You have to wonder if President Obama ever thought when he first ran for the White House that he would need to defend himself from accusations his presidency would be a mere extension of his Republican predecessor.
But there he was with journalist Charlie Rose having to explain why his approach to national security wasn’t really like that of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
The main reason he’s no repeat of that previous administration? Obama pointed to his championing of strong checks and balances to federal government surveillance (his strong suggestion was that his immediate predecessors didn’t.)
Further, he seeks a “national conversation” about data gathering by the government and other entities. Again, the implication there was that any broad debate during the Bush-Cheney years about surveillance was something the prior administration was only brought to while kicking and screaming.
From the reasonable, matter-of-fact way the president put it, you would have thought that such a discussion had been part of Obama’s plan for his second-term all along. But, of course, it wasn’t.
The Obama administration didn’t exactly initiate this discussion. Instead it was thrust upon him. Indeed, whether you view Edward Snowden, the leaker of the NSA surveillance programs, as a hero or traitor, he’s likely the only reason Obama is now forced to call for such a discussion about NSA surveillance.
Something similar happened with the U.S. drone program that targets terrorist suspects. Once controversial details leaked out about the president’s expansion from the Bush era of the unmanned aerial vehicle program, Obama called for another national discussion. In his National Defense University speech, Obama said there was a “larger discussion we need to have about a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy.”
Obama’s appearance on the Charlie Rose Show, as well as his calls for Americans to discuss what they’re willing to abide for national security, also come at a time when the president’s once durable job approval ratings have fallen. Some polls suggest an erosion even among Democrats. The NSA revelations as well as the IRS controversy have clearly taken their toll.
Hence the president’s attempt to persuade Americans that much of what they’ve heard about the NSA’s activities has been flat out wrong and that the American people have no greater defender of their civil liberties than him.
“… My job is both to protect the American people and to protect the American way of life which includes our privacy,” Obama told Rose. “And so every program that we engage in, what I’ve said is, ‘let`s examine and make sure that we`re making the right tradeoffs.’”
The need to openly talk about national security issues he would prefer not to, is just one more area where Obama has more in common with the Bush administration than he apparently wants to admit publicly.
But it’s not just the Bush-Cheney administration Obama shares this with, but many predecessors.
Presidents often see national security as requiring aggressive actions, frequently at odds with civil liberties, which they, of course, would rather not discuss openly.
Once leaks force a public debate, presidents are compelled to speak to the nation’s concerns and sometimes to the global public beyond the U.S. But it certainly isn’t part of their plan.