Obama and the Bush light comparisons, fair or flawed?

[lrrp]

The change we can believe in mantra is showing some rust and tarnish...

By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is morphing into George W. Bush, as administration attorneys repeatedly adopt the executive-authority and national-security rationales that their Republican predecessors preferred.

In courtroom battles and freedom-of-information fights from Washington, D.C., to California, Obama's legal arguments repeatedly mirror Bush's: White House turf is to be protected, secrets must be retained and dire warnings are wielded as weapons.

"It's putting up a veritable wall around the White House, and it's so at odds with Obama's campaign commitment to more open government," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a legal watchdog group.

Certainly, some differences exist.

The Obama administration, for instance, has released documents on global warming from the Council on Environmental Quality that the Bush administration sought to suppress. Some questions, such as access to White House visitor logs, remain a work in progress.

On policies that are at the heart of presidential power and prerogatives, however, this administration's legal arguments have blended into the other. The persistence can reflect everything from institutional momentum and a quest for continuity to the clout of career employees.

"There is no question that there are (durable) cultures and mindsets in agencies," Weismann acknowledged.

A courtroom clash Thursday illustrated how Obama has come to emulate Bush.

Weismann's organization sued last year to obtain the notes from an interview that the FBI conducted with then-Vice President Dick Cheney. The interview was part of an investigation into leaks concerning undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame, and the Bush administration vigorously fought the release of the notes.

"The records contain descriptions of confidential deliberations among top White House officials which are protected by the deliberative process and presidential communications privileges," Bush's Justice Department argued in an Oct. 10, 2008, legal brief.

Obama's Justice Department held the same line Thursday.

"The new leadership of the department supports those arguments," Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Smith told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan during the oral argument. "The Department of Justice is an ongoing entity, and it is not normal for us to update cases simply because we have a new attorney general."

Perspectives, of course, often change once candidates assume responsibility upon taking office. As a candidate, for instance, Obama opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

As president, however, he's following Bush's lead in defending in court the federal marriage law, which a California same-sex couple is challenging.

The law "reflects a cautiously limited response to society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage," Assistant Attorney General Tony West declared in a legal filing June 11.

Legally speaking, every administration inherits lawsuits filed against its predecessor. The Solicitor General's Office, which represents the government in appeals, traditionally tries to hold a steady course. Personnel, too, stick around. John Brennan, the CIA director's chief of staff during the Bush administration, is now closely advising Obama as a senior National Security Council staffer.

Whatever the reasons, policy persists.

The Bush White House sought to keep e-mails secret. The Obama White House has followed suit. The Bush White House sought to keep visitor logs secret. The Obama White House, so far, takes the same view.

Petaluma, Calif., resident Carolyn Jewel and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a legal activist group, sued the Bush administration over warrantless wiretaps. The Bush administration said that the lawsuit endangered national security. The Obama administration now agrees.

"The disclosure of the information implicated by this case, which concerns how the United States seeks to detect and prevent terrorist attacks, would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security," Acting Assistant Attorney General Michael F. Hertz declared in a brief April 3.

Similarly, the Bush administration objected to an American Civil Liberties Union request for access to documents that include photographs that reportedly show the abuse of foreign prisoners held by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Obama administration declared in April that it would release the photographs.

Three weeks later, Obama reversed course and declared that "releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger." The administration's attorneys followed up with a legal brief, augmented by a 24-page declaration that CIA Director Leon Panetta filed June 9.

"Information containing details of the (interrogation techniques) being applied would provide ready-made ammunition for al Qaida propaganda," Panetta declared. "The resultant damage to the national security would likely be exceptionally grave."

In an interview, ACLU attorney Amrit Singh said that "the trend, as it is now, is disappointing" as Obama follows the Bush lead. The Obama administration now will appeal to the Supreme Court in an effort to keep the photos and related information secret.

On the opposite coast, a similar drama is playing out in a clash over so-called "torture flights."

An ACLU lawsuit, initially filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., contends that the Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan knowingly supported a CIA operation that flew terrorism suspects to brutal overseas prisons. The Bush administration invoked the "state secrets" privilege in an effort to stop the suit.

"Further litigation of this case would pose an unacceptable risk of disclosure of information that the nation's security requires not be disclosed," the Bush administration declared in a legal filing on Oct. 18, 2007.

The Obama administration now says the same, after a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled April 21 that the case could proceed.

"Permitting this suit to proceed would pose an unacceptable risk to national security," the Obama administration declared in a legal filing June 12.

For both arguments, the two administrations relied on the attestations of the same man: former Bush CIA Director Michael Hayden.

[lrrp]

Well, to be clear, the most compelling reason I had to vote for him was to deny a vote to Songbird. If it had gone the other way we probably would have nuked Iran already. I think we elected the best guy in the race, but after Bush, I kinda think there was nowhere to go but up.

That said tho, Obama's stand on fisa and the bank bailouts make it look like business as usual to me. I hope I'm wrong, but so far, this doesn't look very much like the sort of change his campaign rhetoric hinted at...

[Kanadesaga]

[lrrp]

We might do well to remember too, that any real lasting change has to come from us as well. That said tho, it still looks like status quo to me...

By Joseph L. Galloway | McClatchy Newspapers
Who stole our change?

Who hijacked a popular uprising that was going to put a stop to business as usual in Washington, D.C.?

What happened to Barack Obama on his way to the White House?

The Republicans have been so busy trying to paint President Obama as a socialist, as a radical, as a Marxist, as a Muslim, as the Devil, that they haven't even noticed that he has become one of them.

What a difference a year can make. A year ago Barack Obama was on the campaign trail, promising an American electorate disheartened and disgusted by eight years of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney that he was going to change everything if he was elected President.

He would be the new broom, sweeping out the dirt, collecting the trash, and fixing everything that was broken and tarnished and perverted in our government, in our nation's capital, in our White House.

He swept into office on a high tide of good will and anticipation. He was going to fix Wall Street. He was going to end the war in Iraq. He was going to bring a new era of transparency to government. He was going to stimulate a faltering economy and give new hope to a shrinking, frightened middle class. He was going to close the prison at Guantanamo and end the torture policies of his predecessors. There was even a hope that we would investigate how we went wrong and who ordered it.

He came to town on a white horse, riding a staggering wave of popular approval in the polls, a golden leader in a golden moment with a golden opportunity, and then he did what? Nothing much. Nothing different.

Oh, he can still talk the talk and he does that incessantly. But he seemingly can't walk the walk. He may still sound like a revolutionary but more and more he looks and acts like George W. Bush, albeit a George W. Bush who can speak a complete sentence in the English language.

Obama's approval ratings are beginning to unwind and begin a long downward spiral among those who had believed in the promises of change. There was a golden moment when change was possible, but it is gone now.

There was one thing Obama absolutely had to do, even before tackling an economic meltdown and the Wall Street and big bank rip-offs:

He had to reassure Americans that we all live under the rule of law; that no one by virtue of holding the highest offices in the land, or having the biggest bank account, is above the law.

It was incumbent on new President Obama to step back and let justice be done. Let the investigators do their job, Not only to let justice be done but let justice be seen to be done.

But no. He said he wanted to focus on the future, not revisit the past. He needed to get moving on stimulating a floundering economy. And he screwed that up, too, reaching out to the very pirates who had looted their stockholders, their own companies, their own country to find someone to appoint as Treasury Secretary, thus reassuring Wall Street that he wasn't going to turn over any apple carts.

He declared that we, as a nation and people, would no longer torture our enemies and suspected enemies; would no longer lock them up and throw away the key; would no longer violate our own laws and those of the international conventions governing warfare.

But he trooped over to the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters to reassure those who had "only followed orders" when they tortured and abused helpless prisoners that they would never face justice. Nor would those who gave those illegal orders.

He promised to release another big batch of torture photos from our concentration camps in Afghanistan and Iraq and then reneged on that promise under pressure from the national security mavens.

His promises of transparency in government weren't worth a pitcher of warm spit. He sent the new, cleaner Justice Department lawyers into court to use the same limp arguments of national security to ask judges to back off on doing their jobs.

And bit-by-bit the possibility of change disappeared; bit-by-bit the hope of a renewed and reinvigorated American democracy and way of government faded away. Those who had held a dream in their hand closed their hand and crushed it.

[Chrisbb]

to cut him a little slack, i don't think Obama realized how little power the president really holds

[lrrp]

to cut him a little slack, i don't think Obama realized how little power the president really holds

I agree to a certain point, but this is the job he signed up for and he better get his shit together if he's gonna get anything done. I think he will only be a one-termer, partly because he himself has failed to live up to the media hype he created. Hope for change in the next election...

[Eric]

I agree to a certain point, but this is the job he signed up for and he better get his shit together if he's gonna get anything done. I think he will only be a one-termer, partly because he himself has failed to live up to the media hype he created. Hope for change in the next election...

It's not like he hasn't done anything, he's just not serving the ultra left agenda in which case would most definitely end with one term.

To counter this argument of him "not getting anything done" let's take a look at some facts. Keep in mind we aren't even at six months yet and many of the libs are demonizing the man like he's been in office for eight years.

* Passing the "largest" economic stimulus bill in American history.
* Ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay military detention facility and abolishing "enhanced interrogation techniques."
* Setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.
* Ordering 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and enlisting, with modest new assistance, European allies in a new multi-layered strategy there and in Pakistan.
* "Returning science to its rightful place" by lifting the Bush restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.
* Signing laws to expand children's health insurance (financed by a 61-cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax the adviser did not tout).
* Signing a law meant to improve the ability of women who allege pay discrimination to sue their employer.
* Diminishing the role of lobbyists in the White House
* "Forge a meaningful statement from the United Nations" criticizing North Korea's launch of a ballistic missile.
* Lifting travel and remittance restrictions for Cuban Americans who seek to travel more frequently to the island and send more US currency to their immediate family.
* Engaging world leaders in Europe, Turkey, Latin American and the Caribbean with "strength and humility."

[Heretic]

It's not like he hasn't done anything, he's just not serving the ultra left agenda in which case would most definitely end with one term.

Prosecuting torturers isn't ultra left. It's one of the basic principles of this country.

To counter this argument of him "not getting anything done" let's take a look at some facts. Keep in mind we aren't even at six months yet and many of the libs are demonizing the man like he's been in office for eight years.

* Passing the "largest" economic stimulus bill in American history.

Half of which are tax cuts. Tax cuts have never proven to be an economic stimulus.

* Ordering the closing of Guantanamo Bay military detention facility and abolishing "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Half a valid point, since he's too chicken shit to stand up to the fascist right wing by bringing those prisoners here for trial and holding them in supermax prisons or releasing those we know to be innocent.

* Setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq.

And then setting that date back by half a year. It's such a backhanded gesture that the Iraqi government past a bill demanding we be gone by the end of 2010, which Obama opposed.

* Ordering 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and enlisting, with modest new assistance, European allies in a new multi-layered strategy there and in Pakistan.

More troops into either of those countries will never work and has never worked. The only way you can win, especially in Afghanistan, is by fighting smarter not harder. A light and fast force that doesn't strike areas with sizeable civilian populations was working well for the few months the strategy was allowed to run its course.

[quote]
* "Returning science to its rightful place" by lifting the Bush restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.[.QUOTE]

But keeping Jr. era rules that weaken endangered arctic species despite the science stating the need to strangthen those protections to the strictest standard the law allows.

What's more we just got another global warming bill that is as weak and futile as anything Jr. would've pushed for.

* Signing laws to expand children's health insurance (financed by a 61-cent per pack increase in the federal cigarette tax the adviser did not tout).

All part of a policy to ensure that TRUE single payer healthcare never happens. It's an unholy deal made with insurance companies at our expense.

* Signing a law meant to improve the ability of women who allege pay discrimination to sue their employer.

Okay, that's one [a whole point].

* Diminishing the role of lobbyists in the White House

But not in the "democratic" party.

* "Forge a meaningful statement from the United Nations" criticizing North Korea's launch of a ballistic missile.

You would've gotten that out of Jr. were it last year.

* Lifting travel and remittance restrictions for Cuban Americans who seek to travel more frequently to the island and send more US currency to their immediate family.

A half gesture, but not a bad start.

* Engaging world leaders in Europe, Turkey, Latin American and the Caribbean with "strength and humility."

But it's not being followed by policy. We're still engaging in "preemptive detentions" and a corporate-first foreign policy.

[Eric]

Prosecuting torturers isn't ultra left. It's one of the basic principles of this country.

Half of which are tax cuts. Tax cuts have never proven to be an economic stimulus.

Half a valid point, since he's too chicken shit to stand up to the fascist right wing by bringing those prisoners here for trial and holding them in supermax prisons or releasing those we know to be innocent.

And then setting that date back by half a year. It's such a backhanded gesture that the Iraqi government past a bill demanding we be gone by the end of 2010, which Obama opposed.

More troops into either of those countries will never work and has never worked. The only way you can win, especially in Afghanistan, is by fighting smarter not harder. A light and fast force that doesn't strike areas with sizeable civilian populations was working well for the few months the strategy was allowed to run its course.

* "Returning science to its rightful place" by lifting the Bush restrictions on federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

But keeping Jr. era rules that weaken endangered arctic species despite the science stating the need to strangthen those protections to the strictest standard the law allows.

What's more we just got another global warming bill that is as weak and futile as anything Jr. would've pushed for.

All part of a policy to ensure that TRUE single payer healthcare never happens. It's an unholy deal made with insurance companies at our expense.

Okay, that's one [a whole point].

But not in the "democratic" party.

You would've gotten that out of Jr. were it last year.

A half gesture, but not a bad start.

But it's not being followed by policy. We're still engaging in "preemptive detentions" and a corporate-first foreign policy.

Well said, spoken as if it were a copy and paste right from the FOX News site itself.

BTW, when Americans were polled about prosecuting Bush more were against it than for it. People want to look forward. Obama never campaigned on it, not once.

[Heretic]

Well said, spoken as if it were a copy and paste right from the FOX News site itself.

That in lieu of a thought out unique response? REAL progressives and liberals are all saying the same thing as I posted. You guys are willing to settle for bullshit just a tad above Jr. Administration grade non-progress.

BTW, when Americans were polled about prosecuting Bush more were against it than for it. People want to look forward. Obama never campaigned on it, not once.

That's all dependent on the question [never divulged] and who runs the poll [also suspect].

But keep standing in the way of restoring the rule of law. Show the rest of the board, the country and the world that the U.S. is slowly spiraling down and our best ideals are now illusions.