NEWSFLASH: Obama ≠ Bush!
How irritating, ridiculous, and generally unhelpful are the lefties who insist that Obama is THE SAME AS BUSH because he hasn't released the Abu Ghraib pics, abolished tribunals, etc.? Well, maybe not as irritating, ridiculous, and generally unhelpful as idiots on the right who insist that abortion = murder or that gun control = a violation of 2nd amendment rights, but there is a similarity . . .
If we learned anything over the past decade, I would hope it would be the need for logical, nuanced, intelligent discussion of issues. That's why I'm recommending Philip Gourevitch's The Abu Ghraib We Cannot See. You may not agree with everything he says, but perhaps this very thoughtful, reasonable piece can help clarify the vast complexity of the torture issues and the administration's need to proceed morally, but also very carefully. You may not agree with all of Obama's responses to the Bush-created torture mess (I don't!), but is there really a need to equate him with Bush? What next? When he fails to act as you desire on some other issue, maybe start an Obama = Bin Ladin meme? Oops--already been done.
Anyone remember the Gore = Bush meme? The one that helped elect our Dear Leader in 2000? Anyone regret that simplistic, false equivalency?
During the campaign, Obama (and the lefties you refer to) repeatedly critized Bush for creating a lawless system of national security that disregarded our laws.
The only reason people are now saying Obama = Bush because after giving a lot of hope, Obama's change has been so cosmetic as to be practically invisible. He has agreed with the central premise of the Bush doctrine: pre-emption and detention, he has reinstated tribunals (with trivial changes), he regrets releasing the torture memos, etc, etc, etc.
What's becoming clear is that while Obama campaign against Bush on national security, he's real purpose has been to continue the Bush system so that he can focus on health care.
May 24, 2009 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo, sometimes you really are like a fingernail going down a blackboard.
May 24, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the rest of the time he is more like a suppurating pustule on the hindquarters of humanity.
May 24, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know, you thought it was going to be all roses from November onwards. Perhaps you can recreate that bubble by leaving reality once again and returning to campaign promises and speeches.
May 25, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo is right on regarding the tribunals. He really criticized Bush on this point and now has decided to keep them with some very cosmetic changes. It was something he called an "enormous failure" and "deeply flawed". But now that it's his job to defend the country and not just play armchair quarterback anymore, he realizes the execution is more difficult than he thought.
May 25, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This meme that Obama and bush are equatable is nothing but right-wing propaganda. It's the nothing but the neocon straussian mantra:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/therap/2009/05/who-is-leo-strauss-and-why-sho.php
May 24, 2009 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are off base on this one. I haven't heard neocons saying "Obama is the same as Bush". They are all saying that Obama is making us less safe by changing Bush policies.
Nor are genuine supportive critics ("the left") saying Obama = Bush. They are concerned on specific policies Obama is embracing a course of action similar/identical to the once promoted by Bush. These are often areas where Obama seems to have stepped down from explicit or implicit statements made during the campaign. These concerns are nearly impossible to refute on an individual policy basis - because the policies are the same.
Which brings us to "Bush = Obama". The only place I'm seeing this formulation used is as a strawman by unquestioning Obama partisans who are unable to answer the policy criticism. Instead they create a bogus argument, that no true critic has mounted, and argue against that. By conflating policy disagreements with a whole-person equivalence the "debater" is able to "win" the debate against a false frame.
Seriously. Through all the gnashing of teeth and introspection over 2000 ... I have never before this moment heard it was the great "Calling Gore Bush" incident that cost the democrats the election. That's just a truly silly thing for anyone to say.
May 25, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've been accused of exactly that several times, though I've never said it. It's the far-right that is alleging this of anyone who has any critiques of Obama. Very annoying. But part of an obvious propaganda campaign to try and act as if what bushco did doesn't need investigation.
May 25, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, TheraP. The meme is being used more and more by the "pure" left. I never understood how the Democrats could be so stupid as implode in 1968 virtually guaranteeing a Nixon victory. They would rather be "correct" and the outside looking in, rather than figure out a more cautious way and actually steer the ship themselves.
Obama is very young and black. He didn't get to be POTUS by being radical. Indeed, the left is in a better position today to nudge the country in a new direction than ever before...
... but they seem to insist on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
If anything, the right side of the center is laughing their asses off as the left make their work much easier.
May 25, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You misunderstand my point. They are saying that lie about the left. As if the left is saying obama and bush are the same.
May 25, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, TheraP, I got your point and you are incorrect. There are those on the left saying that Obama is simply Bush redux in terms of policy (though all acknowledge he presents the US better to the world). The right merely has to follow suit.
And if you are sincerely interested in real discussion, then at least do me the courtesy of replying to me directly rather than yourself. It's the equivalent of looking at me when you talk, you know. Or in your case, walking the walk, rather than just talking the talk.
May 25, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, TheraP. Too bad it's being promoted by people on the left like Lalo35adm.
And Lalo, how "cosmetic" is it to re-criminalize torture? Did you read about how Obama curtailed preemption? Can you find a single bit of evidence that Obama regrets making the torture memos public?
Re preemption:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/21/AR2009052104016.html?hpid=topnews
Sorry, I couldn't create the link.
May 24, 2009 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo? Of the left? You jest!
May 25, 2009 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you and Lalo are talking about two different preemption policies. I *think* Lalo is talking about the "Bush Doctrine" (of "In what regard, Charlie" fame).
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5251
I am unaware of Obama implementing policy to repudiate this (yet?).
May 25, 2009 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that was dumb of me!
However, I think you're wrong that the Obama = Bush meme hasn't cropped up on the left. Some people of the left, exasperated with Obama's cautious pace, his refusal to quickly repudiate all previous Bush policies, just [figuratively] throw up their hands and cry Bush. I actually wrote this post after encountering exactly this phenomenon several times on other progressive/left blogs.
Also, I said that the Gore = Bush meme helped Gore lose, and I think that's very true. Although Nader won less than 3 mil. votes, his talking point that there was "no difference" between Bush and Gore helped lead, I think, to a de-valueing of Gore. MAny Dems, looking for something new and reassured that it wasn't a big deal, voted for Bush and Nader. I'm sure there are some analyses out there on this . . .
May 25, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep!
May 25, 2009 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media is again distorting reality, where were they when Bush was lying us into war in Iraq, and our economy was being hijacked by charlatans of Wall Street?
Obama has made substantial changes to the military tribunals, which have been linked many times on TPM. He has also stopped the torture.
Many simpletons believe the meme that the Obama changes have been c'osmetic or practically invisible', but if that is true, why is Dick Cheney saying Obama is putting American lives at risk with the changes Obama has made, and why did the Obama tribunals reform bill of 2006 get defeated by the Bush/Cheney forces, after which they passed their own without Obama's vote?
May 24, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney says ending torture putting lives at risk because (a)it's central to his defense in criminal proceedings and (b)it's a good partisan attack enhancing the "Obama weak on defense" meme which Obama seems incapable of just brushing off (it's like Obama's triple-dog-dare).
If we're going to start using Cheney as a credible source to base debates on though, he also says Obama has reserved the right to torture if he determines it's necessary ... and the White House HAS been oblique in explaining if this is indeed the case.
Personally, I think Cheney is a lying sack of shit and any argument that uses his words as the basis is not credible. The corollary to a lie isn't necessarily the truth.
May 25, 2009 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. This argument will continue for four years.
Bush and Obama have so little in common. Its ridiculous.
May 24, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
True, Obama ≠ Bush. Rather, Obama ≈ Bush on civil liberties and humanitarian issues.
The remainder of your post is mostly speculation about straw men.
May 24, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Humanitarian and civil issues? - surely you jest?
May 25, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Humanitarian and civil issues? - surely you jest?
Sure you have read a newspaper? No? Seen a TV newscast? No? Heard a newcast on the radio? No?
Well, if you had, you might have heard that he is responsible for hundreds of prisoners who have been held for years without charges in violation of the Constitution.
You might have heard that he is shielding torturers and their bosses.
You might have heard that he is refusing to release photographs of misuse of human beings, which photos were ordered by a court to be released.
You might have heard that he is continuing the use of unmanned aircraft to perpetrate bombing of innocent civilians with thousands of casualties in an allied country without their permission.
You might have heard that late in his career as a Senator, he voted in one fell swoop to permit the continuation of unconstitutional eavesdropping on the telephone conversations of American citizens without court order and to indemnify the telephone companies who may, even today, have records of your last conversation with your secret gay lover.
Jest? This is not the stuff that humor is made of, my good friend. Viva America? More like viva Guatamala, El Salvador, or East Germany.
May 25, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, thank god you don't make sweeping generalizations, Tankard2!
BTW, what straw men are you talking about?
May 24, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is absolutely hillarious is that Barry has become just like that eeeeeeevil BOOOOOOOSH!
During the campaign, Barry called milliatry tribunals an "enormous failure." Now they're back.
From The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e. slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e. the surge) -- and now Guantanamo, Barry is just like Georgie.
EVERYBODY - Do the "Obama three-step":
1) Denounce a Bush policy
2) Change the name and make cosmetic changes
3) Adopt the Bush policy.
THATS why the "lefties" are whining like the "righties".
May 24, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once policy has been initiated and instituted, granting power, there is an inertia that resists removing it. I concede that BHO has inherited a great big plate of sh#t from the previous administration, and he either has to eat it or throw it away. Throwing it away carries negative PR with it, (read: weak on defense). In the end it will require an act of congress to redress the harm done to Americans' constitutional rights since 911. Those as@wipes in Congress will resist changing the law for the same reasons as BHO. Nobody wants to be responsible for removing the law that the next 911 will be blamed on. And I do believe there will be another tragedy of comparable magnitude. Our national and international gestalt virtually demands one. In the meantime we sit here with the economy sputtering along, with bread and games to distract us from that which Congress surrendered in the weak kneed aftermath of 911. My guess is that it will be a long time if ever before the American public grows the cojones to demand the amendment of the Patriot Act and FISA, to regain those rights we so readily surrendered. On one level Obama is no more bush than anyone inheriting bush's policies would be. On another, there are choices within the subset of options that might help distinguish him. I think he'll wait till his second term before playing that hand if he plays it at all. That said, I consider it a solemn duty to criticize the administration and congress in the meantime, whether the actions I desire are politically expedient or not.
May 24, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I've seen this flick before. I was there in 2002 and 2003 when mainstream Democrats were rallying around the centrists, the neoliberals and the "decent left" types, and were complaining about the "silly left", the "loony left" or just plain generic "lefties" for their lack of maturity, subtlety and nuance, and their inability to see how "complex" and "morally ambiguous" the issues were.
But "nuance" was the most overused word of the decade. The truth isn't always some subtle, complex blend of all the different perspectives on offer. Sometimes its naked and simple, and the source of all the purported complexity and ambiguity is just the tower of babel discourse of all those DC bastards and crooks speaking 100 different dialects of corruption and malevolence.
Obama is screwing up right now. He wants to please everyone, look like a grown-up, and play every issue right down the middle of the road, no matter how deviant the path of the road the country is currently on. Unfortunately, it's probably going to take some Bay of Pigs-like event to deliver a shock to his system, peel the scales from his eyes and get him to wake up to the imperial lie factory that provides him with all his information. Maybe then he will develop the courage to be bold.
Bob Gates, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross, Rahm Emanuel ... how did this apostle of "change" and "hope" ever get drawn into hiring this gang of devotees of the past? They're going to destroy his presidency - and screw up our lives in the process.
May 25, 2009 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K, you sound like a person that has been burnt in many a bad political relationships so your lack of trust is understandable.
While it is important to learn from the past, I've learned from watching the 2008 campaign that what was true then may not be true now. I watched and read so many editorials, comments, opinions about what was going to happen last year - most of it was wrong and most of their assumptions was based on what happened in the past.
May 25, 2009 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have political relationships with politicians. And I don't want any kind of relationship with Barack Obama or any other president.
It's a job, and we hired him to do it. Now all I care about is whether he does it well. That's obviously to a large extent a judgment call based on one's own political values. Given my own values, specifically in the area of foreign policy, I am not satisfied with Obama's job performance.
May 25, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's unfortunate that you decided to personalize an argument rather than deal with some of the substantial issues DanK raises.
May 25, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've hit on one of the bigger issues with Obama's administration: he simply rounded up the "usual suspects"... and from the usual places (e.g. Harvard).
Is it any surprise, therefore, that the policies tend to look similar to those in the past?
In just the same way that Bush resurrected Reagan cronies, Obama has resurrected many Clinton cronies.
And this is the problem with our system today. The power is in an elite group, on both sides of the aisle, who have more in common with each other than they do with the constituents they supposedly represent.
May 25, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really, really have my doubts about the "team of rivals" approach Obama was attracted to, clearthinker. Washington is a brutal city, and you need all the friends you can get. His assumption seems to have been that he could pack his administration with people who are only tenuously committed to a common progressive agenda, and then rise above it all and implement the policies he wants through the strength of his own will and personal power. That's arrogant. A president needs a team that is pulling in one direction.
May 25, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink