At this point: how much, if any, do you trust Barack Obama on national security issues? I'm talking here about trust, not about whether you support or oppose his stated policies...in other words, if there's incomplete information, do you give him the benefit of the doubt, or not?
Generally yes, but not when it comes to leaks/journalism related matters.
ReplyDeleteI trust him a great deal on national security issues, maybe even more than I did before now that Kerry and Hagel have replaced Clinton and Gates. My worries regarding him (such as they are) are much more on economic policy than they are on security issues and foreign affairs. Oh and lack of attention to judicial nominations, of course. :)
ReplyDeleteNope.
ReplyDeleteWhat do we mean by "national security issues?" Foreign policy, civil liberties, distribution of intellience resources, improving the farcical "security measures" in public places (notably airports)?
ReplyDeleteI guess on those four I'm a "sure; no but I never expected much; definitely not; and maybe." I mean, those scanning machines are creeperiffic, but on the plus side it's been years since anyone confiscated my Vaseline while looking deep into my eyes and asserting: "Ma'am -- you have no idea what Osama bin Laden is capable of."
Never did.
ReplyDeleteYeah, pretty much. While there's a lot of criticism out there about this in the liberal blogosphere, most of criticisms seem to be based on policy disagreement. Like some people are unilaterally opposed to drone strikes ever, or some people think we should have more media shield laws when it comes to leaks and such.
ReplyDeleteFair enough, but it's not like you think he's dangerous on these issues, you just wish we had a different policy.
When the policy involves spying, state secrecy and an ongoing erosion of constitutional liberties -- then the policy itself is responsible for a lack of trust.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. Much of the left-wing critique the president is relatively feckless.
ReplyDeleteI trust somewhere between "not at all" and "much more than I would a Republican."
ReplyDeleteI don't consider myself a liberal, but I'm certainly to the left of Obama on this one, so I think I'm fair to answer it.
ReplyDeleteI don't trust him. And it's the wielding of the "incomplete information" card that bothers me the most. Given the policies and actions we have observed, the only way he can possibly be trusted is if the private info he already possesses renders a world many times more dangerous than the public information would suggest. But if that is the true state of the world, I would expect a trustworthy POTUS to present it as such, instead of doing a double-talk dance, in which we are constantly "winning" the GWOT, etc., but also constantly pushing the envelope further on executive power, civil liberities, etc.
In order for me to trust this POTUS or any future one on this set of issues, I either want a stronger and more detailed justification for the policies, or I want policies that are commensurate with the publicly-known threat. Right now we are getting neither.
Now, I don't want to single Obama out. GWB was perhaps worse. But when asked the question "why can't you tell us?" it's not good enough for me if the answer is simply "national security." That's an empty phrase.
m
Hear hear!
DeleteHe could say that we're winning because of the accumulation of power. To my mind, that still wouldn't justify the Constitutional violations.
DeleteI'm not certain how much control he has over some sectors of the Administration. DOJ is supposed to be independent, and enforce the law assuming its constitutionality. Hence, they have to go whole hog against journalists talking to guys with secret information.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Obama has the best interests of the country at heart, and that he's not too bad at long range planning. Will he veto the Patriot Act or AUMF when they renew it? I don't know. If he does, he'll have laid the groundwork first, much like they did with DADT repeal.
Nonetheless, especially where we're talking military capability like drone strikes, I'm thinking he won't be able to take their toys away.
As far as mistakes go, I trust him a great deal. The level of incompetence and poor judgement has been much lower as far as foreign policy goes. You'd have to go back to Bush I to find something similar. And GHW Bush was a former CIA director.
ReplyDeleteThe flip side to this is the level of routine paranoia about even small leaks is probably on par with the CIA. And while there has been a lot more openness in many of our bilateral relationships, there's been hardly any support for multilateral institutions. Especially on big issues like climate, e middle east violence, and economic concerns.
Some of these problems are a consequence of things Obama inherited, the search for a way out of these tight and difficult situations, and the need to compromise. For instance, Obama inherited the Iraq War, the Afghan War, enhanced interrogations, Guantanamo, the drone program, and prosecutions against leaks; it's hard to say he would have started any of them, although we'll never know. The earlier leak prosecutions began under Bush and Albert Gonzales but came to trial under Obama. They were escalated not because of any initiative by Obama but because of pressure from Congress, where Republicans assumed Obama was behind the leaks and demanded investigations. A year ago they (and some Democrats, such as Feinstein) were specifically demanding investigations into the Yemen case (now known as the A.P. case) and the Stuxnet leak. Now that they find out the investigation is happening, they're all aghast. Add to that the impact of technology: without interviewing a single person they could look into their computers and see that this guy Kim had the secret North Korea report up on his screen and the Fox reporter on his cell phone simultaneously. If George Washington could have done that, there probably would have been prosecutions then too. (Of course, under John Adams the US outlawed "false, scandalous, and malicious writings" and threw reporters in jail.) Obama escalated (maybe we should say "surged") the drone program as part of the way to get out of Afghanistan while suppressing al-Qa'ida (the reason we went in as opposed to fighting Afghan peasants who resent foreigners in their valleys) and reducing US casualties. Other problems came out of that that he or someone around him probably should have anticipated. (I suspect he's pretty gullible when it comes to arguments about what military technology is capable of achieving and what the associated costs and consequences will be. Missile defense is another example of that.) Now that he's confronted the consequences of these acts, he's proposed a shield law for journalists (which the Repbulicans will oppose despite their new-found outrage) and he's reconsidering the drone program.
ReplyDeleteSo, do I trust him? I trust his basic instincts, yes. Yet he faces circumstances that are more complicated than many critics care to admit, he may be a bit too willing to compromise (but that is a part of any government reality) and a bit too trusting of technical solutions. Should we keep an eye on him to the extent that we can, just in case. Sure, when would we not?
Scott, I think it's fair to say that the President has given the security state everything it wants in terms of power and secrecy. He hasn't been the slightest bit liberal. What else can be said for a constitutional law professor who signs the Patriot Act and the NDAA and orders the targeted killing of American citizens?
DeleteI trust his judgement. Even on things I DON'T agree with.. I trust that he has been thoughtful and analytic about the issue, even if the final choice is something I don't agree with..
ReplyDeleteI trust him to absolutely not care at all about civil liberties issues, and to behave like a paranoid authoritarian jerk as far as anything having to do with leaks or whistleblowing goes.
ReplyDelete