Was Obama given Guidance or was he Goaded into Libya?

Quote:
Not enough choices Jim. The truth is much worse then "a bit of both plus his inexperience as a leader".

Shalom

Peter

For the greater part of 2007 and 2008, George W. Bush served as then-candidate Barack Obama's punching bag. On the road to the White House, Obama predictably blamed the Bush administration for anything that was going wrong in America. But now it seems that by keeping many of the Bush policies in place, and even expanding some, President Obama is implicitly admitting that Bush was right all along.

The same day that the President announced his re-election campaign, Attorney General Eric Holder did a sharp about-face on the controversial and unpopular decision to try suspected terrorists, most prominently Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, on American soil, possibly even in lower Manhattan. Bringing suspected terrorists to federal court was a proposal, now thankfully doomed, designed to appease the President's far-left base. Obama even signed an executive order to close Gitmo, touting this as a fulfilled campaign promise.

But this most recent reversal was more than a politically necessary flip-flop of someone who must make overtures to the middle. Even though Holder still supports civilian trials for terrorists, his boss all but acknowledged that George W. Bush was correct in not bringing the detainees to the U.S.

Nor is this the only time Obama has validated Bush-era policy.

Despite his effort to demonize personal wealth and argue incessantly that the "rich" don't deserve a tax cut, Obama extended (reluctantly, but still) the Bush tax cuts for all Americans and touted the move as "a good deal for the American people." Notice the pattern? Come out hard against Bush policies, only to continue them. Call it political expediency if you want, but O sure is looking a lot like W.

The President's usage of a Bush blueprint isn't isolated to domestic issues, either. Obama has firmly embraced the notion of the previous administration that the U.S. will play a role - a military one, if necessary - in fostering democracy in the Middle East.

When rebels in Cairo took to the streets, Obama sided with them (eventually) in calling for the ouster of U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak. And when the Egyptian leader finally stepped down at the United States' urging, Obama declared, "we stand ready to provide whatever assistance is necessary, and asked for, to pursue a credible transition to a democracy," he pledged. Sounds a lot like what George W. Bush said about Iraq, doesn't it?

Then, when rebels incited violence in Libya, the administration intervened by calling for the dictator Moammar Khadafy to step down. When he refused, Obama - without the permission of Congress - sent U.S. forces into a third country for combat, prompting the Los Angeles Times to ask if his "tongue has turned." A surprising move for someone who so recently, so openly opposed the forceful promotion of democracy abroad.

In point of fact, both Obama and Biden opposed Bush's war in Iraq and its tactics, but since taking office, they've praised it. "This could be one of the great achievements of this administration," Biden told Larry King in February.

This was more than simply supporting a Bush doctrine; they were actually trying to take credit for it.

It should be said that though this administration has rightly seen the light on Gitmo and lower taxes, they've also adopted some of the more negative traits of the Bush years.

Obama did everything in his power to cast Bush & Co. as cozy with big business. Yet Bam's been accused of getting too close to companies such as General Electric, which paid no federal taxes last year, according to an explosive recent New York Times report. Nevertheless, GE chief Jeffrey Immelt was appointed to lead the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

In addition, the prior administration was routinely accused of being insular and operating with a bunker mentality. In what was supposed to be sharp contrast, Obama promised an unprecedented amount of sunlight. But the current White House has been as transparent as a wool sock. According to the Associated Press, "two years into its pledge to improve government transparency, the Obama administration took action on fewer requests for federal records from citizens, journalists, companies and others last year even as significantly more people asked for information."

Even though Obama might be mirroring many of Bush's moves, there is still one big difference between the two men: One wins accolades for his actions, the other was famously assaulted with a shoe.

For example, despite his record, Obama won an award for transparency that he accepted, most ironically, behind closed doors. He also won the Nobel Peace Prize, despite being a President now waging three wars.

Bush wasn't perfect. And he certainly wasn't out for any awards. He was more concerned with doing the right thing. Watching Obama follow diligently in his footsteps suggests that he often did nothing less than that.

andrea@andreatantaros.com

Andrea Tantaros, whose column appears on Thursdays on NYDailyNews.com and often in the print edition of the newspaper, is a political commentator as well as a corporate communications executive. She previously served as a senior adviser on a number of political campaigns and as communications director for former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-N.Y.) and on Capitol Hill as press secretary for Republican leadership. Tantaros lives in New York City.