The BBC reports that “President Barack Obama has confirmed military trials will restart for some Guantanamo inmates, months after announcing they would end.” The Wall Street Journal writes, “President Obama’s endorsements of Bush-Cheney antiterror policies are by now routine: for example, opposing the release of prisoner abuse photographs and support for indefinite detention for some detainees, and that’s just this week. More remarkable is White House creativity in portraying these U-turns as epic change. Witness yesterday’s announcement endorsing military commissions.” The Associated Press writes, “President Barack Obama said Friday he would reform and restart the military tribunals he once reviled for Guantanamo Bay detainees, jeopardizing his timetable for closing the prison by January and dismaying many supporters who suggested he was going back on campaign promises.”
It’s even on Russian TV.
Both liberals and conservatives had an a priori estimate of what Barack Obama was. Several months into his term it is possible to ask whether and how much they have revised their beliefs a posteriori. Is he more fiscally responsible? Stronger on national defense? Kinder and gentler? Less prone to invoke executive privilege? More tolerant of dissent? Has he made America safer? What did you hope for? What did he change?
embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5
With the President repudiating so many campaign promises the question is when is the tipping point? When will the left turn on Obama for not fulfilling their dreams? What happens when your Messiah does not meet expectations? I suspect not much will occur until a significant portion of the MSM see a greater benefit in attacking than supporting. Before that occurs they must also find a narrative that obsolves them for supporting Obama earlier but justifies guilt free attacks now and in the future. I suspect that scandals will accumulate until the MSM feel they have sufficient material to support their repudiation.
Until that occurs I’ll give The Who’s Tommy a few more spins.
Being president is HARD!!!!!!
A couple of years ago I predicted on my blog that if a Dem were elected President, before long reality would force him or her to do things they despised when Bush did them. Hopefully we will see many more such reality-encounters jolting TOTUS and changing his intended course. It won’t save us, but it should help us here and there.
We have always known that H is a man without a center. Narcissists are what they think others want them to be, until they’re not, which is when self-destructive potential increases.
On the other hand, we’ve seen this before. During the administration’s first at-bat, the mask of centrism and pragmatism prevailed, followed by a headfirst leap into the abyss of sociofacism.
Hard to tell if this is improved reality testing or another sociopathic bait and switch.
The left, however, will never repudiate H, Don. The affirmative action presidency has an unlimited handicap.
We have always known that H is a man without a center. Narcissists are what they think others want them to be, until they’re not, which is when self-destructive potential increases.
Exactly. Rocks don’t fall up when they are dropped just because you would prefer that to them falling down. Reality doesn’t care about what you would like it to be; it is very “outer directed.” It doesn’t give a damn about anyone’s feelings or their political careers. I suspect that our Dear Leader will learn something soon about how nasty a bitch Lady Reality can be.
I’m bad–in comment #5 that should be “inner directed” rather than “outer directed.”
Will Obama use military trials as a politically safe way to find detainees not guilty, and then release them?
davidt
I think that is close.
There are several “detainees”, such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, that he dare not release. Maybe 20 will go to tribunals, some will be found “guilty” and end up in permanent military jails in the continental US, some will be found “not guilty” to show that “see, we can be just!” and then the rest will be let go, and Guantanamo will be empty and closed next year.
So his base will swallow hard and most will say “OK”, and the reaction from the Right will of course be hostile to the Obama policy, which will make the Left rationalize this and defend it. In the end, it will be a “plus” in the eyes of the Media and opinion makers, in about a year or so. “Thoughtful” people will then say that he “handled it just right”. Of course if some of the many freed detainess then go back to a life of Jihad, well, they call that “collateral damage”, and most of that news will disappear down the Memory Hole.
And Obama will have cleansed our souls. Goody.
Obambi is flopping like a fish out of water.
0bambi: “I am against military tribunals.”
0bambi: “I am for military tribunals.”
0bambi: “I like to keep my options open. I am both for and against military tribunals.”
I think the two things that will soon be settled about Obama are 1) what his character is; 2) what he believes in. A man’s character is to a degree independent of his beliefs. You may disagree with someone, even vehemently, yet trust him. So with respect to character, the key question is, how comfortable would you be back to back in a fight with Obama? That question is, I suspect, much important to people who have trusted him than to his opponents.
Secondly, time will reveal what he truly believes in; whether they are in accord with his campaign promises and how far he will go to carry out his beliefs in the face of objections and even opposition. Before his election Obama was to a large extent a “blank sheet” upon which various people projected their hopes. He played up to it. Some people saw him as an economic savior; others thought he would end the engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still others saw him as a misunderstood centrist; a patriot with a funny name. All of those questions will be settled, one way or the other, in the coming months. That’s the good news.
The bad news is that they will be settled in the context of serious challenges. A possible Iranian nuclear breakout; the possibility of a pro-Hezbollah Lebanon; the possibility of a collapse in Pakistan, leading to difficulties in Iraq; the possibility of renewed trouble in Iraq; unrest in the Black Sea; the bankruptcy of entitlements like Social Security. The resolution of any of these, should they occur, and even whether they will occur, will hinge to a major extent on the character and beliefs of the man in the Oval Office.
Who did the voters elect? That estimate will be updated as events unfold.
wretchard [#10], at the risk of being labeled judgmental, I’ll answer your questions.
Character: on the private side, a fair enough individual. As much as I dislike him, I’ll grant that he loves his family and that he’s even-handed and supportive of his friends. On the public side, he’s devoid of any civic virtue I would even remotely find admirable. As to second question…let me answer it this way: What does he believes in? I submit he’s already made that apparent: his ‘private’ admissions to far-left donors, his past associations with family, mentors and friends. It’s all plain to see, if you have the courage to look.
The only variable is the ‘balance of power’: as long as he thinks the electorate is capable of ‘biting’ him, he will tread lightly, and dissemble. The minute he believes he has an ‘unbeatable’ hand, a whip appears in an eye-blink. And with the MSM tonguing his back-side, that ‘whip’ will be portrayed as a magic wand…labeled as ‘social justice.’
This pattern will continue until resistance is impossible…i.e.-all ‘unauthorized’ channels of information and discourse are gone, and the ‘uncertainty’ of the ballot box becomes a non-issue. The moment that point is reached, all will be revealed.
That’s when the ‘true’ Obama will stride forth…and won’t that be a special moment.
The trick is: will reality let him pursue his fantasy ‘America’.
The current odds are…no. The only question that remains is this: what will remain when all is said and done. Unfortunately, the aftermath won’t be pretty…unless a majority of the electorate wakes up, quickly.
That’s the sixty-four thousand dollar question.
Obama’s character is shifty, untrustworthy, and duplicitous EXCEPT to those he likes: which are people hostile to “White America” as he sees it.
Obama will keep his word to Chavez, Castro, Putin, and Ahmadinejad because he likes and trusts them implicitly. They have the same enemies and Obama sees them as Brothers in Arms.
Obama will not keep his word and will betray everyone else in a heartbeat.
Obama’s beliefs are a mixture of racist atagonism towards Whites and Traditional America, and debased Volk Marxism mixed with Black Supremacy. In other words, a low-budget Mussolini, in terms of what he actually believes in.
He’s likely to be tested first by the collapse of Pakistan (imminent) to the Taliban and the Taliban taking control of nuclear weapons and closing off the supply routes to the new “Alamo” aka Afghanistan.
Obama’s instincts and gut alliances to Americas enemies will be to inflict a massive defeat on “White America” to “teach us a lesson.” His backers will love that, but his enemies will not. It’s equivalent to Ceasar crossing the Rubicon with his troops. An American President willfully inflicting a massive defeat abroad and demanding surrender at home (to nuclear armed terrorists). Obama may dream of being Marshal Petain, but unlike France 1940 people will fight.
I think Obama is above all a political animal. He wants to keep power. Therefore, he must tread lightly on all war on terror issues. He would like see America brought down to merely one player in a multi polar world. However, if he allows the release of terrorist detainees and then we have a major terror attack, then his political opponents will have a field day, and his political power will be greatly reduced. So he has to walk a tightrope: play to his base, but be careful not to overdo it, lest he be overtaken by events.
Meet the new torturer, same as the old torturer.
Careful Wretchard, for posting a Russia Today video you will likely be denounced by La Russophobe as a Commie Russophile scumbag. But then again, maybe your readers can appreciate the irony that a Ron Paul supporting Tea Partyer now blogs for Russia Today. I think it was akin to Glenn Beck last January saying, “Putin? PUTIN?” in astonishment when the boss of the Kremlin warned America against excessive state interference in its economy. At least your readers can appreciate the irony instead of immediately denouncing me as unpatriotic for pointing this out. Other “conservative” blogs are not so open minded when it comes to hearing about anything other than doom and perfidity coming out of the once and future Evil Empire.