One of the aims of this blog is to help determine how much change really is going on in Washington. With that in mind, I’d like to call attention to a piece by Charlie Savage that came out this morning in the New York Times.
In it, Savage suggests that recent hearings have not necessarily revealed a fundamental shift in the White House’s stance on the “war on terror,” as Obama promised.
Obama started on the ‘change’ track, Savage writes:
Within days of his inauguration, Mr. Obama thrilled civil liberties groups when he issued executive orders promising less secrecy, restricting C.I.A. interrogators to Army Field Manual techniques, shuttering the agency’s secret prisons, ordering the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, closed within a year and halting military commission trials.
Since then, though, Leon Panetta (Obama’s choice for C.I.A. director), said he reserved the right to ask for “additional authority” in interrogation techniques, if necessary. Obama’s pick for Solicitor General, Elena Kagan, advocated treating Al Qaeda financiers as if they were on a battlefield, regardless of location.
Obama’s nominees have been having trouble recently with keeping up with the White House’s message (see: Gregg, Judd). After these revelations about the new administration’s policies surrounding former President George W. Bush’s “war on terror,” can we really say that a fundamental change has been made on this front? Or have Obama’s picks stifled the change, and returned to the pre-November 4 status quo?
Popularity: 1% [?]
Would you like to join in the discussion? Comments
Change cannot happen in a moment or the blink of an eye, unless what the nation is looking for is irresponsible change. Obama has to change the tactics, policies, and the mindset of those in Gov't, Washington obviously included. Because, it is the approach to problem solving and the personal agendas that have gotten in the way of sound decision making. To achieve real change, Obama must methodically alter the approach to problem solving used by his colleagues in a step-by-step process. Simply signing bills that turn 180s will cause chaos rather than long lasting CHANGE. Obama cannot just bulldoze the house that contains all Bush's policies, he must restructure and renovate it to show Gov't how to achieve better results and end up on top.
February 18, 2009 at 9:11 amThe first change needed in the “War on Terror” is to define exactly what we are trying to accomplish and why.
February 18, 2009 at 1:49 pmWe invaded Afghanistan with the stated goal of eliminating Al Queta and capturing Ben Laden. Neither stated goal has been accomplished and no one has an answer as to why we are still there. What exactly, are we trying to accomplish there now and why? Does anyone know?
We invaded and occupied Iraq supposedly to remove the threat of WMD and when no WMD was found to justify these claims the war suddenly became the “main front” in the war on terrorism. Why? Because terrorist guerrilla tactics were being used against the forces occupying their country? By that definition all resistance forces throughout history must also be classified as terrorist.
Both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are nothing more than wars of aggression that have been fought with no clear objective or the ability to win. Both wars have been counter productive as both have resulted in an increase in terrorism around the world. We need to admit that both wars were mistakes made by idiots who believed bullets make believers of those who oppose us. Bullets only make bodies with friends and family bent on revenge.
END these senseless wars and BRING OUR TROOPS HOME!
Have something to add?