Obama restarts Guantanamo trials after 2 years

[Darth Wagtaros]

I think it will be interesting to see how his supporters justify this.

[Josephus]

I think it will be interesting to see how his supporters justify this.

He still has any?

[garbon]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146522/Obama-Weekly-Job-Approval-Retreats.aspx

[jimmy olsen]

I think it will be interesting to see how his supporters justify this.

They supported previous flip flops by doing the same, why would that change?

[Berkut]

Kind of trivial at this point to note that Hillary would have been preferable to HopeandChange.

Funny that all the "big" items relating to security that Obama got elected on turned out to be exactly as difficult and problematic as those who didn't drink the "Bushitler" kool-aid said they were, and Obamas "solutions" have universally not been implemented at all.

Iraq - He pretty much just copied and implemented the Bush/McCain plan in whole.
Afghanistan - Nothing changed here at all - but he gets to own the mess now. Well done.
Gitmo - This is the biggy. The left rode the Gitmo==warcrimes schtick for 4+ years, and since they got in charge, have done exactly NOTHING different from Bush. Of course, the reality is that it really is a damn hard problem without obvious solution other than what was already being done.

Is there a single major foreign policy initiative that Obama has done anything substantially different from his predecessors policies? I mean, you know, other than pressing the reset button with Russia that has worked out so well?

[Josephus]

I know that this is simplifying it but I always knew that Obama wouldn't change anything and the key reasoning is that the US President doesn't hold the real power when it comes to foreign affairs.
There's a group of people, not sure who they are, NSA or whatever who basically say, "Look Mr. President, we can't let you do that."

It's probably not as cut and dry as that, and I'm not pulling for an XFiles conspiracy; but I'm sure at the top secret level advisory meetings there are this group of people who have the power to convince the president on what course to follow.

[Berkut]

I know that this is simplifying it but I always knew that Obama wouldn't change anything and the key reasoning is that the US President doesn't hold the real power when it comes to foreign affairs.
There's a group of people, not sure who they are, NSA or whatever who basically say, "Look Mr. President, we can't let you do that."

It's probably not as cut and dry as that, and I'm not pulling for an XFiles conspiracy; but I'm sure at the top secret level advisory meetings there are this group of people who have the power to convince the president on what course to follow.

Well, I think there is probably a group of professional who once they explain the reality to the President the president goes "Gee, I guess maybe the former president was not actually insane and bent on crippling America!"

See: Kennedy/Eisenhower missile gap.

[Caliga]

FWIW, I doubt Obama personally bought into the "Bushitler" thing anyway, but of course that's the sort of nonsense he had to pander to in order to win his primary.

[Sheilbh]

Iraq - He pretty much just copied and implemented the Bush/McCain plan in whole.
Afghanistan - Nothing changed here at all - but he gets to own the mess now. Well done.

But I remember arguing during the election that Obama and McCain had next to no policy difference on these issues.  You and others disagreed, but that's been there all along.

Gitmo - This is the biggy. The left rode the Gitmo==warcrimes schtick for 4+ years, and since they got in charge, have done exactly NOTHING different from Bush. Of course, the reality is that it really is a damn hard problem without obvious solution other than what was already being done.

This is fair and I feel the civil libertarians are the one group who can genuinely claim to have been betrayed by Obama.  The rest are moaners or didn't pay enough attention to what was actually being said.

Is there a single major foreign policy initiative that Obama has done anything substantially different from his predecessors policies? I mean, you know, other than pressing the reset button with Russia that has worked out so well?

To be fair Russia policy and anti-nuclear has been successful, but it's been more general.  Eastern European-Russian relations have generally thawed for example which eases the tension more generally. 

There's continuity but I'd say that's down to Bush moving to a position that's close to Obama and the centrist left rather than anything else.  The difference between Bush in 2004 and Bush at the end of his term is, basically, Rumsfeld vs Gates.  I've always said, and I think many on the left would agree, that Bush was a dreadful strong President with great poll ratings and a Republican congress but a rather good weak President when he'd lost those.  Bush from 2006 was pretty decent - I think because he started calling his dad again.

[The Minsky Moment]

Gitmo - This is the biggy. The left rode the Gitmo==warcrimes schtick for 4+ years, and since they got in charge, have done exactly NOTHING different from Bush. Of course, the reality is that it really is a damn hard problem without obvious solution other than what was already being done.

That is sort of true, but incomplete.  The Obama policy on Gitmo has substantial continuity with the Bush policy as it evolved towards the end of his second term.  However, the Bush policy only got to that point after trying other more outrageous things and getting shot down a couple times by the Supreme Court.  The policy was basically forced upon him, whereas Obama would have followed it from the start out of conviction.

I do concede the broader point that there is no real difference between what Obama has done and what McCain likely would have done.

[Admiral Yi]

But I remember arguing during the election that Obama and McCain had next to no policy difference on these issues.  You and others disagreed, but that's been there all along.

This is not quite true.  Obama is on record as voting to withdraw US troops from Iraq *before* teh surge began.

Obama escaped having to make a truly unpleasant choice on Iraq thanks to the success of Bush's policies.

[The Minsky Moment]

Obama escaped having to make a truly unpleasant choice on Iraq thanks to the success of Bush's McCain's policies foisted on Bush after Rumsfeld was run out of town on a rail

Fixed.

[Admiral Yi]

I would also like to point out that part of the reset button with Russia appears to have been de facto recognition of the annexation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

[Sheilbh]

This is not quite true.  Obama is on record as voting to withdraw US troops from Iraq *before* teh surge began.

But that's not really relevant to what you do after 2009.

Obama escaped having to make a truly unpleasant choice on Iraq thanks to the success of Bush's policies.

McCain and Obama had the same policy because of the SOFA Bush signed with Iraq.  The rest was window dressing.

On the Russian side of the reset they've signed up to a seemingly pretty successful and very strong sanctions regime on Iran.  But how is that different from what Bush or McCain would have done?  Were you going to 'liberate' them or issue strongly worded statements (which Bush didn't) on Georgian indpendence day? 

[derspiess]

This is fair and I feel the civil libertarians are the one group who can genuinely claim to have been betrayed by Obama.  The rest are moaners or didn't pay enough attention to what was actually being said.

You say that as if it's some small faction.  I'd say a rather sizable chunk of Obama supporters wanted Gitmo shut down.