Furies that will haunt his Presidency
Dionysus
HEAD: Presidential Poison
SUB-HEAD: His invitation to indict Bush officials will haunt Obama's
Presidency
Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance
of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the
prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President
Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will
live to regret.
Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics.
Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama's victory
in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations,
Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least
until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new
Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is
what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is
treated merely as an extension of political power.
If this analogy seems excessive, consider how Mr. Obama has framed the
issue. He has absolved CIA operatives of any legal jeopardy, no doubt
because his intelligence advisers told him how damaging that would be to CIA
morale when Mr. Obama needs the agency to protect the country. But he has
pointedly invited investigations against Republican legal advisers who
offered their best advice at the request of CIA officials.
"Your intelligence indicates that there is currently a level of 'chatter'
equal to that which preceded the September 11 attacks," wrote Assistant
Attorney General Jay Bybee, in his August 1, 2002 memo. "In light of the
information you believe [detainee Abu] Zubaydah has and the high level of
threat you believe now exists, you wish to move the interrogations into what
you have described as an 'increased pressure phase.'"
So the CIA requests a legal review at a moment of heightened danger, the
Justice Department obliges with an exceedingly detailed analysis of the law
and interrogation practices -- and, seven years later, Mr. Obama says only
the legal advisers who are no longer in government should be investigated.
The political convenience of this distinction for Mr. Obama betrays its
basic injustice. And by the way, everyone agrees that senior officials,
including President Bush, approved these interrogations. Is this President
going to put his predecessor in the dock too?
Mr. Obama seemed to understand the peril of such an exercise when he said,
before his inauguration, that he wanted to "look forward" and beyond the
antiterror debates of the Bush years. As recently as Sunday, Rahm Emanuel
said no prosecutions were contemplated and now is not a time for "anger and
retribution." Two days later the President disavowed his own chief of staff.
Yet nothing had changed except that Mr. Obama's decision last week to
release the interrogation memos unleashed a revenge lust on the political
left that he refuses to resist.
Just as with the AIG bonuses, he is trying to co-opt his left-wing base by
playing to it -- only to encourage it more. Within hours of Mr. Obama's
Tuesday comments, Senator Carl Levin piled on with his own accusatory
Intelligence Committee report. The demands for a "special counsel" at
Justice and a Congressional show trial are louder than ever, and both
Europe's left and the U.N. are signaling their desire to file their own
charges against former U.S. officials.
Those officials won't be the only ones who suffer if all of this goes
forward. Congress will face questions about what the Members knew and when,
especially Nancy Pelosi when she was on the House Intelligence Committee in
2002. The Speaker now says she remembers hearing about waterboarding, though
not that it would actually be used. Does anyone believe that? Porter Goss,
her GOP counterpart at the time, says he knew exactly what he was hearing
and that, if anything, Ms. Pelosi worried the CIA wasn't doing enough to
stop another attack. By all means, put her under oath.
Mr. Obama may think he can soar above all of this, but he'll soon learn
otherwise. The Beltway's political energy will focus more on the spectacle
of revenge, and less on his agenda. The CIA will have its reputation
smeared, and its agents second-guessing themselves. And if there is another
terror attack against Americans, Mr. Obama will have set himself up for the
argument that his campaign against the Bush policies is partly to blame.
Above all, the exercise will only embitter Republicans, including the
moderates and national-security hawks Mr. Obama may need in the next four
years. As patriotic officials who acted in good faith are indicted, smeared,
impeached from judgeships or stripped of their academic tenure, the partisan
anger and backlash will grow. And speaking of which, when will the GOP
Members of Congress begin to denounce this partisan scapegoating? Senior
Republicans like Mitch McConnell, Richard Lugar, John McCain, Orrin Hatch,
Pat Roberts and Arlen Specter have hardly been profiles in courage.
Mr. Obama is more popular than his policies, due in part to his personal
charm and his seeming goodwill. By indulging his party's desire to
criminalize policy advice, he has unleashed furies that will haunt his
Presidency.
*******************
God, I hope so.
I stand with Rush; I want B.O.,The Narcissistic Fascist son of a bitch, to
fail!
Never forget, Obamanation = Fascist Dystopia.
I fight for my republic
Dionysus
wyn...@idirect.com
Go take your meds - torture enabler.
Trident
zzpat
> FROM WSJ
>
> HEAD: Presidential Poison
>
> SUB-HEAD: His invitation to indict Bush officials will haunt Obama's
> Presidency
>
> Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any
> chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By
> inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal
> advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that
> he and the country will live to regret.
>
> Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics.
Political disputes? It's called the law. Your guys broke it. Be a man
and admit it.
--
The Legacy of Bush and Conservatism
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/
Google Custom Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm
nospam
>Dionysus wrote:
>> FROM WSJ
>>
>> HEAD: Presidential Poison
>>
>> SUB-HEAD: His invitation to indict Bush officials will haunt Obama's
>> Presidency
>>
>> Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any
>> chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By
>> inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal
>> advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that
>> he and the country will live to regret.
>>
>> Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics.
>
>
>Political disputes? It's called the law. Your guys broke it. Be a man
>and admit it.
The prosecution of those involved in our present crisis,
investigations going back at least 4 presidential administrations, has
to be done. If not,, present and future powers could think they are
unstoppable.
All unconstitutional actions should be reviewed and made clear so,
made of no consequence. Lawbreakers punished equal, to the
potentials of their proposals. Some of these may be HIGH CRIMES, so
punished accordingly, compared to. what's already being done to
breakers of minor infractions.
We don't want the North American Union be above the law as, the
federal reserve thinks it is.
The more I know, the more I know - I don't know.
Dionysus
"zzpat" <zzpa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gssct...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Dionysus wrote:
>> FROM WSJ
>>
>> HEAD: Presidential Poison
>>
>> SUB-HEAD: His invitation to indict Bush officials will haunt Obama's
>> Presidency
>>
>> Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any
>> chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By
>> inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal
>> advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he
>> and the country will live to regret.
>>
>> Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics.
>
>
> Political disputes? It's called the law. Your guys broke it. Be a man
> and admit it.
All-l-l-l-l-l right, Zippy, which is it to be, "policy disputes" or
"political disputes"? (sotto voce) Too easy!
Dionysus