Tarnish Off?

Greenwald ricochets off today's NY Times editorial and presents another strong condemnation of the Obama administration's embrace of Bush/Cheney era policies around national security and executive power. He writes that it's notable that the Times, which was Obama's biggest media supporter during the campaign and since he's taken office, would lead off their editorial thusly:

The Obama administration has clung for so long to the Bush administration’s expansive claims of national security and executive power that it is in danger of turning President George W. Bush’s cover-up of abuses committed in the name of fighting terrorism into President Barack Obama’s cover-up.

These are not idly critical words. Uh, Yeah Right has regularly touted the Bush torture and warrantless search policies as anti-Constitution, anti-American, and the biggest reason why McCain (who heartily embraced these policies) was unfit to become president.

But it's easy to be partisan, and it's easy to be on the outside being critical. Obama himself showed that. As a senator, even one with reach into certain levels of government, Obama was openly critical of Bush/Cheney and used their abuses of power as ways to mobilize millions of American voters. But now, the election is over. I'm sure that after election day, Obama's staff was immersing themselves in the difficult transition period and learning just how bad things were in the Bush Executive Branch. I'm sure that, once coming to grips with how Bush/Cheney had made a mess of things, Obama's earlier promises to open all that up and be more transparent started to feel like a bone in his throat. And while Obama's intentions are notable, he has not executed on his promises regarding Guantanamo, FISA, or possible Bush/Cheney administration war crimes prosecutions.

After nine months on the job, the time to act on these agenda items is now (or, to give him some benefit of the doubt, almost nearly now). And yet, for all my progressive leanings and strong belief that so much of what Bush and Cheney were hiding was illegal and the information worthy of being revealed to the public, I am also pragmatic enough to realize that there really might be some information collected by the Bush administration is really worthy of protecting on the grounds of national security. In other words -- gulp -- maybe they were right on a few things.

If I were president, I'd be worried if some of the information I gathered were leaked to the public in such a way as to hamper a covert operation to capture or kill a primary anti-terrorism target. We might live in a free society, but that doesn't mean we all have to be in on the planning or execution of how our government protects us. Let all that be revealed once the mission succeeds (or fails), and then let the press report it, and let the public decide, through its elected representatives, how to process that information. Maybe this means that the former president and vice president don't stand trial for what they've done. I, for one, strongly advocate that they do, along with at least half a dozen other administration operatives. But I'm not a national security expert, and neither are Glenn Greenwald or the editorial board of the NY Times.

I'm willing to hold off on my judgment; Bush had nearly eight years since 9/11 to create a near police state, with Gestapo-tested torture programs and Orwellian surveillance of its citizens. Obama deserves more time to unravel the worst of it all and carefully, carefully assess how each detail affects our national security future.