Tag: Bush

The Obligatory "Nancy Pelosi supposedly knew about Torture" Posting

Honestly, I would rather be getting a root canal without any anesthesia, than to have to blog about this. But everyone else is, so, here goes!

ABC NEWS Blog “The Note” reports the following:

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was briefed on the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on terrorist suspect Abu Zubaydah in September 2002, according to a report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence’s office and obtained by ABC News.

The report, submitted to the Senate Intelligence Committee and other Capitol Hill officials Wednesday, appears to contradict Pelosi’s statement last month that she was never told about the use of waterboarding or other special interrogation tactics. Instead, she has said, she was told only that the Bush administration had legal opinions that would have supported the use of such techniques.

The report details a Sept. 4, 2002 meeting between intelligence officials and Pelosi, then-House intelligence committee chairman Porter Goss, and two aides. At the time, Pelosi was the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

The meeting is described as a “Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of particular EITs that had been employed.”

EITs stand for “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a classification of special interrogation tactics that includes waterboarding.

Of course, everyone on the right is jumping up and down  and saying, “See we told you so!” Don’t count me in with that crowd, please. When it comes to this entire issue; I am a fence sitter. On one hand, I hate to know that a fellow human being is being tortured. But on the other hand, I also know what happened on September 11, 2001, and please; do not come in here and spout that stupid Alex Jones bullcrap about 9/11 being an inside job, okay? I am just not that simple-minded to believe that idiotic nonsense.  The truth is that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Muslim extremists who hate our Country and for what we stand for;  they also happened because of our interventionist foreign policy and because of our occupation of parts of Arab peninsula. Further, the attacks were a revenge attack on United States because of the actions of the United States in the 1980’s. Osama Bin Ladin said that in one of his many tapes. This is NOT to say that the United States had it coming or anything of that sort. It is simply the bare, and sometimes ugly; truth.

Now back to the story at hand, there are some, mostly liberals who have problems with this story. Emptywheel, for example seems to believe that the CIA is lying about the briefings. I won’t quote here, what’s being said there. Because there is just so much to read. I’d advise everyone to just go over and read what is being said there.

The truth is folks, I do not believe we will ever know the truth about what happened, and who knew what when. I am sorry if that busts any balloons or anything of that sort. Our Government has a very good track record of covering up secrets and quite frankly covering it’s backside to the point of burying the truth. So for those who were hoping that Bush and Co. would be prosecuted. I hate to be the one to say this, but you are in for a big letdown. I knew this was coming; I blogged about a great deal of times. Obama will not go after the former President and his staff and cabinet. Obama just will not burn the political capital. President Obama would rather risk being a one-term President, than try and go after a former President and his staff. It just never has been done. Nor will it ever.

If the Obama Administration told holder to open an investigation as to “Who knew what, when…” when it came to the 9/11 attacks, The Iraq War, and the torture stuff. Both Parties; Democratic and Republican would be utterly destroyed and stripped void of any credibility that they still have now.  That is something that the Obama Administration is simply not going to allow to happen. Because both of these political parties want to maintain their grip on a two party system in this Country. One Party may talk about wanted to see the other destroyed. But they know how long their leash is, and when it reaches it max length, the parties that be know when to get back into line.

So, I feel that this all just a big witch hunt, to distract us from the real issues. Like the state of our economy and so forth.

The Southern Avenger on "Tea Parties vs. The Warfare State"

How in praising the tea parties one week, then defending President Bush on torture and his “War on Terror” the next, conservatives negate their alleged anti-government message.

The Southern Avanger’s Blog

The Southern Avenger @ Taki’s Magazine

The Obligtory Obama Released the torture memos posting

Yes, I know about it.  Go make a video for a few hours and the world does the 360 and starts talking about something else.

I hate to be the one that says, “I told you so!”  But…

I did. I knew Obama would not prosecute anyone. Why? Because he knew that he would be hurting those who are keeping us safe. Well, are supposed to be anyhow.

Yes, I know what they did was wrong. Yes, I know the crap that they did was borderline crazy. Yes, I know they should be, but they won’t be, because President Obama fears the backlash. The problem with this, is that Obama will be castigated by the far left, and by many Libertarians that were stupid enough to vote for him, for not going through with the prosecutions.

Basically Obama said this:

The Department of Justice will today release certain memos issued by the Office of Legal Counsel between 2002 and 2005 as part of an ongoing court case. These memos speak to techniques that were used in the interrogation of terrorism suspects during that period, and their release is required by the rule of law.

My judgment on the content of these memos is a matter of record. In one of my very first acts as President, I prohibited the use of these interrogation techniques by the United States because they undermine our moral authority and do not make us safer. Enlisting our values in the protection of our people makes us stronger and more secure. A democracy as resilient as ours must reject the false choice between our security and our ideals, and that is why these methods of interrogation are already a thing of the past.

But that is not what compelled the release of these legal documents today. While I believe strongly in transparency and accountability, I also believe that in a dangerous world, the United States must sometimes carry out intelligence operations and protect information that is classified for purposes of national security. I have already fought for that principle in court and will do so again in the future. However, after consulting with the Attorney General, the Director of National Intelligence, and others, I believe that exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release.

First, the interrogation techniques described in these memos have already been widely reported. Second, the previous Administration publicly acknowledged portions of the program – and some of the practices – associated with these memos. Third, I have already ended the techniques described in the memos through an Executive Order. Therefore, withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time. This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States.

In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution. The men and women of our intelligence community serve courageously on the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single American is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.

Going forward, it is my strong belief that the United States has a solemn duty to vigorously maintain the classified nature of certain activities and information related to national security. This is an extraordinarily important responsibility of the presidency, and it is one that I will carry out assertively irrespective of any political concern. Consequently, the exceptional circumstances surrounding these memos should not be viewed as an erosion of the strong legal basis for maintaining the classified nature of secret activities. I will always do whatever is necessary to protect the national security of the United States.

This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future.

The United States is a nation of laws. My Administration will always act in accordance with those laws, and with an unshakeable commitment to our ideals. That is why we have released these memos, and that is why we have taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again. – Via NYT

The major backlash has already started, and it will interesting to follow.

Of Idologues, Realists and, uh, Neo-Cons. Seriously.

Over at The American Conservative, Daniel Larison writes regarding Jeff Goldberg‘s latest attempt at Conservative punditry:

The way to tell an ideologue from a realist, and the reason realists are not simply ideologues posing as something else, is that the ideologue will persist in a course of action long after it has failed and long after everyone knows it has failed because he thinks that his “values” demand it. Instead of “let justice be done, though the heavens fall,” the ideologue says, “I am right, and the world can go to hell if it doesn’t agree.” The ideologue is terrified of having to make adjustments and adapt to the world as it really is, because these adjustments reveal to the ideologue just how far removed from that reality he has become. The ideologue keeps redefining the justification for the policy, he keeps rewriting history to suit his own purposes, and he never accepts responsibility for the failure of his ideas, because he believes they have never been faithfully followed. For the realist, cutting one’s losses and reassessing the merits of a policy are always supposed to be possibilities, but for the ideologue the former is equivalent to surrender and the latter is inconceivable. In his greatest confusion of all, Goldberg manages to mix up realists with their opposites.

Gosh is he ever right. I have never quite understood the whole “Defend Israel to the death!” mantra that emanates from those Neo-Conservative cesspools. Only thing further I can add to that, is what was described above is basically what the George W. Bush Administration was for the last 8 years. Ideology that was out of touch with the rest of the World. Believe me when I say this; I am no fan of Islam or the Islamification of America. But Iraq was a unneeded diversion from the REAL war on terror that was in Afghanistan; even now, there are signs that we might just have squandered that opportunity.

The thing that I detest so greatly about the Neo-Conservatives is the whole, “You’re either with us or your an Anti-American” bit that was put on those of us, who felt Iraq was just wrong; that and the whole playing of the race card towards anyone that spoke out against the Iraq war or the Neo-Conservatives foreign policy stance. A foreign policy; that while it may have kept us safe in the short term, in the long term, it makes more hated, and more vulnerable to attack, both here and abroad.

This is why I go out of my way to identify myself with the Paleo-Conservative right, and not your “Weekly Standard” Neo-Conservative right.  Because I disagree with the Bush Doctrine, the Iraq War and the whole idea of Christians aligning themselves with unbelievers; otherwise known as Jews, to support a Country that Christians, that is if they’re even truly Saved will somehow occupy once Christ returns for his Church. Which is pretty funny, considering the Bible says he will create a New Heaven and New Earth.

Just my two cents. 😀

While I can sympathize with my Christian Brethren, they are wrong…

Full Disclosure: I am a Christian, if you’ll read my “about me” section on here, you will see here I stand doctrinally.  To be clear, I am not active in a Church anywhere at the moment. But I still believe.

An Interesting quote from the Christian Newswire, by a Robert Peters who the President of  Morality in Media, commenting on passage on the Gay Marriage Iowa and the shootings in New York:

“Having lived in New York City for more than 30 years, I am all too aware of the harm that firearms in the hands of criminals can cause. Having grown up in a small town in Illinois, where citizens owned guns without misusing them, I am also aware that guns aren’t the underlying problem. I am not an opponent of gun regulation; I am an opponent of making guns the scapegoat for mass murder.

“The underlying problem is that increasingly we live in a ‘post-Christian’ society, where Judeo-Christian faith and values have less and less influence. Among other things, Judaism and Christianity taught that murder was wrong and that included murder motivated by anger, hatred and revenge. Both religions also taught that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves and to forgive others.

“For many citizens, what has replaced Judeo-Christian faith and values is the secular value system that is reflected in films, rap/music lyrics, and videogames and on TV and now the Internet, where the taking of human life for just about any reason is commonplace and is often portrayed in an appealing manner and in realistic detail. Murder motivated by hatred and revenge is also justified.

“This secular value system is also reflected in the ‘sexual revolution,’ which is the driving force behind the push for ‘gay marriage;’ and the Iowa Supreme Court decision is another indication that despite all the damage this revolution has caused to children, adults, family life and society (think abortion, divorce, pornography, rape, sexual abuse of children, sexually transmitted diseases, trafficking in women and children, unwed teen mothers and more), it continues to advance relentlessly.

“It most certainly is not my intention to blame the epidemic of mass murders on the gay rights movement! It is my intention to point out that the success of the sexual revolution is inversely proportional to the decline in morality; and it is the decline of morality (and the faith that so often under girds it) that is the underlying cause of our modern day epidemic of mass murders.

“I would add that if conservative media’s irresponsible talk of revolution can ‘poison weak minds,’ the liberal entertainment media’s irresponsible portrayal of mayhem can also poison weak minds.”

Also, Pastor Eric Schumacher comments over at Baptist Press also comments as to how Christians should handle the situation as well; and I must admit, I agree with his way of doing things as well. Let me just say that these arguments may work in the realm of Christianity and in the Church World, these arguments, unfortunately, fall flat in the secular society that we live in today.  Donald Douglas over at American power weighs in on this:

While I agree with the main points of the religious morality angle, I don’t think that argument will prevail amid the growing hegemony of secularism Peters decries. A powerful secular case can be made against same-sex marriage, based in the logic of biological reproduction and the regeneration of societies. The gay marriage extremists can do little to change the logic of social reproduction and the facts of biological procreation. To win the argument, gay radicals have to argue in denial of the fact that social institutions are normatively substantiated in such terms. The left has yet to do so, of course, which is why the notion of “same-sex marriage” remains a fantastic radical progressive ideological construct.

I hate to say it, but I do agree. (Mark your calendars, this does not happen often at all.) The reason all this is happening is because the Religious right made the gay marriage thing a “Hot button” topic years ago. One of the worst things, I believe, that happened was the melting together of Religion and Conservative politics, this happened in the 1980’s with the whole “God and Country” movement. I remember it well, as I was a young lad that grew up in that era. Before this, Christianity and Conservative politics were two very different worlds. President Ronald Reagan and his whole “Reagan Revolution” changed all that, some say for the worse.

Let me give you an example of why I believe this is so very wrong. You see, years ago, Christians did not want to be have a voice in Government. This quote is from a book called “The Trail of Blood”, which was written by Dr. James Milton Carroll, in 1931; it is taken from the fifth lecture in the book:

24. Some serious questions have many times been asked concerning the Baptists: Would they, as a denomination, have accepted from any nation or state an offer of “establishment” if such nation or state had freely made them such an offer? And would they in case they had accepted such an offer, have become persecutors of others like Catholics or Episcopals, or Lutherans or Presbyterians, or Congregationalists? Probably a little consideration of such questions now would not be amiss. Have the Baptists, as a fact, ever had such an opportunity?

Is it not recorded in history, that on one occasion, the King of the Netherlands (the Netherlands at that time embracing Norway and Sweden, Belgium, Holland, and Denmark) had under serious consideration the question of having an established religion? Their kingdom at that period was surrounded on almost all sides by nations or governments with established religions, religions supported by the Civil Government.

It is stated that the King of Holland appointed a committee to examine into the claims of all existing churches or denominations to see which had the best claim to be the New Testament Church. The committee reported back that the Baptists were the best representatives of New Testament teachings. Then the King offered to make the Baptist “the established” church or denomination of his kingdom. The Baptists kindly thanked him but declined, stating that it was contrary to their fundamental convictions and principles.

But this was not the only opportunity they ever had of having their denomination the established religion of a people. They certainly had that opportunity when Rhode Island Colony was founded. And to have persecuted others, that would have been an impossibility if they were to continue being Baptists. They were the original advocates of “Religious Liberty.” That really is one of the fundamental articles of their religious faith. They believed in the absolute separation of church and state.

This is what Christians should believe in. Christians never should have ever attempted to meddle in the affairs of the Government, as Christians are supposed to be about “The Father’s Business”. (Luke 2:49, 1 Thess 4:11) While I believe it is important to be aware of what is happening in our Government, the idea that Baptists and Christians alike are to try and sway Government into a theocracy is totally wrong, and goes against what Christians and yes, even Baptists of old practiced.

I hate to say, but the Christianity community seriously messed up in the 1980’s with the whole Reagan revolution, and we are going to pay a dreadful price for it. The sick and sad part is, George W. Bush and his Neo-Conservative friends, harvested and took full advantage of that crop during his tenure in the White House, and because of this, the Republican Party and Conservatism as a whole will pay for that.

It is going to be a bleak, long four years in a America. 🙁

Obama says "We're not at war with Islam"

I really don’t get why this is new, as Bush said this as well. But Here goes!:

Barack Obama, making his first visit to a Muslim nation as president, declared Monday the United States “is not and will never be at war with Islam.”

Urging a greater partnership with the Islamic world in an address to the Turkish parliament, Obama called the country an important U.S. ally in many areas, including the fight against terrorism. He devoted much of his speech to urging a greater bond between Americans and Muslims, portraying terrorist groups such as al Qaida as extremists who do not represent the vast majority of Muslims.

“Let me say this as clearly as I can,” Obama said. “The United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical … in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.”

The U.S. president is trying to mend fences with a Muslim world that felt it had been blamed by America for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

via Obama declares US not at war with Islam- AP.

From what I understand there are some that are not happy about the statement underlined above. Ed Morrissey weighs in here:

Obama spoke in the tradition established by Bush over the last seven-plus years of emphasizing that America did not declare war on Islam.  That’s been obvious through our partnership with Islamic nations, such as Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, just to name a few.  And he’s right; the last thing we would want to do would be to declare war on a billion people just on the basis of their religion.  The more we can keep the Muslims on the sidelines, the better off we are in fighting against the radicals.

However, the AP wants to pretend that this is some new effort by the US to assure Muslims of our intentions.  It decidedly is not, and perhaps a mention that Bush tried making these same assurances for almost his entire presidency would be in order here.

Well Ed, When your name is George and you are a Christian white man from Texas, it is a bit harder to sell that idea. Let’s face it; Obama is a black man with a Islamic middle name, it’s just going to be easier to sell that idea for President Obama; than it was for President Bush. I believe the majority of “Americanized” Muslims understood this, but it was the Muslims abroad that felt it was an attack on the Islamic Faith.

I just hope that Obama is able to make that sell. Because the last thing we need is war with Islam itself.

The Southern Avenger on "Steadfast Sanford"

When hundreds of protesters showed up at the South Carolina statehouse to protest Gov. Mark Sanford’s refusal to accept $700 million in federal stimulus, it was worth noting how Sanford doesn’t represent economic disaster – but perhaps the only chance we’ve got.

The Article referenced in this Video is found here

The Southern Avenger’s Blog

The Southern Avanger @ Taki’s Magazine

Barry gets the Queen of England….. An iPod

First he insults Gordon Brown and now the queen. Wow, at the rate this guy is going. We’ll be at war with everyone before it’s over.

Barack Obama met the Queen at Buckingham Palace today and gave her a gift of an iPod loaded with video footage and photographs of her 2007 United States visit to Richmond, Jamestown and Williamsburg in Virginia. In return, the Queen gave the President a silver framed signed photograph of herself and the Duke of Edinburgh – apparently a standard present for visiting dignitaries.

It is believed the Queen already has an iPod, a 6GB silver Mini version she is said to have bought in 2005 at the suggestion of Prince Andrew.

UPDATE: Pool reporter Richard Wolf of USA Today says that an Obama aide told him the President also gave the Queen a “rare songbook signed by Richard Rodgers”. END UPDATE

via Barack Obama’s gift for the Queen: an iPod, your Majesty :: Toby Harnden.

Smooth move there Mr. big ears. But honestly, can’t be no worse than what Bush did in the past.

Others: : The Caucus, NY Daily News, Liberal Values, AMERICAN DIGEST, Gateway Pundit, Stop The ACLU, The Foundry, The New Republic, Christian Science Monitor, The Sundries Shack, PoliGazette, The TrogloPundit, DISSENTING JUSTICE, The Impolitic, Hot Air, Political Machine and Fausta’s Blog

The Southern Avenger on "9/11 Truths"

How “911 Truth” conspiracy theorists who believe the U.S. government orchestrated 911, aren’t any more “crazy” than those who believe Saddam Hussein did.

The Southern Avenger’s Blog

The Southern Avenger @ Taki’s Magazine