Glenn Greenwald: "The most bizarre defense of Obama's escalation"

[freddie mertz]

"Obama's Exceedingly Familiar Justifications for Escalation
by Glenn Greenwald


In order to prepare Americans for Obama's Afghanistan escalation speech tonight at West Point (at least he's not wearing a fighter pilot costume), White House officials have been dispatched to speak to the media (anonymously, of course) to preview all of the new and exciting aspects of the President's plan. As a result, media accounts are filled with claims that there are major changes ordered by Obama that will transform our approach there.

But to anyone with a memory that extends back for more than a few weeks, all of this seems anything but new. In December, 2007, George Bush delivered a speech to the nation announcing his escalation in Iraq -- that one only 20,000 troops, compared to the 30,000-40,000 Obama has ordered for Afghanistan. It's worthwhile to compare what Obama officials are excitedly featuring as new and innovative ideas with what Bush said; I'm not comparing the Iraq and Afghan escalations: only the rhetoric used to justify them.....

The most bizarre defense of Obama's escalation is also one of the most common: since he promised during the campaign to escalate in Afghanistan, it's unfair to criticize him for it now -- as though policies which are advocated during a campaign are subsequently immunized from criticism. For those invoking this defense: in 2004, Bush ran for re-election by vowing to prosecute the war in Iraq, keep Guantanamo opened, and privatize Social Security. When he won and then did those things (or tried to), did you refrain from criticizing those policies on the ground that he promised to do them during the campaign? I highly doubt it."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/01-4

[QC]

1. If he wants to see bizarre, he needs to hang around here for a while.

Some of what we have seen posted these past few days is downright sociopathic.

[Lord Helmet]

2. It's not an excuse or a defense, it's simply a fact being used to muddy the waters of opinion.

[TwilightGardener]

3. "In 2004, Bush ran for re-election by vowing to prosecute the war in Iraq, keep

Guantanamo opened, and privatize Social Security"--yep, which is why I didn't vote for him, and why I wasn't suddenly dismayed at or felt betrayed by his behavior in office.

[freddie mertz]

4. But, but he PROMISED to do those things!

Which would seem to make it A-OK, at least they some folks seem to reckon it.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Doesn't make it OK, just makes it a little less credible to throw a fit over

a plan you endorsed with your vote.

[freddie mertz]

7. But that is a mischaracterization.

I voted on other issues, like repealing DOMA and DADT.

And not taxing health benefits as part of HCR reform.

How am I doing on those?

Not so good.

Meanwhile, since the election we have had the stolen election in Afghanistan and other revelations of corruption and failure.

So things have changed.

True, I never supported the escalation in the first place, but I am even more opposed to it now.

[karynnj]

6. Bush actually called Kerry a liar when Kerry said that Bush was intending to privatize SS

I agree with him that as a defense saying that he would do it does not not make it better than it is. There is one difference that he ignores - the audience he is speaking to likely voted for Obama (possibly in spite of that promise) and against Bush. We didn't like Bush's policies when he was campaigning or afterward. With Obama, some of us may have repeated his promises.

However, the real reason it is a bad idea is that it is as bad as the idea that you should never change your position.

[LittleBlue]

8. Good read. There is a similar cult of personality developing for Obama that we've seen for Bush

Greenwald nailed the similarities, and it's quite disappointing. The anti-war left has been ignored again.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. That's not a defense of the escalation.

It's a counter to the "this isn't what I voted for" and "this isn't change" and "Obama's going back on his word" that all the pouters are bullshitting about.

[freddie mertz]

10. Which is an attempt to discredit voices in opposition.

We get it, y' see.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. No, it's only pointing out how the opposition discredits themselves.

They only have themselves to blame for their incompetence and ignorance.

[Qutzupalotl]

12. When did Bush say he was going to privatize SS?

I thought it was only after the election of 2004. He claimed he had "political capital" and aimed to spend it. People were alarmed by that, since the big issues during the campaign were gay marriage and the wars. Most people wondered where the hell this issue came from, and rightly so. So I think Greenwald's point is a little off base.

[IndianaGreen]

13. K&R

Same lies!

:kick: