Jan 15 2009
Obama’s Blunders
Obama is looking pretty weak and without convictions before even being sworn in. The biggest concern I think every one has (supporters and the opposition) is the fact he is an inexperienced unknown upon whom people projected a lot of hopes and wishes (and fantasies). His handling of the Blagojevich incident was a bad first start with his attempt to be have never talked to the Governor of his own state about transition. It was a laughable and misinforming position.
The next big news was how Obama would close GITMO, leaving terrorist killers to be freed or tried here in the US. I am fairly certain no one was voting with that issue burning the top of their wish lists. It is a empty gesture filled with real danger, since a good number of former GITMO detainees have gone on to kill again once released. It is clearly meant to appease his far left supporters – which is not leading. It is ungainly pandering.
Now we see even more stumbles. One of the actual driving issues in the past election was the economy. People were losing money, wealth and jobs at an astonishing pace. The economy is driven by consumers. Consumers can only consume if they have money. Money comes from good jobs. I believe we have shed over a million jobs in the last year and our unemployment is rising. And what does Obama jettison from his stimulus plan? The job creating tax breaks:
Bowing to widespread Democratic skepticism, President-electBarack Obama will drop his bid to include a business tax break he once touted in the economic stimulus bill now taking shape onCapitol Hill, aides said last night.
Obama suggested the $3,000-per-job credit last week as one of five individual and business tax incentives aimed at winning Republican support. He proposed $300 billion in tax relief in a bill that could reach $775 billion, and he resurrected the jobs-credit proposal from the campaign trail as one of his main provisions.
No job credits equals a lot fewer new job openings. Of all the things to dump the one where business are credited with hiring someone should be the last thing to go. But Obama doesn’t know how to use his political capitol. He doesn’t know how to control the debate and use his will to push his ideas. This is a no brainer to counter. No one on the left would go head to head publicly with Democrat President Obama on incentives to create jobs in the economy. Obama was rolled by the Hill.
But much, much worse than that, Obama is talking about losing Afghanistan to the Taliban and al Qaeda and claims he is sending our military into harms way in a useless cause:
President-elect Barack Obama intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but the incoming administration does not anticipate that the Iraq-like “surge” of forces will significantly change the direction of a conflict that has steadily deteriorated over the past seven years.
First off, he is probably as wrong on that as he was on Iraq. Obama has no vision on how to succeed with victory. He will settle for smart looking retreat because that he knows he can do. But if we assume it is a lost cause, why send in thousands of our finest to die uselessly?Â
This is callously blind to the American people who take pride in their military and cherish them with all their hearts. Only a minority look down on the military from their perches of insecurity and self-doubt. Too many families are military families in one form or another. And we still face a determined and dangerous enemy.
And one of my biggest fears is coming true – we are more concerned with the terrorists’ well being than the unimaginable violence they have plotted or executed. Some whacked out judge as determined sleep deprivation and cold temperatures are torture and that a killer cannot be tried if he had to endure these things:
The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a “life-threatening condition.”
Oh pulleease. I will note again that members of our military go through much harsher physically trying conditions. The man was trying to help kill 3,000 Americans:
Qahtani was denied entry into the United States a month before the Sept. 11 attacks and was allegedly planning to be the plot’s 20th hijacker. He was later captured in Afghanistan and transported to Guantanamo in January 2002. His interrogation took place over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003, though he was held in isolation until April 2003.
He was a link back to those who did kill 3,000 people. Clearly they have the evidence, and clearly this nut job judge refuses to consider the man’s intentions, only to make sure he is comfortable. As I noted in my 2006 Democrat Contract With al Qaeda another stupid liberal promise to our enemies is tragically coming true:
EIGHTH, we will submit and pass legislation that will mandate any questioning by US agents of Al Qaeda members to (a) be done in the presence of an ACLU lawyer, (b) never last more than 30 minutes, (c) be done indoors, in climate controlled conditions, (d) include an offering of proper food and beverage and (e) require every question to use the word ‘please’.
Right now Obama should come out and state he is taking a firm position against our enemies. He should remind the judiciary that these people want to destroy our way of life – and that includes our laws and society. But he won’t. He want to create the facade he can take on terrorists, but now openly admits he has no idea how to. He admits he is throwing our military into a cause he doesn’t believe in.Â
And in the midst of one of the worst economic conditions in living memory he has junked a job creating plan.
And he has yet to take the oath of office (more like the Oaf of Office). It really is no wonder why some professional political watchers on the left are predicting Obama will not see a second term:
White House reporters for The New York Times predict that the market collapse will force President-elect Barack Obama to abandon for now many of his campaign promises.
If his stimulus plan “doesn’t work out, he may very well be a one-term president,†said Jeff Zeleny, who covered Obama’s campaign. “It’s hard to imagine that he could be reelected if the economy’s in the exact same position four years from now.â€
Well, if he has failed after 4 years then he has failed. What we have here is a realization that liberal ideas cannot solve our most pressing problems. Increasing taxes, increasing the governmental drain on the economy, making energy expensive, flailing away at the CO2 windmill, dealing with the long coming Boomer retirement wave, and facing a deadly enemy with panic and concern for the enemy’s well being (not his victims) is a recipe for disaster. If Obama continues on this path he will go down in history as one of our worst President.
He needs to stop trying to please his radical base and get serious. BTW, if you want to see a scary site check out this video of London police running away from Islamo Fascist protesters. It is embarrassing, and all too close to what we might see under Obama if he keeps going the way he is going. (H/T Gateway Pundit).
And my favorite blunder—saying he would sign an executive order to create playoffs for college football. Anyone who truly loves college football and the extended bowl season could care less about a playoff system or an “undisputed” national champion. Only the blowhards at ESPN and other sports outlets want to see this and BHO in usual form pandered right into their hands.
The fact that Obama has many Clinton people in his administration proves further a weak and inexperienced man to run from the Oval Office. He has no principles and has no idea what he believes in.
Perhaps the fact that he was raised under foreign influence and not raised with good family and Christian values may confirm the thinking of our Framers as to exactly what the definition of “natural-born citizen” really mean….born of US citizens and raised by two US citizens based on US allegiance. And what else were they thinking of? Raised in Judeo-Christian values. Why? Because the country was found on these values AND they knew that otherwise, the country would not survive without these values.
Go to Hillsdale College->Imprimis, then look for the November Issue for further explanation.
Not that I meant anything extreme but more of a moderation but I do anticipate a growing appreciation of Judeo-Christian values as I walk through many stores and seeing an increasing number of crosses on display and for sale.
Of course Obama is weak. Look at his record in the Senate. No strong record of support of issues, voted “present” for more than he voted yes or no on things. Obama was installed by the Democrat machine. He is doing as he is told to do.
One reason the economic problems are as bad as they are is because business isn’t going to invest until they know what Obama’s plans are for economic stimulus and taxation. Are there going to be a bunch of “global warming” carbon taxes? If so, large companies will probably decide to expand outside the US rather than inside. Everyone is holding on to their cash and waiting to see. Obama has issued no specifics. I don’t think he knows yet. He is waiting to see what comes out of Congress.
“Some whacked out judge as determined sleep deprivation and cold temperatures are torture and that a killer cannot be tried if he had to endure these things”
From the article:
“Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense”
Well, she’s obviously a raving wingnut leftie, isn’t she?
“Oh pulleease. I will note again that members of our military go through much harsher physically trying conditions.”
Really? Members of our military go through 22 consecutive days of sleep deprivation? What part of boot camp includes that?
Bush, Cheney, and their sycophantic followers have repeatedly told us that they were using these “enhanced interrogation” tactics in order to, and I quote, “keep us safe”. However, they now have someone in custody that they know, with no doubts whatsoever, is a terrorist, and actually wanted to participate in the attacks on 9/11. However, they can’t charge him with a damn thing, because they tortured him. And that torture got absolutely no useful information out of him, so it was just a huge waste of everyone’s time.
Nice job, assholes.
Oh, and you missed a key quote from Crawford:
“I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it.”
Now see – it actually is possible to be a Republican and not completely lose your morals. How novel.
Maybe I’m old-school, but when I think of “torture”, I think of bamboo shoots under the fingernails, a battery hooked up the testicles, whips and chains, broken fingers, drills to the teeth, etc. Sleep deprivation? Cold? Heck – I suffered that last night…..
Guy:
A lot of people in special forces do go through that and more. And the fact that this guy was associated with some past administration does not mean he is not whacked out. After all, the Clinton administration used these techniques and was known to hand people over to countries who did a lot worse. But then again Clinton had a D behind his name so once again the famous double standard kicks in.
Once again you show more sympathy for the terrorist than the victim. It is easy to be morally superior when you are not the guy in the plane when it plows into the building.
And as for moral authority…where does this asshole get off with this judgmental sanctimonious crap?
But I am sure Guy is right. After all if Americans want to look like the good guys, they just have to allow themselves to be murdered. That is what good guys do. And they have to let the bad guys slaughter whoever they want. After all, so what if AlQaida has been known to put children into baking ovens….if we want to be seen as the good guys…
You know what Guy? Being locked up in a cage for life would not be something I would want to go through. In fact I would consider that a form of torture in a way. But we do it all the time to murderers. Should we turn them lose so as not to be seen as bad as them?
As for Obama, I don’t think he is living up to his reputation as miracle worker. But the media will kiss his butt as long as they can. After all, without their adoration he would not be where he is.
I also heard he is backing off the promise to get Osama.
“And as for moral authority…where does this asshole get off with this judgmental sanctimonious crap?”
Ummm… because she’s a Judge?
(Yes, Judge Crawford is a “she”. You really should trying reading the original article before you form an opinion about the subject.)
SamuraiPundit:
Try turning off “24”, and actually do some reading on the subject.
I swear, the ignorance in some of you people just astounds me. The fact that you can’t understand the effect that 22 consecutive days of sleep deprivation would have on a human body (which has been done at Gitmo) says much about you.
On the torture/interrogation issue, I have two questions I’d like the more conservative members of this site to answer for me. I know it is sometimes hard to do in this format because we all get so argumentative, but I’d really like you to give honest answers because these are two of the key questions in my mind that make it difficult to understand your position.
1. Why is it that you believe our country would be at such a great risk without the enhanced interrogation methods approved under Bush when our nation survived 225 years without them? Bush was the first president in our history to authorized these types of enhanced interrogation methods or torture depending on your viewpoint. And yet our country has faced many dangerous enemies (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, North Koreans, Vietcong, the Soviet Union, etc.) which I believe were unquestionably more dangerous to our national security than Al Qaeda or any terrorist without resorting to these tactics. If we were able to survive these past conflicts without resorting to these enhanced interrogation tactics, why do you all assume that the sky will fall now?
2. Do you advocate the legalization of torture? Although the Bush Administration approved certain enhanced interrogation methods, the Administration has been very careful to clarify that they don’t believe these techniques constitute torture and would never condone the use of torture against anyone. And yet the reasons you all cite for supporting these techniques are equally applicable to outright torture. You question why we care what we do to these terrorist since they are cold-blooded killers or raise the ticking bomb scenrio. That same reasoning suggest to me that you are all in favor of outright legalizing torture to keep our country safe. If my assumption is incorrect, explain to me why the same arguments you raise with respect to enhanced interrogation methods do not equally apply to outright torture?
AJ,
With respect to the $3,000 tax credit idea, it turns out Obama abandoned it because he couldn’t get support for it from Republicans or Democrats. The article you linked above explains this fact:
“Republicans reacted favorably to the higher-than-expected ratio of tax breaks to spending for road projects, alternative energy production, health-care technology and unemployment benefits. But they offered mixed reviews of his specific tax proposals and floated their own, including cuts in corporate and capital gains taxes.
Stronger opposition came from Democrats, who dismissed the $3,000 credit to employers for every job created or saved as ripe for abuse and difficult to administer. When no champion for the proposal came forward, the president-elect decided to sideline the incentive. ”
Every economist I’ve read since it was publically floated has said it would not likely achieve the intended results.
So AJ, it turns out you and Obama have more in common than you thought – you are the only two people who think this tax credit idea would actually stimulate the economy!
AJ,
With respect to Obama’s comment about the potential long-term impact of additional troops in Afghanistan, it turns out Obama is not the only one who came to that conclusion. If you actually read the article you linked to in your post on this issue you would have seen that the recent Bush White House assessment came to the same conclusion:
“The Bush White House delivered a major review of Afghanistan last month that echoed that judgment, acknowledged that a modern Afghan democracy — stable and free of extremists — may be both unattainable and unaffordable, and said that the United States may have to accept trade-offs among priorities.”
Guy:
Oh yeah, she is a judge. and what does this judge think should be done with the guy?
“”There’s no doubt in my mind he would’ve been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in August 2001…. He’s a muscle hijacker…. He’s a very dangerous man. What do you do with him now if you don’t charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, ‘Let him go.’”
***************
Yep, in the judge’s opinion we can keep him locked up forever but because he was forced to wear a woman’s bra and because his heart rate dropped below 60…we can’t use the evidence garnered against him. If however, his heart rate had not dropped and they had given him a little more rest time in there…well then maybe it would be different.
Personally I do not see the value of the whole bra thing, and I think that as time passes a lot of these techniques have been or will be abandoned as newer methods are used. But to be honest, it might be better if they could try the guy, at least that way he might have a chance at release. But the judge’s ruling does not give him freedom, it just deprives him of a trial.
I also think it is worth noting that the Bush administration did not pressure this judge into making a different decision, nor did they hide any relevant information from her.
Guy:
I’m gonna have to start a “Buffoonery by Guy” list. It would be very long if I had started it only a few days ago.
your quote from Crawford
“I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques?
Oh how I wish we could only comment about America servicemen and servicewomen being treated ‘this nicely’. Nope, we have to contend with them (their bodies) being dragged down public streets, having their heads chopped off, the women being raped, hung by their hands with their arms tied behind their backs. Wouldn’t it be nice if all they had to endure was a loss of sleep and a little water on their noses?
and a quote from you:
The fact that you can’t understand the effect that 22 consecutive days of sleep deprivation would have on a human body
Sleep deprivation can be resolved by 24 hours of sleep. How do you resolve the ‘head chopped off’ situation?
Would you prefer your wife be deprived of sleep for a couple days or be raped and have her head chopped off?
I can guess what the ‘reasonable’ person would choose, but I’m not sure about you.
conguy: I’m going to make a reasonable attempt to answer your questions, even knowing ahead of time you will disagree for the sake of disagreeing because you a lib.
1. Why is it that you believe our country would be at such a great risk without the enhanced interrogation methods approved under Bush when our nation survived 225 years without them?
first, these were not developed and put into place by the Bush Admin. They are the result of past work and is only the weakest interrogation techniques they could come up with that might work. Previous approved techniques were much harsher.
They are only to be used when specifically approved by the CIC, not by anyone else. The country has never survived without enhanced interrogation methods, they’ve always had them. We just didn’t have a loonie leftie media rooting for the terrorists and traitors before.
Bush was the first president in our history to authorized these types of enhanced interrogation methods or torture depending on your viewpoint.
Bullsh*t. first, he only approved enhanced interrogation, never any torture. Why do you think the Geneva convention adopted methods? because there WASN’T any torture going on before. LOL.
And yet our country has faced many dangerous enemies (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, North Koreans, Vietcong, the Soviet Union, etc.) which I believe were unquestionably more dangerous to our national security than Al Qaeda or any terrorist without resorting to these tactics. If we were able to survive these past conflicts without resorting to these enhanced interrogation tactics, why do you all assume that the sky will fall now?
So you think all these enemies were more dangerous than al qaeda? How many of them killed more than 3000 Americans on American soil? how many?
2. Do you advocate the legalization of torture? Although the Bush Administration approved certain enhanced interrogation methods, the Administration has been very careful to clarify that they don’t believe these techniques constitute torture and would never condone the use of torture against anyone.
legalization? of torture? for people that would endanger me or my family? yes. For your family? No. you wouldn’t want me to, right?
Seriously, not ‘torture’ but enhanced interrogation, yes but only to be authorized by the CIC, same as now.
And yet the reasons you all cite for supporting these techniques are equally applicable to outright torture. You question why we care what we do to these terrorist since they are cold-blooded killers or raise the ticking bomb scenrio. That same reasoning suggest to me that you are all in favor of outright legalizing torture to keep our country safe. If my assumption is incorrect, explain to me why the same arguments you raise with respect to enhanced interrogation methods do not equally apply to outright torture?
Okay, you convinced me. Torture would be okay on the same basis as ‘enhanced interrogation’ is now.
Oh for Chrisake, there has always been the use of these and worse methods. The idea that Bush was the only president that authorized this is ridiculous. FDR used to bug his office, tape every conversation, keep track of US long distance phone calls in WW2 and gave the order to bomb civilians in major cities. Truman actually gave the order to drop the bomb. We used worse techniques than these in Viet Nam to find the VC and the list goes on. I swear I think some people grew up in a fairy tale. There is more concern today with human rights than there has ever been. The very fact that we discuss and debate and the courts bring decisions about these issues is a measure of the fact that the Bush administration is not some fascist regime using unheard of tactics.
BTW, exactly what do the likes of conman think Clinton was doing when he sent captured terrorists to Jordan?
And you know what? Sleep deprivation is not torture. I hope to God that this country’s security is never left up to people like conguy..if it is a lot of innocent people will die.
In a way this whole argument is bullsh*t. Obama could authorize operatives to start sawing ears off terrorists and rubbing battery acid into their wounds, and I’m guessing “Guy Fawkes” and “conman” would be OK with that. This isn’t about anything that has been done; this whole argument is about who does it. President Bush was never legitimately President in their eyes, so nothing he has done could ever be legitimate. Taking a terrorist into a closed room and yelling at him qualifies as “torture” as long as Bush is CIC, and the crazy Left will be howling for Bush and Cheney to be tried for “war crimes” that were nothing more than Bush and Cheney doing what any President and Vice-President would be expected to do if they were only Democrats.
Terrye:
“Sleep deprivation is not torture.”
Know who agrees with you? Rudy Guiliani.
Know who disagreed with him, and with you? American GIs who have gone through it.
“‘His hyperbole is an insult to all American soldiers who have had to endure real torture,’ said retired Marine Sgt. Maj. Paul Chevalier, chairman of McCain’s New Hampshire Veterans Advisory Committee. […]
Orson Swindle, a McCain friend and fellow prisoner in Vietnam, says he underwent sleep deprivation for up to 20 days, and considered that torture. ”
You are insulting the opinions of these men, and the suffering that they went through in Vietnam. Who the hell are *you* to tell an actual former POW what is and isn’t torture?
You all should be ashamed of yourself for treating these former soldiers so disrespectfully.