Obama Torture and the Rule Of Law & Deleting the Phrase " War On Terror"

Yes there are some actions which Obama has already taken which can be applauded. But I am especially interested in matters which are related to US foreign policies. These include the so called War On Terror which is framed in a way which is unproductive . Al Qaeda committed a criminal act against the US and so those who ordered the attack should be hunted down in the same way other international criminals are. To punish an entire people for these actions is wrong. With the help of other foreign government agencies the US should have cooperated in tracking these people rather than declaring an all out war and claiming as Bush did that countries are either with America or against America.

Further America was in the wrong to have invaded and occupied the country of Iraq which has led to the deaths of over a million Iraqis. But America likes to strut about throwing its weight around to prove to the world that it is the sole Superpower and answers to no one. We had hoped that President Obama would have a more realistic view of the world and would try to work more closely with the international community and International Organizations such as the UN .But it appears Obama is a true believer in American exceptionalism and so wants to show the world how tough he and America is.

The US under the Bush Regime invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and yet eight years later the situation is worse than it was before 9/11. There is less security and the terrorists groups have multiplied and have more support than they did before. We had hoped that Obama could help to defuse much of this situation.

So the hope is that Obama would bring some fresh perspective to this situation.
Further the hope is that Obama would be clear about his position on issues such as torture and abuse of captured suspected terrorists or so called insurgents. The hope was that in claiming that he believed in sticking to American values and the Rule Of Law which would mean condemning torture and other abuses . This would also mean that in cases of conflict Obama would insist that US forces and intelligence agencies etc. would abide by International Law ie. not use White Phosphorus or other such weapons on civilian populations. That the US forces would not engage in the creation of free fire zones as they have in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another issue is that of the crimes committed by the Bush Regime. The hope is taht Obama will insist on a vigorous investigation to determine what American and international laws were broken by the Bush Regime. This would then be followed where necessary by indictments of those responsible no matter what these individuals positions were at the time from the director of the CIA to vice President Cheney and President Bush and to the lawyers who claim to give them a green light to do as they please etc.

So Obama is considering dropping the term War on Terror or The Global War on Terror but will this mean a substantive change as in rethinking the use of massive military force as in destroying whole cities or knocking in the doors of a few million houses etc.

War on Words
Why Obama may be abandoning Bush's favorite phrase. by Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball Newsweek Feb 4, 2009

In another effort to undo the legacy of George W. Bush's presidency, the Obama administration is searching for alternatives to the term "war on terror."

Although partly symbolic, the search for new terror terminology reflects an internal government debate that predates the new administration. Critics have long decried the use of the phrase "war on terror" on the grounds that terrorism is a tactic, not an identifiable enemy. Years ago, State and Defense Department officials tried to move away from the phrase "war on terror," proposing instead to call it a "Struggle Against Violent Extremism," or SAVE.

But when word of the suggested change leaked to the media, President Bush displayed his annoyance at the idea during meeting of National Security Council officials. "The president unleashed over this," said one participant in the meeting who asked not to be identified talking about an internal discussion. "He made it perfectly clear that the American public understood what the war on terror was. … He was clearly irritated about this. That put an end to it."

Indeed, the "war on terror" was one of the signature phrases of the Bush presidency. It was formally declared in Bush's nationally televised speech to Congress on Sept. 20, 2001 - his first after the 9/11 terror attacks - when the president cast the government's response in such sweeping terms that, according to critics, it ultimately opened the door for the invasion of Iraq. "Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them," Bush said then. "Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

Robert Parry argues that those lawyers in the Justice Department who created arguments to allow the president and others to commit illegal or immoral acts .

" First, Jail All of Bush's Lawyers " by Robert Parry at Consortium News Feb. 5, 2009

The logic of targeting former Justice Department lawyers - the likes of John Yoo and Jay Bybee - is that they were the linchpin for justifying acts that were clearly illegal; they provided the paper cover for both the interrogators in the field and the senior officials back in Washington.

Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have repeatedly cited this legal guidance when insisting that the harsh interrogation of "war on terror" detainees - as well as other prisoners from the Iraq and Afghan wars - did not cross the line into torture.

In essence, the Bush-Cheney defense is that independent lawyers at the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and elsewhere gave honest opinions - and that everyone from the President and Vice President, who approved specific interrogation techniques, to the interrogators, who carried out these acts, operated in good faith.

If, however, that narrative is false - if the lawyers colluded with policymakers in creating legal excuses for criminal acts - then the Bush-Cheney defense collapses. Rather than diligent lawyers providing professional advice, the picture is of consiglieres counseling crime bosses how to skirt the law.

Obama & Torture

US Officials we are told bullied the British Government telling them that the US would refuse to share intel with them if they revealed any information on torture being used on detainees. It is easy to believe that former president Bush and his buddy Dick Cheney would be involved in such chicanery but was President Obama involved with these threats.

"Evidence of torture 'buried by ministers'

Judges condemn secrecy over files detailing treatment of suspect by CIA by Richard Norton-Taylor The Guardian.co.uk Feb. 5, 2009

Two senior judges said they were powerless to reveal the information about the torture of Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian-born British resident, because David Miliband, the foreign secretary, had warned the court the US was threatening to stop sharing intelligence about terrorism with the UK.

In a scathing judgment, the judges said the evidence, and what MI5 knew about it, must remain secret because according to Miliband, the American threats meant "the public of the United Kingdom would be put at risk".

Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones made clear they were unhappy with their decision, but said they had no alternative as a result of Miliband's claim. Their ruling revealed that Miliband stuck to his position about the threat to the UK even after Barack Obama signed orders two weeks ago banning torture and announcing the closure of the Guantánamo Bay prison camp.

" US Threatened Britain To Suppress Torture Evidence " By Shahram Vahdany Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com at Media With A Conscience Feb.5,2009

The Obama administration has been caught in a fresh torture controversy after it emerged that America threatened to cease all intelligence ties with Britain if it revealed that a British suspect held at Guantanamo Bay had been tortured into confessing to being part of a dirty bomb plot.

“Two senior British judges have expressed their anger and surprise that President Barack Obama’s Government has put pressure on Britain to suppress evidence of torture in US custody,” reports the London Times.

“Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones said they had been told that America had threatened to stop co-operating with Britain on intelligence matters if evidence were published suggesting that Binyam Mohammed, a British resident held at the US prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, had been tortured into confessing crimes.”

In their ruling, the judges, acting on behalf of the Foreign Office & Commonwealth Office, scorned the hypocrisy behind the Obama administration’s actions.

“We did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials . . . relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be,” they stated.

“We had no reason . . . to anticipate there would be made a threat of the gravity of the kind made by the United States Government that it would reconsider its intelligence-sharing relationship, when all the considerations in relation to open justice pointed to us providing a limited but important summary of the reports.”

also see:

"Letters Prove US Threats to Halt Intelligence to UK " by Paola Totaro at The Age ( Australia )Feb. 6, 2009

But then we get the disturbing testimony of Leon. E. Panetta who is to be the new of the CIA in which his answers raise more questions about the Obama's Administrations stand on the torture and abuse of captured suspected terrorists.

Panetta Open to Tougher Methods in Some C.I.A. Interrogation by Mark Mazzetti at The New York Times Feb. 6, 2009

... the White House pick to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, on Thursday left open the possibility that the agency could seek permission to use interrogation methods more aggressive than the limited menu that President Obama authorized under new rules issued last month

Before the same Senate panel last month, Dennis C. Blair, who is now the director of national intelligence, declined to say that waterboarding is torture, telling senators that it would be awkward for him to lead intelligence operatives he had accused of carrying out an illegal act.

For years, C.I.A. officials have argued that the agency’s detention and interrogation program not only helped thwart terrorist attacks, but also was the government’s most valuable resource for gaining insight into Al Qaeda.

Mr. Panetta pledged to examine the harsh interrogation techniques used by the spy agency after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to determine whether any damage done to America’s reputation abroad “counterbalanced” the intelligence gained during the interrogations.

Although the C.I.A. can no longer hold prisoners indefinitely, and can no longer hide prisoners from the Red Cross, the exact rules governing agency detention operations remain murky. For instance, Mr. Obama has yet to spell out exactly how long the C.I.A. can detain a prisoner, and how long a detainee can be in C.I.A. custody before the agency notifies the Red Cross.

Obama's CIA Man

Afshin Rattansi Interviews Retired CIA Man, Ray McGovern

Afshin Rattansi talks to former CIA official Ray McGovern about the consequences for the new head of the CIA and for the United States after Leon Panetta condemns torture, extraordinary rendition and those that were involved in it all. Also, will Cheney go to jail and what about David Milliband who denies that the UK secret services do not engage in torture despite evidence to the contrary for decades of British illegal activity, from Ireland to Gibraltar?






What had been hoped for from the Obama administrastion was a blanket condemnation of torture or abuses of detainees as defined and spelled out under International Law and not just based on the whims of some CIA operative or even the whims of a president. Otherwise Obama may just as well do as Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney did and claim the president can make up the rules and laws as he goes along while rejecting all International Laws and agreements including the Geneva Conventions. Is it that Obama does not understand the distinction or does not understand that there are a myriad of torture techniques which were used by those in the Bush administration. Does Obama need an exhaustive list of interrogation techniques which are deemed to be torture or abuse. That is from insulting and humiliating a prisoner to a few slaps across the face to stripping a prisoner naked and being led around on a dog leash to hanging a prisoner upside down or placing them in stress positions to being sodomized to being urinated on or being told their family or friends will be harmed or killed etc.

Panetta even used the old cliche of the ticking bomb which is no justification for the use of torture as many experts have pointed out. But the point is that he does not accept that torture is never justified . its only purpose is to humiliate and terrorize detainees and helps the interrogators believe they are doing something useful. Any intel brought about by torture is highly suspect and is not reliable.

The use of torture or any abuse of prisoners is against International Law. Once again we get the same old tired rationalizations for using an illegal and immoral practice. Panetta has said he would not use waterboarding but he and others ignore the fact that this was only one form of torture that was used by the Bush Regime.
The Bush Regime also had the audacity to redefine torture which they claimed was any technique which could lead to organ failure or death but this is not how it is defined under International Law .

Is Obama going to allow his administration to start employing language that is using legalese and other bureaucratic language to defend the indefensible. He is going to allow for some sort of slippery slope or make it clear that all forms of torture from sensory deprivation to sensory overload to sleep deprivation etc. are not to be used. Is he like Bush claiming that it is up to him or his legal advisors to decide what constitutes torture.

One wonders how committed Obama is to The Rule Of Law. As we saw in the Gaza conflict he was all too eager to defend Israel in its slaughter of unarmed Gazan civilians.

And from Common Dreams.org there are those who may still be loyal to the Bush Regime and its policies who are working in sensitive positions:

Key Bush Gitmo Advisers Still on Job at Pentagon by Lara Jakes Associted Press Feb. 6, 2009

and we need to be aware that the rhetoric used by the former Bush Regime and its minions should be taken with a grain of salt as in claiming that the majority of inmates at Gitmo or other American run prisons for terrorists or insurgents contain the "worse of the worse ' or that even most of these detainees are guilty of some heinous crime since we do not know nor does Obama. The information he has been given or will be given was created by by a corrupt system made up of those who wished to cover their asses and to protect the Bush Regime at all cost. Some of the information was based on individual's testimony or confessions obtained through intimidation , abuse and or torture. Some of the information on detainees was brought to US officials in return for monetary awards etc.


And the Bush Regime also decided not to respect various International Agreements and laws including the concept of Child Soldiers who are to be treated differently from other captured combatants. The conservatives supporting the Bush ideology believe that anyone arrested or captured no matter what the evidence is to be treated as guilty of terrorist activities.

" The Children of Guantanamo " by William Fisher Feb. 6, 2009

NEW YORK - Legal experts and human rights advocates are challenging the public to remember Guantanamo's "child soldiers" when the detainees there are characterised as "the worst of the worst".

Since the iconic detention centre in Cuba opened in 2002, some 22 juveniles have been imprisoned there. And contrary to the U.N.'s Rights of the Child protocol, all but three have been housed with the general population, despite their being obliged to promote "the physical and psychosocial rehabilitation and social reintegration of children who are victims of armed conflict".

Former Vice President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and many other senior George W. Bush administration officials have repeatedly described all the Guantanamo detainees as "the worst of the worst".

Two "child soldier" cases in particular are being highlighted by human rights advocates.

Next Post : More on Afghanistan and the War On Terror

and so it goes,
GORD.

Limbaugh Crowned Leader of The Conservative Movement Fear Mongering & a Little Racism

UPDATE: Post Feb.1, 2009

It seems that the Republicans who spent a great deal of time attacking ACORN during the election are continuing their attacks on this organization this time claiming ACORN is getting billions of dollars from the stimulus package which it is not.
see:
" ACORN: The Bogeyman in the GOP Closet " by Bertha Lewis at Huffington Post Jan. 29, 2009

Keith Olbermann just after the election in November in a triumphal mood claimed that certain people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh etc. were now irrelevant but it appears he spoke too soon. Limbaugh is still seen by Republicans and the conservative movement as an important spokesperson for their movement . They believe that Limbaugh speaks for the average American To many liberals and those on the left Limbaugh is characterized in a dismissive manner as a bigot ,a nativist or a buffoon But the right takes Limbaugh seriously as a spokesperson for millions of Americans.

Keith Olbermann spoke too soon
they're back with a vengeance out to undermine Obama's administration and stir up their base. Their base were those angry mobs at Sarah Palin/ John McCain rallies. Fearful of a communist / socialist black take over of America.
President Obama = Goodbye to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly

McCain Defends Limbaugh Over Obama Fox News (VIDEO)
by Stuart Whatley | January 30, 2009

John McCain seems to be re-establishing himself as Obama's rival this week, criticizing the new president on multiple fronts.

During an appearance today on Fox News, McCain adamantly defended conservative talk host Rush Limbaugh when asked about an alleged statement by President Obama telling congressional Republicans that "you can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

McCain described Limbaugh as a bastion of conservatism and free speech, and seemed to lament Obama's choice to jump down into the trenches. But, as Think Progress points out, this isn't a fair portrayal considering that Limbaugh's statements are on air and directed towards an audience of over 20 million listeners while Obama's alleged remark was "made in a private meeting with Republicans and then leaked to the press."

Sean Hannity proclaims Rush Limbaugh is the leading voice of Conservativism & has helped shape Conservative opinion in America.

Why does Limbaugh claim he doesn't care about Obama's race but keeps referring to this - " he's black, he's historic, he makes people feel good, he's a radical , he appeals to his kooky base " odd didn't a majority of Americans vote for Obama so are millions of Americans Kooks and radicals and dangerous because they supported Barack Obama-

Isn't it true that Bush/Cheney supporters act like cult members- even now they claim Bush was one of America's best presidents.

Cenk Uygur points out Limbaugh's racism and his strange depiction that American's are being asked to bend over and grab their ankles as if what they are going to figuratively be raped f****D up the ass . So Obama is trying to abuse the US and the American nation. Did he spend too much time in prison or what. Maybe he watched too many episodes of the TV prison series " OZ".

TheYoungTurks
January 22, 2009

Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com

Limbaugh's Non-Sensical Race-Obsessed Remarks



Limbaugh defacto spokesman for Republican Party- Jan. 31, 2009

Rush Limbaugh says about Barack Obama "I hope he fails" Americans United for Change are running ads linking Senate Republicans to him



Limbaugh on CNBC - Hypocrite
Obama is a radical liberal



Republicans and Conservative Americans Fear Criticizing Rush LImbaugh

The distinction needs to be made between a fair criticism of Obama's policies and fear mongering and lies and the use of inflammatory rhetoric. This is what many Republicans and conservatives fail to get when they come out supporting Rush Limbaugh unconditionally. The bend over and grab your ankles metaphor should surely be seen as way out of line. On the other hand the Pro Bush camp constantly throughout the last eight years in America claimed that those people who objected to Bush's policies should just shut up as O'Reilly ineloquently put it because he said America was at war and during a war everyone should support the country, the troops and the Commander in Chief. Well Obama is also Commander in Chief and America is still claiming to be at war.

MSNBC's O'Donnell Begs Congressman to Denounce Rush Limbaugh
Network's chief Washington correspondent attacks conservative talk show host for not supporting Democrat 'stimulus' package. by Jeff Poor Business and Media Institute Jan. 28, 2009

“No doubt, you can agree with Rush Limbaugh about that he is calling this stimulus package essentially a sham what’s going on, that it’s just too full of wasteful spending. But on that specific thing – that we have to bend over because this is the first black president – why don’t you feel like you could denounce something like that?” O’Donnell asked.

She questioned the validity of Limbaugh’s remark at a time “when America’s trying to come together.”

“Are you so beholden to someone like Rush Limbaugh that you can’t say that that’s not the type of rhetoric, when America’s trying to come together and do something for the unemployment rate in your state of Indiana – now 8.2 percent – is that the type of rhetoric we need?” O’Donnell asked.

CNN's Rick Sanchez vs. Rush Limbaugh- Jan. 21, 2009

CNN's Rick Sanchez discusses Rush Limbaugh's recent comments about hoping President Obama fails. And he goes on to discuss other Republican Obstructionist Tactics



Rush Limbaugh Heats Up "The View," CNN (VIDEO) Huffington Post Danny Shea Feb. 2, 2009
Limbaugh view

Talk of Rush Limbaugh heated up the TV Monday, with memorable moments on both "The View" and CNN.

On "The View," Whoopi Goldberg introduced a hot topics roundtable about Limbaugh's comparison of President Obama's stimulus plan to socialism, which led to a spat between Joy Behar and Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Joy said that Limbaugh doesn't care about poor people, and Elisabeth disagreed. Later, Whoopi took Rush to task for saying that Obama can't be challenged because he is the first black president.



Limbaugh sanchez cnnn

CNN's Velshi takes on Limbaugh 1:05
CNN's Ali Velshi responds to criticism from talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
Source: CNN | Added February 2, 2009




Hating Obama Trumps Love Of Country by Frank Harris III Courant.com February 5, 2009

What? You still hope he fails? Because he's a liberal and a Democrat?

Mr. Limbaugh, I suspect it is more than that. I think you are putting race before country. You would rather the whole country go down to the bottom of the sea than have a man like Obama successfully pilot the ship through the straits of the hell that the previous captain and crew put us into. How bitter the bile that your antipathy for the new captain is greater than your love of your Good Ship America. I would not want the captain of the ship failing anymore than I'd want the pilot of an airplane failing, whether I'm on the plane or not.

This race-first mentality, Mr. Limbaugh, is what drove this country for many years. Cast aside this mentality. Let it go.

and:

Rush Limbaugh challenging notion of new politics David Bauder - The Associated Press The Daily Herald Feb. 5, 2009

and "Don't Let Rush Limbaugh Write The Economic Recovery Package " By Bertha Lewis CEO and Chief Organizer of ACORN at Huffington Post Feb. 3, 2009

Think the economic recovery package was all about contraceptives and a $4 billion payout to ACORN? (We wish.) Think again.

What conservative bullies like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are not telling us in their drearily familiar, windbag attacks on the desperately needed economic recovery package is that it contains a wealth of provisions that put money directly into the economy through programs aimed a low- and moderate-income families.

Here's an example of the radicalism that is being fueled by Limbaugh, Hannity and Fox News etc.

Call for Truckers Strike Blockade
Your going to starve how will you survive?- Jan. 30, 2009



and so it goes,
GORD.

Obama Needs to Rethink Military Solution for Afghanistan

UPDATE: 11:50 AM Feb. 5, 2009

It is up to Obama to redefine the so called War on Terror.If he accepts the War on Terror Mindset how can he possibly consider reviewing the way this conflict has been fought since 9/11.

Will Afghanistan be Obama's Vietnam Quagmire. Obama claimed he would treat all parties in the disputes with respect yet the first thing he did was to bomb inside Pakistan showing disrespect for Pakistan. He has also insisted on increasing American and Nato military presence in Afghanistan by doubling the number of troops. So we are back to continuing America's War on Terror and defending or even increasing the American Empire. Has Obama drank the same old kool-aid that Bush Regime did. He seems to be more concerned with America's power and interests than with finding a diplomatic solution. So Obama has proven so far that he will take advice from the most hawkish individuals in the Democratic party and at the Pentagon. We were led to believe that Obama would bring some sanity to foreign relations but he appears unable to think beyond bombing the shit out of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

President Obama's Military solution in Afghanistan is no solution. The more troops the Americans send in the worse the situation will become. The situation is much more complex than Obama or the hawks who are advising him claim it to be. If Obama sends more troops they will be seen as a foreign army invading and occupying their country. The resistance will only escalate . For an in depth discussion watch Bill Moyers Journal Jan . 30, 2009. Here's an excerpt from the transcript below:

See: : Is a Military Strategy the Best Option in Afghanistan? Bill Moyers Journal Jan. 30, 2009

Bill Moyers sits down with historian Marilyn Young, author of the forthcoming BOMBING CIVILIANS: A TWENTIETH CENTURY HISTORY and former Pentagon official Pierre Sprey, who developed military planes and helped found the military reform movement.
BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the JOURNAL.

Very often in the White House, the most momentous decisions are, at the time, the least dramatic, the least discussed. And they don't make news, or history, until much later, when their consequences bubble to the surface downstream. There are observers who think that could prove to be the case with a decision made within hours of Barack Obama's swearing in last week.

It started as a few lines in wire reports - a bit of buzz on the web - then a story here and there in the weekend papers. Unmanned American drones like this one, called Predators, honing in on villages in Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan, striking like silent intruders in the night, against suspected terrorists.

Early accounts of casualties varied from a dozen to more than 20 dead and wounded. One Pakistani security official told THE WASHINGTON POST that perhaps ten insurgents had been killed, maybe even a high value target, a senior member of al Qaeda or the Taliban. Then the TIMES of London quoted locals who said "... three children lost their lives" when the missiles destroyed several homes.

Since last August, 38 suspected U.S. missile strikes have killed at least 132 people in Pakistan, where allegedly we are not at war.

In next door Afghanistan, the number is much higher. For seven years American and NATO forces have been chasing Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban, not only with Predator drones, but with guided missiles and bomber raids as well. According to the United Nations and the organization Human Rights Watch, aerial bombing has killed or wounded more than a thousand civilians, what the Pentagon calls, "collateral damage."

The death of civilians has brought sharp criticism, including from some of our NATO allies and the president of Afghanistan. They believe the bombing is turning people in both Afghanistan and Pakistan against the West, actually undermining an effective campaign against terrorists.

The bombing of civilians from the sky is an old and questionable practice, argued over since the moment the military began to fly. It was deliberate strategy in World Wars I and II. American presidents approved it in Korea and extensively in Vietnam, again in the first Gulf War, then in Bosnia and Kosovo, and six years ago during the campaign of "shock and awe" over Iraq.

But what lifted those reports last weekend out of the routine is the simple fact that for the first time the air strikes occurred on President Obama's watch. As he said during his campaign, and as Secretary of Defense Gates reaffirmed this week, Obama is escalating America's military presence in Afghanistan. He may increase it to as many as 60,000 troops this year.

When I read the first story about the Predator strikes last weekend, I thought back to 1964, and another president.

LYNDON JOHNSON: My fellow Americans...

BILL MOYERS: After an encounter in the Gulf of Tonkin between American destroyers and North Vietnamese torpedo boats, President Lyndon Johnson ordered bombing raids over North Vietnam.

LYNDON JOHNSON: Air action is now in execution...

BILL MOYERS: LBJ said we want no wider war, but wider war is what we got, eleven years of it.

Now military analysts and historians, including my two guests are wondering aloud - could Afghanistan become "Obama's war," a quagmire that threatens to define his presidency, as Vietnam defined LBJ's?

...BILL MOYERS: Marilyn, what did you think last weekend when four days into the Obama administration we read those reports of the strikes in Pakistan?

MARILYN YOUNG: My heart sank. It absolutely sank. It had been very high. I had been, like I think the rest of the country, feeling immensely encouraged and inspired by this new administration and by the energy and vigor with which he began. And then comes this piece of old stuff on approach to a complicated question that in comes in the form of a bomb and a bomb in the most dangerous of all places. And, yeah, my heart sank, literally.

BILL MOYERS: Our military, Pierre, says it's sure that it's striking militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And that they're not targeting civilians. Can they be sure? From your experience, can they be sure?

PIERRE SPREY: I'm sure that their purpose is to strike militants. I have no doubt of that whatsoever. But with the weapons they use and with the extremely flawed intelligence they have.

PIERRE SPREY: I'd be astonished if one in five people they kill or wound is in fact, a militant.

...and :

Pierre Sprey : “What happens on the ground is for every one of those impacts you get five or ten times as many recruits for the Taliban as you've eliminated. The people that we’re trying to convince to become adherents to our cause have become rigidly hostile to our cause in part because of bombing and in part because of other killing of civilians from ground forces. We’re dealing with a society that’s based on honor... They have to resist being invaded, occupied, bombed and killed. It’s a matter of honor, and they’re willing to die in unbelievable numbers to do that.”

Marilyn Young: “The problem is [that] the focus remains a military solution to what all the other information I have says is a political problem. I don’t care how you slice the military tactic. So long as your notion is that you can actually deal with this in a military way, you’re just going to march deeper and deeper into what Pete Seeger called ‘The Big Muddy”... The point is, if you can’t figure out a political way to deal in Afghanistan then you can only compound the compound mess.”

Rethink Military Escalation in Afghanistan-Feb. 4, 2009
Bravenewfilms

We must end the Bush war in Afghanistan. Do not let the dreams of the Obama administration get destroyed in the hills of Afghanistan. Insist on hearings, now.

Taliban warns Obama of Afghan bloodshed - 1 Feb 09



also see:

" Pakistan: 10 trucks torched along US supply line " By RIAZ KHAN –Feb. 4, 2009

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — Assailants torched 10 trucks stranded in Pakistan by the bombing of a key bridge on the main supply route for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, an official said Wednesday.

Increasing attacks on transport depots and truck convoys heading to bases across the border have raised doubts about Pakistan's ability to protect the vital road as the U.S. prepares to send as many as 30,000 more American forces into Afghanistan this year.

also see:

" Helping Afghan Women and Girls " by Katrina Vanden Heuval The Nation Feb. 2, 2009

...So, we need a different kind of troop deployment in Afghanistan, we need a massive deployment of humanitarian troops. We need to invest in Afghanistan's economic infrastructure, in its agriculture. These are villages where people are literally not able to piece together anything that comes close to a subsistence living. Afghanistan is a country in which the maternal mortality rate is the second highest in the world after Sierra Leone. Why are we not sending in teams of doctors and midwives to train local women? We're not talking about a German Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. Instead, we're talking about - without a very clearly defined "enemy" - sending in 30,000 troops to look for this shadowy enemy and we're not even clear about what that enemy represents. Afghanistan has a very long and very proud history of having thrown out every foreign invader that was ever unfortunate enough to try to subdue them. Yet every political leader suffers from this historical amnesia, and seems to lack the willingness to look at the core structures within Afghanistan society. Afghanistan is a very non-centralized nation of very unique and independent small groups and clans that have never had a formally centralized government.

Returning to this argument that sending in troops is being done because, "we have to save the women," is exactly what George Bush cynically did in his use of that as a kind of justification. I think the Obama Administration has to be very, very careful not to fall into this trap. Yes, there is an incredible need to make a difference in Afghanistan, but more military presence is not the solution. More presence, yes. More dialogue, yes. More engagement with both Pakistan and Afghan leaders and different factions, yes. More genuine investment in the long-term economic growth and development in Afghanistan, absolutely. But none of that is what is being promised. What is being promised is 30,000 US troops and the accompanying support systems, including the Halliburton companies that will supply, feed and look after them.

This then creates another effect which is very important to remember. You then have a group of people, who are foreigners, who do not speak or understand your language or your culture, who are allegedly there fighting the bad guys, who are members of your own people. These "outsiders" feel like occupiers - they live in relative comfort with access to food -all the trappings of what looks like a luxurious life. When the vast majority of that population is living on less than $1 a day. This creates a huge amount of resentment. You walk around any of these American camps in Iraq or Afghanistan - huge areas of land which are cordoned off - and there are SUVs and guys full of body armor and machine guns. Inside it's like a little America with the PX, hamburgers, and TV for the troops to watch whatever they want. Meanwhile, outside, Afghan children on the street are still playing with cluster bombs that were dropped by the American army in 2001 - they risk being blown up, and losing their sight, their limbs, their fingers.

also see:

" More Troops, More Worries, Less Consensus on Afghanistan " by Jim Lobe Inter Press Service Feb. 2009

Even as U.S. President Barack Obama prepares to deploy more military forces to Afghanistan - what he has called "the central front" in former President George W. Bush's "global war on terror" - a consensus on overall U.S. strategy there remains elusive.

Even Washington's precise war aims in Afghanistan more than seven years after U.S.-backed forces chased the Taliban out of the country appear subject to continuing debate, as, in the face of what virtually all analysts and officials concede is a deteriorating situation, the Pentagon is actively downgrading the Bush administration's hopes of ushering in a thriving democracy to something far less ambitious.

... fears that Afghanistan could become a "new Vietnam", a deadly quagmire in which already overstretched U.S. forces could become bogged down in an unwinnable war, have gained sudden new currency in the mass media.

And there are those experts who believe it would be better to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan:

...In a new report released Tuesday by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Gilles Dorronsoro, a French expert on South Asia, argued that adding troops would actually be counter-productive because the mere presence of foreign soldiers in Pashtun areas has fueled the Taliban's resurgence and that the best way to weaken it is to reduce military confrontations. In that respect, "the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops."

Indeed, Dorronsoro argues, as do other critics, that most effective way to ensure that Afghan territory is not used as a base to attack the U.S. is to "de-link" the Taliban from al Qaeda, "which is based mostly in Pakistan."

"We will be in a much better position to fight al Qaeda if we don't have to fight the Afghans," he said. "We have to stop fighting the Taliban because it is the wrong enemy."

and :

U.S. supply routes to Afghanistan suffer two huge blows by Tom Lasseter and Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy Newspapers, Feb. 3, 2009

MOSCOW — The U.S.-led campaign against the Taliban suffered two logistical blows Tuesday as the president of Kyrgyzstan announced that he'd shut a U.S. airbase in his country and insurgents in Pakistan blew up a bridge, disrupting the main U.S. supply route into Afghanistan.

and :

" UN chief urges end to Afghan deaths " Media With Conscience Feb. 4, 2009

and so it goes,
GORD.

Obama's Policy On Renditions Meanwhile Right-Wing Media Portray Obama as a Socialist, a Muslim and Anti-American

Anyway while Obama attempts to appease Republicans and conservatives they are out to attack and undermine his presidency. For eight years they said in a time of crisis one should support the president no matter what one's party affiliation. So what happen to that conservative maxim?

Right wing ideologues still attacking Obama -Using Karl Rove Talking Points
Sean Hannity etc, call Obama and his supporters left wing crazies
Obama accused again and again of being a Socialists and a Muslim
Hannity and Limbaugh are angry because they predicted wrong and lost the election
They also kept saying the American economy was sound even as it went into melt-down
and the Middle East is not about to become a made in America Utopia
Will Obama come to the realization that these right-wing ideologues are unreasonable and will not compromise - and whenever Obama compromises at all they will describe Obama as weak or as caving in or flip-flopping and thereby proving they were right about everything.
Taditional or acceptable renditions versus Bush/ Rumsfeld Extra-ordinary Renditions ?
Obama obligated to Investigate alleged crimes followed by Indictments of Bush & co.
Or turn the matter over to the International Criminal Court ?

It is no wonder that President Obama is concerned about the right wing talk show hosts and their enablers since they distort and lie spewing their propaganda against the Obama administration day in and day out. After eight years of being part of the Neoconservative Bush propaganda machine they are unable to distinguish reality from their own self-delusional rantings and ravings. They are still using the talking points used by the Republicans in the election. They claim that Obama and his supporters are all left-wing crazies who want to create some sort of Communist or collectivist nation . Their fear it appears is that some of the policies advocated by Obama might be in fact acceptable or even seen as desirable by a large percentage of Americans possibly even the majority. They are up in arms because they and the Bush Regime have been able to force their agenda on Americans by constantly referring to 9/11 and the War on Terror . These are the people who lied to Americans to get them to agree to such disastrous policies as the invasion of Iraq.

Hannity and Gingrich & the Ultraconservatives are continuing their fear mongering over Obama's economic stimulus package. Hannity is far from a realist about economics and business. Businesses have good years and lean years. What Hannity and Gingrich claim is that businesses must always show a profit and profit should rise each year. There are also businesses which succeed and those which fail due to the market place. What they seem to suggest is that businesses should be given a guarantee to succeed and make profits. They also see nothing wrong with a company laying off thousands of workers or insisting workers take pay cuts while CEO's get bigger bonuses each and every year.

So what they want for instance is more tax breaks for corporations and no breaks for workers. They don't bother to discuss the outsourcing of American jobs or corporations cutting and running and leaving America in order to set up shop in a country where workers have no rights. So in their America workers shouldn't have rights only corporations and CEOs and their investors should have rights. Multimillionaire Hannity is not too concerned about average Americans losing their jobs or their homes he is more concerned about CEOs getting their bonuses and corporations being permitted to use the bail-out money for these bonuses and a new private jet or two or luxury condos etc.

Meanwhile from this Hannity and Gingrich jump to criticizing Obama for shutting down Gitmo and ending the use of torture and abuse of detainees. To them torture and abuse of detainees is as American as apple pie.

Gingrich Attacks Obama For Caring Too Much About Civil Liberties



Ann Coulter and Hannity in an all out attack on Obama and those who support Obama. They are still acting as if Obama only won by a slim margin rather than a landslide or at least a comfortable majority. They are fear mongering about the Stimulus Package and Guantanamo. Coulter says Liberals and all those who supported Obama would be comfortable living with terrorists since the liberals and Obama and his supporters Hate America. Though Coulter says Obama has back tracked on a lot of issues which gives her some comfort. If Coulter is happy with what Obama does we should question whether he is going far enough to reverse the course of the Bush Regime.



How low will Sean Hannity go. Well we now see what the next four years are going to like as Hannity , Coulter, Limbaugh etc.continue their insane attacks on Obama.






In a previous post I raised questions about President Obama's position on the policy of renditions.

So based on information I came across I began to wonder about whether Obama was not getting rid of renditions outright . During the Bush Regime it appears that Bush & Co. added a few enhancements as it were to renditions which had bee practiced by earlier US Regimes . In the Bush era renditions became " Extraordinary renditions " in which those suspects who were picked up were sent to super-secret prisons where prisoners could still be held without due process etc. and abused or tortured or sent to countries which would do the torturing for America as proxies.

But it appears some of this has been misinformation purposely leaked to the press by some in the government to undermine Obama's decisions or to show that Obama is unable or unwilling to get rid of the Bush Regime's worst abuses. In this way the leakers are trying to make the case that what Bush was doing was not that bad and even was necessary and useful. They implied that Obama couldn't afford not to carry on with thses extraordinary renditions.

So it appears Obama may allow renditions in special cases but that these suspects would then be treated according to International Law and the Geneva Conventions.This is at least what Rachel Maddow is told by an expert in this next clip.

Will Obama continue Bush polices on Rendition? Feb. 3, 2009

Rachel Maddow asks if there is a 'whisper campaign' suggesting Obama will continue the Bush policies on extraordinary rendition and torture -




Lawyers reduced to Shills and Sycophants by the Bush administration
If no prosecutions follow it will show that lawyers are mere hirelings of thugs whether the thugs are mafia or gang members or members of government institutions. This in itself should rally members of the American Bar association to roundly condemn these lawyers but no attorneys in general see anything wrong with other lawyers bending and twisting the law to fit with a particular administrations agenda. So what does Bush or Obama mean by " The Rule of Law' since it depends on who's making or interpreting the law. Are there no fundamental principles or ethics involved. This is a rather cynical and Machiavellian attitude.

As for the International Committee of The Red Cross the Bush Regime and Americans in general do not recognize it as body which has any say or influence when it comes to America's policies . The Red Cross just hands out blankets and food and otherwise should keep its opinions to itself. We saw the same attitude in Israel towards complaints by the Red Cross or any other humanitarian or Human Rights organizations .

America we are told is a law unto itself as is Israel or any other ally of the US. When Saddam was America's friend and ally the US defended Saddam and down played any accusations against him.

George Bush, Dick Cheney war crimes: Torture July 17, 2008

Rachel Maddow, guest host on countdown with Keith olbermann, comments on the newly emerging evidence of the Bush White House's role in promoting torture.
------------------------------
- The ICRC report on CIA interrogation techniques concluded categorically that they were "torture"--not "tantamount to torture" as previously reported--and issued an explicit warning to the U.S. Administration that the use of these techniques was a war crime which might subject U.S. leaders to criminal prosecution. This is the real potential headline maker from the book.



Obama War Crimes Prosecution - "Let's Do This Thing!"-Jan. 12, 2009.

Contact Obama and tell him to order the Attorney General to prosecute Bush, Cheney and the others for war crimes.



and so it goes,
GORD.

Bush Gang Laughing Getting Away Scot-free :The Gestapo defense by CIA and US Military " We were only following orders " Obama Unconcerned

Anyway there are more calls to have President Obama to take action in investigating and indicting Bush and friends who have committed crimes . Will Obama do the right thing or continue with his naive notions of post-partisanship and forgetting and forgiving past wrong-doing. So it is quite evident that the Republicans and conservatives are not interested in cooperating or making compromises with Obama. They are still insistent on pushing their ultra-conservative agenda and in defending the actions of the Bush Regime. Obama needs to realize the Republicans continue to believe that President Bush was one of America's greatest presidents so how can one make honorable deals with these narrow minded myopic ideologues. Time to move on from Bi-Partisanship to pushing through legislation and laws to undo the damage done by eight long disastrous years of George W. Bush and the Republicans and their Neoconservative and Religious Right fanatics. They claim that they are only ones who represent the "Real America" and the "Real Americans" and "Right Thinking Americans". They believe that President Obama is not a "Real American " and that his rise to the presidency is an anomaly in which he is characterized as " media Phenomenon " comparable to Madonna or Britney Spears or the Jonas Brothers and Hanna Montanna and so is a passing phase or fad who in Obama's case will once again in 2012 will be replaced by the Republicans in their view the "True All-American Party".

Crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Regime
The necessity of Investigating and indicting where necessary
The Justice Department under 8 years of George W. Bush has been compromised and corrupted by political appointees whose mission was to undermine the department
Detainees in Iraq number some 50,000 will they be properly treated by Iraqi administration
Will America answer for the thousands of Iraqi prisoners who were or are being abused , denied their rights or who have been tortured by US personnel
Do Americans care about the rights of Iraqi or Afghanistan prisoner of war / detainees


"If we look at the Bush record and conclude that the book should simply be closed, we will be tacitly approving both the documented abuses and the additional misdeeds we will have chosen to leave uncovered. "

Rep. John Conyers on investigating and prosecuting Bush and his people for their crimes.

Bush Gang Laughing Getting Away Scot-free :The Gestapo defense by CIA and US Military " We were only following orders " Obama Unconcerned
Jonathan Turley: Hunt for Justice. Will Obama Be An Accessory to Bush's War Crimes/

1/26/09: Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at The George Washington University Law School.
Re: Bush & Cheney war crimes.
Will Obama Be An Accessory to Bush's War Crimes/



UN official Enough evidence to prosecute Rumsfeld & CO for war crimes

Monday, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak told CNN's Rick Sanchez that the US has an "obligation" to investigate whether Bush administration officials ordered torture, adding that he believes that there is already enough evidence to prosecute former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

"We have clear evidence," he said. "In our report that we sent to the United Nat More..ions, we made it clear that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld clearly authorized torture methods and he was told at that time by Alberto Mora, the legal council of the Navy, 'Mr. Secretary, what you are actual ordering here amounts to torture.' So, there we have the clear evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld knew what he was doing but, nevertheless, he ordered torture."

Asked during an interview with Germany's ZDF television on Jan. 20, Nowak said: "I think the evidence is on the table."

At issue, however, is whether "American law will recognize these forms of torture."



and Rep. John Conyers in this article at the Huffington Post argues that investigating the crimes of the Bush Regime is necessary and is not merely vindictive partisan politics for all Americans were taken in by these officials and their lies and propaganda and the acts they committed were done so in the name of the American people.

" Our Responsibility " by Rep. John Conyers at Huffington Post Jan. 31, 2009

For all the worry of "cycles of timidity," is there no countervailing concern for "cycles of aggression," or "cycles of lawlessness"? In an era where detainees have been held in limbo for years based on flawed or non-existent evidence, where we have waterboarded prisoners, deprived them of sleep, and subjected them to unconscionable degradations and abuse, and where our most powerful technologies have been turned inward to spy on Americans and within the United States, without court order or warrant and in apparent violation of a clear federal statute, is our greatest fear really that our national security services may be unduly timid?

To me, the bottom line is this: If we move on now without fully documenting what occurred, without acknowledging the betrayal of our values, and without determining whether or not any laws have been broken, we cannot help but validate all that has gone on before. If we look at the Bush record and conclude that the book should simply be closed, we will be tacitly approving both the documented abuses and the additional misdeeds we will have chosen to leave uncovered.

That is why there is nothing partisan about the call for further review. In the end, these acts were not taken by George Bush, or by John Yoo, or even by Dick Cheney - they were taken by the United States of America. By all of us. There is no avoiding the responsibility we all bear for what has been done, and for what we choose to do next.

Our country has never been perfect. This would not be the first time we were forced to take a hard look at difficult choices made in times of peril. But when we have done so before, it has made us stronger, both by improving our policies and our practices and, more fundamentally, by strengthening our moral core and by breathing new life into the principles of our founding.

The responsible way forward requires us to look back as we go.
-----------


Senator Russ Feingold on Bush Prosecutions- Says if there was wrongdoing those responsible should be held accountable no matter what President Obama says.



Can Obama get rid of or control anti-Civil Rights people at the Justice department who were hired for being anti-civil rights and against protecting voters rights of American citizens. They were hired we are told by Schlozman for being considered " Right Thinking Americans " (RTA )that is Republican Conservatives who hate liberals and leftists and also have a tendency to be racist. Obama surely can charge some of these people or have their jobs terminated or will he allow them to spread their anti-liberal anti-civil rights and anti-voters rights propaganda to the rest of the Department of Justice. The Republicans are not going to help clean house because they agree with Bradley Schlozman and George W. Bush on these issues. So how can Obama insist on the rule of Law when the Department of Justice is filled with Bush cronies who out to undermine the role of the Department of Justice ( DOJ) Other departments such as the EPA have been infiltrated in the same manner by political appointees hiring only conservative and firing or chastising non-conservatives .

Bradley Schlozman & John Tanner racists at the department of Justice .
And they like to make racist comments and jokes.

How Bush Set up Sleeper Cells Inside the Government -Jan. 30, 2009.



Department of Justice corrupted by Bush Administration
Will Obama have the courage to clean house ? Civil Rights not a concern of the Civil Rights and Voters Rights divisions- upheld laws discriminating against African-American voters.
Archie Bunker at the Department of Justice - Bradley Schlozman (Part 1 of 2 - Countdown)



Bradley Schlozman must be prosecuted at the least for lying under oath -
Is Obama's team going to help cover-up or white wash Bush administrations crimes and misdemeanors by not prosecuting ?
Eric Holder On Bradley Schlozman



Will President Obama's administration simply wash its hands of the detainees being held in Iraq which may number as many as 50,000. Once again as the occupying force in Iraq according to the Geneva Conventions the US is responsible for those incarcerated.

Iraq Appears Unwilling to Guarantee Detainee Rights" By Nick Mottern and Bill Rau, t r u t h o u t Jan. 31, 2009

The Iraqi government will make no commitment to ensure rights of due process for tens of thousands of detainees in its jails and prisons...

Asked about this situation, noted international human rights lawyer Karen Parker said that Articles 9 and 14 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which appear in full at the end of this article) define rights that must be accorded to Iraqi detainees. The United Nations' Standard Minimal Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners also apply to Iraqi detainees, she said, and Geneva Convention III, concerning treatment of prisoners of war, applies to persons who are POWs.

... the shortcomings of the Iraqi justice system appear to also include not being able to even keep accurate records on the detainees it holds, assuming it wishes to do so. Indeed, it is unclear how many Iraqis are being held by their own government; estimates range from 25,000 to 60,000 and possibly more.

As we reported in Truthout December 3, 2008, (Obama Faced With Iraq Human Rights Debacle) the Iraqi prison system has been credibly characterized as one in which prisoners are likely to face inhumane, illegal treatment including severe overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, beatings and torture.

This is the system into which the US military will begin on February 1 to transfer prisoners under the new Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the US and Iraqi government, signed late last year. According to Agence France-Presse (AFP) and other reports, in coming months, the US will give the files of about 1,500 Iraqis a month to Iraqi officials who will either release the prisoner or put him or her into an Iraqi jail. The US currently holds about 15,000 Iraqis in its prisons, according to various reports.

On January 22, Navi Pillay, United Nations human rights chief, praised President Barack Obama for committing to close the US prison at Guantanamo Bay and said: "I appeal to President Obama to look into similar detention regimes which have been set up or supported by the US government in Afghanistan and Iraq and ensure that those detainees have judicial review of their detention and their prospects of release and trial."

There is evidence of official US concern for the due process rights of Iraqi detainees in a paragraph in H. Res. 72, introduced in the House of Representatives on January 15, 2009, by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California), which calls for congressional hearings to "determine the impact, if any, of the Agreement on the status of the nearly 50,000 Iraqi nationals held in preventive detention by the Iraqi government and United States forces as well as any such foreign nationals in Iraq who have been designated as 'protected persons' under the Fourth Geneva Convention."

also see:

"Report Raps Bradley Schlozman, Former Justice Department Official, for Political Bias
Former Civil Rights Division Chief Schemed to Keep 'Lefties' Out of Key Jobs " ABC News By THERESA COOK Jan. 13, 2009

* "Internal probe slams Bush Justice official for illegal hiring " By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers Jan. 13, 2009

* "Report Cites Political and Racial Bias At Justice Watchdogs Say Ex-Official Broke Civil Service Laws " By Carrie Johnson Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 14, 2009

* " Criticism of Ex-Official in Hiring at Justice Dept. " By ERIC LICHTBLAU
New York Times/ January 13, 2009

* "
Schlozman takes the stand, Leahy gets angry "By Alex Koppelman Salon.com/ June 5, 2007

* " Bush War Crimes: European Activists Call For Bush To Be Tried For Torture " Inter Press Service | By Julio Godoy | February 2, 2009 at Huffington Post

* "The U.S. Did Torture, Says Bush Administration Official; A Detainee That Donald Rumsfeld Was Closely Monitoring " Swampland, Time.com / Jan. 14, 2009

* and from the right wing Atlas Shrugs they believe that the UN is corrupt and anti-American and has no right to go after the " Good Guys " ie Bush and America.
" UN WANTS TO PROSECUTE BUSH, RUMSFELD FOR WAR CRIMES AGAINST TERRORISTS AT GITMO " by Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs Jan. 21, 2009

* and see another defense of Bush Rumsfeld and torture at Pajamas Media.com which also attacks the UN and defines torture and abuse differently than the Geneva Conventions and is dismissive of any treatment which is not life threatening:

* " UN ‘Expert’ Calls for Torture Trials Against Bush and Rumsfeld " by John Rosenthal at Pajamas Media.com / Jan. 28, 2009


and so it goes,
GORD.

Obama's Reluctance to Investigate Bush Administrations Crimes Emboldens the Republicans and Conservatives

UPdate: 12:35 PM Feb. 2, 2009.

- Obama's Refusal to Take Action on Bush War Crimes emboldens Republicans and UltraConservatives-
- Republicans and Conservatives argue that Obama will not proceed with investigations because no crimes were committed
- By not investigating these allegations President Obama is saying that no crimes were committed and therefore giving tacit approval of the abuse and torture of detainees except for the use of water-boarding which he has stated - he believes Bush and his gang made some bad decisions and that's the end of it
- This means that thousands of detainees will never receive any real justice from the Obama administration or any other
- This also means Obama and Bush's talk about human rights and such are meaningless

They claim Bush did nothing wrong by lying to Americans and to congress and the UN to launch his war in Iraq. Tammy Bruce says the Obama administration should not pursue investigations into alleged Bush era crimes because it will smack of Partisanship. She also makes light of detainees who claim to be abused or tortured by psychological and physical forms of torture - sensory deprivation or sensory overload combined with stress positions verbal abuse of insults and threats ; sleep deprivation, humiliation such as leading a naked man around on a dog leash , sexual humiliation - or mock executions, use of dogs to intimidate detainees, using female guards to humiliate prisoners, beatings which all goes to show that Tammy Bruce and Bill O'reilly's definition of torture is rather narrowly defined approximating that of Rumsfeld and Cheney which is that which is life threatening or may lead to organ failure. One they should read the Geneva Conventions and other International Agreements concerning torture which includes all of the above but now many Americans have been told that these practices are not torture or abuse its what one should expect if they are apprehended by US soldiers or CIA operatives etc. All of these forms of abuse if they are not life threatening are considered to be permissible by US soldiers and other US personnel and by a large sector of the American public.

So if President Obama does not at the least make official statements condemning all these forms of abuse and torture those US personnel in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan or elsewhere themselves will believe that such treatment is permissible and the general public will defend the use of such techniques all of which by the way do not achieve the goals which are desired that is the retrieving of useful and reliable information. But many Americans also believe as Bush, Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice and their ultra conservative supporters believe that the Geneva Conventions and International Law can take a hike since it has no jurisdiction over Americans or their allies ie Israel. Is this the message President Obama wants to deliver to Americans does he want Americans to believe that because of 9/11 anything goes except for Water-Boarding. So the abuses at Abu Ghraib 1, were the result of a few bad apples . 2. It wasn't all that bad comparable to a fraternity hazing 3. the detainees deserved it anyway so what's the beef.

But when it comes to Conservatives such as O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity etc. what they appear to really want is revenge and for American soldiers to show those they capture who's in control and to get a little payback. That to them is just fine. To these people talk about human rights and such is just a lot of liberal hogwash .

As I have said before if the US administration and its various departments do not make it clear that these acts are offensive and are in fact criminal then the rest of the world needs to find ways to show their disagreement with America . 1. Investigations and criminal charges should be laid by the Criminal Court or other legal bodies or the cases could be taken on by individual countries 2. If nothing is done then the US should be treated as a Rogue Nation. In part this means I believe censuring the US and removing it from the Security Council or simply removing its right to veto until the issue is cleared up 3. No country should enter into any formal agreement with the US because it does not recognize International Laws or Agreements and only abide by them when it suits America's interests and agenda.

Tammy Bruce claims that any talk about investigations or indictments is just Partisan politics but it is not for it is in fact a matter of truth and justice. But maybe when it comes to foreign affairs and such Americans are not interested in silly quaint ideas such as truth and justice.

Tammy Bruce Smacks the Far Left Loons That Still Seek War Crimes Trial
O'Reilly Jan. 27, 2009



Keith Olbermann spoke too soon
they're back with a vengeance out to undermine Obama's administration and stir up their base. Their base were those angry mobs at Sarah Palin McCain rallies. Fearful of a communist / socialist black take over of America.
President Obama = Goodbye to Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly



Here's some BS by Newsweek Reporter John Barry with Cenk Uygur discussing Barry's article in which he discourages Obama from holding investigations of alleged criminal actions of the Bush Regime. But it appears that Barry just wants to defend and protect former president Bush. The Rule Of Law is meaningless to this reporter.And of course he doesn't bother to mention International Laws that have been broken by President Bush and his administration. Well he says its all complicated and I guess the average person including Cenk or Olbermann or Rachel Maddow etc. don't understand these complicated issues. Is he afraid to question the status quo or the powers to be. What he is saying it appears is that if a president can get something written into law or get a legal opinion which agrees with his own stated views then he can do whatever he wants. This is the point at which notions of law making and something being legal comes up against notions of justice. But Justice is a concept American politicians and pundits like to toss around but they don't really believe in justice as such. As long as you have brilliant legal minds at your disposal as President you can basically do whatever you want- kill, kidnap, torture etc. just don't have sex in the halls of the White House with someone who is not your spouse. Americans are more concerned with an unfaithful president who is unfaithful to his spouse than a president who is unfaithful to the American people or the Congress and Senate or to the UN and the rest of the world this is essentially America's FU to the rest of the world. They tell other countries they must play by certain rules but that America does not or those whom she has as allies.

Because Congress and the Justice department were involved in the conspiracy to commit criminal acts it is therefore somehow wrong to go after those who lied or misled other or reassured them that what the executive was doing was completely legal. So any act is permissible as lng as those in authority say that it is- and to Hell with pieces of paper like the US constitution and the US Bill of Rightss or International Laws or agreements such as the Geneva Conventions -the Geneva Conventions are merely guidelines or suggestions and can be ignored by any nation without fear of any repercussions including indictments or trials or even a tongue lashing from La Hague or the UN.

What I find difficult to fathom is how a president could lie to the Congress and the american people to lead them into an unnecessary war and for this there are no repurcussions.

Newsweek Reporter Says Bush Should Not be Prosecuted Jan. 26, 2009

Cenk debates John Barry of Newsweek. Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com.


"A Long-Lived Privilege?Bush lawyer directs Rove not to talk to Congress—once again"
By Michael Isikoff | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jan 29, 2009

Just four days before he left office, President Bush instructed former White House aide Karl Rove to refuse to cooperate with future congressional inquiries into alleged misconduct during his administration.

On Jan. 16, 2009, then White House Counsel Fred Fieldingsent a letter (.pdf) to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin. The message: should his client receive any future subpoenas, Rove "should not appear before Congress" or turn over any documents relating to his time in the White House. The letter told Rove that President Bush was continuing to assert executive privilege over any testimony by Rove - even after he leaves office.

And as this next article argues the Republicans and their supporters are still acting as if they were the ones in power or at least that they have as much power and therefore say in what President Obama is permitted to do. His call for bipartisanship and co-operation is to them just a sign of Obama's Administrations weakness.

Republicans in the House Are Behaving Like the Collapse of Bush's Policies Never Happened by Mitchell Bard,Huffington Post, Jan. 29, 2009

Look, I had no illusions that everything would change the minute Barack Obama took the oath of office, and that the Republicans would immediately burn their Ronald Reagan pictures and pledge allegiance to Obama. But I did think that Obama's solid victory in November, if nothing else, would make it clear that the bankrupt (literally) policies of the last eight years would no longer be seriously considered as a solution. I certainly knew that the Republicans would try to claw their way back to power, but I never imagined they would pull a Groundhog Day, acting as if the absolute meltdown of the last eight years hadn't happened. After all, by electing Obama, the American people pretty directly rejected the failed ways of doing business.

Of the myriad problems George W. Bush and his enablers in Congress left on Obama's desk, the most pressing is perceived to be the economy. So Obama's first major legislative initiative was the stimulus package. Under the market-cures-all philosophy of the last administration (and, in fairness, every administration going back to Ronald Reagan), the financial system collapsed as the greed and irresponsibility of institutions finally reached a tipping point. ..

...And despite all of this information, not one single Republican member of the House voted for the stimulus bill yesterday. (It still passed, 244-188, with 11 Democrats joining the 177 Republicans in opposing the bill.) Not one. Zero. Zippo. Nada. Nil. None. There wasn't one Republican in the whole House of Representatives who could see his or her way clear to support legislation to help our tanking economy, even if they thought the bill wasn't perfect. And what was the primary objection of the Republicans, based on the GOP's suggested alternative bill (that was voted down by the House)? They wanted more tax cuts.

Seriously? More freakin' tax cuts? What's next? Are they going to be asking for less regulations on Wall Street? Another invasion of Iraq? Were they not watching what happened the last eight years (and, more importantly, what the American people voted for in November)?

...The bottom line is that this country is in a very dark place right now, and the reason we're there is not a mystery. It is, in large part, the direct result of a set of policies advocated and carried out by the Bush administration. Those policies, including tax cuts for the rich and the facilitation of movement of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the upper class, have failed. While Republicans are free to oppose President Obama's solutions to this mess if they think they have better ideas, merely advocating the old failed policies should not be tolerated.

also see:


Grey,Stephen: The True Story of The CIA Torture Program, Pub. 2006

Hersh, Seymour: CHAIN OF COMMAND: THE ROAD FROM 9/11 TO ABU GHRAIB, pub. 2004

Tony Lagouranis & Allen Mikaelian :Fear Up Harsh: An Army Interrogator's Dark Journey Through Iraq pub. 2007


and so it goes,
GORD.

Obama's Pay Equity Act & Stimulus Package Passes

UPDATE: 12:25 & 12:45 PM & 5:07 PM Feb. 1, 2002
On Limbaugh ,Obama & the Media see: post Feb.6, 2009

Anyway there are good reasons for criticizing Obama when it comes to foreign affairs especially in regards to Gaza and Israel but on other fronts in the Domestic Policies he is moving fairly quickly to undo much of the damage done by the Bush Regime .

Meanwhile the Fear and Hate mongers led by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Fox News are stirring up their base to undermine Obama's administration from the get go - They are still spewing their lies and propaganda about Obama and the " liberals " they love to hate . They are also attacking Obama's economic stimulus package as being the first steps on the road to a socialist/ communist collectivists totalitarian state.

Do people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Fox News not realize that the more inflammatory their rhetoric is that this may lead to massive unrest and illegal and criminal actions and possibly to violent actions on the part of some of their followers who believe everything that these conservative spokespersons tell them and who do not see the difference between rhetorical overstatement and reality. Are Hannity, Limbaugh and Fox News etc. using more " dog whistle racism " or encouragin an all out rebellion of American conservatives against Obama's administration and his supporters. Words and speech have consequences especially when that hate filled speech is aired over the Radio and TV and Internet reachin well over 20 million angry pissed-off conservatives.

As Limbaugh puts it in rather crude terms Americans are asked to bend over grab their ankles and take whatever Obama wants to dish out - this is about as nasty as it can get . What Limbaugh and the Conservative movement is claiming is that Obama has no right to do what he is doing -his administration they claim is UnAmerican and should be resisted at all costs - do they mean by any means necessary- Is their stirring up of their base to merely voice their opinions or to turn it into actions such as protests and demonstrations or by encouraging those who agree with them to with hold their taxes - or as one individual on YouTube is calling for a strike of US truck drivers if not in all states but rather he calls for a blockade as such of New York and California If Democrats had called for such actions during the Bush Era they were called UnAmerican and even traitors because America was at war. A truck drivers strike or blockade was used in Chile in 1973 to bring the country to a point of crisis followed by a US sponsored Military Coup to oust the popular reformist President Allende.

President Obama signs pay-equity law
reaching out to labor
Stimulus Package passes in the House Of Representatives
Republicans refuse to co-operate
Republicans and their Media Echo Chamber distort facts and lie about the Recovery Package in their all out propaganda war against Obama and the Democrats
Is Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity running for leader of the Republican Party

President Obama signs into law a pay equity law . It is significant in that it goes againat the policies of the former Bush Regime regarding labor and women's issues . To Obama equal pay is basic to America's notions of equality and justice.

Hooray: Obama Signs the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act " by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress/ AlterNet.org Jan. 29, 2009.

"And I sign this bill for my daughters, and all those who will come after us ..."

Today, President Barack Obama signed his first major piece of legislation, boosting workers’ ability to bring pay-discrimination lawsuits.

and as Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks points out the Republicans are not interested in cooperating with Obama in some sort of post partisanship in order to weather the US economic meltdown . They refuse to accept that the meltdown was due to Bush's economic policies and deregulation when America was involved in two costly wars .

"Rush: 177, Obama: 0" by Cenk Uygur at Huffington Post Jan. 29, 2009

Obama tried to charm them, Rush tried to bully them. And the results are in. Round 1 goes by unanimous decision to Rush Limbaugh. Not one House Republican voted with the president on the stimulus package even after his "charm offensive."

These guys are the barbarians at the gate, there's no charming them. President Obama went to visit them, he invited them over to the White House, he had drinks with them, he stood by while they bad-mouthed Congressional Democrats, he adjusted the bill for them, he cut out the contraception education and he added tax cuts. In the end, what did he get for his efforts? A big fat doughnut. Nothing.

Not one House Republican voted for his stimulus package. 177-0.

On the other side, they went groveling over to Rush, tripping over themselves to court his favor and take his tongue-lashings (how grotesque does that sound?). In the end, he got them all (and all the national attention -- which was his true goal).

Now, Obama might be playing a chess match here. He might be positioning himself politically to be able to say to the American people, "Now look, I tried to be bi-partisan. I did all I could. And they did not budge. They are obstinate, partisan and obstructionist." He would have an excellent case to make.

And another critic points out bipartisanship did not work and it is better that Obama realize the Republicans are not in the mood to help him fix the economy. They appear to be still too angry over the fact that they lost the election.

GOP Schools Obama on Partisanship
by: Robert Parry, Consortium News Jan. 29, 2009

On Wednesday, when the House voted on the $819 billion stimulus bill, which many economists say is vital for the United States to avoid a possible depression, not a single Republican supported the legislation.

Clinton, too, made gestures of bipartisanship. He helped sweep several Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug just like Obama has been signaling that he will look forward, not backwards, about George W. Bush's abuses. But the Republicans and their right-wing media allies responded with an all-out war on Clinton and his mildly reformist agenda. [For details, see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]

Obama in his stimulus package has managed to make some positive changes for instance by tripling the budget for Education as this next article points out.

"Obama Is a Two-Faced Liar. Aw-RIGHT!" Truthout.org January 30, 2009

Republicans are right. President Barack Obama treated them like dirt, didn't give a damn what they thought about his stimulus package, loaded it with a bunch of programs that will last for years and will never leave the budget, is giving away money disguised as "tax refunds," and is sneaking in huge changes in policy, from schools to health care, using the pretext of an economic emergency.

Way to go, Mr. O! Mr. Down-and-Dirty Chicago pol. Street-fightin' man. Covering over his break-your-face power play with a "we're all post-partisan friends" BS.

And it's about time.

Frankly, I was worried about this guy. Obama's appointing Clinton-droids to the Cabinet, bloated incompetents like Larry Summers as "Economics Czar," made me fear for my country, that we'd gotten another Democrat who wished he were a Republican.

Then came Obama's money bomb. The House bill included $125 billion for schools (TRIPLING federal spending on education), expanding insurance coverage to the unemployed, making the most progressive change in the tax code in four decades by creating a $500 credit against social security payroll deductions, and so on.

It's as if Obama dug up Ronald Reagan's carcass and put a stake through The Gipper's anti-government heart. Aw-RIGHT!

...Now I understand Obama's weird moves: dinner with those creepy conservative columnists, earnest meetings at the White House with the Republican leaders, a dramatic begging foray into Senate offices. Just as the Republicans say, it was all a fraud. Obama was pure Chicago, Boss Daley in a slim skin, putting his arms around his enemies, pretending to listen and care and compromise, then slowly, quietly, slipping in the knife. All while the media praises Obama's "post-partisanship." Heh heh heh.

and Obama is signaling that he will be a friend to labor .


Obama Hosts Labor Leaders, Will Undo Bush Orders " by: Philip Elliott, The Associated Press / Truthout.org Jan. 30, 2009

Washington - President Barack Obama is playing to one of the Democratic Party's most reliable constituencies - organized labor - reversing a number of his predecessor's executive orders that critics regard as anti-union.

Labor leaders were to visit the White House for a second consecutive day Friday, where, a union official said, Obama was to abolish four Bush-era directives that unions opposed and then reintroduces Vice President Joe Biden's task force focused on the middle class.

and : "Obama Calls Bonuses Shameful as Dodd Vows to Reclaim Money" by Dawn Kopecki and Julianna Golman, Bloomberg Truthout.org Jan. 29 2009

President Barack Obama fed a swelling populist revolt against Wall Street bonuses, calling it "shameful" that banks doled out $18.4 billion as taxpayers bail out companies and the U.S. remains mired in a recession.

The bonuses are "the height of irresponsibility," Obama said today before meeting Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House. Firms need to "show some restraint and show some discipline," Obama said.

The president joined politicians such as Senator Christopher Dodd, who today called for using "every possible legal means to get the money back." The bonus pool for 2008 by New York City financial companies was the sixth-largest ever amid record losses in the securities industry, State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said in a report yesterday.

and Vice President Biden had harsh words for these CEOs

Vice President Biden said in an interview on CNBC today that he would "like to throw these guys in the brig" for taking excessive bonuses.

"They are thinking of the same old thing that got us here: Greed," Biden said. "They are thinking: Take care of me."

and as we see in this piece posted at Alternet.org that there will be a price to be paid by Republicans who refused to vote for Obama's stimulus package well his administration is not going to merely let it go but are going on the offensive and let constituents know how their representative voted and how this will impact their particular area.

" Obama Strikes Back, Plans Payback for House Republicans " by Steve Benen, Washington Monthly Jan. 29, 2009.

Not one Republican in the House voted for the stimulus. We're starting to get a sense of how the White House plans to respond.

The White House has invested quite a bit of time and energy reaching out to congressional Republicans. Late yesterday, the president's efforts were rewarded with exactly zero GOP votes on an economic stimulus plan. The Politico reported that when Republicans announced their opposition, the minority party "slapped" Obama's "outstretched hand" as part of a "coordinated effort to embarrass" the president.

We're starting to get a sense of how the White House plans to respond.

Pushing back against the unanimous House Republican vote against President Obama's stimulus plan, the White House plans to release state-by-state job figures "so we can put a number on what folks voted for and against," an administration aide said.

"It's clear the Republicans who voted against the stimulus represent constituents who will be stunned to learn their member of Congress voted against [saving or] creating 4 million jobs," the aide said.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the lawmakers will have to answer to their constituents. A Democratic official added: "We will run campaigns in their districts."

and grass roots organizations are planning to air adds in support of Obama's stimulus package:

What's more, Greg Sargent reports that a coalition of groups and unions, including Americans United for Change, MoveOn.org Political Action, AFSCME and SEIU, are launching a new television ad targeting Republican senators and pressuring them to vote for President Obama's stimulus package.

The spot shows some arresting images of the recession -- chained up factories, empty warehouses -- and features Obama talking about our dire economic times and his economic package, an effort to harness Obama's popularity to push the plan at a time when Republicans are training their fire on House Dems, rather than the White House.

" Stimulus Package Unleashes Onslaught of Republican Lies" by Jane Hamsher, Firedoglake Jan.29, 2009.

They looked like a bunch of petulant, narcissistic brats and did a nice job of making Obama appear measured and statesmanlike by comparison.

While few found the economic stimulus bill perfect for a variety of reasons, most sensible people admit that it was desperately needed. Bernie Horn of Campaign for America's Future called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "a remarkably 'clean' bill" and "the biggest and boldest progressive legislation in 40 years."

But the praise isn't one-sided. James Clyburn said:



"Economists across the political spectrum agree that a bold plan is needed to jump-start the economy. Economist Mark Zandi of Economy.com and an advisor to the McCain campaign said that the House plan would create 4 million jobs by 2010. In South Carolina, Zandi predicts the recovery package will create or save over 37,000 jobs by 2010, helping to decrease the unemployment rate by 1.7 percent. For every month we don't act, Zandi predicts an additional 2 percent will be added each month to the unemployment rate. We can't wait to act. I believe, along with a long list of economic experts, that this package is the best approach to turning our economic crisis around."

Media Matters (see below) has a rundown of the zombie lies now in circulation about the bill, but suffice to say that there was no shortage of people willing to sacrifice the American economy for political gamesmanship. The Republicans unleashed their inner Church Lady and demanded contraception be cut for the sinfully promiscuous poor, then complained they didn't "get" anything in the bill and turned the whole thing into a well-choreographed publicity stunt. They looked like a bunch of petulant, narcissistic brats and did a nice job of making Obama appear measured and statesmanlike by comparison.

Meanwhile Mainstream Media is still attacking Obama with lies, distortions and propaganda. The Media include CNN, Fox News, Washington Post and all the usual suspects on the right from Sean Hannity to various right wing " Think Tanks" - It once again seems these people are still drinking the Neocon Kool-aid and live in an alternative universe where all of Bush's economic policies were a success and that in fact America's economy is strong and is not in meltdown. They still believe in trickle-down economics no matter what the facts and statistics tell them. They are still "True-Believers of a free market economy unfettered by regulations and safe-guards or protections for the average citizen from corporate Greed , corruption , ineptness .

The problem becomes getting the truth out to the American people which is difficult as the Media still acts a Neocon Echo Chamber where facts and the truth are up for grabs. In their world whatever someone like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity say no matter how ill-informed or ideologically biased must by definition be the truth. It also shows that these critics are not at all interested in working in a bi-partisn or co-operative fashion. They out to scuttle everything and anything the Obama administration tries to do. The problem is that they are still fighting the 2008 Nov. election and refuse to accept that they lost and that much of the Bush policies have been rejected by a majority of American voters.

This should also send a message to President Obama that he can not work with these people in a co-operative bi-partisanship manner. They are still suggesting that Obama is either ill-suited to the job or is a raving socialists who is not a real American and is UnAmerican in his views. They also suggest that the stimulus package is aimed at only helping minorities and left wing organizations.
That reminds me didn't Bush pour large sums of money into Faith Based Evangelical Christian groups and give aid to various Bush friendly corporations and right wing Think Tanks .

"Myths and falsehoods surrounding the economic recovery plan" by Eric Boehlert and Jamison Foser at Media Matters Jan. 28, 2009

During their coverage and discussion of the economic recovery bill supported by President Obama, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, media figures have advanced several myths and falsehoods relating to the details and effects of the plan. These myths and falsehoods include: the assertion that a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) "study" found that the majority of the money in the bill will not be spent for a year and a half; that provisions in the bill to extend food stamps and unemployment insurance payments are "not stimulus"; that President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies failed to reduce unemployment during the Great Depression; that Japan's fiscal stimulus policy during the "lost decade" of the 1990s failed to help it recover from recession; that the bill would spend at least $217,000 for every job created; that the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) would receive $4.19 billion from the bill; and that former Labor Secretary and Obama adviser Robert Reich proposed white males should be excluded from jobs created by the bill...

-------------

and so it goes,
GORD.