The third George W. Bush term – starring Barack W. Obama – will be just as exciting, more corrupt, inept, dangerous and debilitating.
Our view of Obama, as a very bad Third Bush Term, is not welcome in many quarters. “Now is the time for unity and hope” we are told. “Shush, things will be better if only you wait in silence” they demand. We recall that at the time we lost plenty of friends because we denounced George W. as he stole the 2000 election. Many did not want to hear about stolen elections in the United States. The advice then as now was to deactivate our critical faculties in favor of “unity”.
We lost even more friends in 2001 when we placed the blame for 9-11 squarely on the shoulders of George W. for the intelligence failures that led to the rubble which used to be the World Trade Center. “Silence, now is the time for unity” we were told once again. But our critical faculties led us to recognize and speak the truth.
So now we will lose more friends as we use the same critical faculties to describe the unqualified and inexperienced Barack Obama that we employed to describe George W. Bush. PINOs and other Dimocrats who did not lack sharp analytical skills when it came to lambasting George W. and the Republicans are now bereft of senses. Hypocrites. PINOs and other Dimocrats will tolerate from Obama what they would not tolerate from a Republican, especially a Bush.
Back in 2000 and especially after September 2001 George W. Bush was praised by Big Media as a “uniter”. George W. Bush had sky high approval according to polls. Now, Americans have awakened to the disaster which George W. Bush was and is. Bush was not to be criticized. For the sake of “unity” silence was requested and unfortunately received. Silence in the face of disaster is not to be applauded.
Hope should not be used to disguise, distort or hide the truth.
* * *
Day-by-day, the recognition filters through to some that the Obama story is not what is being told and that things are not as rosy for Obama as his assistants in Big Media pretend and propagandize. Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times even dares to posit a one-term Obama, a failed Obama forced to retreat to corrupt Chicago even as he abandons his campaign promises:
White House reporters for The New York Times predict that the market collapse will force President-elect Barack Obama to abandon for now many of his campaign promises.
If his stimulus plan “doesn’t work out, he may very well be a one-term president,” said Jeff Zeleny, who covered Obama’s campaign. “It’s hard to imagine that he could be reelected if the economy’s in the exact same position four years from now.”
“A lot of the things he said on the campaign trail you can now dispense with,” said correspondent Peter Baker. “For the moment he has to focus on the economy.”
The panel discussion which prompted the one-term assessment was in a sense Big Media cooperation with the Obama campaign attempts to “manage expectations”.
The reporters for the New York Times are preparing Americans for the Obama failures and lies and protecting Obama by saying (1) that the broken Obama promises will be abandoned “for now”; and that (2) the measure of an Obama failure is “if the economy’s in the exact same position for years from now”. We suspect “for now” will be defined in Obama’s favor and that even a mild economic uptick will negate “exact same position” as a demerit counted against Obama by Big Media.
Baker suggested Obama would tackle smaller-scale issues related to his major agenda items as a kind of political “down payment” on his promises, for now would retreat from even some of his firmest pledges.
“You’re not going to see universal health care, I don’t think, this year,” Baker said. “You’re not going to see a cap on carbon emissions, as he has promised, probably, this year.”
As for the Obama strategy, a New York Times reporter notes about Obama “His whole economic package is about giving things to people.”
How much in the tank for Obama is Big Media as represented by the New York Times? Here is the New York Times lowering expectations for Obama by (surprise!) blatently lowering expectations:
Sheryl Gay Stolberg, who has covered the Bush administration for the Times, suggested Obama would use his Inauguration, which takes place in nine days, as an opportunity to ask for patience from an uneasy public.
One of Obama’s principal political challenges, Stolberg said, is: “How will he try to lower expectations?”
The myth of Obama is kept safe at the New York Times. Even though there are videos of Obama discussing running for president and discussions of running for president starting in 2004 Zeleny of the Times pretends that the Obama campaign was a last minute decision.
“More than any other politician, he sort of grew, month by month, as you saw him,” Zeleny said, adding that when he was sworn into the Senate just four years ago, Obama hadn’t given much thought to running for president.
“At the time, the plan, the Obama plan, was that he would run for governor of Illinois after one term in the Senate, or he might,” Zeleny said. “He had no idea what it was going to be like to run for president.”
The Times’ reporters do accidentally fall into a bit of truth. While they do not specifically say, as we do, that Obama is the Third Bush Term they do realize that Obama will carry out George W. Bush policies:
Outgoing White House officials who recognize the current president’s unpopularity are hoping the president-elect will be able to carry out parts of the Bush team’s policy vision, particularly with respect to Iraq, that are currently incomplete.
“If Obama succeeds, it’s like Eisenhower after Truman,” Baker said, pointing out that Eisenhower perpetuated many of Truman’s anticommunist policies, winning over a public that had been resistant to his predecessor’s ideas.
“They think that Obama is not going to change things as dramatically” as people think, he said.
* * *
The New York Times and the Nutroots and the Big Blog PINOs will cover for Obama, we won’t. We will trumpet loudly when Obama breaks a promise. The Nutroots and the Big Blog PINOs won’t discuss Obama’s Social Security Treachery and they made excuses for Obama’s FISA treachery. On Sunday Obama started the ol’ Razzle Dazzle on Guantanamo.
Obama on Sunday “lowered expectations” on the close of Guantanamo prisons. Previously Obama had said, with flowery words, he would shut down Guantanamo prisons. That Obama promise is no longer, as Richard Nixon would say, “operative”.
The latest Obama flim-flam took place on ABC’s This Week. The campaign promise to close Guantanamo within 100 days is now a broken promise. Obama says he has just now discovered that closing Guantanamo is “complex”. The truth of course is that nothing has changed on the issue of Guantanamo, there are no new facts on Guantanamo. Obama can’t be trusted:
On Guantanamo — which he repeatedly promised to shutter during the campaign — Obama, in an interview on Sunday with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” reiterated his intent to do just that but also sounded a pragmatic note.
“That’s a challenge,” the president-elect said about the prospect of closing down to the detainee facility within the first 100 days of taking office. “I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do.
Obama is simply lying, again. The Guantanamo prison and the issues surrounding it have been well known and yes, complex. But there is nothing new on the Guantanamo issue. What is new is Obama is flim-flamming again and Big Media is protecting Obama, again.
When Obama made his campaign promise to close Guantanamo the situation was just as complex as it is today. If anything the actual issue itself should be less complex because there has been so much more time to think about Guantanamo. Obama is simply hedging his bets and flim-flamming Americans with flowery words. Obama can’t be trusted.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You also agreed on Guantanamo when you say you want to shut it down. You say you’re still going to shut it down. Is it turning out to be harder than you expected, will you get that done in the first 100 days?
OBAMA: It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom who may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So not necessarily first 100 days.
OBAMA: That’s a challenge. I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do. But I don’t want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.
Flowery words like habeas corpus, “basic principles”, and “rule of law” flow from Obama’s mouth – a flim-flam man’s technique to hide the basic fact of a broken promise and a possible new corruption of our court system (see Greenwald, below).
* * *
So what is the cause of the latest outbreak declaration of BOBP (Barack Obama Broken Promise)?
First of all, even Barack Obama’s closest political
shills allies are running away from a Guantanamo closing.
Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) added her voice yesterday to a predictable chorus of Kansas politicians campaigning to prohibit any detainees from Guantanamo ending up at the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Ft. Leavenworth when President-elect Obama closes the prison.
More importantly, Obama will not be able to vote “present” on Guantanamo because the Supreme Court demands attention. In a little noted New York Times article the Obama flim-flam of yesterday on ABC becomes easier to decipher (and please note that February 20 will be a time that the Congress will be engaged in passing a “Stimulus” bill to distract from the Supreme Court cases):
Just a month after President-elect Barack Obama takes office, he must tell the Supreme Court where he stands on one of the most aggressive legal claims made by the Bush administration — that the president may order the military to seize legal residents of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charging them with a crime.
The new administration’s brief, which is due Feb. 20, has the potential to hearten or infuriate Mr. Obama’s supporters, many of whom are looking to him for stark disavowals of the Bush administration’s legal positions on the detention and interrogation of so-called enemy combatants held at Navy facilities on the American mainland or at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
During the campaign, Mr. Obama made broad statements criticizing the Bush administration’s assertions of executive power. But now he must address a specific case, that of Ali al-Marri, a Qatari student who was arrested in Peoria, Ill., in December 2001. The Bush administration says Mr. Marri is a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, and it is holding him without charges at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. He is the only person currently held as an enemy combatant on the mainland, but the legal principles established in his case are likely to affect the roughly 250 prisoners at Guantánamo.
The issues before the Supreme Court have been coursing through the courts since December 2001. “Constitutional expert” Obama surely cannot be surprised by these issues he now declares to be “complex”. Obama the flim-flam man made promises during the campaign he will now proceed to break.
Many legal experts say that all of the new administration’s options in Mr. Marri’s case are perilous. Intelligence officials say he is exceptionally dangerous, making deportation problematic.
Trying him on criminal charges could be difficult, too, in part because some of the evidence against him may have been obtained through torture and would not be admissible.
And staying the course in the Marri case would outrage civil libertarians.
“If they adopt the Bush administration position, or some version of it,” said Brandt Goldstein, a professor at New York Law School, “it is going to be a moment of profound disappointment for everyone in the legal community and Americans generally who believe that the Bush administration has tried to turn the presidency into a monarchy.”
The case, Al-Marri v. Pucciarelli, No. 08-368, was addressed by Obama during the campaign:
A year ago, Mr. Obama answered a detailed questionnaire concerning his views on presidential power from The Boston Globe. “I reject the Bush administration’s claim,” Mr. Obama said, “that the president has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain U.S. citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants.”
That sounds vigorous and categorical. But applying this view to Mr. Marri’s case is not that simple. Although he was in the United States legally, he was not an American citizen. In addition, a 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force arguably gave the president the authority that Mr. Obama has said is not conferred by the Constitution alone.
Still, Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who has generally supported the Bush administration’s approach to fighting terrorism, said Mr. Obama’s hands are tied. He cannot, Mr. McCarthy said, continue to maintain that Mr. Marri’s detention is lawful.
“I don’t think politically for him that’s a viable option,” Mr. McCarthy said. “Legally, it’s perfectly viable.”
Hopium addicts will empty their syringes in February as reality becomes too horrible to bear.
One possibility is to deport Mr. Marri to Qatar, but Bush administration officials say that would be an enormous mistake.
“Al-Marri must be detained,” Jeffrey N. Rapp, a defense intelligence official wrote in a court filing in 2004, “to prevent him from aiding Al Qaeda in its efforts to attack the United States, its armed forces, other governmental personnel, or citizens.”
Mr. Marri’s lawyers would be delighted to see their client freed, but they are also eager to vacate a decision of the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., in July upholding the president’s authority to detain Mr. Marri subject to a court hearing on whether he was properly designated an enemy combatant.
Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who represents Mr. Marri, emphasized both points.
“If, as President-elect Obama has pledged, the rule of law in America is to be restored,” Mr. Hafetz said, “then Mr. al-Marri’s military detention must cease and the lower court’s ruling upholding the president’s power to order the military to seize legal residents and American citizens from their homes and imprison them without charge, must be overturned.”
Another alternative for the new administration is to prosecute Mr. Marri as a criminal. But it is not clear that there is admissible evidence against him.
When Mr. Marri was arrested, in December 2001, he was charged with garden-variety crimes: credit card fraud and, later, lying to federal agents and financial institutions, and identity theft. But when Mr. Bush moved Mr. Marri from the criminal system to military detention in June 2003, the government agreed to dismiss those charges with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled.
After reading the above, it is easier to see through Obama’s talk on ABC. Glen Greenwald believes Obama on ABC was signaling a new flim-flam:
Specifically, Obama argued, we cannot release detainees whom we’re unable to convict in a court of law because the evidence against them is “tainted” as a result of our having tortured them, and therefore need some new system — most likely a so-called new “national security court” — that “relaxes” due process safeguards so that we can continue to imprison people indefinitely even though we’re unable to obtain an actual conviction in an actual court of law.
If Greenwald is right that Obama is preparing to establish a new flim-flam separate court system for “security” or whether Obama is referring to earlier charges dropped “with prejudice” one thing is clear – get ready for a whopper of an Obama flim-flam that will make his FISA flip-flop-flim-flam seem tame by comparison.
It is likely that Greenwald is correct, that Obama is planning a new flim-flam court system. The New York Times article provides the evidence:
The more serious accusations recounted in Mr. Rapp’s statement are attributed partly to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is believed to be the chief architect of the Sept. 11 attacks and who was captured in early 2003. The Central Intelligence Agency has said Mr. Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding, and information obtained from him may therefore not be admissible in court. Mr. McCarthy, the former prosecutor, said he hoped the new administration is sifting through its options with exceptional care.
“If they can’t try him in federal court and assuming he poses the severe risk the Bush administration suggests he poses, is there some room to detain him under the immigration system?” Mr. McCarthy asked. “If there is not a Plan B, we have a disaster that transcends al-Marri,” he added, referring to the larger question of what to do with the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.
There is also a second case which Obama will not be able to vote “present” on. This second case was brought by four former prisoners at Guantánamo Bay who say they were tortured. At first this appeals court review, ordered by the Supreme Court, was to be over by the Friday before inauguration day. Now the case on whether provisions of the Bill of Rights and a federal law guaranteeing religious freedom apply to detainees held at Guantánamo Bay will be heard on the Monday after inauguration day, January 26. Will Obama try to vote “present” and allow the Bush administration briefs to be presented in this case?
It is becoming harder and harder for Obama to vote “present” on important issues. It is becoming harder and harder for Obama to continue to flim-flam his way through life.
But on Quantanamo and the issues presented, Obama is still trying to flim-flam with assistance from Big Media.
On Guantanamo, Obama is the Third Bush Term.