Obama is already backing down on his New York mosque statement because of right-wing Repub attacks

[Better Believe It]

Sure seems like it.

Just what we needed.

A new "clarification" from the White House on what President Obama really meant.

As I now understand it, the White House supports the building of a mosque in that location but doesn't necessarily endorse or support that location for the building of a mosque. Now that President Obama's has clarified his position we can all move on. BBI

-----------------------------------------------------



Obama Says Mosque Remarks Were Not Endorsement
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and EDWARD WYATT
August 14, 2010

President Obama said Saturday that in defending the right of Muslims to build a community center and mosque near ground zero in Lower Manhattan, he was “not commenting on the wisdom” of that project, but rather trying to uphold the broader principle that government should treat “everyone equal, regardless” of religion.

In clarifying his remarks, Mr. Obama was apparently seeking to address criticism that he was using his presidential platform to promote a project that has aroused the ire of many New Yorkers. White House officials said earlier Saturday that Mr. Obama was not trying to promote that particular project, but rather sought to make a broader statement about freedom of religion and American values.

Later in the day, the White House press office elaborated further, issuing yet another statement.

“Just to be clear, the president is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night,” it said.

“It is not his role as president to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans.

“What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that if a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a mosque.”

Four leading Republicans reacted negatively to the comments Mr. Obama made Friday night. “The decision to build this mosque so close to the site of ground zero is deeply troubling, as is the president’s decision to endorse it,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader.

Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who has been a vocal critic of mosque’s planned location, called on Mr. Obama to take a firm stance.

“We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they?” she asked in a Facebook post on Saturday afternoon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/us/politics/15mosque.html

Kinda going out on the limb saying a mosque can be built on a site available to build a church, don't ya think?

President Obama's first statement was correct but apparently needed to be watered down, like much of what he says and does, in order to pacify the right-wing Republicans. So does President Obama think it's unwise to build a community center and mosque at that location, or not?

If another new clarification is made by Robert Gibbs on Monday after the White House reviews the Sunday talk shows we just might find out!

It's beginning to look like my K & R and congrats to President Obama in another post regarding on his earlier statement were a bit premature. BBI

[Pirate Smile]

1. No - but the people who take any opportunity to try to make Obama look bad are trying their best to

do that.

Statement from Bill Burton:

"Just to be clear, the President is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night.
It is not his role as President to pass judgment on every local project.

"But it is his responsibility to stand up for the Constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans.
What he said last night, and reaffirmed today, is that If a church, a synagogue or a Hindu temple can be built on a site, you simply cannot deny that right to those who want to build a Mosque.

"The World Trade Center site is hallowed ground, where 3000 Americans-Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims were the victims of a cold-blooded massacre. We are still at war with the small band of terrorists who planned and executed that attack.
But that does not give government the right to deny law-abiding Americans of one faith the same rights you would accord anyone else."

[LooseWilly]

76. "hallowed ground"?

does that mean that all those who died on 9/11 are now saints?

Sorry... this x-tian speak bullshit just confuses me... I thought churches were "hallowed ground", not bombed and bulldozed commercial high-rises.

Little help?

[malaise]

2. He did not back down from anything

He clarified his position that he was defending the Constitution and he is correct. He cannot allow the hacks to twist his words.

[Bluebear]

3. He only fears right-wing "hacks", not left-wing ones.

Ever notice?

[Better Believe It]

5. Does President Obama think it's a wise decision to build a mosque at that location or not?

I think it's a good decision. How about yourself?

[Bluebear]

9. May you have better luck than I did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8947608

[alcibiades_mystery]

63. Excuse me, Bluebear, but you admitted that your position was an overreaction and asked for the OP

to be locked.

What misfortune are you referring to. Are you now backtracking on your statement that "I recognize that it seems that the article did indeed cast him in a light worse tahn what it was," and "I probably reacted too quickly on this one."

I don't understand what you're doing here.

[Bluebear]

73. Excuse me, alcibiades_mystery but I wrote this an hour before I responded to you...

While I was still under general attack in my thread, and before having the opportunity to reread the article and reflect. I don't understand what YOU are trying to do here? Please do respond, because I tried to be very reflective in my answer to you, why are you doing this?

[alcibiades_mystery]

77. My apologies

Didn't check the time stamp.

[malaise]

11. Whether he thinks it is or not is actually irrelevant

The Constitution is bigger than him and the constitution says they can build it.
He supports it based on the constitution and so do I.

[Better Believe It]

14. So President Obama may think it's a stupid idea?

I don't.

How about you?

[malaise]

17. Huh? n/t

[Better Believe It]

70. Building the mosque at that location. Good or bad idea?

[BklnDem75]

84. Irrelevant

Obama gave no opinion and you don't know what his opinion is. Stop fishing.

[spanone]

what part of 'he defended it' don't you understand?

[malaise]

19. I really wonder

:shrug:

[Chan790]

53. the part...

where he felt the need to "clarify" that defense down to milquetoast.

He didn't need to come out today and clarify anything, in fact he probably shouldn't have. The initial statement was spot-on and strong, it was perfect. Great oratory requires no clarification or revision. It made him look like a great principled leader taking a stand for American values in the face of public opinion. Any revision was to the detriment, not one more word needed to be said. He should have done what he did throughout the campaign; smiled and moved on the next question and let what he had said already speak for itself. Let the "professional right" rail and rant and dash their heads against it until they knocked themselves silly. He'd bested them.

[malaise]

57. I pointed out last night that he mentioned that both Synagogues and

Catholic churches came under similar attacks but that their constitutional right was enshrined and the same was true here.

What Obama thinks personally is irrelevant - this is bigger than him - the constitution doesn't change with presidents.

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. He didn't "come out" to clarify...he was asked a stupid question by a reporter

seeking to stir shit. The question regarded the "wisdom" of building the center. Obama, quite correctly, told him in no uncertain terms that that was neither here nor there: he has a responsibility to speak to the Constitutional issue, and he did. It is not his job to endorse a religious endeavor.

That's the only correct answer, and it's becoming quite clear here that many people who otherwise reasonably critique this administration are making fools of themselves for critiquing it in this case.

[snagglepuss]

13. Why would someone who is a brilliant writer not have made that clarification

when he gave his speech? Making such a significant clarification now makes him look weak.

[malaise]

22. Actually my response last night

was that he defended it on constitutional grounds - it is those looking for a controversy who are looking for another interpretation.
Sometimes I can't believe that Democrats buy these artificial controversies.

[snagglepuss]

34. It's not about buying into artifical controversies. Obama weighed into this

issue late in the game and it's been clearly evident for some time that Repukes are out to make hay on this issue. Given the nation-wide negative attitude toward the location of this mosque why didn't he from the getgo clearly state any reservations. Withholding the fact that he doesn't necessarily endorse where it's location is not an insigificant point. Did he not see that?

[SunsetDreams]

48. No kidding

It's just crazy and so transparrent.

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. I certainly don't interepret this as watering down anything and he is certainly not going to pacify

right-wing Republicans and he knows that...it's kind of dishonest to suggest he is backing down,

I certainly have no opinion about whether or not there SHOULD be a Hindu center on Beacon Hill in Boston or a Pentecostal Church on Nob Hill in San Francisco or an Islamic Center in lower Manhattan - and I doubt President Obama does either. But like President Obama I would defend their right and insist that they all be treated the same.

[Better Believe It]

12. You would think he would understand that placating to right-wing Republicans is useless.

But yet President Obama has been doing that for the past 19 months and just won't stop!

[Scurrilous]

6. Obama Reiterates His Stance on Mosque Near WTC site

<snip>

"After President Obama finished a speech in Panama City, Florida, he was called aside by reporters just off stage and asked what he thought of reaction to his comments yesterday about the plans to build a Muslim center -- including a prayer room -- near the site of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.

“My intention was simply to let people know what I thought, which was that in this country we treat everybody equally and in accordance with the law, regardless of race, regardless of religion,” Obama told the reporters, referring to his comments at the annual Iftar dinner at the White House last night.

“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That's what our country is about. And I think it's very important, as difficult as some of these issues are, that we stay focused on who we are as a people and what our values are all about,” he said.

Obama’s comments today have been seen by some as backing off his comments last night. Press coverage of the Iftar comments suggested Obama was advocating for the building of the project. White House Deputy Press Secy Bill Burton denies there’s any change in the president’s message.

“Just to be clear, the President is not backing off in any way from the comments he made last night. It is not his role as President to pass judgment on every local project. But it is his responsibility to stand up for the Constitutional principle of religious freedom and equal treatment for all Americans,” Burton wrote in an emailed statement."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/08/obama-reiterates-his-stance-on-mosque-near-wtc-site.html

[Better Believe It]

18. "It is not his role as President to pass judgment on every local project." Who is asking him to?

Just this project.

It's been in the national news more than some local road pot hole issue.

[POAS]

56. Let me put it this way

It is not his job to comment on the wisdom of any local zoning and building issue as to the specifics or wisdom of any given project, probably especially so with this project.

If on the other hand the project was rejected on religious grounds it would fall to him, his administration and Justice to ensure that the first amendment rights of the religion are not impinged. The wisdom of the project is irrelevant if first amendment rights are infringed.

The President was correct in both his statements. The first amendment gives them the absolute right to worship when and where they wish. His opinion of the wisdom is irrelevant and he is right to remain silent on that issue.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. I'm gonna stand back, take a few deep breaths,

and wait a while before I comment on this one.

[DevonRex]

10. He REITERATED his stance right in the article. nt

[DevonRex]

8. No he is NOT backing down at ALL and he says so RIGHT IN THE ARTICLE.

I call bullshit on your title BBI.

[Scurrilous]

15. BBI BS? You'd BBI! n/t

[SunsetDreams]

32. LOL

you think?

[CBR]

39. BNBI IAAGDI... nt

[pinto]

16. It's a local decision. Pres. Obama spoke to the broader constitutional issue.

:hi:

[depakid]

47. It's generally a good idea to make that clear from the outset

I haven't commented on these threads because it is, in fact, a local land use planning decision. If someone's or some groups' civil rights are being violated then they have recourse to the state & federal courts.

Jumping into the controversy just invited reaction from the right- which prompted this further "clarification," which in turn was bound to result in the reaction we're seeing here.

[Bluebear]

49. LOL....look st some of the responses!

read the fuckckkciong article fuck you and fuck the article and fuck glenn becjkeraAZ!a1a1a1a11

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. Not backing down at all - he still thinks its Constitutional. His job is to defend the Constitution.

he's doing his job, and he was right to say it's Constitutional and he's right not to weigh in on whether he thinks it should be there or elsewhere, or whether he'd rather it not be built at all, or whether he'd rather turn that property into a strip club for rabbit-fetishests.

[Better Believe It]

24. He should do his job and defend the Constitution. He hasn't done very well so far: ACLU

Obama Administration In Danger Of Establishing "New Normal" With Worst Bush-Era Policies, Says ACLU

July 29, 2010
Group Releases 18-Month Review Of President's National Security Policies And Civil Liberties

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [e-mail]

NEW YORK – The Obama administration has repudiated some of the Bush administration's most egregious national security policies but is in danger of institutionalizing others permanently into law, thereby creating a troubling "new normal," according to a new report released today by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration," an 18-month review of the Obama administration's record on national security issues affecting civil liberties, concludes that the current administration's record on issues of national security and civil liberties is decidedly mixed: President Obama has made great strides in some areas, such as his auspicious first steps to categorically prohibit torture, outlaw the CIA's use of secret overseas detention sites and release the Bush administration's torture memos, but he has failed to eliminate some of the worst policies put in place by President Bush, such as military commissions and indefinite detention. He has also expanded the Bush administration's "targeted killing" program.

The 22-page report, which was researched and written by staff in the ACLU's National Security Project and Washington Legislative Office, reviews the administration's record in the areas of transparency, torture and accountability, detention, targeted killing, military commissions, speech and surveillance and watchlists.

"President Obama began his presidency with a bang, signing executive orders that placed the power of the presidency behind the restoration of the rule of law and gave meaning to the president's stated view that America must lead with its values," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Unfortunately, since that time, the administration has displayed a decidedly mixed record resulting, on a range of issues, in the very real danger that the Obama administration will institutionalize some of the most troublesome policies of the previous administration – in essence, creating a troubling 'new normal.' We strongly urge the president to shift course and renew his commitment to the fundamental values that are the very foundation of our nation's strength and security."

According to the ACLU's report, the first 18 months of Obama's presidency have been marked by a pattern wherein significant achievements for civil liberties have often been followed by setbacks. For instance, the positive step of releasing Justice Department memoranda that purported to authorize the Bush administration's torture regime was followed by the troubling decision to fight the release of photos depicting the abuse of prisoners in CIA custody. The administration's commitment to dismantle Guantánamo has been undermined by its assertion of the authority to detain people indefinitely without charge or trial. And prohibitions against torture have been weakened by the failure to hold top Bush administration officials accountable for their role in the torture program.

"The Obama administration should work with Congress to restore the rule of law, and discourage any legislation that would institutionalize policies that were widely regarded as unlawful under President Bush. Together, Congress and the White House should make sure that abuses of power like the Patriot Act are dismantled, not extended, and that policies like indefinite detention are never signed into law," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "It is not too late for President Obama to build a legacy of justice and fairness."

The report concludes that, in addition to the initial executive orders, the administration has taken other positive steps and made genuine progress in some areas such as improvements to the government's handling of Freedom of Information Act requests, the release of key documents related to the U.S. torture program and an executive order disavowing torture. It also addresses more troubling practices such as the use of the "state secrets" doctrine to block lawsuits brought by torture survivors, the revival of the discredited military commissions to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees, the assertion of broad surveillance powers and the authorization of a "targeted killing" program to kill terrorism suspects, including American citizens, wherever they are located, without due process.

"In its first days, the Obama administration took some important steps to restore civil liberties and the rule of law," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU. "It has not, however, abandoned the 'global war' framework that was the basis for many of the last administration's counterterrorism programs. Indeed, some of the Obama administration's policies – like the policies on indefinite detention, military commissions and targeted killings – are entrenching this framework, presenting a profound threat to human rights and the rule of law. We urge the Obama administration to recommit itself to the ideals it articulated in its very first days. President Obama should not make 'global war' the new normal."

"Establishing a New Normal" is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/establishing-new-normal

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-danger-establishing-new-normal-worst-bush-era-policies-says-a

[alcibiades_mystery]

66. Unable to defend your despicable and dishonest original post, you

now shift the subject. This is really low and disgraceful behavior.

[lame54]

21. I don't read this as backing down

[rug]

23. When in the courrse of human events, it may become prudent

for one people to reconsider the political bands which have connected them with another and to inquire among the powers of the earth, the practicality of assuming a separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God might entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind and womankind requires that they should overtly mull the causes which impel them to consider the separation.

:puke:

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JamesA1102]

26. When you headline a post with such a dishonest spin

on what the President said, you just prove Gibbs right.

[Bluebear]

29. "you just prove Gibbs right." - how cheap.

[DevonRex]

35. How accurate. nt

[Bluebear]

38. So you stand by Gibbs comments this week too???

Wow.

[CBR]

41. GDR. nt

[Bluebear]

43. NWTTY. nt

[DevonRex]

45. Did you read the NYT article linked here? Did you see that most of the article is Peter King, Palin

and Gingrich, Boehner, etc., calling Obama all sorts of names for SUPPORTING THE MOSQUE??????

Yet here you are, claiming he is FUCKIKNG BACKING DOWN FROM SUPPORTING THE MOSQUE?????

Good God. THAT is why I said that it's accurate, when nothing Obama does is fucking good enough. When he does something good and you and BBI pile on, when he absofuckinglutely STOOD BY his comments of Friday night yet you pretend he's backing down.

You stab him in the back JUST LIKE the RWers in the article. How sad. Try reading the NYT article and see who else is bashing him for his comments on teh Mosque.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scheming daemons]

55. ah yes.... as typical... put anybody who calls you out for your bullshit on "ignore"

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

30. That is what I believe the "clarification" actually represents.

You can disagree with me if you'd like but what other conclusion can one draw from the "clarification" in response to Republican attacks?

What do you think is being "clarified"?

[Better Believe It]

33. What is being "clarified" by the statement? Can anyone explain why a ....

clarification was issued and what it makes clear that wasn't clear before?

[DevonRex]

40. It reiterates his stance of Friday night RIGHT IN THE FUCKING ARTICLE.

Yet you, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Fucking Peter King, and all those other Republican assholes are bashing Obama. What exalted company you keep BBI.

Enough is enough.

[Better Believe It]

71. The Republicans oppose the building of the mosque. I support it. Do you want to go on ignore?

Of course, you already knew that but choose to engage in a personal attack and lie about my position claiming I support the Republican position on the mosque.

If you continue to engage in personal attacks rather than engage in civil discussion and debate and continue to post deliberate lies I'll have to put you on ignore.

[BklnDem75]

86. Read the post again

It clearly states you joined the conservatives in bashing Obama despite their opposing stances towards the mosque. This is the truth.

[JamesA1102]

78. No you didn't say clarification

You said backing down. Or are you clarifying your headline?

[geek tragedy]

37. It's amazing how the people who behave EXACTLY as

described by Gibbs are the loudest to squak about how unfair it is to accurately describe their behavior.

[JamesA1102]

79. Well said nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

27. as a leftist and pro-Palestinian activist who certainly wishes Obama would

do a lot more than he has done and perhaps could do ...this is just plain knee-jerk Obama-bashing..it is flat-out dishonest

[JamesA1102]

80. Thank you for your honesty nt

[SeattleGirl]

28. He's not backing off. He was defending the Constitution, and

he continues to do so.

[Overseas]

31. Right wing and regular conservative media like CNN are mischaracterizing his statements.

I heard the CNN news summary on our progressive radio saying-- President endorses mosque at ground zero, right after they played a clip in which he said he supported the right of any religious group to build a community center that included a place of worship on private property!

[Better Believe It]

36. I endorse the building of the mosque at that location. Do you?

And I'm not religious at all.

I believe that building the mosque at that location will help a great deal to counter the right-wing anti-Arab and anti-Muslim propoganda.

[Overseas]

85. Yes I support the separation of church & state and their right to build.

I was just surprised that when the president took pains to endorse that concept of freedom of religion, and their right to build their community center two blocks away from ground zero, it was shortened to "President endorses a ground zero mosque." Phrasing that could rile up the low information teabaggers.

[SunsetDreams]

50. yep so why not help them out?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheKentuckian]

51. I honestly think the position is correct. He shouldn't be endorsing religious sites

for any specific faith as President just that whatever faith has a right to have a place of worship and community equally.

If the site is zoned for Baptist or Methodists then it is appropriate for Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists.

He shouldn't need to clarify a damn thing and should avoid the appearance of backpedaling in response to Reich wing howling.

[TheKentuckian]

54. and personally I'm fairly agnostic on the church but I'll go absolutely yo the mat for their right

have it where they please and think it would be a strong affirmation of American values.

[bigtree]

52. that's not true

at all.

[SunsetDreams]

58. Correct, I'll go even farther with an explanation as to why

Based on the content of the article that the OP posted, there is a HUGE disconnect between the OP title, and what the article actually says.

[customerserviceguy]

60. I'll bet there are a lot of Democratic candidates out there

who wish the President would back off on this, or that he simply refused to comment on the subject. I'm sure they're getting questions from the press regarding the President's position, and the Repukes are giddy over watching the responses.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

69. I know what's going on

but it seems stupid that Democratic candidates should even have to worry about such a stupid/trivial issue- but then again, I know how the average person works/thinks and how susceptible they are to Fox News' ability to gin up outrage over what should be a total non-issue. :banghead:

[Bobbie Jo]

61. What a disingenuous title.

Transparent spin. Unrec.

[MajorChode]

62. The WH should be going into attack mode on this one

You have Boner and Palin and many other Repugnants offering their half-fast comments regarding this issue. The bottom line is the Constitution is unambiguous. The WH should be more stringently pointing out that when Repugnants have a choice between the Constitution and pandering to their bigoted base, they have no problem with wiping their ass with the Constitution and pandering to their bigoted base. Fucking hypocrites.

[Better Believe It]

72. I agree

[Proud Liberal Dem]

65. What's wrong with that???

The way I read it is that he is saying that should be ABLE to build a mosque/community center there but he's apparently not offering an opinion about whether one SHOULD be built there. :shrug: What's the controversy here??? Can he (or should he) ORDER or DEMAND that one be built there???? Does he need to offer an opinion about whether or not one should be built there? Where's the "backing down" from his earlier comments???

[SeattleGirl]

67. It's all in the OP's mind. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

68. I've definitely done my fair share of criticizing the President but he's right here

He needs to back off endorsing any specific religion and keep to the broader Constitutional issue.

It's become so politicized and such a lightening rod. I said at the beginning of the whole affair, I wish that NO specific religion would try to take advantage of the site, make it a neutral zone with no religious overtones since religion is clearly implicated in fucking up the planet (and clearly implicated in 9/11). How about a community center with a quiet room instead of an overt religious arena that holds 2000 people?

The OP is being disingenuous at best with this spin imho.

[MajorChode]

75. His message demonstrates that the President supports the constitution...

while the wingnuts (who claim to hold the Constitution in the highest regard) wipe their ass with it.

It just goes to show that when wingnuts are forced to choose between the Constitution and bigotry, they choose bigotry. It speaks volumes regarding where there priorities lay.

[Better Believe It]

83. And many of President Obama's actions have not supported the Constitution and civil liberties: ACLU

Obama Administration In Danger Of Establishing "New Normal" With Worst Bush-Era Policies, Says ACLU

July 29, 2010
Group Releases 18-Month Review Of President's National Security Policies And Civil Liberties

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [e-mail]

NEW YORK – The Obama administration has repudiated some of the Bush administration's most egregious national security policies but is in danger of institutionalizing others permanently into law, thereby creating a troubling "new normal," according to a new report released today by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties, and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration," an 18-month review of the Obama administration's record on national security issues affecting civil liberties, concludes that the current administration's record on issues of national security and civil liberties is decidedly mixed: President Obama has made great strides in some areas, such as his auspicious first steps to categorically prohibit torture, outlaw the CIA's use of secret overseas detention sites and release the Bush administration's torture memos, but he has failed to eliminate some of the worst policies put in place by President Bush, such as military commissions and indefinite detention. He has also expanded the Bush administration's "targeted killing" program.

The 22-page report, which was researched and written by staff in the ACLU's National Security Project and Washington Legislative Office, reviews the administration's record in the areas of transparency, torture and accountability, detention, targeted killing, military commissions, speech and surveillance and watchlists.

"President Obama began his presidency with a bang, signing executive orders that placed the power of the presidency behind the restoration of the rule of law and gave meaning to the president's stated view that America must lead with its values," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "Unfortunately, since that time, the administration has displayed a decidedly mixed record resulting, on a range of issues, in the very real danger that the Obama administration will institutionalize some of the most troublesome policies of the previous administration – in essence, creating a troubling 'new normal.' We strongly urge the president to shift course and renew his commitment to the fundamental values that are the very foundation of our nation's strength and security."

According to the ACLU's report, the first 18 months of Obama's presidency have been marked by a pattern wherein significant achievements for civil liberties have often been followed by setbacks. For instance, the positive step of releasing Justice Department memoranda that purported to authorize the Bush administration's torture regime was followed by the troubling decision to fight the release of photos depicting the abuse of prisoners in CIA custody. The administration's commitment to dismantle Guantánamo has been undermined by its assertion of the authority to detain people indefinitely without charge or trial. And prohibitions against torture have been weakened by the failure to hold top Bush administration officials accountable for their role in the torture program.

"The Obama administration should work with Congress to restore the rule of law, and discourage any legislation that would institutionalize policies that were widely regarded as unlawful under President Bush. Together, Congress and the White House should make sure that abuses of power like the Patriot Act are dismantled, not extended, and that policies like indefinite detention are never signed into law," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "It is not too late for President Obama to build a legacy of justice and fairness."

The report concludes that, in addition to the initial executive orders, the administration has taken other positive steps and made genuine progress in some areas such as improvements to the government's handling of Freedom of Information Act requests, the release of key documents related to the U.S. torture program and an executive order disavowing torture. It also addresses more troubling practices such as the use of the "state secrets" doctrine to block lawsuits brought by torture survivors, the revival of the discredited military commissions to prosecute some Guantánamo detainees, the assertion of broad surveillance powers and the authorization of a "targeted killing" program to kill terrorism suspects, including American citizens, wherever they are located, without due process.

"In its first days, the Obama administration took some important steps to restore civil liberties and the rule of law," said Jameel Jaffer, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU. "It has not, however, abandoned the 'global war' framework that was the basis for many of the last administration's counterterrorism programs. Indeed, some of the Obama administration's policies – like the policies on indefinite detention, military commissions and targeted killings – are entrenching this framework, presenting a profound threat to human rights and the rule of law. We urge the Obama administration to recommit itself to the ideals it articulated in its very first days. President Obama should not make 'global war' the new normal."

"Establishing a New Normal" is available online at: www.aclu.org/national-security/establishing-new-normal

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-danger-establishing-new-normal-worst-bush-era-policies-says-a

[MajorChode]

93. And this has to do with the subject how?

[BzaDem]

74. Oh wow! A BBI post that bashes Obama! How surprising and unusual!

[HipChick]

81. Unrec'd..since I don't see him backing down from anything

just the R/W anti-Obama bashing talking points of the day

[Better Believe It]

82. So what needed to be clarified in the follow-up statement? I'm still waiting for an answer.

A White House clarification statement was released. So what does that statement make clear that wasn't clear before?

Anyone care to answer?

I'm listening.

[HipChick]

88. what's the point of answering?

when people only see what they want to see anyway? :shrug:

[Better Believe It]

92. Is that another way of saying people don't really have an answer to that simple question?

So what is the White House clarifying, what do think think was confusing in President Obama's first statement?

If you or anyone else has an answer to that question I'm listening.

If you don't know, just say you don't know.

[BklnDem75]

94. Got a link to that released clarification?

The New York times saying it was a clarification doesn't make it so.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

95. The following words said at the White House were crystal clear and the attacks here are unwarranted.

http://www.examiner.com/us-headlines-in-national/president-obama-s-remarks-regarding-ground-zero-mosque-at-white-house-iftar-dinner-video-2

"But let me be clear. As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America. And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country and that they will not be treated differently by their government is essential to who we are. The writ of the Founders must endure."

[Kalyke]

87. They're building a mosque? Funny, I thought it was a community center

with a prayer room.

It's not a mosque. Why can't the media learn that?

[phleshdef]

89. The title of the OP is a great example of the professional left at work.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[VMI Dem]

91. Its a "clarification" in woodchuck speak. Timed to gauge public reaction to the first statement.

Get it right.