As early as May, 2009, former Bush OLC lawyer Jack Goldsmith wrote in The New Republic that Obama was not only continuing Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, but was strengthening them — both because he was causing them to be codified in law and, more important, converting those policies from right-wing dogma into harmonious bipartisan consensus. Obama's decision "to continue core Bush terrorism policies is like Nixon going to China," Goldsmith wrote. Last October, former Bush NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden — one of the most ideological Bush officials, whose confirmation as CIA chief was opposed by then-Sen. Obama on the ground he had overseen the illegal NSA spying program — gushed with praise for Obama: "there's been a powerful continuity between the 43rd and the 44th president." James Jay Carafano, a homeland-security expert at the Heritage Foundation, told The New York Times' Peter Baker last January: "I don’t think it's even fair to call it Bush Lite. It's Bush. It's really, really hard to find a difference that's meaningful and not atmospheric." Greenwald
Does it make a difference that Obama is in the White House and not John McCain–or Dick Cheney? Yes, of course it does. Am I glad that Obama's numbers are up? Yes, of course I am. But let's not lose perspective. Obama represents the more moderate faction of the American power elite, and it serves the spirit of empire just as faithfully as Bush/Cheney did. His faction just puts a more "reasonable" face on it.
Obama gave a nice speech last week. I'm using it in my class as a model of demonstrative rhetoric–one of the best by anyone in recent history. But that's what ceremonial presidents, like ceremonial kings and queens do. Like George VI as depicted in The King's Speech, they are trotted out on these occasions to unify the nation in a time of trouble. And that's fine, but nothing changes that really matters. Greenwald's post is entitled "The Vindication of Dick Cheney." In matters of style no in matters of substance, alas, yes.
Leave a Reply