Thursday, April 23, 2009

Presidential Poison

His invitation to indict Bush officials will haunt Obama's Presidency.

The Wall Street Journal hit the nail on the head in several points in it's article on Obama's attack on the previous administration. I don't normally quote per word but this article said it all and I don't see how I could even state it more clearly and intelligently. Here goes -

"Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret."

"Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama's victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power."

Winning for Obama is just NOT enough. I couldn't agree more...the elections do settle that battle. This truly shows Obama's LACK of experience in an executive position. Had he WON the position of CEO at a fortune 500 company and played the BLAME game and then up'd it one by trying to prove the guilt of the previous CEO, oh my, he'd be fired in a heart beat.

"If this analogy seems excessive, consider how Mr. Obama has framed the issue. He has absolved CIA operatives of any legal jeopardy, no doubt because his intelligence advisers told him how damaging that would be to CIA morale when Mr. Obama needs the agency to protect the country. But he has pointedly invited investigations against Republican legal advisers who offered their best advice at the request of CIA officials."

"Your intelligence indicates that there is currently a level of 'chatter' equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks," wrote Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, in his August 1, 2002 memo. "In light of the information you believe [detainee Abu] Zubaydah has and the high level of threat you believe now exists, you wish to move the interrogations into what you have described as an 'increased pressure phase.'" I'm all about fair and humane treatment, but I'm thinking if pulling the fingernails off of Zubaydah would save just one American life... then go for it.

"So the CIA requests a legal review at a moment of heightened danger, the Justice Department obliges with an exceedingly detailed analysis of the law and interrogation practices -- and, seven years later, Mr. Obama says only the legal advisers who are no longer in government should be investigated. The political convenience of this distinction for Mr. Obama betrays its basic injustice. And by the way, everyone agrees that senior officials, including President Bush, approved these interrogations. Is this President going to put his predecessor in the dock too?" Personally I wouldn't put it past him. Obama seems to be playing the "rookie" and inexperienced CEO...make the previous guy look bad and my halo will shine. Hmm, this may end up biting Obama in the ass!

"Mr. Obama seemed to understand the peril of such an exercise when he said, before his inauguration, that he wanted to "look forward" and beyond the antiterror debates of the Bush years. As recently as Sunday, Rahm Emanuel said no prosecutions were contemplated and now is not a time for "anger and retribution." Two days later the President disavowed his own chief of staff. Yet nothing had changed except that Mr. Obama's decision last week to release the interrogation memos unleashed a revenge lust on the political left that he refuses to resist."

"Just as with the AIG bonuses, he is trying to co-opt his left-wing base by playing to it -- only to encourage it more. Within hours of Mr. Obama's Tuesday comments, Senator Carl Levin piled on with his own accusatory Intelligence Committee report. The demands for a "special counsel" at Justice and a Congressional show trial are louder than ever, and both Europe's left and the U.N. are signaling their desire to file their own charges against former U.S. officials."

"Those officials won't be the only ones who suffer if all of this goes forward. Congress will face questions about what the Members knew and when, especially Nancy Pelosi when she was on the House Intelligence Committee in 2002. The Speaker now says she remembers hearing about waterboarding, though not that it would actually be used. Does anyone believe that? Porter Goss, her GOP counterpart at the time, says he knew exactly what he was hearing and that, if anything, Ms. Pelosi worried the CIA wasn't doing enough to stop another attack. By all means, put her under oath." Pelosi watched a water boarding procedure along with Senator McCain, she is far from innocent...lets fry her ass too while we are at it!!!

"Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he'll soon learn otherwise. The Beltway's political energy will focus more on the spectacle of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame."

"Above all, the exercise will only embitter Republicans, including the moderates and national-security hawks Mr. Obama may need in the next four years. As patriotic officials who acted in good faith are indicted, smeared, impeached from judgeships or stripped of their academic tenure, the partisan anger and backlash will grow. And speaking of which, when will the GOP Members of Congress begin to denounce this partisan scapegoating? Senior Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Richard Lugar, John McCain, Orrin Hatch, Pat Roberts and Arlen Specter have hardly been profiles in courage."

"Mr. Obama is more popular than his policies, due in part to his personal charm and his seeming goodwill. By indulging his party's desire to criminalize policy advice, he has unleashed furies that will haunt his Presidency."

Indeed it shall haunt his presidency. Enough of the blame game Mr. Obama, lets MOVE FORWARD as you promised while you campaigned. Once again I can only think that this administration is focusing so much of its attention on the previous administration.... hmmm makes one believe they are trying to take the focus off of the current administration. Not so well done Mr. Obama, I believe this one has come back to not only smack you in the face but shall stain your pretty little in-experienced, rookie attitudes.

5 comments:

sepblues said...

For the first time in five years more Americans believe the nation is on the right track than not. The number is up over 50 percent. no matter how much you and those of your disgruntled sore loser ilk try, Obama's numbers and acceptance by the public keeps rising.

Republican said...

lol come on SEP... that's the DEM's deluting the polls since obama's numbers have been sinking... don't get after me... i didn't write the article...I just posted it and responded to it!!!

Oh my Obama should of just let it be!

sepblues said...

Here Diana- a little of this- a little of that... what say you?

Apparently, torture is friggin' hilarious to media conservatives

For most rational human beings, even the notion of torture is bone-chilling. Media conservatives, on the other hand, apparently find it hilarious. Following President Obama's release of four previously classified Justice Department memos that had authorized the use of harsh interrogation techniques on detainees -- including "stress positions," "cramped confinement," "sleep deprivation," and "the waterboard" -- numerous conservatives in the media have downplayed, mocked, and jeered the notion that those practices constitute torture. Hard to believe? Here are just a few of the many examples:

* Conservative leader and radio host Rush Limbaugh asserted, "If you look at what we are calling torture, you have to laugh," said that "if somebody can be water-tortured six times a day, then it isn't torture," and claimed that "appeasers" have "water[ed] down" definition of torture like "NOW gang" did with definition of domestic violence.
* Radio host G. Gordon Liddy compared the proposed technique of placing a detainee who "appears to have a fear of insects" in "a cramped confinement box with an insect" to his appearance on a game show, stating, "I went through worse on Fear Factor."
* Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee mocked the same technique: "Look, I've been in some hotels where there were more bugs than these guys faced." Huckabee went on to state that under the Obama administration, "We're going to talk to them, we're going to have a nice conversation, we're going to invite them down for some tea and crumpets." Fox & Friends co-host Gretchen Carlson replied, "That usually works with your kids, too, right? When they're in trouble for something, they just tell you everything." To which her co-host Steve Doocy joked, "Mr. Moussaoui, it's time for you over in the time-out chair."
* To buttress his support of torture, Fox News' resident conspiracy-theorist-in-chief Glenn Beck aired a clip from Fox's 24.

When they weren't bowled over with laughter, many media conservatives were serving up the dubious claim that harsh interrogation techniques used on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed "stopped an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles." The claim conflicts with the chronology of events put forth on multiple occasions by the Bush administration. Indeed, the Bush administration said that the Library Tower attack was thwarted in February 2002 -- more than a year before Mohammed was captured in March 2003. Facts be damned, Fox News and others pressed forward with the story repeatedly. Typifying the use of this story, Sean Hannity claimed this week that enhanced interrogation techniques "saved an American city, Los Angeles."

The hysterical nature of coverage surrounding the torture issue by conservatives didn't reach everyone in the media. This week, Fox News' Shepard Smith stood out among his colleagues at the conservative news network when he said of torture, "We are staring into an abyss and it's staring back at us, and we don't do it. We are America."

Other Major Stories This Week:

I'm sorry "diplomacy" isn't in our vocabulary (as well as "consistency" and "truth")

This week, media conservatives went into a frenzy over Obama's handshake with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez during the Summit of the Americas on April 17. For example, Fox News contributor Newt Gingrich asked of the handshake, "[W]hat signal does it send to other dictators?" adding that "it sends a very sad signal about human rights around the world." Not to be outdone, a Fox News military analyst said Obama and Chavez were "fist bumping and making lovey dovey," and CNBC's Larry Kudlow opined about Obama and Chavez's "Boyz N The Hood handshake."

Numerous conservative media figures claimed that Obama's actions at the Americas summit showed "weakness." If that wasn't enough, some dived off the deep end altogether. Limbaugh asked, "Do you realize that Obama and Chavez have more in common than they do not?" while Hannity wondered aloud whether Obama "even likes" America, since he "has so completely condemned his own country." And Hannity was hardly alone in his ridiculous characterization that Obama was "palling around" with Chavez.

Interestingly enough, a Media Matters search of the Nexis database found no examples in 2002 of Fox News personalities criticizing President Bush's handshake with Uzbekistani President Islam Karimov, which took place during a White House photo op in March of that year. According to a State Department report issued prior to that photo op, Karimov was "chosen president in a 1991 election that most observers considered neither free nor fair," "was elected to a second term in January 2000 against token opposition with 92.5 percent of the vote under conditions that were neither free nor fair," and his "[g]overnment's human rights record remained very poor." Indeed, according to the report, Uzbekistan's "security forces committed a number of killings of prisoners in custody" and "routinely tortured, beat, and otherwise mistreated detainees to obtain confessions."

Fox front man Bill O'Reilly was beside himself over the handshake, indignantly claiming that former President Richard Nixon never met with Chinese leader Mao Zedong. Perhaps O'Reilly would benefit from a refresher in Political History 101, because it's a well-established fact that Nixon met with Mao in 1972, a point Keith Olbermann drove home in naming O'Reilly "Worst Person" on Thursday for his historically challenged comment.

Pay no attention to the Pulitzer behind the curtain

A year ago this week, The New York Times published an explosive story by investigative reporter David Barstow detailing the hidden ties between numerous media military analysts, the Pentagon, and defense contractors. Media Matters subsequently released an exhaustive report that found that between January 1, 2002, and May 13, 2008, the analysts named in the Times report appeared or were quoted more than 4,500 times by news outlets, including more than 600 appearances by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey alone on NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.

In a follow-up article published last November, Barstow focused on McCaffrey's ties to contractors and appearances on the various NBC channels. NBC News president Steve Capus -- the same Steve Capus who extolled the virtues of "responsibility," "trust," and "doing what's right" in the wake of the Imus scandal -- responded by contending McCaffrey need not follow NBC's conflict-of-interest rules because he's a "consultant."

So, when news broke this week that The New York Times had won five Pulitzers, one going to Barstow for the military media analysts story, which award do you think NBC and MSNBC went out of its way to avoid noting in reports on the Times' success? Bingo ... Barstow's honor.

On the April 20 edition of NBC's Nightly News, reporting on the awarding of the Pulitzers earlier that day, anchor Brian Williams stated that "The New York Times led the way with five, including awards for breaking news and international reporting." But Williams did not note that Barstow was awarded a Pulitzer or the story for which he was awarded the honor.

MSNBC didn't fare much better, airing numerous reports on the Times' honors -- in some cases describing what the individual Pulitzers were awarded for -- but repeatedly failing to single out Barstow's success.

Media Matters has repeatedly documented the unwillingness of the major broadcast networks, including NBC, to report on Barstow's April 20, 2008, Times article. Moreover, NBC joined ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC in reportedly declining to participate in a segment based on Barstow's article that aired on the April 24, 2008, edition of PBS' NewsHour.

Blame Obama for bears, credit tea parties for bulls

For weeks, it's been the same story over at Fox News: When the stock market declines, regardless of what the cause or causes may be, blame Obama. So, with the market rebounding over the past six weeks and the Dow up 24 percent, you'd think that Obama would get the credit. After all, if his actions day-to-day can cause a decline, the converse must also be true, that his actions day-to-day can make the market rebound. Well, we all know what happens when we make assumptions, especially about Fox News.

Last weekend on Fox News' Bulls & Bears, host Brenda Buttner led a discussion on the market's rise with an on-screen caption describing the segment's topic as "Stocks rally as 'tea parties' catch fire; coincidence?" In a post to his Twitter profile, Fox News' Eric Bolling described criticism from Media Matters over the segment as "Liberal blogs got their panties in a wad over our Bulls and Bears show." Way to stay classy, Bolling.

Republican said...

SEP...seriously ...i don't read your posts if they are over 6 lines long. anything over that... I know you've copy and pasted from some left wing pyscho website.. and I'm allergic to those websites and their words. lmao

Sep..I thought you were DONE with my blog, not coming back, not posting comments. Dear boy... go have sex and take out some of that frustration!

sepblues said...

I have sex to make love... not to take out frustrations... tells alot about your sexual psychology and your generally unhealthy psychological state.

As far as copying and pasting. You do that with every entry. So you're being hypocritical on top of being incorrect. But that's how you republicans think: "...Do as I say-not as I do"