Jon Stewart may be the only person who can tell a certain Bush-hating demographic the truth about Obama and the Bush foreign policy--yeah, not a dime's worth of difference. Eight years of bitching and moaning and now...Nevermind...
When they started calling Mr. Obama the magic negro, they weren't kidding. Apparently we should just all call him President Eisenheim (The Illusionist).
President Obama moved swiftly on Wednesday to impose new rules on government transparency and ethics, using his first full day in office to freeze the salaries of his senior aides, mandate new limits on lobbyists and demand that the government disclose more information.Mr. Obama called the moves, which overturned two policies of his predecessor, “a clean break from business as usual.” Coupled with Tuesday’s Inaugural Address, which repudiated the Bush administration’s decisions on everything from science policy to fighting terrorism, the actions were another sign of the new president’s effort to emphasize an across-the-board shift in priorities, values and tone.
“For a long time now there’s been too much secrecy in this city,” Mr. Obama said at a swearing-in ceremony for senior officials at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House. He added, “Transparency and rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”
The appearance of "change" and the substance of continuity. In the new "transparent" Obama administration, the oath of office was readministered absent the Washington press corps. Perhaps the real touchstones of the Obama administration are apparent in the organizational disaster that was the inauguration, where thousands of ticket holders heard and saw nothing aside from the Howitzers. But it wasn't just the rabble that got inconvenienced.
With the pageantry of Tuesday’s inaugural festivities behind them, Mr. Obama and his team spent Wednesday grappling with matters as mundane as e-mail access and getting to work (some aides arrived at the gates of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on Tuesday morning to discover they lacked clearance to enter) and as weighty as Senate confirmation of cabinet secretaries.
Hard to imagine this kind of thing happening during the Bush administration who were better at actually doing things than delighting the kids with doves pulled from their sleeves.
We can expect Obama to dribble out goodies one at a time over the next few weeks, allowing the silly people to believe that hopenchange is on the way.
As he said he would during the campaign, President Barack Obama is expected to move swiftly on closing down a network of United States detention facilities, including Guantanamo Bay, and banning certain coercive interrogation methods.The Times’s Mark Mazzetti and William Glaberson note that “the orders would leave unresolved complex questions surrounding the closing of the Guantánamo prison, including whether, where and how many of the detainees are to be prosecuted. They could also allow Mr. Obama to reinstate the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation operations in the future, by presidential order, as some have argued would be appropriate if Osama bin Laden or another top-level leader of Al Qaeda were captured.”
You're watching the left hand, while the right hand is busy, busy, busy. We'd all do well to remember Obama's rhetoric on NAFTA and his private assurances to the Canadian ambassador. If Guantanamo does close, it won't be soon, and all that will have really happened is that the coin will have been switched to the other hand. The people they need to keep detained will be--but in a more politically obscure locale. The important thing here is to protect the mythology of left-wing moral superiority.
To that end, the Europeans are up on their high horses about it already, even as they fret about the possibility that Mr. Obama might ask them to actually take one or two of these maniacs off his hands--sharing the load so to speak.
EU Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot hailed Obama's request to prosecutors as a step toward shutting the facility, which has been plagued by accusations of torture and become a symbol of US excesses.
"I am delighted that one of the first acts of President Obama has been to turn the page on this sad episode of Guantanamo prison," Barrot said in a statement.He also stressed that the fight against terrorism," must be a main priority for the United States and Europe... but always with total respect for human rights."
Spain's Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos noted that closing Guantanamo was a move "which Spain and Europe have demanded on numerous occasions."
Cover for cowards and weaklings--One of Obama's real first acts of his Presidency.
UPDATE: Sis Toldjah engages in a little critical thinking--comparing the rhetoric and the performance.
Look, I want to believe that Obama’s sincere about transparency but his rhetoric rarely matches up with reality, especially on issues like transparency and “open government.” Remember how hard it was to get the records of his time serving on Chicago Annenberg Challenge board with Bill Ayers? How about the fact that you could find next to no paperwork on his time served in the Ill. state Senate, outside of his voting record? How about the fact that all last year he refused to release the names of contributors to his campaign that had given less than $200? Of course, it wasn’t required but it was something McCain did to show he was serious about transparency, while Obama did not.Mother Jones hints at the real issue--continuing to use Bush to deflect criticism from his own administration.
"[Obama]'s putting former presidents on notice that if you want to continue a claim of executive privilege that [Obama] doesn't think is well-placed, you're going to have to go to court," says Anne Weismann, the chief counsel for Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW).
Get it? Obama decides which Bush records should be public or private--how convenient for him. What do you wanna bet that he reverse that order before he leaves office?
Comments (7)
You're watching the left hand, while the right hand is busy, busy, busy.
EXACTLY! I get an overwhelming sense of, "Hey! Look over there!" while lots of malicious people scurry around behind the scenes.
Posted by Sarah | January 22, 2009 10:09 AM
Posted on January 22, 2009 10:09
Maybe it is because my expectations for President Obama are quite a bit lower than yours but I'm happily surprised with most of these first changes. More openness and transparency in our government is a welcome change. Any step towards less pointless secrecy should be hailed.
I'm a little curious what concrete complaints you have about all of this. You are taking an unquestionably good change in presidential policy and casting it in a bad light because it is supposedly covering up something that might be bad that the president might be doing.
Is there any positive change the president could make that you wouldn't also characterize as an attempt at misdirection? Seems kind of a cheap shot...even from you.
Posted by Jeremy | January 22, 2009 10:38 AM
Posted on January 22, 2009 10:38
As a little exercise in critical thinking, lets start by examining your premises.
What exactly is the "pointless secrecy" the Bush administration was embroiled in? This is how bushsecrecy.org describes it.
Right now, you are probably nodding your head, but thinking critically, we must ask some hard questions about secrecy. Is "any" secrecy justified?
Assuming you are a reasonable and intelligent man, I expect you would answer yes. Alright then--how much secrecy is appropriate and what is inappropriate? It is appropriate to make the executive branch accountable to the legislative branch? It is possible that requests for information by the legislative branch might be politically motivated?
Are you in the position to judge which request for information was appropriate and which wasn't, or is your opinion based on notably uncritical a priori and received wisdom?
Us critical thinkers understand that politics is largely about fooling the rubes, as Stewart is discovering with Obama. Cheese on Italian food--delicious. Cheese on Chinese food? Disgusting. Same cheese of course.
I'll just ask you to consider some observable facts about Obama.
He is highly-discipline and controlled, and so political skillful that all sorts of political constituencies with diametrically-opposed interests, think that he's their guy.
He has a hammer-lock on the media, pre-clearing certain favored reporters and their questions, which he has publicly demanded that they not "waste". Can you imagine Bush doing this? It would have been reported like the holocaust.
Obama is politically successful because he is controlled, because he demands that everything around him be controlled. Recall the teleprompters at the rodeo? The media consistently characterize him as "cautious", so much so that he had the oath readministered (in private). Do you really think this guy is going to allow people to poke around willy-nilly in his business?
He's also big on symbolism--remember the Barackopolis? Are you naive enough to think that his executive orders to let the sunshine in are anything more than window dressing? Did you not note that Obama banned various "means of coercion" but reserved the right to reimplement them and reopen Guantanamo at his discretion? That's sleight of hand--not change, and your willingness to "feel good" about these illusions is what it is--the willing suspension of disbelief--the opposite of critical thought.
Posted by Mick Stockinger | January 22, 2009 1:04 PM
Posted on January 22, 2009 13:04
Mick,
Whether it "feels good" or not isn't the point to us critical thinkers!
FOIA requests for non-classified information should be easily fulfilled no matter who is in power...even if they are made for political purposes. If President Obama breaks up some of the gridlock in the FOIA process than good for him. He deserves his kudos. It would have made sense for you to be pleased at the idea that dirt about government activities might be more readily available now...especially since the evil Democrats own near total power/responsibility!
If you're right that this is all just a show and non-classified information is going to be continue to be restricted (a la Clinton and GWB) than I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. Like I said...I'm at least as cynical about the new president as I was about the old.
Remember Mick...critical thinking doesn't mean unquestioning Republican boosterism and automatic knee-jerk Democrat bashing.
We critical thinkers remember that if the discussion remains about partisan politics than both sides are succeeding at "fooling the rubes" more than ever before. We have also realized that if we can get anything good from either of the near absolutely corrupt political parties in power it should be hailed as a victory.
If this case is one of those examples we critical thinkers shouldn't bitch and moan about it just because it wasn't our favorite politicians doing the right thing.
Posted by Jeremy | January 22, 2009 4:11 PM
Posted on January 22, 2009 16:11
Also...one small compliment and criticism.
I loved the title of this post. It made me smile as soon as I read it. I haven't heard that metaphor before.
Your attempt to explain the title in your comment only spoiled the effect. It is as if you were trying to explain the punchline to a good joke...and in the process...well...you know.
Even when we, your commenters, are dumb as dirt your writing is better when you assume we aren't.
Posted by Jeremy | January 22, 2009 4:23 PM
Posted on January 22, 2009 16:23
I think you need to do some due diligence (as I have) on FOIA. The exemptions are numerous, formidable and effectively leave it completely in the discretion of the government about whether something CAN be released to a FOIA request. None of that has changed. In fact Obama can't change it--only Congress can. What he did change, and this is by no means certain, is the scope of executive privilege--stating that he, and not Bush, has the power to release Bush administration records. You've effectively been gulled by the media gush. This is the nature of modern politics--grand gestures with no real effect. Obama is proving to be very adept at it.
Let me also point out that critical thinking does not concern itself with issues of balance or fairness. In fact politics itself almost never concerns itself with the merit of the issues. As an example, consider the story (which I'll blog tomorrow) where Geithner, during his confirmation, acknowledged, with Schumer's prodding, that China is manipulating its currency. This is no revelation--we've know it for years, but Schumer wants to use the issue to penalize Chinese manufacturing, which by extension, gives some breathing space to American manufacturing. Sounds noble, but the reality is that Schumer is paying off the unions, and penalize millions of U.S. consumers who will have to pay much higher prices. "Good" in politics is a real bitch, because its always a political definition, not an absolute one. Its what's good for the politician, for the party and their contributors. 600 private jets during the inauguration--twice as many as for Bush. Do you honestly think all those billionaires are selflessly supporting Obama for the good of the country?
I have no skin in the political game. I care about the country and frankly I know for a fact that a lot of people want to sell us down the river. Most out of genuine ignorance, but the scary ones out of unbridled greed and self-interest.
Posted by Mick Stockinger | January 22, 2009 10:48 PM
Posted on January 22, 2009 22:48
You've hit on one of the ambiguities I'm wrestling with. I would prefer to just hand out a metaphor or cultural reference and leave it at that, but I've gotten a lot of feedback from people who say they have no idea what I'm talking about. We have people from all over the world who read this blog, and then there is the generation gap as well. I'll concede that I haven't found the happy medium.
Posted by Mick Stockinger | January 22, 2009 11:01 PM
Posted on January 22, 2009 23:01