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
Blouise:
🙂
rafflaw,
If your apology is sincere, that you for some reason truly believed I was a voter for the Tea Party, then I will apologize for calling you a liar. I find it incomprehensible that you would think this, knowing my history on this blog, but if it was a genuine mistake, then it was a mistake. What I have been trying to say about the tea party can be found in Nader and Chomsky. That it’s a mistake to dismiss the concerns of everyone in the party, that the left has made a grave error in not reaching out to that group and providing an alternative, progressive explanation of the economy and the war, for example. I would not give 2 cents for their bought and paid for Republican operative leadership, but a party is more than it’s operative leaders. Really, check out what Nader, Chomsky and an economist named Scheer say. You’d be very surprised.
As to torture, I have posted this info so many times here. But here’s where to look: Glenn Greenwald, Scot Horton, Andy Worthington and Jeremy Scahill. Those will get you started on current cases of torture. You should also check the Guardian and put in Binyam Mohammed. CCR and ACLU have info as well.
Blouise,
I will not read your posts and you should not read mine.
Tootie
1, January 19, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Buck
I am not claiming he is having people tortured. Unless you want to include me.
================================================
lol … that was a genuinely funny come back
Harris:
Do you have a photographic memory?
Buck
I am not claiming he is having people tortured. Unless you want to include me.
rafflaw
I hope you have better luck than I did in getting a reputable source out of Jill. She always comes back with something about the Bush/Cheney torture and attempts to pull in the Obama administration as though they are also routinely torturing.
… and the party I was referring to was the nomination process, not the blog … just another “genuine misunderstanding” I guess.
(“The time to have objected to Obama was during the nomination process … people like SwM and I have been dealing with the enigma of Obama since long before his inaugural … you have come late to the party … go pick a fight with somebody else.”)
Jill,
Just because I don’t agree with your all or nothing approach to President Obama, doesn’t mean that we can’t agree on future issues or have agreed on some past issues. As to comment that I am a liar, that is uncalled for and unnecessary. I thought you might be a tea party supporter from some of your responses, but if I am wrong I apologize.
Jill,
I would like to echo Buckeye’s comment about sources for your statement that Obama is currently torturing prisoners. I agree that the handling of Pvt. Manning could be considered torture, but what else do you have documentation of?
“I am not certain why my failure to demonize everyone in the Tea Party movement is so hated by you and S.M. ” (Jill)
=======================================================
That’s funny … “failure to demonize” and “so hated by you and S. M. … I told you … pick a fight with somebody else (your word choice and assumptions indicate you purpose) … you and I have nothing in common politically and thus nothing to intelligently discuss … besides, all your twists and turns make me dizzy …
But I commend your skill in trying to put others on the defensive …
“#Here is an interesting thread between rafflaw, me and others, when we agreed on things: http://jonathanturley.org/2008/07/25/the-bybee-memo-how-to-torture-and-avoid-a-criminal-charge-on-technicality/#comments
(rafflaw’s comment) 1, July 25, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Mespo, PattyC, Jill,
It does get tired repeating the same old arguments against the torturers who pervade the Bush Administration. But, we must keep discussing this issue so that maybe something will eventually be done about it. Maybe I am drinking the optimist kool-aid today, but I am hopeful that these torturers and enablers will be brought to justice eventually.
#
17 Jill 1, July 25, 2008 at 5:31 pm
rafflaw,
I really agree with you. Sometimes I think they’ve committed so many crimes that people go into a kind of psychic overload when we hear about yet, another one. I know I feel that way. It’s one really serious crime after another. None of them even approach petty or insignificant. It’s like, what will we find out today? It’s hard to think things out when overwhelmed by this much cruelty and malfeasance.
Tootie
I begin to see why you and Jill sound so much alike. Nome de plume?
Reputable sources for Obama routinely torturing prisoners?
rafflaw,
I am surprised by what you wrote. “Stick to my tea party candidates?” (I guess that’s why I’m registered and vote Green?) You of all people know that is a lie. You know very well that I have spoken out against Republicans more times than I could count on this site. I would not have expected you to say that.
As to your point that you would look at other candidates who were more progressive than Obama, I did understand what you said. I’m glad that is the case. However, you still said you would vote for Obama, a person who has committed and tolerates war and financial crimes, a person who has tortured and droned civilians. I don’t wish to be your confessor but I will tell you that voting for someone who does those things is itself complicity in them and it will bring about the destruction of our own govt.
I am to the left of most people on this site.
Buck:
Obama upholds the Patriot Act, warrantless searches/taps,the phony wars, trampling the Constitution, the proto-gestapo at the DHS (including the TSA’s sexual molestation of innocent citizens at our airports).
Even Glenn Greenwald cannot abide this.
And this isn’t enough to give you a clue the guy is a profound evil doer?
“In late January, I wrote about the Obama administration’s “presidential assassination program,” whereby American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they’re involved in Terrorism. At the time, The Washington Post’s Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush’s policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile “hit lists” of Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list. The following week, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the administration reserves the “right” to carry out such assassinations…
…Today, both The New York Times and The Washington Post confirm that the Obama White House has now expressly authorized the CIA to kill al-Alwaki no matter where he is found, no matter his distance from a battlefield. I wrote at length about the extreme dangers and lawlessness of allowing the Executive Branch the power to murder U.S. citizens far away from a battlefield (i.e., while they’re sleeping, at home, with their children, etc.) and with no due process of any kind.”
—Glenn Greenwald, Salon, April 7, 2010
You can vote for such an evil brute?
How about Sarah Palin having that kind power? Perhaps against someone near or dear to you?
BIL:
You wrote (how many times now?):
“Only if you believe an unprovable: namely that Jesus was the literal son of God.”
And I’ve replied/implied (how many times now?):
What is it that you don’t get about the word “faith”?
****************************************************************
I have not argued that I can prove to you God exists; only God can do this for you.
If your moral code is so superior, then why are you a vicious monster?
That is your profound illogical irrationality.
Jill
I took the time to look back at your posts which seem to start in 2008. You were a third party type then. Perhaps the Tea Party?
I don’t know who you voted for, but you expressed a rather mild, compared to now, desire to see Bush, Cheney, and Pelosi impeached. Not nearly so rabidly as you now rail about Obama, of course. Why the difference?
You are now so intent on convincing us to not vote, two years from now, for Obama that you are accusing people of trying to discredit you because you sound as hysterical as Tootie when it comes to him. I haven’t had time to look at all of Patty C.’s comments, but I think she called you a manipulater. I think she had that right.
You would do well to give reputable sources that would convince anyone that the Obama administration is routinely engaged in torturing prisoners. I have asked repeatedly for such a source and you have yet to provide one.
I can’t figure out if you are simply an anti-war activist, or a Tea Party activist, or a Republican apparatchik. Whatever, you would be more convincing with giving REPUTABLE SOURCES than with manic rhetoric. If you have given sources earlier, you can simply point to those posts. Until then, you seem to be like sound and fury signifying nothing.
Jill,
With all due respect, you are not my confessor. Your analogies are false and when faced with a decision between 2 or 3 candidates, I will continute to look at all of their respective strengths and weaknesses. I do not need you to tell me how I should react. You are also missing my comment that if the Dems or progressives present a better alternative to Obama, I would consider that candidate as well. Stick to your tea party candidates who are living in the 18th and 19th century.
Blouise,
You are not writing the truth. I have been on this blog almost from its beginning, far before either of you came to it. I warned about Obama during the primary many times here and in personal interactions. So, I hope you will correct your misunderstanding of my position regarding Obama.
I am not certain why my failure to demonize everyone in the Tea Party movement is so hated by you and S.M. If you ever do listen to Nader or Chomsky, you will hear them say the same things regarding the Tea Party as I do. So if you hate what I say, then I can only say I’m in good company on that point.
I can’t help what you believe about me and I’m sorry that I misunderstood your intention to vote Obama, but that’s all it was, a genuine misunderstanding.
As to picking a fight, if you think that’s what I’m doing, you’d be very wrong. I am extremely afraid of what is happening in this country. I hate what the govt is doing at home and abroad. I see that many Democrats are willing to aid and abet torture, endless war, the police state, economic and environmental injustice, etc. I will never apologize for speaking out about complicity with injustice. I did it under Bush and I’ll do it now.
rafflaw,
Then basically, what you are saying is that you will support someone who commits torture, murder, endless wars a police state etc. because as a middle class person who will get a few crumbs that you wouldn’t get from a Republican candidate.
I appreciate that you will call out Obama and other Democrats but saying you will vote for them after these kinds of actions, is really amazing. Just on a practical matter, it’s like going to the car dealer and saying, I’m willing to pay $5000.00 over sticker price for this car, so what kind of deal can we work out? Practically speaking, you will walk away paying $5000.00 over the sticker price, maybe $3000.00, so you fell a little better about the whole thing.
For me, morally speaking, it simply should never be acceptable to vote for any person who commits torture, war crimes, etc. even if they may be a “nicer” person than someone else who will also do the same things. I knew many people who voted for Bush because they didn’t want that evil Kerry in office. I guess this time, Democrats have made the same choice. The consequences of your choice will be devastating.
Jill
1, January 19, 2011 at 1:12 pm
S.M.,
…
Blouise,
I’m asking you the same question I asked the others. Obama tortures, he is conducting multiple illegal wars, using drones, upping the police state, working with corporations against the people, etc.. At that point, why would you vote for him?
=====================================================
Who said I was going to vote for him? geez-a-wheez … your assumptions are huge.
I, like SwM, was not the least bit taken with him when he was nominated and am not at all surprised at his actions … I studied his voting record. (By the way, SwM wasn’t even sure she was going to vote for him when she walked into the booth.)
I strenuously objected but the Democratic Party dismissed my objections and nominated him anyway … so I took the only action available to me … I stopped donating to the national and redirected all my contributions to people like Kucinich, Brown, Strickland, and Lundy etc. I took the local route.
You were/are a defender of the new Tea Party folk … we have nothing in common, politically.
The time to have objected to Obama was during the nomination process … people like SwM and I have been dealing with the enigma of Obama since long before his inaugural … you have come late to the party … go pick a fight with somebody else.
Jill,
I gave you my answer. I repeat that I have called Obama out for everything that I think he has done wrong, including not prosecuting torturers, not backing single payer health care, Timothy Geithner’s nomination, not removing all of the soldiers in Iraq and not closing Gitmo to name a few. You may need to have your vision checked. As I said above, anytime the progressives put someone who is better than Obama, I will consider that person. As I said earlier, Kucinich was my actual first choice in 2008, but he was not successful in the primaries.