Sunday, May 24, 2009

What they're saying about Obama: More worms turn



From the New York Times:
He told Planned Parenthood that his first act as president would be to sign an abortion rights bill into law; now he says it is “not my highest legislative priority.” He promised gay rights advocates that he would work for the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, but he has pushed action into the future. A proponent of transparency, he released previously classified memos describing the C.I.A.’s harsh interrogation techniques. But then he moved to block the release of photos showing abuse of detainees — a 180-degree turn from his administration’s previous position.

On all these fronts, Mr. Obama and his aides have offered detailed explanations of the factors that shape his decision-making. So far, the public seems on board. But in a sound-bite culture, there are limits to how much nuance the public can absorb.

And that raises a question: at what point is President Thinker in danger of being perceived as President Flip-Flop?
The NYT forgot to mention that Obama was for single-payer health care before he was against it. ("President Thinker"? Based on what? His ability to think up new lies?)

From Willem Buiter in the Financial Times:
The spinelessness and moral cowardice of the Obama administration know no bounds.
Candidate Obama declares he abhors torture and deplores what went on in Gitmo and in secret detention centres around the world, but President Obama decides that the Camp may have to remain open for another year, as he doesn’t seem to know what to do with the prisoners. The right thing to do would have been to send a plane to Guantánamo Bay Naval Base on the day of his inauguration, to move all the prisoners to the USA.

President Obama then also decides not to prosecute those who committed the crimes of torture or abuse of prisoners or were responsible for these crimes. The president’s excuse was was that he sought to turn the page on “a dark and painful chapter”. It was a “time for reflection, not for retribution”, he said.

He is quite wrong. Reflection complements the law. It is not a substitute for it.
From a new piece by Sibel Edmonds:
Despite all the promises Mr. Obama made during his campaign, especially on those issues that were absolutely central to those whose support he garnered, so far the President of Change has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor.
Yes, I am going to begin with the issue of State Secrets Privilege; because I was the first recipient of this 'privilege' during the now gone Administration; because long before it became 'a popular' topic among the 'progressive experts,' during the time when these same experts avoided writing or speaking about it; when many constitutional attorneys had no idea we even had this "law" - similar to and based on the British 'Official Secret Act; when many journalists did not dare to question this draconian abuse of Executive Power; I was out there, writing, speaking, making the rounds in Congress, and fighting this 'privilege' in the courts.
So far The Obama administration has invoked the state secrets privilege in three cases in the first 100 days: Al Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama, Mohammed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, and Jewel v. NSA.

In defending the NSA illegal wiretapping, the Obama administration maintained that the State Secrets Privilege, the same draconian executive privilege used and abused voraciously by the previous administration, required the dismissal of the case in courts.

Not only has the new administration continued the practice of invoking SSP to shield government wrongdoing, it has expanded its abuses much further. In the Al Haramain case, Obama's Justice Department has threatened to have the FBI or federal marshals break into a judge's office and remove evidence already turned over in the case, according to the plaintiff's attorney. Even Bush didn't go this far so brazenly.
I can go on listing cases of Mr. Obama's change on change. Whether it is his reversal on protection for whistleblowers, despite his campaign promise to the contrary, or his expansion of the Un-American title of 'Czardom,' where we now have more czars than ever: Border Czar, Energy Czar, Cyber Security Czar…Car Czar...maybe even a Bicycle Czar!
From Charles don'tcha-hate-to-admit-he's-right-on-this-one Krauthammer:
If hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, then the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush. Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program.
Of course, Obama will never admit in word what he's doing in deed. As in his rhetorically brilliant national-security speech yesterday claiming to have undone Bush's moral travesties, the military commissions flip-flop is accompanied by the usual Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy.
Krauthammer likes the fact that Obama is turning into Bush. Did progs vote for a president who prefers to please the Charles Krauthammers of this world?

Perhaps the time has come for someone to remake Ingmar Bergman's Persona, with Barack Obama and George Bush playing the Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson roles.

By the way: Obama says that he won't bail out California, even though the cost of doing so would be only a tiny fraction of the amount he has spent bailing out Wall Street. Californians will remember this betrayal. The state is more conservative than most Americans realize, and not long ago was firmly in the GOP's corner.

8 comments:

Katherine said...

" "President Thinker"? Based on what? His ability to think up new lies?"

Dang. Thank you. This is one the most irritating memes out there.

I guess the teleprompter dance of hedging, dodging, and playing both sides of the fence is now "nuanced" and "thoughtful."

Anonymous said...

"Despite all the promises Mr. Obama made during his campaign, especially on those issues that were absolutely central to those whose support he garnered"When will people understand that most politicians say what people want to hear and then disregard the people after they're elected, except to underscore their "independence" by saying that they were elected by the people.

Democracy only works when "The People" are vigilant and don't allow themselves to be too sold on a particular candidate. At best, even people we admire can go off course, but we really need to wise up about politicians who never intend to live up to their words from the get go.

elliewyatt said...

I constantly tell Dems NOT to take Calif for granted.

Recent (R) governors:

Ronald Reagan 1967-1975 Republican

George Deukmejian 1983-1991 Republican

Pete Wilson 1991-1999 Republican

Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003-present Republican

Calif has had four Dem governors since 1900, and the most recent was recalled and replaced with a Republican.

m.jed said...

Obama says that he won't bail out California, even though the cost of doing so would be only a tiny fraction of the amount he has spent bailing out Wall Street.Except Wall Street, unlike the auto manufacturers and California will explicitly pay back the government. JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley and Bank of New York have already "applied" to. Wells Fargo and Bank of America will once they have enough time to earn back enough capital. Citigroup and AIG may require more time, but have enough franchise value that given sufficient time, will be able to as well.

There may be implicit payback in the auto/CA bailout (I'm less convinced in the former than of the latter) but the taxpayers aren't getting their money back in the form of a check from either of them.

Predicting that Joseph will say bailing out CA is just payback for all the "excess" taxes that have gone to Treasury from the State, I'll preemptively retort that the same can be said of Wall Street (and then some).

Snowflake said...

All these geniuses are shocked to learn Obama is a liar-when PUMA and the other critics were saying it all along.

I wonder when they will answer the obvious question-how is it the people they slandered calling racists, low information, etc had it right and when geniuses like Rachel were wrong?

What explanation will they give now that they agree with the racists?

Perry Logan said...

So much for the theory that progressives are smart.

Obama will go down in history as The Worst Democrat Ever™. Jimmy Carter will look good by comparison. Bill Clinton will look like a god.

mwb said...

snowflake asked: "What explanation will they give now that they agree with the racists?"

They won't. It will be just like the Iraq war those that disagreed with it before the MSM did, will seem not exist in the media discourse once the tide of opinion turned against the war. All those folks who backed the war/Obama initially will be the only perspectives offered even as they change their minds.

The meme will be no one could have known, despite the fact many did, thus they preserve their "knowing" class status.

Anonymous said...

Forget the racists, how about those of us who were called "war mongers" because we didn't support the enlightened one!

Us, war mongers, who actually took what Obama said to heart that he was going to expand the war in Afghanistan by invading Pakistan ala Af-Pak, and would need to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq after all. And how about that promise to support veterans by his action to have them pay for their own combat-related medical expenses instead of the VA?

To see the Light bringer smile in his usual posture of looking down his nose on Memorial Day was more than I could bare without throwing something at the TV when he made yet another empty pledge to "take care of our veterans".

And now the anti-war movement has been effectively silenced since they've just seemed to have forgotten to protest a war where even more troops were sent to the Middle East on Memorial Day.

Think those Obots who belittled and accused us of outrageous epthitets will get a clue yet?