He was the ultimate whistleblower. He was the legendary leaker in 1971 of the “Pentagon Papers”–some 7.000 pages of classified documents commissioned by Defense Secretary McNamara that revealed to the world that the American government knew the Vietnam War was unwinnable. The Nixon Administration prosecuted Ellsberg for his actions all the way to the Supreme Court.
Daniel Ellsberg, now 79, spoke with Der Spiegel (“the mirror”) online and gave his assessments of the Obama administration. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,699677,00.html One of the telling perceptions from Ellsberg:
“His actions (Obama’s) are totally uncoupled from his public statements. I don’t even listen anymore. He has turned 180 degrees. Another example: His promise to filibuster a law giving the phone companies legal immunity for any role they played in the Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program. Then he not only voted not to filibuster it, he also voted for the law — against the wishes of his backers.”
Ellsberg was, of course, describing Obama’s amazing flip flop on FISA, one of the first precursors that Obama was just another politician who had no intention of carrying through on his promises of change. To the German online magazine, Ellsberg also charges that:
…his administration in some key aspects is nothing other than the third term of the Bush administration.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How so?
Ellsberg: I think Obama is continuing the worst of the Bush administration in terms of civil liberties, violations of the constitution and the wars in the Middle East.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: For example?
Ellsberg: Take Obama’s explicit pledge in his State of the Union speech to remove “all” United States troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. That’s a total lie. I believe that’s totally false. I believe he knows that’s totally false. It won’t be done. I expect that the US will have, indefinitely, a residual force of at least 30,000 US troops in Iraq.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about Afghanistan? Isn’t that a justifiable war?
Ellsberg: I think that there’s an inexcusable escalation in both countries. Thousands of US officials know that bases and large numbers of troops will remain in Iraq and that troop levels and bases in Afghanistan will rise far above what Obama is now projecting. But Obama counts on them to keep their silence as he deceives the public on these devastating, costly, reckless ventures.
Nor is Ellsberg’s criticism confined to foreign affairs. He offers withering comments about Obama’s domestic politics too:
Ellsberg: For instance, the Obama administration is criminalizing and prosecuting whistleblowers to punish them for uncovering scandals within the federal government …
SPIEGEL ONLINE: … Such as the arrest, confirmed this week, of an Army intelligence analyst for leaking the “Collateral Murder” video of a deadly US helicopter attack in Iraq, which was later posted online at WikiLeaks.
Ellsberg: Also, the recent US indictment of Thomas Drake.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Drake was a former senior official with the National Security Agency (NSA) who provided reporters with information about failures at the NSA.
Ellsberg: For Obama to indict and prosecute Drake now, for acts undertaken and investigated during the Bush administration, is to do precisely what Obama said he did not mean to do — “look backward.” Of all the blatantly criminal acts committed under Bush, warrantless wiretapping by the NSA, aggression, torture, Obama now prosecutes only the revelation of massive waste by the NSA, a socially useful act which the Bush administration itself investigated but did not choose to indict or prosecute!
Bush brought no indictments against whistleblowers, though he suspended Drake’s clearance. Obama, in this and other matters relating to secrecy and whistleblowing, is doing worse than Bush. His violation of civil liberties and the White House’s excessive use of the executive secrecy privilege is inexcusable.
Ellsberg’s overall assessment of Obama is devastating:
He’s a good politician. He said what he needed to say to get elected, and now he’s just taking advantage of the office. Like any administration before, his administration caters to the profits of big corporations like BP and Goldman Sachs — even though I think BP won’t get off that easily this time. His early campaign contributions, the big corporate contributions, came from Wall Street. They got their money’s worth.
One might disagree with some aspects of this criticism and call it overly harsh. But on the other hand, it is clear that at least from the progressive-liberal-left perspective, the bloom is off the Obama presidency. This is further shown by the skirmishes between the administration and various candidacies like Arlen Specter’s and Blanche Lincoln’s where the left of the party has refused to follow in lock step to the administration’s wishes and to voting mindlessly for their candidates. The Rahm Emanuel-like allegation about the Lincoln-Halter struggle that labor unions just “flushed down the toilet” $10 million that could have been used elsewhere to help Democrats shows the rancor between the administration and its left-progressive base.
Digby has an excellent article exploring the tensions between the administration and the progressive movement, fittingly called, “Where did their love go?” http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/where-did-their-love-go-afn10.html
He measured reactions and statements from the progressive Campaign for America’s Future conference that recently took place in Washington, D.C. Two years ago, notes Digby, this conference overwhelmingly voted for Obama but today the administration has to wonder, what happened to all that love?
None of this bodes well for November. Without the enthusiasm, the funding, the ideas that the progressive left brings, the Democratic Party will struggle. One of the ironies of Obama is that he seems more intent on forging bipartisan ties with stalwart Republican right wingers (such as Judd Gregg whom he wanted in his cabinet) than forging ties with an important element of his own base. That too doesn’t bode well for Obama in 2012.
