ACLU turns on Obama as he "enshrines" Bush security policy

[Acanthus]

People who oppose the ACLU but support the 2nd amendment don't make sense.

See 4/5ths of the republican party.

 

[OrByte]

So then you agree with Obama security and terrorism policy? Because if you do, you have to admit Bush was right because Obama is doing pretty much the same.

Common sense would lead one to believe that Obama didn't have access to intelligence that a president has and once he did, realized it would be against our best interests to not follow the current course of action against our enemies.

you can't have it both ways. Even though you wingers try and try and try over and over....

Either they ALL had access to the SAME intelligence leading up to the wars....which is why you want to blame EVERYONE including a Democratic congress that supported the wars and the Patriot Act and every other policy Bush implemented as a result of the "War on Terror"

OR

Bush had the intelligence that required he take the actions that he did at the time, and now that Obama has access to same intelligence he now has to adopt the same policies. So therefore Bush is the frackin 'Savior of America' and we should be thankful that you and him are in our lives protecting us....

come on dude....you're killin me.

 

[OrByte]

I doubt national security had much to do with his continuation of Bush policies. I see it as expanding central government powers, and Obama would be the least likely president to give up any powers he inherited from his predecessors.

this.

or more accurately, expanding Executive Authority.

 

[hal2kilo]

come on dude....you're killin me.

Unfortunately, not only you, but his ilk got thousands killed for no reason.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Obamas policies were continuing bush before any of those events.

Just admit it, bush did the right thing.

Nope, two wrongs don't make a right.

Even you should understand that.

 

[BoberFett]

Thanks for displaying even more of your ignorance (and personal attacks). You need to study up on the 80 percent of the Patriot Act which benefits the protection of America.

Not a surprise that you RAGE! on about something of which you know nothing.





--

Do you post those hyphens just to be a prick?

I won't respond to the rest of your post, the hyphens are the only thing of substance







--










--













--













--
















--

 

[Zebo]

BlackBush is just as wrong as Bush but as I've said 100x Democrats cannot be an opposition party to security/war/outsourcing/oil/wallstreet/insurance/pharma oligarchy, because Democrats are as dependent as Republicans on corporate interest groups for campaign funding. Your $20 Obama tshirt aint shit.

 

[Rainsford]

BlackBush is just as wrong as Bush but as I've said 100x Democrats cannot be an opposition party to security/war/outsourcing/oil/wallstreet/insurance/pharma oligarchy, because Democrats are as dependent as Republicans on corporate interest groups for campaign funding. Your $20 Obama tshirt aint shit.

I think it's also a public perception problem...and the fact that Democrats, even when they are IN POWER, seem to not be able to locate their collective spine.

As a liberal, I'm constantly pissed off that Democrats refuse to stand up to Republicans waving around phrases like "support our troops", "fight terrorism", "Jesus", "freedom", etc, etc, without telling them to STFU and stop being such flaming hypocrites.

It's not a funding issue at all. Politicians simply CAN'T oppose a security policy, ANY security policy, because it would mean political suicide if something bad happened and they were on the record opposing a security measure. It doesn't matter if the measure is effective, if it is worth the cost...the voters are too stupid to understand the difference. All someone's opponent has to do is show grainy terrorism related video and have an ominous voice over saying so-and-so voted against the Patriot Protection for Freedom Act and the voters will flock to the polls to support the new guy.

We LOVE to bash politicians in this country, but honestly we get the representatives we deserve...because we as voters are largely complete morons.

 

[khon]

His Holy Shit moment - "Bush was right and we need to continue to stay the course."

Bush was wrong. Unfortunately Obama is just as wrong.

Of all the disappointments in the Obama presidency I have to say the biggest one is his continuation of the Bush War on Terror.

 

[spidey07]

Bush was wrong. Unfortunately Obama is just as wrong.

Of all the disappointments in the Obama presidency I have to say the biggest one is his continuation of the Bush War on Terror.

And I would say it is the ONLY thing he has done right.

 

[Zebo]

I think it's also a public perception problem...and the fact that Democrats, even when they are IN POWER, seem to not be able to locate their collective spine.

As a liberal, I'm constantly pissed off that Democrats refuse to stand up to Republicans waving around phrases like "support our troops", "fight terrorism", "Jesus", "freedom", etc, etc, without telling them to STFU and stop being such flaming hypocrites.

It's not a funding issue at all. Politicians simply CAN'T oppose a security policy, ANY security policy, because it would mean political suicide if something bad happened and they were on the record opposing a security measure. It doesn't matter if the measure is effective, if it is worth the cost...the voters are too stupid to understand the difference. All someone's opponent has to do is show grainy terrorism related video and have an ominous voice over saying so-and-so voted against the Patriot Protection for Freedom Act and the voters will flock to the polls to support the new guy.

We LOVE to bash politicians in this country, but honestly we get the representatives we deserve...because we as voters are largely complete morons.

Wrong. The politicians are doing nothing to remove actual threat. The threat is bigger than ever. Proof?

1) The failure to QUICKLY annihilate our AQ/Taliban enemies in Afghanistan since 9/11 and GTFO has allowed them to regroup, rearm, grow, and have them winning against us - in many more places than Just Afghanistan now (Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan etc which are all about to go fundi and into terror states). Our Cream puff politicians new-age generals think they can win hearts-and-minds that can't be won, instead of doing what needs to be done - piling high the corpses of our enemies and their supporters as any succesful campaign was prior to 1945 when we killed until enemy saw the game is not worth the fight. No instead we fight perpetual wars and rebuilding bullshit, or as long as public will tolerate it, with one hand tied behind our back (e.g. no more night raids, no bombing Taliban funerals, unchambered weapons, etc) Total fail and waste of men material and money. But it's not a waste if you got contracts. Contracts which buy seats. Contractors who give executive officer seats should you lose reelection.

2) Borders are still wide open. The Intelligence community Diane Priest wrote about, with some 1000 private contractors, 200 agencies, 1,000,000 employees, very wealthy private contractors does nothing to stop Jihadists coming in. No checks whatsoever.

So while business has been very good for those involved in the US intelligence and military industrial complex - (Lockheed, General Dynamics, SAIC, Blackwater, Booz Allen Hamilton, and thousands of others) and the polticains who enable them - Islamic terrorists have continued to expand their global presence and remains a threat to the US.

You'll see. Wait if we attack Iran or Muslim brotherhood gives ok to attack here at home.

 

[khon]

And I would say it is the ONLY thing he has done right.

I'm sure you would, but some of us actually like civil liberties.

 

[ichy]

Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

The only problem is that that argument is total BS. The Bill of Rights was passed at a time when punishments like Hanging, Drawing and Quartering and Burning at the Stake were still (at least technically) legal in the United Kingdom. THAT is what the founders were trying to ban. If the people who wrote the Bill of Rights had considered the death penalty to be cruel & unusual they would have simply banned it, which of course they did not.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yup, but I see it just a tad differently. Politics, as we all know or should know, is the art of the possible. In order to marshal whatever political capital he had in support of his many domestic initiatives, he decided to retreat from and protect his "terrorism" flank from Republican attack and cover himself in the flag.

Given the ambitions of his domestic program and left with SO much to address domestically after 8 years of President Cheney, he prioritized.

It's done all the time in politics. Politics is the art of the possible.

It was cynical, but absolutely necessary. Try to fight on too many fronts at once politically, and you'd lose on them all. As it is, Obama has had a herculean task post Cheney/Bush, and he and his party will suffer for not magically making it ALL right in just 2 short years in 2010, and maybe also in 2012.

Never overestimate the collective intelligence and attention span of the American electorate!

And, wolf, you eminently sane and substantive poster, you, I have no major beef with you, but still would like to point out that there is no cow in kowtow.

I understand the conservation of political capital for purposes of prioritization, however what we witness isn't the status quo Unfortunately we not only see passive support, but in some cases an embracing and active expansion of some things. Captives in Afghanistan to avoid Gitmo controversies comes to mind.

I think the bottom line is that Obama is more like Bush in this regard than many would be comfortable admitting.

One thing I had hoped to see was accountability for Iraq, however there has been no movement towards that. In that context, Obama IS Bush, and I'm disappointed but not surprised. Politicians are like pigs in a poke. You never know what you are getting until it's too late.