Barack Macbeth at his most poignant! He “feels the pain” in trashing the Bill of Rights, but will do something, maybe, ….
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, …
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.
Some will recall that Ryan Lizza of the New Yorker did a good wrap-up on the NSA story a couple of months ago. His follow-up on Obama speech Thursday, though, leaves a lot to be desired.
Here’s the link:
Further proof, if such were needed, that there is still LOTS of work to do, especially if some pretty-good-but-relatively-inexperienced journalists are going to do a Pollyanna on us.
Me? The speech reminded me of the rhetorical “triumph” (so called by many of my “progressive” friends) on May 23, 2013 about drones, torture, and other things that Barack Macbeth would really prefer not to have to do – poor fellow. The only one who made sense that day was Medea Benjamin. I think we have to do the equivalent of Medea’s intervention, and find a way to be heard by millions, as she did.
I went back and looked at what I wrote then. It seems I could cut and paste it – the first part, at least – and apply the words to Thursday’s “triumph.” Here’s the beginning:
Doubting Obama’s Resolve to Do Right
Exclusive: In his counterterrorism speech, President Obama ruminated about the moral and legal dilemma of balancing the safety of the American people against the use of targeted killings abroad. But Obama’s handwringing did not sit well with some critics including ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.
By Ray McGovern, May 28, 2013
An article in the Washington Post on July 6, 2010, reported me standing before the White House, announcing a new epithet for President Barack Obama: “Wuss – a person who will not stand up for what he knows is right.”
The report is correct – and so, I believe, is the epithet. And after the sleight-of-tongue speech given by the President of the United States at the National Defense University on May 23, I feel I can rest my case. (Caution: my wife insists that I mention at the outset that I’ve been angry since I listened to the speech.)
The day after Obama’s speech I found myself struck by Scott Wilson’s article on the front page of the Post, in which he highlighted the “unusual ambivalence from a commander-in-chief over the morality of his administration’s counterterrorism policies.”
And someone at the Post also had the courage that day to insert into a more reportorial article by Karen DeYoung and Greg Miller a hitting-the-nail-right-on-the-head quote from Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at Brookings: “To put it crassly, the President sought to rebuke his own administration for taking the positions it has – but also to make sure that it could continue to do so.” ….
Signifying nothing? No, this signifies something. And we who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic need to call it what it is – and stop it.