A Heaping Helping of Schadenfreude from Tom Maguire

At the expense of Glen “sock-puppet” Greenwald…

I recommend two-buck chuck as a fitting palette cleanser in this case…  My only quibble with Tom is his title (which is the theme of his article):

Oh, Let’s Not Say “Right” And “Wrong”

Glenn Greenwald bemoans Dick Cheney’s endorsement of Obama’s adoption of the Bush/Cheney war on terror.  In the course of a good reprise of Obama’s folding up like a cheap suitcase we get this:

Aside from the repressiveness of the policies themselves, there are three highly significant and enduring harms from Obama’s behavior.  First, it creates the impression that Republicans were right all along in the Bush-era War on Terror debates and Democratic critics were wrong.

Well, let’s not say “right” and “wrong” as though there will be a definitive answer.  This is not a controlled natural science experiment.  Sometimes (I am thinking of pro-lifers and pro-choicers here), folks with alternative views must simply co-exist, secure, perhaps, in their own self-righteousness but with no final proof of The Truth” available.

No, let us instead call this as it is.  The Liberal/progressive wing of the Democratic Party have been dead (and deadly) wrong on this since 9/11.  Not misguided.  Not mistaken.  Wrong.  Wrong headed.  Not acting in the best interests of the Constitution, the Nation, and the public.

Enhanced by Zemanta

]]>< ![CDATA[

Tom continues:

However – Obama’s total flip-flops
do create the impression that he was a lying, opportunistic,
unprincipled poseur during the years he positioned himself as the
liberal champion of Hope and Change who would deliver America from the
oppression of the Bush years.  I almost feel sorry for Greenwald
(almost!), who writes this:

But Obama’s impact in this area extends
far beyond that.  Dick Cheney is not only free of ignominy, but can run
around claiming vindication from Obama’s actions because he’s right.
 The American Right constantly said during the Bush years that any
President who knew what Bush knew and was faced with the duty of
keeping the country safe would do the same thing.  Obama has provided
the best possible evidence imaginable to prove those claims true.

…Obama has won the War on Terror debate —
for the American Right.  And as Dick Cheney’s interview last night
demonstrates, they’re every bit as appreciative as they should be.

Well, we’re still going to do our best to vote Obama out.

Since one cannot un-ring the bell, the debate ended with the AUMF resolution.  This will, however, be an interesting footnote for historians a hundred years hence.

Hat Tip: Glen “The Blogfather” Reynolds at Instapundit

Whither Dorothy, the Cowardly Lion, and the Tin Man?
My Poor Non-Homeland
  • GarandFan

    Does this mean that Greenwald is now officially “racist”?

  • Rodney G. Graves

    GarandFan @1 asks:

    Does this mean that Greenwald is now officially “racist”?

    From whose perspective? From mine, certainly not. From democratic officialdom, I neither know nor care.

  • 914

    Barry came around to Bush’s tax cuts as well.

    Whats next? Privatizing Social Security?

  • jim m

    Of course he’s racist. He’s always been racist.

    His evaluation of obama was always based on the man’s race and not at all on his policies. He has defended obama because of his race using race based arguments and not once looked at the policies all of which Greenwald has disagreed with.

    Like many dems Greenwald based his opinions of obama for little other reason than the color of his skin. That is the definition of racism.

  • Rodney G. Graves

    jim m,

    While “sock puppet”s most recent screed is not the basis of a reasonable charge (not that the first comment was a serious charge) of racism, there is still racism out there in the wild, and you have made an excellent case for the racism embodied in enforced equality of outcome which is the hallmark of progressives.

  • Steve Crickmore

    I don’t don’t what you guys have been smoking or reading? Glenn Greenwald has always been consistently critical or prescient as to how serious Obama was to maintaining his principles on civil liberties when he was youthful senator, given his reversals in the campaign the closer he got to winning the 2008 presidency.

    Here is one example on July 2, 2008, when Greeenwald intimitated the ‘pragmatic’ way Obama would govern, if elected, given the way Obama was ” flagrantly changing his positions” just as he was locking up the nominatation.

    But for those who have sat by watching the Bush administration and its followers exploit complexities over spying issues in order to issue one false claim after the next to justify Bush’s lawbreaking, having the Obama campaign issue factually false and/or incoherent explanations to justify Obama’s conduct only makes matters worse, not better

    If anyone has any evidence at all that: (a) Obama would be less likely to win if he continued to oppose telecom amnesty and warrantless eavesdropping; (b) his chances to win increase by being perceived as someone who flagrantly changes positions for political gain; and/or (c) he is more likely to win by embracing Bush/Cheney policies, please alert me to such evidence. I would really like to see it, because I don’t believe any such evidence exists.

    Repudiating their own base and moving to the so-called Center isn’t some sleek, exotic strategy that the Obama campaign invented this year. It’s what Democrats are always told to do and what they always do (other than in 2006, when the perception was that — finally — there was a real difference between them and the GOP because of the Iraq War). How has that advice worked out historically for Democrats?

    Obama, the campaigner and then president, has always been Bush lite and a half, to Greenwald ,confirmed with all the Bush holdovers and recycled Clinton appointments in his administration. It has been all the continuty not change you could hope for. It always is.

  • scott0317

    Well, speaking of quibbles: are you really looking to cleanse your “palette?” Etes-vous un artiste?

  • Upset Old Guy

    So, Steve, are you’re saying that for Obama the Presidency has always been about the acquisition of power and bankrupting the country in the name of “social justice”?

  • Don L

    “This is not a controlled natural science experiment…” Not solid science like the global warming…cooling…climate change…er…environmental pollution..er…

  • epador

    I think what Steve is saying is, there is what is RIght, and then whatever else is Left.

  • Upset Old Guy

    Don L, can’t really speak to the rest of it, but for the environmental/global warming contingent the “environmental pollution” you referenced has always been the human beings roaming over Gaia’s surface.

  • Les Nessman

    ” So, Steve, are you’re saying that for Obama the Presidency has always been about the acquisition of power and bankrupting the country in the name of “social justice”?

    8. Posted by Upset Old Guy |”

    -Sure sounds like it. Let’s take a trip down memory lane, waaaaay back to ancient times, 2008:

    *”GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

    So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

    OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

    We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair.

    And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don’t have it and that we’re able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

    And you can’t do that for free.

    OBAMA: And you can’t take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children and our grandchildren, and then say that you’re cutting taxes, which is essentially what John McCain has been talking about.

    And that is irresponsible. I believe in the principle that you pay as you go. And, you know, you don’t propose tax cuts, unless you are closing other tax breaks for individuals. And you don’t increase spending, unless you’re eliminating some spending or you’re finding some new revenue. That’s how we got an additional $4 trillion worth of debt under George Bush. That is helping to undermine our economy. And it’s going to change when I’m president of the United States. “*

    -You lie.
    The teen President is not the sooper genius that his toadies claim he is, but he isn’t stupid either. He knows what he is doing in the name of ‘fairness’.

  • studakota

    Frankly,If you knew then, before you elected him, what you know now, you’d probably have elected the white guy, right?