The refreshing thing about Obama is, despite the controversy, I trust him....

[Infinite Hope]

to do the right thing and trust his judgment. I believe he's in it for the right reasons. I haven't had that feeling for at least 10 years. If he has decided not to release inflaming photos, I trust his decision and the obvious rationale. If he has decided to continue with tribunals while granting detainees constitutional rights, I trust his judgment.

[noamnety]

1. Is there anything he could do

that would make you not trust him?

[cali]

2. Can I answer that?

I don't agree with Obama on a litany of things, but I do have a basic "gut" trust in him. I don't think, for example, that he's a corporate front man, which would make him either "evil" or a dupe. I do recognize that he's a politician and that he'll factor in politics when it comes to decision making on some issues. There seems to be a divide here, and it's not over whether or not Obama makes decisions that one agrees or disagrees with, but about whether one sees him as a man with some substantial degree of integrity or a man who has none and is either working for the corporate class or a tool of the corporate class.

[Infinite Hope]

3. Well said. I haven't agreed with everything, but I think his intentions are good...

and perhaps even right despite my disagreement.

[scubadude]

5. His intentions are good, you mean he is no different than Shrub,...

who's intentions were also good.

That's the thing most folks don't get about dubya.

The Bush administration and dubya actually thought they were doing good for our country. They have a different belief set for what is good and bad than we do.

Therefore the only real way to judge an administration based on their actions. To do otherwise is folly. To do otherwise is to slip down the slope of the cult of personality. "Well, dubya did the same thing while he was in office but he did it to hurt the coutry, Obama is doing the same thing to help the country. That is in fact because Obama's intentions are good..."

Get real!

Scuba

[scubadude]

7. self delete

[Infinite Hope]

9. No, that's just how you conveniently decipher what I said. n/t

[scubadude]

23. No, I'm saying that you must not include intentions in the mix.

Even bad administrations and administrators have good intentions.

Dubya tortured people because he believed that what would be produced from it would be good for our country. It is the act which should be judged. The act itself, not why he did it. The act itself, not who did it.

There was a promise made that those photo's would be released. People decided to vote for Obama based on the promises he made. Too many people allow the slide to begin when they don't stand up demanding that the person they voted for do the things he promised. "Gee, he lied to me, but I "trust him" to do the right thing".

When people support their politicians blindly and often in spite of what they do cults of personality arise. Dem-Freeps is what I call those folks, but I'm not saying that you are one of those. You freely admit you disagree with Obama. I am saying we must demand Obama live up to his promises. All of them.

Scuba

[avaistheone1]

30. There is an old saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Jennicut]

35. Uh, I think not. I think Bush and Cheney knew they were robbing the country and making it weaker.

They did it to line the pockets of their buddies. Cheney most definitely did that and led Bush on leash.

[scubadude]

39. Perhaps, but that does not prove they didn't think it would benefit the country.

The haves and the have mores. Those are my base...

Still, they believe their way is right, as did almost all Republicans.

Scuba

[Lilyeye]

43. I couldn't agree with you more. IMO all they did was lie and say it was for the good of the country.

[stillcool]

36. The intentions of the Bush Administration....

were to do exactly what they did. And I don't think George had anything to do with any of it. I don't trust much, but I do trust that the United States Government is the same thing it's been for a hundred years. I don't hold out much hope for Obama...not because of his intentions..but because of reality.

[Cha]

38. No, bush was a stupid tool asshole and

not on the same Planet as PResident Obama.

[Arugula Latte]

41. I'd take issue with your contention that Dubya & Co. thought they were doing good for our country

Is it a possibility? Yes, I guess so. And perhaps there were some in that administration who were truly convinced that they were on the side of all that is good. However, I'd surmise that it's likely that plenty of those people were callously in it for money and power. They blatantly ran the country for the good of the top one percent. Their answer to everything was tax cuts for the wealthy. They callously let people die in New Orleans. They lied their asses off to get us into war, not to protect the country, but to enrich the coffers of their corporate cronies.

[Fire1]

44. Republicans believe that 'good intention' crap but I don't

think for one minute dems buy it. I know I don't. Everything the Bushes did they did for themselves.

[ecstatic]

19. That's it! That's what it boils down to

Trust!

[cali]

25. uh, no. that's not what I said.

trust is just one component of assessing any given decision- just as distrust was a component in how assessed bushco- even when he did something like increase funds for AIDS. It's absurd to assert that how we feel about an individual, isn't part of how we judge that person. And dishonest.

[scubadude]

40. Obama made promises in the election. We voted for him based on these.

Basically he said a slew of things to gain our trust, now he must come through on them to keep it. There is no room for falsity. We are through with that. He promised it.

Remember Bush's "Honesty and integrity in the Whitehouse"? Remember the "Kinder and gentler America"? We saw what he did. He lied. Can you accept the same from Obama? It sounds like you can. When you lay down and accept what you are given you are beaten.

Scuba

[Jane Austin]

4. I trust him to do the best he thinks he can achieve

according to his very good timing and judgement.

He worried me frequently during the campaign only to reveal in the fullness of time that he was thinking ahead.

Wouldn't it be great if we get a really good start this term, and that he achieves all he/we envisioned in the second?

He is - with deliberation and patience - bringing many who mistrusted him over to his side.

[polichick]

6. I trust that he has good intentions, but don't know if he can stand up to the MIC...

...and do know that Congress can't ~ or won't.

[scubadude]

8. You are on slippery slope thinking here...

If Obama withholds the photo's it's o.k. but if Bush withholds them, it's bad...

I will repeat my previous post. Bush's intentions were good. He believed what he was doing was good for the country. He had a different belief set than ours.

The only way to judge the performance of an administration is based on their actions and how they relate to what YOU believe and what was promised. The actions are what matters, not your belief of what a persons intentions are.

If Obama said he was going to release them then he should, and if he doesn't, he has broken a campaign promise. Cut and dry.

Your thinking would allow him to intentionally lie about things to win the election then turn on a dime and go back on everything he said because his "intentions are good and you trust his judgement".

Isn't this just what the freeps did?

Scuba

[Infinite Hope]

10. Again, you're creating your own impression of what I said. I never said it was bad when Bush

withheld the photos.

You sure run with assumptions.

[noamnety]

18. The problem with that statement

is that there is a search feature on DU.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2888292#2888298

[Infinite Hope]

20. The premise of the original statement was mocking the Bush admin...

with their remarks when they were using what was an otherwise legitimate rationale to hide illegitimate acts that THEY were committing, but denying the extent of.

Obama is containing the photos to protect our national security interests, not to protect his administration from acts it authorized, but was denying.

In a nutshell, I was mocking the Bush administration for dishonest use of the national security rationale for protecting the photos. It seems clear to me that the Obama administration has no ulterior motive.

[noamnety]

21. And your thoughts on him not releasing the photos

while putting McChrystal (one of the head torture dudes, and lead coverup artist in Pat Tillman's death) in charge of Afghanistan?

One could STILL make the case that Obama is refusing to release the photos - despite the justice department requiring their release - because he is protecting people in his administration. There is STILL a huge conflict of interest, and it should still be cause for concern that he is doing the Bush unitary executive thing of ignoring checks and balances and deciding he can override the justice department "just because."

A president who ignores the justice department is as dangerous to national security as a president who releases photos when ordered to do so. We should have learned that lesson by now.

[scubadude]

26. We should have learned that lesson by now...

Yes, you are giving a great example of the slippery slope. The road we cannot go down.

Blind support for your candidate isn't healthy. We must demand our politicians be honest, and when they are not we must recognize it and call them out.

Scuba

[scubadude]

24. Dem-Freeperism...

is when you blindly support the actions of a Democrat, in spite of his actions. Isn't that what the Freeps did with Shrub? Well, dubya did it so it must be o.k..

At least have the guts to call out your guy too. He obviously needs our guidance.

Scuba

[paulk]

29. so you think it was good when Bush withheld the photos?

[Political Tiger]

11. When did Obama promise to release any photos during the campaign?

I don't even remember the subject coming up during the campaign.

[HopeOverFear]

27. Bush had good intentions, but he was a puppet of both Cheney and Rumsfeld

Bush couldn't think for himself. Obama can. He is nobody's puppet, that is the key difference. I agree with Infinite Hope.

[avaistheone1]

12. I don't trust politicians and Obama is a politician.

It's not our job to trust our politicians. It is our job to monitor them and hold them accountable.

Obama has done too many things as of late that make it very clear to me that he deserves no special trust.

[polichick]

14. "It is our job to monitor them and hold them accountable." YES, WE CAN! :)

[avaistheone1]

15. ^5

[Infinite Hope]

17. Okay, then join the Pelosi thread :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5671366&mesg_id=5671366

[Vattel]

13. I don't trust politicians until they prove themselves worthy

of that trust. You are free, of course, to do otherwise. Has Obama proven himself worthy of my trust? Not yet, but it's still early in his Administration. Bottom line: who cares whether you or I trust Obama or not. It would be more useful to argue about whether his policies are good.

[avaistheone1]

16. Excellent points.

[Tommy_J]

22. Sometimes crisis management precludes doing

what you want to do when you want to do it. There is no question he has his hands full with mega-crises. In light of this Obama still has my complete trust.

[scubadude]

28. By withholding those photo's Obama is accepting the responsibilty for the action.

He is making the crisis his own. To just release them would be to force the accountability where it belongs, squarely on the folks who caused it to happen, not on a few "bad eggs" who were really just scapegoats.

In effect he is holding Bush's water. That isn't a very smart place. He needs to make a clean break from the criminally bad decision making of the previous administration.

Scuba

[Tommy_J]

32. Those are good points but -

- isn't it possible those pictures are so horrific and disgusting that releasing them NOW would create a major crisis when the plate is already full? This actually seems quite likely. Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly in favor of the truth coming out and appropriate punishments for all involved.

[scubadude]

42. I'm sure they are grisly beyond belief, but the world knows George Bush is responsible.

That is George Bush is responsible for them unless Obama covers them up. Then he takes on the responsiblity and some of the blame. Obama promised a clean break, and if he does not give it he is playing into the hand of everyone's doubt. Not only ours, but the whole worlds.

If he framed it correctly, put the blame where we all know it belongs, squarely on the shoulders of not a few bad eggs in Iraq, but on those bad eggs who ordered these atrocities, finally we would have come clean with the rest of the world. Until that day we are all lumped into the same boat with the perpetrators of these crimes.

Come clean Obama. Put the blame where it belongs. Don't let a bunch of children playing warriors take the fall. C'mon Barak, yes you can...

Scuba

[goclark]

31. I agree with you ~

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[grantcart]

34. I agree but it is not a 'blind trust' or 'hope'.

More than any other public figure he has shown in detail how he thinks.


His epistomology is what makes him so trustworthy.

[MadHound]

37. Hate to break this to you, but you're being foolish.

Never, ever trust a politician. They are not putting your interests first and foremost, but rather the interests of their large financial donors.

People trusted Clinton also, and we wound up with NAFTA, deregulation of the financial sector, "don't ask, don't tell" welfare "reform", the '96 Telecom Act and so much more.