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
anon nurse, thanks for the midnight music snack, it’s perfect. Sweet dreams all.
BIL
You’re still hot on my tail.
I control you, as always.
anon nurse,
thanks for a little doze of the Airplane tonight! Nothing like Gracie Slick to make me feel like a teenager again!
Elaine M,
Re: “Deusoxyribonucleic acid”
Very clever
———-
lottakatz,
“I’d take the vow and eat the (transubstantiated) host if his DNA was d-lysergic acid.”
LOL …best served with a bit of White Rabbit…
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HmJQyS8QVw&fs=1&hl=en_US]
No, Tootles.
I attack you because you’re full of crap.
And you can’t even control yourself let alone me.
So pardon me while I laugh my ass off once again at your ignorance and severe overestimation of yourself.
“I made my point clearly: ‘He did not have the same genetic code as the rest of human race because he did not have human father.'”
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It was true even before Carl Sagan said it. It’s still true now.
Sooooo . . . once again:
And your proof of this is what exactly?
Do you have a sample of Jesus’ blood?
If not, you’re once again simply full of crap, Tootles.
Speculation is not fact.
Nor does pointing to a fairy tale as evidence constitute actual proof.
Really.
If you are going to claim Jesus had unique DNA, you better be able to prove it. Otherwise? People are just going to laugh at you like we do. Why? Because you are operating off of belief, not empirical evidence. And belief without proof is inherently irrational.
BIL:
If I lacked the capacity to make you hysterical you would not continually attack me. You attack me because you cannot control yourself.
You become unhinged and I bring out the worst in you.
I control you and you don’t realize it.
Gynes:
You said: No, I just get the concept of genetic variation.
****************************************************************
If you got the concept of genetic variation in the context of my comments it is unlikely you would have needed to state the obvious. What is it that you pointed out, third grade biology?
I made my point clearly: “He did not have the same genetic code as the rest of human race because he did not have human father.”
And if Christ is who his believers say, then he is the only person born to not have genetic material from a male member of the human race.
I didn’t compare him to one individual, I compared him to the entire human race. The unique variety I referred to was in comparison to all of ours collectively which is, among us unique, but in comparison to him different.
Given that one believes the story is true, of course.
“And the words”
Pardon. Lazy fingers and a long day.
Tootie,
Not nearly as funny as I find your gyrations.
And that words you use, “annoy”, “confuse” and “hysterical”?
You lack the capacity to make me hysterical or confused, sweetie.
You’re simply not that good. You can tell yourself you are if it makes you feel better. But, eh, you’re really not.
You are, however, incredibly annoying.
Purposeful stupidity and willful ignorance always is.
But I’ll give you credit where it’s due.
BIL
I’m not using science to justify my faith in God. And I’m not using it to prove God to you. This appears to annoy you and confuse you and likely explains the hysterical (and I don’t mean ha ha hysterical) questions you fired off to me.
I think it is quite funny.
Gyges/Pete,
There are only two book of King’s I really (and I do mean really) disliked the endings of: Tommyknocker (which he pulled a total deus ex machina/I got tired of writing this ending) and Cujo (simply because it was depressing). I haven’t read Cell yet though. I do think you could do a better big screen version of The Stand, although like I said I think they did a good job operating under the TV constraints. There were some things in that book you simply couldn’t get past any network censor. Like Eddie and Nadine leaving New York and a couple of Trash’s escapades. Especially Trash’s hitchhiking adventure with the guy (his name escapes me at the moment, but he was by far the craziest character in the book) who was “going to go show Flagg how it is done” from the uncut version of the book.
Lottakatz
1, January 18, 2011 at 8:13 pm
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.
=============================================================
I just don’t believe in wasting energy, time, or money on a done deal. I do believe concerned citizens should turn their attention to their State elections and spend energy, time, and money on the elections happening there in 2012 and 2014.
The 2012 Presidential elections will be fraught with drama and phony issues blown out of proportion solely to take the voter’s eye off what’s happening at the local level. (And to provide viewer-ship for the national media of course.)
And … the average voter has more influence at the state level than the national level …
Pete,
If I remember right, Stephen King didn’t really like the Gunslinger’s ending either, but it’s what the story demanded.
Now the ending of Cell was just eh.
they had to cut The Stand into four parts and still left alot out. the Dark Tower would take either 28 or 32 installments (can’t remember if there was 7 or 8 books to the series). i like steven k’s books but sometimes the endings suck.
S.M.,
I submit we don’t have until 2016. This country will be unrecognizable by that time. If you don’t stand up to Obama right now for the illegalities he is committing then this country will lie in ruins. It is absolutely irrelevant to worry about future Republicans when a president from your own party is completely and utterly lawless. He is torturing, making illegal wars, taking down the rule of law and ruining the economy and environment. Yet you will still support him. That doesn’t make sense. You need to challenge him. If he knows he can do all these things and still get your vote, do you think he will stop doing them? No, of course not.
You must oppose what is wrong, right now. I care about Republicans when they are going about the same business of destroying our nation as Obama is. But it isn’t either/or, it’s both. It’s now or never to oppose what is happening. By 2016 everything you are willing to give up to stand by Obama will be gone. That’s the truth.
Swarthmore Mom,
I agree with your take on sticking with the Dems…for now.
LK,
True. I thought they did a good job with the TV version of The Stand too despite the limitations of TV. Although I did disagree with the casting of Randall Flagg. Nothing wrong with Jamey Sherridan as a actor – he’s fine in most roles. I just don’t think he was menacing enough for the part of Flagg. What I really dread? Is if they try to make the Dark Tower series into a film. It would require the same scope and vision of film making that Peter Jackson brought to Lord of the Rings to pull it off though. And it would probably be twice as long!
BIL,
That must be the case, a happy ending for the right with no downside to having the Drone King in place for them.
Jill: The other side is against abortion, gay rights, health care reform,etc. etc. etc, so I will stick with the democrats. The republicans offer nothing to me. The republicans will probably take the Senate so why should they have all three branches of government again? Their Supreme court appointments alone have been horrific. The republicans will be causing more havoc with redistricting. I don’t think it is denial in my case. If a progressive democrat ran against Obama in the primary, I would consider voting for him or her but that is not happening. Blouise is right about 2016. Organize around a candidate then.