Some thoughts on the president’s latest campaign speech:
A less self-consciously grandiose figure might feel the need to reflect on the fact that his simplistic prior positions had not fully taken account of the difficulties inherent in fighting the War on Terror. Not Obama. On the commissions, he explicitly denied changing his view, instead trumpeting cosmetic changes he’s proposed as major reforms that will bring them in line “with the rule of law.”
For all his championing of nuance, Obama comes back to one source for every dilemma: Bush, as though without his predecessor every question about how a nation of laws protects itself from a lawless enemy would be easy. Under Bush, according to Obama, we set our “principles aside as luxuries we could no longer afford.” Even now, there are those — are you listening, Mr. Former V.P.? — “who think that America’s safety and success require us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building.” What a shoddy smear.
It’s of a pattern. I wonder when this man is going to stop campaigning, and start to seriously govern?
Lowry states, without evidence, that “Obama reserves the right to use [enhanced interrogation techniques] again”. Cheney asserted something similar this week.
If you want me to believe that Obama has changed his position on “enhanced interrogation techniques”, show me where Obama said any such thing.
Ask them. But all the evidence seems to be that Obama never makes a statement that doesn’t have an expiration date.
Sadly, I think that this is what he believes governing is all about. After all, the last Democrat we had as President was in “permanent campaign” mode much of the time, but at least Bill Clinton knew a few things about governing as an executive, having been a governor for many years before he became President.
Well Jim, just because he says he won’t do something doesn’t mean he won’t change his mind. Look at all the other national security positions he opposed before the election and has decided to keep. One opinion from his AG and voila! EIT can be back in business.
But all the evidence seems to be that Obama never makes a statement that doesn’t have an expiration date.
“Never”? So when he said he would sign the Lilly Ledbetter act, and expand S-CHIP, those statements had expiration dates? Except that he did exactly what he promised.
It’s one thing to say that Obama has changed positions on some (but not all) things (which, by the way, is something he has in common with every one of his predecessors). It is quite another for Lowry and Cheney to state that Obama has reserved the right to use enhanced interrogations, when in fact he has done no such thing.
The President has only known campaigning. WHy would anyone think he would take up governing? Governing is hard. Campaigning is SO much more psychologically rewarding.
So Jim have you asked Lowry?
Or would your rather prattle on here.
Ah yes, gotta love the “Well-Bush did it!” or the “All politicians do that!” defense of Obama.
That may be true, but the critical difference is that Obama campaigned (and sill campaigns) as “Not-Bush” and someone above the political fray. As if he were a kind of New Politics.
But you see when Bush does X it’s Bad, but when Obama does X it’s good. It’s not like Obama’s gone back and forth on indefinite detention, military courts, Don’t ask Don’t Tell, gay marriage, the drug war, and so on.
It’s almost as if he promised everything to everyone and people are now finding out that it was all just words.
“It’s one thing to say that Obama has changed positions on some (but not all) things (which, by the way, is something he has in common with every one of his predecessors). ”
So that whole HopeyChangeyness thingy was just a lie to get elected. The Chicago way!!!
Outlaw!!!
I wonder when this man is going to stop campaigning… You know the answer… never. I never thought a prez could be worse than Jimmy Carter. …and this guy didn’t need years to earn the title.
I still say that there are two types of liberal Politicians: Idiots and Liars. The essential problem is that people that vote liberal lack the ability to see the probable outcome of their pet policies – in other words, idiots. (That’s why they are, in general, younger and over-educated).
If you are running for the idiot vote, either you are an idiot (Pelosi, I’m looking at you) and you really believe that stuff; or you are a liar, and you’re just telling everyone you believe that stuff. Obama seems to be firmly in the liar category – he seems to understand basic economics and game theory, and can predict the future well enough. That is really good for the long term interests of the United States.
He is talking a lot about doing things that will likely destroy the US – death to the working rich and all that – but he puts that off until after the 2010 elections. Because it is very likely that the Democrats will be kicked out of Congress, and then he can say “Aw shucks, I guess we won’t get to do that after all.”
I believe his actions can be best described as someone who is going to extract all the wealth from the country that he can for himself and his Chicago friends, but who is unlikely to go too far and kill the goose.
I wonder when this man is going to stop campaigning, and start to seriously govern?
Be careful what you wish for.
For all his championing of nuance, Obama comes back to one source for every dilemma: Bush …
Bush? I thouht his name was Goldstein.
Looks like Max Boot (now a newbie RINO squish?) says Obama has already begun to govern – and sensibly at that:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGNiYTg0YWYzNTMxYjZlOGFjZWQzMWRhYTk4NThlMWI=
Not that I necessarily agree with Mr. Boot, but this is praise for Obama from an unlikely source and he confirms the “Cheney versus Bush” narrative on water boarding . . .
Even his [Obama’s] renunciation of “enhanced interrogation techniques,” such as waterboarding, is essentially an endorsement of decisions already made in Bush’s second term
Since Obama campaigned against Bush’s decisions, how can Obama’s adoption of them be anything but a reversal?
But, let’s look at it another way. White has repeatedly ranted that Bush was wrong. When Obama does the same thing….
As usual, the anti-Obama critique is all over the place. You guys can’t seem to decide whether he’s changing too much (here comes facism) or too little (he’s the same as Bush). He’s a radical who will have us all in the underground economy by 2012, or he’s a all-words-no-action campaigner who doesn’t actually govern.
The only consistent thread is being anti-Obama. Is this what Obama Derangement Syndrome looks like?
There are libertarians (aka classic liberals) and gun rights supporters here. Where’s the commentary on his dropping prosecution of medical marijuana, or appointing a drug czar who renounces the drug war, or signing a bill that allows concealed carry in national parks?
You guys can’t seem to decide whether he’s changing too much (here comes facism) or too little (he’s the same as Bush).
He’s somewhat the same as Bush on the war (except for deliberately releasing classified information helpful to the Hirabis for partisan political purposes), and a fascist domestically. It actually makes a lot of sense, and is quite consistent…
Where’s the commentary on his dropping prosecution of medical marijuana, or appointing a drug czar who renounces the drug war, or signing a bill that allows concealed carry in national parks?
Good for him, but it doesn’t start to make up for the economic damage that he’s inflicting on the country, and its national security.
except for deliberately releasing classified information helpful to the Hirabis for partisan political purposes
How exactly did the release of that information help Hirabis? And how was releasing that information more partisan than, say, Bush and Cheney declassifying part of the NIE?
How exactly did the release of that information help Hirabis?
It told them the limits of our interrogation techniques, and how to train against them.
It told them the limits of our interrogation techniques, and how to train against them.
It told them about interrogation techniques that had been publicly abandoned long before the memos were released. Fat lot of good that does them.
In addition to the memo release, the administration has made very clear that it is limited to the (unclassified) military field manual. They are laughing at us, of course.
In addition to the memo release, the administration has made very clear that it is limited to the (unclassified) military field manual.
So the memo release did nothing to help Hirabis. Thanks for the clarification (i.e. reversal).
They are laughing at us, of course.
Yes. Because the only thing standing in the way of them killing zillions of Americans was their uncertainty about how they would be interrogated if they were captured. Now that that’s cleared up, they’re laughing and we’re doomed.
Jim: I object very strongly to the use of the term “hirabis”. The term implies that their actions are not sanctioned by Allah and the Koran. In fact, everything they are doing is so sanctioned, and everyone ought to be reminded of that. The correct term is “jihadi” – which as far as any non-Muslim is concerned, is semantically equal to “murderous and possibly treasonous scum”.