Some of the lies of Mr. Obama
Nov. 28th, 2009 04:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
solarbirdGlenn Greenwald at Salon discusses the various flips by Obama supporters on key questions of war crimes, torture accountability, and civil rights and liberties issues, noting how, in the case of Matt Yglesies, "what was once lambasted as 'Constitution-shredding' under George Bush is now nothing more than: Obama's 'civil liberties record hasn’t been exactly what I would have wanted.'" Of particular interest is Mr. Yglesies's commentary that none of this should have been anything other than expected.
I actually tend to agree with that assessment, particularly after the long-lambasted pre-election reversal on retroactive immunity for illegal domestic spying by the telecommunications companies at the request of Mr. Bush's White House. But, as Mr. Greenwald asks:
I don't expect good answers on this from Obama supporters, but, well, the questions are obviously valid.
While we're on this topic, we have this little tidbit out over the holiday; it appears that Mr. Obama ordered the Office of Personnel Management not to comply with a Federal court order because that order would have required medical benefits for the wife of a lesbian employed by the Federal courts. As longtime readers may recall, I spent a lot of time lambasting Mr. Bush's administration for refusing to comply with legal decisions and court orders; this is Mr. Obama adopting Mr. Bush's contempt for the judiciary yet again.
It's particularly galling to me, of course, because not only is it another defiance of the court system and another broken campaign promise, but it's also yet another administration attack against GBLT rights being fought in the courts. And also because the head of OPM is one of the few openly-gay members of the Obama administration. Michelangelo Signorile at The Gist asks, "Is this how openly gay appointees must operate within the Obama administration -- not as advocates on behalf of civil rights but rather as lackeys charged with blocking equal rights for their own kind? That, if true, is enormously troubling."
In this way, Mr. Obama's administration is acting no differently than that of Mr. Bush. Yes, yes, believe me, I know, DOMA and Mr. Obama's enthusiastic defences of it in court; but the judge knew that too, and issued the order in full consideration of DOMA, and under the auspices of the broader Federal Health Benefits Act, which discusses family in general, not just married couples, according to the judge. The Obama administration reaction will be interesting; they have 30 days to respond again.
I actually tend to agree with that assessment, particularly after the long-lambasted pre-election reversal on retroactive immunity for illegal domestic spying by the telecommunications companies at the request of Mr. Bush's White House. But, as Mr. Greenwald asks:
I've been reading many arguments from Obama supporters over the last couple of weeks insisting that Obama can't possibly give civilian trials to all Terrorism suspects because having to free detainees whom they can't convict in court would be politically catastrophic; but doesn't that same reasoning justify Bush's decision to open Guantanamo and hold terrorist suspects without charges? After all, how could Bush afford to risk acquittals any more than Obama? [And] doesn't that mean that Bush and Cheney got a bad rap all these years for their so-called "Constitution-shredding," and that the ultimate responsibility for their abuses lies not with Bush, Cheney David Addington and John Yoo, but rather with Tom Daschle, Bill Frist, Harry Reid, Denny Hastert and Nancy Pelosi? ...Long-time readers here may note that I have been particularly critical of Mr. Reid.
I could understand and accept a lot more easily this blithe acquiescence to Obama's record if it weren't for the fact that progressives and Democrats spent so many years screaming bloody murder over Bush's use of indefinite detention, military commissions, state secrets, renditions, and extreme secrecy -- policies Obama has largely and/or completely adopted as his own. One can't help but wonder, at least in some cases, how genuine those objections were, as opposed to their just having been effective tools to discredit a Republican president for partisan and political gain.
I don't expect good answers on this from Obama supporters, but, well, the questions are obviously valid.
While we're on this topic, we have this little tidbit out over the holiday; it appears that Mr. Obama ordered the Office of Personnel Management not to comply with a Federal court order because that order would have required medical benefits for the wife of a lesbian employed by the Federal courts. As longtime readers may recall, I spent a lot of time lambasting Mr. Bush's administration for refusing to comply with legal decisions and court orders; this is Mr. Obama adopting Mr. Bush's contempt for the judiciary yet again.
It's particularly galling to me, of course, because not only is it another defiance of the court system and another broken campaign promise, but it's also yet another administration attack against GBLT rights being fought in the courts. And also because the head of OPM is one of the few openly-gay members of the Obama administration. Michelangelo Signorile at The Gist asks, "Is this how openly gay appointees must operate within the Obama administration -- not as advocates on behalf of civil rights but rather as lackeys charged with blocking equal rights for their own kind? That, if true, is enormously troubling."
In this way, Mr. Obama's administration is acting no differently than that of Mr. Bush. Yes, yes, believe me, I know, DOMA and Mr. Obama's enthusiastic defences of it in court; but the judge knew that too, and issued the order in full consideration of DOMA, and under the auspices of the broader Federal Health Benefits Act, which discusses family in general, not just married couples, according to the judge. The Obama administration reaction will be interesting; they have 30 days to respond again.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-11-29 03:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-29 04:51 am (UTC)this is 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-29 04:21 am (UTC)The left has to realize that a criticism of the administration is not a tacit endorsement of the right, and I cannot believe how many people have swiveled in lockstep with Obama on this stuff. We need some leftist dissent, and we need it now.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-29 04:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-11-29 02:47 pm (UTC)Interesting to observe that the report dates back to August, though. I wonder what's been done with that legislative proposal since?
no subject
Date: 2009-11-29 07:12 pm (UTC)No more anthrax poisoning!
Without Obama, there might have been no financial industry bail-out! This and his other programs have probably staved off complete economic collapse by at least a few months! Maybe longer!
He's leading the charge on a game changing health insurance bill! He hasn't openly opposed some very timid energy legislation, either!
He's defying the crazies and keeping landmines!!!!! Because we need to leave them laying around for people to step on long after hostilities are ended! He has the vision!
And the Personnel Management issue is part of his plan to whip up outrage on behalf of LGBT issues! And it's working! As your own post proves!
He's promised to eventually close Gitmo and is even going to Copenhagen! He's probably going to have a plan to clean up the ocean and the atmosphere and save all life on earth there!
See? He's really doing a great job!
meeps sympathetically, but....
Date: 2009-11-29 09:51 pm (UTC)"Any hard feelings?
Oh, about 10 on the mohs scale, yes"
We really have to redo the political coalitions somehow. this is getting ridiculous. maybe make a "great American compromise" with the fundies to strike down the most noxious laws everyone can agree are evil and have some sort of covenant to keep the elected reps from stabbing any of the voters in the back. (they had such a thing in the early years of the country's gov't) Even after passionate differences, there's a lot that can be agreed on...
Re: meeps sympathetically, but....
Date: 2009-11-30 04:42 am (UTC)This might be relevant:
http://www.correntewire.com/they_have_no_place_go#new
(including comments)
or most of the recent posts here:
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com
(especially the "Dreaming of Diocletian" post, but most of the ones since, too)
I am personally fondest of the green party/green dogs amongst dems idea, myself, among those put forward so far.