EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Vindication (by Barack Obama) of Dick Cheney
In the early months of Obama's presidency, the American Right did to him what they do to every Democratic politician: they accused him of being soft of defense (specifically "soft on Terror") and leaving the nation weak and vulnerable to attack. But that tactic quickly became untenable as everyone (other than his hardest-core followers) was forced to acknowledge that Obama was embracing and even expanding -- rather than reversing -- the core Bush/Cheney approach to Terrorism. As a result, leading right-wing figures began lavishing Obama with praise -- and claiming vindication -- based on Obama's switch from harsh critic of those policies (as a candidate) to their leading advocate (once in power).
As early as May, 2009, former Bush OLC lawyer Jack Goldsmith wrote in The New Republic that Obama was not only continuing Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, but was strengthening them -- both because he was causing them to be codified in law and, more important, converting those policies from right-wing dogma into harmonious bipartisan consensus. Obama's decision "to continue core Bush terrorism policies is like Nixon going to China," Goldsmith wrote. Last October, former Bush NSA and CIA Chief Michael Hayden -- one of the most ideological Bush officials, whose confirmation as CIA Chief was opposed by then-Sen. Obama on the ground he had overseen the illegal NSA spying program --gushed with praise for Obama: "there's been a powerful continuity between the 43rd and the 44th president." James Jay Carafano, a homeland-security expert at the Heritage Foundation, told The New York Times' Peter Baker last January: "I don’t think it's even fair to call it Bush Lite. It's Bush. It's really, really hard to find a difference that's meaningful and not atmospheric."
Those are the nation's most extreme conservatives praising Obama's Terrorism policies. And now Dick Cheney himself -- who once led the "soft on Terror" attacks -- is sounding the same theme. In an interview last night with NBC News, Cheney praised Obama for continuing his and Bush's core approach to Terrorism:
Read the full article at Salon...He obviously has been through the fires of becoming President and having to make decisions and live with the consequences. And it's different than being a candidate. When he was candidate he was all for closing Gitmo. He was very critical of what we'd done on the counterterrorism area to protect America from further attack and so forth. . . .
I think he's -- in terms of a lot of the terrorism policies -- the early talk, for example, about prosecuting people in the CIA who've been carrying out our policies -- all of that's fallen by the wayside. I think he's learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. So I think he's learned from experience.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
91 Comments so far
Show AllFinally Obama is inducted into Dubya/Cheney exclusive Club.
That should be all he needs to get re-elected. Palin will split the Rep party in two and the rest will now vote for "Bush Lite on Steroids".
When Obama sounds the death gong for Social Security during his upcoming state of the union message the neocons will declare the Raygun Revolution victorious.
And the Democrats will fall over themselves in their haste to tell the world how Obama has rid the world of another evil job-killing entitlement.
Oh, good point!
It started with Dubya (Ralph Nader) follows by Cheney and now Newt Gingrich praises Barack Obama. What an endorsement! Is there any dispute as to Obama loyalty?
Would you rather stay home and don't vote, Vote Obama or Republican? More writing on the wall, Lieberman is out and North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad (D) won't run for reelection in 2012.
http://www.politico.com/news/
stories/0111/47737.html
Palin gets a lot of media exposure now, and the Republicans have run side-show types before, but it seems unlikely that they would run her and risk the results that you mention.
A lot of the Republican party will not vote for Obama just because he says he's a Democrat.
A lot of them will not vote for him just because he's black.
The libertarian wing of the party won't vote for him because they actually don't agree with his policies.
A substantial majority of the left and center will not vote for him because he has grossly betrayed the left and center. Given the lack of an alternative that would provide an immediate, direct "win," a lot of people will just stay home or cast protest votes of one sort or another.
I don't think his re-election is at all certain.
He's at least earned a room in the master's house and is entitled to leftovers from the big table.
Of course, as Greenwald points out, Cheney is quite appreciative of what Obama has done. And one of the best reasons why Cheney is quite appreciative regarding what the Obama administration had done is the fact that Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, has refused to indict Cheney and Bush and others in that administration for committing war crimes against the people of the Middle East.
One also has to wonder if Glenn Greenwald will send copies of his fine essay to the leaders of the anti-war movement as they still have, for the most part, refused to speak out and condemn in the strongest possible terms the atrocities and war crimes that the Obama administration has committed against the people of the Middle East.
"One also has to wonder if Glenn Greenwald will send copies of his fine essay to the leaders of the anti-war movement as they still have, for the most part, refused to speak out and condemn in the strongest possible terms the atrocities and war crimes that the Obama administration has committed against the people of the Middle East."
Right on.
Hector
Glenn Greenwald is usually very good at being accurate, but this article has a basic flaw.
Obama did not wait until he was in office to embrace the sadistic policies of his friends.
Early on in his campaign, Obama pledged to increase the Pentagon budget and not hesitate to "strike" within Pakistan (a supposed ally).
As his campaign progressed, he did less and less to conceal his disdain for equal justice.
His (and the democrats) ardent support of the corrupt banker "bailout" with no strings attached to prevent another financial implosion and the support of immunity for the telecom's illegal participation in blatantly illegal spying on all U.S. citizens (after Obama had previously sworn to filibuster AGAINST such measures) were the two-handed handshakes of allegiance to the fraternity of debauchery.
Obama the "pragmatist" had little use for human rights BEFORE the election of 2008.
Re-writing history is the work of lesser minds.
As a senator, Obama voted consistently to renew USA-PATRIOT.
Yes, the writing was on the wall, but Jeez, didn't anybody ever see "Putney Swope"? There was a sliver of a tiny sliver of Hope® that Sen O would turn the table on these "inglorious basterds", the black-man-cometh-to-clean-up-the-white-man's-mess syndrome...but alas, all was a Mirage. (2 nites free stay, floor shows nitely)
no surprise here
evil shape shifting alien lizards tend to run as a crew whether they are named soetero or cheney
one thing i'd like to know - when are the sheeple going to wake up to the scam
democracy - don't make me laugh
the author would be better served by pulling back the curtin on this silly insistence that we have a country here - we got a yoke around our necks and a ball and chain on our ankles
that would make us slaves
worse we are slaves with debt up to our eyeballs
worse we are slaves with debt up to our eyeballs with no jobs
worse we are slaves with debt up to our eyeballs with no jobs and no healthcare
what a bunch of fucking fools we are........
oh yeah - cheney and soetero are in tight lock step - pass it on
its a newsflash
This is old news for the Native Community. That must be why they are less than second-string slaves. Their eyes are open whereas most Americans have had their eyes sealed shut "for their own good." I've heard that proof positive of this is the insurance that Assange has in lieu of detainment and death. Well, most people are very comfortable with the idea that science-fiction is fantasy for the dull and bored. That's all they want really--to be comfortable, and fat, and lazy, and irresponsible about anything that really matters. You know, civilized.
Also, perhaps Cheney prefers Obama as president compared to Palin et al...?
If there is any justice in the world, Bush/Cheney, et al, would be dangling at the end of a rope after their war crimes tribunal.
Still whinnying and bitching?
Dubya (Ralph Nader) earlier on inducted Obama and now by Cheney himself. Obama a recipient of the Nobel Peace prize as the finest President we ever have. If MLK, Abe Lincoln, and Washington were alive today, they would join me and announce for the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American Citizen. (sarcasms off)
He will be reelected, and he will raise a billion for his reelection bid and the ROC only a mere 400 million.
I was going to write that Obama went over to the dark side but then I couldn't figure out if ever wasn't on the dark side. :-(
This is another prime example of how Obama simply lied to his political base in order to get elected. We have seen what happened last election and we need to push for a Primary opponent.
Obama has no conscience, no morals, no personal integrity or the strength of character that could have caused him to use the "bully pulpit" to plead our cause, combined with a growing amount of evidence that shows he has no real regard for the opinions of the majority of America's citizens.
What a disgusting and utter failure this impostor has become.
"aremagen"
If people would realize that the "color" of a person is in their actions, not in their skin, their locale, or their words, we might make some progress.
Obama's actions and the majority of democrats actions before the election of 2008 clearly showed which side they were on, but the majority of his supporters were blinded by his skin color and the false notion that the democrats were not corporate-owned.
Obama is typical of most of Washington.
Most of Washington is like Meryl Streep's character in "The Devil Wears Prada", when she tells her assistant (Possible paraphrase on my part) "Don't be silly, Everyone wants to be us".
The problem is that the majority of people in this corrupt nation do not do what the assistant in the movie does - Walk away and work for a better organization. Our only hope is if we stop participating in THEIR ego trip and start working for humanity.
Well said. The "war on terror" has all along been a bipartisan project. Obama's campaign in 2008 was a deceptive massaged PR event not unlike those designed for corporate clients who are, for example, major polluters selling themselves as "green". Note how the Democrat congressional majority in 2006 offered only excuses on why they couldn't do anything, whereas the smaller Republican group this past year has already seized the agenda.
No progress in America until a viable option outside of the two major parties is again established - as it was in the first half of the past century, the existence of which is solely responsible for the positive progressive reforms which are now being dismantled.
"What a disgusting and utter failure this impostor has become." I couldn't have put it better myself.
Torture , illegal wars of aggression , the suspension of Human rights and of Constitutional rights, and the expansion of the powers of the State have now become the norm and Americans have come to ACCEPT the same as the norm.
The means in which it was done is not THAT subtle yet most will not see it.
One Political party over seemingly great opposition promotes all these policies and is drummed out of power with the promise of change and the restoration of rights, liberties and US Standing in the world.
"The Messiah" promotes the same policies. They are now permanent.
It a form of psy-ops. The same thing happens with Corporations. The Board wants to get rid of staff and downsize so they meet to hire a new CEO known for such. This CEO guts and cuts and downsizes to the point morale destroyed and the employees all turned against one another in order to save their own Jobs.
They same board meets and claims to have "seen the light" and removes that CEO (with a huge severance package) and the new team promises change.
A few cosmetic changes made and the new Company forges ahead, downsized, with wages rolled back and those people dutifully working their 50 hour week because things will soon "turn around".
The two CEOS might SEEM on different sides, but they are not.
Update re Cheney on Palin. Then I read that he was still "interested" in a Palin candidacy????
Justice! how naive can we be...there is only and consequences for those who go against the power structure..and it isn't going to change.
Greenwald sez: "Yesterday, J. Gerald Herbert -- a long-time DOJ official -- told The Raw Story that Obama's refusal to investigate or prosecute Bush era crimes is both a violation of DOJ's duties and sets a 'dangerous precedent' by vesting lawbreaking elites with immunity."
***
This is nothing new, and not even part of O'bomber's vaunted "change".
The guy told everyone his feelings on the Unitary Executive, elite privilege and immunity for the Cheneybush cabal in the summer of '08 - with his FISA choice.
USAn voters either didn't notice, or they approved. Which sort of comes to the same thing.
Hey! Stop being defeatists. Read Cohen's and Solomon's C. D. article above this one. They've endorsed a new organization with endorsements from Ellsberg, Hightower, Cornel West, Greenwald, Klein and Flanders.
your kidding right, that new vote herding operation for democrats is supposed to make us feel optimistic.
Kudos to Senator Bernie Sanders for recognizing that Obama is working to end Social Security.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/obama-weak-social-security-bernie-sanders-tells-raw/
yeah, good thing Bernie Sanders used his Senate privilege to put a hold on tax cut extension legislation in order to stop that poison pill payroll tax holiday from being enacted. Oh wait, my bad, he didn't, instead he put on that faux filibuster.
Actions speak loader than words.
Harry Reid honors only those holds placed by Rethugs. He's always rejected holds placed by members of his own caucus. It's either because Saint Harry is a fifth-column Rethug, or because he doesn't like having his authority challenged from within the caucus.
Blah Senator Bernie Sanders!
Obama said; "....Lets be clear, Social Security, is good as it. American desperately need jobs and to create more jobs and opportunity, Social Security can play dual rolls. You don't need to continue working after retirement or working several jobs for family of four just to make ends meet, we must change, change we can believe in. Start investing early in America. Why not live like Lloyd C, Blankfein or George Soros or any of the 2% American? Change we can believe in. Yes we can. (sarcasm off)
Thank you,Glenn Greenwald,for helping me making my mind whether or not I should vote again for Obama,if the Democratic Party re-nominates him again in 2012.
Obama should be ashamed for not taking a brave stance. Cheney is a war criminal.
"haleatus11"
Obama believes he DID take a brave stance.
The ones who did not take a brave stance were the people who voted for him (and most democrats) after he made it clear by his actions - before the election of 2008 - that he (and most democrats) supported the same corruptions as the republicans.
Fear of McCain/Palin gave us McCain/Palin in democrat costumes.
The lack of "the courage of convictions" on the part of people who voted for Obama/Biden (another warmonger) has led us to this point.
100% correct.
Uncle Ho,
Your comment has hit the jackpot-how true! Thanks.
Well, now we know who the Repubs will be running (either overtly or covertly) for prez.
Obama will have 2 terms. He has exceeded the wildest, wettest dreams of the oligarchs by completely disabling the left and accomplishing every goal the corporations have set for him. They will ensure that a weak candidate is nominated by the R-party (it may well be Palin) to guarantee an Obama win.
O-man wasn't lying when he promised 'hope.'
He was referring to corporations seeking ever greater profit. And the complete manifestation of a corporate state (fascism for us.)
Their hope has been rewarded. And they will reward him.
And they will greenlight the corporate media to report marginally accurately on the weak Repub '12 candidate, thereby utterly destroying him/her.
"They will ensure that a weak candidate is nominated by the R-party (it may well be Palin) to guarantee an Obama win."
That's precisely what the Republicans did here in Connecticut when our own illustrious Blabber...I mean Lieber-man (literally "Loverman") ran for re-election.
Obama is like the parasitic larva in "Alien" which bursts through the chest of its host and then goes on to wreak havoc on the rest of the ship.
- Obama has won the War on Terror debate -- for the American Right. -
So, Obama has done us all a great disservice by continuing the policies of the past administration.
This author does us all a great disservice by continuing to use the phraseology of the past administration.
'WoT' is a concoction of Bush minions. It was never an official name or title. The government and the military do not use this term anymore.
The only place I see this term kept alive is here, kept alive by Progressives - the same Progressives who gnash their teeth and wail about how the sheeple become inured to evil by its incessant repetitiveness - and then they go and repeat this term (as if the right-wing was right all along).
Please stop repeating, and keeping alive, this horrible term.
Either that or stop complaining about how Obama is a continuation of Bush.
Because Progressives are also a continuation of Bush, if they continue to keep alive Bush's term.
We need our own term for this insanity. I suggest again that we call it DAFT (Defense against Future Terrorism). Choose your own term, if you will. I will gladly repeat the term that gives us the best chance of winning the linguistic battle to belittle this insanity.
But please stop using the right-wing term, please stop keeping it alive, please stop helping the right-wing to win the debate about the problems and threats of future terrorism.
To stop this insanity, first we must stop using the right-wing term that legitimizes American military aggression.
Dear locust:
DAFT, what a lovely idea. I guess it's time to twitter it all over, "THe DAFT program..yes. That has a very nice sound. A word comes into use and dictionary definition when enough people use it!
Yes, the TSA and its DAFT program!
I get your point about "War on Terror".
But how does DAFT get at the truth of the matter?
The burgeoning nexus of DHS, the MIC, and resource wars might actually be well served by framing it as DAFT.
I know that is not your intention, but just tossing out that to consider.
With all due respect, I've always considered that term a misspelling of "War OF Terror" and would never use it in the form you decry.
That said, I would also tweak your preferred acronym to DAFDT (Directing Attention From Domestic Terrorists).
The War On/Of Terror is a very real phenomenon, and you shouldnt be confused thinking that it is no longer in effect or driving the core policies of this gov't.
Sadly, the war was never against 'al Qaeda' (which I believe was originally a false flag, black ops invention of the Pentagon) or the Taliban or wahabists or any of that... It was and always has been a war of terror against our better sensibilities, against our inclination to reject injustice, against our sanity and sense of verifiable reality... And that war has been hugely successful.
This is why the war must continue... Its working!
Until we recognize the godsend this sick war represents to the 'owners' in America, we wont be able to employ the rhetoric that will end it. Until we understand that any and all resistance is 'terrorism', any slowing down of empire and monopoly is also 'terrorism', the illusion of its validity will remain... This war is not even an absurd attempt to quash all future external threats — it is the attempt to prop up all that is false, all that is unjust and call it A Shining City on the Hill.
Our meme must not be to simply point out the falsehood of the w.o.t. but the threat that it ultimately poses to all that is true and dear to us as people of moral conscience.
Greenwald has done a suburb job of showing the remarkable continuity of the Bush and Obama White House.
As most readers at CD are aware, the U.S. has created what is essentially a one party system on all matters concerning military, state power, and economic policy.
The divisive and acrimonious policy debates all take place in rather minor areas of policy.
Will we pretend to show some respect for nominal allies such as France or Pakistan -- or will we openly denounce & threaten them.
Will we let gays openly travel to the nether regions of the Empire to kill the natives or will they have to keep a lid on it.
Will we permit some mitigating changes in our corporate health care system or we will we refuse to interfere with the "free market".
Will we exercise a few symbolic controls over corporate & Wall Street domination of American economic life or will we allow them to siphon off every available penny?
It's informative to compare a supposed multi-party democracy such as the U.S. with a rigid one party system such as the USSR.
Despite the widespread view that the Soviet Union was totalitarian in form and content, and that its political leadership held resolutely to unitary policy throughout its existence, the USSR after Stalin's death showed far more willingness to make major shifts in policy than we what we have seen in the U.S. since at least Reagan.
Progressives & liberals naturally cite FDR when they discuss the false hopes they held for Obama, but Gorbachev is another example of a political leader trying to make major reforms in a system dominated by the military and suffering economic stagnation.
Instead of FDR -- or Gorbachev -- we got a Cheney-Bush third term. The worst of their policies are now institutionalized and it is now almost impossible to imagine any major changes or reversals within the current "two-party" system.
The opportunities to push meaningful changes are almost nil.
Support third party candidates such as the Green Party or even principled libertarians such as Ron Paul, and wait for some seismic disruption. A collapse in the economy and/or environment seem the most likely. The options are bleak.
Keep hope alive but don't be surprised if things get a lot worse.
RANDY G: Good analysis.
"Obama's decision to continue core Bush terrorism policies". It was not Obama's decision! That decision was made for him long before he became President. The American government at its core, is nothing but a cabal of criminals,pathological liars, and assassins. Obama and Cheney both are beholden to that same cabal and its masters who lurk in the shadows and behind the scenes. They are like lieutenants for the Mafia,but are sycophants for the MIC. The only real difference is that Obama is a silver tongued, devil that is able to look like the good guy and con a lot of naive people, while Cheney is the bad guy and just an evil devil.
Why do people think that the left and the Democrats are for peace and civil liberties? It makes no sense.
Here's a quote from Wikipedia about non-interventionism in America:
"Constitutionalists, Paleoconservatives, libertarians, and progressives are non-interventionists."
3 out of 4 of those groups are rightwing. The Democrats started the Cold War under Truman. They bombed Dresden and Japan killing thousands of innocent civilians just for the fun of it. They have had complete disregard for civil liberties and threw people in interment camps and locked people up just for questioning their wars. What in America's history and present would make anyone think a Democrat would be for peace and civil liberties? The "sweeping executive power" was thanks to Truman and Clinton. Bush simply followed their precedent and Obama is now expanding on it. The Democrats are for as much dictatorial executive war powers as possible. This has been the way it is for a century. It doesn't have to do with greedy capitalists tricking them either. At the same time they are planning who they want to kill and bomb and lock up, they are passing legislation to intervene and micromanage the private sector.
I think people are influenced by the Vietnam War protests and think that since the left was protesting the war and since the Democrats are supposed to be the left that ipso facto the Dems are for peace. But they are not for peace. And probably the only reason the left was protesting so much then was because they were being drafted. The only politician in Washington who has consistently stood up and demanded that we bring our troops home from all over the world is Ron Paul. Again, a conservative, rightwing.