[Winstonm]

This is something very good about the Obama administration - an aggressive press at a White House briefing.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/10/ob...nt-handle-truth

[Winstonm]

Let me address your points:

Quote

He seems to be the first president in a while who shows he understands the Palastinians in the conflict with Israel have rights

.

Yes, this is good but there has been no real action. I am waiting for something concrete to occur.

Quote

I thought it was fantastic he fought so hard to bring the olympics here. Why he received so much criticism for that is absolutely beyond me, except to say it mostly came from people whose full time jobs are to criticize him at all costs.

I thought that was fine and proper - the bashing is dumb, IMO.

Quote

He acted swiftly on the economy, which seems to be making a quick (relatively speaking) turn-around. No I don't agree with everything he did on that, but he did a lot and he rose to the urgency of the situation.

These were not his ideas at all - his finance team had this in place along with the Federal Reserve. The verdict is still out - and will be for some time to come - whether this worked. Check out Japan's lost generation for a possible non-recovery situation.

Quote

Gitmo is closing. If it takes an extra month or 2 or 6 because they are receiving little cooperation and are taking action carefully that is fine because it is still being done. Only a third of the prisoners that were there before remain.

This is a meaningless political action - his administration still claims the right to hold foreigners without rights or charges at Bagram in Afghanistan. The best result of this administration was finally abandoning its attempt to re-write the military commissions practices that debased the entire concept of the rule of law.

Quote

I am disappointed in some things that I stated before, but with all due respect you are being a debbie downer. He has done a lot of good things in, let's not forget, a very short time and starting from a very bad place.

I don't think Obama is a complete failure - I think so far he has disappointed many, though. But he still has a chance to turn much of that around - and I think he is the smartest President aside from Clinton we have had in the White House in decades.

I am concerned from whom he chooses to receive advice - Tom Daschle is not the best role model.

[jdonn]

I don't think you are being fair regarding the economy (HIS finance team, you say?) but mostly fair enough. Two final points.

- One man's "meaningless political action" is another man's "meaningful symbolic action". And if it gets us more cooperation around the world from other countries on various issues then it wasn't meaningless anyway.

- I disagree with you on one thing. He does not have a chance to turn around that he is disappointing many, all he can do is change who gets disappointed.

[Winstonm]

This is getting boring - I agree with you for the most part.

Quote

- One man's "meaningless political action" is another man's "meaningful symbolic action". And if it gets us more cooperation around the world from other countries on various issues then it wasn't meaningless anyway.

Depends on perspective, to be sure. My perspective on this particular matter happens to be from the rule of law and civil rights - and that does for sure rule out for me addressing any benefit of positive perceptions as meaningful, although I acknowledge them as meaningful in the perspective you presented.

Quote

- I disagree with you on one thing. He does not have a chance to turn around that he is disappointing many, all he can do is change who gets disappointed.

I think this is exceptionally well stated.

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Oct 7 2009, 07:55 PM, said:

I don't think you are being fair regarding the economy (HIS finance team, you say?) but mostly fair enough. Two final points.

- One man's "meaningless political action" is another man's "meaningful symbolic action". And if it gets us more cooperation around the world from other countries on various issues then it wasn't meaningless anyway.

- I disagree with you on one thing. He does not have a chance to turn around that he is disappointing many, all he can do is change who gets disappointed.

Just for the record, Glenn Greenwald has this input about the Obama administration thus far:

Quote

If an historian were to write about the events of the first nine months of 2009 when it came to transparency issues as they relate to the war crimes of the Bush years, the following is what would be written.  Just remember this was all done with an overwhelming Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and a Democratic President elected on a promise to usher in "an unprecedented level of openness in Government" and "a new era of openness in our country."  There's no blaming Republicans for any of this:

    In February, the Obama DOJ went to court to block victims of rendition and torture from having a day in court, adopting in full the Bush argument that whatever was done to the victims is a "state secret" and national security would be harmed if the case proceeded.  The following week, the Obama DOJ invoked the same "secrecy" argument to insist that victims of illegal warrantless eavesdropping must be barred from a day in court, and when the Obama administration lost that argument, they engaged in a series of extraordinary manuevers to avoid complying with the court's order that the case proceed, to the point where the GOP-appointed federal judge threatened the Government with sanctions for noncompliance.  Two weeks later, "the Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, [tried] to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails."

    In April, the Obama DOJ, in order to demand dismissal of a lawsuit brought against Bush officials for illegal spying on Americans, not only invoked the Bush/Cheney "state secrets" theory, but also invented a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim to insist Bush officials are immune from consequences for illegal domestic spying.  The same month -- in the case brought by torture victims -- an appeals court ruled against the Obama DOJ on its "secrecy" claims, yet the administration vowed to keep appealing to prevent any judicial review of the interrogation program.  In responses to these abuses, a handful of Democratic legislators re-introduced Bush-era legislation to restrict the President from asserting "state secrets" claims to dismiss lawsuits, but it stalled in Congress all year.  At the end of April and then again in August, the administration did respond to a FOIA lawsuit seeking the release of torture documents by releasing some of those documents, emphasizing that they had no choice in light of clear legal requirements.

    In May, after the British High Court ruled that a torture victim had the right to obtain evidence in the possession of British intelligence agencies documeting the CIA's abuse of him, the Obama administration threatened that it would cut off intelligence-sharing with Britain if the court revealed those facts, causing the court to conceal them.  Also in May, Obama announced he had changed his mind and would fight-- rather than comply with -- two separate, unanimous court orders compelling the disclosure of Bush-era torture photos, and weeks later, vowed he would do anything (including issue an Executive Order or support a new FISA exemption) to prevent disclosure of those photos in the event he lost yet again, this time in the Supreme Court.  In June, the administration "objected to the release of certain Bush-era documents that detail the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees at secret prisons, arguing to a federal judge that doing so would endanger national security."  In August, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder announced that while some rogue torturers may be subject to prosecution, any Bush officials who relied on Bush DOJ torture memos in "good faith" will "be protected from legal jeopardy."  And all year long, the Obama DOJ fought (unsuccessfully) to keep encaged at Guantanamo a man whom Bush officials had tortured while knowing he was innocent.

[PassedOut]

I never expected Obama to be a perfect president, and I do share many of the feelings of other posters here. On the other hand, he's so much better than his predecessor (and he began with such a difficult situation) that I'm still very pleased with the change. He'll need more concrete achievements, but I'm very willing to see how his initiatives turn out over the next couple of years before judging his work.

[mike777]

To be fair Bush started out with a difficult situation at this point in time.


I agree most would not post:



"I'm still very pleased with the change. He'll need more concrete achievements, but I'm very willing to see how his initiatives turn out over the next couple of years before judging his work."

[PassedOut]

mike777, on Oct 8 2009, 11:21 PM, said:

To be fair Bush started out with a difficult situation at this point in time.

Bush started with a budget surplus and immediately returned the US to fiscal irresponsiblility.

In his first few months, his administration ignored the warnings from the Clinton people about the threat from al Qaeda until the 9/11 attacks. After a shaky few hours, he did rally the people and (in my view) acted appropriately in going after the attackers. At that time, Bush had a great deal of sympathy and support from me and many, many others in the US and across the world. I agree that the 9/11 attacks created a difficult situation for him.

After that, Bush's presidency was a long, slow-unfolding nightmare of obviously disastrous mistakes, starting with his decision to start a different and unnecessary war instead of finishing the one that made sense.

I do realize that Obama disappoints and angers people by refusing to draw firm lines in the sand in support of policies they consider sacrosanct, and I have those reactions myself. However, I try to keep in mind the fact that he can't get anything done without congressional support, and that his sincere efforts at bipartisanship are firmly rebuffed. And I don't want him to adopt an all-or-nothing stance that ultimately prevents even partial solutions to the serious problems faced by the US.

The democrats in congress, on the other hand, should be horsewhipped if they can't work together with Obama on issues like health care and climate change. If the democrats can't get those things done with the majorities they have in both houses and a democrat in the white house, what good are they? -- a point I like to make when talking with or writing to my own representatives.