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. This does not mean that the Obama changes are unimportant. Packaging, argumentation, symbol, and rhetoric, it turns out, are vitally important to the legitimacy of terrorism policies.
The Bush approach to counterterrorism policy included eleven essential elements. Here is the Obama position to date on each.
1. War v. Crime
A bedrock Bush principle was that the threat posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates required the president to assert military war powers. The legality of controversial policies like military detention, military commissions, and targeted killings depends in the first instance on the United States being in a state of war. Many Obama supporters and most allies sharply disagree with the war characterization, and maintain that the criminal justice system--arrest, extradition, civilian trials, and the like--suffices to meet the terror threat. President Obama mostly skirted this issue on the campaign trail. But his administration has embraced the Bush view that, as a legal matter, the United States is in a state of war with al Qaeda and its affiliates, and that the president's commander-in-chief powers are triggered. This position should be unsurprising: Congress has made clear that we are at war with these groups, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that we are.
2. Guantanamo Bay
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 administration, which also stated a desire to close GTMO. 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.
3. Military detention
Many Obama supporters thought he would oppose the detention of terrorist suspects without trial. But not so. Last month Secretary of Defense Gates hinted that up to 100 suspected terrorists would be detained without trial. And a few weeks ago the Obama Justice Department filed a legal brief arguing that the president can detain indefinitely, without charge or trial, members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, "associated forces," and those who "substantially support" these groups, no matter where in the world they are captured. Federal district court judge Reggie Walton correctly noted that the Obama administration refinements drew "metaphysical distinctions" with the Bush position that seemed to be "of a minimal if not ephemeral character." The Obama refinements might preclude detention of some suspected terrorists who would be detainable under the Bush regime, but only at the margin. The core Bush legal position remains in place.
4. Habeas Corpus
During the campaign former professor Obama spoke eloquently about the importance of habeas corpus review of executive detentions of enemy soldiers. Habeas corpus is "the foundation of Anglo-American law" and "the essence of who we are," he said. But his administration has applied this principle in the same narrow fashion as the late Bush administration. It has argued that Guantanamo detainees can challenge the "fact, duration, or location" of confinement on habeas review, but not their "conditions of confinement." It has maintained that "the Geneva Conventions are not judicially enforceable by private individuals" in habeas proceedings. And it has made clear its belief that the limited habeas rights it recognizes for the two hundred or so detainees on Guantanamo Bay do not extend to the 600 or so detainees in Bagram Air Base. This latter position might prove more controversial for President Obama than for President Bush. The new president's enlarged military commitment in Afghanistan and Pakistan, combined with the forthcoming closure of Guantanamo, means that the number of suspects detained in Bagram--without charge or trial and without access to lawyers or habeas rights--is likely to increase, perhaps dramatically.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (89)
"mistaken intelligence" ... mistaken, implies, well, a mistake. It was not a mistake. They mined and poked and prodded and massaged until they could convincingly scare the shit out of everyone and start a war. They lied this country into a war.
"mistaken intelligence" ... mistaken, implies, well, a mistake. It was not a mistake. They mined and poked and prodded and massaged until they could convincingly scare the shit out of everyone and start a war. They lied this country into a war.
Butchie, phone home.
Butchie, phone home.
So, your point is that the former VP is wrong because Obama is starting to move in the direction the former VP is urging? And that Obama is better than the Bush Admin because it uses "prettier" wrapping, and extolls constitutional values while recently committing to similar policies on certain issues?
Hmm. I don't think that makes tthe former VP wrong. I think that shows he is doing exactly the right thing, and should continue that effort to prevent additional backsliding. Remember: Obama announced what appeared to be wholesale changes to many of these programs when he took office. The backsliding is not from his self-initiated reconsideration of these issues -- his reconsideration h ... view full comment
So, your point is that the former VP is wrong because Obama is starting to move in the direction the former VP is urging? And that Obama is better than the Bush Admin because it uses "prettier" wrapping, and extolls constitutional values while recently committing to similar policies on certain issues?
Hmm. I don't think that makes tthe former VP wrong. I think that shows he is doing exactly the right thing, and should continue that effort to prevent additional backsliding. Remember: Obama announced what appeared to be wholesale changes to many of these programs when he took office. The backsliding is not from his self-initiated reconsideration of these issues -- his reconsideration has been caused by the public reaction led by Cheney and others.
Sure, Presidents come to understand the complexity of these issues over time. But this President stated his definitive views on certain issues on day 1, and is now backtracking.
Jack: I know you are still upset about certain things in the last administration -- inside baseball really -- but you can't realistically couch this as an attack on the former VP when it actually acknowledges the positive effect of his recent public advocacy.
To be honest, you might say that the VP has had an effective role in modifying campaign rhetoric into more realistic Obama policy, and that the VP's continued efforts may serve to further moderate Obama policies as the administration moves fwd.
Will "The Obama Voter Fallacy" be coming soon? If this is intended as a slight of Bush/Cheney, it seems to me this article shows how uninformed and misaligned Obama's anti-war voters were.
Will "The Obama Voter Fallacy" be coming soon? If this is intended as a slight of Bush/Cheney, it seems to me this article shows how uninformed and misaligned Obama's anti-war voters were.
Interesting points Jack, but your thesis isn't exactly right. As you recognize, the new administration has started to move back toward a much more moderate position on certain issues, and specifically toward the former Bush views. But this was not self-initiated by the Obama White House. Indeed, they took starkly different positions on the campaign AND at the beginning of this administration. It cannot be reasonably disputed that these shift have been caused in part by the recent public advocacy by Cheney himself, and also by repeated pleas from our military in Iraq and elsewhere. The Weekly Standard now calls Cheney the MVP on these issues.
You have to admit that the Obama campaign rhet ... view full comment
Interesting points Jack, but your thesis isn't exactly right. As you recognize, the new administration has started to move back toward a much more moderate position on certain issues, and specifically toward the former Bush views. But this was not self-initiated by the Obama White House. Indeed, they took starkly different positions on the campaign AND at the beginning of this administration. It cannot be reasonably disputed that these shift have been caused in part by the recent public advocacy by Cheney himself, and also by repeated pleas from our military in Iraq and elsewhere. The Weekly Standard now calls Cheney the MVP on these issues.
You have to admit that the Obama campaign rhetoric actually led to some stark public announcements at the beginning of this administration -- which are now being moderated by the President himself. You also have to admit that public pressure -- largely from the former VP but also now from others who have now gained the courage to speak -- is actually moving the Obama administration in that direction that you suggest is wise. Maybe the New Republic requires you to title this piece "the Cheney Fallacy" to get it published, or maybe you are still sore about various Bush Administration "inside baseball" issues. I don't know. But I do know that it is not fair to suggest that the Obama administration made certain of these moves all on its own, and that its substantial wisdom is shown by "prettying"?? up the policies. That is a fallacy.
Also -- the Obama administration is still moving very quickly in a negative direction on various of these issues. And the OBAMA DOJ seems to differ significantly with many of your views as AAG. Thanks.
Very nice. An article with actual analysis and interesting ideas, rather than today's facelift of the same old tired memes.
Very nice. An article with actual analysis and interesting ideas, rather than today's facelift of the same old tired memes.
Obama is the "Peanut Farmer" junior....
Sadly, the dolt voters fell for his mantra of "Change".
Same crappola that The peanut farmer used to win 1n 1976 ... hopefully, rational American voters will prevail and Obama will either follow in the path of "Slick Willy" and be impeached or follow the "Peanut Farmer" and lose in a landslide in 2012.
Obama and his left-wing wacko friends want a disarmed, socialist, terrorist coddling, bankrupt USA.
The sooner the leftists are booted out again ... the better it will be for the USA!
Obama is the "Peanut Farmer" junior....
Sadly, the dolt voters fell for his mantra of "Change".
Same crappola that The peanut farmer used to win 1n 1976 ... hopefully, rational American voters will prevail and Obama will either follow in the path of "Slick Willy" and be impeached or follow the "Peanut Farmer" and lose in a landslide in 2012.
Obama and his left-wing wacko friends want a disarmed, socialist, terrorist coddling, bankrupt USA.
The sooner the leftists are booted out again ... the better it will be for the USA!
hmmm...Obama Good...Bush Bad......very investigative reporting here....same policies, only now the democrats own the war...it's funny to see them running around trying to learn how to govern...and even funnier to see so-called journalist's trying to cover for them...this article is a great example...now it's this administrations attempts at "War on Terror", oops, that's not what it's called now, is it? ....is "prettier??""
...Yep, Bush/Cheney 1 Obama/the Joker 0
Prettier??
This writer deserves to be laughed out of his job...
hmmm...Obama Good...Bush Bad......very investigative reporting here....same policies, only now the democrats own the war...it's funny to see them running around trying to learn how to govern...and even funnier to see so-called journalist's trying to cover for them...this article is a great example...now it's this administrations attempts at "War on Terror", oops, that's not what it's called now, is it? ....is "prettier??""
...Yep, Bush/Cheney 1 Obama/the Joker 0
Prettier??
This writer deserves to be laughed out of his job...
I'm not a regular visitor to TNR and I'm not sure I've ever read any article by you so everything I'm writing is solely based on this one article and the reputation of TNR. If I've misunderstood your intentions or fundamental beliefs please correct me as I'm sure you or other posters to this page will. So now we're supposed to believe that Obama's just as tough as Bush on terror even though he campaigned like crazy that Bush's policies were not keeping us safe but instead putting us in more danger and that to continue these policies would only make things worse. We're supposed to believe that he only differs in what he labels things and how he talks about them. If what he said about Bush's p ... view full comment
I'm not a regular visitor to TNR and I'm not sure I've ever read any article by you so everything I'm writing is solely based on this one article and the reputation of TNR. If I've misunderstood your intentions or fundamental beliefs please correct me as I'm sure you or other posters to this page will. So now we're supposed to believe that Obama's just as tough as Bush on terror even though he campaigned like crazy that Bush's policies were not keeping us safe but instead putting us in more danger and that to continue these policies would only make things worse. We're supposed to believe that he only differs in what he labels things and how he talks about them. If what he said about Bush's policies was true and what you are saying is true also then shouldn't you be reporting that he's putting us in more danger based on his own campaign rhetoric? Either you (and your cohorts in the press) didn't correct his lies then or you are lying for him now. Does that mean that what we got with Obama was an amatuer Bush-lite with nicer hot air and a teleprompter? If that's the case then so much for "change". Or could it be that now that Iraq is starting to go south again and Afghanistan isn't improving and Pakistan is rapidly deteriorating, all proving how the world and especially our enemies view the Obama Administration as weak and that they can act with indifference to what the US might do now, that you would have us believe that he's doing all the things just like Bush did and that everything would have gone just as bad whether he was in charge or a Republican and that it's not his fault but that it's still Bush's fault because in reality it's still Bush's policies and he had no choice and was forced to keep them going? Is that the garbage you guys are now trying to peddle for him Goldsmith? Maybe you guys should stop idolyzing him and start doing your jobs without the bias because if this is all true then I would've rather avoided the amatuer community-organizer hour and taken McCain. At least we would've gotten experience and probably alot less deficit spending as well as we would've avoided the crazy left-wing anti-capitalism, anti-individualism, socialist policies that are so prevalent in the Obama administration. Stop the love affair and start the real reporting. Your arguments are real thin and your Gitmo policy comparison is laughable. Perhaps Cheney would have stayed out of the spot-light if you guys would have done your jobs. Our fore-fathers wanted the press to be the government watch-dogs not liberal cheerleaders and mouth-pieces, that's what "freedom of the press" was all about. You dishonor them.
The real difference between the Obama and Bush policies is the way they are portrayed in the press. Few in the press are criticizing Obama's policies, though they savaged Bush for the same ones. Not only do the policies have prettier wrapping as far as the press is concerned, but the president does too.
The real difference between the Obama and Bush policies is the way they are portrayed in the press. Few in the press are criticizing Obama's policies, though they savaged Bush for the same ones. Not only do the policies have prettier wrapping as far as the press is concerned, but the president does too.
In Cheney's defense, Eric Holder raided the confidential White House-Justice Department memos on interrogation techniques and weasaled out the ones he thought damaging to the Bush Administration (not really if you read them) while continuing to keep others locked away ... apolitically lame shall we all not agree?
So Cheney is defending himself; it's the Obama Administration that started this by impugning - in a dastardly way - Bush's foreign policy tactics.
TMD
In Cheney's defense, Eric Holder raided the confidential White House-Justice Department memos on interrogation techniques and weasaled out the ones he thought damaging to the Bush Administration (not really if you read them) while continuing to keep others locked away ... apolitically lame shall we all not agree?
So Cheney is defending himself; it's the Obama Administration that started this by impugning - in a dastardly way - Bush's foreign policy tactics.
TMD
It's not that Cheney is proven wrong. But that Obamas's recent actions are proving Cheney and many of the Bush policy's were right. They may not be popular with the goo goo Obama crowd, but they are necessary. I guess Obama is either smart enough to have figured a few things out. Or he's not smart enough to do what he really wants and get most of America to swallow it.
It's not that Cheney is proven wrong. But that Obamas's recent actions are proving Cheney and many of the Bush policy's were right. They may not be popular with the goo goo Obama crowd, but they are necessary. I guess Obama is either smart enough to have figured a few things out. Or he's not smart enough to do what he really wants and get most of America to swallow it.
This "Bush Lied" theme is old and wrong; the Bush II intelligence was basically the Clinton intelligence ... they had the same CIA director! In any case, the USA provided Hussein all opporunity to rebut the evidence and arguement that he had WMD and he was a threat ... instead Hussein corroborated the evidence and the argument. He WANTED the world to believe he had WMD! How did Bush "cherry-pick" that? We had no choice but to act. And by now, 6 years later, he would likely have them in some form. Hussein was gunning for the USA; could he have, he would have slipped a dirty bomb to some death-seeking Islamic fundamentalist and everyone knows it.
George W. Bush was one of the best presid ... view full comment
This "Bush Lied" theme is old and wrong; the Bush II intelligence was basically the Clinton intelligence ... they had the same CIA director! In any case, the USA provided Hussein all opporunity to rebut the evidence and arguement that he had WMD and he was a threat ... instead Hussein corroborated the evidence and the argument. He WANTED the world to believe he had WMD! How did Bush "cherry-pick" that? We had no choice but to act. And by now, 6 years later, he would likely have them in some form. Hussein was gunning for the USA; could he have, he would have slipped a dirty bomb to some death-seeking Islamic fundamentalist and everyone knows it.
George W. Bush was one of the best presidents this nation ever had.
TMD
Yes and Bush era consumption, debt, misallocation of our resources, war on science, etc. was such a picnic. You right wingers are nutty assholes who don't deserve a public airing and your views are completely out of touch with reality. Frankly, Obama will once again save this country from the poplutist-socialist tendencies just like FDR did in the 30s.
Good luck with that anger thing too, it is really an attractive way to build support for your cause - just ask Germans from the Weimar Republic. It's funny, no matter whether conservatives win or lose, they are always so ANGRY. You would be humorous, if you weren't so frightening and so counter to American ideals of tolerance, progress and lib ... view full comment
Yes and Bush era consumption, debt, misallocation of our resources, war on science, etc. was such a picnic. You right wingers are nutty assholes who don't deserve a public airing and your views are completely out of touch with reality. Frankly, Obama will once again save this country from the poplutist-socialist tendencies just like FDR did in the 30s.
Good luck with that anger thing too, it is really an attractive way to build support for your cause - just ask Germans from the Weimar Republic. It's funny, no matter whether conservatives win or lose, they are always so ANGRY. You would be humorous, if you weren't so frightening and so counter to American ideals of tolerance, progress and liberty.
Another red herring from the most famous demagogues in the history of our country.
We have worse people, much worse people currently incarcerated in our prisons. What kind of weak crap is this? Plus, when did we become the country of the frightened and the terrified of everything? I for one don’t care where you send them, you can send them here to Dayton Ohio and it would not bother me in the least. Maybe it’s because I don’t spend my days and nights quivering in a corner worrying if “The terrorist are coming to get me”. We need to be very careful about all of this fear. That is exactly what lead to our allowing these cowards (Bush/Cheney) to get away with so much criminal behavio ... view full comment
Another red herring from the most famous demagogues in the history of our country.
We have worse people, much worse people currently incarcerated in our prisons. What kind of weak crap is this? Plus, when did we become the country of the frightened and the terrified of everything? I for one don’t care where you send them, you can send them here to Dayton Ohio and it would not bother me in the least. Maybe it’s because I don’t spend my days and nights quivering in a corner worrying if “The terrorist are coming to get me”. We need to be very careful about all of this fear. That is exactly what lead to our allowing these cowards (Bush/Cheney) to get away with so much criminal behavior and it is also what motivated them to commit these crimes. If you watch the cable news chatter all one sees is Republicans in trying to defend Bush/Cheney with quotes like “Well you have to remember 911 had just happened” or You have to understand they were trying to protect the country” or “They were under a lot of pressure at that time” or “They were making decisions under extreme pressure”. All of those quotes translate into one damn sentence “WE WAS SCARED”! Where are the real men when you need them. Brave conquerors that made this country what it used to be. Where in the hell did all of these sissies come from? I firmly believe that if a person got five deferments to avoid service or his father made a way for him to get an emergency appointment to the National Guard to avoid service, that’s fine. I also firmly believe that people who do such things should be barred from elective office for life. There is nothing inherently wrong with being a coward but you should be consistent---stay a coward. That person should not be allowed to give an opinion on war-go work at the library and shut the hell up on this subject. Personally, I don’t like being around dead bodies so I have no opinion about how a funeral home should be run. I leave that subject to the experts in that field.
I am a honorably Discharged Viet Nam era Veteran and I volunteered, I did not wait to be drafted. I do not appreciate a bunch of damn cowards like Bush/Cheney/Rush expressing their “shot over their shoulders, behind their backs while running away theories on how to protect a nation. They are out of their league and I would much more appreciate it if they just shut the hell up and go to a movie. Get back on the porch and let the big dogs handle this!
I should have known better than to expect an honest article from Jack Goldsmith. The point of this extended jive-fest is that all reasonable people agree that 97% of what Bush did was "right". It was just the gosh-darn packaging! Oy, the hypocrisy! Jack Goldsmith, go home!
I should have known better than to expect an honest article from Jack Goldsmith. The point of this extended jive-fest is that all reasonable people agree that 97% of what Bush did was "right". It was just the gosh-darn packaging! Oy, the hypocrisy! Jack Goldsmith, go home!
So our new president has taken sound, though unpopular policies, and made them more palatable to the public. That's just good politics. I hope the GOP finds someone with these skills by 2012.
I'm still very put off by the overall spending projections and the hyper-partisanship of the Congressional leadership, but thats a completely different discussion.
Alexi, you should try some yoga or something to clear your muddled thinking. And then pick up some scholarly works on military history and the intelligence services. You might eventually come to understand that things aren't so black and white as you're suggesting.
So our new president has taken sound, though unpopular policies, and made them more palatable to the public. That's just good politics. I hope the GOP finds someone with these skills by 2012.
I'm still very put off by the overall spending projections and the hyper-partisanship of the Congressional leadership, but thats a completely different discussion.
Alexi, you should try some yoga or something to clear your muddled thinking. And then pick up some scholarly works on military history and the intelligence services. You might eventually come to understand that things aren't so black and white as you're suggesting.
It boils down to one thing BUSH was right case closed.
It boils down to one thing BUSH was right case closed.
Obama has correctly asserted that we are at war. These are not criminals we are detaining, they are soldiers. They do not call themselves terrorists, nor should we. The President has all legal authority to detain and hold enemy combatants. Our law is very clear on this. Get over it or change the law.
Obama has correctly asserted that we are at war. These are not criminals we are detaining, they are soldiers. They do not call themselves terrorists, nor should we. The President has all legal authority to detain and hold enemy combatants. Our law is very clear on this. Get over it or change the law.
Very well said DOJ colleague
Very well said DOJ colleague
An excellent article about the realities Mr. Obama now faces and the extraordinary way he and his administration are dealing with them, both publicly and privately. Mr. Cheney's misleading comments about the Obama administration are simply more of the same toxic partisan rhetoric we have come to expect from the GOP leadership. His plans for an imperial presidency (dictatorship) fell flat on their face and he has an extreme case of sour grapes. He should take his paranoid, sociopathic self back to his favorite undisclosed location...
An excellent article about the realities Mr. Obama now faces and the extraordinary way he and his administration are dealing with them, both publicly and privately. Mr. Cheney's misleading comments about the Obama administration are simply more of the same toxic partisan rhetoric we have come to expect from the GOP leadership. His plans for an imperial presidency (dictatorship) fell flat on their face and he has an extreme case of sour grapes. He should take his paranoid, sociopathic self back to his favorite undisclosed location...
Yeah! Yeah! Convince me that Obama is making things better by copying Bush and putting lip stick on it. Write when you can convince me that Obama has a thought of his own. But why should you wait for me? The Kool-Aide drinker will suck this garbage up.
Yeah! Yeah! Convince me that Obama is making things better by copying Bush and putting lip stick on it. Write when you can convince me that Obama has a thought of his own. But why should you wait for me? The Kool-Aide drinker will suck this garbage up.
This is an extremely confusing article. One cannot tell whether the author favors the Obama view or the Cheney view, since he claims that the Obama approach is little different from the Bush approach. Unsurprisingly here in TNR, his use of the term "Bush regime" (has anyone yet heard or read the term "Obama regime"?) shows his liberal political leanings, but he seems hesitant to embrace the Obama approach. Perhaps he is concerned that the Obama administration is looking to expand executive powers exactly as he claims the Bush administration did.
The author's claim that "Obama policies also reflect the fact that the Bush policies were woven into the fabric of the national security architecture ... view full comment
This is an extremely confusing article. One cannot tell whether the author favors the Obama view or the Cheney view, since he claims that the Obama approach is little different from the Bush approach. Unsurprisingly here in TNR, his use of the term "Bush regime" (has anyone yet heard or read the term "Obama regime"?) shows his liberal political leanings, but he seems hesitant to embrace the Obama approach. Perhaps he is concerned that the Obama administration is looking to expand executive powers exactly as he claims the Bush administration did.
The author's claim that "Obama policies also reflect the fact that the Bush policies were woven into the fabric of the national security architecture in ways that were hard if not impossible to unravel" seem an empty Obama apologetic. Virtually every step the Bush admin took about which the author complains were congressionally approved (or at least overseen). In my view, if anything currently concerns Obama about this situation, it is that he realizes he cannot afford to lose the support of the center of his party. Millions of moderate Democrats support strong national defense, and they see little if any problem with judicious use of electronic surveillance, enhanced interrogation methods, and military tribunals. Indeed, the author himself later puts forth this rationale for Obama's approach - that governing is harder than campaigning. Perhaps "some of the Obama agreement with Bush policies reflects the fact that Obama inherited challenges that were created by decisions with which he would not have agreed," but the critical question is what Obama would have supported AS PRESIDENT in 2002 - not as a state legislator in 2004 when his views were fairly obscure and focused on winning a US Senate seat in his strongly Democratic-leaning state.
The author's views on the Obama administration's greater skill at selling its programs is accurate in itself, but the implications of this are rather more disturbing. Indeed, what the author implies unintentionally is that the Obama administration will seek essentially the powers he claims the Bush administration sought or seized, but will do so more deftly and thus with greater success. Is that a desirable presidential trait in domestic governance?
The claim "Bush White House had a principled commitment to expanding presidential power that predated 9/11" is simply opinion without relevant fact to support it. Lincoln suspended habeas for EVERYONE, not just unlawful combatants (who, by the way, according to the Geneva Conventions, are subject to summary battlefield execution). FDR allowed numerous Nazi spies to be executed via proceedings that allowed far weaker defense opportunities than the GTMO tribunals. FDR also detained hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans to forestall spying. These actions significantly exceeded the Bush administration's efforts to expand presidential power during wartime. Providing a Cheney quote to the effect hardly proves the point - he wasn't even president! Furthermore, the fact that the Bush admin "shot itself in the foot time and time again" indicates that GWB wasn't particularly interested in trying to hide any efforts he took to expand his wartime powers.
Finally, the author's claim that Obama's acceptance (perhaps begrudging) of Bush policies makes his wielding of them acceptable essentially because "he is he" displays the worst kind of hypocrisy. These "abuses" were a principal thrust of the Obama and Democratic campaigns in both 2006 and 2008. To allow Obama slack on these policies where GWB was given none by Obama implies that partisanship and personal preference are the only reasons for his winning the election, since another major Obama strategy was the "McCain = Bush III" thrust.
While I applaud Obama's desire to govern effectively in general by maintaining critical Bush admin initiatives that his campaign condemned, it is disheartening to see him practice the unbridled partisanship against which he railed during his campaign in doing so. Perhaps an admission that the previous administration got most of the War on Terror right would be in order, but I won't hold my breath.
I agree with those above about the "Fallacy" point. At least as far as I can recall, Cheney started speaking out before the Obama Administration adopted the more careful national security approaches in your letter. I think Cheney is still aggrieved by certain Obama policies, but also acknowledges that the movement has been positive on others (or at least his daughter says that.) So the title of your article is simply wrong.
I don't know your background really, but it seems like you are out to show that Cheney is wrong when you actually end up demonstrating that he has been substantively right, although not well-advised on press strategy
I agree with those above about the "Fallacy" point. At least as far as I can recall, Cheney started speaking out before the Obama Administration adopted the more careful national security approaches in your letter. I think Cheney is still aggrieved by certain Obama policies, but also acknowledges that the movement has been positive on others (or at least his daughter says that.) So the title of your article is simply wrong.
I don't know your background really, but it seems like you are out to show that Cheney is wrong when you actually end up demonstrating that he has been substantively right, although not well-advised on press strategy
Mr. Goldsmith:
Weren't you one of the officials who said that "waterboarding" was ok under the conditions the CIA was using? If I recall, you had some objections about certain memos, but agreed that the program could go forward anyway with appropriate safeguards in place. Is that right?
Mr. Goldsmith:
Weren't you one of the officials who said that "waterboarding" was ok under the conditions the CIA was using? If I recall, you had some objections about certain memos, but agreed that the program could go forward anyway with appropriate safeguards in place. Is that right?
I'm always amused by lefties defending the horrific spending of Obama by complaining about Bush's spending. You assume that as a conservatives we approved of Bush's spending, most of us did not. In fact we strongly disapproved everytime Bush acted like a liberal, which pretty much sums up his domestic policies. I find your objections like a child who when caught abusing the family cat with an axe, complains that they once saw their older brother kick the poor beast.
I'm always amused by lefties defending the horrific spending of Obama by complaining about Bush's spending. You assume that as a conservatives we approved of Bush's spending, most of us did not. In fact we strongly disapproved everytime Bush acted like a liberal, which pretty much sums up his domestic policies. I find your objections like a child who when caught abusing the family cat with an axe, complains that they once saw their older brother kick the poor beast.
Didn't Lincoln suspend habeas corpus and FDR institute concentration camps? Yikes.
Didn't Lincoln suspend habeas corpus and FDR institute concentration camps? Yikes.
Karen: Let me get this straight: The "right-winger", "nutty assholes" don't deserve a public airing of their views because they are angry and intolerant? Seems like sound logic to me. Umm...hypocritical much? Got to go, my brown shirt just came out of the laundry.
Karen: Let me get this straight: The "right-winger", "nutty assholes" don't deserve a public airing of their views because they are angry and intolerant? Seems like sound logic to me. Umm...hypocritical much? Got to go, my brown shirt just came out of the laundry.
This is hilarious. By saying Cheney is wrong about Obama continuing and expanding Bush's strategy, you're saying Bush is right. The key here is the "BUSH WAS RIGHT. " For all the catchphrases during the election, he is adopting almost every premise that the Bush administration used to fight terror. Even his promise to close down Gitmo has been re-thought and quietly scuttled.
This is hilarious. By saying Cheney is wrong about Obama continuing and expanding Bush's strategy, you're saying Bush is right. The key here is the "BUSH WAS RIGHT. " For all the catchphrases during the election, he is adopting almost every premise that the Bush administration used to fight terror. Even his promise to close down Gitmo has been re-thought and quietly scuttled.
Angry? That's a funny. I don't see anybody else calling someone an a$$hole except you. That seems kind of angry.
And you're right. Many of Bush's policies were populist/socialist. But you're completely looney if you think FDR saved this country from them. He instituted them. Plus, how can Obama save us from Bush's populist/socialist policies when he's so busy implementing his own populist/socialist policies?
Finally, maybe you need to work on your own tolerance. You can start by not calling people a$$holes.
Angry? That's a funny. I don't see anybody else calling someone an a$$hole except you. That seems kind of angry.
And you're right. Many of Bush's policies were populist/socialist. But you're completely looney if you think FDR saved this country from them. He instituted them. Plus, how can Obama save us from Bush's populist/socialist policies when he's so busy implementing his own populist/socialist policies?
Finally, maybe you need to work on your own tolerance. You can start by not calling people a$$holes.
"You right wingers are nutty assholes who don't deserve a public airing and your views are completely out of touch with reality... You would be humorous, if you weren't so frightening and so counter to American ideals of tolerance, progress and liberty." Clearly Ms. Andrews, you're a tolerant individual. Forgive us for having an opposing viewpoint to the article, and your views. We don't speak in anger - we just are amused with the tortured logic presented here. Cheney has argued that Obama has been changing Bush policy that kept us safe since 9/11. While Obama has in fact been changing his campaign rhetoric and early pronouncements, that clearly proves Cheney is wrong?! And now because ... view full comment
"You right wingers are nutty assholes who don't deserve a public airing and your views are completely out of touch with reality... You would be humorous, if you weren't so frightening and so counter to American ideals of tolerance, progress and liberty." Clearly Ms. Andrews, you're a tolerant individual. Forgive us for having an opposing viewpoint to the article, and your views. We don't speak in anger - we just are amused with the tortured logic presented here. Cheney has argued that Obama has been changing Bush policy that kept us safe since 9/11. While Obama has in fact been changing his campaign rhetoric and early pronouncements, that clearly proves Cheney is wrong?! And now because Obama is using "prettier packaging" it will make these expanded presidential powers more palatable to congress and the courts?! Certainly seems to have gotten the required pass from the media.
Last - you're view: Obama will once again save this country from populist-socialist tendencies just like FDR did..."? Perhaps there is a logic for your point of view somewhere, but on planet earth, it's hard to follow. Obama is proposing to spend more money than every single president before him COMBINED on social programs. He didn't inherit budget mess - he's been perfectly able on his own to create it. He's not saving us from anything socialist, but leading us down the path of no-return.
DOJCOLLEAGUE...thanks for a good post. Saves me a lot of wrighting. It is much easier to wordsmith and make minor adjustments than to make the vital decisions under pressure. You have to give VP Cheney credit, we wouldn't be having all this name calling and debate if the Dems didn't realize he is right on. BTW,he also hasn't told us where he was hiding after 9/11. Just maybe, they should keep Biden away from the bar at these events. Loose lips sink ships.
DOJCOLLEAGUE...thanks for a good post. Saves me a lot of wrighting. It is much easier to wordsmith and make minor adjustments than to make the vital decisions under pressure. You have to give VP Cheney credit, we wouldn't be having all this name calling and debate if the Dems didn't realize he is right on. BTW,he also hasn't told us where he was hiding after 9/11. Just maybe, they should keep Biden away from the bar at these events. Loose lips sink ships.
Uh, Karen, I think you are the angry one.
Uh, Karen, I think you are the angry one.
karen,
are you being serious, or is my sarcasm detector broken?
karen,
are you being serious, or is my sarcasm detector broken?
Please ignore 13 and 14 - until then the discussion was interesting.
Stated point of the article: Cheney's complaints that the new administration is radically weakening our defense does not line up with the current facts and are therefore unjustified. I think that you demonstrated the policies haven't really changed that much, but in order to make the case you need to show that it was not a result of Cheney's complaints. But in some readings of this, you've made a pretty good case that the administration has changed due in part to the public sentiment driven by Cheney's complaints. This is entertaining but not important.
In a more important light, you don't see Obama as significantly i ... view full comment
Please ignore 13 and 14 - until then the discussion was interesting.
Stated point of the article: Cheney's complaints that the new administration is radically weakening our defense does not line up with the current facts and are therefore unjustified. I think that you demonstrated the policies haven't really changed that much, but in order to make the case you need to show that it was not a result of Cheney's complaints. But in some readings of this, you've made a pretty good case that the administration has changed due in part to the public sentiment driven by Cheney's complaints. This is entertaining but not important.
In a more important light, you don't see Obama as significantly increasing the power of the President. When has the President ever unilaterally dismissed the CEO of a major private company? When has the President ever attempted to usurp bankruptcy court jurisdiction? These are huge and unprecedented increases in Presidential powers. I don't see how you can describe the current administration as not increasing the power of the Executive. That's the more important thing to see in this article.
Please try harder to avoid being a poster child for Stupid People Don't Get Obama.
Please try harder to avoid being a poster child for Stupid People Don't Get Obama.
Wandrey, I'm on the road, so responding late.
Glad to see Mr. Goldsmith on board with me. Obama's policies are (in the main) the policies on the GWOT that that nasty W had. If we had a media who could say something more than "Ooh, isn't he dreamy" regarding the new President, more people might understand that.
Along those same lines, the REAL news out of the meeting with Bibi was Obama's comment that talks with Iran had better start bearing some fruit by year's end, or.... Imagine, the One can charm the Western press, but not the mullahs, who are telling him - as they told the EU-3 and GWB, to go p*ss up a rope.
Wandrey, I'm on the road, so responding late.
Glad to see Mr. Goldsmith on board with me. Obama's policies are (in the main) the policies on the GWOT that that nasty W had. If we had a media who could say something more than "Ooh, isn't he dreamy" regarding the new President, more people might understand that.
Along those same lines, the REAL news out of the meeting with Bibi was Obama's comment that talks with Iran had better start bearing some fruit by year's end, or.... Imagine, the One can charm the Western press, but not the mullahs, who are telling him - as they told the EU-3 and GWB, to go p*ss up a rope.
Jack...
Nope you have it wrong...Your obamation cannot hand out important documents to our the beheaders...cant do that..not good for America..
Jack...
Nope you have it wrong...Your obamation cannot hand out important documents to our the beheaders...cant do that..not good for America..
How can you simultaneaously state that a group does not deserve public airing while preaching tolerance? This seems like a contradiction to me - please explain
How can you simultaneaously state that a group does not deserve public airing while preaching tolerance? This seems like a contradiction to me - please explain
If anything, at least I walk away from this article re-assured that, the Presidency is at least not in the hands of drooling, knuckle-walking, deluded incompetents.
If anything, at least I walk away from this article re-assured that, the Presidency is at least not in the hands of drooling, knuckle-walking, deluded incompetents.
Holy crow... the paleocons are on the prowl. It is so funny to read that few of you read Jack Goldsmith's bio at the end of the piece. But why get to the end when you know all the answers in advance. The writer is the former assistant atty general in the Bush administration a Hoover scholar, not exactly a lefty reporter. The point of the article is to get beyond the Obama-good/Obama-bad routine and see the surprising continuity in the security policies of both presidents. Lighten up, folks.
Holy crow... the paleocons are on the prowl. It is so funny to read that few of you read Jack Goldsmith's bio at the end of the piece. But why get to the end when you know all the answers in advance. The writer is the former assistant atty general in the Bush administration a Hoover scholar, not exactly a lefty reporter. The point of the article is to get beyond the Obama-good/Obama-bad routine and see the surprising continuity in the security policies of both presidents. Lighten up, folks.
So in other words, if most of Bush policies remained intact, repackaged or tweaked a bit, Obama is simply a better salesman, and that I would agree wholeheartedly. He's a closer, man can he sell!
So in other words, if most of Bush policies remained intact, repackaged or tweaked a bit, Obama is simply a better salesman, and that I would agree wholeheartedly. He's a closer, man can he sell!
A strong article, but it leaves out an important aspect of these issues. It points out the legitimate reasons people objected to Bush administration policies around torture, detention and the war, but it neglects a central aspect of the politics involved: the Democrats, in trying to recover the executive branch, exaggerated their criticisms and demonized the administration. So it should be no surprise that when the Democrats recovered the executive branch, they ended up adopting policies only slightly different from those of the Bush administration. In other words, the Democrats to some degree sacrificed honest national security debate on the altar of achieving the White House. And the s ... view full comment
A strong article, but it leaves out an important aspect of these issues. It points out the legitimate reasons people objected to Bush administration policies around torture, detention and the war, but it neglects a central aspect of the politics involved: the Democrats, in trying to recover the executive branch, exaggerated their criticisms and demonized the administration. So it should be no surprise that when the Democrats recovered the executive branch, they ended up adopting policies only slightly different from those of the Bush administration. In other words, the Democrats to some degree sacrificed honest national security debate on the altar of achieving the White House. And the same political games with national security are what we see now from Nancy Pelosi, apparently, at least if Leon Panetta, Obama's head of CIA, is to be believed.
I do not mean to underrate the points made by the article about how the Bush administration's rhetoric was flawed. I only wanted to bring in another aspect.
I agree Butchie - I've always leaned right on FP anyway, so all of this (except torture) seems reasonable to me. I just look forward to someone doing it right and with competence finally. Yes I do think Obama's the guy to pull it off - mostly from timing, temperment and our country ready to perhaps be realistic and grown-up about outcomes, timeframes? One can hope. I'm honestly grateful to Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 (not Cheney, a terribly incompetent boob) for their attempts to reign this Islamic fundamentalist mess in, mistakes and all. They all did their best. And as far as the Obama being beloved - he is most welcome to rebuild credibility and soft power however he can.
I agree Butchie - I've always leaned right on FP anyway, so all of this (except torture) seems reasonable to me. I just look forward to someone doing it right and with competence finally. Yes I do think Obama's the guy to pull it off - mostly from timing, temperment and our country ready to perhaps be realistic and grown-up about outcomes, timeframes? One can hope. I'm honestly grateful to Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 (not Cheney, a terribly incompetent boob) for their attempts to reign this Islamic fundamentalist mess in, mistakes and all. They all did their best. And as far as the Obama being beloved - he is most welcome to rebuild credibility and soft power however he can.
So if Obama has left Bush's policies in place is Bush now brilliant or is the Messiah an idiot? Seems its always easy to have answers when you are accountable for nothing like Obama was.
So if Obama has left Bush's policies in place is Bush now brilliant or is the Messiah an idiot? Seems its always easy to have answers when you are accountable for nothing like Obama was.
Karen,
Hmmm, Bush era consumption and debt is bad for us but spending and borrowing more in a year than Bush did in 8 is good for us???? War on science?? Look up "induced pluripotent stem cells" and, if you can understand it, see the inferiority of embryonic stem cell work (so brilliantly reintroduced by the present administration nearly 2 years after it became an insignificant secondary approach.
As for the anger thing, I think I will just encourage you to look up Godwin's law, while I contemplate the odd incongruity of sore winners.
Karen,
Hmmm, Bush era consumption and debt is bad for us but spending and borrowing more in a year than Bush did in 8 is good for us???? War on science?? Look up "induced pluripotent stem cells" and, if you can understand it, see the inferiority of embryonic stem cell work (so brilliantly reintroduced by the present administration nearly 2 years after it became an insignificant secondary approach.
As for the anger thing, I think I will just encourage you to look up Godwin's law, while I contemplate the odd incongruity of sore winners.
The fact that someone using the web handle "DOJ Colleague" could respond to Goldsmith's piece by saying this:
"I think that shows he [Cheney] is doing exactly the right thing, and should continue that effort to prevent additional backsliding"
tells us everything we need to know about the Cheney Justice Department/Stasi Enabling Agency.
Mr. Colleague, I do so hope there is a hell so that you can eventually rot in it.
The fact that someone using the web handle "DOJ Colleague" could respond to Goldsmith's piece by saying this:
"I think that shows he [Cheney] is doing exactly the right thing, and should continue that effort to prevent additional backsliding"
tells us everything we need to know about the Cheney Justice Department/Stasi Enabling Agency.
Mr. Colleague, I do so hope there is a hell so that you can eventually rot in it.
They aren't called the Dims for nothing.
They aren't called the Dims for nothing.
JD -- The writer used to be a Bush Administration person but had internal disputes with the administration and departed angrily. He supported the legality of most if not all of the enhanced techniques identified in the news as far as I know (I wasn't in the loop back then), but not all of the OLC rationales justifying them.
JD -- The writer used to be a Bush Administration person but had internal disputes with the administration and departed angrily. He supported the legality of most if not all of the enhanced techniques identified in the news as far as I know (I wasn't in the loop back then), but not all of the OLC rationales justifying them.
Alexi, I guess this wasn't much different than FDR guiding us into WWII or Truman's reasons for dropping the two bombs on Japan and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians...
Alexi, I guess this wasn't much different than FDR guiding us into WWII or Truman's reasons for dropping the two bombs on Japan and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians...