Obama....Is the Messiah Complex over?

[Josephus]

Toronto Star op ed piece, points out that the glory days of Obama are over. That he's reversed his opinions on many things.

I've always felt personally that Obama was always a wolf in sheep's clothing; and that even if he was the incarnation of Jesus, the American political non-democratic "suck my cock or I won't suck yours" system would wear him down in minutes.

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/638396

The saint is no longer quite so saintly. Barack Obama began his presidency promising a sea change in the way America handles civil liberties. Now, four months later, and after a masterful – if unconvincing – attempt this week to explain his contradictions, he's shown that he's till an old-time Chicago pol.

Willing to wheel, willing to deal and – when the going gets tough – willing to retreat.

Americans have already figured out that Obama is a mere mortal. But to the star-struck world outside, his abrupt reversal on the use of Guantanamo Bay military commissions is a stark reminder that the new U.S. president is more man than god.

He's also more like George W. Bush than either would care to admit.

As a candidate for the presidency, few were harder on military commissions than Obama. Set up by Bush to try alleged terrorists imprisoned at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay prison camp, they were designed to produce guilty verdicts.

Evidence gained under torture or hearsay was permitted. The usual rules governing civilian trials and even military courts martial were eliminated.

In the unlikely event that a defendant might be acquitted, the government reserved the right to keep him imprisoned anyway.

American military lawyers dismissed them as kangaroo courts. Obama called them an "enormous failure."

One of his first acts upon taking office was to indefinitely suspend the commissions – including the one set to try Canadian Omar Khadr.

Obama talked instead of trying terror suspects in the normal U.S. court system, a path he still says he'd like to follow whenever possible.

But now he says the commissions aren't that bad. In a speech Thursday, he noted that they have a long and honourable history dating back to the U.S. revolutionary war and that, with just a bit of tweaking, these ones too should be just fine – particularly in cases where there is not enough evidence to convince a civilian judge of a defendant's guilt.

Evidence explicitly obtained under torture will be banned. But evidence obtained through hearsay from foreign intelligence agencies (including those that routinely use torture) will be permitted.

Defendants will be free to choose their own lawyers – as long as these lawyers are serving members of the U.S. armed forces.

Yet there will be some terror suspects against whom there is not enough plausible evidence for even a military commission.

These people, Obama said, will simply continue to be imprisoned indefinitely – somewhere – without any kind of trial at all.

Why the change of heart? It seems that Obama, like Bush, is finding that many Americans don't much care about civil liberties – particularly the civil liberties of those they've been told are dangerous terrorists.

Obama's promise to close Guantanamo, while hailed by civil libertarians, is also coming under attack. In Congress, he suffered an embarrassing setback this week when both Democrats and Republicans voted against the idea.

Americans fear that if the prison camp is closed, some of its 240 inmates, many of whom can't return to their homelands for fear of persecution, might be resettled in the U.S.

And so Obama is stuck. He had promised open government and a return to constitutional practices. Now he finds openness and constitutionality are politically difficult and, at times, inconvenient.

He had agreed to release more photos that show the abuse of prisoners by American soldiers. Now, under attack from the right, he's reversed himself.

Releasing the photos might endanger U.S. troops, he has explained.

He boasts about his decision to ban torture by government interrogators. But read the fine print: He would still permit the use of so-called extraordinary rendition – sending prisoners to be tortured in other countries.

And, as Central Intelligence Agency chief Leon Panetta told a Congressional committee this year, Obama has left open the possibility of authorizing harsher, unspecified interrogation techniques.

Obama once opposed Bush's use of domestic wiretaps as an unnecessary infringement on civil liberties. He now happily uses those same wiretaps.

As a senator, Obama staunchly fought Bush's attempt to forge a free trade deal with Colombia because of that nation's human-rights abuses. He now supports the deal and has ordered his trade representative to make it happen.

None of this means that Obama is a Bush clone. The new president at least understands the civil rights requirements of the U.S. Constitution. He's also more willing than Bush to spread the responsibility – and blame – to Congress and the courts when he chooses to curtail these rights.

But Obama's about-faces, dekes and backflips are reminders that he too operates within the real constraints of American politics – a fearful population suspicious of the outside world coupled with powerful national security institutions that want to hang on to the power they've accumulated since 9/11.

And if that requires the sacrifice of a few Muslim foreigners imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, then so be it. In the world of Chicago politics, this is known as a necessary compromise.

[CountDeMoney]

Toronto Star op ed piece, points out that the glory days of Obama are over. That he's reversed his opinions on many things.

I enjoy the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the uberlefties over Obama exercising those long-lost American political traditions known as "deliberation" and "compromise".

[Admiral Yi]

One would think that Canadians in particular would not be too surprised by this.

[Faeelin]

Toronto Star op ed piece, points out that the glory days of Obama are over. That he's reversed his opinions on many things.

I enjoy the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the uberlefties over Obama exercising those long-lost American political traditions known as "deliberation" and "compromise".

On the other hand, there are some who would say that comprosing over human rights isn't part of the American tradition.

And it ain't like the dude's gonna try to compromise on healthcare or his cap and trade bill, after all.

[Admiral Yi]

And it ain't like the dude's gonna try to compromise on healthcare or his cap and trade bill, after all.

Sarcasm, right?

[Faeelin]

And it ain't like the dude's gonna try to compromise on healthcare or his cap and trade bill, after all.

Sarcasm, right?

I think he might end up having to, but right now it doesn't seem like the Democrats are going to listen to the Republican stance on these.

[Admiral Yi]

I think he might end up having to, but right now it doesn't seem like the Democrats are going to listen to the Republican stance on these.

Obama doesn't compromise with the Republican party, he compromises with public opinion.

[CountDeMoney]

On the other hand, there are some who would say that comprosing over human rights isn't part of the American tradition.

Meh.

[Martinus]

On the other hand, there are some who would say that comprosing over human rights isn't part of the American tradition.

Meh.

It's funny to contrast your posts in this thread with your signature.

[Eddie Teach]

It's funny to contrast your posts in this thread with your signature.

It's the Constitution he's not so keen on.

[CountDeMoney]

On the other hand, there are some who would say that comprosing over human rights isn't part of the American tradition.

Meh.

It's funny to contrast your posts in this thread with your signature.

The DoI has absolutely nothing to do with Islamotards.

[Savonarola]

Judging by the reaction to Obama's recent speech on National Security and Cheney's speech to the American Enterprise Institute in both the local papers and on MSNBC I think there still are a large number of people who still believe in the Obamessiah.  It's good to see that the ACLU and the foreign papers are starting to become disenchanted with him; but I think he'll have a strong audience in middle America for some time to come.  The reason, at least in part, for this is that no one since Reagan has been able to deliver the Yankee-Doodle-Do-Or-Die speech as well as Barack.  Take this excerpt from his speech:

But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall -- the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -- these are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.

Dynamite stuff, and delivered flawlessly.  He can make a strong emotional appeal and gloss over that he's enacting policies that he was critical of a year ago.

[Josephus]

Dynamite stuff, and delivered flawlessly.  He can make a strong emotional appeal and gloss over that he's enacting policies that he was critical of a year ago.

That is certainly his strength. Rhetoric. And I'm a leftie.  But I never fell for his charm.

If I were to write an essay, my thesis would be this: America is the anti-thesis of democracy. In truth there are two political parties. One black, the other a dark shade of blue. And that is the extent of the political spectrum. America calling itself a democracy is no different than East Germany calling itself the Democatic German Republic.  America is a hair's breath away from a one-party state. It gives the illusion of there being a multi-party democracy by holding elections every four years. Even North Korea holds elections.

In truth though, nothing can change that basic fundemental that it is the same people, or more accurately, the same influence, that runs the country; no matter who's in power.

[jimmy olsen]

Dynamite stuff, and delivered flawlessly.  He can make a strong emotional appeal and gloss over that he's enacting policies that he was critical of a year ago.

If I were to write an essay, my thesis would be this: America is the anti-thesis of democracy. In truth there are two political parties. One black, the other a dark shade of blue. And that is the extent of the political spectrum. America calling itself a democracy is no different than East Germany calling itself the Democatic German Republic.  America is a hair's breath away from a one-party state. It gives the illusion of there being a multi-party democracy by holding elections every four years. Even North Korea holds elections.

In truth though, nothing can change that basic fundemental that it is the same people, or more accurately, the same influence, that runs the country; no matter who's in power.

You're absolute crackers, a complete wackjob, whose depths of ignorance I never guessed until this moment.

[Admiral Yi]

That's hogwash.  Parliamentary demoracies  in which 50% +1 give the ruling party dictatorial powers are one form of democracy.  The US system with checks and balances is another.