It's Fair To Be Critical, But To Say "There's No Difference Between Obama and Bush"

[Yavin4]

is highly inaccurate and emotionally manipulating. Also, it's the exact kind of emotional hyperbole that Glenn Beck and the right wing use to attract viewers and listeners.

You may not like that there's no P.O., but Bush did nothing to reform the health care industry at all for 8 years. You may not like financial reform, but Bush did absolutely nothing to reform Wall Street.

I could go on and on.

[onehandle]

1. 'Bush and Gore are exactly the same.'

And those who believed that did wonders for America in 2000.

[Yavin4]

3. If There Was A President Gore

There would not have been a BP disaster.

[Wilms]

2. Explain the difference on torture, wiretapping, extrodinary rendition...ya know...

...all the awkward subjects.

[Yavin4]

5. Here You Go

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28574408/

[frylock]

Obama names intel picks, vows no torture..

updated 1/9/2009 4:39:23 PM ET

wow! what was obama's vow about gitmo?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

6. Do you have proof that the Obama administration is sanctioning torture and illegal wiretapping? n/t

[Yavin4]

9. Of Course They Don't Have Evidence

Because they're being manipulated with the same means that the Right manipulates its audience.

[frylock]

12. ACLU Report: Obama Continuing Bush-Era Torture Policies

August 11, 2010 | After being voted into office on promises that included undoing abuses carried out under the Bush administration - promises to protect privacy, to end government-sanctioned torture and rendition programs and to end the use of military commissions for non-enemy combatants - President Obama's administration is proving it is far easier to toe the line than buck a trend.

According to a report by the ACLU, the current White House has not just failed to meaningfully follow through on its promises, but has also taken abusive policies, and, as shown in the case of targeted and interminable detentions, eroded civil rights to unprecedented levels.

<more>

http://www.alternet.org/news/147808/aclu_report%3A_obama_continuing_bush-era_torture_policies

[ProSense]

22. Here is what the ACLU stated

<...>

This report examines the Obama administration’s record to date on a range of national security policies that implicate human rights and civil liberties. It concludes that the administration has taken positive steps and made genuine progress in some areas. Perhaps most notably, the administration’s release of Justice Department memoranda that purported to authorize the Bush administration’s torture regime, as well as a CIA report describing how even those lax limits were exceeded, evinced a commitment to transparency of truly historic significance, and the administration deserves high praise for making those critical documents available for public scrutiny. Regrettably, in a pattern that has repeated itself throughout the administration’s first eighteen months, a significant achievement was followed by a step back: the administration reversed its decision to comply with a court decision ordering the release of photos depicting the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it supported legislation granting the Secretary of Defense unprecedented authority to conceal evidence of misconduct.

Similarly, the administration’s admirable commitment to dismantle the Guantánamo prison has been undermined by its unwillingness to dismantle the legal architecture of the Bush-era detention regime: the Obama administration has continued to assert the authority to detain militarily, without charge or trial, Guantánamo detainees (and others) captured far from any conventional battlefield, and there is a genuine danger that the administration will close the prison but enshrine the principle of widespread military detention without trial. Equally disappointing, the administration’s unequivocal prohibition against torture has been fundamentally weakened by its continuation of the Bush administration’s efforts to stymie meaningful accountability: the administration has adopted the same sweeping theory of “state secrets” to prevent torture victims from seeking justice and compensation in U.S. courts, and the President himself has publicly opposed criminal investigations of the architects of the torture regime.

<...>

In his first days in office, President Obama unambiguously rejected this legacy. In an executive order, President Obama categorically disavowed torture and directed that all prisoners in U.S. custody be afforded the protection of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (in compliance with the Supreme Court’s 2006 ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld); that all interrogations of prisoners in U.S. custody conform to the Army Field Manual; that the CIA close its secret prisons and that the International Committee of the Red Cross be promptly notified of any person detained by the United States.10 When the administration released the Bush administration’s torture memos in April 2009, the Justice Department withdrew all of the legal memos that had undergirded the Bush administration’s torture program,11 and in a public statement President Obama declared:

I prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques by the United States because they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer. Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation
are already a thing of the past.12

The decision to dismantle the Bush administration’s torture program was a crucial one, not just for the United States but for the world. President Obama deserves credit for the decision, and for his vigorous defense of it. But while the administration has disavowed torture, it has made little effort to hold accountable those who authorized it. In recent years, many other countries—including some of America’s closest allies, like the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, and Canada—have begun to examine their responsibility for the abuse and torture of prisoners in U.S. custody. The United States is increasingly isolated in its unwillingness to investigate the roots of the torture program, its refusal to compensate torture survivors, and its failure to hold accountable the senior government officials who authorized interrogators to use torture.

<...>

PDF of the ACLU July 2010 Report

Failing to try the Bush administration is not continuing Bush's torture policies.

[phleshdef]

26. The ACLU praised the President for ensuring that we do not torture.

They only criticized him basically for not trying to prosecute the last administration and for not releasing photos.

[katandmoon]

14. Torture? The Obama administration has its own assassination program

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations

[ProSense]

24. BS. n/t

[Wilms]

29. B.S. is a response? Or just one of your mantras?

Care to step up and respond intelligently and honestly?

[katandmoon]

32. Tell that to the Bush Administration-lovin' Obama administration!

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

35. From a NY Times article that was cited in the article you linked.

..."Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said."...

"But the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, told a House hearing in February that such a step was possible. “We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community,” he said. “If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.” He did not name Mr. Awlaki as a target."...

"As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford."...


If they can capture this guy fine. Otherwise, he's Hellfire fodder as far as I'm concerned. He's a traitor and a threat. He knows the score. He can give himself up anytime he wants if he thinks he got a case.

[impik]

18. Do you one shred of evidence that there's torture under Obama?

And please spear me links to other professional left blogs.

[Wilms]

28. I won't spear you.

But there's enough posted already to challenge your belief.

[dkf]

4. You could say there is no difference between Bush and Obama on certain policies though.

Obama has certainly continued a number of policies we disagree with.

[Yavin4]

8. There's Always Going To Be Some Overlap

Afghanistan is an example, but the phrase "There's No Difference..." implies that ALL of the Obama's policies are exactly the same as Bush's which is highly manipulative and not reflective of a supposed higher intellect.

I thought that people on the Left could not be manipulated as easy as people on the Right.

[dkf]

10. It could be a matter of parsing though.

Sounds to me like Gibbs is editing out the ending that describes where they are the same.

[Yavin4]

11. It's Not Parsing. It's Manipulation

For example, Matt Taibi on financial reform loves to write, "Democrats didn't do this or that".

Leaving out the fact that some Dems did want to do what he wanted done on financial reform. It's just that they had to compromise in order to get anything done.

That's manipulative writing.

[dkf]

15. You could take my original response that "there is no difference between

Bush and Obama on certain issues", quote me as saying "there is no difference on Bush and Obama" then say that I believe they are exactly the same inferring that I believe this on all policies and then make me out to be an extreme lefty.

I honestly think they are trying to make the left of the party feel like they are crazy and need to be made to understand that we should abandon our goals for theirs.

[bigmonkey]

21. People on the Left are not as sucsceptible, but some on the Left prefer that same rhetorical style.

The rhetorical style that exaggerates the problems, supposedly to bring greater attention to them. Frankly, although it may work for some of the intended audience, my feeling is that it has a greater negative effect than positive. Only a small percentage of people are motivated to get on task by "the sky is falling" rhetoric, but folks who (seemingly) are motivated by it themselves shout it louder and louder by the day. I wish they would consider whether, on the balance, they are helping or hurting. They see that "introspection" as weakness, I'm afraid.

It's like they're emotionally hard-of-hearing, and start shouting themselves.

[jenmito]

7. K&R. And Gibbs was NOT attacking the liberal base. He was voicing his frustration with

those liberal media personalities who don't ever seem to give Obama credit for things he's accomplished (which improve the lives of all those suffering) yet criticize him ad nauseum, talking as if he is no better than Bush.

[CakeGrrl]

31. I've made this point several times. People are dug in and don't want to hear it

Fingers in the ears, "lalalalalalalaaaaaaa..."

It's bizarre to see so many willfully ignore this distinction.

[jenmito]

36. Yup...

they seem to be going out of their way to not get what he really said. Ed Schultz is just as bad as those here on DU.

[zipplewrath]

13. Um, Medicare Part D

"Bush did nothing to reform the health care industry at all for 8 years"

People keep saying this, but it was the GOP that passed Part D. I'm not saying I love it, but they did a major "reform" and you'll note that the dems haven't exactly been running to repeal it. Obama even basically kept the prohibition against drug price negotiation intact.

And Bush passed TARP remember (with a democratic congress' help).

I'm not saying that Bush = Obama, but I think you're far too focused on the hyperbole and not looking at the underlying criticism. On many issues, the difference isn't as great as you want it to be. The ACLU came out just last week with a long list of issues upon which Obama is either allowing Bush policies to continue, or is making them a permanent feature of our government.

Address the issue and stop focusing on the hyperbole. Hyperbole by definition is exaggeration.

[Aramchek]

16. the "underlying criticism" is based on extreme emotionality and short-sightedness

[zipplewrath]

17. You mean they have no valid criticisms at all?

It's not valid to criticize his Afghan policy, or his decision to execute Bush's SOFA? You mean his Gitmo policies are above criticism? His choice to not prosecute torturers? The ACLU has no valid criticism at all?

[impik]

19. It's okay, you'll get Bush back in two years

And you won't see any difference, because they're the same, of course.

[30rock]

20. Did anyone on cable say Obama=Bush generally speaking?

Or only in certain policy areas?

[TheKentuckian]

23. They are extrapolating based off of legitimate concerns that rightly invite the comparisons

in the usual fruitless effort to defend the indefensible

[Yavin4]

25. Again with the manipulative language

I never mentioned anyone on cable saying anything. My OP is directed to those that say Obama is the same as Bush no matter where they say it.

[philly_bob]

30. (Obama=Bush) = Straw Man

from Wikipedia: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."

It is ridiculous to believe Obama=Bush. It not so ridiculous to differ with Obama Administration policies on health care, education, torture, etc.

Gibbs' defenders here argue that Gibb's' policy only applies to those who believe Obama=Bush. But Gibbs' original statement applied much more widely, to those who wanted universal health care or to reduce military budget, among others.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

33. Exactly.

Unfortunately, some people will take that to mean we have to worship Obama. :crazy:

[ZombieHorde]

34. Well stated and recommended. nt