NYT: Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's

NYT: Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's

www.msnbc.msn.com

WASHINGTON - Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush ’s “war on terrorism,” the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda .

In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A. ’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 18-2-2009 by TheDarkNight]

Why doesn't this not surprise me? Does it not surprise you?

I think it was Thomas Jefferson that stated: if you see ongoing repressions that last beyond one administration and are carried over into another (many of the same policies), especially if that new administration is of a new party, that is indication of a conspiracy.

Correct me if I'm wrong for I would really like to know who said this.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by TheDarkNight


Dunno who it is you are referring to that talked about conspiracy between one political party and another, but... this was predicted. Many ATS members predicted that the Obama administration would be identical to that of Bush's....

Funny how a mainstream source is saying this, and I am not one bit surprised. More disappointed, than anything else.

So much for "change", eh?

Its going to look the same because bush was doing the best he could. The only difference is now the media wont be there to pound him daily based on politics, which is what happened. Bush was painted as evil and stupid, when the fact is he was doing the right thing that now Obama will also have to do. Of course, the media will now spin it positive.

Originally posted by Kyūzō
Of course, the media will now spin it positive.

Of course they will. And if you try to point out that it's what Bush did or would have done, you'll be an Obama-basher.

Duuurrrrrr


Hey, did you hear, since Afganistan has been troublesome of late Obama is sending a surge of troops there? Some 17,000.

So we have a continuation of the Bush war on terror verbatim and a continuation of the Bush nationalization of industry via these "bailouts" verbatim.

When did we get rid of Bush again?

Chope we can believe in.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Pfft. Nothing in the post was correct.

1) Obama has ALWAYS been going to Afghanistan.

2) Rendition is not a Bush policy. It's a policy of all presidents in recent history.

3) Rendition does not change Obama's stance on torture.

4) The bail outs were not "Bush's", they were Congress'.

5) This is a stimulus package, not a "bailout".

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
Obama has ALWAYS been going to Afghanistan.

I thought Obama said he had ALWAYS been against the war itself.

The bail outs were not "Bush's", they were Congress'.

Nice of you to admit that, but most people don't see it that way. They are too busy bashing the man for no real reason.

This is a stimulus package, not a "bailout".

No it isn't.

The only thing this bill stimulates is the pockets of the Washington elite and their friends.

They're trying to bail us out of our current situation at the expense of our children and grandchildren.

reply to post by Irish M1ck

Obama's stance on torture.

Do you actually believe that Obama transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone will not end up in them being tortured?

IMO that is the reason they are being transferred there. I don't really buy his stance on torture if he willing to transfer prisoners to these type of places.

Originally posted by nyk537
I thought Obama said he had ALWAYS been against the war itself.

Nope!

He even said while he was campaigning that he wanted to see more troops on the ground in Afghanistan!

Obama policy towards Pakistan and Afghanistan

Thursday, March 20, 2008
******SKIP******
It is not too late to prevail in Afghanistan. But we cannot prevail until we reduce our commitment in Iraq, which will allow us to do what I called for last August – providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts in Afghanistan.

And even a year before that, ...

Remarks of Senator Obama: The War We Need to Win

Washington, DC | August 01, 2007
******SKIP******
I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan. But I said I could not support "a dumb war, a rash war" in Iraq. I worried about a " U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences" in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we "finish the fight with bin Ladin and al Qaeda."
******SKIP******
It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan

[edit on 2/18/2009 by Keyhole]

reply to post by nyk537


Obama has always been against the Iraq war, but has consistantly stated that he wants to surge troops in Afghanistan.

And as for the stimulus package... well, that's a personal opinion. I mean, clearly it is meant to stimulate. I have this question:

As a republican, why do you find these so offensive? Is it not supply-side economics to be forking over free cash to businesses (I mean with no strings attached).

Personally, as a democrat, I'd rather this money go straight to the people (demand-side). But, as long as there are no real tangible strings to these businesses (and I don't think there are in this package), then it should be right up most conservative's alley.

reply to post by jam321


If every president that has used it before him tortured also... then I guess so. I have not seen evidence of this, however.

reply to post by LostNemesis


Yeah...I agree. I never expected to see any real change, just the insignificant. But, that's my point. If they are supposedly two opposite sides of an ideology yet they continue the same policies, especially when the other was voted out for those policies (policies being unpopular) it may establish evidence of a hidden conspiracy.

Who they are working for and what they are working towards, we pretty much know. But does the public? Not so much...and that was my second reason for the post. You are right. It is surprising the MSM has picked up on this. Actually, I may think it more of a conspiracy if they chose not to address this issue of compliance (no change) between the two parties policies, domestic and foreign. But maybe it's a PR stunt to add luke warm credibility to a struggling MSN without going into the conspiratorial questions it hints at?

I'm a bit puzzled

Originally posted by TheDarkNight


Why does this not surprise me? Does it not surprise you?

I think it was Thomas Jefferson that stated: if you see ongoing repressions that last beyond one administration and are carried over into another (many of the same policies), especially if that new administration is of a new party, that is indication of a conspiracy.

Correct me if I'm wrong for I would really like to know who said this.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Sorry, I hit the reply button here when I meant to hit the *edit* button. I guess they take that option away after a day.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by TheDarkNight]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
5) This is a stimulus package, not a "bailout".

It's a bail out of the economy ... and it won't work.
Read 'Atlas Shrugged'. Its' all there. Really.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Whatever.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
Obama has always been against the Iraq war,

Actually that's not true. Obama goes around saying that, and a lot of people think that because of what Obama now says, but that's not true.

Story Here

During the 2004 Democratic Party convention, Obama declined to criticize the party's presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, for having voted for the war, saying: "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made."

The next day, Obama told the Chicago Tribune: "There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage."

Sorry Irish M1ck .. I know you are just going by what Obama says now .. but he really wasn't 'always against the war'. That's just what his spinmiesters want you to think.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
Personally, as a democrat, I'd rather this money go straight to the people (demand-side).

I agree with you. The people could do a better job stimulating the economy with the bailout (stimulus) money then the programs that the money are going to can. So I agree with ya' on that.

But the conservative in me says that I'd rather see NO MONEY given out and instead have a huge tax cut along with a huge cut in overseas spending (cut nation building, foreign aid, etc).

The Ron Paul fix.

reply to post by Irish M1ck

Obama has always been against the Iraq war

Yeah, but he wasn't in a position to vote. If he had been,. it might have been different. Its all talk really. A lot of democrats voted for it based on what they knew from the previous administration. I see no reason why Obama would have been any different if he were privy to everything they knew.

Originally posted by Kyūzō
Its going to look the same because bush was doing the best he could. The only difference is now the media wont be there to pound him daily based on politics, which is what happened. Bush was painted as evil and stupid, when the fact is he was doing the right thing that now Obama will also have to do. Of course, the media will now spin it positive.

Star for you! I think the reason it seems identical to the Bush era way of doing things is maybe the current administration, now in the driver's seat and privy to certain intelligence and other information, realizes that the way you say you will carry things out on the campaign trail and the way things must be carried out in office, order to achieve actual victory, are two totally separate things.

I think Obama realizes these things have to be done in order to get the job done. Maybe he now realizes that Bush's methods and those of his cabinet weren't so wrong after all. Not unless you actually want to throw the country away, that is.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Nice post FF. I agree with both of you (more so with you) because our current situation is a product of corruption within the system. A stimulus given directly to the people in conjunction with a tax cut is by far the most effective and ethical way (don't forget, it is our money) of turning the ship around. This stimulus bill (bailout) will prolong this recession and continues to reward corruption by protecting against insolvency. In fact, it may turn our economy into a real depression, which I believe is part of the Zionist NWO plan to weaken the middle class to destitution whereby they will see the NWO plan of "world government" as a saving grace.

The sad truth is: the Bush and Obama administrations have both rewarded corruption; hence, they are unwittingly part of a conspiracy.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by TheDarkNight]