Seven years after the whole world knew the U.S. conducted harsh interrogations, and five years after Obama banned it by executive order, Senator Dianne Feinstein wants to do one more autopsy on the topic by declassifying and releasing a summary report that she had previously commissioned. In her explanation in wanting to do so, she said it would "ensure that an un-American, brutal program of detention and interrogation will never again be considered or permitted." Of course, the release of the report will only serve to put the total blame on the Bush Administration and all other Republicans who will naturally be guilty by association for such an "un-American" and "brutal program."
But here's the back story on this whole "interrogation" mess.
First of all, Feinstein could have released such a report at any time over the last five years that she has served as chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence. But, she only elected to do so this year, an election year, when the Senate Democrats are in serious trouble.
Of course, what that report won't show is how complicit Democrats were in allowing those interrogation techniques; going all the way back to 2002. Nor, will it take us back to the emotions of the days and weeks following 9/11 or recreate the shock and fear we experienced. Americans demanded any and all measures that would make us feel safe again. Of course, this response was no different than this country's detention of Japanese Americans during World War II. Another dark time in our past that should never be repeated.
Knowing Obama and how totally political he is, he will probably issue an executive order that declassifies the report and, as such, exposes interrogation techniques that could be used sometime in the future, against our own soldiers, or by one country against another. This is why the report has been classified all along. Simply, there are some things that should not be common knowledge.
References:
Hill (Democrats) Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html
Hayden thinks Feinstein's 'emotional' opposition to CIA interrogations taints report: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/06/hayden-thinks-feinstein-emotional-opposition-to-cia-interrogations-taints/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/06/hayden-thinks-feinstein-emotional-opposition-to-cia-interrogations-taints/
Showing posts with label CIA Interrogations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIA Interrogations. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Monday, August 31, 2009
Not For A Political Agenda?
(see note below on this video's usage)
Please excuse me while I try to stop laughing!
On ABC's This Week (Click to See Full Story and the complete video of John Kerry's appearance on ABC's This Week), John Kerry seems to believe that Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to pursue the "investigation and trial" of CIA interrogators is being done for the rule of law and "not" political reasons. First, career people in the justice department have already reviewed the interrogation techniques and an have already come to the conclusion that what they did was not illegal. Simply, Eric Holder (and this President) are doing this because the far left of their party wants a pound of flesh from the Bush-led CIA; a group they have always hated and have always attempted to emasculate.
What is really laughable the Kerry comment about Holder's adherence to the law and not to politics.
Eric Holder is the same person who advised the then-President, Bill Clinton, to give a pardon to Marc Rich because of his campaign contributions and because of his wife's Democratic party activities. Marc Rich was a fugitive who completely avoided going to trial. Normally, pardons are given to people who have been brought to justice, have been found gilty, and, typically, served some jail time. But, not in this case. Instead, Marc Rich is Scott-free without even having to face trial for his offenses. All for politics and not-hardly for the rule of law. (Click to See Wikipedia Story on Marc Rich)
With stupidity like this, it is obvious why Kerry didn't win the Presidency; and, that's despite George W. Bush being so unpopular in the polls!
Note: This video is being presented on the basis that it can be used without permission because it meets the Fair Use conditions of our Copyright Laws regarding opinion and education. As required, the source of this video is clearly stated in the main paragraph of this blog entry. Additionally,this blog is a non-commercial entity.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Obama's Speech On National Security
I just couldn't let this one pass by waiting to comment on it this weekend.
In another one of his "I'll make it all better with another one my patented B.S. speeches," Obama decided to give a near-impromptu speech on national security that everybody knew was an attempt to try and stomp on Cheney's speech that was already scheduled and that was to be given at that very time on the very same topic. But, Cheney smartly held his speech so that he could precisely counter everything that Obama was expected to say. Obama felt that he had to give this speech because, in the public forum, he was losing ground on the issue of national security to Cheney. Yesterday, Democrats and Republicans, alike, handed Obama a stunning defeat by not funding the closure of Guantanamo Bay. With Obama's national security policies looking pretty tarnished, Obama's only remaining tactic was to give a speech that would basically say that the previous Administration had made security decisions that were done in "haste" and without "forethought" and that had made this country less safe.
My only comment to that statement are these few examples of Obama missteps.
Obama, without any logic or forethought, was prepared to release interrogation photos that everybody in the world, except Obama, knew would result in a backlash that could jeopardize the lives and the safety of our soldiers, our diplomats, and our citizens around the world. Days before the release, he finally put some thought into his previous decision and decided to backtrack and not release those photos. Thank God he figured it out before his prior hasty decision became a disaster.
While on the campaign trail last year, Obama said he would abandon military tribunals to bring Guantanamo detainees to justice. After three months in office and, finally, with some actual and intelligent thought, he decided to proceed with the policy of the Bush Administration to try those detainees with military tribunals. Once again, it appears that Obama's mouth was running faster than his brain!
Two days after being in office, he declared that he would close Guantanamo Bay (a.k.a. Gitmo ) in one year. Now, a third of the way into that promise, he and his people are still clueless as to the "how" of closing that facility. That's why the United States Senate, yesterday, with a vote of 90 to 6, voted "no" to any funding without seeing a plan. If asking for money without a plan isn't haste and a lack of forethought then, I don't know what is. How much do you want to bet, that a year from now, Guantanamo will still be open and Obama will be giving another one of his speeches to make it "seem" like it was a good thing that we, not he, didn't close Gitmo?
To me, this blog survives because everything Obama does has been done, in my opinion, without any forethought. Haste? Well, you be the judge? He's only been in office for four months and he has made major decisions that may absolutely kill the economic and national security future of this country. Is that forethought? For this guy to criticize the Bush Administration for its haste and a lack of forethought is just laughable. Before Obama can claim that we are any more secure with his policies, he will have to back that statement up with time; not just four months of saying that it's so. For the last 7 years, we have been safe under the policies of Bush. Let's see how safe we are in the next three and three-quarters years that are still remaining in this guy's term in office!
In another one of his "I'll make it all better with another one my patented B.S. speeches," Obama decided to give a near-impromptu speech on national security that everybody knew was an attempt to try and stomp on Cheney's speech that was already scheduled and that was to be given at that very time on the very same topic. But, Cheney smartly held his speech so that he could precisely counter everything that Obama was expected to say. Obama felt that he had to give this speech because, in the public forum, he was losing ground on the issue of national security to Cheney. Yesterday, Democrats and Republicans, alike, handed Obama a stunning defeat by not funding the closure of Guantanamo Bay. With Obama's national security policies looking pretty tarnished, Obama's only remaining tactic was to give a speech that would basically say that the previous Administration had made security decisions that were done in "haste" and without "forethought" and that had made this country less safe.
My only comment to that statement are these few examples of Obama missteps.
Obama, without any logic or forethought, was prepared to release interrogation photos that everybody in the world, except Obama, knew would result in a backlash that could jeopardize the lives and the safety of our soldiers, our diplomats, and our citizens around the world. Days before the release, he finally put some thought into his previous decision and decided to backtrack and not release those photos. Thank God he figured it out before his prior hasty decision became a disaster.
While on the campaign trail last year, Obama said he would abandon military tribunals to bring Guantanamo detainees to justice. After three months in office and, finally, with some actual and intelligent thought, he decided to proceed with the policy of the Bush Administration to try those detainees with military tribunals. Once again, it appears that Obama's mouth was running faster than his brain!
Two days after being in office, he declared that he would close Guantanamo Bay (a.k.a. Gitmo ) in one year. Now, a third of the way into that promise, he and his people are still clueless as to the "how" of closing that facility. That's why the United States Senate, yesterday, with a vote of 90 to 6, voted "no" to any funding without seeing a plan. If asking for money without a plan isn't haste and a lack of forethought then, I don't know what is. How much do you want to bet, that a year from now, Guantanamo will still be open and Obama will be giving another one of his speeches to make it "seem" like it was a good thing that we, not he, didn't close Gitmo?
To me, this blog survives because everything Obama does has been done, in my opinion, without any forethought. Haste? Well, you be the judge? He's only been in office for four months and he has made major decisions that may absolutely kill the economic and national security future of this country. Is that forethought? For this guy to criticize the Bush Administration for its haste and a lack of forethought is just laughable. Before Obama can claim that we are any more secure with his policies, he will have to back that statement up with time; not just four months of saying that it's so. For the last 7 years, we have been safe under the policies of Bush. Let's see how safe we are in the next three and three-quarters years that are still remaining in this guy's term in office!
Thursday, May 14, 2009
AP's Bush Hating Continues
The above is a sampling of headlines from most of the major news outlets on the Internet with regard to Nancy Pelosi's latest iteration on her ignorance of the CIA interrogation techniques. Only the Associated Press (AP) has sought fit to twist Nancy Pelosi's comments by blaming George W. Bush in its headline -- something that no other agency sought fit to do! Even the far left, always-Bush-hating New York Times and MSNBC legitimately and appropriately left Bush out of their headlines.
In my blog, I have consistently caught AP in their attempts to smear George W. Bush -- a habit that it seems they still can't break!
UPDATE: As of this evening, AP has dropped "Bush" from the headlines and now is in line with all the other news agencies.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Why Revealing CIA Techniques is So Wrong.
We have a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) because we need to have our ears and eyes on the world to search out and uncover those who would do this country harm.
Forgetting about harsh interrogations for the moment, almost everything that the CIA does is illegal. They plant bugs, eavesdrop, and spy on the activities of other countries. They access and steal a country's classified documents. They have, in the past, conducted covert operations that could result in the overthrow and possible death of some of the world's nastiest leaders. And, yes, they have "taken people out" for strategic reason that would benefit this country. Because what they do is so illegal, their own lives are at constant risk.
When Francis Gary Powers was shot down over Russia, a key CIA operation of U-2 overflights was exposed. Besides taking a big P.R. hit on the world stage, the exposure of the U-2 capability completely obsoleted that spying capability. In the same way, the release of the Bush-era interrogation memos have killed the effectiveness of any interrogations in the future. Like the U-2 exposure, we have just had another hand tied behind our backs.
Furthermore, the CIA is now on notice that illegal activities won't be tolerated by Obama and the Democrats. What message does that send to an agency who almost exclusively operates outside the law. The last time I checked, I couldn't find any country in this world who has made spying on them a legal activity. In most every nation, spying is punishable by death. In this country, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in 1953 for spying on our atomic weapons program.
Thanks to Obama and his release of those interrogation memos, we have now emasculated all of our CIA operations. Almost everyone in the CIA, or anyone even involved with the CIA, will not be willing to take any risk, even if they know that risk could produce results that would protect this country. To the nonsensical Democrats, they seem to think this will make our country stronger. But, nothing could be farther from the truth.
Furthermore, I believe those memos are probably the best Taliban and Al Qaeda recruiting tools that have ever been designed. Prior to those memos, we had a form of psychological leverage because the enemy didn't know what techniques were actually used to "crack" the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Now, they know that we had doctors in attendance and that we severely limited those techniques so no physical harm took place. In their minds, now, they know they have nothing to fear if ever captured by the United States. Additionally, the purveyors of propaganda against this country will use those memos (and the photos to be released later next month) as a rallying cry against this country. Those memos and pictures will be used to show that America hates Muslims and that this is what they do to all Muslims. Just mark my words!
Lastly, I think if we are attacked again, it's Obama and the Democrats who can shoulder all the blame for it.
Forgetting about harsh interrogations for the moment, almost everything that the CIA does is illegal. They plant bugs, eavesdrop, and spy on the activities of other countries. They access and steal a country's classified documents. They have, in the past, conducted covert operations that could result in the overthrow and possible death of some of the world's nastiest leaders. And, yes, they have "taken people out" for strategic reason that would benefit this country. Because what they do is so illegal, their own lives are at constant risk.
When Francis Gary Powers was shot down over Russia, a key CIA operation of U-2 overflights was exposed. Besides taking a big P.R. hit on the world stage, the exposure of the U-2 capability completely obsoleted that spying capability. In the same way, the release of the Bush-era interrogation memos have killed the effectiveness of any interrogations in the future. Like the U-2 exposure, we have just had another hand tied behind our backs.
Furthermore, the CIA is now on notice that illegal activities won't be tolerated by Obama and the Democrats. What message does that send to an agency who almost exclusively operates outside the law. The last time I checked, I couldn't find any country in this world who has made spying on them a legal activity. In most every nation, spying is punishable by death. In this country, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed in 1953 for spying on our atomic weapons program.
Thanks to Obama and his release of those interrogation memos, we have now emasculated all of our CIA operations. Almost everyone in the CIA, or anyone even involved with the CIA, will not be willing to take any risk, even if they know that risk could produce results that would protect this country. To the nonsensical Democrats, they seem to think this will make our country stronger. But, nothing could be farther from the truth.
Furthermore, I believe those memos are probably the best Taliban and Al Qaeda recruiting tools that have ever been designed. Prior to those memos, we had a form of psychological leverage because the enemy didn't know what techniques were actually used to "crack" the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Now, they know that we had doctors in attendance and that we severely limited those techniques so no physical harm took place. In their minds, now, they know they have nothing to fear if ever captured by the United States. Additionally, the purveyors of propaganda against this country will use those memos (and the photos to be released later next month) as a rallying cry against this country. Those memos and pictures will be used to show that America hates Muslims and that this is what they do to all Muslims. Just mark my words!
Lastly, I think if we are attacked again, it's Obama and the Democrats who can shoulder all the blame for it.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Snippets Were Bad, Then. Now, They're Ok!
During the campaign, Obama complained that comments made by Reverend Wright and his wife were just "snippets" being taken out of context to hurt him.
In an interview with ABC's Good Morning America, Barack Obama said that using those "snippets" of his wife's statements were both "low class" and "detestable." (See Full Story)
This snippet defense was used so often by Barack, that Ken Eliasberg, a noted writer and lecturer, wrote an opinion piece about it in October 2008: "Snippets? Associations? Who is Barack Obama?".
Now, zoom forward to this week when Obama was willing to release an extremely select group of memos regarding the Bush Administration interrogation techniques. You might say that they, too, were the same kind of "snippets" that Barack complained of during the campaign; but, now, when Barack is the "snippetee" he seems to think that tactic is just fine. Of course, using his own words against him, it appears that he, now, is one of those who could be considered "low class" and "detestable."
When former Vice President Cheney asked that all the pertinent data/memos be released so those "snippets" could be put into full context, the Obama henchman, Eric Holder, said that the Administration wasn't going to "play hide and seek" with documents for political purpose. But, in the same breath, said he wasn't sure what documents Cheney was talking about. I think the original release of those memos were "hide and seek" for political reasons. Those memos whipped up the left so that now they have just enough information, those out-of-context "snippets," to pursue full Congressional and/or independent investigations and hearings.
The B.S. in all of this is that now, Obama, the "low class" and "detestable," has said, as of Thursday, that he doesn't support any independent panel to investigate the Bush Administration (See Full Story). But, this is just an Obama ploy. He's already seeded Congress and his base on the political left with the release of those memos. Now, by saying he doesn't support any investigations, he can just sit back and let them happen in Congress without making it seem like he was really responsible. Remember: Obama said he was against any independent investigation. He didn't say he objected to Congress conducting one.
That's so Obama...always trying to have it both ways!
In an interview with ABC's Good Morning America, Barack Obama said that using those "snippets" of his wife's statements were both "low class" and "detestable." (See Full Story)
This snippet defense was used so often by Barack, that Ken Eliasberg, a noted writer and lecturer, wrote an opinion piece about it in October 2008: "Snippets? Associations? Who is Barack Obama?".
Now, zoom forward to this week when Obama was willing to release an extremely select group of memos regarding the Bush Administration interrogation techniques. You might say that they, too, were the same kind of "snippets" that Barack complained of during the campaign; but, now, when Barack is the "snippetee" he seems to think that tactic is just fine. Of course, using his own words against him, it appears that he, now, is one of those who could be considered "low class" and "detestable."
When former Vice President Cheney asked that all the pertinent data/memos be released so those "snippets" could be put into full context, the Obama henchman, Eric Holder, said that the Administration wasn't going to "play hide and seek" with documents for political purpose. But, in the same breath, said he wasn't sure what documents Cheney was talking about. I think the original release of those memos were "hide and seek" for political reasons. Those memos whipped up the left so that now they have just enough information, those out-of-context "snippets," to pursue full Congressional and/or independent investigations and hearings.
The B.S. in all of this is that now, Obama, the "low class" and "detestable," has said, as of Thursday, that he doesn't support any independent panel to investigate the Bush Administration (See Full Story). But, this is just an Obama ploy. He's already seeded Congress and his base on the political left with the release of those memos. Now, by saying he doesn't support any investigations, he can just sit back and let them happen in Congress without making it seem like he was really responsible. Remember: Obama said he was against any independent investigation. He didn't say he objected to Congress conducting one.
That's so Obama...always trying to have it both ways!
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Church Commission in Redux
Picture yourself as being blind and entering a strange room. Then, someone hits you on the side of your head. Suddenly, as a blind person, you've then lost both your bearings and confidence to get out of that room. You subsequently panic.
In many ways, the United States was a lot like that blind person in 2001 when the events of 9/11 hit. As a country, we were panicked by the events of that infamous day. The 9/11 Commission blamed much of what happened on an intelligence failure. The bottom line was that we really didn't have the "spying" wherewithal to see that 9/11 was coming. Consequently, we had to employ forms of harsh interrogation to overcome our "blindness" in order to keep this country safe. That's the real context in which harsh interrogations were done.
Much of that intelligence failure of 9/11 was a result of the Church Commission activities of the 1970's that forced this country to pull back from our spying throughout the world. Frank Church, a Democrat, and the Democrats of Congress who authorized his commission, followed the "peacenik" attitude of that time. They were all being driven by the hatred of anything that had to do with war and as a result of the failures of the Vietnam war. Those same attitudes continue on to this very day with the likes of Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/Barack Obama and most of the other anti-war Democrats that populate our Congress.
In many ways, the Church Commission was revived, yesterday, when Barack Obama said that he was "open" to prosecution of Bush Administration personnel that gave any "legal opinion" that allowed any harsh interrogation techniques (See Full Story).
If the Obama's gang of hateful lefties does go after the members of the Bush Administration, then, the effect of doing so can be as chilling to our intelligence operations, going forward, as was the effect of the Church Commission in the twenty-some years that lead up to 9/11. If former people in the Bush administration are, in some way, prosecuted, it will send a message to almost everyone in future administrations that they should hold back to avoid getting involved with any decisions that may come back to bite them in the future. At the very least, this means that "snap" decisions will not be made at times when quick decisions might be seriously needed. That could mean the difference of immediately acting on a lead (say, to catch Bin Laden) and, instead, letting it slip through our hands. At worse, it means that we may cripple our intelligence operations to the extent that we could easily suffer from the events of another 9/11-like event in the future.
This is so typical of this President and this Congress. Barack Obama talks of developing a Public/Private partnership to end this recession; but, then, turns around and constantly attacks Wall Street; forces reductions in pay and compensation; and back taxes incomes away. This just creates fear of government and hardly the partnership that is needed.
Similarly, in this situation, he talks of reaching across the aisle to unite and eliminate partisan politics. So, what does he do? He spawns a witch hunt over interrogations to cause increased division. Also, with this week's actions, he is creating an environment of "fear" that will, more than likely, cripple our intelligence operations. This despite his daily Obama-speak that says he wakes up each morning concerned about the safety of this country.
From the day he released the memo about harsh interrogation techniques, it was his intention to inflame his base on the left such as MoveOn.org. After all, he is a product of MoveOn.org and George Soros. They are the puppet masters for this guy.
In order to satisfy the left of his base and their rabid hate of Bush and his people, Obama is now willing to put our country at risk for god-only-knows how many years to come; just like the bone-headed Frank Church and his stupid commission. If the Bush Administration's legal opinions are illegal activities and so set in concrete in this country, then, maybe, we should prosecute every single Federal Judge whose decisions and opinions were ultimately overturned by our Supreme Court. After all, in most of those cases that judge's faulty decision completely violated some one's constitutional rights. We could start prosecutions with the most overturned court system in this country: The left-wing, California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Maybe, too, Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, should be prosecuted for his abuse of power in advising Mr. Clinton that he should give Marc Rich a full and complete pardon in what appears to be purely political payback for fund raising operations by Rich's wife. Then, too, Eric Holder should also explain his motives for also advising President Clinton to give 16 Puerto Rican nationalists --- who were all enemies of our State --- clemency. Maybe we should prosecute any Senator or Congressman who authors a bill and who gains its approval and it is passed into law; only to be overturned as being unconstitutional by our Supreme Court.
If we are going to go down this road of political retaliation every time a new Administration and dominant political party takes over, then those who are in charge, today, should be prepared for the same when they leave office. For example, if there is any waste in all this stimulus, maybe we should prosecute members of this Administration for misappropriation of funds. What this President and this left-wing Congress are doing is establishing a serious precedent for future decisions of government.
There is much that this country does that is far more torturous than waterboarding or the releasing of a caterpillar in a room with a known terrorists to extract valuable information. Think about Janet Reno, then working for Bill Clinton, and her directive to create high intensive lighting and loud music so that the Branch Davidians couldn't sleep and so they would eventually surrender. Wasn't that torture? Every day, hundreds of suspected criminals are tasered. I'm not actually sure, but tasers are probably just as extreme and injurious to a person as waterboarding or slamming someone into a padded wall. What about the psychological effects of putting prison inmates into solitary confinement. Is that not a form of torture?
As a country, and for over three years now , we have been well aware that waterboarding was being done. You can thank the New York Times for that. Yet, the people on the left are "now" acting as if this was the first time we ever heard of it. That's because this is another one of Obama's orchestrations of hate and division. It is just like the picketing of AIG homes by the SEIU labor union and by ACORN; Obama support organizations. This time, the "go-signal" was Obama's intentional release of the Bush Justice Department memos. This, then, became the appetizer for the hard left to literally go nuts. You had the far left crazies like Feinstein, Feingold, Leahy, Conyers, Soros, and MoveOn.org mobilize (just like the ACORN and SEIU over AIG bonuses). This reminds me of the same kinds of mobilizations you would see in a "banana republic" when the in-charge dictator would get thousand of loyalists into the streets to make it look as if the whole country was in an uproar over some whipped-up issue.
Lastly, our Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, were well aware of these interrogation techniques as a result of many confidential briefings that they attended during the Bush years. This is whole thing is political maneuvering and another attempt by this President to divide this country.
In many ways, the United States was a lot like that blind person in 2001 when the events of 9/11 hit. As a country, we were panicked by the events of that infamous day. The 9/11 Commission blamed much of what happened on an intelligence failure. The bottom line was that we really didn't have the "spying" wherewithal to see that 9/11 was coming. Consequently, we had to employ forms of harsh interrogation to overcome our "blindness" in order to keep this country safe. That's the real context in which harsh interrogations were done.
Much of that intelligence failure of 9/11 was a result of the Church Commission activities of the 1970's that forced this country to pull back from our spying throughout the world. Frank Church, a Democrat, and the Democrats of Congress who authorized his commission, followed the "peacenik" attitude of that time. They were all being driven by the hatred of anything that had to do with war and as a result of the failures of the Vietnam war. Those same attitudes continue on to this very day with the likes of Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid/Barack Obama and most of the other anti-war Democrats that populate our Congress.
In many ways, the Church Commission was revived, yesterday, when Barack Obama said that he was "open" to prosecution of Bush Administration personnel that gave any "legal opinion" that allowed any harsh interrogation techniques (See Full Story).
If the Obama's gang of hateful lefties does go after the members of the Bush Administration, then, the effect of doing so can be as chilling to our intelligence operations, going forward, as was the effect of the Church Commission in the twenty-some years that lead up to 9/11. If former people in the Bush administration are, in some way, prosecuted, it will send a message to almost everyone in future administrations that they should hold back to avoid getting involved with any decisions that may come back to bite them in the future. At the very least, this means that "snap" decisions will not be made at times when quick decisions might be seriously needed. That could mean the difference of immediately acting on a lead (say, to catch Bin Laden) and, instead, letting it slip through our hands. At worse, it means that we may cripple our intelligence operations to the extent that we could easily suffer from the events of another 9/11-like event in the future.
This is so typical of this President and this Congress. Barack Obama talks of developing a Public/Private partnership to end this recession; but, then, turns around and constantly attacks Wall Street; forces reductions in pay and compensation; and back taxes incomes away. This just creates fear of government and hardly the partnership that is needed.
Similarly, in this situation, he talks of reaching across the aisle to unite and eliminate partisan politics. So, what does he do? He spawns a witch hunt over interrogations to cause increased division. Also, with this week's actions, he is creating an environment of "fear" that will, more than likely, cripple our intelligence operations. This despite his daily Obama-speak that says he wakes up each morning concerned about the safety of this country.
From the day he released the memo about harsh interrogation techniques, it was his intention to inflame his base on the left such as MoveOn.org. After all, he is a product of MoveOn.org and George Soros. They are the puppet masters for this guy.
In order to satisfy the left of his base and their rabid hate of Bush and his people, Obama is now willing to put our country at risk for god-only-knows how many years to come; just like the bone-headed Frank Church and his stupid commission. If the Bush Administration's legal opinions are illegal activities and so set in concrete in this country, then, maybe, we should prosecute every single Federal Judge whose decisions and opinions were ultimately overturned by our Supreme Court. After all, in most of those cases that judge's faulty decision completely violated some one's constitutional rights. We could start prosecutions with the most overturned court system in this country: The left-wing, California-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Maybe, too, Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, should be prosecuted for his abuse of power in advising Mr. Clinton that he should give Marc Rich a full and complete pardon in what appears to be purely political payback for fund raising operations by Rich's wife. Then, too, Eric Holder should also explain his motives for also advising President Clinton to give 16 Puerto Rican nationalists --- who were all enemies of our State --- clemency. Maybe we should prosecute any Senator or Congressman who authors a bill and who gains its approval and it is passed into law; only to be overturned as being unconstitutional by our Supreme Court.
If we are going to go down this road of political retaliation every time a new Administration and dominant political party takes over, then those who are in charge, today, should be prepared for the same when they leave office. For example, if there is any waste in all this stimulus, maybe we should prosecute members of this Administration for misappropriation of funds. What this President and this left-wing Congress are doing is establishing a serious precedent for future decisions of government.
There is much that this country does that is far more torturous than waterboarding or the releasing of a caterpillar in a room with a known terrorists to extract valuable information. Think about Janet Reno, then working for Bill Clinton, and her directive to create high intensive lighting and loud music so that the Branch Davidians couldn't sleep and so they would eventually surrender. Wasn't that torture? Every day, hundreds of suspected criminals are tasered. I'm not actually sure, but tasers are probably just as extreme and injurious to a person as waterboarding or slamming someone into a padded wall. What about the psychological effects of putting prison inmates into solitary confinement. Is that not a form of torture?
As a country, and for over three years now , we have been well aware that waterboarding was being done. You can thank the New York Times for that. Yet, the people on the left are "now" acting as if this was the first time we ever heard of it. That's because this is another one of Obama's orchestrations of hate and division. It is just like the picketing of AIG homes by the SEIU labor union and by ACORN; Obama support organizations. This time, the "go-signal" was Obama's intentional release of the Bush Justice Department memos. This, then, became the appetizer for the hard left to literally go nuts. You had the far left crazies like Feinstein, Feingold, Leahy, Conyers, Soros, and MoveOn.org mobilize (just like the ACORN and SEIU over AIG bonuses). This reminds me of the same kinds of mobilizations you would see in a "banana republic" when the in-charge dictator would get thousand of loyalists into the streets to make it look as if the whole country was in an uproar over some whipped-up issue.
Lastly, our Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, were well aware of these interrogation techniques as a result of many confidential briefings that they attended during the Bush years. This is whole thing is political maneuvering and another attempt by this President to divide this country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
