 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Mar 09 - 06:25 PM Charles Freeman withdraws: http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2009/030709Parry.shtml |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Bobert Date: 12 Mar 09 - 06:34 PM Yeah, Rigs... That was a bummer but, hey, Charles Freeman wasn't the right guy for the job... Obama would do better getting someone with a little less political baggage... Freeman has been a tad on the outspoken side and even thoough I agree with him on alot of issues, we don't need ideologues and I'm afraid that Freeman falls into the category... Plus, if he was that thin skinned then I don't think we would have gotten good intellegence anaylasis outta the guy... But to view his backing out to mean more war is a stretch of the imagination... And the catering to neocons is beyond a stretch... It just downright mythology... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Don Firth Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:01 PM "Obama caters to neo-cons. . . ." A bit of hyperbole there, Rig? You see, the thing that prevents me from starting threads with lead lines like this is that I listen to what Obama actually says rather than swallowing what some ax-grinding commentator is trying to feed me. Try it sometime. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:12 PM "I listen to what Obama actually says..." I watch what Obama does; it's much more informative! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Bobert Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:20 PM Well, Rigs... So Obama ran on disengagement from Iraq and reingaging in Afganistan... This appears to be his aganda... Where exactly more war is going to be fought that Obama didn't campaign on??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:21 PM Freeman was definitely the right man for the job. I've been reading quite a lot of reportage on this situation (which was largely ignored by the mainstream media). I'll post some of it here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:28 PM Everything seems to indicate that Tom Dashel was the right man to deal with healthcare too. The administration needs to learn to ignore these self-serving little groups. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:28 PM Here's Freeman's statement on the reason for withdrawing his name from consideration... http://maxblumenthal.com/2009/03/chas-freeman-speaks-out/ "You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council. I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign. As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was "asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse." I added that I wondered "whether there wasn't some sort of downside to this offer." I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations. I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends. The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors. There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States. The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government. In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make. Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else's, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans. I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:46 PM I think this is the essence of it... "The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency... The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, (through) the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Don Firth Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:52 PM Thanks for posting that, Carol. "I watch what Obama does; it's much more informative!" And what has Obama done that leads you to the conclusion that the war will be prolonged beyond what is actually necessary for a responsible exit, Rig? Or that he isn't doing exactly what he said he would do? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 09 - 07:59 PM Rig is often short on details and specifics when he waves his arms like that. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: robomatic Date: 12 Mar 09 - 08:32 PM Obama is being ridden hard by the radio pundits as a socialist inspired dictator. The thread title here is that he "caters to neo-cons". What's being overlooked is what has been apparent throughout the campaign- he is an idealist with a strong pragmatic base. Only with that combination does he have a prayer of satisfying a portion of those who post in this forum or who listen to AM radio! He's set a deadline for getting out of Iraq, and he's apparently sending more US troops to Afghanistan, both of these are things he promised to do. Are you just trying to make another thread to bash you-know-who? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 12 Mar 09 - 08:40 PM http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/washington/12lobby.html?_r=2&hp http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lubanlobe.php?articleid=14386 http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/03/a_fight_i_didnt_intend_to_get.php "I have never met Chas Freeman, the man whose reported selection as head of the National Intelligence Council has drawn such criticism, including from my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg. Not having had a chance to assess him first hand, and not having put in time studying his views, I have not felt comfortable weighing in on the dispute about whether his outlook was unacceptably extreme. Here's the gist of the argument against him: that he is too close to the Saudis (as a former US Ambassador to the Kingdom, and now head of a think tank that has received Saudi funding); too tolerant of repression in China (because of comments saying the Chinese regime had no choice but to crack down in Tiananmen Square); and too deaf to the moral claims of Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East. But very recently I met with a friend who had worked years ago with Freeman -- on China, not the Middle East -- and was upset about what he called the "self-lobotimization" of US foreign policy that the campaign to discredit Freeman represented. As I've looked into it, I've come to agree. His first point was that Freeman was being proposed for a post within the president's discretionary appointment power, like one of his White House aides, and therefore didn't have to reflect the Senate's sense of who should be in the job. The more important point, he said, was that Freeman's longstanding contrarian inclination to challenge conventional wisdom of any sort, far from being an embarrassing liability, was exactly what a president needed from the person in this job. A president's Secretary of State had to represent the country's policies soberly and predictably around the world. His National Security Advisor had to coordinate and evenhandedly present the views of the various agencies. His White House press secretary had to take great care in expressing the official line to the world's media each day. His Director of National Intelligence had to give him the most sober and responsible precis of what was known and unknown about potential threats. For any of those roles, a man like Freeman might not be the prudent choice. But as head of the National Intelligence Council, my friend said, he would be exactly right. While he would have no line-operational responsibilities or powers, he would be able to raise provocative questions, to ask "What if everybody's wrong?", to force attention to the doubts, possibilities, and alternatives that normally get sanded out of the deliberative process through the magic known as "groupthink." As Dan Froomkin of NiemanWatch wrote in an item that called Freeman "A One-Man Destroyer of Groupthink," He has... spent a goodly part of the last 10 years raising questions that otherwise might never get answered -- or even asked -- because they're too embarrassing, awkward, or difficult. For him to be put in charge of what [Laura Rozen of Foreign Policy] calls "the intelligence community's primary big-think shop and the lead body in producing national intelligence estimates" is about the most emphatic statement the Obama Administration could possibly make that it won't succumb to the kind of submissive intelligence-community groupthink that preceded the war in Iraq. Again, I don't know Freeman personally. I don't know whether the Saudi funding for his organization has been entirely seemly (like that for most Presidential libraries), which is now the subject of inspector-general investigation. If there's a problem there, there's a problem. But I do know something about the role of contrarians in organizational life. I have hired such people, have worked alongside them, have often been annoyed at them, but ultimately have viewed them as indispensable. Sometimes the annoying people, who will occasionally say "irresponsible" things, are the only ones who will point out problems that everyone else is trying to ignore. A president needs as many such inconvenient boat-rockers as he can find -- as long as they're not in the main operational jobs. Seriously: anyone who has worked in an organization knows how hard it is, but how vital, to find intelligent people who genuinely are willing to say inconvenient things even when everyone around them is getting impatient or annoyed. The truth is, you don't like them when they do that. You may not like them much at all. But without them, you're cooked. So to the extent this argument is shaping up as a banishment of Freeman for rash or unorthodox views, I instinctively take Freeman's side -- even when I disagree with him on specifics. This job calls for originality, and originality brings risks. Chas Freeman is not going to have his finger on any button. He is going to help raise all the questions that the person with his finger on the button should be aware of. Read carefully this NiemanWatch Q-and-A with Freeman from 2006 (or read any of Freeman's recent policy articles here) and ask yourself two questions: do these sound like the views of an unacceptable kook? And, would you rather have had more of this sensibility, or less, applied to U.S. policy in recent years?" http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/28/have_they_not_a_shred_of_decency http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/11/on_chas_freemans_withdrawal http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/a-freeman-time.html http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/12/anonymity/index.html http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/what-the-freema.html http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/03/fallows_on_freeman.php http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/washington-post-a-bulwark-of-the-lobby-denies-theres-a-lobby.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Ron Davies Date: 12 Mar 09 - 09:58 PM True, Amos, but if Rig doesn't wave his arms, how is he ever going to fly? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Mar 09 - 10:10 PM "And what has Obama done..." As far as foreign policy, pretty much the same thing Bush did. For some reason these AIPAC people seem to be in the driver's seat in both administrations. The US would never have been in Iraq to begin with, if it hadn't been for these these slime-balls. And now we're going through the same thing all over again. I had hoped we'd moved past that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 12 Mar 09 - 10:38 PM When I heard that Freeman was going to be appointed to that post, I had a lot of hope that Obama might approach things differently than past presidents have done with regard to foreign policy, and he might even be able to become more independent from foreign special interests, but now I'm less hopeful. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 12 Mar 09 - 10:59 PM Rig: You never told us you wer blind, dude!! You can't see the differences in foreign policy approaches between Obama and Bush, you got a world of misunderstanding going on, amigo. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 13 Mar 09 - 12:41 AM Has anyone even bothered to read the article linked to in the opening post in this thread? It's an eye opener and explains what was said by the thread originator. Personally, I think people ought to read the piece before commenting on opinions expressed about it and its subject matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Don Firth Date: 13 Mar 09 - 01:04 AM Am I missing something here? Everything I've read (and yes, I did read the opening post) says that it was Freeman who withdrew his name. How does this equate with Obama selling out to the neo-cons? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 13 Mar 09 - 01:27 AM Some of the links I posted show that the Obama people had a hand in pressuring Freeman to bow out. If that's the case, that would definitely be Obama giving in to neo-cons. Also, Obama not defending Freeman against the accusations, which really are quite libelous, amounts to Obama givingin to neo-cons, and AIPAC and its helpers, essentially giving them control over who he can and cannot have serving in his administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 13 Mar 09 - 01:29 AM And I say all of this as someone who campaigned for Obama both in the primaries and the general election. But I have always said that if he got elected, I would hold his feet to the fire. Just because I voted for him and campaigned for him doesn't mean he gets a free pass from me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 13 Mar 09 - 01:34 AM Chuck Shumer says it was the Obama people who did it after he complained to Rahm Emanuel (in one of the above links)... "Charles Freeman was the wrong guy for this position," Schumer's statement read. "His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration. I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 09 - 08:53 AM What people like Charles Schumer and Joe Lieberman don't seem to understand is that they are United States senators. The US is not Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Greg F. Date: 13 Mar 09 - 09:40 AM That's only a tiny part of what Schumer & Lieberman, hacks both, don't understand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 13 Mar 09 - 10:23 AM Kind of makes the accusations against Freeman about ties to Saudi Arabia pretty ironic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 09 - 02:17 PM Yes is does, Carol. And it makes one wonder about the political tides at work within the new administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: robomatic Date: 13 Mar 09 - 02:27 PM Well, for the record, I campaigned for and donated to Obama as well, and I'm a Zionist. That does not mean I'm opposed to Freeman however, as I agree with the article about groupthink, and having some stroke with the Saudis may not be intrinsically evil. I have to know a lot more before I'll say anything about whether or not he should be in the position, but he made it clear he was dropping out on his own considerations, which means to me he was perhaps a bit thin-skinned for the kind of abuse that can get rained on anyone who takes a position other than the commonality. As I said above, Obama has a pragmatic core as we've already seen from some administration positions taken in the courts that coincide with the previous administration. At the same time, he's announced he's gonna close the Gitmo prison. (While it has also become evident that some prisoners let go from the previous administration have turned up in leadership positions in terrorist groups). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 13 Mar 09 - 02:35 PM The original article cited was an opinion piece. All of the articles cited by CarolC (except the one to the NY Times, which linked to an ad for subscriptions) link to either blogs or newspaper commentaries. Are there any actual facts available on Mr Freeman's reasons for withdrawing, other than his own statement? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Jayto Date: 13 Mar 09 - 02:42 PM I heard a commentator speaking on CNN today about the economy. What I found funny was he kept speaking about the current economic trends in terms of a "Peacetime economy". I thought "What economy are you taliking about?". Peacetime economy my ass! Peace!? What is that? I was just stunned to hear them talking about the economy as if our nation was not at war. Delusional. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: bald headed step child Date: 13 Mar 09 - 03:03 PM "as we've already seen from some administration positions taken in the courts that coincide with the previous administration" One thing to remember about this, and I think it is what is really going on, if Obama just comes out and takes a different approach to these situations, there is nothing to prevent the next President from going back to the policies of Bush. If, however, they say in court,(someplace Bush never allowed these things to get), that they hold the same position, the court gets to rule on the issue, and now there is a court precedent on the legality of the issue. George had a real problem with letting the courts decide anything, because he knew they would not go his way. Getting these rulings is the best way to prevent future generations from the same type of abuse. BHSC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 09 - 03:08 PM The facts available are Mr Freeman's owns tatements, but they appear somewhat colored. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 13 Mar 09 - 03:52 PM I would consider Chuck Schumer's words to function in this case as facts. Schumer said Obama's people are responsible. It's kind of ironic that people are charactrizing Freeman's statements as being colored (even though they are backed up with extensive documentation), in light of the things that others have been saying about him that people seem to be be willing to accept without question. Some of them even coming from a person who is under indictment for espionage for selling classified Pentagon documents to the government of Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 13 Mar 09 - 04:09 PM That would be the one blog which quotes another blog quoting Schumer? I have been unable to find that statement on the Senator's website. I'm also rather interested to find that, according to the original cite, which is a commentary on another commentary, the Washington Post has a "neocon-oriented editorial section". Would this be the same Washington Post that was so stridently anti-Bush for so long? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 13 Mar 09 - 04:10 PM Actually, the observationt hat Freeman's statement seemed colored came only from one person--me. ANd I was referring to the fact that his language struck me as having been written in the middle of an upset, and he seemed a bit put out, grandiose, and somewhat puffed up. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 09 - 04:31 PM Oddly enough, I don't think "neocon-oriented" and "anti-Bush" are necessarily incompatible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: robomatic Date: 13 Mar 09 - 04:38 PM BHSC, I think your comment was perceptive and an indicator of the intelligence of our current President relative to the one we just saw off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 09 - 05:07 PM Actually, I think that over-simplifies things. Bush was treating these prisoners as enemy combatants. Obama wants to try these people under civilian law. If they'd done that in the beginning, it would have made more sense, but after leaving them at GITMO for 8 years, and then trying them, I would be surprised if every one of them don't join with terrorist groups. If I have been captured and treated the way those people were treated, if I ever managed to get free, I would most certainly become a terrorist enemy of the United States. Another problem is, if there were enough of them, they could really swamp the civilian court system. And an additional problem is one of their immigration status. If the government captures them and brings them to the US, they aren't really illegal immigrants, so can they be deported, are is the government simply setting up multitudes of terrorists to live in the country? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 13 Mar 09 - 05:28 PM There are only about 200 of them left at Gitmo, Rigs - the rest have been released or are in the custody of their own nations. It should also be noted, I think, that the negative statements about their treatment are coming primarily from them and from their attorneys. There is, IMO, no question that their treatment by the CIA and their surrogates before going into military custody, at least in some cases, was illegal and vile. Is this still true, or was it ever, at Guantanamo? There is no consensus. A New Mexico National Guard general, Greg Zanetti, recently returned from a tour at Guantanamo as deputy commander, and he says that the vast majority of violence there now is prisoner-on-guard rather than the other way around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Mar 09 - 05:58 PM Whatever the case, if you'd held me there, and I could get free, I'd be your enemy. You could bank on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 14 Mar 09 - 12:49 AM The Schumer quote appeared in a statement that came from Schumer himself. It appears in news sources as well as blogs (and I would argue that the Antiwar site is not a blog, but a news source), including the Jerusalem Post. Here's one news source with the quote... http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090311/GLOBALBRIEFING/747652047/0/NEWS Here it is in the Washington Times... http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/11/freeman-withdraws-name-from-intel-post/?page=2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 14 Mar 09 - 12:51 AM Also... I definitely find the Washington Post to be neo-con. They were totally supportive of the attack and occupation of Iraq, and they regularly agitate for some kind of military action against Iran. And they are entirely biased in favor of the government of Israel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 14 Mar 09 - 01:47 AM CarolC, both of those articles are citing The Plum Line, which is a blog. However, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion - but the truth of the "quote" is still missing...and not really relevant, anyway. Of course, in my opinion, equating neocon with support of Israel is rather far-fetched...but I suppose that I'm equally entitled to an opinion. I do admit to not reading the Washington Post more than weekly, but I have never seen any "agitation for military action against Iran" there except in syndicated columns, and they have quite a variety. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: akenaton Date: 14 Mar 09 - 04:50 AM The progressive black view |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 14 Mar 09 - 07:06 AM The Plumline is a "Washington Post Company Publication". Maybe someone can explain to me why reportage from the regular pages of the Washington Post would be any different or more reliable than reportage in a blog within the Washington Post's own website. The Washington Post has essentially put its name on reportage saying that Schumer issued the statement that has been quoted in the Plumline blog, and other news sources have put their stamp of approval on the reportage of the Plumline blog by quoting it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 14 Mar 09 - 07:59 AM Here's an example of Washington Post editorial page agitation on the subject of Iran... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092202592.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 14 Mar 09 - 09:49 AM Here is a related story. The power that the Israeli government holds over the US government that was expressed in the Freeman debacle is also responsible for the US government, including the lawmakers, not having either the willingness or the ability to correct the very real problems of Israeli espionage in the US... http://www.alternet.org/audits/130891/breaking_the_taboo_on_israel%27s_spying_efforts_on_the_united_states/?page=entire |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 14 Mar 09 - 11:09 AM Well, Carol, if you are reading "agitat(ing) for some kind of military action against Iran" into that, I can readily understand how you feel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 14 Mar 09 - 11:50 AM We saw the same sort of thing during the run up to the Iraq war. So yeah, I see it as agitating for some kind of military action. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Bobert Date: 14 Mar 09 - 12:49 PM Yeah, the Bush adminstration not only had the Post's editorial staff but also the Post's news department in his pocket during ther mad-dash-to-Iraq days... As I have pointed out in the past, at least the news department coped to having fallen into a "culture" (whatever that it) and should have done more journalism and less buying the company fight song... The editorial department, on the other hand, has no regrets and continues to suuport an endless war/occupation of Iraq... It is my guess that the Post's editorial staff would mind seeing Iran invaded but they have not, to the best of my knowledge, as yet laid out any position... And I try to at least scan their editiorials every day... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Teribus Date: 14 Mar 09 - 08:24 PM Obama caters to neo-cons - more war" Now there's something about this that made me laugh "You see, the thing that prevents me from starting threads with lead lines like this is that I listen to what Obama actually says rather than swallowing what some ax-grinding commentator is trying to feed me." - Don Firth Obama shouldn't object to such as this GWB had to live with this for eight years Don. "There are only about 200 of them left at Gitmo, Rigs - the rest have been released or are in the custody of their own nations." – Artbrooks Hey Art, and of those released there are about 85+ have gone right back to doing what they did before, killing Americans – fuckin' whoopee, what a result. Personally I'd have preferred to see them still locked up, fuck their human rights they don't give a damn for anybody else's, so you tell me, why I should give a damn for theirs "Whatever the case, if you'd held me there, and I could get free, I'd be your enemy. You could bank on that." - Riginslinger In which case Rigs you would readily agree that I should hold you indefinitely without charge or trial – TRUE?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Bobert Date: 14 Mar 09 - 09:12 PM That stat is bull, T... I was listening to NPR a couple weeks ago and it had several experts who also said it was bull... Seems that the right wing would have you belive that all these folks are going back to fighting against US but the experts on NPR said that there were only 4 or 5 confirmed... Don't make me find that source 'casue I will but it will cost you... If I write Diane Rheme and get it and provide it will you admit that Bush was wrong in invading Iraq??? If so, I'll do it... But my memeory might not go back on everything but when I hear several experts on NPR say that the story about released people going back to fight against US is bogus, that sticks in my mind... But if you wish to challenge and are willing to accept my conditions, I'll come up with the sources... Deal??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Teribus Date: 15 Mar 09 - 03:31 AM Wrong in invading Iraq Bobert - Hell no. Current Taleban "Commander" in Helmand is an ex-Gitmo inmate who fooled his jailers into letting him go, said something at the time of his capture he had only been told by some Taleban fighter to hold his gun for him while he drove. When captured this guy had two electronic watches on him - His specialist skill was, and I suppose still is, making bombs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Bobert Date: 15 Mar 09 - 08:56 AM My, my, T... You certainly are getting to be a testy cranky person these days... On the other thread it was the "f word" and now its the "H word"... The "mf word" can't be far behind... Bottom line, the numbers of released folks going back to terrorism that righties are throwing around is hogwash... No factual basis at all... Mere proclamations with no substance... The numbers that the experts on NPR we less than 5... Not 55... Not 155... Not a million and 55... Sheesh, man... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: bald headed step child Date: 15 Mar 09 - 05:42 PM And if you look at it objectively, the terrorist leader who was released from Gitmo was released while Bush was still in control. Those stories started circulating within 2 days of Obama taking office. "Personally I'd have preferred to see them still locked up, fuck their human rights they don't give a damn for anybody else's, so you tell me, why I should give a damn for theirs"-T Because someday it may be you sitting in that cell. Bigots seem to have a hard time comprehending the fact that when you make it ok to hate 1 special group, the next special group isn't too far behind. Start with brown people that speak differently, then go to brown people in general, then yellow people, let's not forget the queers, then the ones that are just too white(they know who they are), then people with the wrong hair color, and eye color too, but for sure the ones who worship a different invisible man than ours, and of course the ones who eat their eggs differently(that's just weird),woops, almost forgot assholes, douchebags can't be far behind, and let's not forget people with strange screen names(let's lock them all up, they must be degenerates of some kind. Better safe than sorry). Did I get to you yet? Given enough time, we will. The right to due process under the law must be applied to ALL people, or it means nothing to anyone. BHSC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Teribus Date: 16 Mar 09 - 03:05 AM "Bigots seem to have a hard time comprehending the fact that when you make it ok to hate 1 special group, the next special group isn't too far behind." "Did I get to you yet?" - BHSC What makes you think that I "hate" any special group, race or creed BHSC? Because the plain simple fact of it is that I don't - I did not, and do not, "hate" the Indonesians out in Borneo who were trying to kill me, I did not, and do not, hate the Irish who through two tours in Northern Irleand were trying to kill me. For the terrorists and paramilitaries in both cases I have absolutely no respect but that is a different thing entirely to "hating" them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: bald headed step child Date: 16 Mar 09 - 03:31 AM "What makes you think that I "hate" any special group, race or creed BHSC?"-T Well, probably the "fuck their human rights" statement. Many of the people held at Gitmo did nothing wrong other than being born with brown skin. The way they ended up there was one of those "brilliant" plans by the Bush administration to offer rewards for terrorists. All that was needed to collect the reward was for one of the militia groups to say the guy was a terrorist and off he went. No evidence needed. Hell, give me some reward money and I could probably find a bunch of people I don't like. I'm pretty sure at least one of my ex-wives is a terroroist. Where's the money? I suppose you can deny the hate part, if it makes you feel better, but at least you didn't try to deny the bigot part. BHSC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: DougR Date: 16 Mar 09 - 12:00 PM Bobert: you wouldn't recognize what is "factual" if it bopped you in the face. Relying on NPR as your "impeccable" source is about as comforting as using The New York Times as an "objective" source. Teribus is right. The detainees at GITMO would slit the throat of every Mudcatter on this forum given the chance. And most of you moan and groan about the U.S. not providing them their rights! What rights do these terrorists have? None! Obama as a candidate could afford to bitch and moan about those poor folks Bush penned up at GITMO. He didn't have access either to the facts nor did he have responsibility as Commander in Chief. He does now, and I suspect it has sobered him a bit. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 16 Mar 09 - 12:19 PM Any one charged with terrorist acts is being charged with crimes, for which there is a real, time-tested process for sorting the evidence, Doug. Your argument seems to preclude using any such process because you are persuaded of their guilt AND their recidivism, without weighing evidence, without due porcess, simply on the strength of blind faith in their accusers. Obviously such a method is a rampant corruption of any "justice" to which the US claims ti subscribe; but your position must be that such niceties are gainsaid by the fact that these people are terrorists and therefore deserve no justive. THis is a nice circular piece of reasoning. Don't baffle us with the bullshit of saying we are being irresponsibly reasonable about death-mongering criminal terrorists. You're just propping up your completely extra-legal position by making bogeymen of them. How about we see what they've done and imprison, execute, or free them according to the bloody FACTS?? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 16 Mar 09 - 12:44 PM Amos, One problem with bringing said terrorists to trial is that the sources of information that indicate they ARE terrorists would be comprimised by the trial- and future information about terrorist acts would then not be available, ( in addition to endangering what few humint assets we have, by exposing them to the enemy). It is quite likely that a number of the prisoners are known to be guilty of crimes, but cannot be tried without grave damage to the US ( re humint assets) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 16 Mar 09 - 12:53 PM I think that is bushawah, Bruce. It is an excuse which conveniently masks all facts and rationalizes the reductiono f justice to a convenience. But I offer you this thought: if the DoD can and does process scores and hundreds of top-level compartmented information security clearances every year for all kinds of engineers, managers and other strange beings who come to drink at their trough, why the hell could they not equally well process the same security clerarance for a panel of judges authorized to serve justice rather than simply serving the DoD? I don't think the exigency of the moment is quite met by offering explanatuions as to why injustice is acceptable. That's what the other side does. There are perfectly safe ways to process justice without creating an era of terrorist [policies applied within the US. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 16 Mar 09 - 01:01 PM Amos, I disagree with your assessment- IF they are allowed lawyers, then the information will get back to the other terrorists ( You do admit there ARE peopel who wish to attack the US?). Hell, half of what is told to Congress ( in secret) is leaked for political gain. SO, tell me AGAIN why Obama has not brought the remainder of the prisoners into a trial? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Greg F. Date: 16 Mar 09 - 01:24 PM Douggie? preaching about FACTS?? kinda like a whore preaching about virtue... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: bald headed step child Date: 16 Mar 09 - 03:34 PM The court system in this country has prosecuted all types of sensitive cases including treason and espionage with great success. Are you people seriously saying that these cases are so much different and dangerous than espionage cases involving nuclear secrets that have been prosecuted before? The Bush administration's blatant disregard for due process in these cases, and domestic cases as well, is an enormous black eye to all of us that will take a long time to heal. Habeas corpus has been on the books as a basic right for over a thousand years. If it can't be extended to all of us, then it is worthless to any of us. The FACTS of the matter are, Bush entered this country into an illegal war and occupation,in the process overthrowing a sovereign government. He is responsible for the deaths of at least several hundred thousand people. He has shredded the basic rights of not only our "enemies" but our citizens as well. He has damaged our reputation in the world, in some areas possibly irreparably. In the process of this he has not only brought our country to the brink of economic ruin, he has brought most of the world to this point. All of this for the profit and benefit of the big corporations. Anyone who tries to defend that,IMHFO, is an absolute moron who should probably be rounded up and placed in a mental institution for observation, as they are probably a danger to themselves and others. BHSC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: DougR Date: 16 Mar 09 - 03:39 PM And what, Greg, would you know about virtue? Amos: The military courts at Gitmo were moving right along, thank you very much, until your "walking on water" president stepped in and put a stop to them. The military courts would have provided the accused an opportunity to defend themselves and allow the judges to examine the evidence against them. It also would assure that the information that, for security purposes mentioned by beardedbruce in his post, would not be made public. They are not accused criminals. They are accused terrorists. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 16 Mar 09 - 03:49 PM You ar ein dreamland, Doug. The Bush Administration's concept of justice was to invent new travesties disguised as rulings and to throw the highest principles of justice out in the histrionic pursuit of imaginary goals and imaginary situations. A terrorist, by definition, commits illegal acts. What terrorist is NOT a criminal in your mind? The notion that it is legal to declare war against a general class of criminal acts, or a condition, and then apply concepts of military justice to such a bizarre equation is absurd, and could only appeal to someone completely bamboozled by cartoons, drugs, and alcohol. Declaring war against a general condition is the height of idiocy. If Bush had meant to declare war against an axis of forces including the Taleban and Al Qeda, he should have said so. Absent such a declaration, the acts of the terrorists on 9-11 and elsewhere can only be defined, and should be defined and prosecuted, as criminal actions woprthy of life sentences or execution under the law. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: bald headed step child Date: 16 Mar 09 - 03:57 PM Doug, how were they going to defend themselves when the kangaroo military court Bush set up didn't even allow the person to know what the charges against them were, and didn't allow them in the court while they were being tried, and they were not allowed to have an attorney? And trying to distinguish between criminal and terrorist is just an ignorant ploy to try and separate them and say "this is different". Terrorism is a criminal offense. Criminal offenses are tried in real courts, with real lawyers, and real judges, and the accused has the right to call witnesses and refute the evidence being used against them. It's been working for centuries all over the world. Trying people the way Bush has is EXACTLY one of the reasons Bush gave for the need to overthrow Saddam Hussein, so I guess if you defend Bush on this practise, you must be defending Saddam also, in which case; why were we there again? BHSC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: bald headed step child Date: 16 Mar 09 - 03:59 PM Got a little cross post there. I guess Amos types faster than I do. BHSC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 16 Mar 09 - 04:29 PM Most of the people who were finked out because of the rewards offerd, tribal feuds or because somebody didn't like the color of their mustache have long since been released. Most of the rest can, and should, be tried in the US for whatever crimes they actually committed. The argument that "they are not criminals, they are terrorists" is, IMHO, invalid. Terrorism is a crime, under the provisions of Title 18, US Code, Part I, Section 113B. They may be charged with terrorism, for murder, for kidnapping, or for whatever else that valid evidence indicates is appropriate, but they remain criminals, nothing more. For the most part, and there are certainly exceptions, these are individuals who were fighting on behalf of the Taliban, which was then the rightful government of Afghanistan or who could make a good case for being irregular fighters resisting the Allied invasion of Iraq. The Bush Administration contention that they weren't entitled to the protection of Article 4.A.2 of the Third Geneva Convention is entirely one-sided and has never been tested in any court, US or otherwise. The basic problem that I have with the entire process as it exists right now, is that the bulk of the evidence against the worst of these "detainees", such as the confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, has been totally compromised by illegal and immoral interrogation techniques. If they were brought into a court now (civilian or military) they would would almost certainly have the cases against them thrown out. They should, each and every one of them, bow down and pray in the direction of Langley, Virginia in gratitude to the great American CIA for their delivery from prosecution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: robomatic Date: 16 Mar 09 - 04:40 PM When a terrorist act which may or may not be a cause of war occurs, and hostilities are engaged, a lot of steps are taken in advance of determination of their legality. The previous administration took some of these steps, then kind of lost steam and let time go by. Too much time. What doesn't happen on the battlefield gets determined by other means, and legal is one of those means. The legal process in our country is configured to allow guilty to go free rather than imprison an innocent party. This can lead to an experienced terrorist being restored to his or her cohorts. And apparently it has happened in several cases already. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Teribus Date: 16 Mar 09 - 04:53 PM 1. Many of the people held at Gitmo did nothing wrong other than being born with brown skin. Good heavens and here's me thinking it was because they'd been caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, engaged in activities that could be detrimental to peoples health. I didn't know that the inmates of Gitmo were there because they had brown skin. We've just had one dumped in our laps, an Ethiopian who admitted that he had gone to Pakistan on a false British passport, entered Afghanistan and attended an Al-Qaeda training camp where he was taught how to use a gun and use explosives. Now this guy is not a terrorist? What must he do first kill somebody, blow a whole rake of people up?? 2. The way they ended up there was one of those "brilliant" plans by the Bush administration to offer rewards for terrorists. Well we've just had one dumped in our laps, an Ethiopian who admitted that he had gone to Pakistan on a false British passport, entered Afghanistan and attended an Al-Qaeda training camp where he was taught how to use a gun and use explosives. Now this guy is not a terrorist? What must he do first kill somebody? Blow a whole rake of people up?? 3. I suppose you can deny the hate part, if it makes you feel better, but at least you didn't try to deny the bigot part. OK then BHSC I would like you to post any comment of mine that illustrates my supposed bigotry – Now if you cannot do that then I expect an apology from you, fair enough? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: bald headed step child Date: 16 Mar 09 - 05:54 PM You've offered one case out of thousands in an attempt to justify stripping everyone in the Arab world of their rights. That to me spells bigot. You can hold your breath if you want, but I've already pointed out more than once in THIS thread where your words show your nature. "fuck their human rights"-pretty harsh statement in the plural, not just one guy. "and of those released there are about 85+ have gone right back to doing what they did before, killing Americans"-made up statistic to justify the other statement without any evidence that ANY of the people in question had actually killed anyone. These are just 2 parts of one sentence of one post. If you have any real evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of any of these people, please step up and testify before the court. Some of them are indeed bad people who need to be prosecuted, but to strip all of them of their rights just to make things "neat" for one side is immoral, and defense of those who do so makes one just as guilty. Previous, and some current, governments have used similar approaches. Some of these leaders include Stalin, Hitler, Musolini, Amin, Hussein, and now GWB, and by association at least, Blair. I don't know about you, but I really don't want my country to remain on that list. This country was founded on principles that have existed for millenia and based on the letter of the law. If we cannot follow that law and stick to those principles, we just as well use the Constitution to wipe our asses. If you are offended by my, and others, defense of those principles, I feel sorry for you(that's the closest you'll get to an apology from me), as I will not stand idley by and let you or anyone else destroy my country. If you believe that these people have done something wrong, give them their day in court. To deny this is to do more damage than any of their bombs can ever do. BHSC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: DougR Date: 16 Mar 09 - 06:15 PM Treating the inmates interned at GITMO as civil criminals would be as ridiculous as treating German and Japanese POWs as civil criminals during WWII. Seems the American people are beginning to wise up though. According to today's Rasmussen Daily Poll (www.Rasmussenreports.com), 36% of Americans polled strongly approve of Obams's performance as President of the United States. Thirty-two percent now strongly disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of +4, his lowest rating to date. This is the tenth straight day that the President's Approval Index rating has been in single digits. Another interesting side-light of today's daily poll: "American workers are more likely to belong to the investor class than a union. Just 9% of non-union workers would like to join a union." DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Bobert Date: 16 Mar 09 - 06:43 PM Well, "habeas corpus" goes back at least to 1215 A.D. with the Magna Carta... Many believe that it goes back hundreds, maybe thousands of years before that... The concept of habeas corpus is that we don't hold people without charges and that evidence must be presented in order to hold them at all... The Bush administration violated this ancient legal code... That's not an opinion... That is a fact... Now that Bush is gone Obama is doing what any sane presicdent has to do and that is to return our country to respecting legal principles that have held up for hundreds, maybe thousands, of years... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: DougR Date: 16 Mar 09 - 06:50 PM No, Bobert, it is NOT a fact. If you have evidence that it is, please point it out to me. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 16 Mar 09 - 07:00 PM You think Bush respected habeas corpus, holding individuals without charge or hearing for multiple passing years? DougR, my lad, you need a checkup. Your delusions are growing apace. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Greg F. Date: 16 Mar 09 - 07:05 PM No point trying to discuss fact with ol' Douggie- he doesn't know the definition of the term. Also, someone needs to remind him that BuShite Republicans don't believe in polls, they're all crap- at least that's what they said for the last eight years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 16 Mar 09 - 07:22 PM That's fine, Doug - then treat them as POWs. POWs don't get tried for the crime of fighting their enemies. Under the provisions of Article 2 of the UCMJ, they may only be tried by the military for other crimes if they are recognized as POWs. What would be your objection to them being tried in civil court for mass murder like the slime they are? Too many legal protections? By the way, there are lots of polls out there. Rasmussen also says: Overall, 56% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance so far while 43% disapprove. During March, the President's overall approval on a daily basis has ranged from 56% to 60%. During February, the range was from 57% to 62%. In January, the range was from 60% to 65% (see trends). Gallup says, as of March 16th: Barack Obama's approval ratings have been very stable in the month of March so far, and his current 61% approval rating is more positive than the 58% rating for George W. Bush and the 53% rating for Bill Clinton in mid-March of the first years of their administrations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: bald headed step child Date: 16 Mar 09 - 07:45 PM "No, Bobert, it is NOT a fact. If you have evidence that it is, please point it out to me."-Doug R The November 13, 2001, Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain suspects, suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an unlawful combatant. As such, it was asserted that a person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of United States citizens to seek writs of habeas corpus even when declared enemy combatants. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006), Salim Ahmed Hamdan petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging that the military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay "violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions." In a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected Congress's attempts to strip the courts of jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals by detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Congress had previously passed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2006 which stated in Section 1005(e), "Procedures for Status Review of Detainees Outside the United States": "(1) Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. "(2) The jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on any claims with respect to an alien under this paragraph shall be limited to the consideration of whether the status determination … was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the Government's evidence), and to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States." On 29 September 2006, the House and Senate approved the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), a bill that would remove habeas corpus for any person determined to be an "unlawful enemy combatant" engaged in hostilities or having supported hostilities against the United States"[8][9] by a vote of 65–34. (This was the result on the bill to approve the military trials for detainees; an amendment to remove the unavailability of habeas corpus failed 48–51.[10]) President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 into law on October 17, 2006. The declaration of a person as an "unlawful enemy combatant" is at the discretion of the US executive branch of the administration, and there is no right of appeal, with the result that this potentially eliminates habeas corpus for any non-citizen. With the MCA's passage, the law altered the language from "alien detained … at Guantánamo Bay": "Except as provided in section 1005 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." §1005(e)(1), 119 Stat. 2742. On 20 February 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld this provision of the MCA in a 2-1 decision of the Case Boumediene v. Bush. The Supreme Court let the Circuit Court's decision stand by refusing to hear the detainees' appeal. On June 29, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its April 2007 decision and agreed to hear the appeals of Guantanamo detainees who are seeking habeas corpus review of their detentions.[11] Under the MCA, the law restricts habeas appeals for only those aliens detained as "enemy combatants," or awaiting such determination. Left unchanged is the provision that, after such determination is made, it is subject to appeal in U.S. Court, including a review of whether the evidence warrants the determination. If the status is upheld, then their imprisonment is deemed lawful. There is, however, no legal time limit which would force the government to provide a Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) hearing. Prisoners are legally prohibited from petitioning any court for any reason before a CSRT hearing takes place. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The above is taken from Wikipedia by doing a search for habeas corpus. I'm reasonably sure that this shows what Bobert said to be true. There's a whole lot more where that came from, but I don't want to try and shove too much in there at once. BHSC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Greg F. Date: 16 Mar 09 - 09:32 PM Nice try, BHSC, but you ain't gonna change what passes for Douggie's mind with mere truth & fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: bald headed step child Date: 16 Mar 09 - 10:03 PM I know, but it's kinda fun trying. BHSC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Greg F. Date: 16 Mar 09 - 10:32 PM Man, you've got a strange idea of "Fun", aintcha? ;>) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: bald headed step child Date: 16 Mar 09 - 10:40 PM Well, I guess I could let you in on one of the big secrets of the trucking industry, if you promise not to tell. Arguing with a truck driver is a lot like wrestling with a greased up pig. Eventually you realise the pig kinda likes it. ; } BHSC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Teribus Date: 17 Mar 09 - 02:15 PM BHSC - I'll repect their human rights the second that they state that they will respect mine and act on that premise - fair enough? Until that time, for as long as they deem it their duty to kill me and my family because we do not follow their religious beliefs, then they are part of a belief system that puts me and mine at risk, if any are captured in the act of making that belief a reality then they bloody deserve everything they get. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Stringsinger Date: 17 Mar 09 - 02:15 PM Freeman, I disagree, was not an ideologue. He saw the irony of the Mid-east crisis. A Hobbesian Trap. He was right to criticize Israel as an aggressor nation. The boogey-man of "terrorist" is measured by those who have never met one or seen one in the flesh or even talked to one. The whole idea of what constitutes a terrorist is manufactured by belligerents in the military and the news media. We don't know who those people in Git-mo are because they have been denied the right of due process. Shaking in our boots at an imaginary monster is unproductive. This would be exemplified by the use of the specious "enemy combatant". Give them a fair trial and then we can assess who they really are. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 18 Mar 09 - 03:01 PM When the neo-cons thought Israel was under threat from Iraq and Syria, they engineered the invasion of Iraq. Now the neo-cons think Israel is being threatened from Iran, so they've engineered a military buildup in Afghanistan. The chatter between Democrats and Republicans is just background noise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Stringsinger Date: 18 Mar 09 - 03:08 PM The problem with belligerence is that it solves nothing. As long as fear and resentment guide foreign policy, the issue remains, how do belligerents talk to one another and resolve differences? The assumptions of what reputed "enemies" believe have to be brought into a rational analysis, not a knee-jerk reaction. The problem is that those who are the most belligerent don't really know what their so-called "enemy" really thinks but assume all kinds of myths about them. There are those who make money from wars. They need to be curtailed. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Don Firth Date: 18 Mar 09 - 06:40 PM I present the following modest proposal for your consideration: Next time you encounter a terrorist, ask him "Why do you hate us so much that you want to kill us?" Then listen carefully to what he has to say. You never know what you might learn. He might just have a legitimate beef. Just a thought. . . . Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Lonesome EJ Date: 19 Mar 09 - 12:35 AM Barack Obama is governing the country from a centrist position, and that is where the strength of this country lies. More power to him! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Mar 09 - 10:26 AM Unfortunately, where foreign policy is concerned, Obama seems to be dancing to the same tune that the neo-cans called for George W. Bush, and America suffers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 19 Mar 09 - 11:42 AM Absolute nonsense, Rig. He is, for example, making major differences in State, appointing a whole array of special envoys to keep him in communication with nations, something Bush was totally disinterested in. Bush rattled sabers, where Obama suggests dialogue. Your sweeping generalized nabobberies just don't match the ground reality. Do you have specific points about which you think he has not changed something he should? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Mar 09 - 12:09 PM Absolutely! He had a chance to hire Freeman to deal with complex problems, but chose to listen to Rahm Emanuel instead. Emanuel is shaping up to be worse that Cheney and Rumsfeld ever could have been. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Don Firth Date: 19 Mar 09 - 02:07 PM ". . . worse that Cheney and Rumsfeld ever could have been." And how is that possible? Specifics, please. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 19 Mar 09 - 02:35 PM Absolute nonsense redux, Rig. SPecifically, what actuions of Emmanuel's are you taking exception to? Has he spilled AMerican blood, sold the nation to oil companies, undermined the national Constitution, promoted war without need, or shot a friend in the face? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 19 Mar 09 - 02:39 PM I'll have to investigate to see if he shot a friend in the face. He seems to be a willing participant in every thing else. I wonder if that Harry character is still Cheney's friend? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: DougR Date: 20 Mar 09 - 02:23 PM Were German and Japanese prisoners of war provided habeas corpus during World War II? I think not. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: DougR Date: 20 Mar 09 - 02:27 PM Just for Greg F: FACT:"Something known with certainty." New College Edition, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 20 Mar 09 - 03:50 PM Are the people incarcerated at Guantanamo and the various prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan accorded the rights provided under the Geneva Conventions to POWs? I think not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 21 Mar 09 - 08:52 PM I think one has to figure out what Rahm Emanuel, George Soros, and David Axelrod have in common in order to get a handle on where the Obama foreign policy agenda is apt to strike next. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Greg F. Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:26 PM Go back to your dictionary & KEEP READING: Douggie; its not a matter of belief, its a great deal more than that: 3. The quality of being actual: ACTUALITY /REALITY .... 5. A piece of information having objective reality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Bobert Date: 22 Mar 09 - 12:51 PM Hey, it ***is*** Dougie, Greg... ...and 100... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: DougR Date: 22 Mar 09 - 04:41 PM Greg F.:your problem, however, is the word objective. Perhaps you should look that up. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Greg F. Date: 22 Mar 09 - 06:38 PM And Douggie my lad, you'd do yourself a world of good- and save the rest of us A real pai8n in the ass, if you would look up, and comprehend, and internalize, the definition od the world "reality". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: DougR Date: 23 Mar 09 - 02:00 PM Greggie: Sticks and stones, etc. etc. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Mar 09 - 12:55 PM It seems to me that the prisoners at GITMO are simpy a distraction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Greg F. Date: 24 Mar 09 - 03:21 PM Predictably infantile & irrelevant response, Douggie, but you forgot the "nyah, nyah" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: DougR Date: 25 Mar 09 - 02:50 PM I though it interesting at last night's News Conference that no one reporter asked a single question about Iraq or Afghanistan. I guess things must be getting better there. Could that be the first such news conference in the past seven and a half years that Iraq hasn't come up? Possibly. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Mar 09 - 02:42 PM Now that the election is over, maybe Obama's handlers don't want him talking about Iraq and Afghanistan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 26 Mar 09 - 03:24 PM WHat complete horsepucky. His handlers? He has spoken about both items numerous times since he was sworn in. His handlers?? Have you seen his performance of this morning on the real-time on-line town hall? Oh--guess what, acid-mouths--no teleprompter, completely coherent, insightful and reasonable expositions on major questions from the audience. Your bitterness, I fear, is blinding you to the present of competency as much as some people's infatuation blinded them to massive ineptitude in the last Administration. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 27 Mar 09 - 11:12 AM What he said on the campaign trail reflected what his handlers thought he needed to say to get elected. What he is doing and saying now is what his handlers want him to do and say to promote their own personal agendas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 28 Mar 09 - 12:05 AM Looks like he was saving what he had to say about Afghanistan for today's speech. Seems like a good idea to me... don't overwhelm people with too much information all at once. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: fumblefingers Date: 28 Mar 09 - 08:31 PM Exactly who are these Neo-cons? Names? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 28 Mar 09 - 09:45 PM "Looks like he was saving what he had to say about Afghanistan for today's speech...." I could be his handlers didn't tell him what the plan was for Afghanistan. Or maybe they told him but decided it would be better to wait to let the public in on it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 29 Mar 09 - 12:19 AM He explained the plan for Afghanistan today, apparently. The neo-cons are the people who believe in pre-emptive war, and who believe in US unilateralism. Some notable neo-cons are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and quite a few other people who were involved in the Bush administration. I think it could be argued that there are a few neo-cons in the Obama administration as well. This is where some of the discredited neo-cons from the Bush administration are hanging out these days... http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lubanlobe.php?articleid=14463 http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/26/pnac_20 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 29 Mar 09 - 12:25 AM The constant refrain of "his handlers" implies he is under the control of un-identified mysterious others. I challenge this implication and request specific names, and evidence that he is being "handled" by anyone, rather than guiding his own administration. Otherwise, knock off the bull. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 29 Mar 09 - 10:44 AM ""his handlers" we can start with Rahm Emanuel. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 29 Mar 09 - 11:35 AM Rahm is a facilitator of Obama's hiring and Obama's direction. This is not a Bush/Karl Rove or Dick Cheney type relationship--I think to characterize it as even similar is small-minded and near-sighted. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 29 Mar 09 - 11:41 AM If that's what you want to believe ... ok by me. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor Date: 29 Mar 09 - 11:49 AM "handlers"?? come on?!? Good one Riginslinger. Its nice to see that your BS has not lost any of its smell. You can still stir people up and take the conversation on silly tangents with a well chosen word. But one as well versed as you obviously knows that Obama is getting advice from Axelrod and Gibbs and others, but it is plain that he is steering the ship of state. A clear line can be drawn from speeches he made as an Illinois State Senator to the actions he is taking now. Obama is the handler in chief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Greg F. Date: 29 Mar 09 - 12:28 PM I think to characterize it as even similar is small-minded and near-sighted. And also wrong, self-serving and idiotic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 29 Mar 09 - 12:46 PM '"his handlers" we can start with Rahm Emanuel.' Of course, and before the election, there was David Axelrod working in conjuction with MoveOn.org, which was bankrolled by none other than George Soros. Now, if we can only figure out what George Soros, David Axelrod, and Rahm Emanuel have in common, we might be on to something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 29 Mar 09 - 12:59 PM Clearly, what they have in common is supporting Obama. Wow--we've found the Big Handler!!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 29 Mar 09 - 03:05 PM Gee...could it be that they are all Jewish, according to one definition or another? Clear evidence that the Jews run the world. Could I interest you in a slightly used copy of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 29 Mar 09 - 05:09 PM Oh no .... don't start this one Art ! biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Peter T. Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:44 AM Of course, if you listen to Obama's rationale for the Afghanistan war, it is completely ridiculous, this whole notion that about ten thousand tribesmen in the back of beyond are a threat to America. He's just a benign version of the British going into Zululand. When you have an empire, every borderland becomes the tension point. This whole thing is a concoction, the heady brew distilled from the freak success of Obama Bin Laden's one off masterpiece of terrorism. Even Gates is quite clear that the Taliban are hardly a threat to the good old USofA. The real threat, as always, is of educated, disaffected youth already in advanced countries angry at Western nations policies -- the British, French, Germans, and Spanish all know this. That is where the bombs come from. yours, Peter T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:18 AM Has it been established that the person who brought up Axelrod and Soros even knew they were Jewish before mentioning them in this thread? Because if it has not, then any attempt to smear that person by evoking the Protocols is just nasty. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:22 PM Well, I wouldn't have made the post if I hadn't been aware that all three of those handlers were addicted to the ancient superstition of Judaism, but to project it to the level of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a little extreme even for me, and to be fair, it seems like that scenario included Free Masons, or something, which wouldn't apply. But to go back to the title of the thread, and then to pick up where the neo-cons left off in the previous administration, I don't think it would be out of line to suggest that these folks might have a lot of sympathy for the country of Israel. I wonder, if like the hopeless figure we've seen over the last two years of Senator Lieberman--in my view, a foreign national occupying a seat in the US Senate--they might not think it's perfectly fine for Americans to spill blood and waste treasure in what they see as the defense of Israel, whether it's in America's interest or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Stringsinger Date: 31 Mar 09 - 06:27 PM May I suggest articles by Juan Cole who has a reasonable grasp of Afghanistan and the nature of the Taleban and Al Quaeda. The domino theory is being applied here. The boogeyman was at one time the monster takeover of communism which propelled the US into Vietnam. Now, the boogeyman is Al Quaeda (minimal appearance in Afghanistan) and the nebulous Taleban (where not everyone can be figured as a supporter in that region..Cole says less than 4%). Obama has to be careful not to talk out of the Bush side of his mouth. I smell AIPAC here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 31 Mar 09 - 07:40 PM "I smell AIPAC here." I agree Rig, and we know where Emanuel stands on this issue .... and there are people who actually believe Obama is not under any influence by this guy. Emmanuel is a very determined person who will not let anyone get in his way. "Obama caters to neo-cons - more war" biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 31 Mar 09 - 08:28 PM The war on terror has been discontinued as a phrase, by Obama. THe Iraq operation is being phased out, by Obama. You guys are paranoid. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 31 Mar 09 - 08:33 PM I love that "the war on terror has been discontinued" we're paranoid ... then why is Obama sending more troops into the Afghani? biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:21 AM "Emmanuel is a very determined person who will not let anyone get in his way." biLL - A simple Wikipedia search delineating the relationship between Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod should really scare the bejeezes out of any rational thinking American. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 01 Apr 09 - 09:37 AM Well, let's see...a Wikipedia search for "Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod" gets you "no pages with that title found". Individual searches, besides their political and lobbying histories, would tell you that both live in Chicago, both are liberal and both are Jewish. The only thing that mentions them both (in Emanuel's bio) is "Emanuel is a close friend of fellow Chicagoan David Axelrod, chief strategist for the 2008 Barack Obama presidential campaign. Axelrod signed the ketuba, a Jewish marriage contract, at Emanuel's wedding, an honor that goes to a close friend." Sounds real scary to me, but then, I'm not bothered by either Jewish or liberal...although Chicago isn't a place I'd like to spend much time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 01 Apr 09 - 09:57 AM Let's leave the Jewish and Liberal equation out of the discussion. It's the political views in regards to the mideast situation that is at issue here ... and if anyone has any influence over Obama's military approach to the mideast. Sure ... he is slowly pulling our of Iraq, but in the meantime moving more troops into the Afghani ... the military prescence is still going to remain over there one way or another. Is this all of Obama's decision or are there some in his court that have a strong influence over these decisions of Obama's. And let's don't forget he is not calling this a war on terrosm anymore ... it's now disguised or just renamed something else .... whatever it is, the war continues. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 01 Apr 09 - 11:34 AM Two guys are friends and it scares someone...huh. I'd be a lot more scared, given their current employment, if they were enemies. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 01 Apr 09 - 11:42 AM The falsehood about Bush's militarism was calling it a war on terror in the first place, 6. There is no such thing as war against a generalized condition. It's a boondoggle, and it was used to create war powers that had no reason to be created except the Bush appetite for power. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 01 Apr 09 - 12:08 PM I agree with what you stated Amos .... but I question the current regime's increase of troops in the Afghani to fight a war ... this I feel is a war to increase the U.S. power in the region .... the current regime then states it is not a war against terror but keeping it under the guise of some other name ... all in all it is still a war of power .... I do beleive it is not Obama who is making this decisions aone but certainly some others who are pulling the strings and the one who is closest to Obama (name mentioned earlier) is whispering into his ear. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Apr 09 - 02:02 PM "Two guys are friends and it scares someone...huh." The two guys are conspitators with an agenda that is not good for the country. Well, not this country anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: robomatic Date: 01 Apr 09 - 04:41 PM Rig: Sounds like you're allergic to chopped liver. Be more specific. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 01 Apr 09 - 06:17 PM You have any evidence of a conspiracy, or any particulars in support of your darned arm-waving generalizations, Rig? Didn't you learn to write simple declarative sentences somewhere? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 01 Apr 09 - 06:47 PM "The two guys are conspitators{sic}with an agenda that is not good for the country. Well, not this country anyway." Go ahead, Rigs - say what you mean. Is it "they are conspiring on behalf of Israel and against the interests of the United States"? And, as Amos said, please provide proof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:24 PM I said what I meant to say, Art. We've seen the proof in (1) The selection of Emanuel for chief of staff, (2) delaying the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, (3) a troop build up in Afghanistan and (4)the rejection of Freeman: |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:30 PM forget the crap about conspiring .... face the facts, there is a lot of interest within the Washington (as in the U.S.A) machine that has an agenda on behalf of Israel and also big interests in securing that oil rich region .... a new picture of the president may be up in the immigration office in Calais Maine ... but the same old neo-cons still retain a considerable amount of power. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:36 PM Yes, I suppose "conspiritors" wasn't the best choice of words, but one could make the case that the neo-cons have more power and not less since the election. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:41 PM exactly rig. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:49 PM The troops may be pulled out of Iran, but Fortress America (the huge U.S. new embassy) will remain, reminding all in the mideast the U.S. has a secure foothold in the area ... and more divisions will be moved over to the Afghani, closer to Pakistan ... Hmmm, what do they fear about Pakistan? biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 01 Apr 09 - 07:52 PM Oooops ... I meant pulled out of Irag, and Fortress America in Baghdad. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 01 Apr 09 - 08:51 PM All I can say is, I am very glad you guys are not in Obama's shoes. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 01 Apr 09 - 09:14 PM Me too .... I hate flip flops :) biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Apr 09 - 08:12 AM I'd hate to fill his shoes if they were facing Michelle. Yikes! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 02 Apr 09 - 08:25 PM Well, keep a civil tongue in your head, you whippersnapper, or we'll have to give you a dose of Basic Decency, First Lady style. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 02 Apr 09 - 08:29 PM First Lady style ... she didn't even curtsy to the Queen. Barged right in and shook her hand. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 02 Apr 09 - 08:51 PM The Queen rather liked her, I think...gave 'er a little hug and all. I an sure there was no offense intended or taken between the two of them. And she gave her an iPod, remember... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 02 Apr 09 - 08:56 PM An iPod, yeah I heard that ..... kewl. It's probably rigged to emit subliminal messages of some sort. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Apr 09 - 10:36 PM In spite of all of my misgivings about Mrs. Obama, I suspect the Queen probably felt gratified to be treated like a real person for once. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 03 Apr 09 - 10:32 AM I read that she did curtsy and didn't shake the Queen's hand until the Queen extended it to her to shake (which is entirely correct protocol). The hug was initiated by the Queen, and Michelle responded, and the Queen's spokespeople say that is also perfectly correct. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 03 Apr 09 - 10:42 AM Well from the footage I saw she didn't 'curtsy' .... tsk, tsk, tsk Those young ones just don't have any respect these days. The iPod they gave to the Her Majesty (who by the way already has one) contained speeches of Obama ... I hope HRM didn't stay up too long into the wee hours listening to these. also, The Obama's also presented a gift of DVD's to PM Brown. The DVD's were manufactured for North American DVD players. They didn't work in Brown's player. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Amos Date: 03 Apr 09 - 10:47 AM SHe had a mini. The iPOd the PResident gave her is an upgrade. It contains music and footage of her state visit to the US in May 2007. You're overworking your umbrage, pal; it'll collapse out from under you if you keep whipping it like that. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: GUEST,number 6 Date: 03 Apr 09 - 10:58 AM Well ... it certainly looks like you are doing much, much research on this Amos. Keep us up to date with with this stuff. in the meantime ... I really must get back to work here. biLL :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 03 Apr 09 - 10:55 PM Queen Elizabeth I might simply have ordered her head chopped off. One has to wonder if that would be a tragedy, or simply... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 03 Apr 09 - 11:13 PM Michelle was first introduced to the Queen in private, so her curtsy would not have been filmed, and no one but the people in the room would have seen it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 03 Apr 09 - 11:15 PM Also, the iPod that the Obamas gave the Queen contained footage of the Queen's visit to the US. Looks like some folks in this thread have been getting their information from the tabloids. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 04 Apr 09 - 07:45 AM well ... the media is all rather like tabloid material these days ... the truth is hidden away or distorted. She previously had an iPod mini .... geeesh, with all her money you think she would have a Touch or at least a Nano. regardless, I think the Obama's where stiffed in the prezzie exchange. They give a kewl iPod and what did they get in exchange ... a photo of the Queen and Phil. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Apr 09 - 01:13 PM But getting back to the subject at hand, subliminal messages were probably implanted in the iPod for the purpose of putting pressure on the Queen to send more British troops to Afghanistan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 05 Apr 09 - 01:20 PM Exactly rig. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 06 Apr 09 - 06:25 PM Now Obama is in Turkey trying to convince them we're not on the side of the Chickens. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 07 Apr 09 - 09:22 PM It was a play on birds! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: CarolC Date: 07 Apr 09 - 09:55 PM These are dissappointing... "Guantanamo Attorneys Face Possible Prison Time for Letter to Obama Detailing Client's Allegations of Torture Clive-web Attorneys Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour could face six months in a US prison because of a letter they sent to President Obama explaining their client's allegations of torture by US agents. Smith and Ghappour represent Binyam Mohamed, the British resident recently released after seven years in US custody, where he claims he was repeatedly tortured, first in a secret CIA prison and later at Guantanamo." More here... http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/7/guantanamo_attorneys_face_possible_prison_time President Obama is not allowed to see classified information? And then there's this... "Florida Student Arrested by Immigration Three Days After Acquittal on Bomb Charges Youssef-web Immigration officials have arrested a twenty-three-year-old Florida student just three days after a jury acquitted him on federal explosives charges. Youssef Megahed was arrested in the parking lot of a Wal-Mart store Monday, where he had gone shopping with his father. He had just begun a fast to celebrate his acquittal. Megahed's attorneys say he now faces deportation proceedings, apparently on the same charges for which he was found not guilty." More here... http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/7/youseff |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 07 Apr 09 - 10:19 PM It's more than disappointing, it's downright infuriating. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 08 Apr 09 - 08:34 AM If he was in the country illegally, he should be deported. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 08 Apr 09 - 09:52 AM He is a permanent, legal, resident. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 08 Apr 09 - 10:21 AM If that's the case, how could they deport him, and where would they deport him to? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 08 Apr 09 - 05:05 PM As a noncitizen, he is still deportable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 08 Apr 09 - 09:45 PM Well, the way things are, I suppose it makes sense to get anyone out of the country possible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 08 Apr 09 - 11:11 PM more on Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour ... civil liberties villain of the week biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 09 Apr 09 - 06:50 AM The whole thing is insane! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 10 Apr 09 - 10:43 AM Now Obama is approaching Congress for more war money! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: number 6 Date: 10 Apr 09 - 11:06 AM Well ... the title of the thread is "Obama caters to neo-cons - more war. The waring continues and the debt keeps going up and up U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Stringsinger Date: 10 Apr 09 - 02:16 PM There seems to be a difference between what Obama has said in the past and what is now being implemented such as the preservation of wire-tapping and raising more funds for wars. Iraq is about to erupt again and nothing is being done about it. Also, with Wall Street in control of economic policy, we are looking at the acceptance of corporate greed through the aegis of Geithner, Summers and others in the Administration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Apr 09 - 02:19 PM "There seems to be a difference between what Obama has said in the past and what is now being implemented " Ya think????? Maybe we should look back at the election threads and see the reasons that Obama was presumed the better candidate.... Are any of them still valid? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Apr 09 - 02:50 PM before someone says "He's not Bush." "VA Hospital Use Police To Block Vet From Talking To Media April 08, 2009 - Minority veterans showed up at the VA Hospital in D.C. last night to talk about how they're treated. But when WAMU 88.5 reporter David Schultz tried to speak with them, his recording equipment was confiscated and he was detained ...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: beardedbruce Date: 10 Apr 09 - 02:52 PM Patient Accuses VA Hospital of Mistreating Minority Vets April 09, 2009 - A former soldier from Prince Georges County is accusing the Veterans Affairs Hospital in Washington of mistreating him and other minority veterans. Tommie Canady is admitted to the hospital several times a year for treatment of a terminal pancreatic disease and he claims the care he receives is atrocious. On two occasions, he says the same nurse administered an overdose of morphine to him and is still working at the VA. He says he's alive because he's developed a high tolerance to pain medication. He also says he's been denied disability benefits because he is black. Canady tried to tell his story to me during a town meeting, but hospital officials interrupted the interview and confiated WAMU's equipment until the recording was surrendered to them. They claimed Canady and the reporter were required but failed to sign a VA release form. No one at the hospital would comment for this story and the Department of Veterans Affairs central office did not respond to requests for an interview. David Schultz reports... http://wamu.org/news/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: artbrooks Date: 10 Apr 09 - 04:31 PM Prior permission is required to record an interview on VA property. A written release is required to photograph or record a patient, employee or volunteer on VA property. By all the reports - and I read 3 separate ones - it sounds as though the reporter either tried to conduct a recorded interview on the hospital's grounds or to tape a VA town meeting without authorization. Nobody, either the public affairs officer or the VA police officers, laid a hand on him. As a DAV service officer, I probably complete a dozen applications for VA benefits a week. It is impossible to tell what a veteran's skin color is from the application. It is highly unlikely that this individual has been denied anything because of this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 11 Apr 09 - 09:59 AM Well, that's good. That's as it should be. The media reports that veterans of Iraq survive with more serious injuries--at least in the aggregate--than from previous conflicts. I wonder what effect that will have on future care for them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Apr 09 - 09:31 PM Looking at the name of this thread, I was wondering, with some mixed amazement......Then it occurred to me, of course he caters to neo-cons,...being a pretty good con himself! (Sorry, Amos, couldn't resist that one!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Apr 09 - 07:33 AM And, more recently, he is expected to cater to ex-cons, in an attempt to procure for them a vote--where they are denied now. This could end up being one of the downsides of having and inordinately large number of black prisoners in America. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 12 Apr 09 - 10:43 AM Hey Rig, Do you dislike him, because you are conservative?..or what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Stringsinger Date: 12 Apr 09 - 12:01 PM Obama was the better candidate than McCain who was overtly pro-war. McCain and Palin would have been a disaster for the country because they are militarists and beholden to the Industrial Military Complex. Obama may be ambivalent in his Iraq and Afghanistan crusades which are not well thought-out. There is a certain naivete about Obama that is reflected in his opinion of lobbyists for Wall Street and the Pentagon. He is also naive about Blackwater and the so-called "private-pubic" alliances. Unlike McCain, Obama has addressed the issue of care for returning vets. Bush was totally in denial that there was a problem, here. He has publicly addressed other issues of social importance such as education and healthcare which Bush totally ignored. The problem is that there is a built-in assumption by those in government that war solves problems. It only creates them. Iraq is still a disaster in spite of what the propagandists on the public media say. The pursuit of "Al Quada" is tilting at windmills. There are not that many in Afghanistan proportionally. The Taleban can be contained through other means than bombing and annihilation. The real terrorists are the fanatical Right-wing zealots in this country who have threatened violence to solve political problems. The American gun lobby is totally irresponsible in its views about ownership and paranoia about weapons being confiscated. The incidence of gun violence remains higher in this country than any other in the world. We also incarcerate more people than any other country as well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Apr 09 - 12:24 PM "Hey Rig, Do you dislike him, because you are conservative?..or what?" Well, I'm not sure I dislike him--in fact, I don't really dislike him, but some of his policies seem problematic. I'm registered "Green," which goes a long way to explain why I dislike what I anticipate he is about to do about illegal immigration. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Bobert Date: 12 Apr 09 - 01:02 PM The better candidate won... The complexities of the country's many problems would have overwhelmed McCain completely... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 12 Apr 09 - 03:30 PM But we could have kept Henry Paulson! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 13 Apr 09 - 02:10 AM Oh, ok..just asking. As I'm sure you know, I'm not particularly a fan of his. As far as McCain goes, his bailout support, to the guys who were doing something similar to his crap(Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal) sure makes it a whole lot of difference, between what we were voting for, in this last election!?!?..you know, between Biden, Obama, McCain and Palin...possibly, the closest to the 'cleanest' was Palin. Now that's interesting.........sorta... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Bobert Date: 13 Apr 09 - 07:42 AM So, GfS, ya' think that Sarah Palin is better prepared to ;ead the country thru the mine field that Bush has left in his wake??? Jus' askin'??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Obama caters to neo-cons - more war From: Riginslinger Date: 13 Apr 09 - 09:48 PM Personally, I think you need to get rid of the Democrats and the Republicans to find somebody to clean up the mess. They're all part of it. But I think Dennis Kucinich had the right idea on the war(s), and Ron Paul was right on the economy. |
