On last night's factor, Bill O'Reilly made this shocking accusation.
Here is a summary. The whole entire NBC family, owned by General Electric, has been by far the most pro Obama network for a long time now. General Electric has been faltering ever since Jack Welch was succeeded by Jeffrey Immelt. The NBC family has been losing money for years. Furthermore, their finance divisions, GE Capital and the now defunct WMC Mortgage, have created billions in red ink. Right now, the company is heavily lobbying the administration for bailout funds. The stock is down near 70% since he took over nearly a decade ago.
President Obama is looking to attack climate change. His signature legislation is cap and trade.
GE, according to the Washington Examiner, has set up a joint venture called Greenhouse Gas Services, which would invest heavily in carbon credits. As such, this venture would stand to be the beneficiary of billions in revenues if cap and trade passed. Also, following some critical commentary by CNBC headlined by the Santelli rant, Immelt and NBC boss, Jeff Zucker, went to their headquarters themselves and told the staff to knock it off. Santelli says that he was sent to a "re education" camp.
Furthermore, O'Reilly didn't mention two other things of note. First, the NBC family has been pushing heavy on green technology and Jeffrey Immelt has been named a member of Obama's Economic Advisory Board.
If you live around me, this should all seem very familiar. This is standard issue Chicago politics in its "finest". This is exactly the sort of multi layered conflicts of interest that have made Chicago famous for being corrupt. We have a corporation that on the one hand makes a point of providing favorable coverage for a politician. On the other hand, they ask for not only money but help push a bill that would put them in line to make billions.
Of course, the real story is that outside of the Factor and the Examiner, no one is covering this story. For a comparison, just think about how much media coverage we saw about the possible conflicts of interest between the Iraq War and Dick Cheney's former relationship with Halliburton. Here we have the same kind of conflicts and yet the media is totally silent. In fact, everything I just reported is fact. The only question is whether or not there has been a specific quid pro quo taken. The only way to know that is to investigate that further. Yet, the media in its entirety is sitting quietly. We have a significant indication that a powerful media company and the President of the United States are locked in an extremely corrupt quid pro quo and no one in the media cares. This is how low we have sunk.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The Trillion and a half Dollar Boondoggle
Way back when, while the stimulus was still being debated, I wrote this piece.
I surmised then that there was no way that the federal government was going to keep track of each and every penny spent. Instead, they would write checks to states, they would write them to localities, and localities would be the ones following the money. This was going to filled with potential waste and corruption. You are now relying on thousands of localities, many of them corrupt, to oversee the stimulus themselves.
Well, now we have this report from Jake Tapper.
So, states and localities are in charge of following the money and the feds haven't even given them enough money to be able to do this sufficiently. In other words, pretty much no one is watching the nearly $800 billion in stimulus. More interesting will be just how much other media will report on this report. Since this particular report paints the administration negatively, you can bet this will be overlooked by almost all of the MSM.
Furthermore, this report follows another report by the Office of Inspector General which also concludes that the TARP funds aren't being overseen nearly effectively enough. For instance, banks are required to disclose what they plan on doing with TARP funds, but not required to account for what they have actually done.
So, what do we have? We have an administration that promised transparency and accountability and so far it has created a $1.5 trillion boondoggle for corrupt bankers, states, and municpilaties, and the losers are the taxpayers.
The stimulus is not an $800 billion bill. Rather it is one hundred thousand pieces of spending ranging from tens of thousands to tens of millions. In order to work, they all, for the most part, have to be spent wisely and without corruption. It becomes a leap of faith that localities like Auburn, Al. are spending on stimulative projects rather than merely boons for themselves and their friends. In order to work, these nearly one hundred thousand projects need to be puppetteered by federal, state, and local governments all working to make them stimulative. The President is confident it will work, but looking at Stimulus Watch makes me less than confident.
I surmised then that there was no way that the federal government was going to keep track of each and every penny spent. Instead, they would write checks to states, they would write them to localities, and localities would be the ones following the money. This was going to filled with potential waste and corruption. You are now relying on thousands of localities, many of them corrupt, to oversee the stimulus themselves.
Well, now we have this report from Jake Tapper.
The Government Accountability Office today issued a report on the $787 billion stimulus bill called "RECOVERY ACT: As Initial Implementation Unfolds in States and Localities, Continued Attention to Accountability Issues Is Essential."
The GAO study asserts that officials from most of the states surveyed "expressed concerns regarding the lack of Recovery Act funding provided for accountability and oversight. Due to fiscal constraints, many states reported significant declines in the number of oversight staff -- limiting their ability to ensure proper implementation and management of Recovery Act funds."
Because the economic downturn has led to "fiscal constraints, many states reported significant declines in the number of oversight staff, limiting their ability to ensure proper implementation and management of Recovery Act funds.
So, states and localities are in charge of following the money and the feds haven't even given them enough money to be able to do this sufficiently. In other words, pretty much no one is watching the nearly $800 billion in stimulus. More interesting will be just how much other media will report on this report. Since this particular report paints the administration negatively, you can bet this will be overlooked by almost all of the MSM.
Furthermore, this report follows another report by the Office of Inspector General which also concludes that the TARP funds aren't being overseen nearly effectively enough. For instance, banks are required to disclose what they plan on doing with TARP funds, but not required to account for what they have actually done.
So, what do we have? We have an administration that promised transparency and accountability and so far it has created a $1.5 trillion boondoggle for corrupt bankers, states, and municpilaties, and the losers are the taxpayers.
This Pandora's Box Has a Mind of It's Own
It's taken only a week but but the story surrounding Bush's enhanced interrogation techniques has exploded and now it is totally beyond anyone's control. Now that the proverbial genie is out of the bottle, the only way for this to stop being a story is for all relevant questions to be answered, one way or another. Now, let's review what has happened just in the last 24 hours. First, we found out that then NSA Director, Condi Rice, personally approved the water boarding of Abu Zubaydah.
Then, we learned that several, yet unnamed, members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, have been briefed on this program since 2002.
In the meantime, far left outfit has added fuel to the fire with this ad.
Meanwhile, just for good measure, this diatrobe from Shep Smith of Foxnews is going viral.
Meanwhile, former Bush speechwriter, Mark Thiessen, has been advancing the story of how we successfully stopped an attack on L.A. after waterboarding KSM.
This story isn't going away. Furthermore, no one person or entity controls it anymore. It will continue to be the lead or at least near it, in my opinion, until all the questions are sufficiently answered, who, what, when, where, how, and why. Of course, the next question is what entity is fit to answer all those questions in a manner that the public feels is unbiased. Only time will tell on that.
If something formal, and most importantly trustworthy to all, isn't created soon, then revelations, which will occur regardless, will ultimately hurt everyone much worse. For instance, the president got hurt when an internal memo sympathetic to the Bush administration by his current chief of intelligence, Dennis Blair, was leaked. If some sort of body isn't formed soon, we will simply find out through a series of leaks.
We are all going to find out the details of most if not all of the briefings that Congress had on these techniques. We are certainly going to find out exactly who attended. It would be much better for the legislators involved to come forward themselves and acknowledge their attendance than have that information leaked to the public. We are going to find out the details of successes of this program, so it would be better for the president to declassify this information. If we continue to find out such details through leaks, he looks as though he is determined to only present one side.
This will all go on until all relevant questions are answered and then this story will stop having teeth. In other words, we are about to air all sorts of dirty national security laundry. If the president really wanted to move forward, that has failed miserably.
The worst part is that in the end it will make little difference. There are two schools of thought on this. The first is that torture rarely works, and even if it did, it wasn't worth it. The second is that bad actors weren't giving up information and we took the steps necessary to save lives. After all of this is aired, it's unlikely that very many people's views will change from where they are on one of these two sides. In fact, since both positions will find plenty of evidence to back them up, it's likely the only thing that will happen is that opinions will harden. As such, we are in for a very bitter partisan battle that will ultimately change very few minds.
As national security adviser to former President George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice verbally approved the CIA's request to subject high-ranking Al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah to waterboarding in July 2002, the earliest known decision by a Bush administration official to OK use of the simulated drowning technique.
Rice's role was detailed in a narrative released Wednesday by the Senate Intelligence Committee. It provides the most detailed timeline yet for how the CIA's harsh interrogation program was conceived and approved at the highest levels in the Bush White House.
Then, we learned that several, yet unnamed, members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, have been briefed on this program since 2002.
Republicans, hoping to turn the tables on Democrats who are open to prosecuting Bush-era lawyers for justifying "enhanced" interrogation techniques, are seeking to reveal the names of those lawmakers who were briefed on the tactics as much as seven years ago. FOX News has learned there were more than 30 meetings and briefings with members of Congress on the subject since 2002.
The first such briefing dealt with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, the Al Qaeda operations chief who ran the training camps in Afghanistan where the Sept. 11 hijackers were trained. Sources said California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now the speaker of the House, attended the meeting with then-Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla. (who later became CIA director), and she did not raise any objections.
In the meantime, far left outfit has added fuel to the fire with this ad.
Meanwhile, just for good measure, this diatrobe from Shep Smith of Foxnews is going viral.
Meanwhile, former Bush speechwriter, Mark Thiessen, has been advancing the story of how we successfully stopped an attack on L.A. after waterboarding KSM.
This story isn't going away. Furthermore, no one person or entity controls it anymore. It will continue to be the lead or at least near it, in my opinion, until all the questions are sufficiently answered, who, what, when, where, how, and why. Of course, the next question is what entity is fit to answer all those questions in a manner that the public feels is unbiased. Only time will tell on that.
If something formal, and most importantly trustworthy to all, isn't created soon, then revelations, which will occur regardless, will ultimately hurt everyone much worse. For instance, the president got hurt when an internal memo sympathetic to the Bush administration by his current chief of intelligence, Dennis Blair, was leaked. If some sort of body isn't formed soon, we will simply find out through a series of leaks.
We are all going to find out the details of most if not all of the briefings that Congress had on these techniques. We are certainly going to find out exactly who attended. It would be much better for the legislators involved to come forward themselves and acknowledge their attendance than have that information leaked to the public. We are going to find out the details of successes of this program, so it would be better for the president to declassify this information. If we continue to find out such details through leaks, he looks as though he is determined to only present one side.
This will all go on until all relevant questions are answered and then this story will stop having teeth. In other words, we are about to air all sorts of dirty national security laundry. If the president really wanted to move forward, that has failed miserably.
The worst part is that in the end it will make little difference. There are two schools of thought on this. The first is that torture rarely works, and even if it did, it wasn't worth it. The second is that bad actors weren't giving up information and we took the steps necessary to save lives. After all of this is aired, it's unlikely that very many people's views will change from where they are on one of these two sides. In fact, since both positions will find plenty of evidence to back them up, it's likely the only thing that will happen is that opinions will harden. As such, we are in for a very bitter partisan battle that will ultimately change very few minds.
When Will Angela Merkel Apologize for Hitler
Whenever there is a debate over whether or not Obama's apology tour all over the world, those that defend the president are quick to point out that it shows maturity and humility for a president to recognize and acknowledge not only triumphs of their country's past but errors and faults. Here is one example.
To those folks I ask a few simple questions. Why isn't German Chancellor Angela Merkel apologizing for Hitler? When will Nicholas Sarkozy apologize for Napolean? When will the world receive and apology from Gordon Brown for King George? How about Putin? When will he apologize for Stalin? If you want something more recent, how about this? Both Merkel and Sarkozy ran on against the policies of their predecessors, foreign policy and domestic. When will they apologize on a world stage for the years under Chirac and Shroeder?
If it is a sign of a "mature nation" to recognize both faults and accomplishments on the world stage, why do supporters of Obama only demand that our president show such "maturity"?
The answer to this question lies at the heart of the fallacy of their argument. I believe in their view if Obama demanded of his counter parts that which he deems necessary from himself, he would be portrayed as exactly the arrogant bully that he is trying to avoid. The only way for Obama to bring the world together is for him and him alone to show humility while giving everyone else a free pass on their own country's past misdeeds.
Think about that for a minute. The president is going on a tour of the world and pointing out each and every wrong that his country has ever done. Yet, the rest of the world gets a pass from doing the same, even though they all have just as much to apologize for, if not more. He's doing this because he believes only such humility will allow for an environment of mutual understanding so that we can work in a productive manner on the world stage.
In other words, Obama holds himself to standards he wouldn't hold others to because that's the only way he thinks the rest of the world can rally around him. In other words, the only way that President Obama thinks he can rally the world around his geopolitical goals is to inherently make the United States look weaker than the rest of the world. Keep in mind he has been flying around the world pointing each of our mistakes while nearly totally disregarding the mistakes the rest of the world has made.
That's a peculiar and rather ironic point of view. We are the world's only super power. Our leader thinks that the only way for the world to come together is for that super power to inherently be weakened first on the world stage. Maybe it will work, but I've never heard of a plan in which you weaken yourself first in order to get others to work with you.
A mature nations acknowledges its shortcomings.Quite simple really. Butyou seems to have difficulty grasping it.
A "show" of strength differs from real strength. Again, elementary.
A strong nation can admit mistakes because it knows it is still the strongest. You don't make yourself weaker by acknowledging flaws, you set an
example. Human knowledge 101.
In particular, he is showing how he is different to one of the most hated Presidents in modern history.The days of talking self-righteously about America while refusing to consider other viewpoints are over.
To those folks I ask a few simple questions. Why isn't German Chancellor Angela Merkel apologizing for Hitler? When will Nicholas Sarkozy apologize for Napolean? When will the world receive and apology from Gordon Brown for King George? How about Putin? When will he apologize for Stalin? If you want something more recent, how about this? Both Merkel and Sarkozy ran on against the policies of their predecessors, foreign policy and domestic. When will they apologize on a world stage for the years under Chirac and Shroeder?
If it is a sign of a "mature nation" to recognize both faults and accomplishments on the world stage, why do supporters of Obama only demand that our president show such "maturity"?
The answer to this question lies at the heart of the fallacy of their argument. I believe in their view if Obama demanded of his counter parts that which he deems necessary from himself, he would be portrayed as exactly the arrogant bully that he is trying to avoid. The only way for Obama to bring the world together is for him and him alone to show humility while giving everyone else a free pass on their own country's past misdeeds.
Think about that for a minute. The president is going on a tour of the world and pointing out each and every wrong that his country has ever done. Yet, the rest of the world gets a pass from doing the same, even though they all have just as much to apologize for, if not more. He's doing this because he believes only such humility will allow for an environment of mutual understanding so that we can work in a productive manner on the world stage.
In other words, Obama holds himself to standards he wouldn't hold others to because that's the only way he thinks the rest of the world can rally around him. In other words, the only way that President Obama thinks he can rally the world around his geopolitical goals is to inherently make the United States look weaker than the rest of the world. Keep in mind he has been flying around the world pointing each of our mistakes while nearly totally disregarding the mistakes the rest of the world has made.
That's a peculiar and rather ironic point of view. We are the world's only super power. Our leader thinks that the only way for the world to come together is for that super power to inherently be weakened first on the world stage. Maybe it will work, but I've never heard of a plan in which you weaken yourself first in order to get others to work with you.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
An Entirely Political Exercise Masquerading as Constitutional Debate
Let's try a thought experiment. Let's suppose that the Bush administration didn't use waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques when capturing the likes of KSM. Let's further suppose that there was an attack several years later and it was then learned that KSM knew about it but we didn't get that information from him. Does anyone believe that this day, now, we wouldn't be using each and every tough interrogation technique available? Does anyone believe that anyone but the truly looney would have any doubt about their legality? Does anyone think we would be debating whether or not we should try those that made legal opinions about its legality?
What's truly infuriating about this debate is that many on both sides are turning a political debate into a Constitutional one. Let's make this clear. Whether or not waterboarding and other tough techniques are or are not torture is NOT clear. It is a debate that folks all stripes can have till everyone is blue in the face and reach no resolution. Furthermore, whether or not this is or is not Constitutional is also entirely unclear.
Here's how I know. Back in the 1940's, FDR set up an office of censorship. That's right. FDR brazenly violated the First Amendment. Now, I don't remember any of the lawyers involved in formulating the legal opinion to allow him to do this ever being threatened with prosecution. I don't remember anyone involved with this policy ever being threatened with prison. During WWI, Woodrow Wilson set up the Creel Commission, which among other things opened up mail of war opponents. This blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment landed no one in jail. Just more recently, the District of Columbia was found to violate the 2nd Amendment with their handgun ban. Despite decades of illegal activity, no one associated with the formulation or implementation of this blatantly unconstitutional policy was ever threatened with jail time.
The main difference between the three examples that I cited and the Bush policy is that those three were perpetrated against American citizens themselves not our enemy during war time. Now, some will purport to say that while FDR can censor and face no punishment, President Bush can't dunk Al Qaeda in water in order to gain valuable information that winds up saving American lives.
If the Obama administration believes this policy is both unnecessary and unconstitutional, then they should proceed without it. Furthermore, the best way to prove their point is to keep America as safe as the Bush administration did without its use. All the Obama administration needed to do to indict this policy is to make sure that there were no attacks under its watch without using it. Yet, that wasn't good enough. Istead of simply moving forward with that goal, they skipped, three months into their term, by trying to indict, literally, their predecessors.
This is a political exercise masquerading as a Constitutional one. What exactly will justice find to be illegal? Al Qaeda wear no uniform. They represent no country. They target civilians. Where exactly in the Constitution is there a black and white assertion that waterboarding these folks is against the Constitution. If the current Justice Department decides this interrogation technique is illegal, they can draw that opinion. Furthermore, the Obama administration can follow that opinion. To then decide that because another administration interpreted the Constitution differently on the same issue that would be an illegal act would masquerade a political debate as a Constitutional one.
What's truly infuriating about this debate is that many on both sides are turning a political debate into a Constitutional one. Let's make this clear. Whether or not waterboarding and other tough techniques are or are not torture is NOT clear. It is a debate that folks all stripes can have till everyone is blue in the face and reach no resolution. Furthermore, whether or not this is or is not Constitutional is also entirely unclear.
Here's how I know. Back in the 1940's, FDR set up an office of censorship. That's right. FDR brazenly violated the First Amendment. Now, I don't remember any of the lawyers involved in formulating the legal opinion to allow him to do this ever being threatened with prosecution. I don't remember anyone involved with this policy ever being threatened with prison. During WWI, Woodrow Wilson set up the Creel Commission, which among other things opened up mail of war opponents. This blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment landed no one in jail. Just more recently, the District of Columbia was found to violate the 2nd Amendment with their handgun ban. Despite decades of illegal activity, no one associated with the formulation or implementation of this blatantly unconstitutional policy was ever threatened with jail time.
The main difference between the three examples that I cited and the Bush policy is that those three were perpetrated against American citizens themselves not our enemy during war time. Now, some will purport to say that while FDR can censor and face no punishment, President Bush can't dunk Al Qaeda in water in order to gain valuable information that winds up saving American lives.
If the Obama administration believes this policy is both unnecessary and unconstitutional, then they should proceed without it. Furthermore, the best way to prove their point is to keep America as safe as the Bush administration did without its use. All the Obama administration needed to do to indict this policy is to make sure that there were no attacks under its watch without using it. Yet, that wasn't good enough. Istead of simply moving forward with that goal, they skipped, three months into their term, by trying to indict, literally, their predecessors.
This is a political exercise masquerading as a Constitutional one. What exactly will justice find to be illegal? Al Qaeda wear no uniform. They represent no country. They target civilians. Where exactly in the Constitution is there a black and white assertion that waterboarding these folks is against the Constitution. If the current Justice Department decides this interrogation technique is illegal, they can draw that opinion. Furthermore, the Obama administration can follow that opinion. To then decide that because another administration interpreted the Constitution differently on the same issue that would be an illegal act would masquerade a political debate as a Constitutional one.
Council Nominees
Council Submissions
Right Truth - Witch Hunts (and you are the witch)
The Provocateur - Dr. Andrew Agwunobi Strikes Again
Joshuapundit - The Real Holocaust Denial
The Razor - Obama Administration Sucking Moonbats Out of Private Sector
Rhymes With Right - About The Secession Thing
The Glittering Eye - For the Want of a Horseshoe Nail
Bookworm Room - Honing our arguments
Soccer Dad - Preoccupied with occupation
Wolf Howling - Throwing Green Fuel On An Economic Fire
Non-Council Submissions
Submitted By: Right Truth - American Daughter - The Intimidation Begins
Submitted By: The Provocateur - Portfolio - Confessions of a TARP CEO’s Wife
Submitted By: Joshuapundit - Doug Ross@Journal - Let Them Eat Dirt
Submitted By: The Razor - The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute - The Coming of the Fourth American Republic
Submitted By: Rhymes With Right - Right On The Left COast - Close West Point?
Submitted By: The Glittering Eye - Rortybomb - Ban Mortgage Prepayment Penalties at the Federal Level, 1: Texas
Submitted By: Bookworm Room - Britannica Blog - Shock peace therapy for the mideast
Submitted By: Soccer Dad - Elder of Ziyon - More of those “civilians” killed in Gaza (UPDATED)
Submitted By: Wolf Howling - AIFD - Obama Administration Stacking the Deck with Islamists
Submitted By: The Watcher - Thomas Sowell at The Jewish World Review - Are You an ‘Extremist’?
Right Truth - Witch Hunts (and you are the witch)
The Provocateur - Dr. Andrew Agwunobi Strikes Again
Joshuapundit - The Real Holocaust Denial
The Razor - Obama Administration Sucking Moonbats Out of Private Sector
Rhymes With Right - About The Secession Thing
The Glittering Eye - For the Want of a Horseshoe Nail
Bookworm Room - Honing our arguments
Soccer Dad - Preoccupied with occupation
Wolf Howling - Throwing Green Fuel On An Economic Fire
Non-Council Submissions
Submitted By: Right Truth - American Daughter - The Intimidation Begins
Submitted By: The Provocateur - Portfolio - Confessions of a TARP CEO’s Wife
Submitted By: Joshuapundit - Doug Ross@Journal - Let Them Eat Dirt
Submitted By: The Razor - The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute - The Coming of the Fourth American Republic
Submitted By: Rhymes With Right - Right On The Left COast - Close West Point?
Submitted By: The Glittering Eye - Rortybomb - Ban Mortgage Prepayment Penalties at the Federal Level, 1: Texas
Submitted By: Bookworm Room - Britannica Blog - Shock peace therapy for the mideast
Submitted By: Soccer Dad - Elder of Ziyon - More of those “civilians” killed in Gaza (UPDATED)
Submitted By: Wolf Howling - AIFD - Obama Administration Stacking the Deck with Islamists
Submitted By: The Watcher - Thomas Sowell at The Jewish World Review - Are You an ‘Extremist’?
The Ideological Pandora's Box
Right at the beginning of his presidency, then President Bush took a lot of heat from the right for not pursuing investigations against Bill Clinton regarding several high profile pardons in his last remaining days. President Bush knew full well that while the base wouldn't be happy, he also wouldn't be able to move on with his own agenda if he decided to take up such a highly polarizing issue. Right now, I would like to be a fly on the wall of meetings with David Axelrod, Obama's chief political advisor. Does Axelrod see the recent hubub over "torture" with the same politically explosive ptential for polarization?
In my opinion, President Obama has stepped into a minefield, politically, and it won't be easy to get out. Once President Obama released classified memos regarding enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding, he opened up a pandora's box that won't easily close. The immediate political benefit is obvious. He immediately sets himself up against the previous administration. That's brilliant. Bush's popularity is abysmal and his is strong. (for now) He had to know that simply releasing the memos wouldn't end the story. Now Cheney wants other memos released. he wants memos released that showed what sorts of information we gathered regarding the techniques. Now, Obama is stuck. If he releases these memos and they verify Cheney, he sets off a larger and more partisan debate. If he doesn't, everyone will still wonder if Cheney is right and wonder why Obama won't release them.
Obama could have limited the damage by ending things there, but that wasn't good enough. So, yesterday, he suggested that he would be open to prosecutions of Bush officials. That would certainly please his political base, but no one else. Show trials of Bush officials would make the partisan battles of the Lewinsky debacle seem mild. In fact, show trials of Bush officials would make the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton seem mild.
Now, President Obama has ceded to the Justice Department to see if there are any punishable offenses. Well, there are only a few outcomes to this. First, Justice could decide that there are no punishable offenses. That, ironically enough, would be the best outcome for Obama. Yes, that would be embarrassing and the left would scream, but that scenario would end the whole sordid affair fairly quickly. On the other hand, Justice could begin to hand down indictments. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. Ultimately, the person responsible most for authorizing waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques was the president himself. After all, whatever opinions were written, it was the commander in chief that authorized them. If the techniques are found to be illegal, then the only logical conclusion must be to indict President Bush.
Such is what all far left folks want, and again, only far left folks want it. Now, just imagine the partisan explosion that an indictment from the current administration of the president of the previous administration. That wouldn't merely consume Obama's presidency, but overwhelm it. To call such an environment toxic would be quite the understatement. Does anyone believe anything would be done while the previous president were under indictment?
Then, there is the other possibility that Obama would create a 9/11 like bi partisan commission. Again, there's only a few scenarios here. If the hearings are televised, they would almost certainly turn partisan. Every Democrat would make the assertion that these techniques were torture. Every Republican would stress just how many lives were saved. The final report would either be a partisan hit job or it would be balanced. So, if it were balanced, the conclusions would go something like this. The techniques were extreme and even illegal, but as a result, thousands of lives were saved. This would set off a partisan explosion that would polarize the nation. Those that agreed with the techniques would say see they saved lives. Those that opposed them would say see they are torture. If it's partisan, toward either side, it would set off a partisan explosion that would polarize the nation obscenely. Do you see a pattern forming? Any hope of being post partisan would go by the wayside almost laughably.
Finally, there is another specter looming. What if in the next two years, we are hit. Then, ultimately, the reason we were hit wouldn't matter. At least 50% of the nation would conclude that it was because Obama stopped using these techniques. He would be viewed as a vindictive president more worried about bloodying his predecessor than protecting the nation. Forget his presidency, he would admire the legacy of Herbert Hoover. The Democrats would be through for decades.
This is an awful political football. The president should have recognize that there was nothing to gain by throwing it. Instead, he's decided move forward with it. Now, he can't simply walk back. People are expecting a Justice investigation and they're expecting a blue ribbon panel. There is political pitfalls whether he gives on both or on either.
In my opinion, President Obama has stepped into a minefield, politically, and it won't be easy to get out. Once President Obama released classified memos regarding enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding, he opened up a pandora's box that won't easily close. The immediate political benefit is obvious. He immediately sets himself up against the previous administration. That's brilliant. Bush's popularity is abysmal and his is strong. (for now) He had to know that simply releasing the memos wouldn't end the story. Now Cheney wants other memos released. he wants memos released that showed what sorts of information we gathered regarding the techniques. Now, Obama is stuck. If he releases these memos and they verify Cheney, he sets off a larger and more partisan debate. If he doesn't, everyone will still wonder if Cheney is right and wonder why Obama won't release them.
Obama could have limited the damage by ending things there, but that wasn't good enough. So, yesterday, he suggested that he would be open to prosecutions of Bush officials. That would certainly please his political base, but no one else. Show trials of Bush officials would make the partisan battles of the Lewinsky debacle seem mild. In fact, show trials of Bush officials would make the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton seem mild.
Now, President Obama has ceded to the Justice Department to see if there are any punishable offenses. Well, there are only a few outcomes to this. First, Justice could decide that there are no punishable offenses. That, ironically enough, would be the best outcome for Obama. Yes, that would be embarrassing and the left would scream, but that scenario would end the whole sordid affair fairly quickly. On the other hand, Justice could begin to hand down indictments. Let's take that to its logical conclusion. Ultimately, the person responsible most for authorizing waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques was the president himself. After all, whatever opinions were written, it was the commander in chief that authorized them. If the techniques are found to be illegal, then the only logical conclusion must be to indict President Bush.
Such is what all far left folks want, and again, only far left folks want it. Now, just imagine the partisan explosion that an indictment from the current administration of the president of the previous administration. That wouldn't merely consume Obama's presidency, but overwhelm it. To call such an environment toxic would be quite the understatement. Does anyone believe anything would be done while the previous president were under indictment?
Then, there is the other possibility that Obama would create a 9/11 like bi partisan commission. Again, there's only a few scenarios here. If the hearings are televised, they would almost certainly turn partisan. Every Democrat would make the assertion that these techniques were torture. Every Republican would stress just how many lives were saved. The final report would either be a partisan hit job or it would be balanced. So, if it were balanced, the conclusions would go something like this. The techniques were extreme and even illegal, but as a result, thousands of lives were saved. This would set off a partisan explosion that would polarize the nation. Those that agreed with the techniques would say see they saved lives. Those that opposed them would say see they are torture. If it's partisan, toward either side, it would set off a partisan explosion that would polarize the nation obscenely. Do you see a pattern forming? Any hope of being post partisan would go by the wayside almost laughably.
Finally, there is another specter looming. What if in the next two years, we are hit. Then, ultimately, the reason we were hit wouldn't matter. At least 50% of the nation would conclude that it was because Obama stopped using these techniques. He would be viewed as a vindictive president more worried about bloodying his predecessor than protecting the nation. Forget his presidency, he would admire the legacy of Herbert Hoover. The Democrats would be through for decades.
This is an awful political football. The president should have recognize that there was nothing to gain by throwing it. Instead, he's decided move forward with it. Now, he can't simply walk back. People are expecting a Justice investigation and they're expecting a blue ribbon panel. There is political pitfalls whether he gives on both or on either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
