One of these things is not like the other IV

53 comments on “One of these things is not like the other IV ”

• Comments are now closed

1. jarbury 1

   1 May 2009 at 4:09 pm

   Clearly Obama’s the odd one out. The reasons are so numerous….
2. gobsmacked 2

   1 May 2009 at 4:17 pm

   Two of them are from Hawaii.
3. Pat 3

   1 May 2009 at 4:19 pm

   I fondly recall The Sprout’s first post. He had put so much effort in, even a bit of analysis, trying to support his argument. Those were the days.

   Sigh.
   • the sprout 3.1

     2 May 2009 at 12:18 pm

     ouch! but a fair call Pat.
     i’m a pretty vacuous vegetable at the best of times and for the past few weeks i’ve been a little distracted by the arrival of a new sproutling.
     will try harder just as soon as i’m able.
     • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1

       2 May 2009 at 5:49 pm

       Great news dude. Congrats.
4. FletcherB 4

   1 May 2009 at 4:19 pm

   One of them has a flag behind them?
5. jerry 5

   1 May 2009 at 4:25 pm

   Two US presidents vs one NZ Prime Minister………….

   It will be interesting to see if JK and BO have a similar slide in popularity over time as the one that Bush went through ….. 90% after the WTC attacks to 25% when he left office.

   Edit

   GS

   I thought one had a holiday home in Hawaii and only one was born in the USA ?
6. Quoth the Raven 6

   1 May 2009 at 4:44 pm

   They’re all pretty much the same to me. Interchange them and you’d pretty much get the same terrible result.
7. dad4justice 7

   1 May 2009 at 5:15 pm

   Boy Bush, Key Boy and Brown Fella? Hard choice no comment. I don’t have much time for pollies. They give me the shits!.
   • BLiP 7.1

     1 May 2009 at 5:38 pm

     I’m sure its mutual.
     • dad4justice 7.1.1

       1 May 2009 at 5:48 pm

       I have emails from Bush and Key boys, but have not recieved one from the smiling Brown Donny Osmond lookalike.
       • BLiP 7.1.1.1

         1 May 2009 at 7:22 pm

         What does that tell you?
         • Jungle Feaver 7.1.1.1.1

           1 May 2009 at 8:34 pm

           😉
   • QoT 7.2

     2 May 2009 at 1:15 am

     d4j can name two of them but goes straight for the race comment on the third?
8. BLiP 8

   1 May 2009 at 5:29 pm

   Dubya and Goober left of Obama, WTF!
9. Brett Dale 9

   1 May 2009 at 5:46 pm

   One of them could turn out to be the greatest and most honest president the USA has ever had.

   One of them always said what he thought and stuck by it, even though it was plainly a bad idea.

   One of them is the Prime Minister of New Zealand who made a lot of money before becoming prime minister and small minded jealous people hate him for it, instead of applauding him for it.
   • BLiP 9.1

     1 May 2009 at 6:00 pm

     Oh no, there has been applause, its just that the right are the only ones still clapping – like seal puppies.
   • Quoth the Raven 9.2

     1 May 2009 at 6:28 pm

     Brett – Honest like saying you’ll hire no former Washington lobbyists than turning around and granting yourself an exemption to hire former Washington lobbyists. Honest like campaigning on withdrawing troops from Iraq within 16 months and when in office extending that by months and saying the countdown starts now no I mean now (months later) and even then around 50,000 troops will be left – some withdrawl.
     Great like setting a terrible precedent and not prosecuting the bushites for torture. Great like actually increaseing the military budget in the midst of a recession. Great like enacting the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the form of the bank bailouts. Oh yeah he’s made a few token gestures like closing Gitmo, but that doesn’t close all those other prisons around the world or saying the CIA won’t torture, but not actually stopping them from outsourcing that torture. From a man who’s campaign slogan came from a children’s television show (Bob the Builder) and who renamed the war on terror to the overseas contingency operation could we really ever expect real change?

     Brett I’m sure you’d be one of the first to criticise Labour’s spending, but what about Obama’s profligate spending? Or is it just that the handsome man gives you a tingly feeling?

     And making a lot of money in banking, praiseworthy? You’ll have a hard time convincing many people of that at this time except all those former bankers in Obama’s team (one of the reasons why Obama got more money from Wall st than McCain). I’d rather praise productive people not simply rich people.
10. Graeme 10

    1 May 2009 at 5:52 pm

    Two who have been accused of war crimes by Idiot/Savant, vs one who hasn’t?
11. fietoncounter 11

    1 May 2009 at 6:22 pm

    nup, can’t pick it.

    who is the odd one out sprout?

    is it you? me? brett dale? ; who applauds dickfaces who make money out of other peoples money, always clipping the ticket as it goes past.
    I would suggest as per the debacle’ we now reside in – the smartest guy in the room IS NOT That Nice Smiling Man.
    most delightful captcha: pagoda served. how apt.
12. barnsleybill 12

    1 May 2009 at 6:45 pm

    Easy, Key is not the ruler of a country that is committing war crimes and genocide in Iraq, Afghanistan and lord knows where else.

    I have just finished reading Pilgers updated “The new rulers of the world” This may not go well for my entire belief system. My head hurts.
    • r0b 12.1

      1 May 2009 at 11:21 pm

      You surprise me BB. Good luck on your journey.
13. John Dalley 13

    1 May 2009 at 7:54 pm

    The one on the right is not a dozy twat like the two on the left ???
14. mickysavage 14

    1 May 2009 at 8:12 pm

    They are all scientifically similar in that they are all male bipedal mammals with an identical number of arms, legs and internal organs. The difference, of course, is that Mr Obama stands for change you can believe in.

    Also, the other two wish they were Obama.
    • jarbury 14.1

      1 May 2009 at 8:34 pm

      Ah yes I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there micky. Obama is definitely the odd one out in that he actually wants to make the world a better place, not just for his cronies but for everyone.

      For Obama’s critics, it takes a long time to turn an oil tanker around…..
      • Pascal's bookie 14.1.1

        1 May 2009 at 10:03 pm

        it takes a long time to turn an oil tanker around

        hehe I was thinking the same myself, was going to say.

        I’m not that fussed about what Obama does domestically. Selfish like that, just don’t see it as any of my business. On the torture and the wars, I’m paying attention. Yesterday, in a press conference he took another step, said waterboarding was torture in his opinion. Well fuck-a-doodle-doo. But methods don’t only apply to madness,

        There is a story about Pres Johnson and the civil rights movement. He was meeting with activists, and they were making their case. At the end of it he said words to the effect of, yes, I agree with you, now go make me do it.

        The release of those memo’s was a big deal. There is enormous establishment pressure not to do anything, and it’s good to see a lot of push back from Obama supporters in the states against that.

        Obama himself may be playing it very smart. The absolute last thing I want to see is an investigation get tarred as political payback. That is pretty much the only hope the torturers have. By being visibly reluctant, and yet putting as much info out there as people demand, Obama is countering that narrative. Obama himself cannot prosecute, but by not shutting the debate down, he is allowing the system to work. He called it torture. His justice dept has a legal duty to investigate crimes, and that signal was possibly that he would not stand in the way if Justice, or congress was to take steps. In spite of his rhetoric about moving forward and not looking back. By calling it torture (in his opinion) he has put himself one step more into a box.

        Obama needs to keep well out of it politically. It’s up to Congress to reveal more, putting pressure on Justice to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate.

        There are other pressure points as well. Bybee ( a memo writer) is possibly up for impeachment from his current gig on a california court, That would be a media shit storm, with much more revelations.

        Cheney is demanding the release of supposed documents showing the supposed benefits of the program, but that won’t save him if things turn legal. It’s a purely political play, and in any case, CIA FBI and Military sources have already said his claims are for shit. Arse covering cuts all ways apparently. Also, and too, if Cheney starts to request things be declassified, he is no longer in a position to be doing the cherry picking.

        According to the ACLU, there is plenty of video and transcript evidence of the interrogations. Just saying, Dick.

        The Spanish courts, (despite ignorant reporting to the contrary) are heading towards prosecutions. That will mean requests for the alleged war criminals to be sent to Spain. The American public won’t like that, but may think having criminal investigations themselves to be the best face saving reason for refusal.

        UN officials have already pointed out that by treaty, ratified into US law, there is a duty to investigate allegations of torture.

        drip. drip. drip.

        Coincidently I’m sure, I read somewhere unreliable that Bush snr, last year, bought a large amount of land, complete with spacious housing, in a South American country without an extradition treaty with the US. Probably an urban myth. But the thing with myths is, even though the words is false, they are all about what’s true.
        • BLiP 14.1.1.1

          1 May 2009 at 10:18 pm

          A+
        • Quoth the Raven 14.1.1.2

          1 May 2009 at 11:57 pm

          Jarbury – Why don’t you engage some of the points from “Obama’s critics” instead of just coming up with metaphors. If we’re talking about the direction of this ship he’s done so many things facing the same direction as his predecesors one would have to think he hasn’t even touched the wheel.

          Pascal – I get the politics behind leaving it to the Attorney General but really the politics are no real excuse for Obama. He initially wanted to give them immunity and we should remember that. That is absolutely disgusting and it speaks to a deplorable human being. If his equivocating is all down to politics that to me points to cowardly man without principles.

          Cheney is demanding the release of supposed documents showing the supposed benefits of the program, but that won’t save him if things turn legal. It’s a purely political play, and in any case, CIA FBI and Military sources have already said his claims are for shit.

          That’s not what Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair thinks:

          “High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country,”

          Let’s not forget that the Obama Justice Department has thrown out a case against the NSA brought on behalf of the Americans who had illegal surveilance conducted on them and that they tried to get a case against John Yoo thrown out.

          The absolute last thing I want to see is an investigation get tarred as political payback.
          The absolute last thing I want to see is these people getting away with it.
          • BLiP 14.1.1.2.1

            2 May 2009 at 12:22 am

            I agree entirely. The cynical manipulation of war crimes for political ends is abominable, but even torturers deserve due process. Also, the longer Obama lets this play, the more of its filth will be exposed and pressure on the actual enablers and perpetrators intensified. They will be babbling wrecks by the time they face the dock.
          • Pascal's bookie 14.1.1.2.2

            2 May 2009 at 12:44 am

            The absolute last thing I want to see is these people getting away with it.

            Quite. I totally hear what you are saying believe me. On all your points.

            Where I disagree I think, is that I think Obama might be playing it a smarter way than an all out assault would be. The politics of what we see as the high road may be disastrous. Does that suck? Oh yes. But that’s the reality.

            If his equivocating is all down to politics that to me points to cowardly man without principles.

            At the end of the day it is going to be politics that gets it done though. If sticking by some principle leads to a higher risk of defeat, then what is the principled thing to do? Especially when the stakes are so high.

            And are you sure that his equivocating is genuine, and not tactical? I’m not yet, and that is my point.

            I’m not really interested in arguing about whether or not so and so is a bad man or what have you. I just want the process to go ahead with the best chance of success. That being defined by the rule of law being upheld, and future presidents being made aware that they are not above the law.
          • jarbury 14.1.1.2.3

            2 May 2009 at 9:50 am

            I think it’s worthwhile to give him some time…. that’s the point. It’s not like this is an easy point of time to fix a country that has had 8 years of suffering under possibly their worst president since….. well for a very long time anyway!

            Regarding his foreign policy, clearly nothing is ever particularly easy but I think Obama has taken some good steps forward while at the same time possibly not yet being the ‘saviour’ some hoped him to be. But this is politics, and he has really tried to get cross-party consensus on issues so that the USA can move away from the extremely partisan politics that it has suffered under since the 1970s. Having to shift policies radically away from what Bush did, but at the same time at least try to get some of the republicans on side is no mean feat.

            I don’t think Obama is after short-term fixes – he wants to change US politics and the US economy in a long-term way like FDR did. I am reading “The Conscience of a Liberal” by Paul Krugman at the moment (bloody good book by the way) and it would seem that Obama wants to operate in a way that shifts the average US political view back towards the far greater moderation that we saw in the 1940s-1970s. That would mean you can’t fix everything straight away.
          • Spectator 14.1.1.2.4

            2 May 2009 at 2:34 pm

            You make very valid points. It is not Obama’s fault – but it is his problem to deal with – that the American public have been dumbed down to such an extent that they have no stomach for anything other than discrete, processed Change McNuggets rather than the real and substantive change necessary for America as it is today to survive.

            And change is absolutely necessary. Some time ago I read a wingnut article somewhere comparing Obama to Gorbachev. Oddly enough, the comparison was valid, although the talking points and conclusions made weren’t. Obama’s problem is that, just like Gorbachev, he has become the leader of a country that is bankrupt, both metaphorically and literally.

            Personally, having a soft spot for capitalism, I’m hoping that Obama succeeds with the USA where Gorbachev very narrowly failed with the USSR. But then, even Gorbachev had some success: that so many countries in Eastern Europe and the former USSR are at least comparatively free today is testament to his hard work.
        • Tim Ellis 14.1.1.3

          2 May 2009 at 11:16 am

          While I disagree with some of the points you’ve made here PB, it is a tremendously well-thought out response to what I suspect was a rather flippant and trivial original post.
15. mickysavage 15

    1 May 2009 at 9:48 pm

    I forgot to add, two of them are w&%kers …
16. DS 16

    1 May 2009 at 10:07 pm

    >>>They are all scientifically similar in that they are all male bipedal mammals with an identical number of arms, legs and internal organs.<<<

    But that would imply that Bush has a brain.
    • DeeDub 16.1

      2 May 2009 at 7:31 am

      Fret not DS…

      A male chimpanzee is a (sometimes) bipedal mammal with an identical number of arms, legs and internal organs…
17. Derek 17

    1 May 2009 at 11:58 pm

    Two have been heads of state, one is a tosser
18. Ag 18

    2 May 2009 at 12:21 am

    The answer is that all three attended Harvard College, but only Obama (J.D) and Bush (MBA) graduated.

    Key is, in fact, the only one of the three not to possess a graduate degree.
19. ak 19

    2 May 2009 at 12:27 am

    One is the personification of humanity’s progress; a beacon of hope, and possible key to our species’ endurance.

    One is the personification of a chimpanzee; a key and abiding exemplar of historical impediments to progression.

    One is Key. Who gives a rat’s arse.
20. logie97 20

    2 May 2009 at 8:27 am

    it’s in the eyes – the French have an expression “Il rit jaune – it’s a forced smile and the eyes tell a different story. Obama does not look as though he is holding onto a scalpel at the same time, and is genuinely happy to be photographed.
    • Ianmac 20.1

      2 May 2009 at 11:05 am

      Too true. Cover that Key smile with your hand and look deeply into his eyes. There ain’t no warmth in there!
21. charlie 21

    2 May 2009 at 10:41 am

    Andrew Sullivan on torture, Jesus Wept.

    More than half of people who attend services at least once a week — 54 percent — said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is “often” or “sometimes” justified. Only 42 percent of people who “seldom or never” go to services agreed, according the analysis released Wednesday by the <a href=http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=156.Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
22. Quoth the Raven 22

    2 May 2009 at 3:23 pm

    Jarbury – The point is I don’t see much change, a couple positive moves, but that doesn’t distinguish him from the likes of Bill Clinton. Better than Bush yes, much better? not really. His bailouts of the banks transferring all that wealth from the poor to the rich is not change from the Bush years it’s just the same old bullshit from the oligarchs. Since he’s been in power he’s ramped up the attacks on Pakistan and he’s going to massively enlarge the operation in Afghanistan. He’s not really even drawing down in Iraq. Leaving 50,000 colonial troops is not much of draw down if you ask me and how much different is that from Bush given that he was going to draw down troop levels as well? To me not much has changed Bush’s war on terror has become Obama’s war on terror. And don’t forget that’s he’s actually increasing the military budget after years and years of ludicrous growth under Bush. When teachers are being laid off because the state’s can’t afford to keep them, when many American’s can’t afford healthcare, when the number of homeless has shot up, Obama is spending more on the military. I’m sorry but this guy doesn’t fill me with hope like he seems to be with some you guys. Comparing Obama to FDR makes me a little quesy. FDR was a fascist corporatist.
    I think debate has shifted so far to the right that what should be reasonable left wingers are supporting Obama along with the conservatives here. It’s sickening to me.

    Pascal – I think it is plainly obvious that Obama didn’t want to prosecute. he said as much himself repeatedly. So we can say the equivocating is not tactical it is genuine. He was pressured into his current position. See this newsweek article linked to from the Obama fan club Huffington post. So once again it disgusts me that he wanted to let these people get away with it.
23. Irascible 23

    2 May 2009 at 3:51 pm

    Two are puppets with their strings pulled by their self interested moneyed backers. Two are men whose careers were made of the backs of rumour and manipulation.
    One is a South Pacific Islander with a holiday home in Hawaii who speaks with English but has difficulty speaking it.
    One has a real vision that he has articulated and put into practice on both a local and world stage.
24. Pascal's bookie 24

    2 May 2009 at 4:05 pm

    “He was pressured into his current position.”

    “There is a story about Pres Johnson and the civil rights movement. He was meeting with activists, and they were making their case. At the end of it he said words to the effect of, yes, I agree with you, now go make me do it.”

    From your link:

    “One transition source, who asked not to be identified discussing sensitive matters, said that Attorney General-designate Eric Holder may be more inclined than other Obama aides to press the matter.”

    Eric Holder is the only one that matters. Not Obama, and not the chief of staff, who also was on the record against prosecutions. I don’t really want to keep going over this. The reason Obama can’t be the one to start saying ‘prosecute prosecute’ is that he is the president. It’s not his job, just like it wasn’t Bush’s job to be declaring people terrorists without trials. For him to be doing that would be part of the problem.

    It would also make the dynamic immediately politicised in an unhelpful way. The story would become Obama v Bush, Dem v GOP. Rather than The Law v Criminals. It makes the battlefield better for the criminals if that was what happened.

    By saying words to the effect that “I have no personal interest in a fight about this, here is what happened” and letting the process go forward, it helps in making it a legal fight rather than a political one. If he really was against prosecutions, why didn’t he fight to avoid releasing the memo’s? He had a better chance in that case than the one he fought, (and lost, coincidence?) about other state secrets. Also bear in mind that the courts may have redacted much more of the memo’s than Obama did, even if they ruled to release them.

    I’m well aware of what has been said by who. I’m also aware of what actions have been taken, and I’m just reserving judgment as the process plays out. I don’t think that is unreasonable.

    In any case, I doubt we are convincing each other, but that’s my position at the moment. Essentially reserved, pending further actions.
    • ripp0 24.1

      2 May 2009 at 4:46 pm

      PB,

      Re your opening paragraph — did Johnson borrow that saying (in effect) from FDR.?

      To the blogger/standard — can I respectfully request that at some point when you play a similar exercize please substitute former Senator Phil Gramm for G.W. Bush – I’d be interested to know whether folks make any comparative with the middle pic above.. loosely this would be about mentors.. in the wider sense of events and happenings that career paths are prone to take..
      • Pascal's bookie 24.1.1

        2 May 2009 at 5:26 pm

        Right you are, It was FDR.
    • Quoth the Raven 24.2

      2 May 2009 at 5:13 pm

      Pascal – I’ve already said I understand the politics behind it. You make good points. It’s not a matter of convincing each other. The point that you’re not getting is that Obama didn’t want to prosecute. That’s what I’m saying and that’s what is so concerning.
      I hope now that Obama’s been forced to give up his original position that they will be prosecuted, but after the John Yoo case, Jewel v. NSA, Obama’s repeated praise of the CIA, I have doubts that any serious attempts will be made.
      Eric Holder himself said: “It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department,”
      The obvious question is why? So you can see why I have little faith in him.
      This article in the huffington post concludes thusly:

      So, what should Obama do about all this? And what he will do? Bush, Cheney and the other leading officials who ordered torture or issued legal opinions supporting it ought to be investigated and if found legally liable, indicted, tried, and, if convicted, punished. But clearly, that’s not going to happen. Obama is not prepared to divide the country still further and take important time and energy away from the effort to end the Bush Depression and establish badly-needed health, energy and education policies, among others. (Maybe Obama should release or pardon the few small fry torturers now being punished since the big fish will get away)

      Congress or somebody else may appoint a commission or two to investigate–but to no prosecutorial end. And, as I’ve written before, no way will Obama permit any Bush officials to be prosecuted abroad. Remember, even the lowliest U.S. private soldier serving abroad is protected by status of forces agreements from being punished by a host country for carrying out official duties. And, however illegal or immoral, torture was an official duty ordered by Bush.

      The most likely outcome of this whole business will be that nobody will be punished (I don’t even think the Senate will try for, much less accomplish, the simplest punitive step, a two-thirds vote to remove Judge Bybee from office). And the failure to punish those responsible for torture will become, for those of us on the left, the equivalent of right-wing complaints against abortion, stem cell research and gay marriage. There will continue to be much fuss, but no satisfaction. I hope I’m wrong.
25. jarbury 25

    2 May 2009 at 5:46 pm

    I think you are being a bit unrealistically harsh on Obama Quoth. He didn’t present himself as “the most liberal President the US will ever have”. He presented himself as someone probably to the left of Clinton, but definitely not left enough to scare the American public.

    Remember, the USA has had a pretty damn conservative government since at least 1980. What may seem to be pretty extreme right-wing policies to us (no government funded healthcare) are seen as normal there. It sucks, but it’s the case. I believe that over time Obama will make a significant change to that situation, however it will take him 8 years to do that. If he goes too extreme then he’ll get kicked out in 2012 and we’ll end up with a bloody Republican president again! I would expect Obama to be a little more extreme in the changes he makes if he can win the 2012 election and if there’s a Democrat dominated congress throughout that time.

    I think in some ways Obama’s biggest legacy will be the changed position the USA has on climate change talks. Something might happen now.
26. Quoth the Raven 26

    2 May 2009 at 6:49 pm

    Jarbury – You’re right about climate change that has been a great change and there will be many other positive changes. But nevertheless, we must be ruthlessly critical of all people in positions of authority. It saddens me to see many lefties not being critical enough when it comes to Obama. It reminds me of how much the left has lost its way. I’m not being overly harsh on Obama I’m being realistically critical. He’s not that liberal, just a tad more than the last guy and he’s certainly not left wing. There will be positive changes, but the Afghanistan war, Pakistan, the bailouts, Israel-Palestine, military spending, it’s all just a continuation of same old policies, not change, with maybe a bit of window dressing here and there. Lefties would harshly criticise Bush if he did many of the things Obama has done and so Obama should be given the same ruthless treatment. He’s not going to make great changes, no matter how many terms he gets, not because its unfeasible or unpalatable to the American public (just look how much support he’s got there) no its because it’s unpalatable to him, because he is not who you think he is, Jarbury. That’s clearly demonstrable from his actions, not his lack of them, since he’s been in office.
27. jarbury 27

    2 May 2009 at 7:13 pm

    I’m not sure whether it’s that possible for Obama to be particularly ‘left’ with regards to foreign policy. US foreign policy is, in many ways, the biggest of big oil tankers to turn around. Their climate change policies are a huge step in the right direction, and I guess I’ll wait and we where he’s at military wise in four years time.

    I’m more heartened by the domestic policies I hope to see from him. Unlike NZ the US is embarking upon a “Green New Deal” and I think that’s a critical step in the right direction. I also have high hopes that Obama will finally do something about US health care – which is an utter embarrassment for a country of that wealth.
28. rebelrocker 28

    3 May 2009 at 3:44 pm

    Two of them are bible bashers, one’s not…

Links to post

1. Kiwipolitico » Blog Archive » Add Condi to the list: posted on 2 May 2009 at 8:43 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS