« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
CIA Stance On Torture Tape Docs Suggests Obama's New Open Government Era Won't Materialize
It's looking more and more like Barack Obama's pledge to usher in a new era of openness in government may well go unfulfilled.
Yesterday, administration lawyers cited national security concerns to argue that Bush-era documents detailing the videotaped interrogations of detainees should not be released. And in the wake of that news, open-government advocates are reluctantly acknowledging that, despite Obama's campaign promises, his approach to secrecy on issues of national security will likely not depart significantly from that of George Bush.
"The Obama administration is not going to represent an abrupt departure from Bush-era policy," Steven Aftergood, who runs the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, told TPMmuckraker. "If we thought they were, we were mistaken."
He added that it's no longer realistic to think that Obama's administration will take a strong stand in favor of openness on national security issues. "We have to recalibrate our expectations."
The news of the CIA's position comes on the heels of several other administration decisions that have disappointed civil libertarians. Obama announced last month that he opposes the release of photos showing abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib, and the administration has several times invoked the state secrets privilege in wiretapping and renditions cases.
Obama's presidential campaign website declared last year that one "problem with Washington" was that "secrecy dominates government actions" and complained that the Bush administration "has invoked the state secrets privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court."
Aftergood did point to one prominent decision in which Obama clearly differed with Bush by coming down in favor of openness: the release of the Justice Department's OLC memos on torture. But he described this as an isolated case.
Kathryn Olmsted, a professor of history at UC Davis who has written extensively about the CIA's track record of secrecy, agreed with Aftergood about the significance of the administration's position on the interrogation tapes material.
"It's a bad sign that they're not going to break as much with the Bush administration as they had said they were going to," Olmsted told TPMmuckraker. "I really want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but they certainly seem to be going down that path."
Olmsted described the CIA's position on the issue as more egregious than Obama's decision to oppose the release of the Abu Ghraib photos. "You can make the argument that the photographs are so inflammatory that it's going to help recruiting of terrorists" to release them, she said. "But just having the text of the interrogation, I think that's really pushing it to say that that also is going to hurt national security."
And Ken Gude, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress -- whose founder and president, John Podesta, is a close administration ally -- described the news as "frustrating."
"I think that the argument [for secrecy] in the photos case is pretty strong," Gude told TPMmuckraker. "I think the argument in this case is pretty weak." He said that releasing the material at issue in the case was highly unlikely to reveal new information that could genuinely damage national security. "The information that's likely to be in this material is not a great surprise," he said.
Gude said he worried that the administration's position could undermine other efforts to keep information secret for legitimate national security reasons. "There has to be a time in which the government can lawfully withhold information from the public that could be harmful." But, he said, there's also a need to maintain the credibility of the government. "I think it undermines the administration's claims that really all it's interested in is security. I'm worried that they're losing that credibility."
"I think the administration has an opportunity to change the way in which this whole issue of secrecy around detention and torture and detainee treatment is viewed," he said, making it clear that it had not yet taken that opportunity, in his view.
Gude said he wasn't ready to render a broader judgment on the administration's approach to secrecy issues on national. "We're not there yet," he said, pointing out that Obama has been in office only five months. But, he allowed, "there is cause for concern."
Obama's approach to issues of secrecy on national security doesn't mimic Bush's alone, it appears. Rather, said Olmsted, it's broadly in keeping with "every other presidential administration" of modern times. But, she added, "it's disappointing, because President Obama promised a whole new era in government transparency, and here they go again concealing this information."
Aftergood, for his part, said that many open government advocates, predisposed to give the president the benefit of the doubt, defended some of the earlier decisions in favor of secrecy by saying: "Oh, the administration is too new, they haven't gotten their policies in place yet...the good stuff is still coming."
But now, he lamented, that optimistic attitude is no longer tenable. It's becoming clear, he said, that "the administration has made a different calculation."
| TOPICS: Barack Obama, CIA, CIA Tapes, George Bush, State Secrets, Torture, Wiretapping
Josh
Zachary
The major problem with secrecy of this sort is that it allows the opposition (in this case, Al Queda) to define the arguments and the extent of US involvement in torture.
So far, assuming the worst has not assumed bad enough actions taken on behalf of Americans.
June 9, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that this, "...to define the arguments and the extent of US involvement in torture." is the rationale that tells me that Obama is lying through his teeth, and that this "oh, it's really, really bad for us!" is just a red herring to throw off the truth of the real reason they're not releasing the photos.
I suspect the truth is that by releasing the photo's, the American government would be forced to pursue investigations of elected Republican officials whom have wrapped themselves in the flag, and would hawk their insane fears to their base 30% about how "Amurika is being undone by the Islamcist's liberals, and their flunky new drone, Obama."
The asshats politico's all hide behind the charade of "this is just standard political ripostes!" but the Republican base...they ain't taking it as standard political fare, their really taking this sh*t seriously, and the insanity of the right has gone ferally rabid.
So really, it's not that AQ would get to define the argument, it's that the Government would be forced to pursue investigations that would give rise to the shrillness of the Republican righwingers who would burn this country down to the ground just so they would not face prosecution for their war-crimes, and their crimes against humanity.
Essentially, we're being held hostage by the crazies because they got a vest bomb on, and their threatening to take us all with them if we try to do anything...rationale or sane.
June 9, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
bingo
June 9, 2009 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not surprised...should I be?...nothing ever really changes..to many powerful people who are running things, protecting their identity and their power.. the "people", "mill" around drinking their beer and watching American Idol..like cattle just waiting to die...life is good..yes?
June 9, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that I have gotten up off the floor from laughing so hard I almost cried (after reading the opening of this post) I guess I can pull myself together for a comment.
but just for good measure and so people can savor the humor of this penultimate understatement here it is again for your reading pleasure:
"It's looking more and more like Barack Obama's pledge to usher in a new era of openness in government may well go unfulfilled."
To say that Obama has been a disappointment in his extraordinary hypocrisy on this whole area of government is also to engage in vast understatement. I can't wait until someone in the corporate media has the balls to question him on this glaring hypocrisy and really hold his feet to the fire on it too. He deserves to be shamed on his performance on open government issues.
The only good thing here is how he himself is the one who really highlighted his hypocritical behavior and statements literally on day one when he declared that the rule of law, open government and accountability would be the "hallmark" of his administration. What a friggin joke that's turned out to be eh? He couldn't be more of a hypocrite on this issue.
He really deserves no quarter on this. His excuses and tranparent lies about his reasons for renegging on his promises to stop hiding what the government is doing are literally exactly the same as those offered by Bush. But Bush had the excuse of being a moron and an open tyrant. Obama has no such excuse.
The only possible explanation (and it's pretty pathetic too) for Obama's hypocrisy is that knowing little about national security and feeling unsure of himself in this issue realm, he has decided it is better politics to try and placate the military and the national security state "hawks" than it is to be an honest, ethical, decent leader who has the courage of his convictions on an extraordinarily important matter of public policy.
Along with his hypocrisy on open government, the President has fully adopted Bush's positions on the two imperialist wars and it is becoming increasingly clear that his promise to end the war in Iraq is another cruel joke and flip flop. How sad for our country when this man had such promise, but he has not the courage to match his easy words from the first day of his Presidency match his actions.
Even if he manages to get the economy back on it's feet, Obama will go down in history as the President who foolishly chose to listen to the military and try to "win" not one, but two unwinnable wars and whose attempts to maintain the American empire not only failed but cost the American treasury so dearly that it accelerated all the other bad trends he could have stopped or reversed in the society he was elected to lead and improve.
It's a real pity all round.
June 9, 2009 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
oleeb,
excellent post.
I said early on that 'if Obama stuck with his campaign rhetoric of an anti-Bush philosophy, and a liberal, open government agenda he might go up on Mt. Rushmore; if he backtracked he would become known as the biggest snake oil salesman to sit in the oval office'.
Can I interest you in some rattlesnake balm?
June 9, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No thanks John, but I hear there are lots of customers out there and they're eager to drink it all up!
June 9, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I understand your frustration. I'm thinking that there's 3 ways to work on this. One's constant pressure on the White House to fulfill their verbal obligations sooner rather than later. Yeah, I understand some of the reasons why he would tally on openness, but often if one doesn't act then the urgency to act just goes away. Two is to pressure Congress to legislate openness. Like repealing the terrible Patriot my f'n ass Act. Or, simply an "openness bill" that would reduce secrecy. And three is to sue the heck out of the government and keep the courts in on this issue. We need Government parts 2 and 3 to do their duty and define the Executive's role.
I think Obama means well and will eventually have a more open government. But why rely solely on hope when we can rule and legislate openness?
June 9, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are far too trusting. He clearly does not mean well. He isn't stupid. He knows precisely what he is doing. He, like most Democrats in DC, sees politics as a sport, a strategy game where popularity and winning are the goals. He has simply made a political calculation that his much trumpeted openess platform can be kicked to the curb with little or no political damage while adopting the neo-fascist policies of Bush will gain him allies amongst the paranoid, militaristic, imperialist criminals that secrecy and opaque government always protect.
In this era of the Imperial Presidency, I'm afraid it is no longer realistic to hope that the cesspool known as Congress, dominated by corporate centrists like Obama, will assert its constitutional powers as a counterbalance to the totalitarian trend in the executive branch. Have you seen the hissy fit Lieberman and Graham are throwing over the fact that liberals in the House have dared to deep six their rider giving retroactive authority for Obama to keep hiding the photos ordered released years ago by the federal courts? They know Obama's argument has no substance and cannot possibly win in court. So their solution is to change the rules after the game is started so they can still hide what they want to hide under the broad claim of national security. Furthermore, the Emperor from Illinois supports their bill!
We already have legislation protecting open government and it is the Freedom of Information Act which Obama, Lieberman ("my mentor" remember?)and Graham are actively undermining. Obama is a hypocrite plain and simple on this issue and his intentions are not good. His intentions are, like much of the rest of his politics, all about him. He doesn't care that the expansion of the national security state will accelerate the destruction of the republic anymore than Julius Ceasar or Augustus cared about the great republic they destroyed.
I know people don't like to face this ugly portrait of the President, but it is accurate, much to my and everyone else's chagrin (except for the fascist/imperialist/criminal element in our government).
June 9, 2009 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why I was offering the 3 ways to get more openness in the W.H. Whether I trust him or not is a moot point. I don't think that you or me have any idea what his true intentions actually are. The point is that we shouldn't rely on Obama or any president to be open because they say something, pledge "from the bottom of their hearts", or that it's convenient.
Pressuring directly, trying to legislate, or having a court rule would force the White House to be open. The suits citing FOIA are just one way to move in that direction.
June 9, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we can pretty much now write our President off as a con man. He certainly scammed a lot of people on a lot of issues to get himself elected. McCain was an impossible alternative of course, but now that we seem to have put Bush-Lite in the White House my vote seems to be largely wasted. Unless he gets his act together and stops pandering to the military, the banks, and the health insurance, I will be looking for an alternative to him in the Democratic primary in 2012
June 9, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Idealogical purity is everything. Any deviation from what *I* think means that HIS motives must be naked self interest. He's just protecting bushie! Someone has to hold him accountable! LIAR! HYPOCRITE!
WE don't support Obama's decision to keep these materials secret, but that doesn't mean we should LOSE OUR DAMNED MINDS. He's put an explanation on the table: the release of these materials would inflame the middle east and jeopardize progress. If you don't buy that, PLEASE refute the argument on it's merits. There is no need to start throwing around insults and hyperbole.
June 9, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The courts have made it very plain that the "arguments" aka excuses Obama offers have no merit in the eyes of the law. The people who are upset about this aren't upset about idealogical purity. They are upset because Obama so obviously lied about this and continues to lie about this. It's about honesty first and foremost and about the hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another.
You need to become familiar with the actual merits of the court case instead of the BS being peddled for political consumption by persons like yourself. Obama's excuses are the same lame excuses Bush offered. Nothing in the cases have changed except that Obama now is playing this politically, being dishonest with America dn teh world and he is being a hypocrite. Is it too much to ask for him simply to be a man of his word? I think not and I'm going to hold him to it on important issues like this. If you don't hold him accountable for his word on this what issue is important enough then to actually hold him accountable on?
June 9, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said in response to the prior post pressing this meme:
Every president maintains national security secrets. It's a fact of life. Obama and the CIA have determined that releasing additional torture material right now is adverse to American security interests because: 1) we are in the process of trying to repair our image in the Muslim world generally; 2) our soldiers are on the ground in Af-Pak trying to destroy al Qaeda; 3) our allies in Pakistan are in the midst of a crucial military offensive against the Taliban that is critically dependent upon support from its Muslim populace; 4) we are still militarily engaged in Iraq, yet another Muslim country; 5) Obama is attempting to negotiate a comprehensive mid-east peace plan that will likely depend upon the continued viability of moderate Islamic governments.
So you have all those national interests militating nondisclosure to be weighed against, what, exactly? Really. Why must this material be disclosed and disclosed right now? So we can flagellate ourselves? So we can vilify the previous administration? So we can undermine our Muslim allies and allow our enemies to incite further violence against our troops? So al Qaeda can recruit more suicide bombers?
Sorry. I am firmly with Obama on this.
June 9, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if I'm with Obama on this completely, but I agree with you and Scientific below as to the "why" this is happening and makes sense for the White House.
The fact is that if we want to reduce secrecy in Washington, it needs to be legislated. Yes, Obama, when it serves him can change some rules here and there, ad-hoc-like. But, now that he's president and sees all of the issues you mention, he has little incentive to go all out.
Civil libertarians can complain to the White House, but it seems to me that if they want to change the climate, they need to be talking to Congress.
June 9, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's already been legislated and Obama is acting in clear defiance of the law just as Bush did.
FOIA--Freedom of Information Act
This law clearly disallows precisely what Obama wants to do and for very good reason. The law anticipated this sort of dodge and expressly, purposefully and clearly doesn't allow them to pull stunts like they are attempting. It could not be clearer and the judicial decisions involved make it clear even for those who are persuaded by the emotional, but nonsubstantive arguments of Bush/Obama which do not meet the legal test for being kept out of public view.
June 9, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was writing about the FOIA above to you when you were writing about it here to me.
I think that we agree on the basics here. Obama's breaching--whether through delay, inconvenience at the present time, or through ill intention--his open government pledges. I'm just being a bit more optimistic that one way or another that openness still is a possibility.
June 9, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are simply avoiding facing the truth about Obama and what he is up to on this stuff. Roise colored glasses don't change the reality, they only mask it.
June 9, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
wbgonne said:
Every president maintains national security secrets. It's a fact of life.
But do they do it to protect obvious illegal, criminal activity of the former administration. Although your points appear resonable at first glance they completely fall apart when you consider that all the reasons for your points are based on lies fed to us by the Bush administration. Obama is now complicit in those lies and deceptions. I suggest that the exact opposite route (openess, investigations, hearings, trials, convictions) would do more to ressurect our standing in the world.
Another point: while Obama seems intent on protecting the Bushies the CIA, NSA and other governnmental entities are just as dysfunctional as they were on September 10th. Little has changed.
June 9, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are on Obama's side but you are not on the side of the law which two courts have ruled clearly on and which clearly does not allow such a cover up to continue. But that's exactly what is going on and the President's purpose is to cover up what went on and keep criminal government activity which is embarassing, from being publicly scrutinized.
Obama's snowjob is clearly designed to protect the guilty and avoid carrying our the sworn duty of our government to investigate and prosecute war crimes and all those who participated in them. The excuses Obama offers which are nothing but an exact repeat of Bush's excuses do not meet the legal test and it isn't even a close call. They are simply rolling out the "safety of our troops" and "national security" canard to protect the military and the many in it, particulary those higher up in the military who were responsible for allowing these crimes to take place.
June 9, 2009 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm hoping that Obama knows ACLU is going to win these court cases, and he'll be forced by the courts to give these papers and the torture photos.
Continuing the Presidential precedent -- forcing the "state secrets" privilege -- and losing the cases may be a step toward weakening the state secrets privilege by court precedent, or even by forcing Congress finally to restrict when and how it may be applied.
Oh, and this early course helps to prevent the rogues in the CIA and the military from undermining him, and even assassinating him, which I'm sure he's very interested in preventing.
I know I am.
And the alternative is just too sad to consider so early in his presidency.
June 9, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This would be nice if it were true but it is not.
Obama is actively pushing the Lieberman/Graham rider making retroactive exception based on any national security claim by the President, subject to no review of any kind, in order to avoid obeying the law and the orders of the Federal courts that have rejected his arguments thus far. So the idea that Obama is somehow forcing the cases in order to lose doesn't hold any water given the Lieberman/Graham rider now in play and which is likely to pass.
June 9, 2009 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless something else happened today, it's gone: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/08/liebermangraham-dropped-f_n_212895.html
June 9, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's really too soon to know whether your view or mine is the case, and until the ACLU cases are decided in the courts, it will remain too soon to know.
What counts (seeing as how Lieberman's threatened filibuster is a joke) is what happens after the ACLU wins its cases.
Until then, all is speculation.
June 10, 2009 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the court case is a moot point if Obama gets the Lieberman/Graham bill passed. But even if it isn't, I don't think that is the strategy in any event. I think he has really just flip flopped. The idea of forcing the issue in the courts to get the opposite decision your lawyers are arguing is a pretty bassackwards and dangerous way to accomplish something he could accomplish with the stroke of a pen.
June 10, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another example of why the general public tunes out the civil libertarian left for frequent acts of hyperbolic rhetoric. I'm not prepared to say I'm with Obama on any of these state secrets positions, but I do sympathize with his dilemma.
And the fact that the only ones echoing the "Bush=Obama" line are right-wing hacks like Nancy Pfotenhauer, should give liberal commenters some cue that they may want to recalibrate their message.
Presidents have responsibilities to the agencies and personnel under their administration. Perhaps our expectation was too ambitious that a new president would simply disarm the lawyers throughout the executive branch and let everyone in to see the dirty laundry of people who are still working in government.
So the administration is going to fight us in court? Fight'em then. Make the courts agree with the merits of your argument. Establish the precedent. And let the president keep fighting to close Guantanamo and end torture while being accused by wingers of wanting to appease terrorists.
June 9, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude's been president for about 5 minutes. I agree wholeheartedly with wbgonne's comment above. Everyone chill.
June 9, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only problem I see here is that such decisions have a momentum of their own, and the more of them pile up the worse it gets, and sooner rather than later comes the next election cycle, at the beginning of which most useful work is halted, sometimes permanently. So the answer for a presidency, I believe, is get everything done you really want to do within the first year, and then hope for a little later.
From my point of view, he has to get out in front of this transparency business right away and stop listening to the CIA and the generals who are far more afraid for their asses than they are of al Qaeda.
June 9, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suggest that Obama should assemble a closed meeting of Congress and give a four hour speech that exposes all of the evils of the Bush regime.
It's worked before.
June 9, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Obama=Bush thing is pretty moronic. Get at him on policy not this flamethrowing bullcrap.
June 9, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think you can blame Zach for the framing, Obama set up the comparison when his whole campaign was premised on CHANGE from Bush!
DUH!
June 9, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gimme a stinkin break. Obama could not be more polar opposite than Bush.
Everytime a decision or word comes out of Obama's mouth or office that remotely is similar to Bush we get these pansy little liberals say, "just like Bush"!
You all cannot have your little pet issues resolved at once. It has been 5 months since the guy took office.
If you cannot have faith and cannot be true to someone who holds pretty much the same beliefs as you, then you have no business voting or being involved.
June 9, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there any obligation on the part of St. Obama to be good for his word? His very explicit and unequivocal word about open government being the "hallmark" of his administration?
Does the President have any obligation at all to release the photos he said eh was going to release one week and then suddenly only about 10 days later says are vitally important? He is lying. Nobody is under any obligation to have faith in a politician who is lying to them. His word on these matters is worthless.
June 9, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
St. Obama? Dude, are you delusional?
June 9, 2009 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
mk,
no, he isn't delusional, he's accurate.
June 10, 2009 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he's a blinkered idealogue.
June 10, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
so Obama is right to argue that the more embarrassing/illegal the government actions are, the more reason to keep it secret from the voters?
How is this government of, by and for the people? It isn't. Keeping these secrects is just really obstruction of justice, in the most literal sense possible. The Obama apologists say that civil liberties advocates should recalibrate their messages, but I vehemently disagree. Obama should recalibrate his actions to align with the promises he sing-songily made to his star-struck fanboys and girls (I was one too, but I let the patterns of actions change my opinions)
Apparently, the President is the daddy for the nation, and gets to decide what we can and can't handle knowing or seeing. If he thinks it is too adult for us stupid childish voters to understand, the Obama-bots will swear he is always right, daddy knows best.
Secrecy is one of the most dangerous tools of the powerful to break the law, or get away with breaking the law. Obama is still covering up the blatant war crimes of the Bush admin, and no matter how many excuses, and reasons he proposes, I see it for what it is.
I am not scared of terrorists, and I won't be scared of them if they see some pictures, or read about interrogations.
I will not let terrorists dictate how I live my life.
I am not a coward, voters deserve the truth, not just when it suits Obama's political ambitions, or is convenient to him personally.
June 9, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
People are aware that "openness" and "transparency" does NOT mean "Oh, hey, let's just dump all this stuff out there and let people all over the world look at it even if it means it could put citizens in danger. Cause gosh darn, it's so transparent!"
Guess not.
June 9, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear. So long as the evidence is still made available to the courts - and prosecutions are pursued - I have no problem with not seeing these splattered across every tabloid and faux-news station.
Any government will have legitimate secrecy concerns - what matters is that we do not allow these to be used to mask abuses of power.
Surely this can be done without putting a target on the back of every service member and American tourist throughout the world.
June 9, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The law requires the release of the photos.
Prosecutions are NOT being pursued.
The hiding of the photos from the public is the means of making sure there are no prosecutions. The judge in the case and the appeals court have seen the photos and determined that it is pure speculation as to whether these photos will bring any harm to anyone other than those whom the photos prove are guilty of criminal conduct and war crimes at that!
June 9, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The CIA is not being asked to "dump all this stuff". Just the stuff related to the illegal use of "enhanced interrogation". There's PLENTY of stuff left that they do not hav to disclose.
June 9, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although Obama's poll numbers are still high there are many people like me who supported him during the campaign with a few donations and helped get out the vote for him but who are now becoming disillusioned almost daily.
That he can do such an about face on so many important issues makes me wonder how he can look at himself in the mirror every morning.
And NO, I don't want to wait, nor do I want to cut him some slack, its serious shit when he starts acting like the Bush/Cheney gang.
What is his excuse for the delay in ending Don't Ask Don't Tell? Every day good Americans are being kicked out of the military because they're gay. Didn't he promise to end that nonsense when he took office?
June 9, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you on DADT, but to equate him with Bush and Cheney is ludicrous. Get a grip.
My only real problems with Obama thus far are Bagram, DADT and the sloppy handling of the banks.
June 9, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scientific,
state secrets act, escalation in Afghanistan, preventive detention, discouraging investigations into illegality during the Bush/Cheney years,
and per Glenn Greenwald;
"...Obama wants Congress to change FOIA by retroactively narrowing its disclosure requirements, prevent a legal ruling by the courts, and vest himself with brand new secrecy powers under the law which, just as a factual matter, not even George Bush sought for himself."
This sounds like the retroactive immunity for giant telecoms who illegaly spied on American citizens during the Bush years.
So, Obama IS acting like Bush in some ways.
June 9, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
An administration of such promise going the way of bush is a bigger disapointment than bush himself.
June 9, 2009 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is sad that Obama has to protect Bush at all. That shows just how bad Bush really was.
In terms of Obama, Obama is doing what he has to do as commander-in-chief. Most Americans actually side with Obama on this.
June 9, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of them sided with Bush too and they are wrong to do so on both counts. He isn't acting as Commander in Chief, he is helping to cover up criminal activity in the military and intelligence communities. That is not the role of C in C.
June 9, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me naive, but the fact that it is against their political self-interest to keep this thing secret suggests me that there might be a good reason for it. The secrets that are not revealed were done during another administration, so there would be nothing self-incriminating. That is different from Bush, because these secrets about things done during the Bush administration. Probably things involving allied governments?
June 9, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems likely, from what we now know, that members of the Bush administration, relying in part on fabricated legal opinions, engaged in horrendous illegal activities in our name. We KNOW that evidentiary materials related to the illegal "enhanced interrogation" program were destroyed. They also engaged in massive illegal surveillance of the american people and repeatedly placed themselves above the law and the Constitution.
The Obama administration does seem to be protecing exposure of those crimes. I have not heard anything coming from the DOJ about a Special Prosecutor or investigations. By protecting the illegal activities of the former administration Obama runs the risk of complicity in them.
June 9, 2009 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is sad that people are so cynical as to so quickly resort to being flip and saying "just like Bush"! No faith and no belief in the man. It's sad, just sad. This is why progressive don't usually win and can't stay in power. No faith.
June 9, 2009 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not cynicism so much as anger, I think. I do agree though - saying Obama is "just like Bush" would be like saying Biden is "just like Cheney". It's silly and untrue. Bush was Bush. Obama is Obama.
BUT....and that's a big but...it does seem that Obama is giving the Bush administration a pass on egregious lawbreaking. How can that be positive and further American ideals around the world or here at home?
June 9, 2009 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody is saying he is just like Bush. They are saying he is using the very same arguments as Bush and pursuing the same policies in this area as Bush. And that is the truth. It has nothing to do with having faith in Obama.
June 9, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama's intent is to allocate to the Judiciary for relief, he is gambling with the law and our Constitution.
Relying on a 5 to 4 vote is a fool's game. The People are not...read NOT...impressed. We don't play games of chance with the law.
This is a case of transparency gone opaque. Whatever the reasoning, it's flawed by deceptive tactics that clumsily if not outrageously appeases the emotional right by attacking our right to know about all things dictatorial (Bush/Cheney).
That will not fly. Not in a country of, by, and for you and me.
June 9, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
This Administration is nothing but Bush lite. On every issue relating to civil liberties, the constitution, etc., this Administration has followed the Bush lead, in some instances even more secretive and conservative and in others pretty dam close. They have as of now 59 Senators and a substantial majority in the House yet they still on every issue of note, Health Care, Energy, Environment, ECFA, etc. look for some bullshit bipartisan wishy washy position to please those we all worked so hard to replace. There is NO, none, zilch, nada, progressive voice in this Administration. Somehow many rationalize, as Obama takes, here and there a better policy position than did GW and Darth Vader, that we have to give him time, but the course of this Administrations policy thrusts are crystal clear. Someone, anyone, in the progressive movement has to finally realize that what today passes as a Democrat would undoubtedly have been nothing more than a "moderate" Republican when there were such things. The Administration has not changed the dialogue or the story to counter the right wing crazies and there mantra that has dominated the political dialogue for some 30 odd years. And what has to happen, finally since the idea of progressives being a significant voice and and major influence of Democratic Party (and the Administrations)policies is they have to pull out of the Democratic Party and form a REAL progressive party that at the very least can threaten all those Republicans who make up the present day Democratic party. They have to force the dialogue and the story to begin shifting back towards where it was pre-Reagan. Otherwise being a progressive will continue to be as much of a non sequitur as being a "Socialist".
June 9, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, there used to be a time when each party had a platform of specific, strong ideas and the respective members supported and held to those beliefs. The Republicans still maintain this attitude fairly well. I've always felt the Democratic platform favored the general population moreso that the Republican platform. But somewhere along the way, thanks to incessant bullying and coordinated intimidation from the right, the notion of "center" took hold and many elected Dems no longer stand tall behind their platform. Now, with a majority rule this is even more acutely painful to watch.
June 9, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, this is the worst thing about the new administration. Really, we all who believed him in the campaign have a right to say we've been at least partially had, by now.
This much is obvious. He lied. And now he's trying like hell to defend the tainted legacies of Bush and Cheney because of...why, again?
I don't like being lied to. I expected it from George Bush, though, I did not expect it from Obama. Wankish CYA statements, yes. But, in terms of government secrecy, he is actually just about as bad as Bush, so far. Someone should slap him upside the head over this. What is he thinking?
June 9, 2009 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glenn Greenwald summed it up today:
"...the solution to inflaming anti-American sentiment is to avoid doing bad things in the first place and then, if such things are done, imposing accountability when discovered -- not diluting the long-standing laws of open government in order to cover it all up."
June 9, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wish the fighting of the release of the photos was just a delaying tactic for a fight that Obama is not ready to fight yet. He'll release them when he's accomplished some other things that he feels is more pressing like health care reform. I no longer think that's true.
When he originally voted for the FISA bill back in the fall, that almost cost him my support. Now that he has an established track record on the whole secrecy/torture thing, I must say I am very disappointed. If one were paranoid, one might say there is a shadow government that is telling Obama he can do certain things but there is one line he must not cross.
Regardless of the reasons real or fantasized, unless the war criminals are held accountable more war crimes will be committed.
June 9, 2009 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to issue a mea culpa here. Not often can I say I've been convinced this quickly, but a lot of you make very good points. And after thinking initially that this is no big deal, I've changed my mind.
This is indeed a very bad move by Obama - not because of the pragmatic nature of the decision (which I hope is his motivation, even if that too is insufficient to justify it). It's simply the argument laid out by Glenn Greenwald and quoted above. This is against the law.
I won't get hysterical about it, because that approach rarely accomplishes much, in my experience. But I expected better of our new President, and will continue to.
June 9, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You, sir, deserve to be commended for this!
June 9, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
This should begin the lengthy process of impeachment. That We the People were misled, perhaps defrauded, is serious stuff. One by one, Obama's pledges have turned into a con man's job sheet.
I worked very hard to realize Obama's presidency and will work doubly hard to boot him out in 3.5 or sooner for his deceptive behavior. This is betrayal and he should not get a second chance or second term.
There is no controversy. Let's begin the groundwork. For me, this means firing up the creative machinery in a graphical sense.
I had a bad feeling about Obama's slick cajolery of the people from day one. Now, Obama is breaking the big trust-and possibly the law. It's time to get busy and get beyond talk.
We made him. We will remove him. It was said, he'd not survive a second term. Now, I understand why. The promised transparency and constitutional facade gave way to militant corporatism, as feared. This isn't pragmatism at work, but deception. He's much worse than expected and a massive disappointment, great orator notwithstanding.
The moment my suspicions were confirmed, he lost me and my family. This isn't about politics, but the United States Constitution. And Obama just violated it's spirit if not the law it protects and guarantees.
What a con job! It's time to make one more choice.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/Freedom_of_Choice.html
June 9, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even considering what I just wrote above...wow. You really need to chill the fuck out. Impeachment? Come on.
June 10, 2009 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I repeat...
The fact that a so called Christian nation felt that it was okay to torture Muslims... for ANY reason... and then now protects those who did so, sends a very clear message to the rest of the world... both extremists AND innocents alike.
And, if not corrected, will prove to be TRUE, since as most of us already realize, we have never sought to torture other Christians... for ANY reason!
June 9, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The courts have made it very plain that the "arguments" aka excuses Obama offers have no merit in the eyes of the law. The people who are upset about this aren't upset about idealogical purity. They are upset because Obama so obviously lied about this and continues to lie about this. It's about honesty first and foremost and about the hypocrisy of saying one thing and doing another.
You need to become familiar with the actual merits of the court case instead of the BS being peddled for political consumption by persons like yourself. Obama's excuses are the same lame excuses Bush offered. Nothing in the cases have changed except that Obama now is playing this politically, being dishonest with America dn teh world and he is being a hypocrite. Is it too much to ask for him simply to be a man of his word? I think not and I'm going to hold him to it on important issues like this. If you don't hold him accountable for his word on this what issue is important enough then to actually hold him accountable on?
June 9, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, his was in reply to a comment way upstream.
June 9, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am chagrined that this need be said, but c'est la vie: Obama is nothing like Bush. Nothing. In fact, Obama is the opposite of Bush. Obama is SEEKING review by both the courts and the Congress. Bush hid everything he was doing and thwarted all attempts by the coordinate branches of government to perform their oversight functions. Obama is is inviting oversight by both the courts and Congress.
Since Obama has become the president, he has acted like a president, with all the burdens and responsibilities attendant the office. Obama has determined that further releases of torture information right now is contrary to American interests; therefore, he opposes it. That's his job. We have checks and balances from the coordinate branches but once all the checking and balancing is done that's it. Simple as that. If you don't trust Obama, or the oversight by Congress and the judiciary, that's your problem. Go live in a direct democracy, though I would caution you to carefully study what's happening in California before you sign up for popular will uber alles.
June 9, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
he is nothing like Bush, except for
-Giving immunity to the felons who spy/spied on all American's communications
-promoting homophobism with the continuation of DADT
-asserting his personal right to imprison anybody forever with no evidence of trial
-deciding to occupy two Muslim countries
-keeping the grossly bloated Pentagon budget
-keeping all free trade policies in place
-politicizing the DOJ
-using the "safety of the troops" as a catch-all excuse
-asserting states secrets privaleges to derail entire lawsuits
-putting the Wall Street crooks in charge of a solution: namely giving them tons of cash with no conditions
-stopping caps on executive compensation
-using fear as a tactic to excuse government secrecy
-continuing the war on drugs
-not supporting EFCA
-nominating corporate favoring judges
these are all policy positions, I'm not saying he's like Bush cuz he lives in the Whitehouse, is married, has two girls, has gray hair and a stupid dog. These are consequential, substantial, meaningful positions that I oppose, and that Bush and Obama promote.
I'm sure there are a few I missed.
June 9, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Change "Obama" to "Bush" in that sentence and you'll see the problem. (No, mouth-breathers, I'm not saying Obama=Bush. Take a fucking breath, or have a cool one, or something.) Your problem is that that's exactly what we had in the Bush years. Specifically, we had zero oversight from Congress, and precious little from the courts, which have been packed with Republican national-security-state appointees for the last eight years and more, although we did get some judicial pushback on some of the more outrageous Bush stances -- just as (for example, in Jeppesen Dataplan) we've had judicial pushback on some of the more outrageous Obama stances. One can only hope that will continue. So no, it's not "my problem" if oversight by Congress and the judiciary doesn't materialize, or more specifically, if they give a free pass to yet another imperial administration in the guise of "oversight" and an ongoing "War on Terrah" or whatever it's being called now.
And by the way, the way our government is supposed to function, "trusting" the President isn't supposed to enter into the equation at all. Again, this was Bush-speak. "I trust my President," said the Bushies. Now some in the Obama camp are saying the same thing. Fucking pathetic.
Ah, the sickly-sweet whiff of "Love it or leave it." The malodor of "If you don't like the President, then leave/go back to Russia/go to Afghanistan/wherever" begins to waft over the TPM boards. Again, I thought this was what Bushies and Republicans in general did, going back to Cold War times, but I see the playbook is once again out, this time from "our" side.
And speaking as a citizen of California, what is happening here is so far from direct democracy it's laughable that you even brought it up, and difficult even to know where to begin explaining to you how pathetically off-base you are.
June 11, 2009 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
1. Trust is an integral part of all democracies. You can look it up.
2. California's Constitution can be changed by a simple majority vote. That is how gay marriage was made unconstitutional. That is why you have no tax base and your state is bankrupt. Because the crazies can do whatever they want by a simple majority. Direct democracy.
June 11, 2009 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another element of the socalled "New Open Government Era Won't Materialize", Obama getting elected again. Obama has betrayed the people who voted for him. Message-force multipliers can parse all the rhetoric and bruting they want, but I recall very vividly and still possess a big blue sign with the striking message of CHANGE!! defining the Obama campaign. That's why American voted for Obama, and that is what Americans expected from Obama. We did not vote for cowardice and politicized excuses for why change is not possible, or why this or that issue is no longer a viable target of change. WE WANTED CHANGE!!! CHANGE!!!
Since Obama's government actual policies and actions are 90% in line with the fascist bushgov, and determined to protect and shield the fascists in the bushgov - there can be no argument or discussion defending the CHANGE we all had the audacious hope of recognizing and implementing, and now know will NEVER happen.
Obama has betrayed his core constituency, every promise he campaigned on, and will spend the rest of his turbulent presidency attempting to regain the support he has ruthlessly squandered from the people who defended and elected his candidacy. Obama is a one term president, because like bush and all the previous candidates - he is a political animal at heart beholden and devoted to the best interests of the predatorclass exclusively - and a politician who has betrayed the constituencies that defended and elected him.
June 10, 2009 12:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is it with all the hate? Obama has been president for 5 months and, to me at least, he is doing a damn good job. It seems some people simply don't want a president at all and will never be happy no matter who is in there. So it's just hate and anger. Must be a miserable way to live.
June 10, 2009 6:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, we see the classic strawman of the OFB: "You're saying Obama=Bush! How delusional can you get?"
NOBODY is saying that. But certain Obama admin policies are not only continuations of Bush admin policies, in some cases (as pointed out by Greenwald and others) they go beyond Bush policies. Nobody in the OFB has actually pointed to one of those policies and explained in a rational way why that actually is not so. And that's likely because they can't. I mean come on, seeking a law to allow indefinite "preventive" detention, without charge, based on the Executive's say-so? Narrowing FOIA down to near-meaninglessness?
We would do well to remember the words of our founders:
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist #84
And James Madison, speech to the Virginia Convention:
Just because we like the guy who's in the White House now, or the party he belongs to, does not mean that we can afford to be silent in the face of such encroachments.
June 11, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only reason I have any inclination to cut Obama some slack on these issues is a quote from William Blum I once heard delivered over the radio:
June 11, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"NOBODY is saying that. But certain Obama admin policies are not only continuations of Bush admin policies, in some cases (as pointed out by Greenwald and others) they go beyond Bush policies."
I see, so Obama is actually WORSE than Bush. On with the impeachment! But seriously, please tell me who BESIDES Glenn Greenwald is saying that Obama's policies are worse than Bush's? Rush Limbaugh? Newt Gingrich? Sean Hannity? Here's a tip: try to get your information from more reliable sources. (And citing Greenwald while you quote Madison and Hamilton is rather odd. Are you part of GG's Clown Posse?)
June 11, 2009 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, right on schedule.
You just keep right on with that strawman. If you want to persist in the delusion that saying that certain Obama Admin positions go beyond those of certain Bush Admin positions with respect to secrecy is EXACTLY THE SAME as saying "zOMG Obama Is Worser Than Bush111!!1" then go right ahead. Never mind the fact that that's exactly the strawman argument I was pointing out.
One. (Two, actually.)
Another.
And another.
And another.
Now note, they don't say what you say I said. In other words, they don't repeat your strawman characterization. They say, in various forms, what I actually said -- which is that in certain cases, with certain policies and positions, some Obama admin policies go beyond, or are worse than, some Bush admin policies. I understand that's an uncomfortable distinction when you're trying to tar all opponents with simplistic slogans rather than discuss actual substance.
I'm afraid you're just gonna have to spot me one Greenwald quote, however, since he sources ACLU and EFF lawyers:
As for Greenwald, feel free to point out where Greenwald is wrong or unreliable. I suspect you can't.
Here's a tip for you: Come back when you can have a discussion without resulting to strawman arguments, attacking the messenger, and puerile ad hominems. I suspect I'll be waiting a while.
June 12, 2009 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"As for Greenwald, feel free to point out where Greenwald is wrong or unreliable. I suspect you can't."
You can suspect whatever you want but you're wrong. In the past month or so Greenwald has claimed that: 1) Obama is introducing preventive detention into American law; 2) the president is not required to protect the American people b/c it doesn't say that in the Constitution; and 3) that trust is irrelevant to democracy. Each of these assertions is palpably incorrect and I spent some time eviscerating Greenwald's "arguments" at his site. Ultimately, I concluded that Greenwald is either obtuse or simply not writing in good faith. For those interested, I encourage you to go to Salon and look at the recent threads on those topics. Then decide for yourself whether Greenwald is a reputable source of legal and political analysis.
And, as for the alleged corroborating sources you mentioned, I encourage all interested to click the links and see just what counts for "support" of Greenwald's looney anti-Obama opinions : Tom Cruise movies, lawyers in active litigation against the Obama administration, and third-rate oped pieces.
The fact of the matter is that Obama and Bush are polar opposites. Of course, each was or is president and, as president, there are certain duties that just come with the job. So, yes, Obama will do some things that Bush did. But I simply cannot understand why any progressive-thinking American would now be attacking Obama's integrity and commitment to justice. In 5 months Obama has accomplished more for the country than just about any other president in memory. And he has done so in the face of unprecedented challenges -- two wars, a reeling economy, and anti-American sentiment at historic levels. In short, Obama has been stunningly good at repairing the damage the Bush Administration caused, including the various civil right abuses Bush bequeathed Obama. What more do you expect?
As they say in the movies: I rest my case. Should you wish to rely upon Glenn Greenwald that is your choice. But when you cite Greenwald as the source for information and analysis it is my right to contest the value and I intend to do just that. And if you persist in shilling for him I will conclude that you are indeed part of GG's Clown Posse. And I will point that out as well.
Have a nice day.
June 13, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. You just can't help yourself, can you? Strawmen and ad hominems, and not a whole lot else. Here's another tip for you, wbgonne: Assertion without evidence is not the same as argument. Particularly when your assertions can be so easily shown to be baseless. You really ought to work harder at not getting caught, because it has a nasty tendency to shred your credibility. What it does demonstrate is how spectacularly weak you realize your "arguments" actually are.
Just for the record, you have at least, so far, implicitly conceded (by your silence) that your previous characterization of my comments as "zOMG 'Obama is actually WORSE than Bush'" is, in fact, a strawman. I never said that; I never wrote it; and I don't think it. You are obviously completely incapable of grasping the idea that Obama is (concededly) better than Bush in many areas, but that the evidence so far shows policy initiatives that extend a few of the worst aspects of the Bush admin in a few other areas.
More on this little nugget of wisdom below.
When all else fails, attack the messenger. As I already noted upthread. And all else, apparently, has indeed failed. You do it with Greenwald (with zero substantiation), and you do it again with anybody else I happen to supply as further evidence. And you don't even do it well. Your characterizations are so transparently cherry-picked, wildly inaccurate, and self-serving that they have exactly zero credibility. What do I mean? Read on.
Whoa, Tom Cruise movies? Cool! Let's click the links... hmm, nope, not there. Wasn't I supposed to at least get to a trailer or something? That's weird. My linky machine must be broken... oh, wait, there it is, I think. Must be what you mean. Not a movie at all! Not even a trailer. Damn. What was I thinking? It's actually a transcript from the Rachel Maddow Show, discussing the Big Obama Speech in the National Archives, backed by the original Constitution of the United States, addressing, and providing details, including quotations from Obama's own speech, of his new "preventive detention" program -- an item that you claim is one Greenwald's assertions that, supposedly, makes him "unreliable" and that you claim to have "eviscerated".
You know, quotes from Obama like...
They "cannot be prosecuted", but they "must be prevented from attacking us again". And "I am not going to release" them. Gosh, that sure looks like preventive detention to me.
Maybe that's why the New York Times reported:
The participants' names were not published because the meeting in question was off the record, but one of the participants also told the Times:
Maddow herself continues:
Maddow notes that according to Obama's own speech, this period of "preventive detention" could last ten years or more. She then interviews Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which had been in active litigation against the Bush Administration on these and other issues for many years. That litigation is continuing; Bush is no longer in office, but strangely, the policies, and hence, the litigation, continues. In fact, he notes:
Oh, the Tom Cruise movie? I almost forgot. Sorry. Well, actually, it's just a brief clip from Minority Report, based on a dystopian Philip K. Dick story, something that Maddow adds as an illustration of the point -- not even "evidence" -- just a familiar anchor, some "color", for the audience to relate to. It amounts to 52 out of 2,249 words, and 35 seconds out of a 12-1/2 minute segment. That's what wbgonne is referring to when he talks about the "Tom Cruise movies." That's some seeeeerious cherry-pickin'. And this is all wbgonne is willing to say about the Maddow show segment. As is typical, any discussion of what's actually in the remaining 95.4% of the segment is, strangely, missing. Kinda makes you wonder whether whether he thinks he has anything real to say on the matter, or whether he realizes he's reduced to lobbing these kind of, you should excuse the expression, cherry-bombs.
Are all of wbgonne's characterizations so spectacularly, wildly inaccurate and tendentious? Well, maybe not quite, but close.
Hmm. Once again, no details, no discussion of what they actually say, nothing about the substance of their arguments or why, according to you, they are wrong. It's all about who they are, and the fact that they happen to be lawyers in litigation against Obama admin policies mysteriously makes them unreliable. You can't examine what they actually say, of course, because you haven't a prayer of actually mounting a cogent argument against it. Beyond that, as I noted above, what you fail to mention is that these selfsame lawyers were involved in the selfsame litigation when it was against the Bush administration. These are not new cases; they are all holdovers from litigation that was pending under BushCo.
So I have a test: once again, substitute Bush for Obama and you get, for example: "lawyers in active litigation against the Bush administration." Yeah, you might see people like that cited as unreliable -- on redstate.com or Little Green Footballs. That's a transparent "loyal Bushie" argument -- now made by a supporter of Obama. Truly, truly sad.
Those "lawyers in active litigation against the Obama administration" are with groups like the CCR and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, people who have been at the forefront of protecting civil liberties for many, many years. And, odd as it may seem to a loyal Obamie, they don't suddenly roll over and dismiss their litigation, or abandon their principles, based on the identity of the occupant of the White House. They don't, for some reason, say, "Well, shoot, Bush was doing it and we hated it, but now Obama is. Must be cool, then."
What is clear, then, is that you asked for people other than Greenwald making the points I raised. I supplied them. You proceeded to attack them, on demonstrably (and demonstratedly, if you'll excuse the awkward construction) specious grounds. And you couldn't be bothered to address a single word of what they actually said. So it's now clear that you won't accept any source short of Axelrod himself -- and at that, if Axelrod dared to speak a heresy and criticize an Obama policy, you would undoubtedly promptly brand him as a traitor -- or, perhaps more accurately, a heretic. I'll bring the stake and the wood, you can bring the san benito robe and the coroza cap, and we can have a friendly little auto-da-fe, OK? Followed by the burning at the stake, of course.
Ah, you're referring to Dick Polman, the Philadelphia Inquirer's former (1992-2006) national political correspondent, praised several times by the Columbia Journalism Review (more here and here, for example), described by 50-year veteran journalist and author Jules Witcover as "one of the best of the political reporters who have succeeded my own generation" and by ABC's The Note as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," who now is full-time faculty at Penn and their Maury Povich writer in residence. Of course, gopbloggers.org does criticize the guy, so I guess he really is third-rate. In any event, you're obviously keeping excellent company. You can see another of his vicious, third-rate anti-Obama blog posts here. Oh wait... well, go ahead, click the link.
But enough about Dick Polman. Maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt. You did say the piece was third-rate. Unfortunately, you didn't say why, nor note that it was a blog post, not an op-ed piece. But hey, who has the time to bother with details?
So much for your laughably self-serving and self-aggrandizing claim to have "eviscerated" Greenwald's arguments, without yourself providing a shred of independent evidence -- no link, no quote, NOTHING -- to substantiate spectacularly egotistical claim. And you certainly don't do anything here except call Greenwald names (along with everyone else who happens to disagree with you) , which strongly suggests that's all you did over there as well. (You do know that computers have copy and paste functions, don't you? It shouldn't be too hard to provide a sample of what you wrote, and show us WHERE YOU WROTE IT so we could check for ourselves not only what you wrote, but what others have written in response. But you won't, or can't, which strongly suggests that your claims are nothing more than hot, smelly air.)
The funny thing about Greenwald is, he praises Obama when Obama deserves it but he also criticizes Obama when Obama deserves it. Weird, huh? I know that such subtleties are beyond some folks. I know that, to some, Obama never deserves criticism. You may agree with that. By all available evidence so far, you do. I don't, and neither does Greenwald, neither does Maddow, neither does Aravosis, nor Warren, and on and on. They actually look at policies and positions, and praise or criticize them on their merits, rather than basing the decision on the identity of the current occupant of the White House. I know, I know, that's kinda weird.
And about Greenwald, whom you describe as "looney"... well, who do I believe? You, with your aaaaaaahwesome credibility now firmly established, or perhaps Jeremy Stone, the thirty-year head of the Federation of American Scientists (1970-2000) who, on the occasion of Greenwald's receipt (together with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!) of the Ithaca College Park Center for Independent Media's Izzy Award, said:
The Park Center at Ithaca College, in announcing the award, noted:
Maybe that's one reason The Economist's Democracy in America blog says, "If you are an avid reader of this blog you are familiar with Glenn Greenwald's work. We often link to his award-winning commentary on subjects such as the judiciary, executive power, anti-terrorism policy, and the media. Mr Greenwald is the author a thoughtful and provocative blog, as well as three books."
But whatever. Greenwald is loony. Because you say he is. Me, I'll go with the head of the Federation of American Scientists, the Park Center, and The Economist. But hey, you can go with whatever you want, including your own fantasies.
Well, the rest of the response, sadly, will have to wait for another post. There should already be plenty here to evaluate your credibility, or what's left of it. Let me know if you need a dustpan, or perhaps just another good flush.
Have a nice day.
June 17, 2009 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The rest of this -- as much as I can stand -- will have to be drip drip drip.
He has, has he? This is likely one of wbgonne's now-infamous strawmen, which wbgonne has made difficult to verify (without reading every single one of Greenwald's posts "in the past month or so") because wbgonne provides neither an actual quotation nor a link to substantiate what wbgonne says Greenwald said. And, as already amply documented, wbgonne does not exactly have a good track record of honestly characterizing other people's statements and claims -- even when it's ridiculously easy to document when wbgonne is -- oh, how shall I put it -- lying.
I do remember reading Greenwald (among others) skewering reporters and politicos of various stripes for the specious claim that the President "swears an oath to protect the country", which of course the President does not. That's likely a more honest version of what Greenwald actually said, but of course, no one can verify it without quite a lot of work. Which is probably exactly how wbgonne likes it. Heckuva job, wbgonnie.
June 18, 2009 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, after some looking, I did finally find one of your letters at salon that you claim "eviscerated" Greenwald's arguments, despite your not having provided either a link or a quote, as is your responsibility to do.
Then I found Greenwald's response -- you know, the the where he exposes your (to quote him) rank dishonesty by quoting the parts of Feingold's opening statement that you left out because they completely contradict your claim. In other words, you cherry-picked. Again. You deliberately omitted language from the very same statement you quoted, which, if you had quoted them, would have left you with nothing. And you had the brazen stupidity to think that nobody would catch you at it.
Well, Greenwald caught you. How's it feel to have been ripped a new one by Glennzilla?
"Eviscerating Greenwald's 'arguments'", my ass.
Tool.
June 19, 2009 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet more evidence that wbgonne is both a fool and a tool.
Bob Herbert in the NYT:
Not if wbgonne has anything to say about it. But that's what you'd expect of a "loyal Obamie."
June 24, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Late breaking: wbgonne channels John Yoo. Or maybe the other way around. Hard to tell sometimes.
In fact, maybe someone here can guess whether the following quote comes from Yoo or wbgonne:
Answer: Yoo.
Pretty hard to tell, though, wasn't it?
August 3, 2009 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the primary problem of bringing complete transparantcy to the operation of our goverment is that it would release the identity of far too many of our government officials who unfortunately are involved in numerous wrong doings! To view what is truly going on and why would also reveal the people unltimately responsible for the problems. That pertains to both sides of the aisle! We need to clean up our elected members and elect new ones who will honestly speak for their constituents, not use their time to sell their votes to lobbyists for monies to win their next election.
June 11, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't support Obama only to see a series of right wing placations and Constitutional dilutions. Fearing the right wing's reaction is not cause to compromise the Founders intent, by playing the undecideds for 2010 and 2012 while being wholly disingenuous with the People today.
And I do understand and agree with compelling the courts and the legislature to come back on line via Obama's taking an adversarial position, thank you. But I also know there are other ways to keep the right peaceful without bending over for militant corporatism and placing the correct remedies on hold. If it is Obama's intent to educate, then fine, but use the courts.
Justice-not compromise or protectionism-is the surest educator.
Only by placing fascist excesses in the dock before the country and world will America regain legitimacy. As it is, we are a country that tortures, murders, occupies, and steals, then works overtime to blatantly protect war criminals to soften the blows they so generously deserve.
We need Obama to educate with applied Constitutional Law if re-lighting our nation's beacon of hope and morality is his true aim.
Letting Obama know how displeased I am with his tactics is democracy in action. He should know many of us will not trust any president to do the right thing in our stead after suffering occupation by dictatorship for eight years.
Start educating fascism's followers through the courts now.
http://www.light-to-dark.com/War_Criminal_One.html
June 11, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink