Who's Really In Control of the White House? Maybe Not Obama

User avatar
Posts: 2225
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: Earth

PostThu Feb 25, 2010 6:51 am » by Reinaul

Who's Really In Control of the White House? Maybe Not Obama
David Sirota
Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:56 EST

When people like General McCrystal go rogue, it undermines the chain of command and challenges the Constitution.

"I am in control here in the White House." -- Secretary of State Alexander Haig, 1981

Ah, the good old days when even a big shot like Gen. Al Haig, who died early Saturday, could get in trouble for such mavericky declarations that defy basic constitutional precedents.

In the 21st century, that's ancient history. We've so idealized cowboy-style rebellion in matters of war and law enforcement that "going Haig" is today honored as "going rogue." Defiance, irreverence, contempt -- these are the moment's most venerated postures, no matter how destructive or lawless.

The Bush administration's illegal wiretapping and torture sessions were the most obvious examples of the rogue sensibility on steroids. But then came McCain-Palin, a presidential ticket predicated almost singularly on the rogue brand. And now, even in the Obama era, that brand pervades.

It began reemerging in September with Gen. Stanley McChrystal's Afghan escalation plan. McChrystal didn't just ask President Obama for more troops -- protocol-wise, that would have been completely appropriate. No, McChrystal went rogue, preemptively leaking his request to the media, then delivering a public address telling Obama to immediately follow his orders.

Incredibly, few politicians or pundits raised objections to McChrystal's behavior. Worse, rather than firing McChrystal, Obama meekly agreed to his demands, letting Americans know that when it comes to foreign policy, the rogue general -- not the popularly elected president -- is in control in the White House.

Of course, while McChrystal's insubordination was extra-constitutional in spirit, he at least made the effort to obtain the commander-in-chief's rubber-stamp approval. The same cannot be said for the rogues inside Obama's Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Recall that one year ago, Obama instructed the DEA to follow his campaign pledge and respect local statutes legalizing medicinal marijuana. When the DEA kept raiding pot dispensaries in states that had passed such laws, Attorney General Eric Holder reiterated the cease and desist decree, stating that "What (Obama) said during the campaign is now American policy."

As even more raids nonetheless continued, the Justice Department then issued an explicit memo ordering federal agents to refrain from prosecuting those who are in "compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana."

And yet the DEA has recently intensified its crackdown. Here in Colorado -- where voters enshrined medical marijuana's legality in our state constitution -- the feds not only raided two dispensaries, but did so in a way that deliberately humiliated their superiors.

In January, the DEA stormed a company that performs cannabis quality tests. The firm's alleged infraction? Following protocol and formally applying for a federal equipment license. DEA rogues responded to the request not with thanks or -- heaven forbid -- approval, but instead with the gestapo.

This was topped last week when DEA agents arrested a medical marijuana grower who dared discuss his business with a local news outlet. Sensing a P.R. opportunity, DEA agent Jeffrey Sweetin used the spectacle to insist that he will not listen to stand-down directives from his bosses.

"The time is coming when we go into a dispensary, we find out what their profit is, we seize the building and we arrest everybody," Sweetin menacingly intoned.
Once again, a rogue going wild and once again, tacit acceptance. Rather than personnel changes reining in the out-of-control agency, the president has nominated the acting Bush-appointed DEA administrator, Michele Leonhart, to a full term.

The message, then, should be clear: If you're looking for who is "in control" of our military and police forces, don't look to the established chain of command and don't look to constitutional provisions that mandate civilian authority over the government bayonet. Look to the most reckless rogues -- it's a good bet they're the ones running the show.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/20354 ... -Not-Obama
“The important thing is not to stop questioning.”
-Albert Einstein

Be Your Own Messiah

Posts: 1644
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 12:31 am

PostThu Feb 25, 2010 8:12 am » by Heinousone

Perhaps the time is coming when the lemmings strike back. These DEA agents seem to think it is their God given right to do whatever the hell they like. They honestly seem to believe they are on some holy crusade against drugs.

What a bunch of brainwashed fanatics. We need an Anti-DEA agency to go round these criminals up. Interpol! :lol:

Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 4:50 pm

PostThu Feb 25, 2010 8:36 am » by Rogerrabbit

he spent 700mil to get elected
all you have to do is look who gave hhim the cash as its 2 times what hillary could get and 4 times what mcaine could get
puppets and strings my friend

Posts: 1236
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:00 am

PostThu Feb 25, 2010 9:02 am » by Ridee

maybe ???

since when presidents are in charge of their country's ?
My blog --- > http://uplifting7.blogspot.com/

  • Related topics
    Last post