Rick, you really need to apologize to Raunchy and me.
Your initial comments were totally uncalled for and
about as irrational as it gets around here. I don't
expect apologies from the likes of Barry and Vaj, but
you're supposed to be the chap who's always fair.

That being said:

--- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote:
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of authfriend
> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 12:10 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Obama: A Slippery Pol with Pretty Words
>  
> He was the guy who said he was going to repair the
> damage Bush had done to the Constitution. Was he just
> not very well informed about all that? Did he show
> poor judgment?
> 
> If he changed his mind once he got in office and was
> able to inform himself, and he decided to stick with
> Bush's policies, maybe Bush's judgment wasn't so bad
> after all.
>
> He's got a lot on his plate and I don't think he wants
> to spend all his time and energy in contentious fights
> that would force him to ignore more urgent priorities.

It's not what he "wants" to do, it's what he's already
*done*. He didn't need to engage in any contentious
fights to do it, and apparently these *were* his most
urgent priorities.

> Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al deserve prosecution
> (not that Obama ever expected to do that), but we
> happen to have an economy and an environment in
> dire straits, and a couple of wars to fight.

It's what he's done to cement Bush policies in regard
to how to conduct those wars--the very policies you say
BushCo should be prosecuted for pursuing--that I'm
talking about.

In Salon today, Glenn Greenwald discusses a piece
by former Bush OLC lawyer Jack Goldsmith in The New
Republic that examines (and mostly approves of)
Obama's terrorism policies.

Here's the Goldsmith piece:

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

http://tinyurl.com/r4w9hf

Here's an excerpt from Greenwald:

"...The more Obama embraces the Bush/Cheney 
approach, the more praise he gets for Centrism.

"What is most damaging about all of this is 
exactly what Goldsmith celebrated:  that 
Obama's political skills, combined with his 
status as a Democrat, is strengthening 
Bush/Cheney terrorism policies and solidifying 
them further.  For the last eight years, 
roughly half the country -- Republicans, Bush 
followers -- was trained to cheer for 
indefinite detention, presidential secrecy, 
military commissions, warrantless 
eavesdropping, denial of due process, a blind 
acceptance of any presidential assertion that 
these policies are necessary to Keep Us Safe, 
and the claim that only fringe Far Leftist 
Purists -- civil liberties extremists -- could 
possibly object to any of that. 

"Now, much of the other half of the country, 
the one that once opposed those policies -- 
Democrats, Obama supporters -- are now reciting 
the same lines, adopting the same mentality, 
because doing so is necessary to justify what 
Obama is doing.   It's hard to dispute the 
Right's claim that Bush's Terrorism approach is 
being vindicated by Obama's embrace of its 
'essential elements.'  That's what Goldsmith 
means when he says that Obama is making these 
policies stronger and more palatable, and it's 
what media stars mean when they describe 
Bush/Cheney policies as Centrist:  now that 
it's not just an unpopular Republican President 
but also a highly charismatic and popular 
Democratic President advocating and defending 
these core Bush/Cheney policies, they do become 
the political consensus of the United States." 

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/19/obama/index.html

http://tinyurl.com/pjbe3x


Reply via email to