I've left the detainee abuse photo scandal alone this week, because my basic rule of blogging has been if you don't have anything new to say, don't say anything at all. I've now reached a limit, though, of how many posts I can read that are taking this presidential decision as a sign of the coming Obamapocalypse, where, apparently, the Better Angels that Obama appealed to in his speech in Chicago have, instead, turned to hidden conservative Demons, bent on hiding information from the public, concealing torture, supporting evil regimes, and generally being as Bushian as possible.
To everyone making that argument, I say: Knock it off.
At least ten times in the past week I've read declarations by liberal bloggers about how they've lost faith in the president, how they've been deeply disappointed, how they're disillusioned by his conduct, because he's turned out to be just like his predecessor.
Seriously? It's taken fewer than 120 days to forget how bad things were? Is the GOP that slick?
Let me remind you:
Barack Obama is nothing like George W. Bush. Nothing. Argue this any way you want, but his 120 days so far have so widely diverged from what we've seen in the last eight years that it's almost a new country. Take the photo scandal: We have a president who, having seen these photos, says releasing them into the world would only enflame anti-American sentiment. That, my friends, is a debatable point -- but what it isn't is an endorsement of what's in the photos. Instead, it's an admission that what's in the photos is terrible, horrible stuff -- not just embarassing stuff, as seemed to be the position at times of the last administration, but stuff that would make other people want to kill Americans.
That's a leap forward from the previous president's position that everything we did in Iraq and Afghanistan made America safer. Bush left office still smiling, still saying that Operation Iraqi Freedom had helped not just Iraq but America and the entire world to become a safer place. Our new president -- the guy some would like to brand "Bush-lite" -- has a pretty firm grasp on how unsafe things are for Americans in the world. He understands there's a balance to be struck. He seems to also understand, if the switch of military personnel in Afghanistan this week is any sign, that our two on-going wars may not be winnable in conventional terms.
Think back to those shocking days in 2004 when the photos from Abu Ghraib were first released. Think back to the administration's reaction. Donald Rumsfeld eventually testified before Congress that he took "full responsibility" for the events at that prison... and then continued to serve in the same job for another two years, during which he was frequently congratulated and celebrated by the president for the good job he was doing.
This president asked for the resignation of a guy who missed an e-mail about a plane making a photo-shoot pass by the Statue of Liberty.
We have an administration that is committed to greater accountability. We have a president who comes out and explains his decisions, who takes responsibility, who seems focused on not just results but on the nuances of world diplomatic opinion.
Every time someone starts down the "just like Bush" path, it minimizes the tangible harm that Bush and his administration did to our country, by suggesting that the differences of opinion we have over how Obama is treating the clean-up are of similar magnitude to the differences of opinion we had over the things George W. Bush decided were OK: invasion of other countries without cause; abuse of the environment; rampant restriction on personal liberty; and an almost isolationist stance with friends and enemies alike that reduced America's influence diplomatically worldwide.
Barack Obama is nothing like George W. Bush, except that he must now deal with issues that George W. Bush left behind. The left is likely to disagree with his tactics for dealing with these things, but to say that the clean-up crew is in any way as responsible or reprehensible as the parties who made the mess in the first place is despicable and damaging. Is it the maid's fault that you didn't make your bed?
I'm not saying Obama is above criticism. I think many of his early moves have been questionable, particularly in the area of civil liberties. But I'm tired of seeing the debate continue without context. You can't say, like the New York Times did, that Obama is acting like George W. Bush if you're accurately remembering Bush's positions at all. When the Bush administration pushed to limit civil liberties, they did it to protect themselves; so far, the arguments that the Obama administration has made in court and in public have seemed more focused on actual points of security.
Criticism of the president is welcome. But comparison to Bush, though tempting, is so far undeserved.
Orbital Matters
Saturn Smith
Saturn Smith
- Birthday
- April 06
- Title
- Ms.
- Company
- The Solar System
- Bio
- Everything posted here, and more random thoughts, are also posted at my web site: http://kepkanation.com.
MY RECENT POSTS
- "This American Life" offers
Painful, Necessary Retraction
March 16, 2012 09:45PM - Post-Mitt-Mortem: It's
beginning to look a lot like
Reagan
March 14, 2012 02:11AM - Doonesbury strip pulled to
avoid confusing Georgia
readers
March 13, 2012 12:15AM - The good news about the Kansas
Caucuses
March 11, 2012 03:54AM - Fake chicken (and Mark
Bittman) to the rescue?
March 09, 2012 04:28PM
MY RECENT COMMENTS
- “Stim, you're right, of
course. I wonder if there's a
better
term.
Non-principled?…”
March 14, 2012 07:50PM - “Shiral, yes, the
division is soooo much clearer
now (though
in Kansas, it's
alway…”
March 13, 2012 12:14AM - “Ooh, Abrawang, I'm dying
to see House of Cards. It's
been on
my (long and often
n…”
March 09, 2012 04:26PM - “Only half of Goldmann
Sachs? Have you mellowed since
I last
saw you,
BBE?
Thanks
f…”
October 09, 2011 08:07PM - “Sad but often true,
Brassawe. To me it just means
we should
talk about more
than…”
July 08, 2011 02:48PM
Saturn Smith's Links
- Real Name:
- Jenn Kepka
- My Posts On:
- The 2012 GOP Primaries
- Foreign Affairs
- Military/Defense Issues (Iraq, Afghanistan)
- Journalism
- Congress
- The Obama Cabinet
- The Auto Industry
- The Economic Crisis
- Image Use Information
- Images used are in the Public Domain,
- or used under Creative Commons Licenses,
- or under GNU Free Documentation Licenses.
- Me, Me, Me
- Comments Policy
- Twitter!
- My Web site
- The Skypeview
- Tags I Use
- How I Blog
- Still a Planet, After All These Years

Salon.com
Comments
On the topic of blind faith, well, that's just scary. You can be loyal and still question leaders.
If any leader is allowed to do as he pleases without question, then I predict, through shrewd and/or lazy reading of history, trouble.
Once the eyes glaze over and the chanting begins...what good has come?
Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama
Click over and read all about "...breaking bones, gouging eyes, squeezing testicles, and 'dousing' them with chemicals."
And that general Obama is putting charge of his escalation in Afghanistan, McCrystal? McCrystal ran a secret torture camp in Iraq that continued torture while Abu Ghraib was being "investigated" or rather bad apple whitewashed. McCrystal was also part of the cover up of Pat Tillman's friendly fire death.
BBE: Yep, the wars he didn't start are ongoing, and I'm sure to many there it doesn't feel like much has changed. I won't deny their claim at all. I'm more interested in why those who are watching policies change or be reconsidered here are so eager to deny that there's any change at current or on the horizon.
Jane: Ways I've seen change in the last 120 days? There are many. Let's start with day one, the halting of enhanced interrogation/torture techniques, and move to the closure of CIA black sites, the pledge to close Guantanamo, the suspension of military tribunals, the release of some detainees. Seems like a pretty big change to me. There's also the absence of initiation of torture and abuse and illegal wars on false pretense... unless I'm forgetting something. Did we invade Iran when I wasn't looking? I know it's fun to say that Obama has been the root of all evil here, but -- there is actually a root to all of the evils you describe, and it's not the current president. How did we lose sight of that? Is it just easier to attack the guy currently at the helm? Why should the easy thing be the thing we do?
But of course, Verbal. Any time.
I totally and firmly believe that Obama's stand on many issues is debatable and even bad. I think the McChrystal pick is bad and should be vocally criticized. But I don't think it's equal to Bush's administration's stand on things. That's what angers me. To say Obama's following a Bush-like plan implies much more reckless disregard for the rule of law and American justice than I see here.
BBE: That's like blaming the maid who found a body in the room she was trying to clean. Don't stop the criticism, but put it context, for God(dess) sake, please.
Never trust anyone who says they come to "unite" us. Doing what's right never unites people. Jesus openly came to divide, to find out who gives a shit and who does not. Obama closes his eyes to evil, calls the greatest traitor - by far - in American history a "good guy" and a "patriot". Sorry, I don't serve Obama, I serve the truth. So should we all - it's the only thing that can possibly save us.
Harry, you're talking about legacy -- instigator v. appeaser can only be judged in the aftermath. Obama's not far enough along to know what his legacy will be.
The excuse that prisoners are there because Bush put them there or that the wars were started by Bush does not absolve Obama for doing the wrong things now.
That's high praise, Larry! Thank you.
On the other hand, if the Bush comparisons shame the administration and Congress into truth tribunals and arrests, then bring it on. America's government needs to send a message not just to it's citizens and the world, but to those who will occupy their offices in the future: we will not accept torture; we will not let you pass the blame to the flunkies.
Please help and go to it!
denese
I have been very concerned at the speedy dismissal of the first president in oh, say 8 years to have an IQ over 85. It feels like its been just too easy to reverberate with the right wing talking points - that they somehow (perhaps through the dastardly liberal media?) have set in motion certain harmonics and people are criticizing Obama when he is having to steer such a careful course through the wreakage the Bush Administration left.
"I'm tired of seeing the debate continue without context." AMEN.
Welcome, Denese!
Jane, I'm not sure why you think I'm making things up or ignoring problems or your comments. I'm actually not sure we're having the same conversation. When Obama has acted to maintain some of the Bush era policies, I think that's reprehensible (as I said above). But I don't think it's fair to say he's on the same playing field as President Bush in terms of instigation, in terms of where he's taken the country, in terms of his intentions. I certainly don't think he's worse than Bush. He ordered the closure of all black sites, which has been taken up by the CIA; he's ordered the closure of Gitmo by the end of the year. Both are things Bush refused to do. I didn't include the timeline above -- is that what makes me seem dishonest in my reply? I'm not sure why else I'd seem to be lying. I hope, also, that it's clear from the piece above and my comments that I'm in favor of people questioning him. I'm in favor of much more transparency than we've had so far. I'm just not in favor of every discussion of his current policies being framed in a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" context, because that's demonstrably not true.
Thanks, Tim4Change! It does sometimes feel like a regurgitation of a talking point, but I can't figure out from where it would come. I guess the GOP would profit from Obama being brought down to Bush's level (or Bush brought up to his).
My brief take on the photos is similar to yours, with one addition - I think that the generals on the ground persuaded him that it was a really bad idea to release them and he agreed that there is no real need that outweighs the danger.
On the other things (war, torture, Gitmo), I would prefer he move more swiftly to change things and end Bush era policies, but it seems fairly consistent with his deliberate style and careful nature. I don't consider myself an apologist for Obama, but I am willing to reserve some judgment to give him some time to make changes.
Now, if nothing has changed by the end of his four years (or even the end of his first two) I am fully willing to join the chorus of voices in criticism.
But, I also agree that the bar for evil, treachery, and damage to our country has been set pretty high that comparisons to Bush are either hyperbolic or simply disingenuous.
LPS -- very good point on the generals. I am deeply wary of Odierno, and it certainly seems like he had a major voice in this decision (as, probably, did McChrystal).
Ellonwheels -- first, I love your name. Second: agreed. There should be outrage. But not equation. Thanks for the comment!
This post and the comments are especially pertinent to me at this moment. I have had no qualms about Obama's foreign policy moves, especially in regard to wiping up after Bush; I was THRILLED when he spoke up in Turkey against the perception that the USA is a Christian nation, and I heard that in real time; but he is disappointing me on key domestic issues and, yes, I'm registered at his gov site and, yes, I talk back to him and everyone I think needs to hear from me.
I contacted Bush once, then gave up.
Carry on and on and on, Saturn Smith! I depend on you!
Gailrae, thanks for the extremely kind comment. Sounds like you're doing all the right things -- feedback is crucial for the government, good and bad! Hurrah, hurrah!
I mean, there's the torture hidden, the continued tribunals, the taking of the single payer insurance off the table and well, he just really seems to be not very liberal and more ... Repub Lite.
I agree it's early yet. But it has not really begun well in many important ways.
the fact is, honest disagreement with the administration that you (generic "you") voted for is a good thing. The president needs to know where his strongest supporters stand. I believe the GOP would be in a much stronger place today if its membership had not quietly, even enthusiastically, consented to everything BushCo did.
That's disheartening. And I think it's perfectly, absolutely okay to say so. And I'm going to continue to do it. So, you know, tough for anyone who doesn't like that.
Odette and Procopius -- please dont' misread what I'm trying to say. Again, I'm ALL FOR criticism of the president. But I'm not for the attitude that's taking hold that he's no improvement over what we used to have. Down that path is further political apathy and disengagement of the party and future voters.
Thanks, everyone, for the interesting comments so far -- I think what I've been reminded of on this post is that no matter how many disclaimers I make or paragraphs I include in any piece criticizing the method of criticism of the president, I'm going to be seen as saying we shouldn't criticize the president. I will never say that (but I expect to defend against the charge again).
Frankly, I've been waiting for eight years and almost six months for something to change.
That hasn't happened yet. I appreciate your points about him not being Bush, but honestly, presently, he's not far enough away from those policies for me to be comfortable. And he's broken a number of promises, very important ones.
I keep hearing "Give him a chance!" "Let him get settled."
When will be the time to say "This is looking bad" or "These policies aren't looking good" or "These policies favor a Republican agenda?"
Because I don't really want to wait until it's been three and a half more years to do that. It'll be too late then.
I think the people that are bringing up Bush are unhappy and afraid of what hath been wrote so far. I don't think there's a thing wrong with expressing that, even if it appears hyperbolic to others. Frankly, after the last two administrations, I'm shocked we're not more hyperbolic.
I think it's GOOD those comparisons get made. I think shutting up and waiting patiently is the biggest error.
That is just how I feel.
we knew obama wouldn't be a christ-like figure, right?
still, I'd like to be able to say I'm disappointed that he has backtracked on releasing photos, and that so far he has talked about shutting down facilities where they torture, but he hasn't yet acted. I can say this, right, without saying "he's JUST like W"?
http://open.salon.com/blog/markinjapan/2009/05/17/prisoner_345_give_obama_time
about ongoing torture of prisoner 345 under the Obama administration?
I don't feel like personally comparing Obama to Bush, but every day he waits to 1) end torture of prisoners and 2) allow banks to continue to refuse to renegotiate loans with homeowners in order to make their short-term profits look good even though it's killing the economy to have these foreclosures escalating...
people are affected on a daily basis.
I don't think it's personal (or has to be) to critique him in these areas. I thought, when he was elected, he was the sort of politician who wanted to be critiqued. Who didn't just want a lot of yes-men.
Also, saying that criticism can wait doesn't help those who are paying the price of waiting (which is, in a way, all of us--but the weakest among us, obviously, are paying the most heavily).
Dolores, I'll take a look. On the banks issue, I think Congress is the body to be angry with -- they're the ones who voted down cram-down provisions recently, that would have allowed for the renegotiation of mortgages.
there are many people enmeshed in the crimes of the american government, and even a president who wanted to change things dare not, for without their active assistance, he can not run the nation. being unable to bring charges, he finds himself unable to even stop the crimes. the thugs who were unleashed in americans prison camps are still there, and are still thugs. they know now they are safe.
obama doesn't care, all that much. his days are filled, protecting banks and insurance companies. he has to make some progress with health care, while not upsetting the insurance industry. he has to get employment up, make some gestures toward global warming- do you think he worries much about people who are regarded as 'ragheads' by most of america?
most of america thinks being in official detention is proof of guilt. he won't be losing any elections because of gitmo.
obama is a politician. not a saint, and not even an honest man- there are no honest politicians, nor virgin whores. he will say and do whatever is necessary to be president. only fools imagine otherwise. and they did, when they voted for him. from a choice of two, he was the better.
if you want a better world, you need a better society. democracy is the necessary base, but it needs a better class of people than knee-bourne celebrity worshippers. the real flaw in the character of america is the subservient people who expect politicians to be better than used-car dealers, or pimps.
in a world where priests are protected pedophiles, should not americans wake up to the need for open government, for rule of the people?
Honestly, I've heard this song and dance of "be silent and wait! it will all be explained!" before now, and guess what? It never gets explained. No one suddenly starts doing the right thing on his or her own in our government, or very rarely. The only way the situation with torture will ever even partially be dealt with is if the public doesn't let up.
Yes, those opinions joining Bush and Obama are hyperbolic, but there's a grain of truth in them, in that many of the things Obama promised to get rid of from that administration seem to be becoming part of his central platform, including many of Bush ex-employees.
It's worth noting.
Also, I think people should be honest about how they feel, even if later they find that they were wrong. And be allowed to speak out about that. I'm pretty sure you just told a bunch of people to shut up or they'd mess up the party line.
As well, the whole situation with the torture ... perhaps Obama didn't make that mess, but if he walked into a party and someone shot the maid (bless her imaginary heart--she's getting all the heat) in front of him, wouldn't he be culpable if he helped hide the murder and bury the body in the backyard?
Obama is much more like Bush than you people want to admit.
Eventually you will realize that Obama is just as big as a war monger as Bush and the point will be moot. In the real world there really isn't much difference between starting illegal wars and escalating them. Those who stamp their feet and claim there is a difference need to talk to the families of the 2000 civilians Obama has killed since taking office. Do you think they see a difference?
The Democrats are just as guilty as the Republicans of allowing the torture to continue by failing to impeach and continuing to fund the wars.
That's my whole point: why can't we bring the argument closer to the truth? I'm not asking people to shut up (though I remain alarmed at the number of times I must insist this), I'm saying -- why can't we focus on what's true when criticizing? Why can't we focus on what's happening now, and when we feel a need to compare, let's make that a fair comparison?
My theory is that the MSM feels they have to criticize Obama for something or they'll be accused of being his lapdog. and of course, it sells more papers (or gets more page hits) to stir up controversy than to say, "Another good day for Obama...."
I think you’re right; saying Obama is the same as Bush is an overstatement. It is difficult to understand that particular assessment. I think by the time Obama’s first four years are completed, he will have accomplished some good things. One thing he has already accomplished is that he has improved America’s standing in the world. There is still much to be done in that capacity, but he has initiated a solid start with that particular change. As you say, so far, he has done some good things.
He’s also done some things that are, at best, questionable. Among some of those questionable actions are direct acts by his administration to uphold and legitimize some of the Bush administration policies. And that is, in my own view at least, a pretty worrisome sign. However …
I think much of the disappointment that many on the left are feeling is their own fault. Obama was pretty clear during the campaign about where he stood on many of these issues, and when he wasn’t clear, there were still clear indicators of his stance. Many people ignored those indications, or simply did not see them despite their obviousness.
In essence, I think the American public, generally speaking, fears real change, and so they end up voting for something that looks and sounds new, but really isn’t all that frighteningly change-oriented. Considering the two frontrunners in the recent Democratic presidential primary, that seems pretty clearly evidenced; neither Clinton nor Obama represented a significant departure from the status quo. That point was lost within the media hype about the possibility of either, the first African-American president, or the first Woman president, which I think was much more of a voting factor than many still realize or admit.
The old saying, “Carpe diem” comes into play here, I think. My own life experiences have shown me what can happen when one misses opportunities. History holds many more lessons on this matter. I think many are seeing missed opportunities fly by, and that is what concerns them. One aspect of this is the apparent reluctance to take a firm stand on pursuing investigation and prosecution of criminal actions by the previous administration. It remains to be seen what will unfold with that particular element; I hold onto the hope that there will yet be meaningful action in that direction: meaningful action, not a stage presentation of such action or some farcical “dog and pony show”. Of course, for me, “meaningful” refers to prosecution, conviction, and penalty for those crimes, not merely publicly saying, “Yes, they committed crimes”, and then ignoring the issue beyond that.
Another problem, of course, is that there have been direct actions by Obama’s administration to essentially uphold and endorse some of the Bush policies, and this is certainly a concern. As I said above, though, Obama indicated prior to being elected that he would probably do that, so the people who did not recognize those signs must bear much of the blame for that of which they now complain. And more importantly, I look at the Congress; there are many in that body that should simply not be there, and the voters are also responsible for that, at least to an extent. Pelosi, Reid, the “Blue Dog Coalition” --- they are all part of the problem.
And by the way, the switch can have lots of interpretations, about which one could see interesting things. We shall see, but a good defense.rated
For example, with Iraq, the United States has been guaranteeing the provision of oil to Western Europe and Japan since 1945: we even created the IPC to set this process up in 1932. We competed for power there with the Russians for fifty or more years, and still do, under the surface.
So could we really just walk out of there? No, just like there was a long process of walking in there, there will be a long process, hopefully, of walking out of there, because quick changes are historically speaking violent changes.
Why are we in Afghanistan? It is a continuation of the Russ0-British rivalry of the nineteenth century over Central Asia; this is not new.
Presidents never get to change facts of life like this much, and if they did, it would be bad news, not good news, because every single massive change in the international order so far, has been a violent one.
Similarly, in domestic policy, what can Obama do about the fact that we have lied to ourselves about entitlements for thirty years, and used the Greenspan Put and associated Social Security "Trust Fund/Shell Game" to cover up the problem with inflated asset prices? Nothing really. This is not a surprise, because reality is conservative, because of power, and be careful what you wish for in terms of change, because it usually leads in totally unexpected directions.
What planet ae you from. He's a politcian and politcians lie and maniplulate people to exercise power.
End of lesson
You know, after so many years of being completely disgusted with this country's policies, I really didn't think we had it in us to elect someone with this kind of potential. Now that it has happened, I'm guessing my impatience gets the better of me from time to time. I want it all fixed RIGHT NOW.
I also wanted to let you know I'm eager to read your posts as they come, Saturn, and enjoy your perspective very much.
Whenever I start thinking "Why isn't he/he hasn't yet?" I stop and think about what would be happening right now with a McCain/Palin administration in place.
And then I think of the incredible messes on all fronts that Obama must deal with. Many of which need to be solved yesterday. I decide to suck it up. Blind faith--no. Reasonable faith and patience to give the man a chance, yes.
Thanks Saturn. Rated.
That one did it for me. From Bush's lips to Obama's
I have watched as Mr. Obama shoveled unimaginable amounts of money toward Wall Street, wringing his hands over literal billions in bonuses paid to the thieves who destroyed our economy because "contracts are sacred" - except union contracts, of course.
I am watching the American auto industry go down the tubes - when Obama had the leverage to force changes that could have made us a world leader in electrics for the next 50 years - simply by guaranteeing some loans and aiding in the transition. So GM is shipping more production to Mexico. Oh, and they are using our money to do that.
Legalize and tax pot? Too stupid to seriously consider.
Don't ask, don't tell? Don't hold your breath.
Max Baucus in charge of universal health care? Are you serious?
But when he blamed torture on "a few bad apples" (implying a few rogue fall guy...uh...soldiers instead of the systematic, top down operation it actually was) that did it for me. I heard that before - and guess where.
No, Obama isn't Bush, he is a clone of the best Republican president since TR - Bill Clinton - signer of NAFTA and the repeal of depression era protections re banking.
If I had wanted another Clinton, I'd have voted for Hillary.
You managed to bring the supporters, detractors and pragmatists into the same room. What’s clear after reading all of the comments is:
- Obama is no Bush (night and day)
- Obama is a politician (a smooth talker from Chicago at that)
- U.S. foreign policy is infinitely more complicated when operating “behind the wall” (all decisions have repercussions)
- The thought that electing Obama would end corporate welfare was wishful thinking (actually, pure fantasy)
- Obama’s detractors need to give him some space (there are some real negative Nellies out there); his supporters need to be more willing to challenge his decisions (Save the blind faith for Sunday Service).
Thanks for the rousing discussion!
I think you should have more sympathy for your fellow liberals who are disappointed that the leader they elected without a resume is destroying the country at a slower rate than they would have liked.