Home › Blogs › Lonestar Bill's blog ›

Obama meets Reality

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 12:16
in

During the campaign, Obama spoke often of electing him to bring “Hope” and “Change”. His administration would and use calm, measured reason to solve the world’s most complex problems. In his view, many of the Bush administration’s decisions were based on “false choices” . . . but his administration would be using facts, instead of ideology, to make more rational decisions.

 One of his first moves as President was to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and suspend the Military Commissions process for trials of detainees. The United States would no longer pursue the “false choice between our safety and our ideals.” This was an easy choice, signed on the second day of his presidency.  But, what does one do with the detainees, the alleged victims of Gitmo? During the campaign, Obama said that Military Commissions were “an enormous failure’ and he “would reject the Military Commissions Act”. Today we are learning that the Obama administration thinks that perhaps Military Commissions would be the best route for trials of about 100 Al Qaeda detainees. Further, the administration may seek “indefinite detention” of certain detainees. Sounds kind of . . .Cheneyesque, doesn’t it?  Add to it the reversal of his positions on FISA, and the release of photos of harsh interrogations to the world, and suddenly a lot of the choices made by the Bush administration don’t look so “false”. He is making many of the very same choices that he so criticized a year ago. What Obama is learning, and will continue to learn, is that while the lofty ideas of “Hope” and “Change” may sell well on the campaign trail, the realities of holding the most powerful office in the world come with a lot of “Reality”. And “Reality” will continue to play a role as his presidency evolves-on Cap and Trade, on Universal Health Care, on the War in Afghanistan. Conservative voices must continue to be heard to balance Obama’s far left tendencies. He has shown that he will yield to common sense eventually, at least on some issues. 

He is learning that saying “no” to the far left and the ACLU is necessary to defend the nation and bring prosperity. That many of the people and institutions do not have any desire to protect the best interests of the United States. 

 

3
Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

Comments

Obama and Gitmo

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 12:43.

Obama is demonstrating by example that it takes more than self-righteous moralizing rhetoric to be a president.  Wow, just maybe those folks at Gitmo really are dangerous!  Wow, maybe we actually do have to find a place to put them if we close Gitmo as promised!

Bush: "I'm going to hold enemy combatants at Gitmo indefinitely because I can."

Obama: "I'm going to hold enemy combatants at Gitmo indefinitely because I don't know what I'm doing."

Gitmo

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 14:11.

This is a case of "not in my backyard". No representative (except Murtha) wants any of these detainees to end up in their district.

I'm begining to doubt Obama's ability to "see around corners". He can't even see whats in front of him. It was obvious even to a casual observer that closing Gitmo would create huge problems, and that fact that he didn't think it throiugh at all is kind of scarey.

murtha just wants more people for the census.

Submitted by Maleficent on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 14:41.

Montana offered to take 'em too. Personally, I vote we send them to West Virginia.

right. because Lonestar, up

Submitted by molotov on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 14:35.

right. because Lonestar, up until recently, you had the utmost faith in Obama's ability to see around corners.

I thought he would be able to

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 14:58.

I thought he would be able to read the tea leaves a with more acuity than he has demonstrated.

Like I said, even a casual observer could see that this issue was fraught with complexities that should have been well considered before acting.

patience grasshopper. in the

Submitted by molotov on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 16:43.

patience grasshopper.

in the mean time, what an interesting news day re: Pelosi/Graham and the CIA. the meme is gradually taking hold that the torture was use primarily to gin up evidence of a Sadam/Al-Queda connection that never was. 

Uh oh batman. 

How many times are you comfortable with Pelosi changing

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 16:49.

her story?

Seriously, she is losing credibility.

I'll put my money on the CIA on this one.

those Gosslings?

Submitted by Maleficent on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 10:13.

I'd put my money on the cat, all the same's to you.

CIA lost a LOT of good, professional Republicans during Bush's reign. I have NOT forgiven him for compromising our national security to hire loyalists. And you shouldn't either, because we aren't getting them back anytime soon.

the CIA? Really? The worm has

Submitted by molotov on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 17:27.

the CIA? Really? The worm has finally turned. when the dust settles we will learn (1) that torture was used outside the scope of the OLC memos (2) that the purpose of said torture was to find a justification for Iraq as a supplement to the weak WMD claims and (3) that said torture occurred before members of Congress were to be briefed contrary to law.

we are getting into some really fun stuff now.

the "ticking timebomb" justification died this week. and now we know why Cheney and Co. have been running around trying get in front of this thing.

the cheneys are about to force the Republican party to chose between them and the rule of law.

The first credible republican with the stones to challenge dick, takes leadership of the Republican mantle.

this is going to be a whole lot of fun.

We shall see my friend

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 19:40.

I appreciate your gutsy prediction and will be watching with interest as it all plays out. Now, are we at the $5 window or the $5,000 window?

Personally I think Pelosi et al knew more than they are letting on. She has over played her hand. But if you are right, I will be the first to admit it. Let the games begin!

 

Your girl isn't looking so good in the early going . . .

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 09:40.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/14/AR2009051403991.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1898706,00.html

of course you would

Submitted by skayne on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 17:29.

Yeah, the discredited agency that participated in an illegal program with a corrupt administration.

Of course conservatives would side with that.

And how would you feel

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 19:45.

if you worked at the CIA? Or would you work for the CIA? Or do you think there should be a CIA?

Do you think they are all criminals? Do they serve any legit purpose? Should they be dismantled?

What other government agencies are "discredited"?

dude! of course they're criminals!

Submitted by Maleficent on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 10:20.

we NEED some fucking dangerous people on OUR side. State's for doing polite spying, ya know? CIA's for making certain that things that need to happen get DONE.

But there's a reason you train your wolfhound well, socialize him good. Because if you don't, he'll be after your throat next.

And bush? The NSA brought him their Christmas List -- the one they ask for every year, without any hope of getting any of it. He approved the whole damn thing.

These are NOT tame people... that's why we hired them.

 

In terms of politically motivated hirings and firings, I've heard the most egregious things about the Department of Justice and the CIA (under porter Goss). That's not to say that other agencies didn't have stupid things going on (NOAA practically disowned a political appointee. that was funny as hell.), but you didn't see massive waves of firing people who were doing their damn job.  

I love America's civil service -- they're the people who hold us together, when admins change, no matter who gets onboard. I am heartily glad that they don't have to leak critical scientific information (or threaten to do so in order to get the Admin to publish it)

The people at the top of the CIA are discredited

Submitted by skayne on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 20:41.

Those at the top that created something illegal.

Like I said, only the CIA and people connected to the Bush administration claim torture works. They offer no proof, we're just supposed to trust them.

Our armed forces, when asked about the implementation of a torture program, told the bush administration that torture's illegal, immoral, and that it doesn't work. That it's used to illicit false confessions.

The FBI was involved in the interrogations of terror suspects initially. Ali Soufan was an agent who interrogated Abu Zaybadah. He said they gained all actionable intelligence from him using proven interrogation methods as outlined in the Army Field Manual. He said when torture was applied that Zaybadah clammed up and became upcooperative. That they gained no further intelligence from him after torture was used. He made these comments under oath to the Oversight Committee yesterday. Why doesn't Darth Vader defend himself under oath?

The head of the FBI, John Mueller, yanked his men out of the interrogations when he learned of the torture tactics.

But why let facts get in the way of defending something illegal that didn't work? You must defend the people in your party no matter what!

So the CIA as an agency is discredited

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Thu, 05/14/2009 - 20:59.

Got it.

So, should those responsible for the illegal, immoral, torture program that didn't work be prosecuted?

yup. do it in American courts.

Submitted by Maleficent on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 10:23.

It's about fucking time that the CIA had to answer for some of it's actions. Pinochet, Sandinista, there have been so many actions that were blatantly immoral... This time it's illegal too, and not just by American justice. By world justice, and if we don't prosecute, someone else will.

Do it for our honor's sake, and do it for the hundred prisoners murdered. And do it because we don't need Ortega adding another thing to his 50 minute long diatribe against the United States.

Two words: "Slam Dunk" I have

Submitted by molotov on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 06:41.

Two words: "Slam Dunk"

I have always marvelled at the schizophrenic nature of the Right's love/hate relationship with government.

On the one hand, government can't do anything right. On the other, government (read CIA) is infallable.

Pat Tillman's death; Jessica Lynch's rescue; Aluminum Tubes. 

Ultimately, the CIA acted in service to an administration whose relationship to the truth was strained at best.

I've never understood this either.

Submitted by thirdeblue on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 06:53.

How can the government do nothing right domestically, but the second the government does something military related, it is infallible if not not downright divine?  Or is it just too much reality to admit that the government like all people and all institutions and not perfect, which means the U.S. Military like all people and all institutions are not perfect.  Are we too afraid of admitting that yes, sometimes soldiers die in vain and yes, our military sometimes kills people in vain?  The fault of said action may lie anywhere from the President who gave the order down to the individual who carried it out.  I don't think it's healthy to deify our successes, while ignoring or denying our faults and failures; and that holds true for any person and any institution.

Reply to my own comment.

Submitted by thirdeblue on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 06:57.

I was trying to come up with some clear-cut, non-debatable examples of U.S. Military deaths that can only be described as "in vain".  I thought of the deaths in Somalia during the events details in the movie "Black Hawk Down".

Wow

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 08:35.

All I said was thet in this case I am betting that the CIA did the breifing and Pelosi is lying.

I was trying to find out what the thought process was, that is, how does one come to the conclusion that and agency like the CIA is "discredited".

I did not say everything they have ever done is correct, but I would not say that the entire agency is "discredited".

I thought we might have a civil discussion without having a bunch of right wing tags projected on me. Guess I was wrong. Have a nice day.

what do you say about an organization so taken up

Submitted by Maleficent on Fri, 05/15/2009 - 10:26.

with groupthink that they would dismiss any counterinformation from Democratic agents as "partisan"... and they fired any honest Republican agent who tried to speak up about how wrong their intelligence is?

I'm not saying that we SHOULD call them discredited... I'm just kinda curious now!