Tuesday, February 14, 2012

If A Campaign Promise Falls In A Forest, Does Anyone Remember It?

A columnist for Foreign Policy's Election 2012 Channel had an article yesterday asking "how did liberals end up supporting the Obama administration’s continuation of George W. Bush's secret war on terror?" For example, the continuation of Bush administration policies on killer drones and indefinite detention of terrorists.

That's a good question. His answer is that "at the same time that Americans want to maintain current policies on drones and detention they are also strongly supportive of returning troops home from Afghanistan." For Obama, as he winds down the war in Afghanistan, "maintaining the current policies on detention and drones is a nice back-up strategy: not only is it an effective way to fight the dwindling groups of jihadist terrorists, but it limits the administration's political exposure if something terrible does happen."

Okay, I'm with him that far. But then he goes off on a strange tangent by trying to deny that Obama actually promised all that often, or all that explicitly, to close Gitmo:
None of this should come as a huge surprise if one looks closely at Obama's rhetoric from the 2008 campaign. Many of the administration's liberal critics on the left have strong memories of Obama blasting the Bush's civil liberties record. They recall Obama's pledge to close Gitmo, extend habeus corpus to terrorists, end torture and, in general, turn the page from the worst excesses of U.S. foreign policy during the Bush years.
But they have a slightly selective memory. Indeed, one is hard pressed to find many examples of candidate Obama pledging to close Guantanamo (though that was clearly and unequivocally his position). He didn't mention it, for example, at the acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in 2008.

Really? One would be hard pressed to find many examples of Obama promising to close Gitmo? Oh no, not in the Age of Google one wouldn't. You could take it from Obama himself, in his November 16, 2008, interview with 60 Minutes, that he said "repeatedly" during the campaign that he would close Gitmo:




And so he did. Obama also wrote that repeatedly, as well. Like in his article for the July/August 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs, Renewing American Leadership:
“To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people… This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.
And in this American Society of International Law, 2008 candidate survey:
Q: What priorities or goals would you establish for the development of existing or new international legal regimes?
A: The next president will have to prioritize restoring our traditions of adherence to international legal regimes and norms ... As president, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act, and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and laws such as our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists. 
And in his major campaign address on foreign policy at the Wilson Center on August 2, 2007:
As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists.”
And in an ABC News interview right after the election, on January 11, 2009:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You also agreed on Guantanamo when you say you want to shut it down. You say you're still going to shut it down. Is it turning out to be harder than you expected, will you get that done in the first 100 days?
OBAMA: It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize and we are going to get it done [balancing the rule of law with security concerns].
STEPHANOPOULOS: So not necessarily first 100 days.
OBAMA: That's a challenge. I think it's going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do. But I don't want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantanamo and we are going to make sure that the procedures we set up are ones that abide by our constitution. That is not only the right thing to do but it actually has to be part of our broader national security strategy because we will send a message to the world that we are serious about our values.
On his second day in office, January 22, 2009, Obama signed an executive order to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility within one year, and said:
This is me following through on not just a commitment I made during the campaign, but I think an understanding that dates back to our founding fathers, that we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard.”
As things turned out, the Obama administration found it a bit too hard to close Gitmo. The WaPo has a detailed autopsy on how that campaign promise died. I, for one, consider it a good thing that Gitmo has stayed in operation. But no one can credibly claim that Obama dd not make that promise a central part of his campaign. 

Selective memory, indeed.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

TSB: No one can deny that Gitmo has it uses and that terrorists are "complicated". I do think that "slippery slope" is exactly how catastrophic change often happens. Obama has really taken the "post-legal" football and run with it. Foreign policy? Immigration policy? Economic policy? I don't think he has any. Just re-election policy. Great post! gwb

Anonymous said...

TSB! Tomorrow Ron Paul is coming to Vancouver. He's only at 12% in the polls nationally but I think there will be a big, raucous and fun loving crowd. If he asks me for advice I won't have any because I think he is playing it perfectly!
I'll let you know if it's any good. gwb

Anonymous said...

TSB: I have been reading a great book about the plundering of the Congo (1885-1912) by King Leopold II.
http://amzn.to/z2urah (1998)

Perhaps 8 to 20 million died for the sake of Leopold's rubber fortune but mostly it puts the modern plunders like viet nam and the middle east in a different context. Political and media distortion is the key. (Like the Iranian nuclear medicine program being an existential threat to N.Dakota! This guy has 4 other books I've got to read! gwb

Anonymous said...

TSB: It was real good! My wife said she'd love to listen to him for another hour. Paul got a standing ovation every 2 minutes. My fav line: "If the government wasn't involved in everything we wouldn't be having all this silly talk about distributing BCP's."

Evidently he has no opposition because he didn't mention them. I think Paul will win SW Washington in the March 3rd caucuses! Lots of kids (2-8 yrs old) cheering wildly and waving signs..something about their future whatever that means!
I got the last bumper sticker! gwb

TSB said...

That's great. I'd like to see Paul during the Virginia primary (it's just him and Romney), but politicians normally don't campaign near my neighborhood. Too many professional political types live inside the beltway, so they don't bother to campaign or run polls here.

Anonymous said...

TSB: Anthony Shadid died in Syria!
http://bit.ly/zCisHj We learned a lot about Iraq from him; One thing being that you won't know what's going on if you don't speak the language. Ron P made a big point about that Lt.Col Dan guy "coming out" and saying the DOD has been lying to the public about Afghanistan. We'll take care of Romney here in western WA but we may have to cancel the E.Washington
caucuses to get a victory. (Like they did in Maine.) gwb

Anonymous said...

TSB: You got to read this at Daring Adventure: "We have no record of you in our system. Did you apply with the Department of State?" (Feb 10)
How do young state guys ever get anyone to marry them in the first place? For max enjoyment be sure to have a bag of chicken gizzards to munch on while reading. gwb

TSB said...

Oh, I've read about ADA's experiences with the on-line clearance system. And I would bet there is just a chance that her paperwork went through after all (what are the odds that whoever she e-mailed actually knew what he/she was talking about?), and so she might get a call out of the blue in a few months telling her she has that clearance after all.

Anonymous said...

TSB: The USA Domestic Drone Wars have begun! http://bit.ly/yOTPuR

This one pits the Brockton Police Bullies and some pidgeon shooters against those evil PETA surveillance freaks. What is next?
UN Peacekeepers? FBI infiltration of PETA? Army Units to protect pidgeon shooters? PETA demands flak jackets? My prediction: a law will be introduced!!! LOL gwb

Anonymous said...

Actually, the funniest thing would probably be if someone asked Mitt Romney about it. He would probably be going on the Sunday shows to amend his previous two answers. If so, he better take his wife AND his dog with him. gwb

Anonymous said...

TSB: The Spokane paper dissed Ron Paul but check out the jeans and the kid in these 4 pictures. The county Rep Vice Chair endorsed him and I think we might win in ultra-boring Spokane! Another raucous event it was!! And Idaho too!

gwb
http://www.spokesman.com/picture-stories/ron-paul-rally/