Obama in Bush Clothing

[DarrinS]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...T2009052103723

"We were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning."

-- Unnamed and dismayed human rights advocate, on legalizing indefinite detention of alleged terrorists,

the New York Times, May 21


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.

The latest flip-flop is the restoration of military tribunals. During the 2008 campaign, Obama denounced them repeatedly, calling them an "enormous failure." Obama suspended them upon his swearing-in. Now they're back.

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.

Cosmetic changes such as Obama's declaration that "we will give detainees greater la ude in selecting their own counsel." Laughable. High-toned liberal law firms are climbing over each other for the frisson of representing these miscreants in court.

What about disallowing evidence received under coercive interrogation? Hardly new, notes former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. Under the existing rules, military judges have that authority, and they exercised it under the Bush administration to dismiss charges against al-Qaeda operative Mohammed al-Qahtani on precisely those grounds.

On Guantanamo, it's Obama's fellow Democrats who have suddenly discovered the wisdom of Bush's choice. In open rebellion against Obama's pledge to shut it down, the Senate voted 90 to 6 to reject appropriating a single penny until the president explains where he intends to put the inmates. Sen. James Webb, the de facto Democratic authority on national defense, wants the closing to be put on hold. And on Tuesday, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, no Gitmo inmates on American soil -- not even in American jails.

That doesn't leave a lot of places. The home countries won't take them. Europe is recalcitrant. Saint Helena needs refurbishing. Elba didn't work out too well the first time. And Devil's Island is now a tourist destination. Gitmo is starting to look good again.

Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government. Victor Davis Hanson (National Review) offers a partial list: "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."


Jack Goldsmith (The New Republic) adds: rendition -- turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries; state secrets -- claiming them in court to quash legal proceedings on rendition and other erstwhile barbarisms; and the denial of habeas corpus -- to detainees in Afghanistan's Bagram prison, indistinguishable logically and morally from Guantanamo.

What does it all mean? Democratic hypocrisy and demagoguery? Sure, but in Washington, opportunism and cynicism are hardly news.

There is something much larger at play -- an undeniable, irresistible national interest that, in the end, beyond the cheap politics, asserts itself. The urgencies and necessities of the actual post-9/11 world, as opposed to the fanciful world of the opposition politician, present a rather narrow range of acceptable alternatives.

Among them: reviving the tradition of military tribunals, used historically by George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Winfield Scott, Abraham Lincoln, Arthur MacArthur and Franklin Roosevelt. And inventing Guantanamo -- accessible, secure, offshore and nicely symbolic (the tradition of island exile for those outside the pale of civilization is a venerable one) -- a quite brilliant choice for the placement of terrorists, some of whom, the Bush administration immediately understood, would have to be detained without trial in a war that could be endless.

The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over. When the new guys, brought to power by popular will, then adopt the policies of the old guys, a national consensus is forged and a new legitimacy established.

That's happening before our eyes. The Bush policies in the war on terror won't have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.

[DarrinS]

<crickets>

[ChumpDumper]

So if he's doing everything the same, why are the board Republicans ing so much?

[DarrinS]

So if he's doing everything the same, why are the board Republicans ing so much?

Because of how the left characterized the Bush admin as war criminials and now adopts the same policies.

[ChumpDumper]

So you're just ing about people like you who voted for Obama.

[Marcus Bryant]

Would not 'Bush in Obama Clothing' be more appropriate?

[Gino]

So if he's doing everything the same, why are the board Republicans ing so much?

Blanket statement: A Chump Dumper signature move.

[Gino]

So if he's doing everything the same, why are the board Republicans ing so much?

No one said he's doing everything the same except you.

Heavens knows Bush would never have passed 700+ billion dollar "stimulus" bill. Neither would he have proposed 60 billion as a down payment for health care reform. Nor would he have proposed a cap and trade program. Nor would have put out a new regulation for domestic autos. Nor would he have reversed his own ban on promoting abortions overseas.

But Obama has flip-flopped on national security issues which is pretty amusing.

Try again.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh right -- the faux indignation about spending.

Yeah, you guys have been budget hawks all along

[Gino]

Oh right -- the faux indignation about spending.

Yeah, you guys have been budget hawks all along

So if you dont have a problem with deficit spending, why didnt you like Bush?

See how easy it is to play Chump Dumper's stupid game?

[ChumpDumper]

I tell you -- I never thought Bush would have bailed out the financial sector to the tune of $700 billion either.

Or run up the deficit every year in office.

Or expand en lement programs.

He was truly Obama in Bush clothing.

[ChumpDumper]

So if you dont have a problem with deficit spending, why didnt you like Bush?

He shouldn't have grown the deficits in good economic times.

[Gino]

I tell you -- I never thought Bush would have bailed out the financial sector to the tune of $700 billion either.

Or run up the deficit every year in office.

Or expand en lement programs.

He was truly Obama in Bush clothing.

Conservatives were VERY upset over TARP, Bush DID NOT run up the deficit every year in office (it got as low as 150b in 2007) and theres a whole litany of books (try "Bushwacked") that will point out the number of domesitc programs that Bush cut.

Try again.

[Gino]

He shouldn't have grown the deficits in good economic times.

But according to Obama, good economic times will begin next year (theyre expecting a 3% GDP growth) and yet the deficit will continue to grow to "unsustainable levels" because of his new spending programs.


So by your logic, Obama is doing a bad job, yes?

[ChumpDumper]

But according to Obama, good economic times will begin next year (theyre expecting a 3% GDP growth) and yet the deficit will continue to grow to "unsustainable levels" because of his new spending programs.


So by your logic, Obama is doing a bad job, yes?

Currently he is doing a good job since spending is what should be done now. If the economy makes a sustained turnaround, then the deficits should be brought down and eliminated if you feel like following a Keynesian model (which I'm pretty much for since it has never been properly tried in the past).

[LnGrrrR]

Heavens knows Bush would never have passed 700+ billion dollar "stimulus" bill.

Didn't Bush pass 350 billion of the 700 billion?

[Blake]

Didn't Bush pass 350 billion of the 700 billion?

that was Bush in Palin clothing

[ChumpDumper]

Didn't Bush pass 350 billion of the 700 billion?

No, it was $700 billion by itself.

[Wild Cobra]

.

[FaithInOne]

Two parties of fail.