The New Republic: Why Barack Obama is waging a more effective war on terror than George W. Bush

[Better Believe It]

The Cheney Fallacy
by Jack Goldsmith
Why Barack Obama is waging a more effective war on terror than George W. Bush.
The New Republic
May 18, 2009

Former Vice President Cheney says that President Obama's reversal of Bush-era terrorism policies endangers American security. The Obama administration, he charges, has "moved to take down a lot of those policies we put in place that kept the nation safe for nearly eight years from a follow-on terrorist attack like 9/11."

Many people think Cheney is scare-mongering and owes President Obama his support or at least his silence. But there is a different problem with Cheney's criticisms: his premise that the Obama administration has reversed Bush-era policies is largely wrong. The truth is closer to the opposite: The new administration has copied most of the Bush program, has expanded some of it, and has narrowed only a bit. Almost all of the Obama changes have been at the level of packaging, argumentation, symbol, and rhetoric.

Please read the complete article at:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1e733cac-c273-48e5-9140-80443ed1f5e2

[GarbagemanLB]

1. You almost fooled me: I thought you had actually made a thread praising Obama for something.

[Better Believe It]

3. Please read the article before you comment on it.

Do you also write movie reviews on films you haven't seen?

It is an article in support of President Obama's policies.

[firedupdem]

2. yup

We got the memo from rachel last week. obama=bush

okay..got it

:eyes:


:thumbsdown:

[Better Believe It]

4. Didn't actually read the article, did you?

[NJmaverick]

5. They lost me with this statement

<<President Obama has announced that he is closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. By itself, this is not a departure from the Bush >>

[Better Believe It]

6. You left out the rest of the sentence

"By itself, this is not a departure from the Bush administration, which also stated a desire to close GTMO."

That's true.

Everyone knows that the Bush government also announced its intention to close Gitmo so I don't understand your point.

The statement continued:

"The new administration is implementing this policy with greater vigor, however, and is seriously considering bringing terrorist detainees to the United States. Congress and our allies are throwing up roadblocks to these efforts. Even if the administration overcomes them, closing GTMO may have no material impact on U.S. detention practice. Because the Supreme Court has ruled that habeas corpus rights extend to detainees on the island, the detainees will likely receive no more rights on U.S. soil than in Cuba. The real question is not where the detainees are located, but rather the basis for their detention. On this issue, as explained below, the new president is swimming close to the old one."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

21. When did Bush announce a desire to close Gitmo?

And if he did happen to make some vague comment about it sometime or other, who(m) among us actually believed that if he and Cheney could serve another 4 years or if McCain/Palin got elected, they would be doing exactly what Obama is doing?

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

7. Thanks for a wingnut hitpiece by a BushCo Assistant Attorney General who served under John Ashcroft

Wikipedia bio on Jack Goldsmith: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Goldsmith
His TNR bio at the end of this bullshit op-ed: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1e733cac-c273-48e5-9140-80443ed1f5e2&p=4

[Better Believe It]

9. So why do you think this "wingnut" is attacking Cheney and supporting President Obama?

While you're at it please indicate what parts of the article, if any, you disagree with and why if you can.

If you disagree with the writer and believe that George W. Bush was doing a more effective job than President Obama in fighting terrorism please indicate why.

I'm listening!

[ClarkUSA]

11. Nice try. The author was BushCo Ass't. AG under Ashcroft and he's perpetuating wingnut memes.

NYT conservative op-ed columnist David Brooks and WaPo conservative op-ed columnist George Will were parroting the same talking points as Goldsmith does in the OP. So were the conservatives on MTP this morning. Gee, I guess it's all a coincidence. :eyes:

[Better Believe It]

12. You failed to answer the question: Why do you think the writer attacked Cheney and supports Obama

on this issue?

How does this article help Richard Cheney and how does it hurt Obama's effort to obtain bi-partisan support for his anti-terrorism policies?

Now please post something that deals with this in a serious manner rather than meaningless and empty political rhetoric.

[ClarkUSA]

13. I disagree with your disinegenuous framing and that of the wingnut author of this op-ed.

Now please post something that is not a conservative's RNC-spun Obama=Bush hitpiece rather than helping to perpetuate meaningless and empty wingnut memes against our Democratic president.

[Better Believe It]

14. So you think the author is presenting the views of the Republican National Committee?

Now that's just plane nutty!

Is that the very best spin you can put on the article and do you honestly believe that?

Sorry, but you're all by yourself, unless you can cite liberal/progressive credible sources, with the links, that support your desperate and weak political spin on this article.

Links please!

[ClarkUSA]

15. Give it up. Who're you going to cite next? George Will & David Brooks? They agree w/Goldsmith.

[Better Believe It]

16. You're claiming that they are supporting Obama's terrorism policy? I doubt it. Links please.

[ClarkUSA]

17. I never said that but nice try. Now I'm done kicking this lame OP.

[Better Believe It]

19. If you can't respond quiting is the right thing to do.

[MarjorieG]

8. GOP can't turn voters to GOP, but can tear away Obama support with left/moderates believing spin.

[Better Believe It]

10. Do you think the assessment by the Center for Constitutional Rights is right-wing GOP spin?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8428036&mesg_id=8428036

[MarjorieG]

18. I'm not going to argue righteousness with you, but intellectual clarity is just one aspect of what

Obama is facing. Put yourself in his shoes with the weight of the world and really say purity upheld over all else.

You'll argue with me, but I'm leaving to try to stop electronic voting in NYS, truly indemocratic.

[Better Believe It]

20. Defending our Constitution and civil liberties is not defending some kind of ideological purity

It's basic to being a loyal and patriotic American.

Do you also think that the quest for racial and sexual equality is also some old-fashioned quaint notion that ought to be abandon by President Obama?

Let's be absolutely clear and intellectually honest on the question of civil, human and democratic rights.

Looking for clever "legal" ways to undermine and subvert those rights represents a betrayal of what this nation supposedly stands for and is a slippery sloop toward tyranny.