Neoprog Posner sucks up to Chicoms

[JimC]

Coito ergo sum wrote:

...There has been no mention of a material change in procedure within the prison either, which is a rather telling fact too. Even if you don't shut it down, if the Administration really felt it was so bad, they would have simply changed the procedures....

This is a very good point. Mind you, perhaps conditions have been changed, but no one has trumpeted the improvenment; the administration would be unlikely to pass on that chance, I think...

From the outside, it certainly seems that so far, the Obama rhetoric pre-election has not matched the actions so-far. I grant Ian's point that domestically, things have been a swamp. However, either he is finding it much more difficult to get things done because of pragmantic reasons, or he is back-pedalling on idealistic promises that, deep down, he knew he could never deliver.

In some ways. maybe Twiglet and CES can agree on this, although Twiglet would see it as a reflection of the fact that Obama is in reality more conservative and compromised than naive commentators think, and CES would see it as a lefty idealogue finding his reach exceeding his grasp.

[Ian]

Here's Politifact.com's list of Obama's promises: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

To date:
113 Promises Kept
34 Compromises
19 Promises Broken
82 Stalled
253 In the Works
3 Not Yet Rated

[Twiglet]

Obama manages not to antagonise so many people, but if anything, his policies are more aggressive than those of Bush.

IMO Obama is not a left leaning politician at all, his politics are very closely aligned to Bush's.

Well, you and Coito each have radically different opinions on Obama. I don't think either are especially realistic.

As for Obama not antagonizing too many people, have you not heard much about the partisan rhetoric happening in this country?? He's all but the second coming of Lenin according to conservatives.

And how could he possibly be more aggressive than Bush? Bush never would've considered talking to Iran, probably wouldn't have led the rounds of nuclear reduction/proliferation talks, etc. He's in the process of closing Gitmo (no thanks to much bureaucratic resistance), and forces in Iraq will be drawn down as promised. Comparisons to Bush astonish me. There's too many people on the left who heard little more than "change" in 2008 and now seem to be shocked that Obama hasn't turned the world into a utopia overnight. Give the guy some time - he's been awfully busy over the last 15 months, mostly on the domestic front. That was one helluva mess he inherited.

As coito said, Obama just antagonises slightly different groups of people (I'm agreeing with Coito, pinch me).

To the second and more substantive point about aggression, Obama certainly sells his policy more credibly on the international stage, but if you look at what he has actually done, it is indistinguishable from Bush in most areas, or worse.

Examples:

Reiterating that nuclear first strike is a viable option against Iran (by omission in a recent statement framed in positive language).
Permitting extrajudicial assassination of US citizens (never authorised under Bush)
Failing to repeal the patriot act or any of its components.
Failing to close Guantanamo.
Repealing permission for US troops to torure but not closing any of the loopholes on rendition of subcontracted torture (which accounts for almost all torture conducted on the US's behalf)
Maintaining the same staff as Bush appointed (Petreus even got promoted, plus Robert Gates)
Failing to interfere with contracts to the likes of Haliburton.
Persisting in "covert" killings in Somalia, Pakistan using predator drones, causing immense "collateral damage"
Failure to drawdown on whatever pretext in Iraq or Afghanistan, though both will likely happen because of costs constraints rather than any "seeing the light"

I could continue but that's a good start.

[Ian]

Obama manages not to antagonise so many people, but if anything, his policies are more aggressive than those of Bush.

IMO Obama is not a left leaning politician at all, his politics are very closely aligned to Bush's.

Well, you and Coito each have radically different opinions on Obama. I don't think either are especially realistic.

As for Obama not antagonizing too many people, have you not heard much about the partisan rhetoric happening in this country?? He's all but the second coming of Lenin according to conservatives.

And how could he possibly be more aggressive than Bush? Bush never would've considered talking to Iran, probably wouldn't have led the rounds of nuclear reduction/proliferation talks, etc. He's in the process of closing Gitmo (no thanks to much bureaucratic resistance), and forces in Iraq will be drawn down as promised. Comparisons to Bush astonish me. There's too many people on the left who heard little more than "change" in 2008 and now seem to be shocked that Obama hasn't turned the world into a utopia overnight. Give the guy some time - he's been awfully busy over the last 15 months, mostly on the domestic front. That was one helluva mess he inherited.

As coito said, Obama just antagonises slightly different groups of people (I'm agreeing with Coito, pinch me).

To the second and more substantive point about aggression, Obama certainly sells his policy more credibly on the international stage, but if you look at what he has actually done, it is indistinguishable from Bush in most areas, or worse.

Examples:

Reiterating that nuclear first strike is a viable option against Iran (by omission in a recent statement framed in positive language). I think his point was that all options are viable. Don't assume that this is ever going to happen, but he's correct - it's viable.
Permitting extrajudicial assassination of US citizens (never authorised under Bush) Highly circumstantial. And I could hardly care less.
Failing to repeal the patriot act or any of its components. The Patriot Act was very much watered down from its original version in 2005. I don't think it needs to be repealed. Moreover, he never once promised to actually repeal it.
Failing to close Guantanamo. This horse has been beaten to death. In the final analysis, it's a process and it is still in the works.
Repealing permission for US troops to torure but not closing any of the loopholes on rendition of subcontracted torture (which accounts for almost all torture conducted on the US's behalf) Prove to me that this still occurs, where this rendition occurs and that Obama is well aware of it. There's evidence that no such rendition has occurred since 2003.
Maintaining the same staff as Bush appointed (Petreus even got promoted, plus Robert Gates). That hardly counts as "the same staff"! Neither of these are especially partisan, either. Petreus is a military commander, and he's damn competent. I was no Rumsfeld fan, but I have an enormous amount of respect for Gates. I was very grateful that Obama's kept him around.
Failing to interfere with contracts to the likes of Haliburton. Probably more could be done with this issue (although Blackwater/Xe hasn't been too happy now that Bush is gone). But changing everything would upset an awful lot of stability in Iraq, don't you think?
Persisting in "covert" killings in Somalia, Pakistan using predator drones, causing immense "collateral damage". And just what would you do as commander in chief?
Failure to drawdown on whatever pretext in Iraq or Afghanistan, though both will likely happen because of costs constraints rather than any "seeing the light". Oh please. Troops have left the cities in iraq, and are still on schedule to begin their drawdown. As for Afghanistan, he never once promised to start bringing the troops home (why is it that so many other liberals never noticed this?). He emphasized time and again that Iraq was a waste of troops strength and resources away from the real fight. I'm 100% in favor of the troop increase there, which he promised long before he was elected. Id be happy to go myself if I was still active duty.

I could continue but that's a good start.

My comments/opinions in red.

[Twiglet]

My point Ian is that there is no substantial policy difference. You are providing reasons and justifications, and in a couple of instances, querying whether things are factually true (rendition, torture) but those queries apply equally to Bush or Obama. I could go into reams of evidence for both these matters, and I'm sure that's already taken place in numerous other threads, but the point remains that Obama hasn't really altered the direction Bush took originally.

I find your dismissal of extra-judicial assassination puzzling. Whether you care about it or not, it sets a highyl significant precedent which no other US president has ever dared... namely that the States will execute US citizens without due process. That's incredibly radical.

On troop drawdown, I never said Obama promised troop drawdown, again, I said his policies were pretty much identical. If a drawdown does take place, it will be because of the expense in maintaining occupation together with a re-evaluation of the potential gains. Not because of any ideological difference.

Obamas appointments, and failure to change Bushs key staff are pretty significant. I think Petraeus is a highly political animal, and Gates not much less so. On economics Geithners international reputation is mud, yet he occupies a very key post.

If you want to argue that Obama is more liberal on his domestic policy, I would concur, but on his foreign policy, I think he just does a better job of selling how America acts.

[Ian]

If you want to argue that Obama is more liberal on his domestic policy, I would concur, but on his foreign policy, I think he just does a better job of selling how America acts.

Fair enough, I'd more or less agree with that. But as far as foreign policy goes, would Obama have invaded Iraq, or coined terms like "axis of evil"? Would Bush have taken the lead on nuclear reduction/proliferation (don't let Coito fool you - Bush's 2002 reductions were peanuts compared to what Obama's done with the nuclear issue this past year), or been so supportive of Copenhagen? Nope. Be thankful that things are moving in the right direction - progress rarely happens overnight.

[Twiglet]

If you want to argue that Obama is more liberal on his domestic policy, I would concur, but on his foreign policy, I think he just does a better job of selling how America acts.

Fair enough, I'd more or less agree with that. But as far as foreign policy goes, would Obama have invaded Iraq, or coined terms like "axis of evil", or taken the lead on nuclear reduction/proliferation (don't let Coito fool you - Bush's 2002 reductions were peanuts compared to what Obama's done with the nuclear issue this past year), or been so supportive of Copenhagen? Nope. Be thankful that things are moving in the right direction - progress rarely happens overnight.

That's a really interesting question. I mean the obvious answer is "no he wouldn't have", but I think that's part of his general appeal. A lot of American liberals have felt very let down by his failure to do things he never promised to do in the first place.

Obamas objection to the Iraq invasion was not ideological when he was a Senator. He argued against how it was planned and how hard it would be to manage - very appropriate and correct, as it turns out. According to Chomsky, Obamas behaviour is just as consistent with the Marshall doctrine as Bush.

We can only judge Obama by what he does, not what he might have done.

I think in realpolitik terms, assuming politicians and industrialists are moderately smart and well informed (regardless of what they sell to the public) - the US economy is highly dependent on oil, and control of oil producing regions is of paramount importance. If Obama is looking out for Americas economic interests, the question is not whether to control oil supplies, but how. Similarly for other resources, but no other is presently so critical.

As you pointed out, things don't change very easily, and a president must deal with what is, not what might have been. I think withdrawing from Iraq would destabilise it, much as withdrawing from any occupied territory does, but that isn't really a justification for staying there. Would such arguments have washed for occupied France in 1945? I think not.

I think the line Obama is treading is more for the benefit of civillian support for existing policy than anything else. The iron fist in the velvet glove, rather than Bush's iron fist. He is doing a very good job in that respect, because the general attitude towards the US is much less hostile, despite the fact that very little has actually changed.

[Ian]

the general attitude towards the US is much less hostile, despite the fact that very little has actually changed.

That, in itself, is a great thing. The attitude shift alone can produce positive results.
Republicans never seem to realize that pretty much the entire planet, with the possible exception of Israel, hates to see the GOP in the White House.

[JimC]

the general attitude towards the US is much less hostile, despite the fact that very little has actually changed.

That, in itself, is a great thing. The attitude shift alone can produce positive results.
Republicans never seem to realize that pretty much the entire planet, with the possible exception of Israel, hates to see the GOP in the White House.

Or, if they do realise it, I suspect they would view it with perverse pride...

[Trolldor]

It's only made a few newspapers.

A member of NSW parliament was outed as gay after 20 years of marriage (No moral outcry, no blackmail, no controversy, nobody knows what the fuck the point of hanging on to the story is.)... that's what's taken priority over the N/SK incident.

[Coito ergo sum]

Obama manages not to antagonise so many people, but if anything, his policies are more aggressive than those of Bush.

IMO Obama is not a left leaning politician at all, his politics are very closely aligned to Bush's.

Well, you and Coito each have radically different opinions on Obama. I don't think either are especially realistic.

As for Obama not antagonizing too many people, have you not heard much about the partisan rhetoric happening in this country?? He's all but the second coming of Lenin according to conservatives.

And how could he possibly be more aggressive than Bush? Bush never would've considered talking to Iran, probably wouldn't have led the rounds of nuclear reduction/proliferation talks, etc. He's in the process of closing Gitmo (no thanks to much bureaucratic resistance), and forces in Iraq will be drawn down as promised. Comparisons to Bush astonish me. There's too many people on the left who heard little more than "change" in 2008 and now seem to be shocked that Obama hasn't turned the world into a utopia overnight. Give the guy some time - he's been awfully busy over the last 15 months, mostly on the domestic front. That was one helluva mess he inherited.

As coito said, Obama just antagonises slightly different groups of people (I'm agreeing with Coito, pinch me).

To the second and more substantive point about aggression, Obama certainly sells his policy more credibly on the international stage, but if you look at what he has actually done, it is indistinguishable from Bush in most areas, or worse.

Examples:

Reiterating that nuclear first strike is a viable option against Iran (by omission in a recent statement framed in positive language).
Permitting extrajudicial assassination of US citizens (never authorised under Bush)
Failing to repeal the patriot act or any of its components.
Failing to close Guantanamo.
Repealing permission for US troops to torure but not closing any of the loopholes on rendition of subcontracted torture (which accounts for almost all torture conducted on the US's behalf)
Maintaining the same staff as Bush appointed (Petreus even got promoted, plus Robert Gates)
Failing to interfere with contracts to the likes of Haliburton.
Persisting in "covert" killings in Somalia, Pakistan using predator drones, causing immense "collateral damage"
Failure to drawdown on whatever pretext in Iraq or Afghanistan, though both will likely happen because of costs constraints rather than any "seeing the light"

I could continue but that's a good start.

Failing to stop warrantless wiretapping;
Expanding data collection on US citizens and others;
Failing to change the policy on extraordinary rendition

[Coito ergo sum]

My point Ian is that there is no substantial policy difference. You are providing reasons and justifications, and in a couple of instances, querying whether things are factually true (rendition, torture) but those queries apply equally to Bush or Obama. I could go into reams of evidence for both these matters, and I'm sure that's already taken place in numerous other threads, but the point remains that Obama hasn't really altered the direction Bush took originally.

I find your dismissal of extra-judicial assassination puzzling. Whether you care about it or not, it sets a highyl significant precedent which no other US president has ever dared... namely that the States will execute US citizens without due process. That's incredibly radical.

It also makes no sense in the context of other positions the administration has taken. How can the same people who say it is illegal to indefinitely detain someone, say it is legal to slit the guy's throat instead of detaining him and let him bleed to death on the ground (or alternatively, fire a hellfire missile from a Predator drone and turn the guy into bits and pieces of flesh, bone and entrails)? How can the same people say that we must afford Achmad with the right to counsel, the right to a trial, the right to remain silent, etc., but then order Achmad's buddy Rahmannoodle riddled with bullets and his brains splattered against his living room wall?

If you want to argue that Obama is more liberal on his domestic policy, I would concur, but on his foreign policy, I think he just does a better job of selling how America acts.

I think that most of that is wishful thinking on the part of certain folks. Europeans absolutely hated, loathed W.Bush. They did not like his cowboy swagger, they did not like the way he talked. They did not like his directness, and the lack of tact. With Obama, they saw a guy who is more like the Europeans on social and economic policy, and someone who appeared to be the anti-Bush. They were right about the economic policy.

Once Obama got elected though, politics required certain things. Think of it simply. If Obama radically changed American foreign policy, several things necessarily follow. Among them, number one, the results of that policy become his, and his alone, much earlier. If he keeps everything the same, all the players the same, if there is an "event" in the first few years of his Presidency, then there is plausible deniability that it is Obama's fault. If he immediately radically changed the policy and did what he said he would do in the election, then it immediately becomes "his baby," and any "event" that occurred would be on his shoulders. The news reports would be, "Obama invites new and terrorist attacks on the US by letting guard down" or "showing weakness." Etc.

Further, the notion does need to be explored that, whatever you think of George Bush, what was actually done during the 8 years after 9/11/01 was actually necessary, and reasonable. If it wasn't, why haven't the Democrats sought to change any of it? Even guys like Kucinich don't say a word anymore.

[Twiglet]

My point Ian is that there is no substantial policy difference. You are providing reasons and justifications, and in a couple of instances, querying whether things are factually true (rendition, torture) but those queries apply equally to Bush or Obama. I could go into reams of evidence for both these matters, and I'm sure that's already taken place in numerous other threads, but the point remains that Obama hasn't really altered the direction Bush took originally.

I find your dismissal of extra-judicial assassination puzzling. Whether you care about it or not, it sets a highyl significant precedent which no other US president has ever dared... namely that the States will execute US citizens without due process. That's incredibly radical.

It also makes no sense in the context of other positions the administration has taken. How can the same people who say it is illegal to indefinitely detain someone, say it is legal to slit the guy's throat instead of detaining him and let him bleed to death on the ground (or alternatively, fire a hellfire missile from a Predator drone and turn the guy into bits and pieces of flesh, bone and entrails)? How can the same people say that we must afford Achmad with the right to counsel, the right to a trial, the right to remain silent, etc., but then order Achmad's buddy Rahmannoodle riddled with bullets and his brains splattered against his living room wall?

If you want to argue that Obama is more liberal on his domestic policy, I would concur, but on his foreign policy, I think he just does a better job of selling how America acts.

I think that most of that is wishful thinking on the part of certain folks. Europeans absolutely hated, loathed W.Bush. They did not like his cowboy swagger, they did not like the way he talked. They did not like his directness, and the lack of tact. With Obama, they saw a guy who is more like the Europeans on social and economic policy, and someone who appeared to be the anti-Bush. They were right about the economic policy.

Once Obama got elected though, politics required certain things. Think of it simply. If Obama radically changed American foreign policy, several things necessarily follow. Among them, number one, the results of that policy become his, and his alone, much earlier. If he keeps everything the same, all the players the same, if there is an "event" in the first few years of his Presidency, then there is plausible deniability that it is Obama's fault. If he immediately radically changed the policy and did what he said he would do in the election, then it immediately becomes "his baby," and any "event" that occurred would be on his shoulders. The news reports would be, "Obama invites new and terrorist attacks on the US by letting guard down" or "showing weakness." Etc.

Further, the notion does need to be explored that, whatever you think of George Bush, what was actually done during the 8 years after 9/11/01 was actually necessary, and reasonable. If it wasn't, why haven't the Democrats sought to change any of it? Even guys like Kucinich don't say a word anymore.

I subscribe to Chomskys view that all US presidents since Reagan (and most before him) are just continuing the Monroe doctrine. I believe the differences between Dems and Repubs are most visible in domestic politics, and that both parties are ideologically similar (looking towards economic and regional dominance), differing only in how they feel it can best be attained.