[quote=briansd1][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Money shot from the article: “Frontline adds that while candidate Obama “promised a sweeping overhaul of the Bush administration’s war on terror” and “a top to bottom review of the threats we face and our abilities to confront them,” Rizzo explains that, in fact, Obama officials during the transition made clear to the CIA that they intended almost complete continuity.”

Any thoughts on this, pri? Anything? Bueller?

[/quote]

Tea Party influenced politics and political pragmatism, my friend, pragmatism.

Obama cannot be be seen as soft on terrorism.

Same goes with immigration. While Obama increased deportations over the Bush Administration, but he was still accused of being soft on unauthorized immigration and not controlling the border (which is simply not true because Obama was harder in enforcement than Bush).

As I said before, ofentimes in politics, you need to pander to the public to achieve your larger goals.[/quote]

Um, Brian? Uh, yeah, the Tea Party DID NOT EXIST when Obama took office. You’ll note that the article quote references “Candidate Obama”, meaning President-Elect, NOT President (yet).

So, that means Obama was lying on the campaign trail, yes? He knew FULL WELL that he was going to continue the abysmal policies of his predecessor and just bullshitted the American people, correct?

At some point, you’re going to need to admit that Obama is engaged in torture, targeted assassinations, undermining the US Constitution and rule of law and dangerously eroding American civil liberties. And I personally could give a shit WHY he’s doing this, just that HE IS doing this. Frighteningly, you seem perfectly content to excuse it (and rationalize it) while Obama is doing it, but NOT when Dubya did it. Double standard, anyone?