suppressed" the memory ? Have allowed it to just totally slip their minds ?
If this woman is so traumatized by the existence of a Kill List that she can't recall the events, not of history, but of the *ongoing* present, she needs to go on disability for PTSD, not pretend to be qualified to "lead" the Democratic Party.
All the "poor baby" excuses coming out of the left, both for this woman and for Obama in the first debate, only serve to make these leaders look weaker and less effective overall.
You are doing them no favor. They are *not* "poor babies". They are being paid to be well-informed adults capable and competent to make critical adult decisions on the fly, both for themselves, and for the multitudes of people they represent.
Let's suck it up a little, here folks.
The real world isn't a nursery day school. These people are not supposed to be in a jobs training program. If they can't cut it on the job, they need to go home, pronto !
I think that Greenwald's point is that no politician, much less a "leader", should be allowed this level of astounding ignorance / incompetence. To say that one politician is dumber than the other, no matter how accurate, is absolutely beside the point.
I am all for re-instating literacy tests in politics. Not for the voters, but for anyone aspiring to have his or her name placed on the ballot.
If these people cannot prove a base level of competence in written and spoken English, knowledge of history, foreign policy and current affairs, they need to be automatically barred.
Greenwald's point is not a "gotcha" over a little "ooopsie" slip of the tongue. It is the recognition that people are being paid for doing jobs that require knowledge that these incumbents obviously don't have, in spades. In both parties.
"My moron is not as dysfunctional as your moron" is not exactly the highest bar for establishing qualifications for political "leadership".
Try that model with your brain surgeon, your airline pilot, or your judge in a capital case.
The kind of ignorance that Greenwald points out above automatically disqualifies the person for the job they are being PAID by the American public to perform.
No matter which party is supporting a candidate unqualified for the position, the unqualified candidates need to go back to running their paper routes. Assuming that they are qualified to do *that* !
Tere may in fact be a kill list, there probably should be one since we are in a de facto war with sertain terrorists groups but to expect it to be discussed in a public forum is simply brain dead.
He certainly doesn't seem proud of this kill list, as well he should not - now I am I trying to teach my kids that when something makes you uneasy it's your conscience telling you not to do it, and you should pay attention.
Apparently he has a conscience (more than I can say about Romney), but he overrules it on some items.
If the administration was laying out its case about the people on the list in the open, together with the criteria used to determine who makes it to the list, it could claim there is a process.
The list could be made public ex post facto to avoid forewarning the target although I would strongly argue that it would then be open to book-cooking.
This would then force the admin to have a clear case against these people, and those who do not meet the requirements to make it to the list would have to be arrested and jailed. (Yes, I know, as if the US, 5% of World population and 25% of world prison population was not already the leader in that regard.)
This would be far from perfect but without any transparency there is no check and balance, no democracy possible.
Sunshine...
If anything Luke does what the mainstream media should be doing and that is ask the tough questions. Heck, he even asks mainstream media members from Fox, MSNBC and others hard questions and all they do is walk away in silence.
There was such a hoopla when it turned out that the Bush WH had its emails going through a RNC server in Chattanooga that I thought anyone would make the distinction at this point.
(The same Chattanooga server that also counted the Ohio votes in 2004, BTW)
*Obama* discusses it in public ! That's Greenwald's point ! If Schultz DIDN'T know about it, she SHOULD have known about it.
This is no heavily guarded and highly classified "black ops", this is, and for some time has *been*, well known to all who read the less-propaganda -prone papers.
That point was *also* made in the article above.
This knee-jerk defense of "our team", just because they *are* "our team", rather than judging on the basis of the *facts* is no more attractive, or effective on the left than it is on the right.
I know, it's brazen politics but he can't do right if he is not in office.
The job of the media is to ask and investigate at all times. Their role is not to stay quiet for the "right guy." In fact, having that attitude is as bad and complicit as Representative Schultz.
Romney's tendency to lie or distort everything might be getting more airplay than it currently is, for example.
If the media is owned and controlled by the 1% as many people say it is, this will not happen, or will not happen very often.
My thought is to support Luke, and DEMAND that the rest of the media start doing their job as well. I'm much more interested in getting to the truth than I am in "fairness."
The video reporter quoted the New York Times description of "the list," which is used both in article titles at the paper, and is the officially referred to title at the White House amongst the President and "three dozen of his current and former advisers," per the New York Times.
Some people stand up for truth as truth.
Not simply as grease for some slimy politician's rails.
I know it's a unique concept in this day and age, but not unknown in the history of human kind.
Seriously, sometimes I think you guys work for Karl Rove.
Actually...it is EXACTLY what I expect. From BOTH parties and their leaders. Sad. Dangerous!
But, local, county, and state pols. and political party leaders (reality check - from both major political parties) today are mere minions of the evil, greed and power addicted 1%ers. Govt. operatives, no big suprise, have infiltrated, such as the NSA agent who, with full knowledge of the then Dem. party head, John Morris (now a Dem. candidate for office in 2012, no big suprise) kept elected delegates and alternets out in the bitter cold, for no reason whatsoever, at the 2008 El Paso County Assembly, then, in an intimidating manner, sent them away prior to allowing them to enter.
And, it was Morris who, within days after the gen. assembly had elected a full peace and justice oriented platform committee to go onto the CO state platform comm., then onto the national p. comm. at the 2008 National Dem. convention, dissolved and disbanded that platform committee.
Time for we the sheeple (a.k.a. the 99%) to take off the blinders, recognize all the greed and power staph infection that's totally overtaken us, stop the kneejerk voting for pretend politician clowns from either major party, and demand (via revolution/impl osion) the return of.....LIBERTY & JUSTICE FOR ALL!
All of us can rationalize certain actions and policies, but the truth remains regardless. Using past actions of the U.S. military in killing thousands of innocents as an excuse to commit new style crimes and abuse of power cannot be excused or rationalized away by U.S. citizens.
In the 60s, and early 70s there were massive demonstrations by ordinary Americans against the Vietnam conflict and other sordid actions of the U.S. government. Where are these demonstrations today? Unless the American people rise up in protest against these actions, then a quasi endorsement of the actions has taken place.
Given Rmoney's propensity to "shoot off his mouth" concerning relations with other countries (see comments on Syria, Libya, Iran, etc.) the odds on a Rmoney administration NOT using these tactics are very lim indeed! The odds on Republicans repealing the USA Patriot Act, or actions that amount to a police state are probably even slimmer!
Neither party is concerned with the best interests of American citizens and will continue meddling in the workings of sovereign countries with ulterior motives. Citizens are subject to far more violence than in the past, which puts a major damp rag on an inclination to protest. Should protests become more intense, the militaristic police forces will increase violence against them, and it would be serious.
The problem comes from the framing of it all as a "war", whether on terror or anything else - then it becomes a military action that is not subject to judicial process.
Once you declare a war on something civilian (i.e. drugs, terror etc.) then you justify taking military action against civilians, i.e. no due process.
First: the previous administration committed the US to armed conflict in two arenas using conventional means. Thus, millions of innocent Afghans and Iraquis were displaced and thousands killed with neither due process or permission. They were "the pickle in the middle" -- the direct result of a conventional invasion of their homeland. The result? Armed resistance by an otherwise unafilliated domestic population and an enormously successful recruiting effort by the (native) armed resistance. Obama's approach? By targeting specific individuals and using drones instead of the big red 1, he's been able to wage war on the terrorists instead of waging war on Islam. A huge difference that has shown us the way out of conflict in the region.
Second, your image of Pres O "personally" identifying the target du jour (so to speak) shows a commander in chief taking direct responsibility for the war he was left with. It'd be very easy to avoid this by delegating the responsibility as his predecessors have done. I value this president's dedication to this miserable task and his taking responsibility for the action. This is a guy we want in the white house. His predecessors are not. Would we have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq if Gore had been elected? Probably not. Responsible exit. O's legacy.
The U.S. attacked those countries and occupied them for no damn reason, and you are now pretending that there must be a way to exit with no responsibility because there are drones doing the job.
I guess you have forgotten the mercenaries in the area and god knows who all including the CIA. Ever heard of The Terminator and fighting with machines? Yeah. Does that make it OK to kill simply because there is nobody there to hear the tree fall in the forest?
First term presidents always have this nagging concern: they know they will run for reelection (unless they dropped the A bomb on Japan and authorized the tests for the H one, that it.)
How would you feel if (say) Pakistan had drones over the US and was targetting opposition figures?
Sounds like the Middle East to me.
Not saying it's a good thing, just that if people are to use drones I'd rather know who (and know he has a conscience) rather than some obscure, unelected CIA bureaucrat.
When will we, and how can we, DEMAND an alternative?
I wrote to Bernie Sanders, Dennis K. and Ron P. asking why each does not Independently Run.... for President, individually, or as a team.
No response from any.....
Michael: My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.
Kay Adams: Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed.
Michael: Oh? Who's being naive, Kay?
Indefinite detention: game over for
justice.
Kill list: game over for democracy.
Don´t sell your soul by voting
for Obama.
Romnay is of course a no go.
But so is Obama.
Americans are so complacent that they
only act when Hell is right in front
of them.
Romney will follow Obama on the above
three issues aggravated, plus Hell for
all other issues.
Why not vote Hell right away so we can
get started on a peaceful revolution
that can totally change the mindset of
the Americans.
Because that's not what would happen.
Where Has The Trickle In “Trickle Down” Gone?
Where has the trickle in Trickle Down gone? It’s gone, gone overseas in tax exempt offshore accounts. According to an article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/21/offshore-wealth-global-economy-tax-havens, in the Guardian, a UK publication, up to 32 trillion dollars world wide are being hoarded in offshore accounts that are undeclared and untaxed. Another article from the Pittsburg Trib states that, “U.S. companies hold $22 trillion dollars abroad, according to a Commerce Department annual survey, and much of it pools in places known for low taxes and tight secrecy”, http://triblive.com/news/2126360-74/tax-money-accounts-taxes-countries-financial-hide-billion-china-global#axzz29t1JrFtO, and that’s just U.S. corporations.
These reports have received virtually zero media coverage. These articles reveal one of the most important issues of the year: a true condemnation of Trickle Down economics! It is destroying our economy and deregulation only enriches the wealthiest. Whatever Romney says day to day, you will get double down on Trickle Down and more deregulation.
I already read your comment on at least two other RSN pages.
As much I tend to agree with you, JCN, as much it starts to sound like PRA - Proof by Repeated Assertion.
WWII. Such is the problem of lists.
New York Times brought it to light, other major papers soon followed as well as Bill Moyers and others. You didn't hear about it because you weren't paying attention.
Here is a video titled "Obama Top Adviser Robert Gibbs Justifies Murder of 16 Year Old American Citizen" from WeAreChange.org released today and can be found at the following link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MwB2znBZ1g
If you still want to call this a grand fabrication after seeing the video then I'm sorry but there is no hope.
Wasserman is cornered by a (British!) reporter whose picked up on the conspiratorial- sounding "secret" kill list that is so secret the reporter knows all about it, and proceeds to call Wasserman-Schul tz an idiot after she is stunned by the timing and framing of what seems like a question from left field. I mean: One could ask in the final days of a campaign, 'How do you feel about the President carrying around a suitcase which could annihilate the world with a push of a button'?
It's no secret how low both the Koch/Rove party and some press (like Fox) will go to create 'outrage' or anger towards 'liberals' and/or Obama. To me this was a trial balloon to see if this "new scandal" has legs, and I fear that it could, judging by the willingness 'here' to jump on board. Killing, war, contingency plans, and covert military operations all have been around a long time. Even W, via Rummy, Cheney... maybe especially the last administration, thrived on war talk, covert operations (though in the service of falsely stated reasons for war).
I can understand the reaction to this question, literally in the after-glow of a very strong statement and performance by the President, amid grave questions about the personality, judgment, programming, dangers &motives of the Romney-led Rove-Koch-Ryan- Rand party attempting to acquire the whole country, lists included. Shouldn't the debate have been the focus here?
The interviewer who "cornered" Rep.Schultz is Luke Rudkowski, born in Poland and arrived to New York as a child. The man does not even have a British accent.
Also, how is this a new scandal when the New York Times first mentioned it months ago and has been a topic of discussion on shows like Bill Moyers and Meet the Press? Among others. You call it a new scandal but it has been mentioned several times but not as often as it should.
Calling this a "trial balloon" is ridiculous.
OK, mea culpa. "I was inelegant" (where have I heard that before?) But I do think she was ambushed, and used in the article which otherwise was about "the debate" - Romney & Obama, not zinging Wasserman Schultz because she wasn't focused on kill lists, but rather on the debate content. OK, red-for-a-day - I'd have edited what I wrote if I could, striking the "British" adjective in favor of "partisan" or "provocative". As I say, in general I've found the Guardian's "outside the woods" reportage very welcome. Sorry, again, but my immediate response was in fact to the video in the context of a post-debate "gotcha" rather than debate analysis.
RSS feed for comments to this post