He was the ultimate whistleblower. He was the legendary leaker in 1971 of the “Pentagon Papers”–some 7.000 pages of classified documents commissioned by Defense Secretary McNamara that revealed to the world that the American government knew the Vietnam War was unwinnable. The Nixon Administration prosecuted Ellsberg for his actions all the way to the Supreme Court.
Daniel Ellsberg, now 79, spoke with Der Spiegel (“the mirror”) online and gave his assessments of the Obama administration. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,699677,00.html One of the telling perceptions from Ellsberg:
“His actions (Obama’s) are totally uncoupled from his public statements. I don’t even listen anymore. He has turned 180 degrees. Another example: His promise to filibuster a law giving the phone companies legal immunity for any role they played in the Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program. Then he not only voted not to filibuster it, he also voted for the law — against the wishes of his backers.”
Ellsberg was, of course, describing Obama’s amazing flip flop on FISA, one of the first precursors that Obama was just another politician who had no intention of carrying through on his promises of change. To the German online magazine, Ellsberg also charges that:
…his administration in some key aspects is nothing other than the third term of the Bush administration.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How so?
Ellsberg: I think Obama is continuing the worst of the Bush administration in terms of civil liberties, violations of the constitution and the wars in the Middle East.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: For example?
Ellsberg: Take Obama’s explicit pledge in his State of the Union speech to remove “all” United States troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. That’s a total lie. I believe that’s totally false. I believe he knows that’s totally false. It won’t be done. I expect that the US will have, indefinitely, a residual force of at least 30,000 US troops in Iraq.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about Afghanistan? Isn’t that a justifiable war?
Ellsberg: I think that there’s an inexcusable escalation in both countries. Thousands of US officials know that bases and large numbers of troops will remain in Iraq and that troop levels and bases in Afghanistan will rise far above what Obama is now projecting. But Obama counts on them to keep their silence as he deceives the public on these devastating, costly, reckless ventures.
Nor is Ellsberg’s criticism confined to foreign affairs. He offers withering comments about Obama’s domestic politics too:
Ellsberg: For instance, the Obama administration is criminalizing and prosecuting whistleblowers to punish them for uncovering scandals within the federal government …
SPIEGEL ONLINE: … Such as the arrest, confirmed this week, of an Army intelligence analyst for leaking the “Collateral Murder” video of a deadly US helicopter attack in Iraq, which was later posted online at WikiLeaks.
Ellsberg: Also, the recent US indictment of Thomas Drake.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Drake was a former senior official with the National Security Agency (NSA) who provided reporters with information about failures at the NSA.
Ellsberg: For Obama to indict and prosecute Drake now, for acts undertaken and investigated during the Bush administration, is to do precisely what Obama said he did not mean to do — “look backward.” Of all the blatantly criminal acts committed under Bush, warrantless wiretapping by the NSA, aggression, torture, Obama now prosecutes only the revelation of massive waste by the NSA, a socially useful act which the Bush administration itself investigated but did not choose to indict or prosecute!
Bush brought no indictments against whistleblowers, though he suspended Drake’s clearance. Obama, in this and other matters relating to secrecy and whistleblowing, is doing worse than Bush. His violation of civil liberties and the White House’s excessive use of the executive secrecy privilege is inexcusable.
Ellsberg’s overall assessment of Obama is devastating:
He’s a good politician. He said what he needed to say to get elected, and now he’s just taking advantage of the office. Like any administration before, his administration caters to the profits of big corporations like BP and Goldman Sachs — even though I think BP won’t get off that easily this time. His early campaign contributions, the big corporate contributions, came from Wall Street. They got their money’s worth.
One might disagree with some aspects of this criticism and call it overly harsh. But on the other hand, it is clear that at least from the progressive-liberal-left perspective, the bloom is off the Obama presidency. This is further shown by the skirmishes between the administration and various candidacies like Arlen Specter’s and Blanche Lincoln’s where the left of the party has refused to follow in lock step to the administration’s wishes and to voting mindlessly for their candidates. The Rahm Emanuel-like allegation about the Lincoln-Halter struggle that labor unions just “flushed down the toilet” $10 million that could have been used elsewhere to help Democrats shows the rancor between the administration and its left-progressive base.
Digby has an excellent article exploring the tensions between the administration and the progressive movement, fittingly called, “Where did their love go?” http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/where-did-their-love-go-afn10.html
He measured reactions and statements from the progressive Campaign for America’s Future conference that recently took place in Washington, D.C. Two years ago, notes Digby, this conference overwhelmingly voted for Obama but today the administration has to wonder, what happened to all that love?
None of this bodes well for November. Without the enthusiasm, the funding, the ideas that the progressive left brings, the Democratic Party will struggle. One of the ironies of Obama is that he seems more intent on forging bipartisan ties with stalwart Republican right wingers (such as Judd Gregg whom he wanted in his cabinet) than forging ties with an important element of his own base. That too doesn’t bode well for Obama in 2012.
All well said. Obama will go down in history as, at best, a transitional figure, and at worst, a turncoat and traitor to the people who believed and trusted in him.
He didn’t say “all troops”, he said “all combat troops” and he’s repeatedly explained that this means leaving 30-50,000 residual troops for some unspecified time.
Rootless2, you are wrong about Obama not promising to remove all US troops from Iraq by the end of 2011.
Obama made that pledge in his Afghanistan war escalation speech.
Here are Obama’s own words:
See this diary at Firedoglake for details and also for a transcript of Obama’s speech as detailed by the New York Times on 12/02/2009. http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/17094
It will never happen. Obama plans to keep a military, and a controlling political and economic presence in Iraq indefinitely. Why do you suppose he has not ever suggested downsizing the imperial citadel on the Tigris that Americans risibly call an embassy?
That’s what I said: “remove our combat brigades“
He’s always advocated a residual force.
Ok. So I mixed up this summer and next year. What’s the basis for Ellsberg saying that by the end of 2011 there will be 30K US troops in Iraq?
We have gone from 150,000 to about 70,000 in 1.5 years.
And US soldiers are mostly in base.
This stuff is so tired.
“One of the ironies of Obama is that he seems more intent on forging bipartisan ties with stalwart Republican right wingers (such as Judd Gregg whom he wanted in his cabinet) than forging ties with an important element of his own base. “
But Judd Gregg is not in the cabinet and Hilda Solis, the invisible cabinet member is. Is she invisible because she’s a she? Because she’s not white? Because she’s running the unsexy labor department that only does stupid shit like save poor people’s benefits from theft and enforce OSHA regulations? Whatever it is, she’s invisible to the progressive blogosphere and to the MSM that sets the agenda of the progressive blogosphere.
The fact is that the “progressive blogosphere” is nobody’s base. They are fickle, easily distracted, and deeply naive about the media. Nobody in their right mind would treat them as important parts of a coalition.
You completely miss my point, Rootless2. Judd Gregg is NOT in the Obama administration ONLY BECAUSE he said no to Obama. That Obama as a Democratic president wanted this extreme right winger to begin with tells us a lot about Obama. Note too that Obama has also kept on W’s Defense Secretary in the most important cabinet position. And he has promoted most of W’s generals (including McCrystal).
So what is the big difference between Bush and Obama aside from the smiley face and better public relations (note too that Obama’s poll numbers are going South even with this because he has failed to deal with the economic recovery as he has failed on the oil/environmental catastrophe).
I don’t care about your assessment of “why”, I care about what “is”.
What is: Hildo Solis is in the Cabinet, Judd Gregg is not.
I think your assessment of “why” is wrong, but it doesn’t matter.
If you concentrate only on what is, why ignore Obama’s own words calling for the removal of “all of our troops by the end of 2011”? Admit it, Obama did make that statement and he will break that pledge just as he has broken so many other promises (FISA, DADT, closing Gitmo etc.).
It’s also Hilda Solis, not Hildo.
What’s the evidence he will break the Iraq pledge? We are exactly at the place in Iraq he promised to be at (give or take some months)?