LOL, Once Again Obama = George W. Bush
This is just totally hilarious. Ever since taking office Obama, Mr. Hope and Change, has ended up vindicating everything ... and I mean literally EVERYTHING that George W. Bush did in the war on terror. Here is just the latest example:
In abrupt reversal, 9/11 suspects to get Guantánamo military tribunals
In an abrupt reversal, US Attorney General Eric Holder has decided that alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will not be tried in a civilian federal court in the US, but instead will face justice before a special military tribunal at Guantánamo Bay.
Let's review a few past threads just to fun:
Dude, they're never gonna close Gitmo ...
Yea, sure, the Democrats REALLY mean to close Gitmo ...
Obama starts executing his plan to import terrorists to the US.
With this latest development it looks like we have come full circle on this. :)
And while we're on the subject, what's the deal with this executive order?
Closure Of Guantanamo Detention Facilities
EXECUTIVE ORDER -- REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY NAVAL BASE AND CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITIES
...
Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantánamo. The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at Guantánamo at the time of closure of those detention facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.
...
Sec. 7. Military Commissions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this order, no charges are sworn, or referred to a military commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Rules for Military Commissions, and that all proceedings of such military commissions to which charges have been referred but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military Commission Review, are halted.
LOL, What a total and utter farce. Is that order even worth the disk space used to store it? It is an embarassment and I am surprised that the Obama-ites haven't scrubbed it from the site already.
Of course we Republican's knew they could never make any of this stick and none of it has. George W. Bush may have been an idiot but Obama and his acolytes have been forced to uphold every one of GWB's "idiotic" positions. So who's the idiot here? The one that came up with the policies, or the one who promised to end them and is still forced to uphold and pursue them even today? You know the answer.
I thought George W. Bush was a criminal for instituting these policies? Doesn't that make Obama a criminal for going back to them time after time after time?
How's that hope and change workin' out for ya folks?
- GoRight's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Meh
Areas where Obama's policies are similar to Bush's fall into two general categories: 1.) It made sense to continue the Bush policy, or 2.) Obama was left no good options for change, or other political realities prevented change.
Maintaining a particular Bush policy here or there was not necesarily a bad idea in every instance, since Bush had actually gotten a few things right by the end. Bush had cleaned up a lot of his WOT policies by the end of his term-- trying to polish up his sorry legacy! He had finally hired a competent person to run the show at Defense (Gates), and therefore, for instance, the war in Iraq was on a decent trajectory when he left office. For Obama to essentially maintain that trajectory in wrapping the war up was prudent. Bush had also made a politically unpopular but nevertheless wise choice in allowing bailouts to happen. Obama merely continued those policies that made sense.
Your example simply falls in the latter category from my perspective. I never made a big deal out of this kind of stuff because there are no easy answers in my opinion. We were never going to let high ranking terrorists go free, despite any language in executive orders to the contrary (and therefore, the hysteria on the right over the dangers of Obama are once again proved unwarranted). From the perspective of others on the left, things like this represent MAJOR FAILURES of Obama and they routinely rake him over the coals for stuff like this. So, I think in general, most people are being consistent.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Which is it?
But what does it say about Obama? That's really the point here.
I get it that "governing is hard." During his campaign, he didn't waffle about Gitmo. He said he'd close it.
So, he gets into office and "discovers" he cannot do so. That means one of two things about candidate Obama. One, he either knew he could not close it and mendaciously stated otherwise merely to curry votes, or two, he really thought he could close it. If the former, he's proven himself to be unethical. If the latter, he's proven himself to be unable to objectively analyze a known situation and come up with viable alternatives.
In the vernacular, he's either a pandering liar or just plain stupid.
Which is it?
One could even expand this to the entire bloc of Democratic elected officials. Either they intentionally mislead the nation about what "they" would do given the Presidency and the Congress in 2008, or they were sincere but simply unable to fathom the work required to enact their purported vision.
That's the view from this independent's seat anyway.
Ouch!
Nice smackdown, PF. Looks to me like the unvarnished truth may actually sting a bit here. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Nice to see you posting
Am I sounding too vehement again? ;-) I'm really just stating facts.
The choice of Guantanamo is a good one, actually, to illustrate the problem. Any one of us could spin out all the possible scenarios, analyze the results, and draw conclusions. Therefore it really doesn't matter what additional information candidate Obama learns after the election. We can examine everything from worst case (everyone in Guantanamo is the kind of uber-dangerous criminal who cannot be tried in public for whatever reason) to best case (everyone there can receive a fair trial in our civilian system).
One would assume that a candidate would have given the problem of Guantanamo requisite thought.
So, assuming Obama is basically a good guy and did not set out with the intention to deceive, then the alternative explanation is that his thinking fell short. Well that, and maybe his courage. Or he intended his campaign statements as, effectively, merely propaganda to get him elected. Either way, it does not speak well of the man, IMHO.
What this really all says...
...is that you've bought the common but false wisdom of the red-bar ;-)
On many of Obama's campaign promises, he has been thwarted by Congress. Guantanamo, for example:
A cynic might suggest that the fact that he was going to be dealing with an obstructionist Republican bloc in the Senate hell-bent on denying him any accomplishment was a "known situation" as you were talking about. However, Obama quite obviously did not see things that way. He saw himself as a consensus builder. He wanted to work with Democrats AND Republicans-- and he made an honest and genuine attempt to reach out to Republicans. It is not "stupid" to try to build consensus-- in fact, it is the only way that we can possibly get back to where the legislature can get anything meaningful accomplished, so long as one party or another does not have 60+ votes in the Senate.
But, the Republicans chose politics over governing, and used the filibuster on virtually every single occasion it could possibly be used to deny Obama movement on any of his priorities. According to the logic of the red-bars and the purple-trending-red "independents," Democratic candidates were supposed to campaign so honestly as to admit that they would be unable to deliver on any Democratic priority because of the Republicans in the Senate, or they were "liars" or "stupid". Well, I'm all for as much honesty as possible in campaigns but I have never asked for my Democratic candidates to be so bluntly honest as to shoot themselves in the foot and ruin any chance of getting elected!
As far as Democrats in Congress being "unable to fathom the work required" to enact their agenda-- obviously, you can "work" as hard as you want, but if 41 Senators will filibuster to stop you, no amount of "work" will matter, so to frame any lack of legislative progress as the result of a lack of effort is plainly ridiculous.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I've missed this
Oh no. Do you mean that in politics, the opposing party obstructs? Really? And only a cynic acknowledges that?
We seem to have agreement here. :-)
No. If the situation is "we will be unable to deliver on any Democratic priority because we do not have a supermajority" then I would expect them to come up with alternatives that they can deliver on rather than blather on about things that sound nice but have no hope of becoming reality. Or are all Democratic priorities undeliverable whenever there is less than a supermajority of Democrats?
Unpersuasive
Only a cynic would think that it has always been this way and will always be this way. Just go back to the beginnings of the Bush Administration, and look at the number of Democrats that voted for Bush priorities such as No Child Left Behind (47 Senate Dems voted for 2 against), the 2001 Bush tax cuts(12 Senate dems voted for) , and the Iraq AUMF.(Over 20 Dens voted for). The level of obstructionism of the Republicans under Obama is anything but usual from even a recent historical perspective.
Why, propaganda during a political campaign to get elected? How shameful of Obama! He should have told the voters not to vote for him on the possibility that Republicans would stonewall his policies! Better to have Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency than to actually campaign to win!
The voting public doesn't even know what a supermajority is, and ant any rate, Obama didn't know whether or not he was going to have a supermajority-- if I recall, it was considereed to be a distinct possibility that he would, right up to the election.
Not that that is particularly relevant anyway. The reasonable voter, e.g. myself, knows that a camapaign promise is basically an item off a list of what the candidate would do if he were king. Once you get elected, you try to accomplish as many things off the list as you can. Anybody who ever thinks otherwise in any election is setting themselves up for extreme disappointment, or is just being obtuse.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Well, in Obama's case ...
this certainly has proven to be true. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Ah, but I am not disappointed :-)
Others certainly are, but I'm not. There have been some failures, and Obama's lack of experience as an executive has showed at times, but I still give Obama a solid B for his performance so far. Obama's team hit the ground running when they took office and prevented the very real possibility of an economic collapse, saving skymutt and GoRight the indignity of having to sell apples on street corners to avoid standing in bread lines. Then, Obama restored a measure of maturity and sanity to U.S. foreign policy, restoring the possibility that skymutt and GoRight might travel abroad as Americans without being spat upon. The next task will be to restore some fiscal sanity to the nation, so that skymutt's and GoRight's dollars are worth something more than for fuel in their fireplaces-- a long and difficult task to be sure, given the trillion dollar per year deficit inherited from Bush.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
LOL, yes but ...
... haven't we already established that Obama was merely continuing the bailout strategy started by Bush? Not that I like the bailout strategy or Bush's spending. But to give Obama credit like this when he was merely executing a Bush policy? It's just misleading.
Regardless, I have made it clear many times that I disagreed with Bush on spending. It remains to be seen whether we have averted economic collapse. The crushing debt that Obama has run up may yet be our downfall.
Sorry, Skymutt. That dog won't hunt. Obama has made Bush look like an absolute amateur when it comes to spending and running up the debt. And he did it in record time.
I'm not going to go find it but I seem to recall a conversation in which I predicted that Obama's runaway spending would end up deflating the dollar. You pooh poohed me spouting some blather about the market not agreeing with me. Well, I still stand by my prediction. And based on your comment you seem to be agreeing with the very real possibility of the dollar collapsing because of all this.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Bush policy's policy on the bailouts...
...was essentially a Democratic policy-- a "big government" policy, if you will. To confirm this, look at the TARP votes and see how many more Democrats than Republicans voted for it. Why should Obama not continue a Democratic policy?
Bush merely adopted a Democratic policy in a crisis-- probably because, unlike the Republicans in Congress who were furiously trying to make political hay out of the crisis, Bush's neck was on the line-- he knew his legacy was going to take a further pounding if he allowed a Second Great Depression to occur.
I'm sure such a conversation probably did occur, but I have not changed my position as you are implying. Obviously, at some point, runaway deficits will undermine the value of the dollar, but at the time that I would have made that statement, there was no market indications that the huge deficits were of immediate danger to the dollar. Instead, by absorbing huge amounts of American debt, the markets were conveying confidence in the dollar.
When you inherit genuine economic crisis, as Obama did, you sometimes have to walk along a knife edge to escape the crisis. Obviously, issuing over a trillion per year in debt is not ideal but no alternative was ideal either.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Bottom line?
You agree that the bailouts were a Bush Policy and Obama continued them (in overdrive). :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No!
Again: Bush adopted a Democratic policy... Obama continued that Democratic policy. I thought I explained all this already!
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
So say you.
Baldly asserting something is hardly proof of anything. Since Bush instituted the policy it is a clearly a Bush Policy by definition. There's simply no denying that.
You (as a local representative of the liberal community) trying to take credit for it after the fact and without any evidence that the Democrats had anything to do with it is only illustrating how desparate Obama's position actually is. But even IF I accept that the idea began with Democrats and was merely put into action by Bush it does not change the fact that it is (a) a Bush Policy, and (b) that Obama continued it. :-P
In fact I am happy to let the Democrats have credit for the bailout idea since I don't agree with the policy in the first place. You are merely making the case that Bush was a RINO which is a position I would certainly agree with from a spending point of view.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4LOL, you're such an apologist.
Oh, please. Cry me a river
. Obama rode into town with an almost filibuster proof Senate. The Democrats + the independents who follow them around acounted for 59 of the seats in the Senate for the 111th Congress and a solid majority in the House of Representatives. It was a dream scenario for Obama and here you are going on about how aweful he had it. Anyone, especially someone who has spent as much as Obama has, who can't find a way to get 2 Republicans to cross the line is just plain stupid, or inept, or both. He was obviously so far off the "reasonable" bus that he doomed himself.
And what's this "hell-bent on denying him any accomplishment" BS. If he had been on the right side of the issue (no pun intended) or at least was willing to take a reasonable compromise position he could had passed all sorts of things to help the country. Case in point was the extension of the Bush tax cuts. He compromised and things got done. For other issues where he wasn't willing to make a serious attempt, well no deal.
Funny, I seem to have missed that part. I seem to recal something about he doesn't mind if they ride along but they have to sit in the back seat. :)
Funny, I remember the Democrats using the filibuster being big news back in the day when we were hearing things like the "Nuclear Option". I don't really remember hearing that kind of talk about the Republicans while Obama has been in office. So I'm not convinced by your bald assertion. I have no doubt that the filibuster was used but I don't think it was on everything as you suggest.
Either way, the Republicans chose saving the country over destroying it. That's what governing is, no? :)
LOL. So you are saying that if your candidates were honest about what they want to do that they couldn't get elected. I think we have found something we can agree on! :)
Well, this is true and it gets to the heart of why I can actually say that Obama has failed to deliver on so many of his promises. He doesn't work hard at all as far as I can tell. On most of these issues he has made one run at it, failed miserably, and now is just giving up and conceding the issue. That's not even a good faith effort IMHO and if I had voted for him I would be outraged at this point.
Luckily in my case I am perfectly happy to have him twiddling his thumbs as much as possible. YMMV.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4misguided and blind to reality
DINOs, man, DINOs. Surely, from your past statements on McCain for instance, you understand that there are those whose primary allegiance is to themselves and will throw their weight counter to their own party purely to attempt to enhance their own stature and power?
Like what? The Bush tax cuts, your best example apparently, merely maintained the status quo. That's what the Republican blockade in the Senate is all about-- maintaining the status quo, which they know is no good for America and will likely leave Americans very unsatisfied in the next Presidential election.
Obama says such things in jest when throwning red meat to the Democratic base. In reality, he has bent over backwards to accommodate Republicans on many occasions-- not because they deserved it or because their ideas merited such accommodation, but because Obama was interested in working towards a less polarized political culture in Washington. It has not paid dividends so far, but check back in a few years during his second term when the economy starts cranking again-- these Republicans who are slamming him now because he is not so popular will be angling for the opportunity to get their picture taken with him ;-)
Then you should also remember that Democrats compromised-- remember the Gang of Fourteen?-- even though the Republicans had only a very thin majority in the Senate.
Even you have to put a smiley after that howler, as it has been very clear that the Republicans' track record demonstrates that they don't have a clue how to do anything constructive for the country.
Pretty typical to take only one pass at things, at least during a single Congress... did Bush make 2 runs at social security privatization or immigration reform, for example? Besides, most of Obama's runs at things have actually resulted in legislation being passed-- finance reform and health care reform for example, as Obama bent over backwards just to get support from one or two Senate Republicans.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Obviously.
Of course. But as the leader of the Democrat party it is Obama's job to keep these people in line. If he fails to do so, well then he fails. You're just explaining why he has failed.
Well, this should make you happy then! :) But if they truly believed that then I doubt that they could continue. You really need to stop looking for scape goats and start questioning whether Obama is able to actually get anything done. Thus far he has mostly not.
No, the point is that he says such things. Do you think that these are the types of statements which serve to build bridges of cooperation? Are these the statements of a uniter and not a divider? The answer is obvious.
I disagree. Actively obstructing the destructive policies being sought by the Obama regime is, in point of fact, constructive for the country. Proposing actual and substantive budget cuts is constructive for the country, both today and for tomorrow.
In what way was that an example of compromise? The Democrats got everything they wanted and gave away nothing. They were not bound to prevent a filibuster by the agreement, and so they could still filibuster anyone that they chose. Hence they gave away nothing. The Republicans on the other hand gave away the only leverage that they had, the nuclear option. They were fools.
So no, I disagree that this is an example of Democrat compromise. It is an example of the Democrats out maneuvering their Republican counterparts.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sounds to me like backpedaling!
I am not going to go back and check you personally for consistency on these issues, but to hear a member of Team Obama talking like this is clear rationalization. Pure and simple.
The bottom line is that Obama talked big and hasn't delivered on what were viewed as the most significant issues of the campaign which revolved around the general meme of Bush = War Criminal. So if that was true at the time, and Obama is continuing all of those so called "failed policies" from the Bush Administration then I can only conclude that Obama = War Criminal as well at this point. The Democrat party can't have it both ways.
It seems I am not the only one to have been prompted to look into the accomplishments of the Obamassiah. Here's a fair and balanced review of a few of the key points:
So, the independent watchdog group puts Obama at about 24% of keeping his campaign promises at this point. Obama himself runs the numbers and comes up with 70% somehow. Given PF's analysis above on whether Obama is a pandering liar or just plain stupid ... perhaps his "creative math skills" give us a clue as to which it might be. :)
But let's review the eight promises that the above article looked at and summarize the bottom line results.
1) Guantanamo Bay
The article basically concludes that he has failed to deliver on closing Gitmo and that it does not appear that he is getting any closer to doing so.
The Democrat
strategistlackey Joe Trippi said of this, "President Obama is still trying to shut down Gitmo as soon as possible, it's just turning out that it's not possible."So in this case it sounds as though Obama was simply "surprised to discover" the cold hard truth that has been obivous to conservatives all along that it's not possible to close Gitmo.
2) Letting Bush-Era Tax Cuts Expire
Bottom line on this one? In the end he totally caved and abandoned his promise. There is no way to spin this one into the Bush Era Tax Cuts have expired or that he was not a major influence in the debate over whether they should be allowed to continue. He opted to continue them.
3) Foreclosure Prevention Fund
This one boils down to simple lip service. Sure he can try to claim he delivered on this one because a fund was setup, but in the end it hasn't delivered on the actual promise to the people on the street. Trying to claim you have actually delivered without actually delivering is just totally disingenuous political posturing.
4) Immigration Reform
Failed. Close but no cigar. His reaction to the on-going and so called plight of these illegal immigrants? He was "disappointed" by the outcome. Wow, he's really fighting hard for the hope and change of poor people who only want a better life here in the USA, no? I question his commitment to this promise.
Makes you want to ask those illegal immigrants, "how's that hope and change working out for ya?" :)
5) Restricting Former Lobbyists from Serving in Obama Administration
Failed to deliver. Obama is using slight of hand like "waivers" and "recusals" to continue business as usual for the lobbyists he wants in his administration. Doesn't sound like even a good faith effort to deliver ... or again he was "surprised to discover" that he couldn't do without those lobbyists.
6) Iraq War
The article lists this one as a promise delivered. But as Skymutt points out above Bush had already set everything in motion before he left and Obama just rode the Bush policies without doing much of anything. So yea, it was a promise delivered but it was Bush who actually delivered, not Obama.
7) Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
Delivered. But on this issue I say, "who cares?" This is a big MEH for me.
8) Sign a ‘Universal' Health care Bill
Article argues that he delivered on this promise. As long as the promise was to "sign a universal healthcare bill" then technically he delivered.
Does the bill he signed actually deliver what it promises (and the substance of what he promised on the campaign trail)? I guess that remains to be seen as it continues to work its way through the legal system. It is by no means a slam dunk that it will be considered Constitutional. And even if it IS deemed Constitutional does it actually deliver on the promise? I would argue not.
It imposes taxes without delivering any coincident corresponding services and it doesn't even "provide" universal healthcare at the end of the day either. It mandates that people "universally provide their own healthcare". That's not a subtle distinction in the comparison of the value delivered vs. the value promised.
So, in the end, I am left with the feeling that Obama was too stupid to understand what was really at play in these areas and so he over promised and is now having to "pad his math" on promises delivered and to send out his minions like Joe Trippi to "rationalize things away".
Interestingly, this also goes back to one of his campaign memes. We were promised a "more open government" but in the end he is resorting to sleight of hand and obfuscation to keep himself afloat. That's not what I call in the spirit of being an "open government". That's more in line with politics as usual to me. So where's the hope and change in that? :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Heh-- obvious lies, right from the start.
At no time did Obama ever call Bush a war criminal or even insinuate that he believed that he thought Bush was a war criminal. Here's an example of what Obama was saying on the general subject during the campaign:
Cliff notes for the obtuse-- Obama is saying that it appeared to him that the acts that others were calling Bush's war crimes really were merely "really dumb policies."
Another false premise-- Obama has not continued policies of waterboarding, extraordinary renditions, and so forth.
...continue them temporarily, I think you meant to say... they were extended 2 years-- the Republicans wanted to make them permanent. And even in return for the 2 year extension, Obama got significant policies he wanted enacted in return.
I will acknowledge that the foreclosure mitigation programs have failed to meet the objectives, but the depth of the housing crisis and the extent to which people are underwater on their mortgages really prevents any realisitc program of this type from being a rousing success at this point. And, some people ARE being helped by these programs.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Obvious lies?
Why such harsh tones, Skymutt?
Well, if you wish to take the myopic view that only the things Obama says are part of the campaign to get him elected then you might be right. Personally I don't like to be that myopic. There were plenty of Democrats pushing the Bush = War Criminal meme during the campaign and every one of them was pulling for Obama to win. You may not consider them to be part of the Democrat campaign to elect Obama but I sure do.
No, that is NOT what he is saying.
He is saying that he doesn't know which is the case (i.e. whether Bush is a criminal or that he just enacted really stupid policies). He very clearly said that he would want "to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued," so he is definitely not ruling out an investigation, nor is he saying that he think's Bush was not a criminal as you suggest.
I do find it ironic that you are now trying to claim that Obama's view was that Bush's policies were merely "really stupid", when in fact he himself is now carrying out those very same policies (e.g. Gitmo and Military Tribunals) AFTER failing to find any better solution of his own.
Here's another take on the topic from back then:
So here we have a case of Obama saying the politically expedient thing (i.e. downplay the whole issue in his first term to maximize his chances for re-election), while at the same time having his "brain trust" work behind the scenes (but actually in plain sight) to plan the whole thing out. Perhaps this, then, is an example or Obama playing the part of pandering liar as opposed to the villiage idiot.
Either way here is an example of the Obama "brain trust" putting the Bush = War Criminal meme into the public spotlight during the campaign. Something that you said didn't happen. Hmmm.
You also have to like Obama's priorities in all of this as well. He obviously puts getting himself re-elected ahead of investigating and prosecuting potential war crimes on his priority list. Otherwise why wait until your second term? I'd otherwise think finding and prosecuting war criminals would be considered important work, no?
Actually we don't know that. As I recall he is officially on record as having NOT ruled them out. He kept his option open. Either way, keeping Gitmo open and using Military Tribunals are sufficient examples to make my point.
The bottom line is that he opted to continue the tax cuts rather than fight on to abolish them as promised. How long he continued them is irrelevant at this point. He backpedaled on his promise. We'll have to wait and see what happens when they come back up for renewal.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I thought you opposed use of anonymous sources.
But, I guess not, since you offer this story that sources no actual persons but rather "a slate of foreign policy and human rights experts with various degrees of connections to the Obama campaign, some of them likely to occupy positions of authority in an Obama administration" as having discussed investigations or prosecution of Bush Administration officials.
An anonymous source is still an anonymous source no matter how much puffery accompanies it.
I give you word straight from the horse's mouth, and the best you can counter with is this third-hand unsourced anonymous hearsay? There is no way we can evaluate the actual importance of the people involved in these alleged discussions, or if the author accurately characterized them, or if they occurred at all for that matter.
This is a highly suspect article. I have never heard of Mark Benjamin, but here we have rather sensational claims made that, quite conveniently for the author, could not be proven false for over four years from the date of publication.
GoRight's evidence: anonymous sources, and now, his own recollections. Both very likely to be misleading and inaccurate :-)
So what? You have provided no real evidence that Obama was pandering to these people, or that they had any significant influence. In my experience, the hardliners who were insisting on war crimes prosecutions for Bush were mostly Naderite types more interested in payback and looking tough on the blogs than justice. They had no particular influence with Obama.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
What anonymous source?
As you yourself point out my source is one Mark Benjamin, a writer for a liberal rag discussing liberal politics and liberal connections. Do you have some reason why we should consider him to be less than credible on the points highlighted?
Actually, what you gave me would seem to have come from the other end of the horse! :)
I have identified my source above, as did you. Calling him anonymous at this point seems rather silly.
I spent a little (more than I should have) time trying to track down a decent reference for the Obama reserves the right to torture meme. I have thus far failed but I know that this was a major theme and I remember having researched it at the time and ahving come to the conclusion that it was true, albeit hidden in the bowels of some memo some place.
Just to show that I am not totally making this up, though, here is a diary on DailyKOS
which touches on the topic and comes to the same conclusion. I know that there was a clear place where this was evident but I am at a loss to find it now.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4LOL
So, the GoRight policy is that as long as a news item has a byline on it, there is no such thing as anonymously sourced information in the material within??... So now, the author of the article is to be considered the "source," no matter if the information contained in the news item is secondhand or thirdhand information from other unnamed parties??
This is absurd and is clearly inconsistent with your own statements about the lack of credibility of anonymous sources in the past.
For instance, under this absurd new GoRight policy, the allegations in the following news clip, e.g. that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent, would no longer be considered to be from an anonymous source; under the new GoRight sourcing policy, the source for the allegations is Carl Cameron, the Fox News reporter who reported them:
However, you are on the record
as having said that these allegations against Palin were "being made by anonymous sources who obviously will stop at nothing to discredit her. Anonymous sources have zero credibility."
Clearly you are being inconsistent. Faced with your proven inconsistency, are you willing to retract this absurd claim that there is no anonymous sourcing in that Benjamin article?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Nice try, Skymutt.
But your attempted Jedi Mind Trick won't work on me! :)
Let's first note that in the video you present the reporters are discussing "reports made by others" who are not identified (i.e. they are anonymous). In other words, the "reports" and the "statements" being discussed were actually made by people other than the reporters themselves. This is clear on the video. It is not the reporters making this claim but rather they are discussing what other anonymous people in the McCain camp are/were saying.
In addition, in the thread that you reference I clearly present evidence that directly contradicts the claims being made. It was made clear that Sarah had simply misspoke and that she didn't actually believe that Africa was a country. It is not at all that far of a stretch to believe that someone who was perhaps nervous in front of the camera made a simple slip of the toungue. But to then pull that slip of the tongue out of context and make the claim that she believed something that she does not is outrageous.
Now, let us compare your example to what I have highlighted above. Consider this sentence:
In this case it is clear that the people making the claims are NOT the writer but are, in fact, other anonymous sources (i.e. the "people who have given advice to the Obama campaign"). Note that I did NOT highlight that particular sentence and so my comment was not in reference to claims being made by any of these anonymous people.
If we look at the sentence I actually DID highlight above we have:
Note that this is a statement actually being made by the writer himself. He is not referencing anything someone else said, he is making his own first hand statement and it is this highlighted portion of the text that my statements were based on. So yes, in this case the source of this highlighted statement is, in point of fact, one Mark Benjamin and noone else.
You cannot say the same about the statements being discussed in your video example. The entire segment was prefaced throughout as being a report about "what [unnamed] people in the McCain campaign were saying about Sarah".
In addition I provided information which clearly called the credibility of the statements being made by the anonymous sources into question. Thus far you have not provided any information which would call the credibility of Mark Benjamin's statement into question. Instead you prefer to lead people off on some wild tangent of obfuscation. I won't simply discount Benjamin's statement out of hand just because you find it inconvenient for Obama.
Provide some evidence that Benjamin's statement is either false or misleading (as I did in the Sarah Palin example) and you might get somewhere. Alternatively provide some examples of where Benjamin has been playing fast and loose with similar facts in other cases (thus demonstrating that Benjamin as a writer cannot be considered prima facie credible.). Barring either of these we have no reason to doubt that Benjamin's statement is anything other than true and accurate, especially since this (i.e. Salon) is a liberal source I am quoting and not a conservative one.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4A strained attempt...
...to squirm out of an impossibly losing position.
The two examples you highlight above, and also the example in the Palin report I provided, are all of the same construction. In every case, an alleged discussion took place which the reporter did not directly observe, and the reporter is relaying what a person or persons has told the reporter about the nature of the alleged discussion, without identifying his source. All three, clearly only anonymous sources.
There is no named person that one could contact to verify the nature of the war crimes discussions, so therefore your attempt to go on the offensive and claim that I should "provide some evidence that Benjamin's statement is either false or misleading" falls flat on its face. Anonymously sourced reports of this nature are insidious precisely because they cannot easily be disproven-- that is a primary reason why anonymously sourced allegations should be discounted so heavily!
Note that I never denied in the Palin thread that the report relied on anonymous sources-- it clearly did, and if that were the extent of public knowledge about the event, I would have conceded the point on the spot. However, unlike in the present case, the Palin allegation had essentially been confirmed, with qalifications, by both Palin and one of her minions. Hence, we had named sources providing a qualified confirmation that Palin did in fact make statements that would, in isolation, convey an ignorance of the fact that Africa was a continent.
Obviously, then, there is no need for me to go further and attack the credibility of Benjamin either to attack the credibility of the report, since anonymous sources are deemed suspect on their face by your own rules. But if there were a need to go further, I wouldn't feel obligated to do so anyway, since you never made an attack on Carl Cameron's credibility.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
One more round before this is beat to death.
No they weren't, as I have already demonstrated. Ignoring inconvenient facts doesn't bolster your argument in the least.
Sure there is, Mark Benjamin. Simply ask him why he said what HE said.
Agreed. Anonymously sourced reports are insidious as we saw with the Palin case.
No, it doesn't. A mis-statement taken out of context doesn't convey anything about what Palin did, or did not, actually know. Any more than Obama's mis-statement conveys anything about how many states he actually believes there are.
It is truly sad that liberals need to cling to such mis-statements like a life preserver in order to continue to bolster their own self-deluded belief that they are somehow more intelligent than others. Why are they so insecure in this area? I mean they go on and on about the Dan Quayle "potatoe" meme, the Bushisms meme, etc. This is all just more of the same.
But as we see here, they don't appreciate it when their icons receive the same treatment such as the Obama thinks there are 57 states case.
Well, if you want to have Benjamin's own statements taken as not being credible then you need to provide some evidence of why we should accept that premise. Mark Benjamin is not an anonymous source no matter how many times you try to make him out to be such.
There was no need because Cameron was not endorsing any particular point of view. He was merely relaying what others were saying, unlike Benjamin who was reporting (in addition to what others may have said) his own first hand information. Go through the video you provided and point me to someplace where Cameron actually makes it clear that HE personally believes that Palin doesn't know Africa is a Continent.
In contrast I have already highlighted a statement where Mark Benjamin is clearly stating something that he, himself, actually believes and is stating in an affirmative, first-hand fashion.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I will let your post stand as the last word.
Everything you've said here, I think I have addressed already.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
And since you brought it all up again...
Let's get the other side of the story:
So, I'll see your unnamed aides from the McCain camp and raise you with one actually NAMED aide from the Palin camp.
Now, consistent with the GoRight interpretation of the Golden Rule, if you wish to persist in insisting that Sarah Palin thinks Africa is a Country then I'll be more than happy to persist in insisting that Obama believes that there are 57 States. After all, he is on record as saying as much! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Just because Obama knew that there are 50 states...
... it does not follow that Palin also knew that Africa was a continent. You can happily persist in insisting on the validity of whatever absurdities you wish-- you always do anyway! Case in point-- you've already insisted that Obama really thought that there were 57 states, so what would I lose by insisting that Palin thought Africa was a continent?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
So ...
you now endorse the GoRight interpretation of the Golden Rule?* Glad to know you finally agree with me on that point. :)
--------------------------------------------
* © 2011 by GoRight.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4