LITTLE HOPE FOR CHANGE: A SUMMARY OF THE BUSH-OBAMA LEGACY

I found the following excellent article at Obama the Conservative.com   Link to website  I am showing the article but not the sources. I suggest if you find it interesting you should go to the site and read it thoroughly. I learned a ton of stuff I never knew. On to the article:

More than halfway through Barack Obama’s first term as president, little has changed from the Bush era when it comes to issues such as the War on Terror, civil liberties, militarism, corporate influence on government, secrecy, and environmental policy. This can by no means be blamed only on Republican obstructionism. Little Hope for Change compares the track records of the two presidents, and summarizes how Obama’s actual policies contrast with his lofty rhetoric. At a time when liberals spend much of their energy fending off attacks on Obama from the right, we hope that this blog will serve as a resource for shifting the political discourse back to the left, remobilizing the electorate, and reminding us why we supported candidate Obama in the first place.

The text will be updated periodically according to new developments in the Obama presidency.


1. HUMAN RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES


1.1 Habeas corpus


BUSH DID…


Bush suspended terrorism suspects’ right to habeas corpus. By branding them “unlawful enemy combatants” and by imprisoning them in Guantánamo Bay, his administration argued that they are not protected by the Constitution or by the Geneva Conventions, and can be imprisoned indefinitely without evidence or charges. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Guantánamo Bay detainees do have the right to habeas corpus. [1]


OBAMA SAID…


A constitutional scholar with a law degree from Harvard, Obama argued strongly against the Bush administration’s disregard for civil rights, calling them “the essence of who we are”: “As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantánamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence. … By giving suspects a chance – even one chance – to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit.” [2] (Senate, September 2006)


OBAMA DID…


Shortly after assuming office, Obama appealed a district court ruling that granted prisoners in Afghanistan the right to challenge the legality of their detention, adopting the legal argument straight from the Bush DOJ. [3] This was well before his political opponents exerted public pressure to this effect. There is little or no evidence against a significant portion of U.S. detainees held on suspicion of terrorism, and many are known by the administration to be innocent. [4] In May 2010, Obama won the case in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals (see point 1.2 below). [5][6]


1.2 Closing Guantánamo Bay


BUSH DID…


In 2006, Bush and many high-ranking officials in his administration stated publicly that they want to close down Guantánamo. [7] The facility had become a PR disaster for the U.S., due to torture, homicides, and its very reason for existing, which was to escape legal oversight. [8][9] There was, however, never any backtracking by the Bush administration on the legality of the practices in Guantánamo.


OBAMA SAID…


“Guantanamo has become a recruiting tool for our enemies. The legal framework behind Guantanamo has failed completely, resulting in only one conviction. … The first step to reclaiming America’s standing in the world has to be closing this facility. As president, Barack Obama will close the detention facility at Guantanamo.” [10] (This statement is still online at Obama’s ‘Organizing for America’ website.)


OBAMA DID…


One of Obama’s first executive orders was to shut down Guantánamo (which Bush had also promised to do), along with secret CIA prisons abroad. [11] Obama’s strategy, however, quickly became merely to move Guantánamo practices to the Bagram detention facility in Afghanistan, and to argue for their legality in this new location (see point 1.1). In May 2010, Obama won his case at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, making Bagram – infamous for its own cases of torture and homicide – a new legal black hole for the administration. [12][13][14] This prompted eight major civil liberties and human rights groups to sign a joint letter opposing the entire closure. [15] Guantánamo has still not been closed, over a year after Obama’s self-imposed deadline of January 2010. If and when it eventually is, it “will have little meaning if the administration leaves in place the policies that the prison has come to represent,” as ACLU director Jameel Jaffer stated. [16] The “small print” in the executive order also kept open such secret CIA facilities as were deemed “for temporary use.”
On March 8, 2011, Obama signed a new executive order, formally codifying the permanent role of the Guantánamo Bay facility in the administration’s policy of indefinite detention, and as the location for military tribunals (see 1.3 below). [16b][16c]

1.3 Military tribunals


BUSH DID…


Dubbed “kangaroo courts” by human rights organizations, the military tribunals introduced by Bush permitted testimony extracted through torture and hear-say to be used as evidence, and permitted withholding evidence from the defendants, ensuring swift convictions for detainees who would not be found guilty in a civilian trial. [17] At the same time, the Bush administration also tried a number of terrorism suspects successfully in civilian courts. [18]


OBAMA SAID…


“By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure. … This legal black hole has substantially set back America’s ability to lead the world against the threat of terrorism, and undermined our most basic values. Make no mistake: we are less safe because of the way George Bush has handled this. My approach is guided by a simple premise: I have confidence that our system of justice is strong enough to deal with terrorists.” [19] (Press conference, June 18, 2008)
“[Obama] will reject the Military Commissions Act, which allowed the U.S. to circumvent the Geneva Convention in the handling of detainees.” [10] (This statement is still online at Obama’s ‘Organizing for America’ website.)


OBAMA DID…


Shortly after rejecting detainees’ right to habeas corpus, Obama began the fight to bring back military tribunals, causing an uproar among human rights and civil rights groups. [20][21][22] Standing in front of the original Constitution at the National Archives in May 2009, Obama introduced a staggering new expansion of executive power: In addition to using military tribunals, the administration would now retain the right to detain people indefinitely even if they were known to be innocent of any crime, without charges, and without their day in either a court or a military tribunal. [23] This is the first time in U.S. history that the executive branch has asserted the right to imprison people indefinitely on suspicion that they might commit a crime in the future. [24][25][26]
In October 2009, Obama signed the Military Commissions Act of 2009 into law. Attorney General Eric Holder has also assured critics that, in the unlikely case that a terrorism suspect is found not guilty by a civilian court, the administration will imprison him anyway, using what they call the president’s “post-acquittal detention powers.” [27] As the administration has also retained the right to decide who will be heard in court, who in a military tribunal, and who will be detained without any type of legal process, the question of civilian courts has become merely a symbolic one: whoever is deemed by the administration to be a terrorist will be imprisoned, in all cases (or killed; see point 1.6 below).
The first military tribunal under Obama began in August 2010, against Omar Khadr. He was a 15-year-old child soldier in 2002, when he was captured in a legitimate firefight in Afghanistan, and has grown up in Guantánamo. Confessions were coerced from him through torture: the wounded Khadr was interrogated immediately after capture; drugged and handcuffed to a stretcher; threatened with gang rape and death; hooded and chained with his arms suspended in a cage-like cell; forced to urinate on himself and used as a human mop; and was subjected to sleep deprivation for the following eight years. These coerced confessions were admitted as evidence in the tribunal. [28] The U.N. Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict, Radhika Coomaraswamy, condemned the proceedings, saying they will jeopardize the status of child soldiers around the world: “Since World War II, no child has been prosecuted for a war crime.” [29]
In April 2011, the administration announced that they had reversed their position on trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other alleged 9/11 plotters in a civilian court, and will instead try them in military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay. [29b][29c]


1.4 Extraordinary renditions


BUSH DID…


Called an “illegal tool” of the U.S. by the European Parliament, another method to capture and interrogate terrorism suspects by the Bush administration was the program of “extraordinary renditions” – meaning disappearances, and the outsourcing of interrogation and torture to other countries. [30] Bush held the legal view that the U.S. can imprison people of any citizenship from anywhere in the world as prisoners of war, as the entire world is a “battlefield” in the “War on Terror.” [31]


OBAMA SAID…


“To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.” [32] (Foreign Affairs, summer 2007)


OBAMA DID…


With an executive order in early 2009, Obama explicitly authorized the CIA to continue extraordinary renditions. [33] Like Bush, Obama has claimed that diplomatic assurances, along with oversight, will make sure that torture won’t be used – but this has not been the case. The first documented rendition under Obama was that of a Lebanese white-collar criminal, Raymond Azar, in April 2009. He and a friend were seized by eight armed FBI agents; he was hooded, stripped naked and photographed, given a body cavity search, shown a picture of his family and told he’d never see them again unless he confesses, driven to Bagram, shackled to a chair for seven hours, placed in an unheated metal shipping container during a cold storm, and deprived of sleep. [34][35][36]
Obama has also endorsed the view that the entire world is a “battlefield,” and that anyone anywhere can be a legitimate target – even for assassination, and including U.S. citizens living abroad (see point 1.6). [37]


1.5 Torture


BUSH DID…


Using euphemisms such as “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the Bush administration approved various forms of torture in the interrogation of individuals suspected of links to terrorism, and ushered in a culture permissive of torture within the CIA and the military. As evidenced by autopsy reports posted online by the ACLU Accountability Project, at least one hundred people (probably more) were tortured to death in U.S. custody, including at the so-called ‘Camp No’ in Guantánamo. Approved techniques used have included controlled drowning, insects placed in a confinement box, sexual humiliation, slamming people against the wall, sleep deprivation, extreme temperatures, stress positions, etc.
Detainee treatment in Iraq – at Abu Ghraib prison, as well as at Camp Nama under the watch of Gen. Stanley McChrystal – included both approved techniques and indiscriminate forms of torture, such as rape, various forms sexual and other humiliation, urinating on detainees, repeatedly striking injured body parts, dragging detainees on the floor from ropes tied to legs or penises, and pouring phosphoric acid on their bodies. [6]
In June 2010, Physicians for Human Rights and the Red Cross reported that medical professionals and the CIA had participated in human experimentation to further develop torture techniques. [38]
Bush’s categorical reply to questions concerning the issue was, “The United States doesn’t torture.” [39]


OBAMA SAID…


“… We have to understand that torture is not going to either provide us with information, and it’s also going to create more enemies. And so as a strategy for creating a safer and secure America, I think it is wrong-headed, as well as immoral. … And I think that we’ve got to do a thorough investigation on this.” [40] (October 4, 2007; MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”)
“The United States will not torture.” [41] (January 2009, after signing his third executive order)


OBAMA DID…


Torture was already banned before Obama took office, and before Bush took office, by various international and domestic laws. Limiting interrogation techniques to those specified in the Army Field Manual was reaffirmed again in the Detainee Treatment Act at the beginning of Bush’s second term. Obama’s executive order didn’t change anything concerning the legality of torture, nor did it do anything to ensure enforcement of existing laws (quite like the executive order to close down Guantánamo in one year did nothing to close it down). On the contrary, with his “we must look forward, not backward” doctrine, Obama issued blanket immunity to everyone and anyone who authorized, destroyed evidence of, or committed torture – shielding them not only from prosecutions, but from investigation. Even though the executive branch has no legal right to decide which laws are enforced or which crimes investigated, this has been the practice under Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder (as it was under Bush). Former detainees who have been released as innocent, and who have been victims of torture, have been barred by the administration from suing the Government. (See point 4.1 below.) [42][43][44][45]
As confirmed by an Open Society Institute report by Joseph Horowitz, released in October 2010, and as reported earlier by a number of media outlets, the U.S. maintains a (formerly secret) prison in connection with the Bagram Airbase, operated by the Joint Special Operations Command and the Defense Intelligence Agency, where abusive interrogations continue. [46] As Scott Horton of Harper’s Magazine wrote: “The Horowitz report … helps establish that the Obama Administration brought change to the formal, public detentions policy while continuing the abusive secret operations of JSOC and the DIA.” The Red Cross is denied access to this facility, known as the “Tor Jail” (Pashtun for “Black”). [47]
The nearly 400,000 reports written by military personnel in Iraq and published by WikiLeaks confirm that U.S. troops, as a matter of policy, hand detainees over to Iraqi forces for torture, and have interrogated them after torture while they were still visibly injured. The leaks also document cases of detainee abuse by U.S. troops. The forms of torture used by Iraqis included electric shocks and drilling holes in kneecaps. The revelations prompted immediate and world-wide calls for investigation into possible war crimes by coalition and Iraqi forces under Bush and Obama, voiced by, among others, the United Nations and by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg of Britain. [48][49][50][51][52][53]
As the International Committee of the Red Cross found, treatment of Guantánamo detainees still violates the Geneva Conventions, one of the most egregious examples being the death of an inmate by force-feeding with a tube. [54][55][56] Prisoners at Guantánamo, and a human rights lawyer, have described the conditions at the prison camp as worse after the presidential elections. [57][57b]
Obama has also explicitly authorized the CIA to continue “extraordinary renditions” to other countries, resulting in torture (see point 1.4 above). [33][34]
May 2009 saw the confirmation of General Stanley McChrystal, Obama’s choice to head the American military campaign in Afghanistan, who oversaw interrogations at Camp Nama during the Iraq torture scandal, and had personally promised to deny the Red Cross access there. [58] At the same time, Obama reversed his promise to comply with a court order to release photographs of torture committed by members of the U.S. military. [59]
Obama has personally defended the abusive treatment of the alleged army whistleblower, Pfc. Bradley Manning. [59b] In an apparent attempt to coerce Manning to give incriminating testimony on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and to set an example to other would-be leakers, Manning has been kept in solitary confinement for nine months (see point 4.2). He is not allowed to exercise in his cell, and is forced to be naked for morning inspection. [59c] Manning’s treatment has prompted the UN to open an investigation into possible torture, and received condemnation from human rights organizations, as well as the editorials of The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and The Wall Street Journal. [59d][59e][59f][258] Manning has not been convicted of any crime.


1.6 Assassination of U.S. citizens


BUSH DID…


After the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration authorized the CIA and the military to compile a list of “high value targets” who could be killed on sight without legal oversight. [60]


OBAMA SAID…


“I also reject the view … that the president may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. … And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority. Some further points: The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.” [61] (Interview with The Boston Globe, December 2007)


OBAMA DID…


After expanding his own presidential authority by asserting the right to decide on terrorism suspects’ guilt without any legal process, and to detain individuals on suspicion of possible future crimes (see point 1.3), Obama took the expansion of executive power one step further: In January 2010, the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, testified before Congress that the Obama administration is reserving the right to include Americans on the assassination list, and kill them anywhere abroad at any time, without legal oversight. This constitutes death penalty without due process, a much more radical power than merely imprisoning Americans. The number of Americans on the list is unknown, but includes at least four names, possibly dozens. [60][62]
Most of these assassinations are conducted by the CIA with remote-controlled, unmanned drones (see point 2.2 below), condemned by the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Philip Alston. The Obama administration has confirmed their authorization to kill the American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. [63][64]


1.7 The U.S. PATRIOT Act


BUSH DID…


The U.S. PATRIOT Act, signed into law by Bush after the September 11 attacks and widely criticized as unconstitutional, gave the president unforeseen powers to monitor phone conversations and email exchanges, and to access personal files such as medical and financial records. It also gave law enforcement and immigration authorities greater powers to detain and deport immigrants at their own discretion. The PATRIOT Act also vastly expanded the use of “national security letters” by the FBI (and reportedly also the CIA and DoD). These are documents that can be issued by the agency without the approval of a judge, mandating the recipients to submit data and records pertaining to other individuals (such as clients or patients), and barring them from disclosing to anyone, including their lawyer, that they received such a letter. [65][66]


OBAMA SAID…


“This is legislation that puts our own Justice Department above the law. When national security letters are issued, they allow federal agents to conduct any search on any American, no matter how extensive, how wide ranging, without ever going before a judge to prove the search is necessary. … If someone wants to know why their own Government has decided to go on a fishing expedition through every personal record or private document, through the library books you read, the phone calls you have made, the e-mails you have sent, this legislation gives people no rights to appeal the need for such a search in a court of law. No judge will hear your plea; no jury will hear your case. This is plain wrong. … We owe it to the Nation, we owe it to those who fought for our civil liberties, we owe it to the future and our children to make sure we craft the kind of legislation that would make us proud…” [67] (Senate, December 2005)


OBAMA DID…

In October 2009, Obama joined the GOP in pushing for the renewal of key provisions of the PATRIOT act, and of the law as a whole in 2010. After getting rid of the existing, inadequate protections of civil liberties included in the bill, and rejecting all proposed reforms aimed to protect civil liberties, the Senate Judiciary Committee, including nearly all of its Democrats, voted to pass the law at the express urging of the president. Many Democrats had vehemently condemned the law during Bush’s presidency. In July 2010, the Obama administration began to pressure Congress to rewrite the PATRIOT Act so as to give the FBI the right to access any individual’s Internet activity records without court oversight. [68][69][70]
The White House is pushing for expansion of the use of national security letters. [71][72]


1.8 Warrantless wiretapping


BUSH DID…


The Bush regime began a broad, secret wiretapping program, not only to listen in on Americans’ phone conversations abroad, but to conduct data-mining of domestic phone calls, emails, text messages, and other electronic communication. Bush authorized the NSA to conduct this mass surveillance without warrants, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Wiretap Act, and the Fourth Amendment, with the equally illegal cooperation of major telecommunications companies. [73] After The New York Times uncovered the existence of this program in December 2005, the DOJ under Bush argued that lawsuits regarding the surveillance could not go forward, as this would violate the “state secrets” privilege, thereby compromising national security. [74] In July 2008, the FISA bill was amended by a Democratic-led Congress, to legalize warrantless wiretapping, and to provide immunity to telecommunications companies for “past and future cooperation” with the Government. [75]


OBAMA SAID…


“I strongly oppose retroactive immunity in the FISA bill. Ever since 9/11, this Administration has put forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. … No one should get a free pass to violate the basic civil liberties of the American people – not the President of the United States, and not the telecommunications companies that fell in line with his warrantless surveillance program. We have to make clear the lines that cannot be crossed. That is why I am co-sponsoring Senator Dodd’s amendment to remove the immunity provision. Secrecy must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.” [76] (Campaign statement, January 28, 2008)
“To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.” [77] (Campaign statement, October 24, 2007)
After changing his position: “Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention – once I’m sworn in as president – to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.” [78] (Campaign statement, July 3, 2008)


OBAMA DID…


After securing the Democratic nomination for president, Senator Obama not only voted against filibustering the FISA Amendments Act, but, along with Republicans, voted in favor of the bill itself, which granted unforeseen powers of surveillance to the president, and total immunity to telecommunications companies (see last quote above). [79] This move was defended by many Obama supporters who pointed out that the law does not provide immunity to authorities who implemented the program, back when it was “still” illegal. Upon assuming the presidency, however, Obama promised to “look forward, not backward,” and blocked any efforts to investigate the surveillance (or other) crimes committed during Bush’s tenure, or to bring lawsuits against the perpetrators. To do this, the administration took Bush’s already extreme interpretation of the “state secrets” privilege one step further: no lawsuit concerning surveillance, against any U.S. Government – past, current, or future – can ever go forward, as this would “compromise national security.” (See point 4.1 below.) In other words, Americans have a Constitutional right that is not, and cannot, be enforced. [80][81][82][83] As the Electronic Frontier Foundation stated: “This isn’t change we can believe in. This is change for the worse.” [84]
Electronic surveillance and data-mining on a massive and expanding scale continue to this day, while Obama has vowed to veto any bill that requires the president to even subject his surveillance activities to more congressional oversight – the lack of which enabled Bush to implement the NSA program secretly. In April 2009, The New York Times reported that the NSA under Obama has exceeded even the modest legal limits it was supposed to follow in its collection of Americans’ emails and phone calls. [85][86]
The Obama administration is trying to push for legislation making it easier to monitor BlackBerry devices, Skype, and Facebook. The proposed legislation aims to do away with the decentralized architecture of the Internet, so as to create the ability for the government to conduct surveillance of any type of online communication. [87]


1.9 Immigrant rights


BUSH DID…


Bush attempted to introduce comprehensive immigration reform, and wanted to resolve the status of the over 10 million illegal immigrants already in the country. His plans included a temporary guest worker program, a crackdown on employees knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, and tightening border security. This legislation was defeated in the Senate. [88]


OBAMA SAID…


“We cannot weaken the very essence of what America is by turning our backs on immigrants who want to reunite with their family members, or immigrants who have a willingness to work hard but who may not have the right graduate degrees. This is not who we are as a country. Should those without graduate degrees who spoke Italian or Polish or German, instead of English, have been turned back at Ellis Island?” (The Senate, June 6, 2007)
“I cannot guarantee that it is going to be in the first 100 days. But what I can guarantee is that we will have in the first year an immigration bill that I strongly support and that I’m promoting. And I want to move that forward as quickly as possible.” [89] (Interview with Jorge Ramos on Univision, May 28, 2008)


OBAMA DID…


While criticizing Bush’s plans for an immigration overhaul, what Obama promised during the campaign was essentially the same package that Bush had proposed (and that McCain flip-flopped on): securing the border, a crackdown on employers, and a guest worker program. [90][91] This was a major part of his campaign platform, and he vowed to make it a top priority during his first year in office. While no other aspect of reform has been addressed, Obama has succeeded in directing vast resources to enforcement and border security. Deportations under his administration have “skyrocketed,” according to the pro-immigrant rights group America’s Voice, whose executive director Frank Sharry stated, “It’s remarkable that Barack Obama as a candidate spoke so movingly about how our enforcement priorities were wrong – and now he’s exceeded the Bush administration level.” [92] According to Mary Moreno, a spokesperson for the Center for Community Change, “He’s deporting more people, trying to be tougher; it’s like Bush on steroids.” [93]
Obama rallied bi-partisan support for the bill, which he signed into law in August 2010, allocating $600 million to send 1500 more border patrol agents and two unmanned aerial drones to the U.S.-Mexico border. [94] Obama’s approval rating among Hispanic voters fell by more than 20 percentage points during 2010. [95] The DREAM Act, a proposed law that would have given some young immigrants brought up in the U.S. the chance to achieve legal status though college studies or the military, was defeated in the Senate at the end of 2010. [96]


2. THE WARS, MILITARISM, THE ARAB AND MUSLIM WORLD


2.1 Militarism


BUSH DID…


Bush hiked the nation’s military spending back to Reagan-era levels, and took the country into two catastrophic wars, one of them under false pretenses and in violation of international law. [97][98][99][100]


OBAMA SAID…


“What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income, to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.” [101] (At the rally of Chicagoans Against War in Iraq, October 2002)
“If people tell you that we cannot afford to invest in education or healthcare or fighting poverty, you just remind them that we are spending $10 billion a month in Iraq. And if we can spend that much money in Iraq, we can spend some of that money right here in Cincinnati, Ohio, and in big cities and small towns in every corner of this country.” [102] (Speech at 99th NAACP Convention, July 12, 2008)


OBAMA DID…


In a historically bad economic situation, incomparable to that of 2002 (see first quote above), Obama has surpassed Bush and and Reagan in defense spending, with the largest combined budget for the military since World War II. These hikes have been accompanied by constant, misleading statements about “cuts” in the Pentagon’s budget. [103][104][105][106][107] Meanwhile, Obama has signalled imminent cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (see point 3.4 below). Obama has hiked the spending on, and use of, Special Operations forces, secretly deployed them to 75 countries, and extended de facto “secret wars” to Somalia and Yemen. Moreover, he has started a full-fledged military campaign in Libya (see point 2.7). [108][109][110][111][112]
The Obama administration is in the process of deregulating arms exports, so as to widen America’s already dominant market share in the world, and to boost the business of the U.S. arms industry. In October 2010, Obama approved a $60 billion arms deal, the biggest in U.S. history, with the repressive Saudi regime. [113][114][114b]


2.2 Iraq


OBAMA SAID…


“If we had chosen a different path, the right path, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan, and put more resources into the fight against bin Laden. And instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Baghdad, we could have put that money into our schools and hospitals, our roads and bridges – and that’s what the American people need us to do right now.” [115] (Speech on Potomac primary night, February 12, 2008)
“I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. … Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.” [102] (First Presidential debate, September 26, 2008)
“As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made clear that by August 31, 2010, America’s combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing — as promised and on schedule.” [115b] (Convention of the Disabled American Veterans, Atlanta, August 2, 2010)


OBAMA DID…


Obama had a tremendous advantage against his Democratic primary opponents, as he was not yet a senator when Congress authorized Bush to use force against Iraq. His Iraq policy has, however, merely followed the dictates of President Bush. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were both proponents of the Iraq war, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates is continuing with Obama in the job he had under Bush. [109][116]
What the White House called “withdrawal” from Iraq meant that most of the troops were, in fact, left in the country, while their mission was rebranded as “stability operations.” According to the top American military spokesman in Iraq, Stephen R. Lanza, speaking to the New York Times, “In practical terms, nothing will change; we are already doing stability operations.” [116b] Conversely, the remaining troops are still engaged in military operations. Yanar Mohammed, president of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq, speaking on Democracy Now, described the withdrawal: “If I wouldn’t have seen it on CNN, I wouldn’t have been aware of it at all.” [116c] Obama reduced the troops in Iraq from 94,000 to 50,000, and reinforced them with 7,000 new private security contractors (provided with arms, including Blackhawk helicopters, by the State Department), on top of the approximately 100,000 non-combat private contractors already in the country. This rebranding effort has also meant more lucrative deals for paramilitary contractors such as Blackwater, known for their reckless disregard for civilian lives and the law. [116c][117][117b][117c]
Rather than delivering on a campaign promise, Obama’s Iraq plan follows the policy that was put into place by President Bush and General David Petraeus. The “second” withdrawal date, i.e., the current proposal for an actual withdrawal, is December 31, 2011, following a timeline negotiated between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government and implemented in their status-of-forces agreement, in November 2008. [117d][118] The White House has already indicated that they “have an interest” in keeping large numbers of troops in Iraq well beoynd this point. [118b]
As the so-called “end of combat mission” was taking place in August 2010, Iraq had just seen its deadliest month since 2008, according to numbers provided by the Iraqi government. Iraq has not been stabilized: after troubled parliamentary elections the country took nine months to form a government, with key posts still remaining vacant; its infrastructure is destroyed, with sparse access to water and electricity; violence continues; and over four million people have been turned into refugees. Iraq has seen growing pro-democracy, anti-corruption demonstrations, which have provoked a violent crackdown by the U.S.-backed government, and the imprisonment of 300 journalists, dissidents, artists, lawyers, and activists (see point 2.3).
[119][120][121][122][123][124][124b]


2.3 Afghanistan


OBAMA SAID…


“After 18 months [by July 2011], our troops will begin to come home [from Afghanistan]. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan. … I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources.” [124c] (West Point Military Academy, December 2009)


OBAMA DID…


In a December 2010 open letter to the president, 23 experts on Afghanistan criticized his failing, unsustainable war strategy and pointed out the worsening conditions in the country. [125] Obama has escalated the war, and expanded it into Pakistani border regions, relying increasingly on drone attacks (see point 2.2 below). The number of American troops killed in Afghanistan during the first 18 months of Obama’s presidency surpassed the toll taken by seven years of war under Bush. [126] Having caused scores of civilian deaths, the U.S. military presence in the Middle East continues to foment anti-American sentiment and terrorism. Meanwhile, capturing Osama bin Laden, defeating al-Qaeda (nearly all of whom have left the country), rebuilding the country, winning hearts and minds, or diminishing the threat of terrorism all seem to be either impossible or counterfactual goals for the war, which costs $6.7 billion of borrowed money a month. [127][128][129][130]


2.4 Drone attacks


BUSH DID…


The Bush administration implemented a program of bombing Al Qaeda members and militants hiding around the Pakistani tribal region along the border with Afghanistan, using unmanned Predator drones, which have caused extensive civilian casualties. Most of the drone attacks are covert CIA operations, as opposed to military operations: little information is released to the public, and the media has no access to the targeted areas. The CIA cannot assess the precise extent of the damages, either, as it is operating the drones by remote control far from the targets, mostly from Langley, Virginia. [131]


OBAMA DID…


Obama took over this program, doubled the number of drones, and expanded their use dramatically. Within one year, he had authorized twice as many drone attacks as Bush did during his entire presidency. Towards the end of 2010, the rate further escalated, to about one every day, contributing to a total of 118 attacks for the year. [131a] Since the end of Bush’s term, the CIA has also been authorized to target individuals whose names are not known. According to the Brookings Institute, for each militant, ten civilians are killed, including women and children, while the New America Foundation estimates that one in three are civilians. According to most sources, the number of deaths was at least 2,000 as of December 2010. Philip Alston, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings (see point 1.6 above), has harshly criticized the program, its lack of transparency, pointed out the “risk of developing a ‘Playstation’ mentality to killing,” and warned against the likelihood of other countries copying U.S. tactics.
[131][131b][132][132b][133][133b][134]
During a White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama made jokes about the targeted killings: “Jonas Brothers are here… Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don’t get any ideas. Two words for you: Predator drones. You will never see it coming. You think I’m joking?” [134b]


2.5 Popularity in Arab and Muslim countries


BUSH DID…


Bush was widely mistrusted in the Arab world and Muslim majority countries – following a long history of pained relations with the U.S. – due to his automatic support for Israel under all circumstances, to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and to poorly-worded statements such as vowing to start a “crusade” after the September 11 attacks. [135]

OBAMA SAID…


“I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings. … There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.’ That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.” [136] (Cairo University, June 4, 2009)


OBAMA DID…


After his verbal outreaches to the Muslim world – most notably in the Cairo speech, and the Nowrūz (Persian New Year) greeting to Iranians – President Obama’s popularity in the Middle Eastern and Muslim countries was on the rise. A year after the speech, during which U.S. foreign policy remained virtually unchanged, the popularity of the president and of the U.S. plummeted, according to a number of surveys. According to the Pew Research Center, “the modest levels of confidence and approval observed in 2009 have slipped markedly.” [137] A July 2010 poll by the Brookings Institution showed an even sharper decline in attitudes towards the president, nearing Bush’s approval ratings. [138] “There were a lot of illusions about Obama because he has African and Muslim roots,” said Aya Mahmoud, 22, a student at Cairo University, according to a McClatchy article. “Turns out the speech was all just hype.” [139]
Obama is at war in three predominantly Muslim countries (see points 2.2, 2.3, and 2.7). His administration supports Israel regardless of its actions, while supplying it with increased amounts of weapons, in breach of the Geneva Conventions. Obama has also continued the Bush policy of threatening to bomb Iran (most recently through Adm. Mike Mullen, who went on “Meet the Press” to discuss existing plans to attack Iran). [140] His response to the popular uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa has, however, provided the most poignant illustration of his true policies (see point 2.6 below).


2.6 Pro-democracy uprisings


BUSH DID…


Bush followed the U.S. tradition of propping up and funding friendly dictators in the Arab world, while claiming that a cornerstone of his foreign policy was the effort to spread democracy. This was also one of the stated goals of invading Iraq. [140b]


OBAMA SAID…


“You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called ‘allies’ in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.” [101] (At the rally of Chicagoans Against War in Iraq, October 2002)
“The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference. I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed at one’s own people; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people. Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith — those ideals — that are the true measure of American leadership.” (Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya, March 28, 2011) [284b]


OBAMA DID…


Obama’s actual policies towards repressive regimes in Arab countries have been clearly illustrated by his response to the wave of pro-democracy revolts and demonstrations in North Africa and the Middle-East, known as the Arab Spring.
Tunisia. The first uprising took place in Tunisia, a country that, under the dictatorship of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, had long enjoyed massive amounts of U.S. military aid. The revolt caught the administration off-guard. While the Ben Ali regime was trying to quell the unrest by shooting into crowds of protesters, the Obama administration rushed to defend him. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that they would “not take sides,” emphasized the “very positive aspects of our relationship with Tunisia,” and indicated that the U.S. would wait to see what happens. Meanwhile, Ben Ali received another $12 million in emergency military aid, even as the protests were unfolding. [141][142][143][144]
Egypt. Obama was a staunch supporter of Hosni Mubarak, and both Obama and Hillary Clinton have described him as a “friend.” As with Tunisia, Obama dithered in his response to the events in Egypt, one of the largest recipients of U.S. military aid. The administration weighed in only after the revolution had clearly been successful. Obama then tried to prop up Omar Suleiman – Mubarak’s intelligence chief and America’s local partner in its rendition and torture program – as a new strongman in Egypt, despite growing resentment from the Egyptian public. Suleiman’s rise to power came to halt, however, when he stated on Egyptian TV that his country was “not ready for democracy.” [145][146][147][148][149]
Bahrain. Home of a U.S. naval base, the small island nation of Bahrain has been an important ally in providing logistical support for the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, while U.S. companies have won a number of large contracts from the ruling royal Khalifa family. The years leading up to the Bahraini uprising saw worsening oppression, with increasing repression of civil society, egregious violations of human rights, and rising inequality between the country’s poor Shi’ite majority and well-to-do Sunni minority. In addition to killing scores of protesters, with mostly U.S.-provided arms, forcefully removing the wounded from hospitals and disappearing doctors and nurses who treated them, the royal family invited Saudi-Arabia and five other Gulf nations to send in their armies to crack down on the unrest. Obama condemned the violence in the wake of the Bahraini uprising, but while the U.S. initiated attacks in Libya based on threats to Libyan civilians, Bahrain’s military actions against its own citizens have provoked no concrete U.S. measures (see point 2.7 below). Many analysts have noted that a democratic Bahrain, with its Shi’ite-majority, might bolster Iran’s influence and negatively impact U.S. interests in the region. [150][150b][151][151b]
Yemen. President Ali Abdullah Saleh has been one of the most important partner’s in America’s fight against Al Qaeda. In exchange for generous amounts of military aid, Saleh gave the U.S. free range to conduct bombing campaigns his country, and promised to falsely attribute these attacks to Yemeni forces. Saleh has always repressed opposition to his rule, and the pro-democracy protests that began in the spring of 2011 were met with a violent crackdown. Hundreds of unarmed protesters have been killed and wounded by government forces, including snipers. While the protesters were repeatedly pleading to Obama, the White House was forcefully lobbying to keep Saleh’s family in power. Both Secretary of State Clinton and Defense Secretary Gates have publicly emphasized America’s good relationship with Saleh, and Gates has called the government-orchestrated violence an “internal problem” in which the U.S. will not interfere. The U.S. began using increasingly critical language only after Saleh’s position became clearly untenable. At the same time, it was quietly negotiating for the president’s safe exit and the transition of power to another high-ranking official from Saleh’s government. [151b][296b][297][298][299][300]
Libya. In stark contrast to Obama’s response to other Arab regimes’ use of violence and threats against civilians — especially U.S.-backed Bahraini Government’s effort to intimidate protesters with military action, and the Syrian army’s systematic attacks on protesters — Colonel Muammar Qaddafi’s rhetoric was seen as justification for a full-scale attack; read more under point 2.7 below.
Iraq has seen its own wave of protests calling for real democracy and an end to corruption, a fact which the Obama administration has refused even to mention when discussing the Arab Spring. The protests have been met with a violent crackdown by the U.S.-backed government, as well as the imprisonment of 300 journalists, dissidents, artists, lawyers, and activists. [124b]
In Morocco, King Mohammed VI has faced demonstrations whose demands have been more modest than those in neighboring countries. The Obama administration has stepped up to support the king, a close U.S. ally, and the autocratic ruler was praised by Hillary Clinton as, paradoxically, a potential leader for democratic reform in the region. [301]
Syria, a long-time enemy of Israel and the U.S., has seen some of the most alarming levels of violence. The government has been criticized by the Obama administration and other Western powers, but the response has been very cautious. [302][303] Pro-democracy demonstrations in Algeria, a U.S. ally, have been met with a mixed response of arrests and promises of reform; Obama has praised President Bouteflika for lifting the 19-year-old state of emergency. [304][305]


2.7 Attack on Libya


BUSH DID…


Bush’s stated goals for the occupation of Iraq included bringing democracy to the Middle East, while critics have assumed that the strategic advantage of having a military presence in Iraq, linked to the country’s oil wealth, was the most important factor. The war was also critcized for undermining the UN’s role in international conflicts, though the Bush administration argued that Security Council Resolution 687 authorized the use of force (“all necessary means”) against Iraq. [283] Bush came under fire from a slew of high-ranking Democrats, including Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry, when he argued that he had the right to take military action in Iran without authorization from Congress. [283b]


OBAMA SAID…


“We’ve accomplished these [military and diplomatic] objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge … Of course, there is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. … But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake. The task that I assigned our forces -– to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone -– carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support.” (Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya, March 28, 2011) [284]
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” (Interview in The Boston Globe, December 20, 2007) [284b]


OBAMA DID…


Colonel Muammar Qaddafi has long been a pariah within the international community, while Libya as a country is of great interest both to the U.S. and to Europe, due to its location and its oil resources. In 2009, Qaddafi made Western powers nervous by threatening to nationalize the country’s oil fields, which are largely run by European and North American companies. [284c] Obama’s decision to wage war in Libya stands in stark contrast with his response to other Arab regimes’ use of violence and threats of military action against their civilians (see point 2.6 above).
In the wake of Qaddafi’s threats to violently suppress the uprising, the UN Security Council passed a resolution authorizing the use of force to implement a no-fly zone and to protect civilians. [285] Some two weeks after claiming that regime-change is not the objective of the attack, Obama published a joint op-ed with Prime Minister David Cameron and President Nicholas Sarkozy, stating that military action will not stop until Qaddafi is ousted. [285b] Following Qaddafi’s remarks about “cleansing Libya house by house,” the claimed objective of the attack was to protect civilians in Benghazi from genocide. [285c] While there is no doubt that Qaddafi is a brutal tyrant, the interpretation of his rhetoric and the prospect of a genocide have been strongly contested by a number of analysts and journalists. In his rambling speech prior to the attack, Qaddafi addressed his ultimatum to militants and promised to grant amnesty to anyone who “throws away their weapon.” There have been no genocides in the large cities Qaddafi has gained control over, but the escalating hostilities are causing an increasing number of civilian deaths. [285d][285e][285f]
The attack on Libya took place without any public discourse. Moreover, it was never debated, let alone approved, even by Congress, despite multiple requests by congressmen and caveats by high ranking military officers such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates. [286][287][288][288b] In response to complaints from Congress, Secretary of State Clinton implied in a briefing that the administration might continue with military action even if Congress passed a resolution against it, and possibly not even limit the unauthorized attack to 60 days, as required by the War Powers Act of 1973. [288c] Democratic congressman Dennish Kucinich has described Obama’s use of war powers as an unconstitutional and possibly impeachable offense which is making his presidency “indistinguishable” from Bush’s. [288d] Security Council Resolution 1973 on Libya only authorizes the use of force to protect civilians. The argument for the legality of a war in Libya whose de facto goal is to oust the Qaddafi regime is based on the resolution’s reference to “all necessary measures” — language similar to that in Resolution 687 which Bush used to claim he had a UN mandate to attack Iraq. [283b][285]
Despite Obama’s promise to hand over responsibility to allies, the U.S. is still in charge of the expanding military effort in Libya. [288e] The administration promised not to send ground troops into Libya, but Obama has secretly authorized covert action by CIA paramilitary officers to aid the rebels. [288f] Little is known about the forces to whom the U.S. has provided military support, and there is evidence that some of them have fought with Al Qaeda against the U.S. occupation in Iraq. [289] Meanwhile, the likelihood of a prolonged and disastrous civil war, with the U.S. on one side, is growing. By some estimates, the death toll is already in the tens of thousands. [289b][290] On April 2, Al Jazeera reported a statement from one of their sources that, in addition to training in secret facilities by U.S. and Egyptian special forces, the rebels are receiving high-grade weapons from abroad, in violation of the arms embargo on Libya. [290b][291]


3. CORPORATIONS, SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND ECONOMIC POLICY


3.1 Election funding


BUSH DID…


Following the common practice of legal corruption in Washington, Bush accepted campaign donations from large corporations in exchange for friendly policy. For example, new employees for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under Bush were hand-picked by Enron. Bona fide oilmen themselves, Bush and Cheney handed out massive public subsidies to oil and gas companies. The administration’s subservience to corporate interests shaped Bush’s isolationist stance on global climate negotiations, among other things. [152][153]

OBAMA SAID…


“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. … If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.” [154] (Midwest Democracy Network Questionnaire, September 2007)
After changing his position: “Instead of forcing us to rely on millions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs, you’ve fueled this campaign with donations of $5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford. And because you did, we’ve built a grassroots movement of over 1.5 million Americans. … You’ve already changed the way campaigns are funded because you know that’s the only way we can truly change how Washington works.” [155] (Campaign statement via video on June 19, 2008)
“I’m Barack Obama, and I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.” [157] (Campaign commercial during the primaries)


OBAMA DID…


In June 2008, after winning the Democratic nomination, Obama gave up on his pledge to lead by example on the preservation of the public financing system, and his team proceeded to raise more money than any other political campaign in history. [155][156][157][158] Though the fundraising success was portrayed by the campaign as a grass-roots response to Obama’s candidacy, a vast portion came from corporations, mostly from Wall Street, the top corporate contributor being Goldman Sachs. [155][159] Subsequently, President Obama’s entire economic team has consisted of Wall Street insiders – most notably Tim Geithner, the former NY Fed Chair – and nearly all of them Goldman Sachs alumni: Treasury’s Chief of Staff Mark Patterson, Director of the White House’s National Economic Council Larry Summers (resigned in September 2010), their mentor and Obama advisor Robert Rubin, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Gary Gensler, in addition to many other high-ranking members of the administration. Obama’s most recent cabinet appointment from the banking industry is the JPMorgan Chase executive William Daley, his new chief of staff. [160][161][162][163][164][165] Dean Baker, one of the first economists to foresee the crisis in the housing market, described this as equivalent to “having Osama bin Laden in charge of the war on terror.” [166]
Despite accepting large sums from oil and gas companies, as well as from lobbyists, Obama insisted on the contrary during the elections. This was plainly not true, as was pointed out even by his disgruntled primary opponent – and his future Secretary of State – Hillary Clinton, who called it “false advertising.” For example, Obama is the number one recipient of campaign contributions from BP. [157][167][168][169]
Funding the future president was an enormously lucrative investment for Wall Street; see point 3.2 below. Obama’s health reform efforts were also led by insurance industry insiders, such as former Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler; see point 3.3.


3.2 The bank bailout, the foreclosure crisis, and financial reform


BUSH DID…


After the banking sector’s reckless actions had led the global economic system to the verge of total collapse, Bush initiated its rescue with taxpayer money.


OBAMA SAID…


“The Treasury must use the authority it’s been granted and move aggressively to help people avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes. We don’t need a new law or a new $300 billion giveaway to banks like Senator McCain has proposed. … I’ve proposed a three-month moratorium on foreclosures so that we give people the breathing room they need to get back on their feet.” [170] (St. Louis, Missouri, October 18, 2008)
“It does offend our values when executives of big financial firms that are struggling pay themselves huge bonuses even as they rely on extraordinary assistance to stay afloat.” [171] (October 22, 2009)


OBAMA DID…


Obama continued the bank bailout, and expanded it into the trillions. [172] With an economic team run by Wall Street insiders and Goldman Sachs alumni (see point 3.1 above), many of whom were directly responsible for the dismantling of regulation that led to the crisis, it is no surprise that its policy has catered to the banks’ interests. Most notably, rescuing the insurance giant AIG enabled the Obama administration to extend a behind-the-scenes bailout to hand-picked banks, including Goldman Sachs (to the tune of $13 billion). [173][174]
By design, Obama’s financial reform bill has done nothing to control the behavior of banks. Simon Johnson, the former chief economist for the IMF, has pointed out how the legislation demonstrates that the American system isn’t one of free market economy; instead, the country is ruled by a financial oligarchy which is making the Government unable or unwilling to legislate change. “There is simply nothing [in the financial reform bill] that will rein in our largest financial institutions,” Johnson observed. “[T]he White House punted, repeatedly, and elected instead for a veneer of superficial tweaking. Welcome to the next global credit cycle – with too big to fail banks at center stage.” [175][164] This view is shared by, among others, the Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who wrote: “No reform … is better than a cosmetic reform that just covers up failure to act.” [176]
Banks, rescued with public money, are awarding themselves with record-breaking bonuses. [177] The Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz commented: “Having created these problems, they [Geithner, Summers, et al] had an incentive, quite frankly, to try to say … ‘OK, we’ve had an accident. … Let’s not try to interfere how they spend the money, because that’s not the way we do things,’ so that they could take that money, rather than recapitalize, give it out in bonuses or dividends.” [178] Nevertheless, already during the presidential campaign, Obama joined Bush in making sure that the TARP legislation would not curb executive salaries or bonuses – a goal he has successfully pursued since, even while making statements implying the contrary.
The passage of the financial reform package boosted the stock value of big banks. According to Bloomberg News, 2009-2010 has been the best 24-month period for the U.S. banking industry ever. [179][180]
Meanwhile, unemployment has reached historic levels, beyond the worst-case-scenario that the Obama administration predicted in the absence of a stimulus bill. [181] Home foreclosures are continuing in the millions, at a record-breaking and accelerating pace, while the administration is touting what it sees as its successes in recovery. [182][183] After having survived on handouts of public money, the banks still have absolute freedom to seize people’s homes. Towards the end of 2010, it was also revealed that banks around the country are engaged in wide-spread fraud to foreclose on homes illegally and without proper vetting; these cases are being investigated by the Attorneys General of all fifty states. [184] This revelation has prompted calls for a national moratorium on foreclosures – a proposal rejected by Obama, despite his campaign promise to implement such a moratorium even in the absence of outright fraud. [185]


3.3 The health care bill, insurance companies, and big pharma


OBAMA SAID…


“We’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.” [186] (Town hall meeting in Chester, VA., August 21, 2008)
“At the heart of this debate is the question of whether we’re going to accept a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the American people, because if this vote fails, the insurance industry will continue to run amok. They will continue to deny people coverage. They will continue to deny people care. They will continue to jack up premiums 40 or 50 or 60 percent as they have in the last few weeks without any accountability whatsoever. They know this. And that’s why their lobbyists are stalking the halls of Congress as we speak, and pouring millions of dollars into negative ads. And that’s why they are doing everything they can to kill this bill. So the only question left is this: Are we going to let the special interests win once again?” [187] (Rallying for public support for the bill, George Mason University, Arlington, VA., March 19, 2010)


OBAMA DID…


While the merits and failures of the health care bill can be debated, it is a matter of fact that the legislation was a huge victory to some of the most powerful corporations in the country. Contrary to Obama’s claims, special interests such as hospitals, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies were, in fact, lobbying and advertising aggressively in favor of the bill: according to the Center for Public Integrity, they used a staggering $1.2 billion on their overall lobbying effort in the run-up to the vote. Their support for Obama’s legislation is hardly surprising, as it does nothing to prevent the rise of health care premiums, mainly due to the omission of a public insurance option. While the White House has tried to spin the numbers in various ways, no one is projecting that premiums will go down, merely that they won’t continue to rise as sharply. [188][189][190]
Making good on a back-room deal with big pharma, Obama helped kill a provision in the bill that would have enabled cheap drug imports from abroad, citing “safety concerns.” After spending weeks denying that any secret negotiations took place, a leaked internal memo confirmed that Obama had secretly promised this giveaway. [191] Obama also negotiated away the public option very early on, while continuing to make public statements advocating for it. [192][193]
After the passage of the bill, health insurance companies’ stocks soared in anticipation of the resulting massive profits – after the industry had already seen a 250% increase in profits within the previous decade. For the first time, their political contributions have shifted decisively from Republicans to Democrats. [194][195][196]
Obama’s health reform efforts were led by people such as Senator Tom Daschle and former Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler, both with extensive ties to the insurance industry, who have made fortunes shuttling back and forth between government and private corporations. Fowler led the drafting of the health reform bill, and was then hired by the Obama administration to implement the law. [197][198][199]
The bill has been described by many Democrats as “making health care for all Americans a right, not a privilege,” even though the Congressional Budget Office predicts that more than 20 million people will remain uninsured in 2019. It has also been hailed as a measure that will “prevent companies from denying patients coverage,” even though the law puts big corporations even more firmly in charge of the system than before, and is riddled with loopholes that will enable them to deny their state-mandated customers coverage. [200][201] The legislation will only take effect in 2014, two years after the next presidential elections.

3.4 Social Security


BUSH DID…


During his second term, Bush attempted to privatize Social Security and cut benefits, warning that the program has to be “fixed” before it goes bankrupt. [166] This argument, often heard from both parties, is not true: the program is running a surplus of over $2.5 trillion. The Government has, however, borrowed the entire surplus from the Social Security Agency and spent it on other things, including tax cuts for the wealthy and wars. Many in the establishment, particularly Republicans, would like to avoid paying the debt back to the workers whose paychecks the money came from, and to have them work for longer with less benefits. [202][203][204]
Solvency could be secured immediately and indefinitely if high-earning Americans – those with salaries of over $100,000 a year – were not exempted from paying the same portion as lower-earning workers. [205]


OBAMA SAID…


“Obama and Biden will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And they do not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age.” [206] (Campaign statement still on Obama’s website)
“Social Security is not in crisis. There are some fairly modest changes that could be made without resorting to any newfangled schemes that would continue Social Security for another 75 years, where everybody would get the benefits they deserve.” [207] (Town hall meeting, Columbus, OH, August 18, 2010)
“The best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and the people who are in need are protected.” [208] (Meet the Press interview, November 11, 2007)


OBAMA DID…


In December 2010, the co-chairs of the Obama-appointed National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform reported to the president on their findings. The stated task of the commission had been to recommend ways to balance the budget, but it was an open secret that a key goal was to help legislate cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid – though the cuts will have little impact on the deficit. Obama created the commission with an executive order, and its work was conducted in complete secrecy. Its findings were already determined when the members were selected: most of them are either known to have an agenda against Social Security, or are representatives of big business. Obama’s personal appointees include co-chair Alan Simpson, a Republican who has called Social Security “a milk cow with 310 million tits” and spent most of his life trying to cut it, and David Cote, the CEO of the defense contractor Honeywell, who has vested interest in making sure that the military budget is not tampered with. [209][210][211][212][213]
The commission released its findings safely after the midterm elections, during which the Democrats, headed by the president, had campaigned on protecting Social Security from the Republicans. As expected, they suggested steep cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The co-chairs also proposed tax cuts, mainly benefiting the wealthy and corporations, that would probably add to the deficit. This took place shortly before Obama agreed with the Republican leadership to extend another $700 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest people in the country (see point 3.5 below). Without a super-majority, however, the commission’s proposal was not given an up-or-down vote. [214][215][216][217]
Only two months after gifting tax cuts to the wealthy, Obama unveiled his budget proposal for 2012, which includes painful cuts mainly to social programs that help low-income and poor Americans – before even starting negotiations with Republicans. [217b]


3.5 Bush tax cuts and corporate taxes


BUSH DID…


Bush passed two laws, in 2001 and 2003, to lower tax rates for individuals. The laws have added hundreds of billions of dollars to the national deficit, and are mostly benefiting the wealthiest people in the country. Since the 1970s, the richest one percent of the population has seen its income triple, while middle class wages have stagnated and the poverty rate has increased. The tax cuts were claimed to promote economic growth and create jobs, but the numbers show that this did not happen. The legislation was set to expire at the end of 2010. [218]
In 2004, Bush signed corporate tax legislation that gave $136 billion in tax breaks to businesses, farmers, and other groups. Ostensibly intended to help US manufacturers, the bill was widely criticized as being full of corporate giveaways and tax breaks for multinational companies that send jobs overseas, and special interests such as oil and gas producers. [293]


OBAMA SAID…


“I want to provide a tax cut for 95% of Americans. 95%. If you make less than a quarter million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down. … Now, in contrast, Senator McCain wants to give a $300 billion tax cut: $200 [billion] of it to the largest corporations, and $100 billion of it to people like CEOs on Wall Street. He wants to give the average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts. That is not fair. And it doesn’t work.” (Second presidential debate, October 2008)
“We will take those tax breaks away from the wealthiest Americans and put them in the pockets of hard-working Americans.” (Campaign rally, February 18, 2008)
“We will stop letting American companies that create jobs overseas take deductions on their expenses when they do not pay any American taxes on their profits.” [294] (Address to Congress, May 4, 2009)


OBAMA DID…


In December 2010, during the last weeks of Democratic majorities in both chambers, Obama struck a deal with the Republican leadership to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans through 2012. He also handed the Republicans a massive cut in estate taxes for estates valued at $5 million or more. In exchange, he received a 13-month extension of unemployment benefits, and modest gains in tax relief for lower- and middle-income earners. [219]
In an effort to promote the proposed bill, Obama resorted simultaneously to Republican talking points and to his old campaign rhetoric, claiming that the tax cuts could “create millions of jobs,” while admitting (in an interview on NPR) that the deal would not create “a single job.” He continued: “I’ve said repeatedly that I think [the tax cuts] are not a smart thing to do, particularly because we’ve got to borrow money, essentially, to pay for them. The problem is, is that this is the single issue that the Republicans are willing to scotch the entire deal for.” [220][221][222] To fund this handout to millionaires and billionaires, the U.S. will have to borrow an additional $700 billion. [223]
The White House and Congress have yet to address corporate tax reform. Obama has proposed legislation to that effect, but also wants to lower the corporate taxes even further from Bush’s rates. [295] In the meantime, Obama has appointed Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE, to head the new Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. GE, the nation’s largest corporation, paid no taxes in 2010 despite profits of $5.4 billion from U.S. activity (in addition to $14 billion internationally), and even claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion. The company has eliminated a fifth of its U.S. workforce since 2002, while increasing overseas employment. [296]

3.6 Free trade agreements


OBAMA SAID…


“Trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart. That’s what happens when the American worker doesn’t have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that’s why we need a president who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a president who will stand with workers not just when it’s easy, but when it’s hard.” [224] (Victory speech on the Potomac primary night, February 12, 2008)
“We need to use the hammer of potential opt-out as leverage to get environmental and labor standards enforced … I don’t think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have.” [225] (Primary debate with Hillary Clinton on MSNBC, February 26, 2008)


OBAMA DID…


In fact, as senator, Obama had been mostly supportive of free trade legislation, and only adopted his protectionist rhetoric during the primaries. This was a particularly important issue among blue-collar voters in Ohio. [226]
During Obama’s presidential campaign, his senior economic adviser was Austan Goolsbee, currently the chief economist of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board. In early February 2009, while Obama was using strong words to criticize NAFTA, Goolsbee met with the Canadian Consul General in Chicago, Georges Rioux. In a memo written to the Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson, Goolsbee is quoted as cautioning the Canadians that while NAFTA will be a hot topic in the primaries, Obama’s criticism “should be viewed as more about political positioning,” that Obama is not “interested in fundamental changes to the agreement,” and that, going forward, the campaign’s tone would change. Shortly thereafter, according to Canada’s CTV News, a senior member of the Obama campaign called Wilson personally, telling him “not to be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA.” [227][228]
After securing the Democratic nomination, in an interview with Fortune magazine titled ‘NAFTA not so bad after all,’ Obama downplayed his earlier statements: “Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified. Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don’t exempt myself.” During the rest of the campaign, Obama’s stance was that he would not want to renegotiate NAFTA “unilaterally.” [229]
During his first trip abroad as president, Obama met with the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper. In a joint press conference, he pledged that nothing should disrupt the flow of free trade between the neighboring countries. “Now is a time where we have to be very careful about any signals of protectionism,” Obama said. [230]
According to The Washington Post, during a May 2010 visit to the U.S., the Mexican labor minister Javier Lozano Alarcón stated that Mexico “never put much stock in his promise to begin with.” [231]


4. SECRECY VS. TRANSPARENCY


4.1 The state secrets privilege


BUSH DID…


The original intention of the so-called “state secrets” privilege was to give the Government a chance to request the exclusion of certain evidence if revealing it could be harmful to national security. The Bush legal team introduced a radical reinterpretation of this evidentiary rule, making it serve to bar any legal action against the Government, throwing out entire cases involving torture, arbitrary detentions, and warrantless spying on Americans. [232]


OBAMA SAID…


“Plan to Change Washington. The Problem. — Secrecy Dominates Government Actions: The Bush administration has ignored public disclosure rules and has invoked a legal tool known as the “state secrets” privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court.” [233] (Campaign statement, still online at Obama’s website)
“Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well-grounded in the Constitution. Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.” [234] (The White House, January 21, 2009)
“As Sunshine Week begins, I want to applaud everyone who has worked to increase transparency in government and recommit my administration to be the most open and transparent ever, an effort that will strengthen our democracy and ensure the public’s trust in their government. We came to Washington to change the way business was done, and part of that was making ourselves accountable to the American people by opening up our government.” [235] (Statement from the President on ‘Sunshine Week,’ March 16, 2010)


OBAMA DID…


Immediately after Obama took office, his administration and the DOJ under Eric Holder adopted exactly the same legal arguments that the Bush administration had made, and have used them to discard unwanted cases against the Government. Obama has successfully continued to use the state secrets privilege to block any scrutiny of torture, arbitrary detentions, warrantless spying on Americans, extraordinary renditions, or of his assassination program (see section 1). “This is not change,” stated the ACLU, “This is definitely more of the same.” Like Bush, Obama has successfully fought even against legislation that would expand congressional oversight of the president’s covert intelligence operations. [236][237][238][239][240][241][242]


4.2 Whistleblowers and journalists


BUSH DID…


Some of the most important revelations concerning law-breaking and abuses during Bush’s presidency were made by whistleblowers within the Government. These included Thomas A. Drake, who revealed fraud and waste amounting to billions of dollars at the NSA; Thomas M. Tamm, a source behind The New York Times’ reporting on NSA’s illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens; Russell Tice, who revealed that the the NSA under Bush had spied on journalists and news organizations; and Jesselyn Radack, who disclosed that the FBI had committed ethics violations in its interrogation of John Walker Lindh. The DOJ under Bush went aggressively after leakers, issuing subpoenas to reporters demanding to know their sources, threatening them with lawsuits, and subjecting them to harassment by the FBI. No whistleblowers, however, were prosecuted. [243][244][245][246]

OBAMA SAID…


“Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in Government is an existing Government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government.” [247] (Statement still on-line at Obama’s Change.gov website)
“We will launch a sweeping effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government… I firmly believe what Justice Louis Brandeis once said, that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I know that restoring transparency is not only the surest way to achieve results, but also to earn back the trust in government without which we cannot deliver the changes the American people sent us here to make.” [248] (White House, January 28, 2009)


OBAMA DID…


Obama is pursuing the most aggressive crackdown on whistleblowers in U.S. history. Before now, government officials have rarely been indicted for disclosing information that is in the public interest. The Obama / Holder DOJ has, however, taken the strategy of not merely threatening whistleblowers with legal action as Bush did, but following through and prosecuting them. Obama has now indicted as many whistleblowers as all previous presidents combined. [249][250][251]
In April 2010, the DOJ obtained an indictment against Thomas Drake. “The whole point of the prosecution is to have a chilling effect on reporters and sources, and it will,” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, according to The New York Times. [252] FBI linguist Shamai Leibowitz was sentenced to 20 months in prison for leaking documents about a CIA program – the longest sentence served by a Government employee for leaking. [253] The DOJ issued a subpoena to Jim Risen of The New York Times, ordering him to disclose his source for a story on an embarrassing and harmful CIA operation in Iran, during which CIA accidentally gave Iranians valuable information on how to build a nuclear weapon. [254]
This persecution of journalists and leakers began even before the whistleblower site WikiLeaks received world-wide attention for publishing secret U.S. documents and video footage from the Iraq war. The White House, along with most of the U.S. Government, is at war with the organization, whose disclosures have brought to light failures, abuses, and government disinformation about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, lies used to cover up the secret war in Yemen, and State Department espionage at the U.N, among countless other revelations. [255][256][257] Without having been convicted of any crime, the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning, has been held for months in solitary confinement and under conditions that have prompted condemnation from human rights organizations, the UN, and in the editorials of major newspapers in the U.S (see point 1.5). He could be sentenced to up to 52 years in prison, or to death. [258][259][259b] People affiliated with WikiLeaks or supportive Manning have been subjected to harassment and intimidation by federal agents, while private companies have been coerced by the Government to cut their ties to the organization. As the Salon.com blogger and civil rights litigator Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, the president’s “Look Forward, Not Backward” doctrine gives immunity only to officials who committed crimes such as torture, illegal domestic spying, fraud, or destruction of evidence – but those who tried to bring abuses to light are prosecuted and sent to jail. [249][251][260]
Obama also enacted rules to keep photographers and reporters from covering the 2010 BP oil spill, and blocked government scientists from disclosing their worst-case-scenario predictions for the disaster (see point 5.2).


5. THE ENVIRONMENT


5.1 Global warming


BUSH DID…


Dismissing the overwhelming scientific consensus on the threat of climate change and the human causes behind it, Bush refused to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. Though criticized by environmental activists and scientists as too weak, the Kyoto Protocol represents the only available framework for legally binding cuts in carbon emissions worldwide. The isolationism of the U.S., the worlds biggest polluter, severely undermined the prospect of any legally binding international treaty for mitigating global warming. [261]


OBAMA SAID…


“We cannot afford more of the same timid politics when the future of our planet is at stake. Global warming is not a someday problem, it is now. We are already breaking records with the intensity of our storms, the number of forest fires, the periods of drought. By 2050 famine could force more than 250 million from their homes … The polar ice caps are now melting faster than science had ever predicted. … This is not the future I want for my daughters. It’s not the future any of us want for our children. And if we act now and we act boldly, it doesn’t have to be.” [262] (Portsmouth, NH, October 8, 2007)
“My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership in climate change. … You can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.” [263] (Global Climate Summit, November 5, 2009)
“Barack Obama and Joe Biden support implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. They will start reducing emissions immediately in his administration by establishing strong annual reduction targets, and they will also implement a mandate of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.” [264] (Campaign policy statement)

OBAMA DID…


Obama did bring the U.S. back into international climate negotiations, but with the agenda of terminating the Kyoto Protocol and preventing any future legally binding treaties. This was first communicated by U.S. climate negotiators to their European counterparts – as reported by The Guardian newspaper – after which Obama traveled to the December 2009 Copenhagen summit to personally reject any binding limits, and to push for the expiration of Kyoto in 2012. [265][266] The final accord, brokered by Obama, has no legal force on the signatories. When Bolivia and Ecuador, two countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change, protested the de facto non-existent goals of the treaty, the Obama administration punished them for not signing on: the White House cancelled the climate aid promised to the countries ($3 million and $2.5 million, respectively). [267]
As Kate Horner, policy analyst at Friends of the Earth, stated on Democracy Now: “The biggest problem with the U.S. right now in the international negotiations is not just that the U.S. fails to be ambitious … but even more egregiously, instead of being honest about where the U.S. is right now, they’re actively trying to dismantle the international negotiations. … No one, I think, really foresaw the extent to which the U.S. Government would actually play such an obstructionist role. Todd Stern, the special envoy for climate change appointed by President Obama, under the auspices of what he calls a ‘new climate diplomacy,’ is taking this stance whereby they actively try to undermine all of the relevant, important provisions in the international architecture, and that’s the most damaging role.” [268]
In July 2010, the Democrats announced that they had given up on domestic climate legislation, and dropped any mention of “cap and trade” in environmental legislation proposals. The party didn’t find the political will to pass climate change legislation even when they had a supermajority in the Senate; while Obama has kept up the rhetoric on passing a comprehensive climate bill, there is virtually no chance of that happening after the 2010 midterm elections saw Democrats lose their majority in the House of Representatives. [269]
As the U.S. has dropped all plans to reduce its own emissions while actively rejecting the possibility of any binding international treaty, the results of the 2010 climate negotiations in Cancún, Mexico were predictable: no concrete action was taken to curb global warming. [270]
Obama has also endorsed the expansion of so-called “clean coal” technology. Coal is responsible for 81 percent of carbon dioxide and nearly all sulfur dioxide emissions in the country, but provides only 45 percent of all electricity. [270b] According to both the EPA and the industry, the term “clean coal” refers to any coal technology introduced since the passage of emissions regulations in the 1990s; this could refer to any existing coal plant. The term is also misleadingly used to describe possible future technologies that do not exist, and whose viability even many supporters doubt. [270c][270d][270e][282]
The administration invested $1 billion of federal stimulus money into a new coal project, in a deal with a consortium of around 20 coal industry corporations. [270f] In an interview with ABC news, the environmental lawyer Rober F. Kennedy, Jr. called Obama and other politicians favoring clean coal technology “indentured servants” of the industry. “Clean coal is a dirty lie,” he said. Obama received $242,000 in campaign contributions from the coal industry. [270g]


5.2 Offshore drilling


BUSH DID…


Among many other policies aimed at pleasing oil companies, the Bush administration pushed Congress to lift a ban on offshore drilling in most parts of the U.S. These attempts were defeated by Senate Democrats. Bush also eased safety regulations on oil drilling. The Minerals Management Service (MMS), the supposed watchdog agency within the Government, was controlled by oil companies and rife with ethics violations. [271][272]


OBAMA SAID…


“[Barack Obama] supports maintaining current moratoriums on new offshore oil and natural gas drilling.” [264] (Campaign policy statement)
“[Offshore drilling] would have long-term consequences to our coastlines but no short term benefits since it would take at least 10 years to get any oil… It will take a generation to reach full production and even then the effect on gas prices will be minimal at best.” [273] (Jacksonville, FL, June 20, 2008)
“[McCain's] decision to completely change his position and tell a group of Houston oil executives exactly what they wanted to hear today was the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades … Opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on gasoline prices would be negligible at best … It’s another example of short-term political posturing from Washington, not the long-term leadership we need to solve our dependence on oil.” [274] (Campaign statement, June 17, 2008)


OBAMA DID…


In March 2010, President Obama announced plans to open vast areas of coastal waters in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico to oil and natural gas drilling, most of it for the first time. His plan expands drilling beyond what Bush had tried to achieve. Obama’s stated rationale was exactly the one he had, as a candidate, rejected as demonstrably false: namely, energy independence and economic growth. [274][275]
Brendan Cummings, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the decision as “all too typical of what we have seen so far from president Obama – promises of change, a year of ‘deliberation,’ and ultimately, adoption of flawed and outdated Bush policies as his own. Rather than bring about the change we need, this plan will further our national addiction to oil and contribute to global warming, while at the same time directly despoiling the habitat of polar bears, endangered whales, and other imperiled wildlife.” [276]
The MMS, under Obama-appointee and “great friend” Ken Salazar, continued in its role as a rubber stamp for oil companies. Salazar had played a key role as a senator in the passage of a law that opened 8 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil extraction. Offshore drilling under Obama was soon boosted to record levels, while all warning signs of potential safety hazards were ignored. [272] Some two weeks before the catastrophic BP oil rig explosion, Obama stated: “The oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.” [277] In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, the White House kept up the policy of exempting new drilling projects from environmental review. [278]
A report released by the national commission investigating the oil spill documents how the Obama White House blocked scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from revealing their worst-case-scenario models, while giving false or misleading numbers to the public. [279][280] The White House insisted for a long time on an estimate that was 12 times lower than the actual spill, while Carol Browner, the White House energy adviser, declared that “the vast majority of the oil is gone.” [281]