Okay, anyone disappointed in Obama so far?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, can we agree that the most important elements of the economic recovery plan were put in place before Obama was elected?

Obama haters can't have it both ways. You say it wasn't his fault, and how you say the problem AND the solution came before he was elected. There is a clear failure of temporal logic here!

[Anonymous]

er. say it WAS his fault.

[Anonymous]

This thread has been going on for so long that I can't recall if I ever answered the original question. Looking back through the thread I am no longer even sure whether some of the responses are mine or just things I agree with. FWIW, my answer is that I am disappointed. Although I thought from the start that he is a pragmatist rather than a liberal, although I think he is a vast improvement over GWB, and although I have not given up hope yet, nevertheless I am disappointed that I have not seen more action on an array of issues like closing Gitmo, DC vote, gay rights, etc.

And I'm also disappointed that there is not more shocked disbelief at the idea that his walk down the middle of the road is some sort of socialist threat. What a crock that is!!!!

[Anonymous]

Well considering this thread was started in February it was impossible for me to take the OP seriously. Talk about jumping the gun. Obama is not God, nor a miracle maker. If I thought he was I'd be disappointed in him as well. Either that or a dictator.

[Anonymous]

I'm the OP and am amazed this has gone on so long...but to answer PP's question about why I expected more by Feb....Obama promised big change. There are a few reasons why I didn't like or trust him (and I was no fan of GB, have never voted Republician etc) but I was still "hoping". So, I would have expected that he would have at least announced a number of new / different ideas in his first month of office even if impact/implementation was still to come. Instead - and more and more over the past 8-9 months it's clear business as usual...

When I posted, I was just curious to see if there were a few others out there that had expected more at an early stage. For those Obama supporters who keep saying how great he is- I guess not and your happy with the biz as usual....since we are in washington that perhaps is not surprising.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP and am amazed this has gone on so long...but to answer PP's question about why I expected more by Feb....Obama promised big change. There are a few reasons why I didn't like or trust him (and I was no fan of GB, have never voted Republician etc) but I was still "hoping". So, I would have expected that he would have at least announced a number of new / different ideas in his first month of office even if impact/implementation was still to come. Instead - and more and more over the past 8-9 months it's clear business as usual...

When I posted, I was just curious to see if there were a few others out there that had expected more at an early stage. For those Obama supporters who keep saying how great he is- I guess not and your happy with the biz as usual....since we are in washington that perhaps is not surprising.

Apparently you have not picked up a newspaper since February. Since then, Obama has:

1) proposed and passed a stimulus plan. It was only a couple of dollars, really, maybe a trillion, I don't know. No big deal.
2) ushered two automakers through bankruptcy.
3) announced that Gitmo will be closed. The major hold-up here is that Republicans are scared of having the inmates housed in US mainland prisons.
4) started troop reductions in Iraq. During the campaign, he proposed an 18 month timeframe. I think he is still on track for that.
5) while many on the left may not like it, increased troops in Afghanistan -- something that he said he would do during the campaign.
6) announced that he will end "don't ask, don't tell". I am disappointed that he has not simply ended it.
7) overseen a much more effective anti-terror operation that has resulted in multiple arrests in the US (and real guys, not idiots wandering around in pajamas mumbling to themselves) and the killing of several overseas.
8) won the Nobel Peace Prize as a result of the near complete overhaul of the US's reputation abroad.
9) negotiated with Iran to give up their enriched uranium (something that will be finalized -- or not -- on Monday.
10) and, he is on the verge of achieving historic health care reform. Current rumors that he is trying to water down the public option would cause me to be disappointed if they turn out to be true, but that remains to be seen.

That's not a bad record, actually.

[Anonymous]

To pp- I still don't get how you (and President Obama) are vehemently against enhanced interrogation but ok with flat out killing baddies overseas from the air with drones etc. Did they stand trial? For the record, I am fine with both;

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To pp- I still don't get how you (and President Obama) are vehemently against enhanced interrogation but ok with flat out killing baddies overseas from the air with drones etc. Did they stand trial? For the record, I am fine with both;

I'm not sure which PP you are talking to. Civilization has been putting limits on what is permissible, even in war, for hundreds and hundreds of years. This is not a new concept. Morally, society has made a choice. We not only have to defy this tradition, we have to violate treaty and international law to torture people.

And stop calling it "enhanced interrogation". That's just a marketing term created by the last administration for torture, in order to make it sound acceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...
And stop calling it "enhanced interrogation". That's just a marketing term created by the last administration for torture, in order to make it sound acceptable.

"Enhanced interrogation" is our attempt to avoid "enhanced protest" -- i.e. suicide bombing.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:To pp- I still don't get how you (and President Obama) are vehemently against enhanced interrogation but ok with flat out killing baddies overseas from the air with drones etc. Did they stand trial? For the record, I am fine with both;

I am not sure that I have said that I support killing people with drones, etc. Rather, I acknowledged that is something that Obama has done. One of the popular right-wing tenets was that Obama would be "weak on terrorism" and would want to provide therapy to terrorists rather than fight them. I think he has shown that is not the case. Whether I might have preferred another course is a different discussion.

Beyond that, there are clear moral differences between killing an armed combatant on the battlefield and torturing a helpless prisoner. If I had to pick between the two, I would choose the prior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...
And stop calling it "enhanced interrogation". That's just a marketing term created by the last administration for torture, in order to make it sound acceptable.

"Enhanced interrogation" is our attempt to avoid "enhanced protest" -- i.e. suicide bombing.

I don't think the suicide bombers call it "enhanced". They're pretty forthright about what they are doing. Even so, it's a clever turn of phrase you made, but that does not make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To pp- I still don't get how you (and President Obama) are vehemently against enhanced interrogation but ok with flat out killing baddies overseas from the air with drones etc. Did they stand trial? For the record, I am fine with both;

I'm not sure which PP you are talking to. Civilization has been putting limits on what is permissible, even in war, for hundreds and hundreds of years. This is not a new concept. Morally, society has made a choice. We not only have to defy this tradition, we have to violate treaty and international law to torture people.

And stop calling it "enhanced interrogation". That's just a marketing term created by the last administration for torture, in order to make it sound acceptable.

I actually will keep calling it enhanced interrogation; thanks thought police but I think it is a good term for applying some pressure during interrogation but not getting out electric drills (torture). The fact that our own troops undergo it does not make it pleasant; however, do we 'torture' our own troops?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To pp- I still don't get how you (and President Obama) are vehemently against enhanced interrogation but ok with flat out killing baddies overseas from the air with drones etc. Did they stand trial? For the record, I am fine with both;

I am not sure that I have said that I support killing people with drones, etc. Rather, I acknowledged that is something that Obama has done. One of the popular right-wing tenets was that Obama would be "weak on terrorism" and would want to provide therapy to terrorists rather than fight them. I think he has shown that is not the case. Whether I might have preferred another course is a different discussion.

Beyond that, there are clear moral differences between killing an armed combatant on the battlefield and torturing a helpless prisoner. If I had to pick between the two, I would choose the prior.

Fair enough. You've referenced it several times in your lists of how the Pres is 'not weak on defense'. You have also mentioned several times that you are against enhanced interrogation. I have a hard time reconciling what I have inferred is your stance. If you are against both just say so. Then you must be for upping the manpower in Afghanistan-since the alternative the Pres proposes is the drone route. BTW, the drones also go after terrorists sitting in dwellings in Pakistan--not quite armed combatants on the battlefield. I have no issue with this. We know who they are/what they've done/what they are likely to do. We are fighting an enemy that does not always conveniently pop up for us as an armed combatant on the battlefield. That's why I have no issue when we apply enhanced interrogation when we capture same. Still, neither way exactly invoking the American 'criminal' process you seem all for.

[Anonymous]

OK - you would blow to bits a helpless terrorist with no idea you were coming before you would capture and apply enhanced interrogation . At least you are honest. We actually are doing far more of the former now that the fuss has been kicked up over having any decent place to hold, interview these people. However. I'm thinking he or she might wish you had voted for the latter in their final moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...
And stop calling it "enhanced interrogation". That's just a marketing term created by the last administration for torture, in order to make it sound acceptable.

"Enhanced interrogation" is our attempt to avoid "enhanced protest" -- i.e. suicide bombing.

I don't think the suicide bombers call it "enhanced". They're pretty forthright about what they are doing. Even so, it's a clever turn of phrase you made, but that does not make it true.

I meant it to be cute, and did not think in terms of "true". But now that you mention it, the bombings are clearly meant as protest, and it surely is enhanced, so I think the phrase is indeed "true", exactly as torture is "enhanced interrogation".