Mak writes: "President Obama had campaigned against many of the major programs of President Bush's war on terror, but often his national security policy has mirrored that of his predecessor."
Donald Rumsfeld appears with Lewis 'Scooter' Libby at the Hudson Institute, 03/29/11. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Rumsfeld: Obama Has Accepted Bush Doctrine
07 September 11
ormer Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says President Barack Obama has come to accept much of the Bush Doctrine out of necessity, despite what he campaigned on in 2008.
Rumsfeld said that Obama needed to keep the Guantanamo Bay detention center open because of national security concerns, and it was the best solution among a host of bad options.
"They ended up keeping Guantanamo open not because they like it - we didn't like it either - but they couldn't think of a better solution," Rumsfeld told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren on Tuesday.
Rumsfeld then listed a handful of other Bush administration policies that have continued into the Obama administration, something that he sees as vindication of the policies.
"The same is true with the Patriot Act, and military commissions, and indefinite detention. All of those things were criticized but today are still in place two-and-a-half years later because they are the best alternative to the other choices - and they are in fact successful in keeping America safer," he says.
President Obama had campaigned against many of the major programs of President Bush's war on terror, but often his national security policy has mirrored that of his predecessor.
"I think what they did was they campaigned again the Bush approach - and once they got in they realized the 90-nation coalition that was put together was successful in sharing intelligence, and tracking bank accounts, and cooperating against terrorism," said Rumsfeld.
The former defense secretary also spoke about how Sept. 11 changed peoples lives and how the government works.
"It was the largest attack on America inside of our country," Rumsfeld said. "It led to a new set of steps to try to protect the American people - a different way of looking at it - instead of thinking we can defend what you can't defend against a terrorist, every place at every moment of the day or night against every conceivable technique. But we had to go after them and put pressure on them - thus far it has been quite successful."
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Obama is a craven politician driven by election realities; and he was not about to take a chance of loosening security and risking the accusation of being weak.
No matter how small an incident, or whether it be a treasonous "fund-raiser" or staged event to be politically used against him, Obama was not about to take that chance.
Let's not forget, outside the attempted World Trade Center bombing, there were no successful attacks prior to, or after, 9-11.
Not through any great insight, but out of typical fear and political survival instincts -- and actual allegiance to neo-con principles – Obama has re-defined almost every aspect of Democratic values. There is not a leadership bone in his body.
If Bush had not been vacationing for practically one-quarter of his pre-9-11 Presidency, ignoring Richard Clarke, head of the counter-terrori sm division, all-the-while, we'd not have had 9-11 either.
Either Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, or both, said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
The path we're on is expensive and wrong, and is eating us up from the inside, eroding our cherished values. Rumsfeld is not wrong about Obama, but like hell if he is right.
Agreed, mjc. Just exactly what was that "change we could believe in?" and when is it supposed to start?
What I also find curious is that if Rumsfeld feels his actions are in need of vindication it demonstrates that he shouldn't have done them at all.
Rumsfeld is stating the obvious in his own inimitable way, re-directing the truth into the spiral of neo-con and neo-liberal, and PNAC agenda. No reason to pay him attention except that he brings to daylight, through a roundabout method, an odd truth in U.S. governing.
However, regarding torture, what about Bradley Manning?
And yes, looks like he won in the effort to recolonize Libya, but at a cost of at least 50,000 Libyans. But he was smart that none of our soldiers got killed.
And, we will see if Afghanistan is still the graveyard of empires.
It was for the Soviets, and i think we have a great deal in common with the Soviets of the 1980s. We're not Stalinist (yet), but the 1980s Sovients weren't either.
So Obama has a mighty intellect, but it would be so much better if he used it for the long term good of America. If he could say "I will be a one-term President, but in that one term I will withdraw from Afghanistan, Iraq, etc." If he did, it would be like a reverse crossing of the Rubicon (that Bush crossed the wrong way): once we get out of that area we will never return. Won't have the dough to, for one thing.
I think Carter is knowledgeable - and wise.
Why he does NOT play role in the Clinton/Obama administration? Cause he is NOT bought by AIPAC>
The Dems could almost have run Alfred E. Nueman (remember Mad Magazine?), and we would have taken our chances with him to avoid another 4 years of a Bush style administration.
Now that I think about it, we would have been better off with Alfred. At least HE might have been smart enough to understand that.
Voters are manipulated in more ways than one.
Forget Obama. He takes his orders from the corporate elites and the military industrial complex.
Maybe Rumsfeld is hoping for a third spin in the Secretary of Defense chair in the second Obama administration. .. The idea makes me cringe.
"Mrs. Joppa-Hagemann introduced herself by handing a copy of her husband’s funeral program to Rumsfeld, and telling him that her husband had joined the military because he believed the lies told by Rumsfeld during his tenure with the Bush Administration" (but had committed suicide rather than be sent back for another "Tour of duty" -my insertion).
Perhaps she should confront Obama in the same way -and remind him of the REALITY of the Cheney - Rumsfeld era lie mongering. Nobody else seems to have the nuts to get in his face.
There is no way we should put this man back in the White House; it would be a crime against nature even to nominate him again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The deck is stacked against alternatives to the Dem/Rep duopoly. The major parties have colluded in making 3rd-party movements VERY difficult. Those "two" parties have written all the electoral rules in order to maintain their "cosa nostra" hold on American politics.
The Dems have perfected their "Lesser Evil-ism" Strategy by scaring the bejeeezus out of voters who would MUCH prefer a genuine progressive [ a la Kucinich, Sanders, Feingold, Kaptur.... ] in the White House.
If progressives can't muster the courage to vote for a 3rd-party candidate (for fear of a Republican victory), we deserve the make-believe "democracy" we are limited to.
"City on a Hill", my a**!!
We need a national multi-party primary with an automatic runnoff between the top two vote getters. That's the only system that promotes 3rd parties. It works in France.
We won't get it until we ELECT someone willing to make it a law.
AND BE RIGHT!
I REALLY REALLY want to know what's going on in Obama's head.
I DO have a theory. It goes like this: He made a bet with one of the Kock brothers, or some other rich repug, that he could win the Presidency, and even get RE-elected, while doing less than any other president in U.S. history to further the agenda of the people who voted for him.
I expect him to meet up with Ripley's Believe It or Not after he leaves office.
I think "DUPLICITOUS" is the vocabulary word of the day.
how many times I heard this phrase before - it seems that more TOTALITARIAN system is - the more it "protects people".
Now we are starting new wars - kill thousands to "protect PEOPLE" of Libya, Syria etc.
911 was first time New York was bombed - and the event was used by MILITARISM to bomb others - scare Americans with Patriot Act - legitimize terrorism as conflict resolution - SICK.
Even Barack Obama has, to his profound discredit, has stated that he took an oath to protect the American people. If he did so, it must have been in a private ceremony. I want him to execute the office of the president as defined in the Constitution, nothing more and nothing less.
If all those goofy predictions of the end of the world weren't about Dec. 21, 2012, but were about Jan. 21. 2013, I'd tend to believe them right now.
I heard that any society is only 3 missed meals from a revolution. I wonder what would happen to ours without "reality" tv, and infomercials.
I think Obama is a predator drone.
Need new candidate, no other solution. Scary when Santorum sounds good, he was a slime here
RSS feed for comments to this post