As many of us expected, President Obama’s decision to block any investigation or prosecution of war crimes has led Republicans to rehabilitate George Bush’s legacy. The latest claim came from former Vice President Dick Cheney who previously boasted about the torture program in public — unconcerned about any prosecution from Attorney General Eric Holder. Now, Cheney is boasting that Obama has “learned from experience” that some of the Bush administration’s decisions on terrorism issues.
Cheney stated “I think he’s learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. So I think he’s learned from experience. And part of that experience was the Democrats having a terrible showing last election.” He added “I think he’s learned that he’s not going to be able to close Guantanamo . . . That it’s — if you didn’t have it, you’d have to create one like that. You’ve got to have some place to put terrorists who are combatants who are bound and determined to try to kill Americans.”
Obama opened himself up to his unwanted alliance when he decided to protect Bush officials from prosecution despite the obligation of his Administration under existing treaties to investigate and prosecute acts of torture. Just last week, a senior former Justice official denounced the Administration for its complicity and said that it would leave a lasting stain on the country.
Cheney also called Obama a one-term president. If so, Obama has earned both Cheney recommendation and his loss of a second term. As promising the Senate that he would not continue his political conduct from the Clinton years at Justice, Holder proceeded to make the ultimate political act by blocking prosecutions after Obama promised that CIA officials would never be prosecuted for the alleged war crimes. It was the triumph of politics over principle — even war crimes principles were not enough to risk alienating the right. Politics should not have been part of the equation, but it also proved to be a remarkably illogical choice since the right never warmed to Obama despite a series of compromises from the White House. The result is that Obama is both unpopular and unprincipled in this area.
Source: The Hill
Jonathan Turley
Jill,
Because the right wing have nothing to be in denial about.
This is all going according to the PNAC/AEI plan for establishing a military empire and a domestic police state.
They got exactly what they wanted.
BIL, The Dead Zone was one of my favorite King books alng with The Shining. I’m glad that they got good movies made out of them. King books don’t generally translate well to the screen.
BIL,
I think it’s denial also, but why are right wing intelligentsia able to pull out of denial but left wing people are not?
From article: ” “I think he’s learned that what we did was far more appropriate than he ever gave us credit for while he was a candidate. So I think he’s learned from experience. And part of that experience was the Democrats having a terrible showing last election.” ”
—–
See what The Crypt-Keeper did there? By manipulating the time frames by saying part of the learning experience which caused Obama to change was the 2010 election (even though Obama was following in the Bush/Cheney footsteps before 2010) he semantically linked Democrats losing in 2010 to not initially embracing torture and other war crimes. While he said being a moral degenerate and global outlaw (actually, the Bush/Cheney model of foreign policy) was a winning political strategy he (falsely) slammed Obama for not being ‘right enough’ on terrorism in his first two years.
LK,
Yes, I do remember that movie. I love Christopher Walken. It was the first Stephen King books made into a really good movie (I didn’t like the earlier Carrie the film but I loved the book) although they changed it slightly for screen. Nothing major, just some tweaks for the difference in formats. In the book, Stillson was even more of a crazy two-faced bastard. He did not, however, hunt moose from a helicopter.
____
Jill,
“The left wing said they were against all of these things, yet many people on the left cannot own up to Obama and still support things which clearly should be an anathema to them. It’s an enigma.”
I submit it’s the psychological protection mechanism of denial.
Buddha Is Laughing: “… Plus there is always 2016 barring some idiot doesn’t trigger a nuclear war in the interim.”
—
Remember the movie “The Dead Zone”? Under-rated IMO. I think of Palin and I think of that movie. She is the Martin Sheen version of Greg Stillson.
Blouise: observations on 2012. You nailed it. 2012 isn’t an issue unless he makes a blunder of such magnitude that the nation is roused to action and this nation just isn’t into action.
Here is something I find very weird. Many right wing torture/waraphilic icons (ie: Cheney) knew before the election that Obama would take care of them and bring change by being even worse than they were. But some of these icons really were fooled by Obama, just as were a great many people on the left. So O.K., propaganda and marketing works. But why is it still working this well, for so long on so many people?
The once fooled right wing intelligentsia are coming out in honest support of their actual BFF, “President Drone and I’ll kill whomever I want to”. But the left wing intelligentsia, they can’t seem to wrap their minds around the truth.
The right wing has been able to keep an intellectual compass. They love the wars, torture, cutting social security, wrecking the environment, helping the bankers etc. Obama is doing all this and more so they have owned up to it and support him. The left wing said they were against all of these things, yet many people on the left cannot own up to Obama and still support things which clearly should be an anathema to them. It’s an enigma.
Elaine M.: “Buddha’ His DNA was different! It was Deusoxyribonucleic acid.”
***
LOL, I’d take the vow and eat the (transubstantiated) host if his DNA was d-lysergic acid. 🙂
(Thank you BIL for setting Ms. M riposte’ up.)
A short quote from John Gardner’s Introduction to H. L. A. Hart, “Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Second Edition,” Oxford University Press, 2008; the 2009 Reprinting, from Page xiii, the beginning paragraph”
“What good comes of criminal punishment? How does it help to make the world a better place? Criminal punishment, and more generally the criminal justice system that makes it possible, requires a huge investment of money, time, and energy. It has high costs and many casualites. If the system is to be justified, there must be compensating benefits. We had better know what they are and establish whether they are sufficient. That simple thought permeates [italics on]Punishment and Responsibility,[italics off] and animates the book’s mot widely remembered essay, ‘Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment’ (Chapter 1).
Put like this, you may say, Hart’s thought is not only simple but uncontroversial. any action or practice that has costs–and which does not?–needs to pay its way in countervailing benefits or else it cannot be defended.”
.
I find, in my bioengineering work, using engineering economics methodology, that the countervailing benefits of the costs of the criminal justice system in its extant, contemporary form are quite simply irrefutable demonstrations that it cannot be otherwise economically defended.
I find that I can readily defend the scientific validity of my bioengineering research, as I did before my thesis committee, who gave unanimous approval to the dissertation and its defense.
Yet, to defend the work here in adequate detail would, I find, infringe in very unethical ways on Professor Turley. The defense to be made before a wider group of people, people less rigorously trained in the ways of scientific research methods tham my committee members, is a work in progress, to be put forth on the Internet at the earliest time I deem it sufficient.
I do not fight people.
I expect no one to believe anything I write, anything I know, anything I understand, or any experience I have ever had. Neither do I expect disbelief.
eniobob……so which one is Linda Lovelace or the source of deep throat….you know Nixon had to see that movie 12 times to get it down pat…..
after obama leaves office will chenney give him his soul back?
rafflaw & Blouise,
We can’t understand the workings of God…and his creation of Homo sapiens and their DNA. He’s an omniscient GENE-ius.
Blouise,
Hah! by the way, are we talking about adult Jesus or little baby Jesus?
rafflaw
1, January 18, 2011 at 4:35 pm
Blouise and Elaine,
Why did God even need DNA? If he can figure out the Immaculate Conception thing, doing without DNA would be a snap.
========================================
What I want to know is when god stopped bowling and all that noise became the handmaiden to lightening … so many questions … so few answers
rafflaw
1, January 18, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Blouise,
I didn’t realize Speaker Boehner may have some health issues!
I want to know if I have Jesus’ DNA in me, why does it hurt so much to get up in the morning?!
======================================================
I don’t know about health issues but it’s rumored he has thirst issues.
… if you resurrect then I guess you got the special mix by the god that created Jesus and not the god that created the rest of the world. If you do resurrect, call me …
Blouise and Elaine,
Why did God even need DNA? If he can figure out the Immaculate Conception thing, doing without DNA would be a snap.
Elaine,
Yeah but after the dust and mud he blew life into them … I figure that’s where the DNA comes in … kinda like a virus … I’m just tryin’ to keep up here … blend religion and science in an effort to understand how Tootie’s Jesus got real special DNA and the rest of us missed out. It’s gotta be a different god … ’cause the DNA is different … I mean, according to Tootie.
Blouise,
I didn’t realize Speaker Boehner may have some health issues!
I want to know if I have Jesus’ DNA in me, why does it hurt so much to get up in the morning?!
Blouise,
God created Adam and Eve in his image and likeness. I don’t know if he created them using his own genetic code. After all, He also created the birds of the sky…the fish of the sea..and the creatures that walk on the land. Regarding special DNA: Jesus is the son of God–not the son of man.
That’s about all the religious talk I can manage for now.
*****
Buddha,
I thought you’d like that one.