At least that appears to be what the Obama administration is thinking now.
When this morning I read the President is now weighing the option of indefinitely detaining terror suspects I was taken aback. Wasn’t this man the same who, as a presidential candidate, steadfastly opposed every part of Bush’s strategy of dealing with detainees at Guantanamo? Who decried every action Bush took?
Responding to the McCain campaign’s criticism of his desire to extend constitutional protections to the residents of Gitmo in June 2008, Obama stated “…and I think, in fact, it’s the failed policies of the Bush administration and the unwillingness to look towards the future that is causing us so many problems around the world.” He was implying, of course, that Bush’s policies on the treatment of terror suspects jeopardized national security by creating anti-American sentiment around the world.
Now he’s going to continue a policy he so long denounced.
But this isn’t the only issue where Obama’s flipped to support a previously abhorred Bush policy now that he’s occupying the White House.
Late last month Obama was aboard a fast train Hell-bent to release more photos of detainee “abuse,” but switched yesterday when he announced the release of the photos would “…further inflame anti-American opinion, and to put our troops in greater danger.”
Too bad his mind wasn’t changed before the release of the so-called “torture” memos. Just four days prior to his reversal on releasing the aforementioned photos, he justified the release of the previously classified memos by claiming it would make the world like us more and we would therefore be more safe.
Photos bad, memos good according to Obama. A little contradictory, no?
Don’t forget his reversal on military tribunals either.
From the February 13, 2008 SFGate.com article on the pros and cons of tribunals in the cases of 6 terror suspects who faced the death penalty: “Obama said the men should be tried either in a U.S. criminal court or by military court-martial, either of which would ‘demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law.’ Both those systems are more protective of defendants’ rights than military tribunals, which allow evidence obtained through coercion and hearsay.”
Well, he didn’t really mean all that. Earlier this month, news broke that Obama’s going to fire the tribunal machine back up again. According to the NY Times, “The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system…” and “the first public moves could come as soon as next week.”
You remember, the tribunals that denied due process to those poor guys at Gitmo who chop off people’s heads and fly planes into buildings.
So, Obama’s general frame of mind when the Bush administration ran the tribunals was that they were bad, really bad. Not only did they fail to protect the rights of folks who…oh…cut of American’s heads on camera and kill thousands by flying planes into buildings, but they made other terrorists mad at us.
Now that he’s getting his mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., military tribunals are just what we need.
Something changed his mind. Maybe he thinks his middle name will make the tribunals more palatable to radical Islamic terrorists?
This adoption of Bush policies opposed by Obama on the campaign trail appears to be a developing habit. Keep your fingers crossed and maybe he’ll adopt one more and keep Gitmo open since no other country seems to want the abused terror suspects and we certainly don’t want them here.
Okay, that may be too much wishful thinking.
But, with so much of Obama’s change so closely resembling Bush policy in this arena, Obama supporters might just have to admit that maybe Bush was right on Gitmo and the detainees all along.
Sen. Cornyn: On 100th Day Of ‘Change,’ Democrats Pass Budget Resolution Saddling Nation With Unprecedented Spending, Taxes & Debt
U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the Senate Finance and Budget Committees, issued the following statement regarding his opposition to final passage of the FY10 Budget Resolution, which passed the Senate this evening.
“It’s fitting that, on President Obama’s 100th day in office, Democrats would pass his $3.6 trillion budget that taxes, spends and borrows too much. Since his inauguration, Democrats have spent more than $12 billion a day. Their budget will only make the situation worse because it fails to help middle-class families and small businesses – the backbone of our economy. Democratic leaders rejected many bipartisan, common-sense efforts that would have kept taxes low, reduced wasteful spending and protected small businesses. Despite being approved by an overwhelmingly bipartisan group of 82 Senators, an amendment that I offered to protect small businesses from income tax increases was stripped out by Democrats in conference.
“Saddling our nation with more debt and setting unprecedented levels of government spending is not the best way forward for our economy. I could not support a budget that puts us on such a destructive path. Forcing a flawed budget through Congress with no Republican support is a far cry from the bipartisanship President Obama promised the American people.”
Background on Sen. Cornyn’s amendment
Point of Order against Tax Increases On Small Businesses.
• Sen. Cornyn’s amendment was accepted into the Senate version by a bipartisan vote of 82-16 but was stripped out by Democrat leaders in conference.
• The measure would make it more difficult for Congress to impose new and higher taxes on the American people, especially small businesses and middle-class families, by creating a point of order that would require 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation that increases income taxes.
• The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) has also voiced its support for Sen. Cornyn’s amendment, citing the need to keep individual tax rates low in order for small businesses to succeed.
It appears that Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) isn’t happy at all with President-elect Barack Hussein Obama’s choice to head the CIA. CNN’s headline reads Feinstein slams Obama CIA head pick. Perhaps she thought Obama’s campaign promises of “change” were more than just so much hot air. Instead, we keep getting more DC insiders.
What experience qualifies Leon Panetta to head the agency tasked with gathering intelligence on international terrorists? None, in the intelligence field. But, Mr. Panetta is steeped in experience rubbing elbows inside the beltway. From 1966 to 1971 he served as an assistant to various politicians and bureaucrats, then returned to California to practice law until he was elected to Congress in 1977. He left that position in 1993 to take a job in the Clinton administration and became Clinton’s chief of staff in 1994. He and his wife now run the Leon & Sylvia Panetta Institute for Public Policy.
Could the appointment of one with no experience in intelligence be a signal of Obama’s disdain for the agency? If so, we’d better be ready for trouble. The Clinton CIA budget cuts led to serious repercussions. If we start down that path again while the War on Terror is ongoing, the effects could be disastrous. But hey, any good lawyer should be able to run a spy network, right?
I rarely agree with Feinstein, but this time she’s right to question the intelligence of BO’s choice.
Finally, we might be getting a glimpse of the long-awaited “change” we’ve heard about for the last couple of years. Obama wants to take the “intelligence” out of the CIA!
Sleep tight America, a lawyer/politician will be watching over you for a few years!
Another day, another clueless Clinton crony–Michelle Malkin
Gasoline where I am is back down to $1.49 a gallon. The national average right now is about $1.65 a gallon.
The Eco-Marxists aren’t happy with the price of gasoline being low. If you remember during the primaries, even Barack Obama said the price wasn’t bad, it just rose too fast.
To the green mafia, the price of gasoline should be so high that people can’t drive to work and have to rely on public transportation. And if the market won’t keep the price high, government will.
Steven Chu is Obama’s nominee for Energy Secretary. Here’s what he thinks about gas prices:
Just when we thought we were getting a little relief, here comes Obama’s change–change right back to where things were a few weeks ago!
Although I don’t think Chu will get his longed for tax increases with the economy in this shape, just remember they’re on his mind. We’ll be fighting this battle eventually.
by Charles Mahtesian at Politico
Barack Obama’s path to the presidency included beating what had been one of the nation’s most powerful families. But, in an unusual twist, his election last month is helping accelerate the trend toward dynasty politics.
His secretary of state will be Hillary Clinton, the wife of the former president. The Senate seat she’ll vacate is being pursued by Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of a president and the niece of two senators. Joe Biden’s Senate seat may go to his son Beau. Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, Obama’s pick for interior secretary, could end up being replaced by his brother, Rep. John Salazar.
And Obama’s own seat could go to the son of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. – less likely now in light of developments in the Rod Blagojevich scandal – or to the daughter of Illinois’ current House speaker.
The U.S. Senate could end up looking like an American version of the House of Lords – and Republicans have begun to take notice.
WASHINGTON – The House ethics committee is expanding an investigation of Rep. Charles Rangel, chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. The ethics panel issued a statement Tuesday saying it had voted to expand an already far-ranging probe into the New York Democrat to examine whether he protected an oil drilling company from a big tax bill when the head of that company pledged a $1 million donation to a college center named after the congressman.
The move means the Rangel inquiry will likely stretch well past early January, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had previously said she expected the matter to be resolved.
Obama discusses economic plan to save, create jobs
By ANN SANNER, Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO – President-elect Barack Obama said Saturday he’s asked his economic team for a recovery plan that saves or creates more than 2 million jobs, makes public buildings more energy-efficient and invests in the country’s roads and schools.
“We won’t just throw money at the problem,” Obama said in his weekly radio address and Internet video. “We’ll measure progress by the reforms we make and the results we achieve — by the jobs we create, by the energy we save, by whether America is more competitive in the world.”
Obama’s remarks come after the Labor Department announced Friday that employers cut 533,000 jobs in November, the most in 34 years.
Obama said his plan would put millions of people to work by “making the single largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s.”
White House: Constructive auto talks with Congress
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON – Facing massive job losses, the White House and congressional Democrats are negotiating a deal to provide about $15 billion in loans to prevent Detroit’s weakened auto industry from collapsing.
The White House said it was in “constructive discussions” with lawmakers in both parties to dole out the assistance as House and Senate staff aides worked through the weekend drafting bailout legislation that is expected to come to a vote next week.
Well it looks like the President-elect is choosing Eric Holder as his nominee for Attorney General of the United States. According to Forbes.com,
A Democratic official says President-elect Barack Obama plans to name his picks for U.N. ambassador, attorney general and homeland security secretary at a news conference Monday.
So…let’s take a look at the change this will bring.
Holder served as deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration and is now a partner at the Washington law firm, Covington and Burling. This Newsweek article claims Holder was hesitant to accept the post due to concerns the vetting process was sure to bring up questions of his role in Clinton’s presidential pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich who fled the United States for evading approximately $48 million in taxes and other crimes. Indeed, Holder was quoted in this article by The Swamp when asked by the Legal Times if he would accept the AG post.
“Yesterday, though, Holder was even more frank when asked by Legal Times if he would, indeed, accept the AG spot: “That ain’t gonna happen,” he said.
Perhaps at the time he actually believed Obama’s mantra of change and now realizes it was all just campaign propaganda. But it gets better!
This article on Firedoglake describes Holder’s role working for Chiquita International–you know, bananas. It appears the company’s employees were attempting to organize in Columbia so Chiquita hired a paramilitary organization to quell dissent in an effort to keep their costs down! From the article:
Chiquita funded terror to kill labor organizers in order to keep down labor costs. A very rational decision. It sends an interesting message to labor in the US to hire a man who’s worked for a corporation like that to be Attorney General.
Is this the kind of man we want running our Justice Department? How can organized labor–which unequivocally supports the Democratic Party–approve of this appointment?
Remember the furor that arose from liberals when Bush nominated John Ashcroft for AG? Just in case you don’t, here’s a quote from a position paper of the National Association of Social Workers on his nomination.
NASW opposes the confirmation of John D. Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States. John Ashcroft has a record of being insensitive towards the civil rights of minorities, women, and gays and lesbians. His extremist views towards civil rights and reproductive rights for women and minorities convey his inability to be an attorney general that will represent fair justice for all of Americans. While serving as an U.S. Senator from Missouri for the past six years, Ashcroft has demonstrated that he will use his position to promote his narrow extreme right wing vision of justice.
That translates to: John Ashcroft is a Christian who votes according to his faith and that disqualifies him from serving as AG.
Which would make a worse AG? John Ashcroft who votes according to his conscience and Christian faith? Or, Eric Holder who defends companies who hire terrorists to kill and intimidate workers in an effort to control costs?
Now, if that isn’t bad enough let’s couple it with Holder’s position on the 2nd Amendment–you know, that pesky one that follows freedom of speech, religion, the press so that the American people are guaranteed the capacity to protect those freedoms. From this post on The Volokh Conspiracy by David Kopel,
Earlier this year, Eric Holder–along with Janet Reno and several other former officials from the Clinton Department of Justice–co-signed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief was filed in support of DC’s ban on all handguns, and ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home.
As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called “assault weapons” (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday).
The brief and his aversion to 2nd Amendment rights are troublesome enough, but when coupled with Holder’s willingness to defend those who hire terrorists to trample the civil rights of people trying to improve their lives and earn a living we can see a clearcut threat to our constitutionally guaranteed right to defend our own.
Think this sounds paranoid? Let’s look at another quote gleaned from this article. Do you remember the Elian Gonzalez travesty during the Clinton administration? The little Cuban boy whose mother died escaping Cuba who was captured in a paramilitary raid on his family member’s home in Florida. Here’s the quote from the Kopel article:
Holder played a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old’s home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed that Gonzalez “was not taken at the point of a gun” and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted “very sensitively.”
Still think Holder’s going to protect and defend your rights? Is this the change America was looking for? I think not.