PS FAQ:  US Politics:  January 2009-Present

New President Obama chose Al Arabiya, out of Dubai, UAE, as his first televised interview. He sought to persuade the Middle East audience that the US is "not your enemy." The new conciliatory tone, is different than under Bush.

Will or should Bush administration policies/abuses be investigated? Some of these are described under "Torture IV" sections, but others are more political. Obama feels that "no one is above the law" but wants to "move forward." Some in Congress desire an investigation. Issues include torture/abuse and warrantless searches.

Thomas Ricks' new book, The Gamble, was out in early 2009. In the Times in early March, Maureen Dowd comments on "Mission Relingquished." As Obama formally anounced that combat troops would be out in about 18 months, Dowd imagines Obama's conversation with Bush. "That's why I'm calling, actually. I'm ending your stupid war."

The sixth anniversary of the war was commemorated on March 19 with this photo gallery from Talking Points Memo

Powell vs. Cheney. The two squared off in May about the future of their party. Powell challenged Cheney's take on the legacy of the Bush/Cheney administration. I still await the memoirs of Powell...

Cheney was pitching his book with a "sustained blitz on TV"and with speeches in mid-May. The book focuses on the four administrations he served. Others working on a book are Laura Bush, President Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Rove. For years, opponents of the administration released books critical of the Bush team. Few defended the President during the 2008 elections. Rice feels it is best to wait for the President to publish first, in 2010.

Obama spoke at Annapolis and told those at the Naval Academy graduation, "As long as I am your commander in chief, I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy and the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support that you need to get the job done." Among the graduates was John S. McCain IV, son of the Senator and Republican nominee.

Obama's next big speech was June 5 in Cairo, Egypt. Watched by millions around the world, he began with the traditional Arab greeting, which means peace by upon you: "Salaam aleikum." He defended US policy in Afghanistan, urged Muslim governments to be more democratic, and spoke of compromise needed between Israelis and Palestinians. The President wanted to set a different tone than that of Bush. He spoke in uncomprosming terms of confronting al Qaeda but did not use the term "terrorism", a departure from Bush.

Excerpts from the Cairo speech include: "So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end. I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the US and Muslims around the world...Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possilbe..Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future--and to leave Iraq to the Iraqis."

Reaction to the Cairo speech came from all circles. Some critics felt Obama did not speak out strongly enough for Democracy or in support of Israel. The lead Times editorial put it in perspective. "When President Bush spoke in the months and years" after 9/11, "we often--chillingly--felt as if we didn't recognize the US. His vision was of a country racked with feat and bent on vengeance, one that imposed invidious choices on the world and on itself. When we listened" to Obama's speech "we recognized the US....Words are important." The piece concluded, "After eight years of arrogance and bullying that has turned even close friends against the US, it takes a strong president to acknowledge the mistakes of the past. And it takes a strong president to press himself and the world to do better."

National security issues were emphasized in Bob Herbert's "Who Are We?" op-ed (6/23/09). The Times columnist opens, "Policies that were wrong" under Bush "are no less wrong because Barack Obama is in the White House. One of the most disappointing aspects" of the early Obama months "has been its unwillingness to end many of the mind-numbing abuses linked to the so-called war on terror and to establish a legal and moral framework designed to prevent those abuses from ever occurring again." Herbert is concerned with "preventive detention" and the "abuse of state-secrets privilege...The new president's excessively cautious approach to the national security and civil liberties outrages of the Bush administration are unacceptable."

How do anti-war Democrats affect Obama? A Poli Sci professor from Rutgers, writing an oped in the USA Today (7/1/09) feels that the Out of Iraq caucus could make him vulnerable on national security issues. These 70 House Dems will "hound" him to bring troops back from both Iraq and Afghanistan. "Wisley, the President has not bowed to this caucus, concludes Professor Baker.

In early July VP Biden made a trip to Iraq, urging officials to make progress on such issues as oil and political power. The trip of two days was unusually long. The French had recently signed contracts to help Iraq rebuild, including an airport between the Shiite hold cities of Najaf and Karbala, to accomodate the huge numbers of religious pilgrims.

One leftover story from the Bush adminstration was the firing of 8 US Attorneys in 2006. The story returned in August 2006, when emails revealed that top Presidential adviser Karl Rove played a key role in the firings. Congressional testimony, once secret, came out in the open. Some presecutors were dismissed for political reasons, which is not normal procedure.

"More Evidence of a Scandal" was the next day's Times editorial, which reminded us that top prosecutors "who refused to use their offices to promote the electoral fortunes of Republicans. Turning law enforcement into a tool of partisan politics is a serious offense." The Justice Department is investigating.

Karl Rove was not the only Bush administration leader back in the news in 2009. The Chicago Tribune reported in May that biblical passages surfaced in intelligence files approved by Donald Rumsfeld.. This was "the hawkish use of scripture" with some passages possibly taken out of context to support policy. The reporting is that "dozens of biblical passages accompanied by images of soldiers knelt in prayer or marching across the desert adorned the covers of classified documents prepared by Bush and Rumsfeld."

Another Bush legacy from the summer of 2009 is the national threat levels, which moved up and down during the 2004 re-election campaign of President Bush. The first secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, tells in his new book of pressure to increase the level the weekend before the Bush-Kerry election. He suspected the change was an effort to influence the vote, by making Americans more aware of possible attacks, a strength that Bush had over Kerry. Back in 2004, it seemed that the threat level changed whenever there was a big or positive story coming from the Kerry campaign or a negative story from the Bush adminstration. Attorney General Ashcroft and Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld urged Ridge. A Spokesman of Rumsfeld replied, "It would have been irresponsible had that discussion not taken place," given the threats from bin Laden. Ashcorft's spokesman denied the conversations. Ridge's book, due out September 1, is called The Test of Our Times.

Senator Teddy Kennedy died in late August, 2009, after a brain tumor illness. The "lion of the Senate" for nearly 50 years, Kennedy served through Vietnam and was a colleague of Senator Obama. Iraq, Kennedy felt, needed a political not a military solution. The last surviving of four brother, Edward saw Iraq as "George Bush's Vietnam."

Rep. Joe Wilson shouted out at President Obama during a speech to the Congress about health care. "You lie," yelled Wilson. Wilson had became furious in 2002 during a pre-Iraq war debate. When one member of Congress said that the US had given chemical weapons to Saddam, Wilson accused him of being consumed by "hatred of America" and said he was "viscerally anti-American."

In late October, colomnist David Brooks wondered if Obama had the tenacity and determination to make tough decisions about Afghantan. (See much more on Afghanistan.) "It would be shameful to deploy more troops only to withdraw them later."

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in October. This came as a surprise to almost everyone. The reaction varied from praise and doubt. The committee valued his new climate of diplomacy, willingness to talk to Iran, decision to ban torture, address global warming, and his suggestion that all nuclear weapons be banned. Only Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson have won the Nobel Peace Prize while in office. The lead Times editorial realizes that in Iraq the President is "still a long way from managing an orderly withdrawal that does not leave a power vacuum and inflame a volatile region." Yet, he has "bolstered" our "global standing by renouncing torture, this time with credibility; by pledging to close" Gitmo, by "rejoining efforts to combat climate change and rid the world of nuclear weapons," and recommitting to Israeli-Palestinian peace, and by offering to "engage Iran while also insisting that it abandon its nuclear ambitions."

Some suggested he should not have accepted it. Wrote one, "All he would have needed was a simple, graceful statement emphasizing the impossibility of accepting such an honor during his first year in office, with America's armed forces still deep in two unfinished wars."

Prior to his December 1 speech on Afghanistan, Obama's approval ratings dipped below 50% for the first time. Messing health care debates and unemployment were among the leading issues working against him.

Accepting the Peace Prize in Oslo in December brought a lead Times editorial. Feeling that the President was appropriately humble, the paper realizes the award was less for what he has done and more for what he "is expected to do." Ironically, Obama accepted the peace prize while defended his escalation of the war in Afghanistan. He argued that the war was "morally just and strategically necessary to defend the US and others from more terrorist attacks." Invoking Gandhi and King, the President said, "'Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms.'" The "paper of record" concludes, "We'll leave it to the philosophers to debate what is and what is not a just war. But we agree that this war is a very difficult but necessary one. We also know that there is no chance at all of winning it, and the broader fight against terrorism, unless the US hews to international standards and upholds it own ideas. That is Mr. Obama's promise and his challenge going forward."

See much more at the Afghanistan FAQ chapter.

Is Obama's foreign policy like Sarah Palin's? So argues Allan Nairn on Worldview in mid-December 2009. The lengthy interview includes bin Laden, US policy, and blame for deaths around the world. Reaction to the interview is also interesting.

Jack Murtha died in February. The Hawkish House Democrat, a Vietnam veteran, had spoken out strongly against the Iraq war in 2005. He felt the war was being badly mismanaged and that marines had killed Iraqi civilians "in cold blood." Murtha was the first Demoratic hawk to come out against the war.

Paul Krugman compares the current debt with the urgency of war. In his Feb. 5, "Fiscal Scare Tactics" he sees the "deficit hysteria" feels like the run up to the 2003 war. "Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn't been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative,e no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background are being marginalizes."

Politics and terrorism seemed to go hand in hand in February. Obama challenged his critics, with Obama stating on the Sunday morning news shows, "The most important thing for the public to understand is we're not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush adminstration...They prosecuted 190 folks" in civilian courts. "And those folks are in maximum security prisons right now. And there have been no escapes." Obama's counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, was more direct. "I am tiring of politicians using national security issues such as terrorism as a political football." Brennan also worked under Bush and for the CIA. Obama has expanded the war in Afghanistan, increased drone attacks, continued Bush's surveillance rendition programs. But he has hoped to close Gitmo and ban harsh interrogation and try KSM in New York. See much more at Torture IV FAQ chapter.

Who is Cheney really criticizing? Could it be Bush? Cheney has said, "The President is tying to pretend that we are not at war." Peter Beinart writes in The Daily Beast feels that Cheney thinks Bush was soft on terror, especially during his second term. Black sites were closed in 2006 and said he hoped to close Gitmo. Bush is not talking but Cheney is. Beinart continues, "It is almost as if there have been three presidencies since 9/11: 1.) The Cheney administration (2001-2003 or 2004) in which the VP--aided by...Rumsfeld...and Libby--got Bush to pursue a war on terror largely outside the law; 2.) The Bush administration (2004-2009), in which Bush, aided by Rice...Gates[and others]and the rulings of the Supreme Court, reign in Cheney and some of his policies; and 3.) The Obama administration, which tries to bring Bush's second term polices even more under the rule of law."

In "The Politics of Fear" the lead Times editorial (2/10/10) feels that due to the coming election Republicans are "trying to scare Americans by making it appear as if the Democrats don't care about catching or punishing terrorists. It's nonsense, of course, but effective. The be-very-afraid approach" helped Bush "ram laws" through Congress that "chipped away at Americans' rights. He used it to get re-elected in 2004." Most recently, Obama is being criticized for its handling of the Christmas Bomber (see "Next" FAQ chapter). The FBI interrogated him and eventually read him his Miranda rights. The filed federal charges rather than use a military prison. The US Justice system does not allow those arrested in the US to be held without access to a lawyer. Bush did the same with the Shoe Bomber, Richard Reid, and others plotting to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and LAX. These same Republicans, the editorial continues, did not complain when Bush prosecuted over 300 people in federal courts on terrorism charges.

Seven years in Iraq came in March 2010 as the Congress was heatedly debating a final health care bill. Time Magazine has a thorough persepctive in the past seven years.

For repercussion on The Christmas Bomber, see the end of the Al Qaeda/Next section.