Obama's embrace of Bush terrorism policies is celebrated as "Centrism" - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com »
Posted By pc25 7 months ago in News
I wonder how many people from across the political spectrum will have to point this out before Obama defenders will finally admit that it's true. From Harvard Law Professor and former Bush OLC lawyer Jack Goldsmith, systematically assessing Obama's "terrorism" policies in The New Republic:
Read Full Story at salon.com »
505 Views Share Story 67 Comments Report
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 67 (view all)
-
-
-
64%
pc257 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.gifbin.com/981396
Reply
you now have the MSM setting a new tone tone for the Bush ERA Policies that Obama is now enthusiastically embracing. The MSM is telling them what to think about these policies NOW. Lost on the LIBS is the fact that they have always been told what to think, and last November how to vote. Lost on the libs is the fact that the MSM considered them too stupid to make an informed choice at the polls. Lost on the LIBS is the fact that the MSM made up their minds for them...... -
62%
mesodude7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Neocons’ Shameful Failure
Reply
After the release of the torture memos and thanks to the constant efforts of many individuals and groups we now not only know, but also have tangible proof that the Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Such information would have provided a foundation for one of Bush’s main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. In fact, no evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network and Saddam’s regime.
Dick Cheney and others, who advocated the use of sleep deprivation, isolation, stress positions and waterboarding, insist that they were legal.
A former senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with the interrogation issue said that Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration.
Now we also know that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly - Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003.
The former intelligence official said: “there was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people to push harder. Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people were told repeatedly, by CIA and by others, that there wasn’t any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies.”
http://www.politicus.us/2009/04/26/neocons’-shamef... -
100%
MRCOFFEECAKE7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The key here is that Bush lost his credibility and had no ability to sell anything to the American public.. Wouldn't it be ironic if he was more right than wrong, but was so damn bad and inept as a president that when he really needed to garner support from the American public they had seen enough of him....That seems to be the case here..
Reply
-
-
73%
pc257 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122636726473415991...
Reply
Intelligence Policy to Stay Largely Intact
WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party.
Civil-liberties groups were among those outraged that the White House sanctioned the use of harsh intelligence techniques -- which some consider torture -- by the Central Intelligence Agency, and expanded domestic spy powers. These groups are demanding quick action to reverse these policies.-
54%
mesodude7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
--cons have extremely short memories and narrow minds to go with their tiny brains...
Reply
"Part of the success of Obama’s campaign is that he has given voice to this anti-war sentiment and raised hopes that the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes and permanent war may be overturned if he wins the election.
However, Obama has made it clear this is not his intention. For instance, in a July 2007 Foreign Affairs article, Obama insisted that the “US must become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrically and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale”.
“I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened”, he stated.
The “war on terror” was never driven purely by the ideological hang-ups of extremist neo-cons who had seized the White House, but rather “terrorism” served as an excuse for the drive by US corporate interests to secure control over natural resources (oil in Iraq).
Not only do the same corporate interests that Bush served also fund the Democratic Party, but with the global economic crisis that has originated in the US, the stakes of control over Third World economies and resources have risen even higher.
Whoever wins the November 4 presidential elections, the “war on terror” will continue — unless a powerful global movement forces its end. The welcome demise of the Bush administration should mark an opportunity to build such a movement."
http://links.org.au/node/720
-
-
75%
pc257 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124242595415225131...
Reply
Another Friday, another bow to Bush's antiterror legacy.
Obama's Military Tribunals
President Obama's endorsements of Bush-Cheney antiterror policies are by now routine: for example, opposing the release of prisoner abuse photographs and support for indefinite detention for some detainees, and that's just this week. More remarkable is White House creativity in portraying these U-turns as epic change. Witness yesterday's announcement endorsing military commissions.-
50%
mesodude7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
WPost Sees Neocon Hope in Obama
Reply
Such was the case with the Post's lead editorial on April 4, "New Words of War," in which the newspaper's neoconservative editorial writers equate ex-President George W. Bush's "global war on terror" with President Barack Obama's more targeted strategy against al-Qaeda.
The Post apparently still won't accept that Bush's blunderbuss GWOT against "every terrorist group of global reach" was a geopolitical and constitutional disaster. Instead, by cherry-picking a few words here and there, the Post argues there's no real difference between Bush's conflict against all "terrorists"- everywhere and Obama's targeted assault on al-Qaeda and its allies along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
In criticizing the Obama administration for allegedly playing word games by dropping the GWOT phrasing, the Post was itself playing word games.
"Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently confirmed that the Obama administration has dropped the phrase "-global war on terror,'" the Post wrote, adding:
"She didn't say why. "I think that speaks for itself. Obviously,' was her elaboration. That raised a few obvious questions: Does the new administration believe the fight against al-Qaeda and other extreme Islamist groups doesn't amount to war? Is the threat to the U.S. homeland less, in President Obama's estimation, than that perceived by President George W. Bush? And does the United States still expect its NATO military allies to join in this newly unnamed, speaks-for-itself endeavor?"
But is the Post really that obtuse? What the change in wording means is that the Obama administration doesn't buy into Bush's apocalyptic vision that terrorism represents some new global phenomenon that requires waging endless war and obliterating the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/WPost-Sees-Neocon...
-
-
73%
pc257 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638765474658467...
Reply
Obama Channels Cheney
Obama adopts Bush view on the powers of the presidency.
The Obama Administration this week released its predecessor's post-9/11 legal memoranda in the name of "transparency," producing another round of feel-good Bush criticism. Anyone interested in President Obama's actual executive-power policies, however, should look at his position on warrantless wiretapping. Dick Cheney must be smiling.-
50%
mesodude7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
New Direction
Reply
So, Obama's narrower strategy of defeating al-Qaeda and its allies in a regional conflict is not just semantics. It represents a significant repudiation of Bush's grandiose GWOT, albeit not a totally new direction.
There are residual components from Bush's approach that have carried over into the Obama administration, such as excessive claims of state secrets and long-term detentions in Afghanistan as well as the year-long phase-out of the Guantanamo prison and the three-year pull-out from Iraq.
The Post's neocons also find themselves sharing common ground with some American leftists in treating Obama's approach as essentially the same as Bush's. Their reasons, however, differ.
The Post wants to pretend that Obama is vindicating the Bush/neocon position by keeping its substance although changing its name. Leftists are pushing the line that Obama is no different from Bush, that Obama is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.
But neither position recognizes that Obama has abandoned key components of Bush's GWOT, particularly its infinite nature, both in time and space. Obama has transformed the GWOT into a much more focused and conventional conflict, targeting a specific terrorist group and its allies.
By narrowing the scope of the conflict, Obama also has implicitly rejected Bush's corollary, that the GWOT requires a suspension of American liberties. Neither of these shifts is insignificant--and to ignore them is obtuse.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/WPost-Sees-Neoc...
-
-
80%
nostalgia7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Reply
Obama makes a melodramatic showing of ordering Guantanamo closed but then re-creates its systematic denial of detainee rights in Bagram, and "[l]ast month Secretary of Defense Gates hinted that up to 100 suspected terrorists would be detained without trial." Obama announces that all interrogations must comply with the Army Field Manual but then has his CIA Director announce that he will seek greater interrogation authority whenever it is needed and convenes a task force to determine which enhanced interrogation methods beyond the Field Manual should be authorized. He railed against Bush's Guantanamo military commissions but then preserved them with changes that are plainly cosmetic.
Yet the kool aid drinkers NEVER see the hypocrisy-
50%
mesodude7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(CBS's) SCOTT PELLEY: Would you close Guantanamo Bay?
Reply
"Yet the kool aid drinkers NEVER see the hypocrisy"
Like this, nostalgia? ---
JOHN MCCAIN: Yes. I would close Guantanamo Bay. And I would move those prisoners to Fort Leavenworth. And I would proceed with the tribunals.
PELLEY: Why? What's wrong with the way it was handled?
MCCAIN: Guantanamo Bay has become an image throughout the world which has hurt our reputation. Whether we deserve it or not, the reality is Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib have harmed our reputation in the world, thereby harming our ability to win the psychological part of the war against radical Islamic extremism.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/60minute... -
50%
mesodude7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
May 8, 2006:
Reply
"Obviously, the Guantanamo issue is a sensitive issue for people," (President George W.) Bush told ARD German television. "I very much would like to end Guantanamo; I very much would like to get people to a court.
"And we're waiting for our Supreme Court to give us a decision as to whether the people need to have a fair trial in a civilian court or in a military court," he said in a transcript released Sunday."
-
-
64%
Wolfie20077 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Obamanation:
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0O7_3o3BrI -
-
-
50%
mesodude7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I love the fact that there's no liberals commenting. Because they know they've got nothing to say other than- yeah, that's true. Hard to fight facts when the only weapon you have is rhetoric."
Reply
--here ya go, kitten. ;-P
"Straight-talkin' John McCain is finally back to saying something worth listening to. After a week in which the Senator declared he wasn't sure if condoms stopped the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, McCain, in an interview with Britain's Sunday Telegraph, has vowed to try and fix that "ugly American" image that our current president has helped foster in much of the world. How to accomplish this feat? First, close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and "expedite judicial proceedings" for the remaining prisoners. Second:
"I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular."
While I agree with McCain on both counts, these hardly seem like two issues that Republican voters are eager to see addressed. I haven't seen a poll on the matter, but it sometimes feels as though a huge percentage of conservatives don't even believe global warming is real, much less man-made. And closing Guantanamo? Not exactly a hot topic at CPAC. So what gives? Is McCain finally done pandering to the right? Was stepping back on the old bus all it took to remind him that he once really did sound like a maverick?
http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/03/18/mcca... -
75%
Sabretooth7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I love the fact that there's no liberals commenting. Because they know they've got nothing to say other than- yeah, that's true. Hard to fight facts when the only weapon you have is rhetoric."
Reply
Actually friend i think most liberals are just bored with you folks, you never have anything truthful or relevant to say. I only read your crap because i love to watch the fear mongering, adults acting like little chickensh!ts amuses me. Cons fear everything and need to lash out at every unseen or imaginary enemy, good luck with that sweetheart. -
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are very funny..Are you still calling anyone who doesn't agree with you ALWAYS, a liberal??
Reply
Now you shouldn't wonder how the Republican party has become a party of old men and brainless soccer moms.. it took you 150 years to build THAT coalition??
Maybe you should be wondering why conscientious and charitable business leaders like myself have left the party, instead of shouting at the rest of America and calling them socialists..
Do YOU people have ANY creativity left in you?? You're meeeeeellllting!!
-
-
-
56%
mesodude7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
--speaking of people who embraced Bush's policies...
Reply
Gen. Colin Powell said he is still a Republican and that former Vice President Dick Cheney is "misinformed" about his party affiliation.
Powell, appearing on "Face the Nation" Sunday, answered criticism from Cheney, who questioned Powell's loyalty to the GOP after voting for President Barack Obama in November.
"I am still a Republican. I'd like to point out that in the course of my 50 years of voting for presidents, I have voted for the person i thought was best qualified at that time to lead the nation.
Last year I thought it was President-now Barack Obama," Powell said.
Powell said the Republican party needs a new look if it wants to stay relevant.
"I think the Republican party has to take a hard look at itself and decide what kind of party are we?" he said.
"I have always felt that the Republican party should be more inclusive than it generally has been over the years.
Powell also addressed criticism from conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, saying his assertion that Powell only voted for President Obama because "he is black" was "unfortunate."
He admitted the influence Limbaugh has over the GOP is significant, noting the apologies he has solicited from major party figures including RNC Chairman Michael Steele.
"If he is out there, he should be subject to criticism," Powell argued. He said that while Limbaugh is perfectly allowed to have an opinion, he does not have "veto" rights over the opinions of others.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/24/politics/p...
-
-
-
-
-
-
HomerJS49Comment removed: Abusive
-
88%
truthiness7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
this isn't the first commentary to point out that Obama is drifting more and more away from his campaign and more towards Bush policies. Daily Show even has clips of their speeches side by side being almost word for word identical.
Reply
how totally unsurprising that a lawyer and a politician would turn out to be a hypocrite who either lied to get himself power or became corrupt once he got power.
and how unsurprising that war would lead to war crimes.
practically a movie script, except there's no hero coming to save the world.-
100%
MRCOFFEECAKE7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He is not a hypocrite if he has made a shift due to newly imparted classified info.
Reply
I respect a man or woman) who can represent American values and i trust that he knows what he's doing..
Unlike Bush, Obama has not presented us with a long list of misdeeds, bad policies and inappropriate actions...
We finally have a leader we can trust.
most of us trusted Bush right through Afghanistan.. I know i was telling people during his first year that i was kinda proud of a guy I thought was a dumb cowboy...
THEN he went into Iraq, watered down our focus on BinLaden and completely lost the respect of most decent minded Americans..At one point the whole world was seeing us as a victim and his thoughtless policies caused dozens of Admirals and Generals to resign and the rest of the world to start turning on us..It took a LOT for him to turn the world against us..Even Russia hates us now, and they share numerous Al Quaida problems with us..
-
-
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This should be more fun.
Reply
In 2008 we were told that Obama was the most liberal senator ever; (although we were also told that he took no real positions and had no record).
We were promised: if Obama became President he would
socialize milk, ban baseball and begin negotiations to surrender to the Taliban.
Those of us actualy listening to Obama, realized he was more genuinely to the right than Clinton.
His opposition to the Iraq war was not pacifism,
but the belief that Iraq was a distraction from the real fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
His objections to Guantanamo were not that terrorists should all be freed, - but that suspects should actualy be tried; somewhere not world-famous for torture.
He explained these things. Quite well.
We listened.
Mr. Barrack Hussein Obama in no dewey-eyed innocent;
he is the ambitious leader of a proud and powerful nation.
It should be fun listening to neo-cons telling us that Obama is breaking with the idiot goals they made up for him, - and how we liberals should feel betrayed,
- but it isn't.
It's just embarrasing.
It's like listening to a drunk try to tell a joke.
It goes on, and on, and can only end when they finaly throw up or pass out.
May they do it soon .-
100%
MRCOFFEECAKE7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why does ANYONE here think they know more than Obama does?
Reply
Why doesn't ANYONE here understand that once he was elected he was briefed by the National security Council?
Don't you think he found out a few previously classified facts??
I can't believe that ANYONE is playing the role of the all-knowing, all-righteous policy person.
Give the man a break, will ya???
Maybe Bush was mostly right on that one matter...
It's pretty funny that even if he was, he always sounded wrong.
He lost his credibility just when he may have needed it the ,most..
Good riddance George! -
HomerJS49Comment removed: Abusive
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.