For reasons that human rights groups and detainees' lawyers immediately pointed out, this self-exonerating Pentagon report, from the start, was suspect in the extreme. But a sign of how broken our discourse is and how in love with ourselves we continue to be is that, on the question of current Guantanamo conditions, the conclusions of the United States Pentagon released this week were treated not only as credible, but authoritative. If the DOD -- which has long overseen Guantanamo and continues to do so -- says that everything is great there, well, that's the end of that. What else is there to know?
This is, of course, distressful. Obama promised to close Gitmo, and now it appears he is backtracking. I thought, at least, when it came to foreign policy actions, Obama would be straight forward, but alas, that does not seem to be so.
Of all the defining practices and policies of the Bush administration which the Obama administration has already enthusiastically embraced -- and they're piling up so quickly, it's becoming difficult to keep track -- one of the most disturbing is the Obama administration's press management approach. The administration is singling out particularly supportive journalists to whom they anonymously leak purely favorable pro-administration spin; giving access to others who are have a history of such sycophantic behavior that they predictably produce profiles so one-sided and glowing that even People Magazine would be embarrassed to publish it; and -- worst of all -- they are systematically hiding behind anonymity to disseminate their claims in order to evade accountability, the exact opposite of the "transparency" Obama continuously promised (read David Cay Johnston's superb account of dealing with the Obama White House Press Office to see what a real journalist -- as opposed to one desperately jockeying to serve the White House in exchange for favored access status -- does when faced with baseless demands from administration officials for anonymity and off-the-record chatter).
I, personally, think the faulty guidance that Obama is getting stems directly from Rahm Emanuel, whom we all know did such a fantastic job as chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) [cough cough], and how he butted heads with Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. If Dean had not been so singularly focused on the 50 state strategy, and Rahm had his way, the Republicans would still be in power, and McCain would most likely be the current president. And this is whom Obama has chosen to be his White House Chief of Staff? The man who has not been right on anything for the past four years, and Obama is taking advice from him?
That's not to say that I have one shred of evidence at this point in time, but given Emanuel's track record, given the theme of Obama's campaign, "change" and Obama's promise to run the government differently, I am having a hard time in distinguishing the "difference" between Obama and Bush, outside of the fact that Obama can put together complete sentences. The advice being given to Obama is not in the best interests of this country, and although the polls still are pulling in Obama's direction, he's going to go down, and hard.
The stimulus package is too weak, the Republicans are thumbing their noses at him, the TARP money is not working, and is simply being pocketed by the rich, unemployment is through the roof, and it looks more and more like our men and women in uniform will still be fighting imaginary bogey men/women while our country drops faster than a sinkhole into a full blown depression. The only thing that is remarkably different in this scenario than with the 1930's is that the world, as a whole, is financially sinking as well.
Perhaps this is what is truly meant by Armageddon.
