Not only that but after receiving a Nobel Peace Prize he proceeded to engage in drone warfare. Just in 2016 he dropped more then 20k bombs, in countries which we were not even at war with. Many in Africa. It was surprising how little flak he got for it. Indeed when he was elected in 2008 he got the best marketer of year award http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-market... and he presented a great image.
> Which is worse: torture or killing?
It is kind of a false choice. But let's go with it, Obama effectively picked both. Anyone remember how he promised to close Guantanamo? Well it is still open. He picked both killing and continued torture. Yet people still idolize him and think he was so great. Again, that's the power of propaganda and marketing at work, AdAge's award was very much on point, better then Coke, Nike and Apple.
I took it more as him pointing out that while Trump, right or wrong, is crucified in the press on a daily basis Obama was able to successfully spin a benevolent image to the point that he was absolutely held to a different standard. All presidents have blood on their hands, but there is a certain irony in Obama being the first Nobel peace price winner to bomb another peace prize winner.
To your second point, I think the sheen of Obama's Presidency is definitely beginning to fade a bit. His failure to truly effect change in the Arab Spring showed amateurism in foreign policy. If there's any irony, it's in the Nobel laureate selection process (at least for the Peace prize); Kissinger won the damn thing in 73, which should tell anyone that the whole award is a farce.
Do you know who he dropped bombs on and why? You make it sound like he dropped bombs for the fun of it.
But those who actually got bombs dropped on them... could be literally anyone
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/i-am-on-the-us-kill-list...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-air-stri...
https://reprieve.org.uk/press/2014_11_25_us_drone_strikes_ki...
Not a good track record no matter how you try to spin it.
A European here, I was under the impression he sincerely tried to close Guantanamo but failed because of GOP controlled house and senate. Could he have done more?
If they closed Gitmo and brought the detainees to the US for trial, almost all would have to be released.
I'm not necessarily saying that is a bad things, surely some (or even all) do not deserve to be held and should be released, but all it takes is one coming back and committing a terrorist act (could you even blame them after being illegally held and tortured for years?) for the worst PR nightmare a politician could even imagine rains down on them.
In a two party system, you ignore bad things and back your guy, because what is the alternative? Backing the other side? Just Look at all the obvious horrors they are willfully ignoring!
True, agreed. They could still stand up for what's right. Criticizing your party doesn't mean automatically endorsing the other party.
But I was also talking about the mainstream media and the coverage it got there as well.
> The very same democrats who mock Trump supporters for not denouncing him when he said "Grab them by the pussy" did not denounce Obama
Or look at the recent "shithole" controversy. Trump said "shithole" (which was terrible, of course) and they talked about it for weeks. Forgot which reporter was even crying on screen about it. That's fine, it's good to be critical and scrutinize those in power. But Obama was dropping bombs on pretty much the same countries and everything was relatively quiet, not many tears from reporters there. Democracy Now was covering and other articles here and there. It's because Obama was polite, composed and projected a professional image.
What does that have to do with Obama? Trump wasn't in the picture when Obama did any of this. This whole "what about you?" kind of rhetoric is utterly useless and pointless. All it does is reinforce football team politics.
Look at each case without trying to diminish one case by saying someone else did something worse. Obama messed up or deliberately did awful things and his actions have got nothing to do with anything anyone said or did about Trump later.
Torture exposes the blackest parts of our humanity in a way that droning someone never could.
If we refuse to play at the terrorists game of death then their cause wins at the cost of billions of lives. Then they can continue to kill and maim over ever more nuanced positions.
In part the problem is that a (the, I suspect) major source of terrorists is adherents of Islam who follow Mohammed's example of murder, and his injunctions in the Koran, and hadith, to violently oppress. As long as that book exists to inspire the actions, and that man is treated as a model for others then we'll continue to have such problems.
I do not believe the Obama administration used more drones because of public backlash against torture. Correlation does not imply causation and all that.
It could easily be explained that because torture doesn't work there's no reason to risk more lives to capture someone alive. It may be that drone technology just advanced and became an option or an easier option. I can think of a lot of possibilities but I have no reason to believe any of them.
Is there a name for this kind of fallacy?
This is especially true at the end of a war.
He created a world in which the children of certain countries are afraid of clear, blue skies, because it means the drones will be operating.
That's sick and totally devoid of humanity.
However, if you had to choose, I'd probably say torture is worse. Even a slow death is likely to be quick, and has an end, compared with a torturer who is actively trying to keep you alive so you can endure more.