Is Obama worse than Bush? That's beside the point

[Timshel]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/21/obama-worse-than-bush

Is Obama worse than Bush? That's beside the point


Obama's transformation from national security dove to hawk is the norm: any president is captive to America's imperial power


Not long after the story into the National Security Administration's spying programme broke, US president Barack Obama insisted the issues raised were worthy of discussion:


"I welcome this debate and I think it's healthy for our democracy. I think it's a sign of maturity because probably five years ago, six years ago we might not have been having this debate."


In fairly short order, a YouTube compilation appeared, showing Obama debating with himself as he matured. Flitting back and forth between Obama the candidate and the Obama the president, we see the constitutional law professor of yore engage with the commander-in-chief of today. Referring to the Bush White House, candidate Obama says:


"This administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not."


Referring to the NSA surveillance program, President Obama says:


"My assessment and my team's assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks."


Candidate Obama says of the Bush years:


"This administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide."


President Obama retorts:


"You can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices."


The notion that a president's record might contradict a presidential candidate's promise is neither new nor particular to Obama. And we should hope that politicians evolve as their careers progress and new evidence and arguments come to light.


What makes these clips so compelling is that they show not evolution, but transformation. On this issue, at least, Obama has become the very thing he was against. They're not gaffes. These are brazenly ostentatious flip-flops. And regardless of how much they cost him, Obama has clearly no intention of taking them back.


Given that he is not only defending but escalating the very things he criticised the Bush administration for, the accusation that many have made that he is "worse than Bush" on this issue, and others relating to privacy, security and drone attacks, is not unreasonable. Obama's administration has denied more Freedom of Information Act requests than Bush did, and prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined.


But the charge also misses the point.


It should go without saying that Obama the individual is responsible for all that he says and does. It should also go without saying that once he ascends to the Oval office he is no longer simply talking for himself, but, as commander-in-chief, for the state of which he is the head.


Just as one head of a chamber of commerce may be more or less hostile than another to the labor movement, but is ultimately charged with representing the interests of the business community, so Obama's room for maneuver is constrained by the institutions in which he is now embedded.


Whereas Bush illegally invaded a nation with great fanfare, Obama has chosen to bump people off with great stealth (unless it's Bin Laden, in which case he metaphorically parades around with a head on a pike). Those are different strategies, but the discussion about which is better or worse is sterile precisely because neither is good and neither works. Whatever their declared intentions, both involve the murder of civilians and the creation of enemies, which in turn demand a clandestine security structure that seeks to pre-empt the metastasizing resistance to its policies both at home and abroad. The sprawling growth of its spying program is commensurate with the size of its military and the spread of its incursions into countries like Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan where it is not formally at war.


As I wrote the day before Obama's first inauguration:


"He has been elected to represent the interests of the most powerful country in the world. Those will not be the same interests as those of the powerless."


America did not come by that power through its own innate genius. It acquired it, as do all empires, in no small part through war, invasion, subterfuge and exploitation. Spying and lying about it comes with the job description for which Obama applied and was reappointed.


None of this is inevitable. But changing it cannot be entrusted to a single person at the top. It will change because there is a demand from Americans that is both large in number, deep in commitment and active in pursuit, to enable a fundamental change in America's role in the world. That does not exist yet.


Where Obama is concerned, this excuses nothing – but explains a great deal. Given the timidity of his campaign agenda, his supporters must, to some extent, own their disappointment. He never said he was a radical, nor proposed anything radical, even if he was happy at one time to be marketed as one.


Given that he kept on Bush's defence secretary and appointed an economic team friendlier to Wall Street than the poor, we should not be too shocked about these continuities. But there are some things he did promise to do – and was twice elected with a massive mandate to do them. Protecting civil liberties was one of them.


When given the choice of representing the interests of those who voted for him and the interests of American military and economic hegemony, he chose the latter. That's not the change people believed in.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/21/obama-worse-than-bush

 

[Bonestorm]

People who think that Obama has shifted tremendously on these issues only after taking office simply weren't paying attention during the '08 campaign. Obama voted for the FISA Amendments Act in 2008, which legalized the Bush program and granted retroactive immunity to cooperated telecom providers. Hell, John McCain called him out for flip-flopping for that vote during the '08 campaign.

To think that President Obama made some dramatic shift by utilizing the authorities that Senator Obama voted in favor of is kinda silly if you ask me.

And, don't get me wrong, I don't agree with it, but no one should have been surprised by it.

 

[Timshel]

It's not about a shift in him personally, but a shift in his rhetoric and policies and the conflict between the two. I did not vote for him in 08 because I knew that he was pandering on civil liberties and all of his other libertarian leaning positions. But he was attempting to mislead voters and a big part of his promises of hope and change campaign were about that. Those who pretend he was not attempting to mislead were either not paying attention or are doing the same.

 

[Bonestorm]

It's not about a shift in him personally, but a shift in his rhetoric and policies and the conflict between the two. I did not vote for him in 08 because I knew that he was pandering on civil liberties and all of his other libertarian leaning positions. But he was attempting to mislead voters and a big part of his promises of hope and change campaign were about that. Those who pretend he was not attempting to mislead were either not paying attention or are doing the same.

I don't think voting to legaize Bush's warrantless wiretapping surveillance and to retroactively immunize cooperating telecom companies is at all misleading. I mean, here's what he said at the time of his vote:

Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.

Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives and the liberty of the American people.

What's misleading there? It seems pretty clear to me that Senator Obama, if elected President, would continue the program under the "oversight" of the FISA Court and that's what he has done.

 

[Timshel]

I don't think voting to legaize Bush's warrantless wiretapping surveillance and to retroactively immunize cooperating telecom companies is at all misleading. I mean, here's what he said at the time of his vote:

What's misleading there? It seems pretty clear to me that Senator Obama, if elected President, would continue the program under the "oversight" of the FISA Court and that's what he has done.

Nothing. The misleading parts came in the campaign. And yes, it attracted mostly those that were not paying attention. So?

 

[Bonestorm]

Nothing. The misleading parts came in the campaign. And yes, it attracted mostly those that were not paying attention. So?

What do you mean by "in the campaign?" A public statement about a vote that occured in July 2008, 4 months out from the election, wasn't "in the campaign," but a line from a speech in August 2007 is "in the campaign?"

 

[Timshel]

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/19/here_come_the_edward_snowden_truthers/

I think the author here is mostly an idiot. It's not that I agree with the conspiracy theorists, but that he fails to understand the cause. We don't trust each other anymore. Why should we with the government snooping on us and constantly being told that this race, partisan, creed or profession is an inhuman beast out to get us. Our politicians lie and require our complete attention to decode and yet we still support them.

This course leads to a country that will end up with the sort of paralysis that plagued communist nations and was present in the book 1984. We will live in fear that every one is a possible mole and the effects of the isolation and loneliness it will create is not going to be pretty.

 

[Timshel]

What do you mean by "in the campaign?" A public statement about a vote that occured in July 2008, 4 months out from the election, wasn't "in the campaign," but a line from a speech in August 2007 is "in the campaign?"

Was the speech fully public and directed at potential voters? Then, yes.

If you want to split hairs and parse words, have at it. Yes, those who bothered to do their research could have easily determined that there was a conflict between his more public rhetoric and his actions. But the fact remains that he misled voters.

 

[cawacko]

Prof Baxter I understand what you are saying. Look Dungheap is a smart guy who obviously follows politics closely. If you told me his job was in some way tied to political activities I wouldn't be surprised. He has more detailed political knowledge than 99.9% of the people in his country so him saying what Obama is doing is not a surprise doesn't speak for many Americans.

There are a lot of people who voted for Obama who still support him yet are (very) disappointed by him based on his rhetoric on the campaign trail vs. his actions while in office as you pointed out. Hell I'm a lifelong Republican and I'll admit to even getting caught up during the '08 primaries when Candidate Obama was talking about changing the way things work in Washington.

 

[Bonestorm]

Was the speech fully public and directed at potential voters? Then, yes.

If you want to split hairs and parse words, have at it. Yes, those who bothered to do their research could have easily determined that there was a conflict between his more public rhetoric and his actions. But the fact remains that he misled voters.

I'm not parsing anything. You're claiming that events that occured less than four months out from the Presidential election and which were widely discussed at the time weren't "in the campaign" while a speech that occured five months before the first primary were. That's silly. And even in that speech that is referenced in the OP he talked about stopping the illegal conduct of the Bush Administration and endorsed the FISA court as a process that works to balance security and civil liberties -- and that's the process that his Adminstration has followed.

I mean, if you want to claim that Obama misled voters, you should at least point to something that happened when voters were actually paying attention and it should prbably be something that is in opposition to his conduct as president.

This is the same gripe of the "anti-war" folks who pretend that Obama ran as an "anti-war" candidate when he clearly did not.

 

[Bonestorm]

Prof Baxter I understand what you are saying. Look Dungheap is a smart guy who obviously follows politics closely. If you told me his job was in some way tied to political activities I wouldn't be surprised. He has more detailed political knowledge than 99.9% of the people in his country so him saying what Obama is doing is not a surprise doesn't speak for many Americans.

There are a lot of people who voted for Obama who still support him yet are (very) disappointed by him based on his rhetoric on the campaign trail vs. his actions while in office as you pointed out. Hell I'm a lifelong Republican and I'll admit to even getting caught up during the '08 primaries when Candidate Obama was talking about changing the way things work in Washington.

I can hear you, you know. You act like I'm some kind of freakshow werido. I AM DUNGHEAP AND I SPEAK FOR MANY AMERICANS.

 

[Phantasmal]

I can hear you, you know. You act like I'm some kind of freakshow werido. I AM DUNGHEAP AND I SPEAK FOR MANY AMERICANS.

The first sentence made me spit my coffee! Lmao

 

[cawacko]

I can hear you, you know. You act like I'm some kind of freakshow werido. I AM DUNGHEAP AND I SPEAK FOR MANY AMERICANS.

Uh-oh, I've been caught.

 

[blackascoal]

Was the speech fully public and directed at potential voters? Then, yes.

If you want to split hairs and parse words, have at it. Yes, those who bothered to do their research could have easily determined that there was a conflict between his more public rhetoric and his actions. But the fact remains that he misled voters.

He did indeed mislead voters at every step. He's a master of nuanced speech.

 

[Timshel]

Prof Baxter I understand what you are saying. Look Dungheap is a smart guy who obviously follows politics closely. If you told me his job was in some way tied to political activities I wouldn't be surprised. He has more detailed political knowledge than 99.9% of the people in his country so him saying what Obama is doing is not a surprise doesn't speak for many Americans.

There are a lot of people who voted for Obama who still support him yet are (very) disappointed by him based on his rhetoric on the campaign trail vs. his actions while in office as you pointed out. Hell I'm a lifelong Republican and I'll admit to even getting caught up during the '08 primaries when Candidate Obama was talking about changing the way things work in Washington.

I am not arguing what one could/should have believed about Obama. But he clearly benefited from misleading voters and it is preposterous to pretend he did not do so, deliberately.

I don't know why one would continue supporting him. It is foolish to trust any politician in a surveillance state and Obama has proven where his allegiances lie.

 

[blackascoal]

In 2005, as a U.S. Senator, Obama warned that the Patriot Act, which serves as the legal foundation for some of the NSA’s recently revealed activities, granted government officials worryingly expansive power to search an individual’s private life without appeal or oversight. Here’s what he said:

“This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law….If someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through the library books that you read, through the phone calls that you made, the emails that you sent, this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear your plea. No jury will hear your case. This is just plain wrong….Giving law enforcement the tools that they need to investigate suspicious activities is one thing. And it’s the right thing. But doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans, and the ideals America stands for.”

In 2007, while running for president, Obama continued to be deeply critical of the Bush administration’s approach to surveillance and civil liberties, saying that “this Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not.” Here's how he led up to that statement:

“This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are.”

Listen to the 'passion' in this statement ..

After Obama was elected, his transition website, Change.gov, came out in defense of government whistleblowers—and even promised to encourage their efforts:

Protect Whistleblowers: Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process.

Ironically enough, Obama practically predicted that something like this might happen in an October 2001 interview. In a public television interview as an Illinois State Sen., Obama said that he was more worried about civil liberties encroachments that apply “selectively” to specific individuals or groups. “When they apply to everybody,” he said, “there tends to be sort of a majoritarian check. When we come to the wiretap provisions for example if those laws start encroaching too much on people’s privacy the average person, me, Joe, everybody starts griping and complaining.”

Indeed
http://reason.com/blog/2013/06/10/meet-candidate-obama-surveillance-state

 

[Timshel]

I'm not parsing anything. You're claiming that events that occured less than four months out from the Presidential election and which were widely discussed at the time weren't "in the campaign" while a speech that occured five months before the first primary were. That's silly. And even in that speech that is referenced in the OP he talked about stopping the illegal conduct of the Bush Administration and endorsed the FISA court as a process that works to balance security and civil liberties -- and that's the process that his Adminstration has followed.

I mean, if you want to claim that Obama misled voters, you should at least point to something that happened when voters were actually paying attention and it should prbably be something that is in opposition to his conduct as president.

This is the same gripe of the "anti-war" folks who pretend that Obama ran as an "anti-war" candidate when he clearly did not.

Please, he spoke out of both sides of his mouth on this and other issues.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Please, he spoke out of both sides of his mouth on this and other issues.

Dung prefers to only pay attention when Obama speaks out of his ass, given that is closer in proximity to Dungs head

 

[Bonestorm]

In 2005, as a U.S. Senator, Obama warned that the Patriot Act, which serves as the legal foundation for some of the NSA’s recently revealed activities, granted government officials worryingly expansive power to search an individual’s private life without appeal or oversight. Here’s what he said:

“This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law….If someone wants to know why their own government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through the library books that you read, through the phone calls that you made, the emails that you sent, this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear your plea. No jury will hear your case. This is just plain wrong….Giving law enforcement the tools that they need to investigate suspicious activities is one thing. And it’s the right thing. But doing it without any real oversight seriously jeopardizes the rights of all Americans, and the ideals America stands for.”

And in 2006, after the Patriot Act was modified to deal with some of these concerns, Obama voted to reauthorize it. How is that misleading?

In 2007, while running for president, Obama continued to be deeply critical of the Bush administration’s approach to surveillance and civil liberties, saying that “this Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not.” Here's how he led up to that statement:
“This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom. That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are.”

Listen to the 'passion' in this statement ..

It's funny where that quote is cut off. Here is the entirety of that paragraph. Emphasis mine:

That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.

And, again, Obama voted to legalize the illegal wire-tapping and to bring it within the purview of the FISA Court and that's the process that his administration has followed.

There is some rank hypocrisy here, but it's got nothing to do with PRISM and the other things that people are recently outraged about, but the use of National Security Letters. If you want to make a hypocrisy charge, there it is.

 

[Bonestorm]

And BAC, I'm a little surprised that you're piling on here. My recollection is that these are the reasons you disliked Obama before he was elected in 2008 and were why you didn't vote for him.