Edit: Reading from comments, I should clarify. I totally agree with OP, I just find it incredibly sad.
Bush oversaw extra-legal interrogation methods. Obama oversaw a massive increase in extra-legal assassinations by drone. Low-minded citizens can get trapped in the game by getting angry about "the other party" and its actions, or they can recognize that administrations and congressmen in both parties blame the other side for cover while simultaneously building off its precedents to expand their own power.
Go ahead, read the article, don't let the facts hit you on the way out.
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-...
I don't disagree with the fact, I disagree with the comparison.
I don't condone any of it, but I think you're being disingenuous about how wars work if you're suggesting they can be waged without civilian deaths.
Perspective is in order here. "Credible estimates of Iraq War [alone] casualties range from 150,000 to 460,000" [0].
Obama inherited two wars (one illicit) and he settled on drone strikes in part to reduce the awful rate of civilian casualties. There is really no equivalence here and to suggest that there is actually introduces the bias that makes it about right vs. left.
I applaud your encouragement to focus on facts, but let's consider the complete set vs. those that support a particular world view.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#T...
What a pompous response. You are not using a 'complete set [of facts]' either, you're just adding your own facts which support your particular worldview.
Let's not imply that anyone is working from perfect knowledge of the subject as a rhetorical attempt to signal authority. Both misleading and clearly incorrect.
I've added facts to the original set that was offered. Those added facts broaden the context. If you have more facts to add that would further broaden the context, then you're free to add them as well, versus merely devising adjectives for others' responses.
But I agree with the original point, GOP did start this mess on the lie of weapons of mass destruction.
That is very different from listing the name of an American on a "kill list" and ordering a drone strike. Judge, jury and executioner.
P.S. I don't want to sound like an apologist regarding Obama's actions here. My personal feelings are that he was largely better than Bush, but not without fault.
One could argue it was justified. I would personally feel horrible if it was justified that way. But, hey, it's not my country.
I don't understand this whole idea that we're 'normalizing' immoral actions. Never in our history have they not been normal.
Yes, I too would have liked it if Obama did more on this. But I am not convinced that he did less than he politically could. As is apparently easy to forget, the US right was at his throat for years. A Republican Congressman went on TV to talk about how Obama threatened America's security by... wearing a tan suit. [1] The notion that they would have gotten behind a sustained investigation of the criminality of the Bush years strikes me as absurdly optimistic.
The new Commander in Chief failed to hold those under his command accountable for their immoral, illegal acts that put our democracy at risk. In doing so, he set a precedent that will last for generations.
At least nobody gave Bush a Nobel Peace Prize. Obama had filled people with hopes and dream and in 8 years did nothing. Just his last year in power he dropped over 20000 bombs in countries we were not even at war with. Speaking of torture, Guantanamo is still open, he could have closed that. In other words expectation were different for Obama so pointing out his failures is also expected vis-a-vis those expectations.
Apri 2007:
"As President, I will close Guantanamo, reject the Military Commissions Act and adhere to the Geneva Conventions. Our Constitution and our Uniform Code of Military Justice provide a framework for dealing with the terrorists."
There was nothing there about "if Congress lets me and activist judges don't impede my progress".
Unlike some presidents, Obama tried to follow the rule of law. He achieved 90% what he promised on Guantanamo. Are you really quivering over the last 10%?
Yes because it is still open. You don't lock a prisoner without trial only 10% he is either locked up for decades and tortured or he isn't.
The ones left in Guantanamo were given trials and found guilty of war crimes, including the rape and torture of their own former countrymen. Rotting in a prison with free healthcare, food, and religious materials is better than they deserve.
You really should do some basic research before you try to argue out of your rear on this.
Legally obligated by what? Aren't people deported back to their country of origin all the time. They don't want to take them fine, deny their citizens visas and entry then, until they do.
> Congress passed a law barring the transfer of those prisoners to stateside facilities from Guantanamo,
Ok fair point, you're right about that. Why make strong promises then?
> US would have been within its rights to execute these individuals
That's a bit disturbing. At that level what rights are we talking about. US had been droning people including American citizens, so sure they could have taken them back and shot them. So we should be glad they didn't. Great, I guess?
By treaty.
Why make strong promises then? Because when he made those promises he had a Democratic Congress and a reasonable expectation of fully fulfilling his promise, which he still managed to almost fulfill despite the most hostile Congress in history.
At that level what rights are we talking about. US had been droning people including American citizens, so sure they could have taken them back and shot them.
We're not talking about civilians or soldiers. We're talking about people who deliberately and avowedly took up arms against the U.S., renounced their citizenship (U.S. and non-U.S. alike), and raped, tortured, and murdered civilians and soldiers without any attempt to follow the various treaties established for wartime conduct.
Why The Fuck shouldn't we, he campaigned on ending that shit. His similar actions on the banking crisis continue to have horrific consequences.
Who gives a fuck about the GOP, we know they're nutso - Obama pretended to be sane though. Obama is also directly responsible for the DNC owing so much money that they were forced to sign a deal with Hillary before the nominations even started.
Given that they are running the government, congress, the CIA and everything else besides, a lot of people care - and maybe you should too?
Perhaps you should consider caring about the "nutso" GOP, as their hold on power is the current reality.
Obama, on the other hand, was full of fiery speeches during his campaign about ending torture.
What are you, implying I don't care that crazy people are running the country? Feck off ya mook.
Anyone can have a bad day(s), and I think it's worthwhile to recognize that humanness and be willing to extend grace.
Still, that doesn't mean I need to go there with you. Good luck.
Obama, on the other hand, was branded as the good guy. He did very little to deserve that though. People were blinded by his eloquence, but he was a huge disappointment as a president.
I mean, if the next president after you is a choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton, you definitely fucked up and set the standards low.
Anyways, Obama's targeted killing doc[1] actually shows the deep state constitutional abuses and extrajudicial killings continued to develop and evolve under his watch. Whether he is really in control of that, or not, is up for debate.
Eisenhower and JFK warned us that these unelected powers were becoming too powerful.
1-https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/obama-targeted-...
> Her then-boss Jose Rodriguez, the CIA’s director of operations for counterterrorism, signed off on the order.
But of course all the blame lies on Haspel...
The Obama administration had eight years to do something about this and instead decided turn the other way. All we got was a mealy-mouthed admission that "we tortured some folks."