Bush Officials Praise Obama For Going Further Than Bush in Terror Crackdown

President Barack Obama has finally received praise for his terror policies . . . from Bush officials. Two of the officials commonly named as responsible for allegedly criminal acts during the Bush Administration, former National Intelligence Director retired Vice Admiral Michael McConnel and former Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden, are heaping praise on Obama for going even farther than George Bush in his policies. Now, there is an ignoble accomplishment.


McConnell is positively gushing with praise that “the new administration has been as aggressive, if not more aggressive, in pursing these issues . . . ” Hayden, who is most often cited for the unlawful surveillance programs under Bush, stated “I thank god every day for the continuity” shown by Obama in continuing Bush’s approach to the law and terror.

Hayden, who is my neighbor in Virginia, has also opposed any prosecution for torture under the Bush Administration. Obama has pleased many in the Bush Administration by insisting that CIA personnel will never face prosecution for torture — despite our treaty obligations to investigate and prosecute such crimes.

President Obama has certainly earned these professional references. He blocked public interest lawsuits in federal court on the unlawful surveillance program while blocking any investigation into torture. Hayden was the direct beneficiary of these policies. It is like Bernie Madoff praising the enforcement policies of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that allowed him to thrive in the 1990s. When many of us were stating that Hayden’s surveillance programs were clearly unlawful, Hayden was insisting that his own lawyers at the NSA had reviewed the program and were satisfied that it was lawful. This was the same tactic used by Bush in selecting biased lawyers to give clearly unsound legal analysis to support unlawful programs. Ultimately, when Hayden’s program was brought into federal court and faced actual judicial review, Hayden opposed such independent and competent review — and Obama ultimately stopped it.

I accept that people of good faith can disagree with civil libertarians on some of these programs — though even the Bush Administration came to reject the legal analysis of the torture programs. However, Hayden and Obama did not want to risk federal courts resolving this matter on issues like surveillance. Instead, they just circumvented the legal system. The pat on the back for a job well done by Hayden and McConnell should give someone in his Administration a moment of pause . . but I doubt it.

Source: SiFy

Jonathan Turley

157 thoughts on “Bush Officials Praise Obama For Going Further Than Bush in Terror Crackdown”

  1. If you continue to ignore that Bush, Cheney, Obama, and Biden belong to the SAME political “party”–the Council on Foreign Relations–you will continue to be confused about why Obama is Bush III.

    These are all CFR usurpers dedicated to destroying the nation-state and committed to forming a one world government (without your permission or consent).

    This is the exact and explicit goal of the CFR (stated in print form at its founding and continuing on up to this very moment)

    This is not a joke. And it is not tin foil follies. It is also not a conspiracy because the CFR has made its goals known to the public. But mundus vult decipi.

    These people (Clinton, Bush, Biden, McCain, Clinton, Obama) believe in the stated goals of the CFR. They ARE the same political party which operates politically off another set of books.

    Once you understand this, you won’t be confused any longer and you will not wonder in what direction they are really headed while taking you and I and our offspring along with them.

    The love of power is almost uncontrollable. Lesser men and women become more addicted to it than heroin. These CFR people–addicts all–want central global government and they want themselves and their own offspring in charge of it.

    And if you dabble a bit with that and think it might be a good idea, think about this. All concentrated central power by government is a threat to liberty. All of it is murderous, oppressive, and totalitarian. This is because absolute (and I would venture to say arbitrary) power corrupts. And it corrupts absolutely. It also murders and murders well.

    It is your choice now. Will you choose to be free of central world government or will you choose to be enslaved?

    Don’t vote for CFR members,ever. All of them are usurpers. Expose their evil doings. Stand up on your own two feet and demand to be free. Free lies in decentralized power.

    President John F. Kennedy rejected the CFR’s goals.

    Courage.

  2. Hey Doc, I am one of those early to bed, early to rise kinda fellers so I will sleep on your comments and ruminate about them on the ‘morrow, starting sometime around astronomical twilight.

    Goodnight Sir.

  3. FFLEO,

    “Could I vote for Mr. Obama?”

    That is a hypothetical.

    Hypothetically, yes.

    The hypotheses elude me.

    I wonder if you are wondering about my political party affiliation.

    So am I.

    That, too is a hypothetical, and the hypotheses also elude me.

    So, I looked for my grade-school presidential campaign buttons.

    Found four.

    “CRUSADE FOR FREEDOM” “TAFT” “DEWEY” “IKE AND NIXON”

    The first preminds (not a typo) me of Bush I, Bush II, and Iraq.

    The other three remind me of [my mind goes blank]?

    Go figure.

    Do figures lie if liars do the figures?

    I am neither a Demican nor a Republocrat; neither am I an Independent, nor any other establishmentarianisticalismist.

    Tortured into naming my political affiliation, I might confess to being an informally unaffiliated member of the yet-non-existent uniquely interdependent party. Or not.

    After I began voting, I figured that Kennedy, Johnson II, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama would do what they would do when the would do it, and I would learn of what they would do only after they had done it. Therefore, no President for whom I had a chance to vote ever did other than as I expected.

    I never vote for the candidates, that is, for the people who are candidates for public office. I vote for the conduct I expect, which is always what I expect because I predict that I will expect people to make choices I neither expect nor can predict.

    It is like, if someone asks me, when I am thirsty, “Would you like coffee or tea?” and I answer truthfully, “Yes.”

    Once, when that sequence happened, the other person understood. I got about half coffee and half tea in a cup. Delicious, it was.

    Yes, and…

  4. Thanks Doc!

    However, before I can solve the problem of your political party allegiance I would first need at least a 2 gallons of your strongest coffee chased by 6 liters of Blouise’s high-test eggnog–sadly I neither imbibe alcoholic beverages nor coffee and the milk chasers I drink just do not place me in the mood for such problem solving.

    Ergo, another of Doc Harris’ mysteries shall remain forevermore unsolvable.

  5. FFLEO:

    Your question, “But Doc Harris, could you (or did you) vote for Mr. Obama?” is, as I observe, both brilliant and insightful, and I am really glad that I drank that coffee enema about an hour ago, I was awake enough when I read your question to understand it.

    Ten-year-aged-cheddar-cheese is may main psychotropic medication, but, because of its high cost, I sometimes substitute generic 100% Arabaca.

    I could not and did not vote for Mr. Obama. I can never, and have never, voted for a person. I vote for the changes in human society I believe may be more useful, by voting as though, but not actually, for the person who, in the idolatry sense, best symbolically appears to present the best happenstance plausibility for the most useful change I can imagine happening.

    My vote is always, “Present and Unaccounted for.”

    Symbolically, I always vote for losers; to win is to lose and to lose is to win in a world upside down.

    Sometimes, I do a write-in vote, using an “air pen” if the ballot is to be marked with a pen.

    If there were two candidates for a particular office, and I thought one to be like a cheating scoundrel and the other to be a of honest integrity, I would imagine whether doing terrible damage would be more useful than decently solving difficult problems.

    So, “could I vote for Mr. Obama?” That is a hypothetical. Hypothetically, yes. The hypotheses presently escape me.

    Is Mr. Obama’s conduct as President different than what I expected? No. I expected Mr. Obama to do whatever he would do, and to learn anything of what he would do only after he had done it.

    Ditto: Kennedy, Johnson II, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II.

    Is is possible that you are curious as to my political party allegiance? Perhaps you can solve that problem, I have not solved it.

    I did check my collection of campaign buttons from my grade school years. Found four, “CRUSADE FOR FREEDOM” “TAFT” “DEWEY” “IKE AND NIXON.”

  6. A N

    It’s not that I don’t believe it can’t happen, it can happen and in a New York minute, but having lived through the McCarthy years, I’ve seen the fear a real demagogue can instill. It’s all pervasive and filters through the entire society causing paralysis of speech and actions – it’s not the roiling, boiling political pot we now are watching.

  7. Thank you for your last comment, Jill. Many still believe that it can’t happen here.

  8. Never missed an election either. My first vote for president was for George McGovern.

  9. Rafflaw

    Of course there are a few that I wish I had missed!
    ——————————————————-
    Amen to that, brother! I still can’t believe I voted for Nixon the first time. I blame it on my youth.

  10. Elaine and Buckeye,
    I have never missed a vote,local or national, since I turned 18. Of course, there are a few that I wish I had missed!

  11. zeal·ot   /ˈzɛlət/–noun

    1. a person who shows zeal.
    2. an excessively zealous person; fanatic.

    —Synonyms
    2. extremist, crank, bigot. See fanatic.

    fa·nat·ic   /fəˈnætɪk/–noun
    1. a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.

  12. If Gore had not chosen Lieberman as his running mate, I might have not missed the 2000 vote.

  13. It is sad to see how some so readily sacrifice the lives of others. This brings me back to my first post, that it will be the left who will usher in the open dictatorship of the US. For it is avowed leftists who willingly let others be unjustly detained and killed in their name, for their cause. It is why I fear right wing zealots and left wing zealots alike. Once people have crossed the path into the willing harm of others for a cause, once people are willing to excuse injustice for their cause, that cause, never a worthy one, leads only to greater cruelty and violence. This is a sad thing to see.

  14. FFLEO

    I tend to concentrate on known problems; the beginning of the ruination of some of the most beautiful country in the U.S. – northern OH, WV, PA, and NY – by fracking with toxic chemicals for natural gas, the travesty of corporate money in campaigns, the uneducated electorate which can be swayed by even the most obvious of demagogues.

    I don’t worry that much about things that could (but haven’t yet and may never) happen. I’m less moved by hyperbole than by realistic facts delivered by reputable organizations with no (discernable) agenda. I’m too pragmatic to expect improbable actions just because they would be welcome and a right thing to do. Since we’ve lived through 8 years of Bush/Cheney, I’m convinced we can make it another 2 years with Obama/Biden. Then we can look around and see where we are.

    Everything people here would like President Obama to do would likely result in giving the coming impeachment voices a larger public acceptance. I used to think the public was smarter than they were given credit for, but the McCain/Palin vote has shaken me to the bone.

    But I’ve never not voted, and at my advanced age now is definitely not the time to start.

  15. I have, with rare illness exceptions, consistently voted since I became of voting age. I have never yet voted for any person, but have voted for the conglomeration of viewpoints I thought might prevail; doing so symbolically by seeming to, but not actually, voting for a particular candidate-person.

    The dichotomy of government is imposed upon us by a traditional model of reality which defines reality as in opposition to itself such that destructive competition driven by disrespect is deemed more socially useful than decency through collaboration grounded in respect of self, others, and environment.

    I vote for the candidate’s views which I deem feasibly less destructive than such other candidates as may have a chance of being elected. No election in which I have ever voted has turned out in the manner I would have preferred. As a voter, I seem to lose every time.

    While I could protest by not voting, I think I may be more effective in my protest by voting as I do, expecting every candidate for whom I allegedly vote to lose, and accept that as being as good as is presently possible.

    In the ordinary sense of “believe in,” it might make some little sense to allow that I “believe in the rule of law” with the proviso that laws that I believe can rule people must invariably be laws no person can break or violate.

    Having laws I cannot obey by choice in advance of encountering a law and its effects is not, to me, the “rule of law,” it is the “cruel of law.”

    When I encounter the “cruel of law” masquerading as the “rule of law,” I tell of my finding child abuse at work thereby and therein.

    I have successfully designed, and continue to successfully design, electrical and electronic “things.” In such design, I shall obey the rule of law, by properly using the laws of thermodynamics, Ohm’s law, Amperes’s law, Lenz’s law, and many other laws. Were I to design an electrical or electronic “thing” in violation of such laws, I would expect my design to be unsuccessful.

    Yes, I have heard the argument that the laws of human society cannot be like the laws of the physical sciences (because humans are not physical?) and cannot be like the laws of biological science (because humans are not biological?), and cannot be like the laws of chemistry (because humans are not chemical?), and cannot be like the laws of thought (because people don’t think?).

    Alas, humans are observably physical, biological, chemical, and do at least seem to think that they think (even if they do not even think that?).

    My dad sometimes acted in stage plays, sometimes directed stage plays, with amateur Thespians, of which group he was himself a member. From him, I learned just enough of method acting to have survived to date in the sometime-presence of people who, methinks, may suffer from autism insufficiency.

    If there has been a candidate for elective office for whom I was given an opportunity to vote who was not autism-insufficient, that lack of autism insufficiency totally eluded my awareness (is “autdar” a word, after the manner of radar or gaydar?).

    Except that society and social interaction is of masquerade, how would our present political process be possible? When things get difficult enough, the masks people usually wear can get in the way, when the situation takes away the masks, the masquerade is unmasked.

    If anyone is surprised, why is anyone surprised that getting elected is one masquerade and being in office another, and the scene change requires change of costume?

    Is it not costumary (not a typo!) for the script before being elected to be replaced by the script of having been elected?

    I would rather act in the unestablished, life-affirming improv theater of the surd than in the established, prescripted theater of the absurd that I find has people strutting about, full of sound and fury, signifying terror.

Comments are closed.